|
|
On September 17 2016 08:44 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 08:35 _Spartak_ wrote:On September 17 2016 08:14 Hider wrote:On September 17 2016 06:13 _Spartak_ wrote:
I don't know how they would expect more hype with no marketing whatsoever. I thought the plan was to keep it small and then go big with marketing when the game is released/close to release, put it on Steam etc. but looks like I was wrong and the writing was on the wall for a while. I knew it. Another game fails and the excuse from the few fans is "lack of marketing, game was great." Maybe it's just time to realize that just because you liked it, doesn't mean that the general feedback or interest was very strong. That's not what I said. I said that "I thought" they were holding back the marketing for now but it looks like it was pretty much over even before the open alpha. Game was pretty good. You can argue what it did wrong and what it could have improved but it certainly wasn't such a terrible game that it had to be cancelled at an alpha stage. I don't know what happened. Maybe they ran out of money, maybe investors thought there was no market for such a game and pulled the plug but it can't be explained by "people didn't like it" when people didn't even play it. Only a very small number of gamers were aware of the existence of the game and only a small portion of that group played it. Some liked it, some didn't but the number of the playerbase was so low to start with that even if it made everyone happy, I doubt the result would be any different. If game was good it would gather natural interest. That's what games that alot of people actually find fun do. Small start up companies do not have infinitive ressources to market the game. But good games spread word-to-mouth. You think Riot games had millions of dollars to adverstise the game with when it first launched? Btw, who actually marketed Dota 1? How come so many people logged into Warcraft 3 just to play a custom game? Maybe because it was fun? Game is good is entirely your opinion. I thought for instance it was terrible. But I still checked it from time to time to see which direction they took the game on. It could spread through word of mouth but certainly not in 3 weeks. It would have taken a lot of time for the playerbase to reach a critical mass. This game didn't fail because of its quality or design. Maybe it would have but we will never know that because it never got to that stage. A few hundred people played it. Some liked it and some didn't, then it got cancelled for some reason and that's that. You might think you have it figured out what makes RTS games good but you are trying to vindicate yourself by using this game and it just doesn't work. It was never going to go anywhere regardless of its design if things were so bad that the development had to end 3 weeks after the public got the first glimpse of the game.
|
no one in the company had a track record for making games. they had zero proven talent. they had 4 years and many millions of dollars and came back with a game that drew 1000 twitter followers.
|
On September 17 2016 08:53 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 08:41 AndAgain wrote:On September 17 2016 08:21 Hider wrote:
Game development is not really that much about luck. Sure you can be a mediocre game developer but be a lucky and get something right. For instance Blizzard got lucky when they designed the Marine. The interaction against banelings was accidential.
. I meant make a game that has a luck element within it, i.e RNG. It's essential for a game nowadays to give something to blame when you lose. MOBAs have it in the form of your teammates, Hearthstone has it with RNG. I explain it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/51invn/why_rng_is_crucial_to_hearthstones_success/Of course, RTS devotees are not gonna like this. And it also would take quite a bit creative brilliance to make fun luck in an RTS. No that's not neccasary at all. RNG for instance has absolutely nothing with the succes of LOL. It's a minior thing in the game and probably just there because Riot doesn't have other ways to seperate item stats. Also not a thing in Heroes of the storm which is reasonable popular (and probably would be more played if it was released before LOL). This is confusing correlation with causation at its worst, and people will always find stuff to blame if they lose. What matters is creating an easy-to-get into playing experience with fun interactions and high skillcap. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done.
The success of LoL (and other MOBAs) is largely in that you can blame your teammates for losing. That's their element of luck. Note how often, when losing, players will say it's because their jungler didn't gank as much as the other team's, or that their teammates didn't go for the objectives, etc.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying having something to blame when you lose is sufficient, but it is necessary.
|
On September 17 2016 08:53 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 08:41 AndAgain wrote:On September 17 2016 08:21 Hider wrote:
Game development is not really that much about luck. Sure you can be a mediocre game developer but be a lucky and get something right. For instance Blizzard got lucky when they designed the Marine. The interaction against banelings was accidential.
. I meant make a game that has a luck element within it, i.e RNG. It's essential for a game nowadays to give something to blame when you lose. MOBAs have it in the form of your teammates, Hearthstone has it with RNG. I explain it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/51invn/why_rng_is_crucial_to_hearthstones_success/Of course, RTS devotees are not gonna like this. And it also would take quite a bit creative brilliance to make fun luck in an RTS. No that's not neccasary at all. RNG for instance has absolutely nothing with the succes of LOL. It's a minior thing in the game and probably just there because Riot doesn't have other ways to seperate item stats. And it's also a very little thing in CS:GO as its a neccasary evil just to make it some weapons in some situations are weaker than others. But noone actually enjoys randomness. Also not a thing in Heroes of the storm which is reasonable popular (and probably would be more played if it was released before LOL). This is confusing correlation with causation at its worst, and people will always find stuff to blame if they lose. What matters is creating an easy-to-get into playing experience with fun interactions and high skillcap. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done.
Ironic you mention that, because Day9 discussed one time on Atlas forums I believe, about how designers must make gamers enjoy inconvenience. One of the things mentioned was one of the Civ games had overwhelming feedback that the random event/disaster system should be removed from the game. So they tested this. The results of that test? The feedback was better, but the average review score of the game dropped 1-2 points.
For whatever reason that sounds ass-backwards, gamer often times enjoy inconvenience, if implemented in a way that adds strategically. They might bitch & moan & complain, but they are happier that way then without the silly thing they are complaining about.
|
Ironic you mention that, because Day9 discussed one time on Atlas forums I believe, about how designers must make gamers enjoy inconvenience. One of the things mentioned was one of the Civ games had overwhelming feedback that the random event/disaster system should be removed from the game. So they tested this. The results of that test? The feedback was better, but the average review score of the game dropped 1-2 points.
There could be a lot of different reasons for why that didn't work. As I wrote, sometimes it can be a neccasasry evil if you don't have other variables to adjust on.
Further, it's also not an apples to apples comparison as its not a competitive multiplayer games. But in itself it it is an evil. Replacing "luck" with skill should always be a goal in a competitive multiplayer (if doable/realistic).
The absolutely one reason Heartone is so succesful is because it has the lowest learning curve out of any multiplayer game, and the game is pretty fun as well. I could get into the game in merely 1-2 hour and already have fun against other "noobs" immediately after that.
Contrast that to Starcraft.
|
Since the NDA is down I can also comment on the decision to make it a teamgame in the first place - according to Day9 at least.
In a video AMA Day9 was asked why they made it a 3v3 game, and Day9's response was something like this:
We just tried out different formats and when we playtested in the office with each other we had alot more fun playing 3v3, so we just sticked to that format. Also due to the pathing in the game, it's not really practical for a player to control too many units at once, so by making it a 3v3 we can still have bigger battles while having each player controlling few units. And the pathing isn't so bad when there are fewer units on the field"
First of, the idea of deciding on a format purely based on what is the most fun when you play together with co-workers/friends that sit next to you is absolutely insane. Having spent some time trying to look through match histories of players in League of Legends, the majority of them play solo que. Thus you you decide on the format that is the most fun when queing up alone.
Secondly, what is that kind of circular logic with the pathing. If the pathing is so bad in an RTS so its impractical to control more than 30 units and you feel its a neccesity to make it a teamgame based on that, then you need to address the pathing. If the pathing is annoying then making it a teamgame is a band-aid solution.
Good pathing is an absolute neccesity for an RTS game. If you cannot get that right, you will fail no matter what you do. So designing the game around a "bad pathing" is a receipt for a disaster.
But obviously that's a statement from Day9 and might not represent the actual/official reason for Atlas making it a 3v3 game.
Still the more I listened and read responses from Day9, the more it became apparent that this guy never went into "design-specifics", such as "how do we create great micro interactions". He was always talking about this general philosophical approach.
And that's perhaps okay if you are talking to a very broad target group for a brief time. But when talking in a private video to alpha testers, give us real answers, specifics, details. But he never ever done that.
And thus after a while I became more and more convinced that this guy was more of a "fluff"-designer, and obviously would never be able to actually figure out how to create fun micro interactions.
|
On September 17 2016 08:58 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 08:53 Hider wrote:On September 17 2016 08:41 AndAgain wrote:On September 17 2016 08:21 Hider wrote:
Game development is not really that much about luck. Sure you can be a mediocre game developer but be a lucky and get something right. For instance Blizzard got lucky when they designed the Marine. The interaction against banelings was accidential.
. I meant make a game that has a luck element within it, i.e RNG. It's essential for a game nowadays to give something to blame when you lose. MOBAs have it in the form of your teammates, Hearthstone has it with RNG. I explain it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/51invn/why_rng_is_crucial_to_hearthstones_success/Of course, RTS devotees are not gonna like this. And it also would take quite a bit creative brilliance to make fun luck in an RTS. No that's not neccasary at all. RNG for instance has absolutely nothing with the succes of LOL. It's a minior thing in the game and probably just there because Riot doesn't have other ways to seperate item stats. Also not a thing in Heroes of the storm which is reasonable popular (and probably would be more played if it was released before LOL). This is confusing correlation with causation at its worst, and people will always find stuff to blame if they lose. What matters is creating an easy-to-get into playing experience with fun interactions and high skillcap. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. The success of LoL (and other MOBAs) is largely in that you can blame your teammates for losing. That's their element of luck. Note how often, when losing, players will say it's because their jungler didn't gank as much as the other team's, or that their teammates didn't go for the objectives, etc. Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying having something to blame when you lose is sufficient, but it is necessary.
i hear this all the time and i highly doubt it's as significant as everyone claims. imo it's mostly because they're free, there's no barrier to entry.
|
On September 17 2016 09:02 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Ironic you mention that, because Day9 discussed one time on Atlas forums I believe, about how designers must make gamers enjoy inconvenience. One of the things mentioned was one of the Civ games had overwhelming feedback that the random event/disaster system should be removed from the game. So they tested this. The results of that test? The feedback was better, but the average review score of the game dropped 1-2 points. There could be a lot of different reasons for why that didn't work. As I wrote, sometimes it can be a neccasasry evil if you don't have other variables to adjust on. Further, it's also not an apples to apples comparison as its not a competitive multiplayer games. But in itself it it is an evil. Replacing "luck" with skill should always be a goal in a competitive multiplayer (if doable/realistic). The absolutely one reason Heartone is so succesful is because it has the lowest learning curve out of any multiplayer game, and the game is pretty fun as well. I could get into the game in merely 1-2 hour and already have fun against other "noobs" immediately after that. Contrast that to Starcraft.
SC2 had a rather large player base at one point who more or less all understood the basics of the game. Not many of them stuck around. Why? because of "ladder anxiety." All those nasty chemicals that release in your brain when you get outplayed and you know it. That feeling hurts your ego and makes you want to play something else. Really, it's no wonder at all that not many people want to play a game that gives them anxiety.
As I said in the Reddit post, paradoxically, SC2 was more enjoyable early on after release when you could blame your losses on poor balance. Ironically, in both SC2 and HS, the playerbase complains the most about the element that makes for a good playing experience (of course, I'm not saying that poor balance is a great way to achieve this effect.)
|
On September 17 2016 08:58 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 08:53 Hider wrote:On September 17 2016 08:41 AndAgain wrote:On September 17 2016 08:21 Hider wrote:
Game development is not really that much about luck. Sure you can be a mediocre game developer but be a lucky and get something right. For instance Blizzard got lucky when they designed the Marine. The interaction against banelings was accidential.
. I meant make a game that has a luck element within it, i.e RNG. It's essential for a game nowadays to give something to blame when you lose. MOBAs have it in the form of your teammates, Hearthstone has it with RNG. I explain it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/51invn/why_rng_is_crucial_to_hearthstones_success/Of course, RTS devotees are not gonna like this. And it also would take quite a bit creative brilliance to make fun luck in an RTS. No that's not neccasary at all. RNG for instance has absolutely nothing with the succes of LOL. It's a minior thing in the game and probably just there because Riot doesn't have other ways to seperate item stats. Also not a thing in Heroes of the storm which is reasonable popular (and probably would be more played if it was released before LOL). This is confusing correlation with causation at its worst, and people will always find stuff to blame if they lose. What matters is creating an easy-to-get into playing experience with fun interactions and high skillcap. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. The success of LoL (and other MOBAs) is largely in that you can blame your teammates for losing. That's their element of luck. Note how often, when losing, players will say it's because their jungler didn't gank as much as the other team's, or that their teammates didn't go for the objectives, etc. Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying having something to blame when you lose is sufficient, but it is necessary.
We had this discussion a few pages ago. And look I am the biggest whiner when I play sc2, and I never run out of reasons for why I lose while chatting to my ("idiot") opponent afterwards. If you want to, you will always have someone to blame. Hence, the "lack of blame"-argument is 100% incorrect.
And the biggest problem is that - in teamgames there is actually alot of truth to it. Often times you can be playing your A game and lose because of bad teammates. And that's not a good thing.
People like you tend to only look at some very specific advantage to teamgames, but ignore that there actually are very serious disadvantages with the approach and that 1v1 games - if done correctly - could do extremely well.
There are other much more obvious and appealing reasons for why certain teamgames (and heartstone) have succeeded.
Also just noticed the "largely". This is fucking triggering me. Are you really implying that the main reason LOL became a succes is because you can blame other people. If you really meant "largely" - and not just "one of many factors" (which still is wrong, but just less wrong) - I nominate you most wrong comment on TL in 2016.
|
On September 17 2016 09:12 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 08:58 AndAgain wrote:On September 17 2016 08:53 Hider wrote:On September 17 2016 08:41 AndAgain wrote:On September 17 2016 08:21 Hider wrote:
Game development is not really that much about luck. Sure you can be a mediocre game developer but be a lucky and get something right. For instance Blizzard got lucky when they designed the Marine. The interaction against banelings was accidential.
. I meant make a game that has a luck element within it, i.e RNG. It's essential for a game nowadays to give something to blame when you lose. MOBAs have it in the form of your teammates, Hearthstone has it with RNG. I explain it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/51invn/why_rng_is_crucial_to_hearthstones_success/Of course, RTS devotees are not gonna like this. And it also would take quite a bit creative brilliance to make fun luck in an RTS. No that's not neccasary at all. RNG for instance has absolutely nothing with the succes of LOL. It's a minior thing in the game and probably just there because Riot doesn't have other ways to seperate item stats. Also not a thing in Heroes of the storm which is reasonable popular (and probably would be more played if it was released before LOL). This is confusing correlation with causation at its worst, and people will always find stuff to blame if they lose. What matters is creating an easy-to-get into playing experience with fun interactions and high skillcap. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. The success of LoL (and other MOBAs) is largely in that you can blame your teammates for losing. That's their element of luck. Note how often, when losing, players will say it's because their jungler didn't gank as much as the other team's, or that their teammates didn't go for the objectives, etc. Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying having something to blame when you lose is sufficient, but it is necessary. i hear this all the time and i highly doubt it's as significant as everyone claims. imo it's mostly because they're free, there's no barrier to entry.
They are all the fun of an RTS and RPG, without all the bullshit of an RTS like build orders, control groups and other things. They offer more variety of playstyles with lower barrier to entry and when you die you respawn.
|
Sad day. Atlas had a good concept and in the end it was a good platform, too. The design itself changed so much from the original vision, when I heard they added heroes I wondered if this was even the same game.
|
SC2 had a rather large player base at one point who more or less all understood the basics of the game. Not many of them stuck around. Why? because of "ladder anxiety." All those nasty chemicals that release in your brain when you get outplayed and you know it. That feeling hurts your ego and makes you want to play something else. Really, it's no wonder at all that not many people want to play a game that gives them anxiety.
ladder anxiety comes from identifying yourself with your rank. And when you lose rank, your selfworth-decreases. That exist both for MOBA's and RTS. Hence also why you see LOL removing demotions. But even then most ppl still play unranked in LOL.
Also, there are tons of reasons for the decline of Sc2: Mainly that the game did a terrible job of letting people enjoy fun micro interactions. MOBA's did that better --> MOBA more succesful.
You think people at its core (in terms of interactions) enjoyed Sc2? No the only reason the average bad Sc2 player would find Sc2 fun was if he really cared about improving his skillset. Sc2 is all about improvement.
You need to think about how you can have fun in Heartstone when you play it for the first time/casually and not in Sc2. And I really hope you don't conclude that's because of RNG.
|
On September 17 2016 08:20 Hider wrote:
But not a single game developer has attempted that type of game over the last 10 years, and every other RTS game developer has gone diferently and failed big time as a consequence.
it might be cool.. it might not. needs to be play-tested by a variety of people first. the MOD Kit is there and has been the launching point for all kinds of games and careers. the base of the MOD kit is an RTS. the decline of the RTS genre rests solely with the average consumer who moved on as soon as a decent DOTA game was made with the WC3 MOD kit.
further to that....there are a variety of diverse RTS games to choose from right now. people who are bored of every major RTS game with a long standing community around it (CoH1 and 2, AoE2, Generals, RA2. WC3, Brood War, SC2) are just bored in general and looking for someone to blame.
|
"Largely" meaning "to a great extent." This is pointless if you're going to be pedantic.
I think I made myself clear that this element I'm talking about is essential, albeit insufficient, for a game to have popular appeal.
There's no question that this is how psychology works in normal humans. Feeling like you got outplayed is unpleasant. Players constantly look for an excuse for losing because their brain drives them to do so to avoid this unpleasant feeling. When they can't find a good excuse, they find another game to play.
|
it might be cool.. it might not. needs to be play-tested by a variety of people first.
As a game-developer, you look at other comparable games. What are actually the best part of those games? What makes them fun at the core, and how can we improve upon that.
The reason I am so convinced that my ideal RTS game would work is because I look at what you can do with Marines and Medivacs in Sc2. The micro potential is so awesome. Or when you harass with Mutalisks. Or in BW when you have siege tanks spread out all over the map and you harass with vultures and the opponent drops on top of tanks to break you down.
There are some really awesome parts about Sc2 that I - and alot of other people find awesome. Alot of people like Sc2 just for those parts.
BUUTT you can only truly enjoy that part about Sc2 if you are skilled enough. If you have 200+ APM. And even then the game still has tons of flaws (such as lack of diversity, stupid cheese/alls in etc).
I am completely convinced that if you:
- Made it easier for new players to experience the best parts of Starcraft micro-
- Not having to worry about dying to all-ins
- Actually be able to attack two locations at once while having less than 60 APM
--> You could succeed.
|
On September 17 2016 09:29 AndAgain wrote:
"Largely" meaning "to a great extent." This is pointless if you're going to be pedantic.
I think I made myself clear that this element I'm talking about is essential, albeit insufficient, for a game to have popular appeal.
There's no question that this is how psychology works in normal humans. Feeling like you got outplayed is unpleasant. Players constantly look for an excuse for losing because their brain drives to do so to avoid this unpleasant feeling. When they can't find a good excuse, they find another game to play.
It has nothing to do with blaming other people. The game are just easier to pick up, less mechanically demanding off the bat and have better teaching tools. Playing your first game of Dota is much easier than your first multiplayer game of SC2. You get to mess up more than once before the game ends. You don't even need to learn a build order, just pick and hero and press some buttons. RTS games like SC2, BW, CoH, AOE can be less appealing to players and people got other options out there for things to play.
And if you think MOBAs don't feel bad, you have never been on the losing end of a Dota game and your only hope is to wait in your base for 3-5 minutes to make the final hold and hope it works out. And you can't even buy items with the meager amount of gold you have because you need to save for buyback. There is a reason people say "Feels bad man" in Dota.
|
lol i wonder if day9 is streaming wc3 right now as a big middle finger to atlas
|
They are all the fun of an RTS and RPG, without all the bullshit of an RTS like build orders, control groups and other things. They offer more variety of playstyles with lower barrier to entry and when you die you respawn.
The best thing Atlas did was making it possible to not have to switch between different types of control groups to cast abilities. I think all future RTS games should try to learn from that.
Sc2 could also make it somewhat easier in that regard. For instance if they just gave the Ghost stim instead of increasing its movement speed in LOTV, you could have them in the same control group as bio + medivacs.
I am sure that every terran player will be able to relate to the pain of controlling bio + ghosts and then having to deal with the opponent attacking 2-3 locations against you. You will then need to seperate just the correct number of bio units from your control group and then make a new control group without adding the ghosts.... and that's just so complicated.
While that is "skillful", it's not fun. Fun micro interactions are instead "simple" at the core and have a proper skillcap. Pure bio + medivacs is imo the receipt of core RTS design. Easy to control and you will always be able to control them better.
|
Wow I'm shocked the development just ended like that. I thought they kicked day 9 off the team because they wanted to go in a different direction, maybe he just left because he felt it was unsatisfying and that it would fail. I think if day 9 ever does decide to make a game again, it should be through kickstarter and he should have his own carefully chosen team. But it sounds like he is more interested in doing cooking shows (really!) and old brood war videos, with tons of hearthstone content as usual.
I hope he creates a vision for an RTS, rather than spend the rest of his years playing hearthstone. Also I don't get this ridiculous radio silence from everybody. Why can't they just open up and clearly explain what happened? Day 9 won't say anything, the dev team won't say anything. They don't even explain why development ended. I feel like its kind of unfair to the fans who also invested 3 or 4 years into this thing, and they get no explanation whatsoever between the schism within the company and day 9 or why its ending. Just not how I would run a company.
|
On September 17 2016 09:45 radscorpion9 wrote:
Wow I'm shocked the development just ended like that. I thought they kicked day 9 off the team because they wanted to go in a different direction, maybe he just left because he felt it was unsatisfying and that it would fail. I think if day 9 ever does decide to make a game again, it should be through kickstarter and he should have his own carefully chosen team. But it sounds like he is more interested in doing cooking shows (really!) and old brood war videos, with tons of hearthstone content as usual.
I hope he creates a vision for an RTS, rather than spend the rest of his years playing hearthstone.
Day9 is more of a "vision"-guy. He has shown no actual understanding of being able to create fun micro interactions. Once in an AMA-video I asked a question on how they worked on micro/which types of interactions they wanted to create, and his response was - like everything he does - extremely generalistic. On the other hand if you asked me a question on a micro topic, I could give you a 30-60 minute talk on all of the factors you had to consider.
Also, he was probably the reason Atlas had such poor pathing (since he was advocating for it years ago). Actually I am sure Grumbels can refer you to an interview 2-3 years ago where he talked about the amazing pathing they had developed.
And yet years after, almost everyone who tried the game disliked the pathing. That should tell you alot about his judgement.
He can "talk the talk" but that's it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
