|
I've added up all the money Steamers and Influencers have invested into Frost Giant via the StartEngine campaign.
The total so far: $0.
We have some people in this thread who believe in Frost Giant quite a bit. How much have you invested? It'd be interesting to keep a running total.
On April 10 2024 04:31 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2024 02:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
it is getting easier and easier to make games. So making an RTS requires a smaller and smaller team. It ain't 1995 guys. The tools for making games these days are off-the-charts incredible. I don't understand this complaint at all. Frost Giant's entire deal is making the next generation RTS, and that isn't cheap.
It is not a complaint. It is easy to make games compared to 2007 so blowing through 37 million with what we've seen so far proves Tim Morten is doing C&C Gens2 all over again.
|
On April 10 2024 07:14 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2024 06:43 Hider wrote:On April 10 2024 04:31 Fango wrote:On April 10 2024 02:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
it is getting easier and easier to make games. So making an RTS requires a smaller and smaller team. It ain't 1995 guys. The tools for making games these days are off-the-charts incredible. I don't understand this complaint at all. Frost Giant's entire deal is making the next generation RTS, and that isn't cheap. If you disagree with that goal and would rather they make their little indie game with an existing engine and p2p matchmaking then fair enough, but then there would be complaints they didn't innovate enough or advance the genre. A reminder of their goals: - Brand new engine made specifically for RTS, that can easily handle giant unit counts - 4 supported gamemodes, 1v1, 3v3, 3vE, campaign, all with their own dev teams - The best RTS editor to date, with support for community customs and map creation - Next gen RTS network that uses rollback to allow for global matchmaking - Esports and tournament integration all within the client - Live replays streamed in game, support for thousands of observers to join games at any point None of the other upcoming games are doing any of this, obviously Gates of Pyre and Zerospace don't need Stormgate's budget. You can make a good RTS with existing engines, or even in the sc2 editor if you really wanted to, but you couldn't make "The RTS of the future". It's insane to think you could do all of this without spending tens of millions. Is the goal too ambitious though? would it have been better with a more narrow focus? Do one thing well at the time before moving onto next project? On the note of the RTS of the future. I don't think gamemodes matter, I don't think esport integration really matters. I don't think live replays matter. I think you need a great engine and really well thought out and executed game design. They did the first part well but imo failed on the latter . Gamemodes definitely matter With sc2, the most popular gamemodes are campaign and coop, they're also the most profitable. 1v1 falls far behind despite the online community being all about it. If FG want to make the money needed to support competitive play, they need to sell a good campaign and tap into the coop market. I agree that good game design and a good engine/editor are the most important aspects, but realistically the engine/network are what takes the longest to develop anyway. Everything else that will separate Stormgate form other RTS all feed out of that.
If you believe the future of RTS is a great campaign or co-op, then nail those things first. Why is a competitive 1v1 mode even required if the only way to attract casuals is through co-op and/or campaign?
Now personally, I don't see how even a great co-op or campaign ever can attract and sustain a large enough audience to justify the tag "the future of RTS".
My vision for the future of RTs is a game that captures a notable percentage of the MOBA playerbase. To accomplish that, however, the genre needs to be reinvented.
I would be very surprised if anyone who is not an RTS vet gets excited/interested by watching the gameplay or even had a positive experience playing the beta. Much larger changes needed and constant feedback from average MOBA players are required in an iterative process.
And if you can't succeed in that in capturing a broader audience then there is no "hope" for the future of the RTS genre. Or at least it will never make sense to invest $30M+ in an RTs game.
|
On April 10 2024 14:37 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2024 07:14 Fango wrote:On April 10 2024 06:43 Hider wrote:On April 10 2024 04:31 Fango wrote:On April 10 2024 02:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
it is getting easier and easier to make games. So making an RTS requires a smaller and smaller team. It ain't 1995 guys. The tools for making games these days are off-the-charts incredible. I don't understand this complaint at all. Frost Giant's entire deal is making the next generation RTS, and that isn't cheap. If you disagree with that goal and would rather they make their little indie game with an existing engine and p2p matchmaking then fair enough, but then there would be complaints they didn't innovate enough or advance the genre. A reminder of their goals: - Brand new engine made specifically for RTS, that can easily handle giant unit counts - 4 supported gamemodes, 1v1, 3v3, 3vE, campaign, all with their own dev teams - The best RTS editor to date, with support for community customs and map creation - Next gen RTS network that uses rollback to allow for global matchmaking - Esports and tournament integration all within the client - Live replays streamed in game, support for thousands of observers to join games at any point None of the other upcoming games are doing any of this, obviously Gates of Pyre and Zerospace don't need Stormgate's budget. You can make a good RTS with existing engines, or even in the sc2 editor if you really wanted to, but you couldn't make "The RTS of the future". It's insane to think you could do all of this without spending tens of millions. Is the goal too ambitious though? would it have been better with a more narrow focus? Do one thing well at the time before moving onto next project? On the note of the RTS of the future. I don't think gamemodes matter, I don't think esport integration really matters. I don't think live replays matter. I think you need a great engine and really well thought out and executed game design. They did the first part well but imo failed on the latter . Gamemodes definitely matter With sc2, the most popular gamemodes are campaign and coop, they're also the most profitable. 1v1 falls far behind despite the online community being all about it. If FG want to make the money needed to support competitive play, they need to sell a good campaign and tap into the coop market. I agree that good game design and a good engine/editor are the most important aspects, but realistically the engine/network are what takes the longest to develop anyway. Everything else that will separate Stormgate form other RTS all feed out of that. If you believe the future of RTS is a great campaign or co-op, then nail those things first. However, do you think that's enough to capture a larger audience? My vision for the future of RTs is a game that captures a notable percentage of the MOBA playerbase. To accomplish that, however, the genre needs to be reinvented. But first we need to figure out why people play MOBA's. For some it is being with friends, but a lot of other people it is the competitive experience. Teamfighting and outplaying opponents. Is it possible to get a comparable type of satisfaction with a similar learning curve in an RTS game? I believe so, but Stormgate is not the game to deliver on that. I would be very surprised if anyone who is not an RTS vet gets excited/interested by watching the gameplay or even had a positive experience playing the beta. Much larger changes needed and constant feedback from average MOBA players are required in an iterative process. And if you can't succeed in that in capturing a broader audience then there is no "hope" for the future of the RTS genre. Or at least it will never make sense to invest $30M+ in an RTs game.
I don't think broader audience comes to play in it. People don't adhere to genre constructs as much as you'd want to believe, and people are going to care first and foremost that it's good and fun, and somewhere further down the line whether or not it's an RTS. In addition to examples like Brood War / AoE2 still being active gaming communities because they're just good games, we've got non-rts shit like Palworld and Helldivers 2 being a game noone asked for and tons loved, Baldur's Gate 3 pulling CRPG back into the mainstream, as well as indie successes in recent years like Slay the Spire or Vampire Survivors.
For me, part of an RTS being a good game is certainly having a good entry point via campaign/singleplayer, and I certainly think there's room to play around with those ideas given the modern gaming landscape, but I don't think RTS devs need to target-fire develop for a specific audience. They don't need a game to get 26% of the moba crowd, 18% of the arena shooters, 38% of the Fortnite / BR crowd and the rest authentic RTS to succeed... they just need to make a good game.
|
Northern Ireland27228 Posts
On April 10 2024 15:38 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2024 14:37 Hider wrote:On April 10 2024 07:14 Fango wrote:On April 10 2024 06:43 Hider wrote:On April 10 2024 04:31 Fango wrote:On April 10 2024 02:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
it is getting easier and easier to make games. So making an RTS requires a smaller and smaller team. It ain't 1995 guys. The tools for making games these days are off-the-charts incredible. I don't understand this complaint at all. Frost Giant's entire deal is making the next generation RTS, and that isn't cheap. If you disagree with that goal and would rather they make their little indie game with an existing engine and p2p matchmaking then fair enough, but then there would be complaints they didn't innovate enough or advance the genre. A reminder of their goals: - Brand new engine made specifically for RTS, that can easily handle giant unit counts - 4 supported gamemodes, 1v1, 3v3, 3vE, campaign, all with their own dev teams - The best RTS editor to date, with support for community customs and map creation - Next gen RTS network that uses rollback to allow for global matchmaking - Esports and tournament integration all within the client - Live replays streamed in game, support for thousands of observers to join games at any point None of the other upcoming games are doing any of this, obviously Gates of Pyre and Zerospace don't need Stormgate's budget. You can make a good RTS with existing engines, or even in the sc2 editor if you really wanted to, but you couldn't make "The RTS of the future". It's insane to think you could do all of this without spending tens of millions. Is the goal too ambitious though? would it have been better with a more narrow focus? Do one thing well at the time before moving onto next project? On the note of the RTS of the future. I don't think gamemodes matter, I don't think esport integration really matters. I don't think live replays matter. I think you need a great engine and really well thought out and executed game design. They did the first part well but imo failed on the latter . Gamemodes definitely matter With sc2, the most popular gamemodes are campaign and coop, they're also the most profitable. 1v1 falls far behind despite the online community being all about it. If FG want to make the money needed to support competitive play, they need to sell a good campaign and tap into the coop market. I agree that good game design and a good engine/editor are the most important aspects, but realistically the engine/network are what takes the longest to develop anyway. Everything else that will separate Stormgate form other RTS all feed out of that. If you believe the future of RTS is a great campaign or co-op, then nail those things first. However, do you think that's enough to capture a larger audience? My vision for the future of RTs is a game that captures a notable percentage of the MOBA playerbase. To accomplish that, however, the genre needs to be reinvented. But first we need to figure out why people play MOBA's. For some it is being with friends, but a lot of other people it is the competitive experience. Teamfighting and outplaying opponents. Is it possible to get a comparable type of satisfaction with a similar learning curve in an RTS game? I believe so, but Stormgate is not the game to deliver on that. I would be very surprised if anyone who is not an RTS vet gets excited/interested by watching the gameplay or even had a positive experience playing the beta. Much larger changes needed and constant feedback from average MOBA players are required in an iterative process. And if you can't succeed in that in capturing a broader audience then there is no "hope" for the future of the RTS genre. Or at least it will never make sense to invest $30M+ in an RTs game. I don't think broader audience comes to play in it. People don't adhere to genre constructs as much as you'd want to believe, and people are going to care first and foremost that it's good and fun, and somewhere further down the line whether or not it's an RTS. In addition to examples like Brood War / AoE2 still being active gaming communities because they're just good games, we've got non-rts shit like Palworld and Helldivers 2 being a game noone asked for and tons loved, Baldur's Gate 3 pulling CRPG back into the mainstream, as well as indie successes in recent years like Slay the Spire or Vampire Survivors. For me, part of an RTS being a good game is certainly having a good entry point via campaign/singleplayer, and I certainly think there's room to play around with those ideas given the modern gaming landscape, but I don't think RTS devs need to target-fire develop for a specific audience. They don't need a game to get 26% of the moba crowd, 18% of the arena shooters, 38% of the Fortnite / BR crowd and the rest authentic RTS to succeed... they just need to make a good game.
18% of the arena shooter market is like 18 people so I wouldn’t target it. I only joke because it masks the pain, my second favourite genre after RTs 
For all pubs/devs seem to be trying to almost develop games by committee and hit those boxes, as you say some of the games that have the biggest successes are those strange lightning in a bottle occurrences.
BG3 being a good example. Fantastic game sure but it really did nothing much different from others in that genre. It didn’t dumb everything down a ton to appeal to folks not traditionally big into that genre, and hey it ended up a lot of people found out they like RPGs of that style having not previously done so.
Let’s not forget SC2 actually did pull in a ton of new players into RTS back in the day too. I’d say about half of people who participated in any of our LANs over the last decade+ over here were either very casual RTS players, or complete newbies to the genre. Then you had a smattering of RTS veterans such as myself, who’d played some casual BW in the 90s, then a ton of WC3 etc but probably the minority or a 50/50 split at most.
Granted I assume part of that was a lot played some kind of Blizzard game/Blizzard were knocking it out of the park every game so folks gave the game a try because of that reputation for Blizzard quality
Also I will state it now that despite MOBAs coming out from RTS games I really think the link between the two, demographic wise is a little overstated. Fucked if I can remember the channel but a modder with some time in SC2/Youtube content actually polled, got iirc like responses in the thousands and for an RTS Discord respondents didn’t really play MOBAs in addition any more than they played FPS, or other things (plus the obvious like 4x games).
For me MOBAs are big knowledge games, there’s like a shitload of heroes, with a bunch of skills each and they’re not crazily mechanical. RTS, or at least SC2 requires a decent amount of knowledge but is actually more mechanical than requiring a big soaking of information, which actually IMO makes it more similar to FPS in the kind of gamer it appeals to.
|
Northern Ireland27228 Posts
Edit - Completely wrong thread
|
On April 10 2024 10:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:I've added up all the money Steamers and Influencers have invested into Frost Giant via the StartEngine campaign. The total so far: $0. We have some people in this thread who believe in Frost Giant quite a bit. How much have you invested? It'd be interesting to keep a running total. Show nested quote +On April 10 2024 04:31 Fango wrote:On April 10 2024 02:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
it is getting easier and easier to make games. So making an RTS requires a smaller and smaller team. It ain't 1995 guys. The tools for making games these days are off-the-charts incredible. I don't understand this complaint at all. Frost Giant's entire deal is making the next generation RTS, and that isn't cheap. It is not a complaint. It is easy to make games compared to 2007 so blowing through 37 million with what we've seen so far proves Tim Morten is doing C&C Gens2 all over again.
Much bigger studios with much bigger budget failed to deliver a good game. What's your point?
I have the increased feeling you are arguing everything in bad faith so it seems kinda pointless to argue with you at all.
On April 10 2024 14:37 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2024 07:14 Fango wrote:On April 10 2024 06:43 Hider wrote:On April 10 2024 04:31 Fango wrote:On April 10 2024 02:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
it is getting easier and easier to make games. So making an RTS requires a smaller and smaller team. It ain't 1995 guys. The tools for making games these days are off-the-charts incredible. I don't understand this complaint at all. Frost Giant's entire deal is making the next generation RTS, and that isn't cheap. If you disagree with that goal and would rather they make their little indie game with an existing engine and p2p matchmaking then fair enough, but then there would be complaints they didn't innovate enough or advance the genre. A reminder of their goals: - Brand new engine made specifically for RTS, that can easily handle giant unit counts - 4 supported gamemodes, 1v1, 3v3, 3vE, campaign, all with their own dev teams - The best RTS editor to date, with support for community customs and map creation - Next gen RTS network that uses rollback to allow for global matchmaking - Esports and tournament integration all within the client - Live replays streamed in game, support for thousands of observers to join games at any point None of the other upcoming games are doing any of this, obviously Gates of Pyre and Zerospace don't need Stormgate's budget. You can make a good RTS with existing engines, or even in the sc2 editor if you really wanted to, but you couldn't make "The RTS of the future". It's insane to think you could do all of this without spending tens of millions. Is the goal too ambitious though? would it have been better with a more narrow focus? Do one thing well at the time before moving onto next project? On the note of the RTS of the future. I don't think gamemodes matter, I don't think esport integration really matters. I don't think live replays matter. I think you need a great engine and really well thought out and executed game design. They did the first part well but imo failed on the latter . Gamemodes definitely matter With sc2, the most popular gamemodes are campaign and coop, they're also the most profitable. 1v1 falls far behind despite the online community being all about it. If FG want to make the money needed to support competitive play, they need to sell a good campaign and tap into the coop market. I agree that good game design and a good engine/editor are the most important aspects, but realistically the engine/network are what takes the longest to develop anyway. Everything else that will separate Stormgate form other RTS all feed out of that. If you believe the future of RTS is a great campaign or co-op, then nail those things first. Why is a competitive 1v1 mode even required if the only way to attract casuals is through co-op and/or campaign? Now personally, I don't see how even a great co-op or campaign ever can attract and sustain a large enough audience to justify the tag "the future of RTS". My vision for the future of RTs is a game that captures a notable percentage of the MOBA playerbase. To accomplish that, however, the genre needs to be reinvented. I would be very surprised if anyone who is not an RTS vet gets excited/interested by watching the gameplay or even had a positive experience playing the beta. Much larger changes needed and constant feedback from average MOBA players are required in an iterative process. And if you can't succeed in that in capturing a broader audience then there is no "hope" for the future of the RTS genre. Or at least it will never make sense to invest $30M+ in an RTs game.
All the game modes in SG do have a way of monetizing so it makes sense to have a complete package.
Coop -> Heroes
Campaign -> Buy chapters
1v1/3v3 -> Skins and MTX
It also makes sense to expect a person who likes one mode to try another.
At the end of the day though the game needs to be fun. If they can't make that happen it's all in vain anyway
I really hope it'll be good. I'm still thinking positive but also a bit sceptical about the whole financing disaster.
Full disclosure for Jimmy: I have played only about 5 hours, haven't invested in KS and will not invest in StartEnginge. Not my cup of tea
|
I've added up all the money Steamers and Influencers have invested into Frost Giant via the StartEngine campaign.
The total so far: $0.
I don't think that's public information. What is your source for these claims? The same source that told you that Kakao Games (which holds only about 16% of shares according to the filings) is in a position to dictate every move of Frost Giant? Or the source that told you Frost Giant actually didn't get the 35m yet? Or the source that told you Tim Morten wasn't a CEO before? Or the source that told you an agency took a massive finder's fee for facilitating the investment in Frost Giant? Or the source that mistook the Activision co-founder Howard Marks with another Howard Marks?
|
On April 10 2024 10:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2024 04:31 Fango wrote:On April 10 2024 02:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
it is getting easier and easier to make games. So making an RTS requires a smaller and smaller team. It ain't 1995 guys. The tools for making games these days are off-the-charts incredible. I don't understand this complaint at all. Frost Giant's entire deal is making the next generation RTS, and that isn't cheap. It is not a complaint. It is easy to make games compared to 2007 so blowing through 37 million with what we've seen so far proves Tim Morten is doing C&C Gens2 all over again.
So you missed the point entirely? Which is that Stormgate very much isn't your standard indie game. You can't make a a game like it for cheap, the fact other games can be made for pennies is irrelevant
|
On April 10 2024 20:29 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2024 10:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 10 2024 04:31 Fango wrote:On April 10 2024 02:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
it is getting easier and easier to make games. So making an RTS requires a smaller and smaller team. It ain't 1995 guys. The tools for making games these days are off-the-charts incredible. I don't understand this complaint at all. Frost Giant's entire deal is making the next generation RTS, and that isn't cheap. It is not a complaint. It is easy to make games compared to 2007 so blowing through 37 million with what we've seen so far proves Tim Morten is doing C&C Gens2 all over again. So you missed the point entirely? Which is that Stormgate very much isn't your standard indie game. You can't make a a game like it for cheap, the fact other games can be made for pennies is irrelevant You also can't make a game with money you don't have. and SG is fast running into that direction.
|
tbh i dont care about the budget they blow or not, kickstarters or not (not my thing in general, I hate the very concept of it) but as fleetfeet said pointedly, I want a good game. I dont care if it s the future of RTS or a random pokemon parody with guns, or advanced orbital mechanics with a cute UI (Kerbal space program), if it s fun i ll most likely play it. Who cares what people currently play?
People like many things, I play BW so I am a RTS player? well i also really liked heroes of the storm, i played OW when it launched, I play halo, i play JRPG and also mixed things like control/bioshock, I also play mario kart and dumb but fun nintendo game.
Point is there is a lot of overlap and it s probably different for each player and you don't need to cater to select audiences if your game is fun and good.SG is neither fun nor good to me, even since the alpha. I left the discord and I m only following here and there. Might give it a go if they polish it but due to EA release being so soon I have little hope.
|
On April 10 2024 20:29 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2024 10:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 10 2024 04:31 Fango wrote:On April 10 2024 02:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
it is getting easier and easier to make games. So making an RTS requires a smaller and smaller team. It ain't 1995 guys. The tools for making games these days are off-the-charts incredible. I don't understand this complaint at all. Frost Giant's entire deal is making the next generation RTS, and that isn't cheap. It is not a complaint. It is easy to make games compared to 2007 so blowing through 37 million with what we've seen so far proves Tim Morten is doing C&C Gens2 all over again. So you missed the point entirely? Which is that Stormgate very much isn't your standard indie game. You can't make a a game like it for cheap, the fact other games can be made for pennies is irrelevant
I think you're vastly overestimating the standard SG is selling itself for. Seems like an ordinary RTS, barely different from an SC2/WC3 hybrid. I could think about this in my sleep.
|
Agree. What, that we have seen, from Stormgate so far has seemed in any way groundbreaking or "new", let alone able to "revive" the RTS-Genre?
Why would you play it over Starcraft or AoE?
Seriously, I watched plenty of it and it just looks like nothing special.
|
It has a very responsive engine. The armies feel fun to control. This is not something that can be taken for granted in RTS games. Only Blizzard games achieve that standard and SG is above even SC2 in some regards. I don't agree with that characterization but making an "SC2/WC3 hybrid" is nothing to be sniffes at either. Those are two of the best RTS games of all time. That alone would make SG the best RTS released in the last 14 years in the eyes of many people.
|
You're obviously very invested in the success of this game. I can at least take a step back and look at it for what it is.
If I'm to play an RTS that doesn't look and feel generic, this is not it. And I can say this knowing I'm not the only one feeling this. I'm glad you this might be the second coming for the RTS genre, but for me it's nothing more than a big old shrug. Not worth my money, at least not now.
|
That's fine. I am explaining what is different about it. If it does things that haven't been done in the genre in the last 14 years, then it is not generic.
|
On April 10 2024 22:46 _Spartak_ wrote:
That's fine. I am explaining what is different about it. If it does things that haven't been done in the genre in the last 14 years, then it is not generic.
you dont seem to see that people who are still playing sc or AOE, for 2+ decades now (or for sc2 14yrs), will not switch to a new thing because it s shiny. It needs to be not only good but better, or at the very least even if it is also popular and other friends play (like sc2 was at release). Will I ditch BW for SG? absolutely not, it s not even close to something that would make me switch, I m not even sure such a game could even exist, since i now have 25yrs of BW. I m not switching unless I have several (non BW) friends dragging me into it through a fun co-op/team mode OR an entertaining campaign.
Armies are responsive, but deadbally and boring (not to mention battle clarity is meh), in the same way that sc2 battles are inferior, to me, to BW battle even though the BW UI and pathing is atrocious.
So yes tech changes and things are smoother, but that s a given not a net benefit that will have people excited. Give me a unique race (hopefully the 3rd) and cool abilities, not a mix of tired tropes.
At the pace we re going the 3rd race is gonna be some cybernetic protossy night elf / angels. That s boring. I want sentient fungus or a bird race or whatever new concept. If that happens then i ll be back~
edit: please note this is my personal take as a RTS veteran, I do not wish any ill fortune on SG, in fact I think if it works out even half decently, it would probably be good for RTS in the long run. It just seems infuriating that the "RTS playerbase" is taken for granted. Make a good game and then we ll see.
|
I know pretty much all BW players and most of the active SC2 players will not switch. If you have been playing a game for 10+ years, it is extremely unlikely that you will switch to a new game as your "main game". That doesn't mean there is no market for Stormgate or any other new RTS though. There are way more players who played BW, WC3 or SC2 at one point in their lives but don't actively play them any more than those who still actively play those games. For people who are looking for a new game, novelty is a huge factor and a game doesn't necessarily have to be objectively better out of the gate than a game they previously played. Not to mention the potential to attract new players to the genre by releasing a f2p game on Steam.
|
On April 10 2024 18:21 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2024 10:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:I've added up all the money Steamers and Influencers have invested into Frost Giant via the StartEngine campaign. The total so far: $0. We have some people in this thread who believe in Frost Giant quite a bit. How much have you invested? It'd be interesting to keep a running total. On April 10 2024 04:31 Fango wrote:On April 10 2024 02:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
it is getting easier and easier to make games. So making an RTS requires a smaller and smaller team. It ain't 1995 guys. The tools for making games these days are off-the-charts incredible. I don't understand this complaint at all. Frost Giant's entire deal is making the next generation RTS, and that isn't cheap. It is not a complaint. It is easy to make games compared to 2007 so blowing through 37 million with what we've seen so far proves Tim Morten is doing C&C Gens2 all over again. Much bigger studios with much bigger budget failed to deliver a good game. What's your point? I have the increased feeling you are arguing everything in bad faith so it seems kinda pointless to argue with you at all.
i'm not really looking to argue. I can find a million examples of big budget failures. a dozen 8 and 9 figure failures are happening right now as i type this.
None of these giant failures refute the fact that a small team of guys can easily make a big, graphically impressive, detailed, game with cool AI enemies in comparison to 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 etc etc.
It is getting easier and easier to make video game software every year.
The tools for making video games are orders of magnitude better than what existed in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 .. etc etc.
We are not landing a man on the moon here. Technology is not going backwards. It is getting better every day.
Unity and UE5 are only getting better. Thus, we can expect better games because the developers have better tools at their disposal.
Are you expecting worse games? Worse graphics? Worse online play?
I'm expecting better games made on smaller budgets because the tools at the disposal of the game makers are always getting better.
Helldivers2 and Palworld are setting the standard. A parade of 100 million dollar failures do not matter.
The game making tools of 2024 are 10,000X better than the game making tools of 2007 when SC2 was made. The platform is the same. Its not like MS removed features from WIndows.
My expectations are commensurate with that reality.
This reality is precisely how Activision was able to keep Blizzard and SC2 on a super tiny budget in 2016,2017,2018,2019,2020 while cranking out a metric tonne of super cool content.
|
On April 10 2024 21:03 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2024 20:29 Fango wrote:On April 10 2024 10:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 10 2024 04:31 Fango wrote:On April 10 2024 02:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
it is getting easier and easier to make games. So making an RTS requires a smaller and smaller team. It ain't 1995 guys. The tools for making games these days are off-the-charts incredible. I don't understand this complaint at all. Frost Giant's entire deal is making the next generation RTS, and that isn't cheap. It is not a complaint. It is easy to make games compared to 2007 so blowing through 37 million with what we've seen so far proves Tim Morten is doing C&C Gens2 all over again. So you missed the point entirely? Which is that Stormgate very much isn't your standard indie game. You can't make a a game like it for cheap, the fact other games can be made for pennies is irrelevant I think you're vastly overestimating the standard SG is selling itself for. Seems like an ordinary RTS, barely different from an SC2/WC3 hybrid. I could think about this in my sleep.
I've very clearly listed the ways that Stormgate are doing much more than any other RTS game, and how making it costs tens of millions more than others, and you just choose to ignore that.
Genuinely what do you people want? Some are saying that the game isn't innovative enough, too similar to WC3/SC2 etc, and others are saying they've bitten off more than they can chew and shouldn't be trying to do as much as they are.
|
In a general sense, games are getting easier to make. But FG has chosen to go Hard Mode and cram an RTS into an FPS engine. If you listen to their dev interviews they constantly talk about their challenges using Unreal to build an RTS.
For example, here is Ryan Schutter talking about their issues with building a custom editor in UE:
I am constantly impressed by what our engineers are achieving, but building this within Unreal Engine poses some unique challenges that we are having to work through as well. As much as Unreal Engine was not designed specifically with RTS games in mind (which led us to create SnowPlay, our own technology to layer on top of UE5), it also was not designed with building your own unique editor outside of the Unreal editor in mind. Things like allowing modders to customize UI, or import custom assets are very complicated problems to solve. Unreal is an amazing engine, but we have some real challenges to tackle due to the specific nature of our game.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Stormgate/comments/12bmyhd/comment/jeywd1j
UE ships with its own custom GUI editor, but they cannot reuse any of that, so their editor is all hand built.
It baffles me that RTS games keep insisting to go 3d when its the genre that benefits the least from doing so. SC2's gameplay could be 100% replicated in a 2d engine and the game would play the same (but you'd lose the nifty camera angle zoom in shift, big loss). You cannot say the same for, say, Elden Ring.
Also, the game just runs like ass. Probably due in part to UE5 thinking it's running an FPS game, modeling an entire world with physics and a constantly shifting camera perspective... except the camera is glued to the ceiling at one angle moving only in x/y coords.
My guess is that UE5 was chosen due to the founders wanting to use the shiniest / biggest clout engine, and the devs wanting to slap "Unreal Engine 5 expert" on their resumes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
