EPTStormgate/Frost Giant Megathread - Page 103
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
_Spartak_
Turkey464 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5238 Posts
On April 11 2024 02:12 Fango wrote: 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. Biting off more than you can chew != innovation. Why delve into something that necessarily eats away tens of millions of dollars when existing engines pull off what they already want to do with their game? Does that make sense to you? - edited out because I didn't read the answers regarding the UE5 engine - In the end, you have your support around the core game you want to make, engine, network etc, but if the core gameplay doesn't hold up, it will literally not matter how earth moving your specs under the hood are, there won't be enough interest to put you back into the positive. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9448 Posts
On April 10 2024 15:38 Fleetfeet wrote: 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 Yes, I am not completely sure how that conflicts with my view? (it's actually kinda my point). The reason a game like Sc2 generally is not fun for new players is due to the massive complexity of learning the game and constant stress-level while playing the game. The genre itself has a lot of potential though. But you need to figure out how to make it fun. I get that campaign + co-op is currently functioning as the "entry-point", but I don't think it really succeeds in getting a high percentage of the players to keep playing after that. A campaign is a fundamentally different experience from multiplayer and effectively functions as different games. A good campaign can make money but it cannot by itself attract and sustain a large player audience. Perhaps you could argue that campaign functions as entry-point into co-op and co-op then functions as entry-point into the competitive 1v1/3v3 modes. But then you end up with a way too ambitious project and most likely neither will turn out that well. I belive a 100% focus on RTS 1v1 can work as the entry-point (combined with a tutorial ofc), but not with the mindset rts-game devs currently have. They need to get rid of the whole "it was that way in the 90s-mindset therefore we can't change it" and be willing to reinvent multiple parts of the genre. There are lots of ways to make the learning-barrier significantly easier than what Stormgate is doing. The most obvious exampel of Stormgate being stuck in the 90s is that you still need to learn how to wall-in. How on earth they think this is fun mechanic in today's age is beyond me. But the problem goes that much deeper than that. Further, I also belive that to attract potential new players you need to show awesome gameplay that players find interesting. Nothing about Stormgate is gonna look interesting to non-RTS players. | ||
|
townhouse
United States43 Posts
On April 11 2024 03:11 _Spartak_ wrote: Challenges building an RTS in Unreal would pale in comparison to challenges of building their own rendering engine. It is not like there is an off the shelf engine out there that is suited for RTS anyway. If they went 2d they could have used something as simple as SDL2 (this is what Factorio uses). The product would have shipped a year ago, would look better (hand crafted 2d art is bae), and run on any platform without threatening to explode my pc (as Factorio does). | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
On April 11 2024 04:12 townhouse wrote: If they went 2d they could used something as simple as SDL2 (this is what Factorio uses). The product would have shipped a year ago, would look better (hand crafted 2d art is bae), and run on any platform without threatening to explode my pc (as Factorio does). That's your own preference talking. No modern game trying to gain serious reach can afford to have 2D graphics. Additionally, SDL2 is a framework not an engine. It can be used to make engines but requires a much more serious lift to build a 3D game. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On April 11 2024 02:12 Fango wrote: 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. Let’s not forget that every one of these RTS games done on a shoestring pretty much failed massively. Largely due to them not having sufficient polish to dislodge folks from an SC2 or whatever established titles they needed to drag people from. Of course this doesn’t mean it’s an impossibility that a small indie team can’t strike gold and have a massive hit on their hands, but as yet nobody has come even close to doing it. It’s not like we have, to my knowledge some breakout big indie smash hit in the genre from within the last decade+ to actually point at with lessons Frost Giant could have taken from, at least in the ‘what to do’ sense as opposed to the ‘pitfalls to avoid’ sense It probably doesn’t need saying but I’ll say anyway that this also doesn’t mean I think Frost Giant’s decisions have been flawless, far from it but they seem to be beaten with sticks from 8 different directions | ||
|
townhouse
United States43 Posts
I disagree that 2d is not viable. Just look at the latest Super Mario game, or even Factorio. I don't even like Factorio as a game, and wish the devs would make a Blizzard-style RTS (the greatest type of game) with their tech, but you have to admire what they've accomplished on a shoestring starting budget. | ||
|
MegaBuster
167 Posts
The issue is they are corporate wimps who tried to claim moral ownership over the source material to trace StarCraft, got some pushback on it, then intentionally fucked up their tracing to try to look like they had a vision. Now crunching on the third race they have a straight shot at making something good looking which could hopefully hold up the rest of the game until they can double back and fix all their crap design. In the most deep dish pizza delicious irony that opportunity comes with designing their Protoss race. The Protoss which they had either ignored or fucked up for their entire stay at Blizzard, the thing they always passed the buck on and focused on co-op dog doo or whatever else they could make up. (shipping 500 updates to the editor in 2020 when no one used it) Completely frozen creatively they bring in the legend — Vincent Bitetti, sure he is 85 years old, sure everyone in his rolodex has died of natural causes, sure he thinks Roblox is a laxative brand — but he made some moves with the Shrek IP and damnit we need someone with a vision! I see it: old man with suspenders walks into Frost Giant headquarters design meeting — briefly a producer explains to him what a video game is 'ah yes I had a similar problem when licensing trading cards for the movie Babe, yes the one about the pig!' I think when you are afraid of creating you open yourself up to a kind of design authoritarianism, either letting the past dictate all your moves (cloning SC2/WC3) or electing a bizarre king (90 year old creative executive Bitetti). Now I look forward to my post being blotted out by JimJRaynor rambling about the games business in the 80s like he's the last living member of Bitetti's rolodex. | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
On April 11 2024 03:29 Uldridge wrote: Biting off more than you can chew != innovation. Why delve into something that necessarily eats away tens of millions of dollars when existing engines pull off what they already want to do with their game? Does that make sense to you? So Frost Giant are simultaneously attempting too much innovation, while also not enough? "They shouldn't be attempting all this technical stuff trying to push the genre forward" and "The game is no different to any other in the genre" are conflicting statements. As for engines, there aren't any that do what they want, they made their own for a reason. No other RTS has rollback, or SC2's AI and pathfinding, or even an editor coming out. Stormgate is having 3v3 with 300 cap armies and thousands of observers as a regular gamemode. The SC2 engine is still the pinnacle of RTS and it can't really do that. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5238 Posts
I'd suggest to establish yourself first, before developing something where you can develop on completely independently. And if you've made "innovative" tech as a game company, instead of a compelling game, FG studios won't be a game studio for long I suppose. Lastly, I actually hope SG is a game which succeeds, I really do, but I just don't see it yet. Please interpret these criticisms as words of caution instead of hate. | ||
|
pebble444
Italy2503 Posts
| ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
On April 11 2024 04:57 townhouse wrote: Well, my own preferences include not running out of money before even shipping a decent product and being forced to grift from your potential customers. I disagree that 2d is not viable. Just look at the latest Super Mario game, or even Factorio. I don't even like Factorio as a game, and wish the devs would make a Blizzard-style RTS (the greatest type of game) with their tech, but you have to admire what they've accomplished on a shoestring starting budget. I guarantee Factorio does not nearly have the reach Stormgate is going for. Whether going for widespread reach was a wise decision is up for debate but given they were going for a bigger audience the right choice was absolutely 3D graphics. The newest Super Mario has 3D graphics done in a fixed camera perspective. It's got 2D gameplay, but it is NOT a 2D rendering engine. We are discussing the complexities of a 2D vs. 3D rendering engine not 2D vs. 3D gameplay. You could have brought up Stardew Valley as an example of a hyper successful 2D game. To that I'd say RTS needs that feeling of units looking like miniatures from tabletop gaming to look and feel satisfying so 3D is the right choice. Also, it would be much more difficult to sell cosmetics with 2D graphics. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2853 Posts
On April 11 2024 03:48 Hider wrote: Yes, I am not completely sure how that conflicts with my view? (it's actually kinda my point). The reason a game like Sc2 generally is not fun for new players is due to the massive complexity of learning the game and constant stress-level while playing the game. The genre itself has a lot of potential though. But you need to figure out how to make it fun. I get that campaign + co-op is currently functioning as the "entry-point", but I don't think it really succeeds in getting a high percentage of the players to keep playing after that. A campaign is a fundamentally different experience from multiplayer and effectively functions as different games. A good campaign can make money but it cannot by itself attract and sustain a large player audience. Perhaps you could argue that campaign functions as entry-point into co-op and co-op then functions as entry-point into the competitive 1v1/3v3 modes. But then you end up with a way too ambitious project and most likely neither will turn out that well. I belive a 100% focus on RTS 1v1 can work as the entry-point (combined with a tutorial ofc), but not with the mindset rts-game devs currently have. They need to get rid of the whole "it was that way in the 90s-mindset therefore we can't change it" and be willing to reinvent multiple parts of the genre. There are lots of ways to make the learning-barrier significantly easier than what Stormgate is doing. The most obvious exampel of Stormgate being stuck in the 90s is that you still need to learn how to wall-in. How on earth they think this is fun mechanic in today's age is beyond me. But the problem goes that much deeper than that. Further, I also belive that to attract potential new players you need to show awesome gameplay that players find interesting. Nothing about Stormgate is gonna look interesting to non-RTS players. I agree that we don't wholly disagree, but I do think we have different values and desire for the end-state, where most people stay and play the game. You see it as campaign -> co-op -> 1v1, where one leads into the next, and 1v1 is the ultimate unshakeable golden standard. I think THAT is the 'being stuck in the 90s' mindset you're talking about, and you contradict yourself there. 1v1 is shit. We don't see it outside of memes and braggarts in modern gaming because it isn't as fun as dicking around with your friends. It isn't because Dota, Valorant, autochess, csgo, fortnite, etcetcetc don't support 1v1, it's because none of those are designed from the ground up as 1v1 games, because 1v1 games aren't as fun. That said, again the endpoint JUST needs to be a good game. Having 1v1 be the main focus of the game doesn't preclude it from being a good game, I just think it's shooting yourself in the foot a bit, like trying to make a good game that's also an arena shooter in 2024 (sorry WombaT :D) | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
On April 11 2024 05:36 Uldridge wrote: It all depends on what you classify as innovation. If you burn all your money with nothing to show for it, or not enough people actually being impressed by what your product does, can you call it innovation? I'd suggest to establish yourself first, before developing something where you can develop on completely independently. And if you've made "innovative" tech as a game company, instead of a compelling game, FG studios won't be a game studio for long I suppose. Lastly, I actually hope SG is a game which succeeds, I really do, but I just don't see it yet. Please interpret these criticisms as words of caution instead of hate. Well of course if the studio collapses and nothing comes out then it was a total waste of time But at the end of the day the studio is aiming for a new RTS engine that can easily handle 3v3 with 300 cap armies, has SC2's level polish and pathfinding, rollback and global matchmaking, mass observing and live replays, and a new editor to use all that. Even if you don't enjoy the gameplay, it's still a "next gen" RTS. My issue is really with the way the common criticisms are complete opposites. Complaining the game is not pushing the genre forward, but also complaining that FG are spending all this money developing new tech. Frost Giant have an impossible task of actually pleasing the RTS community. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9448 Posts
On April 11 2024 06:01 Fleetfeet wrote: I agree that we don't wholly disagree, but I do think we have different values and desire for the end-state, where most people stay and play the game. You see it as campaign -> co-op -> 1v1, where one leads into the next, and 1v1 is the ultimate unshakeable golden standard. I think THAT is the 'being stuck in the 90s' mindset you're talking about, and you contradict yourself there.. To clarify, that's not my vision for the "future of the RTS genre", but it's what I believe Frostigant uses to justify their claim they are creating the future of the RTS genre; Campaign for the most casuals, co-op for the casuals who want a multiplayer experience, 1v1/3v3 for those who want a competitive experience. But my vision for the future is vastly different. I kinda agree 1v1 "it is shit" - but I also see significant room for improvement because the 1v1 game-mode is stuck in the 90s and I want to reinnovate it. I see correlation != causation issues with people identifying 1v1 Sc2 not catering to larger audience and concludes the way to solve that is through co-op/campaign. Whereas I can think of multiple ways (that noone has attempted) to make it significantly better - both for the top players and especially for the new players. Devs are stuck in the 90s because the degree of changes they make to the 1v1 (this includes every single RTS made past 10 year + Immortals gates of pyre + Zerostorm (although too a slightly lesser extent)) are only tweaking stuff instead of innovating. If you believe the future of RTS is not in 1v1 but instead in nailing co-op/campaign. That's fine and it doesn't necessarily contradict my view. I think both can co-exist and there is probably a viable business model out there for people who enjoy that. But I am sceptical around startups trying to do everything at once. Instead I believe in a more narrow focus. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5238 Posts
On April 11 2024 06:03 Fango wrote: Well of course if the studio collapses and nothing comes out then it was a total waste of time But at the end of the day the studio is aiming for a new RTS engine that can easily handle 3v3 with 300 cap armies, has SC2's level polish and pathfinding, rollback and global matchmaking, mass observing and live replays, and a new editor to use all that. Even if you don't enjoy the gameplay, it's still a "next gen" RTS. My issue is really with the way the common criticisms are complete opposites. Complaining the game is not pushing the genre forward, but also complaining that FG are spending all this money developing new tech. Frost Giant have an impossible task of actually pleasing the RTS community. Are they aiming for an RTS engine that supports their game or aiming for a game that is supported by their RTS engine? What is their priority, all of it? Will everything run perfectly and look perfectly? The suspicions raised aren't invalid on this and FG keeps turning up with vaguely or misleadingly worded press/documents/numbers. It raises eyebrows. I'll say it again: it doesn't matter what you have running under the hood, if your core gameplay is banal at best, you've grossly oversold yourself. This is what I'm seeing at the moment. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On April 11 2024 06:03 Fango wrote: Well of course if the studio collapses and nothing comes out then it was a total waste of time But at the end of the day the studio is aiming for a new RTS engine that can easily handle 3v3 with 300 cap armies, has SC2's level polish and pathfinding, rollback and global matchmaking, mass observing and live replays, and a new editor to use all that. Even if you don't enjoy the gameplay, it's still a "next gen" RTS. My issue is really with the way the common criticisms are complete opposites. Complaining the game is not pushing the genre forward, but also complaining that FG are spending all this money developing new tech. Frost Giant have an impossible task of actually pleasing the RTS community. Worst case scenario, and I hope it doesn’t come to it but if the engine can do as advertised and FG go to the wall, they can at least sell on that tech. Let’s say hypothetically Microsoft’s games division does so. Well, what’s in their stable, oh well only AoE, StarCraft and Warcraft. Circle of life almost! Even if their baby isn’t delivered there could still well be benefits to the genre as a whole from them biting off more than they can chew | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
On April 11 2024 06:41 Uldridge wrote: Are they aiming for an RTS engine that supports their game or aiming for a game that is supported by their RTS engine? What is their priority, all of it? Will everything run perfectly and look perfectly? The suspicions raised aren't invalid on this and FG keeps turning up with vaguely or misleadingly worded press/documents/numbers. It raises eyebrows. I'll say it again: it doesn't matter what you have running under the hood, if your core gameplay is banal at best, you've grossly oversold yourself. This is what I'm seeing at the moment. They're very clearly aiming for both. A WC3/SC2 style game but with modern tech to make it the first next gen RTS in 15 years. None of the suspicions are completely invalid, if you don't enjoy the gameplay that's fair, if you think FG will struggle to deliver on everything, that's also fair. I'm really just saying the criticisms found throughout this thread pull on opposite ends, people are complaining about FG not doing enough to push the genre, and then also saying they should have done less | ||
|
MegaBuster
167 Posts
Remember they announced a partnership with The Chainsmokers! Do you think the 100 year old guy who licenses Shrek IP met them? What did they talk about? Oh my grandkids love that electro music. Do you bring the computers to the dance hall yourself? There's an engineer in the meet the team video who gets misty-eyed explaining how he empties the recycling because the team is so mom n' pop - his exec team make a mil a year! (I respect this engineer guy) They printed the following words in their financial filings: "We may never have an operational product' Come on! Look at that! 🎆🎆🎆 | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2853 Posts
On April 11 2024 06:16 Hider wrote: To clarify, that's not my vision for the "future of the RTS genre", but it's what I believe Frostigant uses to justify their claim they are creating the future of the RTS genre; Campaign for the most casuals, co-op for the casuals who want a multiplayer experience, 1v1/3v3 for those who want a competitive experience. But my vision for the future is vastly different. I kinda agree 1v1 "it is shit" - but I also see significant room for improvement because the 1v1 game-mode is stuck in the 90s and I want to reinnovate it. I see correlation != causation issues with people identifying 1v1 Sc2 not catering to larger audience and concludes the way to solve that is through co-op/campaign. Whereas I can think of multiple ways (that noone has attempted) to make it significantly better - both for the top players and especially for the new players. Devs are stuck in the 90s because the degree of changes they make to the 1v1 (this includes every single RTS made past 10 year + Immortals gates of pyre + Zerostorm (although too a slightly lesser extent)) are only tweaking stuff instead of innovating. If you believe the future of RTS is not in 1v1 but instead in nailing co-op/campaign. That's fine and it doesn't necessarily contradict my view. I think both can co-exist and there is probably a viable business model out there for people who enjoy that. But I am sceptical around startups trying to do everything at once. Instead I believe in a more narrow focus. Let's agree to agree, then! That sounds way better. What you're saying makes sense to me, and there definitely is quite a bit of space to innovate within 1v1 in RTS. @MegaBuster The fireworks show is a sideshow imo, myself and others generally seem more interested in the future of RTS and whether or not StormGate is gonna be a part of that, moreso than the particulars of specifically Frost Giant and what's happening there. | ||
| ||
