|
On April 12 2024 00:15 _Spartak_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2024 23:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Nony: "this is not a next gen RTS". Nony: "if this game survives". NOny:"have you heard about their financial situation"
Nony baited Artosis many times and Artosis never bit. ROFLMAO. Very entertaining talk. Misrepresenting the conversation again by cherry-picking quotes out of context. This time it is a 1.5 hours of a video, so it is more likely that people won't watch it. Again, smart. Maybe not as smart since NonY frequents these forums. Here is one of the first things NonY said: Show nested quote +If you want to make another RTS that's like StarCraft or like StarCraft 2 really cause we have gone pretty far away from Brood War but in the lineage of Brood War but similar to StarCraft 2, I think they have achieved that and I don't think that is easy to do so like they're starting from a really good spot.
and then they spent 80 minutes expression their misgivings with the 1v1 ladder aspect of the game.
What did Artosis say in response to Nony's question about Frost Giant's financial problems? Months ago Artosis stated Stormgate would replace SC2. He has not said that in months.
Watch their actions, rather than their words. Observe how much Stormgate content these guys make. That will tell you what they think of the game's financial future.
Their long 1v1 centric discussion is irrelevant. For an RTS to remain financially viable the 1v1 sweat fest mode doesn't matter. They did not discuss the campaign, co-op, AI enemies, the lore story of the units. They did not discuss the world builder. They did not discuss the incredible advancements in AI that can make an enemy AI far more fun to play against compared to 10 years ago.
The game will live and die on all the topics I mentioned. 1v1 competitive ladder is a very small slice of the game.
|
Speaking about the abilities is speaking about the campaign, co-op, and world building because all the modes of gameplay are linked, that's how these RTS work.
Since the abilities suck that says a lot about what the campaigns will be - because right now the iconic Infernal unit is a big fat butcher clone that rips himself apart to make zerglings.
Imagine the campaign design for that:
Okay General Malloc look ahead. We've got to kill those Vanguard units with our fat self stomach ripping guys, okay hit the Z button now to rip your units apart into smaller units! Hah great job they didn't see it coming.
Hey General Malloc do you ever miss our home planet? Sometimes you know I just get lonely at nights around the campfire. (A-B testing revealed a high preference for dating sim features)
Do you know how those zerglings get in that brute?
|
Northern Ireland24430 Posts
On April 12 2024 02:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 00:15 _Spartak_ wrote:On April 11 2024 23:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Nony: "this is not a next gen RTS". Nony: "if this game survives". NOny:"have you heard about their financial situation"
Nony baited Artosis many times and Artosis never bit. ROFLMAO. Very entertaining talk. Misrepresenting the conversation again by cherry-picking quotes out of context. This time it is a 1.5 hours of a video, so it is more likely that people won't watch it. Again, smart. Maybe not as smart since NonY frequents these forums. Here is one of the first things NonY said: If you want to make another RTS that's like StarCraft or like StarCraft 2 really cause we have gone pretty far away from Brood War but in the lineage of Brood War but similar to StarCraft 2, I think they have achieved that and I don't think that is easy to do so like they're starting from a really good spot. and then they spent 80 minutes expression their misgivings with the 1v1 ladder aspect of the game. What did Artosis say in response to Nony's question about Frost Giant's financial problems? Months ago Artosis stated Stormgate would replace SC2. He has not said that in months. Watch their actions, rather than their words. Observe how much Stormgate content these guys make. That will tell you what they think of the game's financial future. Their long 1v1 centric discussion is irrelevant. For an RTS to remain financially viable the 1v1 sweat fest mode doesn't matter. They did not discuss the campaign, co-op, AI enemies, the lore story of the units. They did not discuss the world builder. They did not discuss the incredible advancements in AI that can make an enemy AI far more fun to play against compared to 10 years ago. The game will live and die on all the topics I mentioned. 1v1 competitive ladder is a very small slice of the game.
You aren’t the only person who can observe things man
Why would guys who love 1v1 RTS so much they both upped sticks to move to another continent to pursue it professionally not spend the majority of their discussion covering that topic?
There are as many opinions on what makes a good RTS, what a next step should look like and FG’s overall project management in this thread as posters almost. Naturally plenty of disagreement and productive discussions emanate from that.
There’s no need to augment such chatter with cherry picking what community figures are saying. Or indeed extrapolating what such figures think based on what they’re not saying, especially if it’s not especially reflective of their broad overall stance.
Artosis specifically has not been effusive, but broadly positive about the game. He actually did put out a pretty decent chunk of content then went back to mostly streaming BW which is his bread and butter.
I’m not sure what more one could expect for such a bare bones borderline alpha build. Which incidentally I’ve said many times I don’t think FG should have done as it’s killed far more positivity than it generated
|
On April 12 2024 02:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 00:15 _Spartak_ wrote:On April 11 2024 23:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Nony: "this is not a next gen RTS". Nony: "if this game survives". NOny:"have you heard about their financial situation"
Nony baited Artosis many times and Artosis never bit. ROFLMAO. Very entertaining talk. Misrepresenting the conversation again by cherry-picking quotes out of context. This time it is a 1.5 hours of a video, so it is more likely that people won't watch it. Again, smart. Maybe not as smart since NonY frequents these forums. Here is one of the first things NonY said: If you want to make another RTS that's like StarCraft or like StarCraft 2 really cause we have gone pretty far away from Brood War but in the lineage of Brood War but similar to StarCraft 2, I think they have achieved that and I don't think that is easy to do so like they're starting from a really good spot. and then they spent 80 minutes expression their misgivings with the 1v1 ladder aspect of the game. What did Artosis say in response to Nony's question about Frost Giant's financial problems? Months ago Artosis stated Stormgate would replace SC2. He has not said that in months. Watch their actions, rather than their words. Observe how much Stormgate content these guys make. That will tell you what they think of the game's financial future. Their long 1v1 centric discussion is irrelevant. For an RTS to remain financially viable the 1v1 sweat fest mode doesn't matter. They did not discuss the campaign, co-op, AI enemies, the lore story of the units. They did not discuss the world builder. They did not discuss the incredible advancements in AI that can make an enemy AI far more fun to play against compared to 10 years ago. The game will live and die on all the topics I mentioned. 1v1 competitive ladder is a very small slice of the game. They will of course talk about things that requires improvement in their minds (just like the Beasty video). If anything, the fact that they are talking about relatively minor issues that they themselves acknowledge could have already been fixed speaks volumes. Their actions are that they both played the game a lot.
|
Just to be clear the alpha bones are not bare from a lack of development time, this is a comfy explanation that will eventually recur when this thing sinks. At a certain point months ago they picked up a narrative from the community that SC2 only looked a certain way over so many years of development. Marketing canonized this useful invention and said they too were only so many years into development. They BSed the timelines, made an official video that also BSed the timelines, and it all lays groundwork for an explained failure that is like — well the market changed we didn't get enough money, we didn't get enough time so this is only a portion of a grand vision that got finished.
The bones are bare for reasons that are much closer to them not understanding RTS, not knowing how many things a game should have to feel like a -Craft, having flawed testing, empty discussions, a lack of experimentality, and a notable disinterest and discomfort with creativity. When Stormgate's bones itself are getting analyzed hopefully the paleontologist's at that point will have gotten over the marketing brainwash and see this.
Here's some evidence:
When the alpha went live the most important component of the 1 non-mirror matchup is the dinosaur/magmadon?/dodongo? stomping enemy units. This shit wasn't even in the game in the videos a couple months before. If the most relevant, important piece of combat is just patched in within that time frame, without much testing, while on the run, well it shows a lot. That's the whole story to be honest. They had years to play in an ability sandbox in Unreal and the dominant piece of the Elephant build is a thing stomping around like an elephant. It was the dinosaur stomp meta.
Even more disturbing is that this is a straight up clone of the Primal Beast move from DotA, on a unit that is a dinosaur quadruped that looks like the Primal Beast. So in desperate need of a design direction there was designer who played DotA2 and was looking at this clone of a Kodo Beast then thought — hmmm what if this dinosaur thing stomped like Primal Beast. They reached to the most similar thing to the unit in the RTS, or RTS-adjacent space. Because as I said in a previous post, being a cowardly designer makes you reach towards the authoritarianism of cloning. You no longer have to make scary decisions. The ability is animated the same, timed the same, same effects but shaped for a non-heroic unit.
And taking inspiration like this is fine in a vacuum.
But its the fact that this is the largest piece of the game at that junction and it was just copied over on short notice. This says this isn't a lack of time, its an — oh-shit we need something here — level of foresight. In addition to that it was ugly, and gave an emphasis to the dinosaur unit that was so intense you'd think they were a dinosaur race of units.
Other people suggest the meat is coming from Tier 3s — you can see the Vanguard tier 3 in the previews and concepts, there's a liberator equivalent and a thor equivalent, both probably have small abilities. Tier 3 for the Infernal is probably a big Ultralisk/Abomination thing like the winged demon you saw in their original trailer. There's also a Dark Templar (toned down with a mist form/soft stealth) and a widow mine kind of thing floating around in concepts. People are getting edged by possibilities when your answers are out there.
So like - forget TorcH eating burrito bowls and doing nothing else for a minute, what were the designers doing in the two years that marketing is trying to memory hole?
Here's my most visionary interpretation of what happened with the game:
It was prototyped in the SC2 engine.
Beyond the obvious obvious reasons they did that. They were probably doing that at Blizzard to pitch SC3 during the process where they got tossed. Thing is there are too many secondary markers of stuff from the SC2 content that I see having been a long-time user of the editor.
Most notably there's a dinosaur creep that looks just like the Magmadon, which they probably pulled into the prototype to get a Kodo Beast like effect. It even walks around like its stomping everything. Then you show this prototype to an artist who didn't play SC2 they traced it, no one cares at the time, but I've followed the clues.
Thing is this means Stormgate and all its related IP belongs to Blizzard because of their fascist content ownership rules. I will testify if asked. Thank you, autographs in the hallway outside.
|
Good discussion between Art and Nony, anyone who watched that and took away that those guys believe the game is doomed needs help. Although I do think that there's a good chance much of what they discussed could be irrelevant by the next beta test.
I agree with their points on Inf vs Van, with Inf having limited micro potential aand being all setup, the endgame being very Van favoured etc. All true but will change with literally any new units or tweaks.
As for upgrades, I really don't think generic attack/armour upgrades are as fun as people make them out to be. Outside of pros hitting timings, nobody real cares about them. 99% of players will get them just because they have to for their army to be good.
Sure artosis is right in saying they help balance tier 3 units and put a delay until they're good (3-3 marines will shred 0-0 carriers for example) but you can also just make tier 3 units more expensive or whatever.
I feel this is another case of people will criticise anything Stormgate does different to SC2. Yet had they added generic upgrades, people would say this game is basically just SC2 again (they already do).
|
On April 12 2024 03:35 _Spartak_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 02:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 12 2024 00:15 _Spartak_ wrote:On April 11 2024 23:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Nony: "this is not a next gen RTS". Nony: "if this game survives". NOny:"have you heard about their financial situation"
Nony baited Artosis many times and Artosis never bit. ROFLMAO. Very entertaining talk. Misrepresenting the conversation again by cherry-picking quotes out of context. This time it is a 1.5 hours of a video, so it is more likely that people won't watch it. Again, smart. Maybe not as smart since NonY frequents these forums. Here is one of the first things NonY said: If you want to make another RTS that's like StarCraft or like StarCraft 2 really cause we have gone pretty far away from Brood War but in the lineage of Brood War but similar to StarCraft 2, I think they have achieved that and I don't think that is easy to do so like they're starting from a really good spot. and then they spent 80 minutes expression their misgivings with the 1v1 ladder aspect of the game. What did Artosis say in response to Nony's question about Frost Giant's financial problems? Months ago Artosis stated Stormgate would replace SC2. He has not said that in months. Watch their actions, rather than their words. Observe how much Stormgate content these guys make. That will tell you what they think of the game's financial future. Their long 1v1 centric discussion is irrelevant. For an RTS to remain financially viable the 1v1 sweat fest mode doesn't matter. They did not discuss the campaign, co-op, AI enemies, the lore story of the units. They did not discuss the world builder. They did not discuss the incredible advancements in AI that can make an enemy AI far more fun to play against compared to 10 years ago. The game will live and die on all the topics I mentioned. 1v1 competitive ladder is a very small slice of the game. They will of course talk about things that requires improvement in their minds (just like the Beasty video). If anything, the fact that they are talking about relatively minor issues that they themselves acknowledge could have already been fixed speaks volumes. Their actions are that they both played the game a lot.
dude, BeastyQT played the game for 13 hours. and they put him in their promo thing for StartEngine.
|
You said look at how much content these guys make about Stormgate and both made a lot of content. Why being up Beasty? You are not making any sense anymore. You should go back to your source for some new lies.
|
On April 11 2024 16:54 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2024 06:01 Fleetfeet wrote:
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) I honestely believe that "1v1 games aren't as fun is" is a false statement. In competitive team games you won't feel (solely) responsible for your losses and I think that's one main factor why these games you mention are generally more popular. The other one is that it's fun to play with friends, almost regardless of how good the game actually is. What I mean is that technically a 1v1 game can be more fun but it's being overridden by people drawing so much enjoyment from interacting with friends. For your second statement: Dusk came out some time ago and it's a great game. Not an arena shooter but the gameplay feels like one. It's smooth and responsive as fuck, super fun. They could as well add an arena mode with that engine to boot. And I'm not even an Arena Shooter fan. The only Arena Shooter I played more than a couple of hours was UT 2004.
I hear you, but this does sound a lot like there's a lot of conditions to make 1v1 games as fun. 1v1 is MORE fun if you only have one friend to play with and no other humans exist, but I wasn't really referring to 1v1 in a vacuum vs team games in a vacuum. It's certainly entirely possible that a 1v1 game could be designed and be objectively more fun than a team game, but if we consider that playtime/playerbase probably correlates to fun significantly, then it seems safe to say team games are 'more fun', at least in the current climate.
In a general sense I do agree that a 1v1 game could be more fun (Chess and GO, I'm looking at you!) but I don't think that's something I see happening soon in video game land.
(The arena shooter thing was mostly a jab at WombaT, I know very little about that genre.)
@Spartak "Anymore" is generous. I don't think conversing with JimmyRaynor is producive, he kind of just spews nonsense that isn't worth engaging.
|
None of the theorycrafting about all the great stuff in the game matters when there is no money to pay people.
On April 12 2024 05:14 _Spartak_ wrote:
You said look at how much content these guys make about Stormgate and both made a lot of content. Why being up Beasty? You are not making any sense anymore. You should go back to your source for some new lies.
On April 12 2024 03:59 Fango wrote:
Good discussion between Art and Nony, anyone who watched that and took away that those guys believe the game is doomed needs help. Although I do think that there's a good chance much of what they discussed could be irrelevant by the next beta test.
Artosis stopped making content on Stormgate a while ago. Artosis passively agreed with Nony about the bad financial position of Frost Giant compromising their design decisions in the future due to requiring monetization very soon. Nony discussed it for 30 seconds from about 5.5 minutes to 6 minutes. Artosis just sat their nodding in agreement.
Artosis is not endorsing the future of the game. He did many months ago. That is no longer the case.
On April 12 2024 05:19 Fleetfeet wrote:
@Spartak "Anymore" is generous. I don't think conversing with JimmyRaynor is producive, he kind of just spews nonsense that isn't worth engaging.
nah, my comments are fine.
|
He made content for a long time considering how content-poor the game was. He went back to BW when the beta stopped getting updated. He also just made a 1.5 hour video on talking about the nitty gritty of the game. That's not something someone does if they don't believe in the future of the game.
|
On April 12 2024 05:46 _Spartak_ wrote:
He made content for a long time considering how content-poor the game was. He went back to BW when the beta stopped getting updated. He also just made a 1.5 hour video on talking about the nitty gritty of the game. That's not something someone does if they don't believe in the future of the game.
no , he stopped doing content for Stormgate long before the beta ended. And , he does more than just BW.
These streamers do dozens of hours of content every week. 90 minutes of idle chatter with zero prop means nuttin.
He had every opportunity to provide a rebuttal to Nony. Nony droned on and on about the financial issues of Frost Giant; Artosis agreed with him.
|
Northern Ireland24430 Posts
On April 12 2024 03:59 Fango wrote:
Good discussion between Art and Nony, anyone who watched that and took away that those guys believe the game is doomed needs help. Although I do think that there's a good chance much of what they discussed could be irrelevant by the next beta test.
I agree with their points on Inf vs Van, with Inf having limited micro potential aand being all setup, the endgame being very Van favoured etc. All true but will change with literally any new units or tweaks.
As for upgrades, I really don't think generic attack/armour upgrades are as fun as people make them out to be. Outside of pros hitting timings, nobody real cares about them. 99% of players will get them just because they have to for their army to be good.
Sure artosis is right in saying they help balance tier 3 units and put a delay until they're good (3-3 marines will shred 0-0 carriers for example) but you can also just make tier 3 units more expensive or whatever.
I feel this is another case of people will criticise anything Stormgate does different to SC2. Yet had they added generic upgrades, people would say this game is basically just SC2 again (they already do).
I was initially against ups getting pulled out, but some folks pointed out that them not being there makes tech switching much more viable, so in theory I’m somewhat placated depending on how the rest of the game ships up.
Split upgrades do kind of make certain switches not viable in SC2 past a certain point. And if you do some sort of unified general upgrades it’s not like it adds a huge amount of strategic depth to have something that’s generally always beneficial to obtain
|
On April 12 2024 05:50 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 05:46 _Spartak_ wrote:
He made content for a long time considering how content-poor the game was. He went back to BW when the beta stopped getting updated. He also just made a 1.5 hour video on talking about the nitty gritty of the game. That's not something someone does if they don't believe in the future of the game. no , he stopped doing content for Stormgate long before the beta ended. And , he does more than just BW. These streamers do dozens of hours of content every week. 90 minutes of idle chatter with zero prop means nuttin. He had every opportunity to provide a rebuttal to Nony. Nony droned on and on about the financial issues of Frost Giant; Artosis agreed with him. I didn't say when beta ended. I said when the beta stopped getting updates.
There was nothing to provide a rebuttal against. What NonY said is true. He didn't say Frost Giant was in financial trouble. He said they have to become profitable quicker than NonY personally thought initially.
|
Northern Ireland24430 Posts
On April 12 2024 05:19 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2024 16:54 Miragee wrote:On April 11 2024 06:01 Fleetfeet wrote:
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) I honestely believe that "1v1 games aren't as fun is" is a false statement. In competitive team games you won't feel (solely) responsible for your losses and I think that's one main factor why these games you mention are generally more popular. The other one is that it's fun to play with friends, almost regardless of how good the game actually is. What I mean is that technically a 1v1 game can be more fun but it's being overridden by people drawing so much enjoyment from interacting with friends. For your second statement: Dusk came out some time ago and it's a great game. Not an arena shooter but the gameplay feels like one. It's smooth and responsive as fuck, super fun. They could as well add an arena mode with that engine to boot. And I'm not even an Arena Shooter fan. The only Arena Shooter I played more than a couple of hours was UT 2004. I hear you, but this does sound a lot like there's a lot of conditions to make 1v1 games as fun. 1v1 is MORE fun if you only have one friend to play with and no other humans exist, but I wasn't really referring to 1v1 in a vacuum vs team games in a vacuum. It's certainly entirely possible that a 1v1 game could be designed and be objectively more fun than a team game, but if we consider that playtime/playerbase probably correlates to fun significantly, then it seems safe to say team games are 'more fun', at least in the current climate. In a general sense I do agree that a 1v1 game could be more fun (Chess and GO, I'm looking at you!) but I don't think that's something I see happening soon in video game land. (The arena shooter thing was mostly a jab at WombaT, I know very little about that genre.) @Spartak "Anymore" is generous. I don't think conversing with JimmyRaynor is producive, he kind of just spews nonsense that isn't worth engaging.
Took it in the spirit intended!
Agreed, hell even games with a pretty big 1 player scene like Fortnite at the pro level, there’s a hell of a lot to do that isn’t that. Half the time my kid plays it’s fucking around with his mates in user-created maps, often wonky as fuck but fun for a brief bash. Then there’s an official racing game, a pseudo Minecraft game and all sorts!
I think 1v1 tests of ultimate skill have appeal in a more general sense but they have to be embedded in a different ecosystem, with a few exceptions where a game can’t really work outside of 1v1. Like a fighting game or whatever.
As a kid/early teen I put in the hours in terms of online gaming almost exclusively in BW, WC3 and arena shooters but almost none of that in hardcore 1v1 modes. But on the flipside if I’d known various scenes were as vibrant as they were I probably would have pushed to try to do more, get inspired by all these skilled players and try to emulate it.
Folks may gather more craic playing with the boys/gals, or team modes and pub stomping in general, but equally folks do like flexing their skill and pushing themselves.
As per my arena shooter moans, and I think Epic had a better blueprint for the canned UT remake it was much more casual focused, team games, multiple modes and all. You can still build a 1v1 duel scene on top of that. Quake Champions really built the game around 1v1 from the ground up and suffered from it.
I actually think Epic could literally just add UT as a mode to Fortnite and it’d be successful! I genuinely think this is probably the most likely course for a genre revival au present
|
I'm going to buy Snowplay for $8000 at the estate sale no one outbid me.
|
On April 11 2024 21:17 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2024 18:57 KingzTig wrote:
Gate of pyre (also I had no idea the Dev is from starbow till today) imo has the most innovative approach to the genre so far, that along with zerospace are way beyond what stormgate is experimenting with the formula Where do you think Gates of Pyre is innovating? Because the problem I have with both of those is that even though I can see that Zerospace is trying a few more things than Stormgate it still doesn't look particularly amazing. Do you think you could make a highlight clips of a few minutes, send that to non RTS gamers and they would be really interested to try it out? And if they try it out, would a large percentage of them keep playing? In contrast I remember sending the famous Zed vs Zed Faker vs Ryu outplay from 2023 to multiple Sc2 players who thought it looked awesome and which caused them to try out LOL. For Sc2, I think moments like Infestor burrow --> unborrow fungal is some of the closest we get to that. Or perhaps by psi storm drops, Nuke etc. Or even Marine splitting, multiple drops (although slighltly more complex). There are ways in which you can sell the "highlights of Sc2" to MOBA players. (the bigger problem Sc2 has as previously mentioned is that you can't even attempt to those things as a beginner)
FanHots has been streaming zerospace (his main game is heroes of the storm), some in his chat mentioned they even prefer it over hots.
As for gates of pyres, they are doing a lot to remove chores and more automate the macro side.
Not that macro isn't important, but unit production building serve as a supply building is a great start. And you are able to build multiple units in one building, making it much easier for defence.
I think that is what we need to have precisely better micro and more challenging micro moments even.
I would definitely agree starcraft still has the best units for sure, but I don't think other games won't find their audience.
In Zerospace, you have super units including one that nuke on death. Terror tank always get all the attention in the engagement etc. Some of the unit comp are pretty cool. These are great start imo.
My biggest complaint to SG will always be its unit design. It's just so blend even with supposively more interesting upgrade design.
|
These aren't "innovations". A ton of non-Blizzard RTSes have done similar things in the past and they were considered inferior to Blizzard RTSes for doing so for years on TL.net but suddenly it is worth praising that a game has super units.
|
On April 12 2024 14:19 _Spartak_ wrote:
These aren't "innovations". A ton of non-Blizzard RTSes have done similar things in the past and they were considered inferior to Blizzard RTSes for doing so for years on TL.net but suddenly it is worth praising that a game has super units.
What are you looking for then?
A complete revamp on RTS mechanics like grey goo/tooth and tail?
All you need to do is look at what games zerospace are producing to know it is innovative and not a worse knockoff sc2.
Is it going to be bigger than starcraft? Probably not, but not like SG is remotely close.
immortal gates of pyre units movement alone is already far more interesting than SG.
SG units especially T1 frankly is as blend as it goes, and I don't see why some are thinking T3 and 3rd race is going to bring the change.
Even if zerospace T1 units aren't exactly interesting, the way it works is they are still very dynamic with top bar ability is and upgrades from merch/unit upgrades.
Immortal also has the best menu interface, visual design imo. Very steam Dota 2 esque vibe and quality.
Or lets think about one mechanics that we should borrow from SG and apply to the future RTS generation. Can you think of one because I honestly can't. Not the units, not the buildings, not the design of anything.
|
On April 12 2024 05:19 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2024 16:54 Miragee wrote:On April 11 2024 06:01 Fleetfeet wrote:
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) I honestely believe that "1v1 games aren't as fun is" is a false statement. In competitive team games you won't feel (solely) responsible for your losses and I think that's one main factor why these games you mention are generally more popular. The other one is that it's fun to play with friends, almost regardless of how good the game actually is. What I mean is that technically a 1v1 game can be more fun but it's being overridden by people drawing so much enjoyment from interacting with friends. For your second statement: Dusk came out some time ago and it's a great game. Not an arena shooter but the gameplay feels like one. It's smooth and responsive as fuck, super fun. They could as well add an arena mode with that engine to boot. And I'm not even an Arena Shooter fan. The only Arena Shooter I played more than a couple of hours was UT 2004. I hear you, but this does sound a lot like there's a lot of conditions to make 1v1 games as fun. 1v1 is MORE fun if you only have one friend to play with and no other humans exist, but I wasn't really referring to 1v1 in a vacuum vs team games in a vacuum. It's certainly entirely possible that a 1v1 game could be designed and be objectively more fun than a team game, but if we consider that playtime/playerbase probably correlates to fun significantly, then it seems safe to say team games are 'more fun', at least in the current climate. In a general sense I do agree that a 1v1 game could be more fun (Chess and GO, I'm looking at you!) but I don't think that's something I see happening soon in video game land. (The arena shooter thing was mostly a jab at WombaT, I know very little about that genre.) @Spartak "Anymore" is generous. I don't think conversing with JimmyRaynor is producive, he kind of just spews nonsense that isn't worth engaging.
Yeah, I agree. I reality there is a lot more to it than just a good game. The social components (interaction with friends, team strategy and so on) are extremely important. Hell, IRL I've chosen to pursue team sports basically my entire life and will continue to do so. I just wanted to rebut that 1v1 cannot be better games or successful but I think we are on the same page here. I know the arena shooter thing was a jab at Wombat.  However, I felt like it was also a valid argument to have because we don't have any popular new ones right now and I'm curious as to why. I feel they have everything that a game these days needs: intuitive, fun and satisfying gameplay, not much downtime after "losses" and easily playable for casuals even if the skill ceiling is incredibly high. I think if you add/focus on some different modes such as FFA and team arena in addition to 1v1 as well as a really smooth/responsive engine that just _feels_ good to move in, there is a lot of potential. I just don't see companies approach this at all. I feel like after failures such as UT3 those games died in the grand scheme, even though the reason for the failure was not based on interest but because these new iterations, instead of delivering improvements, actually made things worse. I.e. UT3 just felt worse to play than UT2004 because it was so heavy-handed.
On April 12 2024 12:07 KingzTig wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2024 21:17 Hider wrote:On April 11 2024 18:57 KingzTig wrote:
Gate of pyre (also I had no idea the Dev is from starbow till today) imo has the most innovative approach to the genre so far, that along with zerospace are way beyond what stormgate is experimenting with the formula Where do you think Gates of Pyre is innovating? Because the problem I have with both of those is that even though I can see that Zerospace is trying a few more things than Stormgate it still doesn't look particularly amazing. Do you think you could make a highlight clips of a few minutes, send that to non RTS gamers and they would be really interested to try it out? And if they try it out, would a large percentage of them keep playing? In contrast I remember sending the famous Zed vs Zed Faker vs Ryu outplay from 2023 to multiple Sc2 players who thought it looked awesome and which caused them to try out LOL. For Sc2, I think moments like Infestor burrow --> unborrow fungal is some of the closest we get to that. Or perhaps by psi storm drops, Nuke etc. Or even Marine splitting, multiple drops (although slighltly more complex). There are ways in which you can sell the "highlights of Sc2" to MOBA players. (the bigger problem Sc2 has as previously mentioned is that you can't even attempt to those things as a beginner) FanHots has been streaming zerospace (his main game is heroes of the storm), some in his chat mentioned they even prefer it over hots. As for gates of pyres, they are doing a lot to remove chores and more automate the macro side. Not that macro isn't important, but unit production building serve as a supply building is a great start. And you are able to build multiple units in one building, making it much easier for defence. I think that is what we need to have precisely better micro and more challenging micro moments even. I would definitely agree starcraft still has the best units for sure, but I don't think other games won't find their audience. In Zerospace, you have super units including one that nuke on death. Terror tank always get all the attention in the engagement etc. Some of the unit comp are pretty cool. These are great start imo. My biggest complaint to SG will always be its unit design. It's just so blend even with supposively more interesting upgrade design.
I still don't get why people think it's necessary to move away from macro to enable more micro. It just targets different audiences and people who want that do have MOBAs. Some recent RTS's focussed almost entirely on macro are very popular. To me it looks like people see the "new player" looking at BW only to find it too daunting to try and conclude that reducing the amount of macro must be the key to attract those players. However, I think there are other ways (e.g. social components) and a lot of those players won't be attracted regardless of what you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
