On August 05 2024 20:53 WGT-Baal wrote: I also really enjoyed the wol campaign and all the rpg style progression and story telling (we will not talk about lotv) in that vein of not being directly rts.
Maybe try out Spellforce then? Its campaign focuses a lot on the hero units, having long sections on the map before the RTS part triggers (on most maps at least).
Their biggest mistake is probably going to be launching into a paid early access. It looked like they had decent momentum coming out of the Steam nextfest demo, but they'll never get out of the 'game is DOA' accusations now.
On August 06 2024 04:55 Garrl wrote: Their biggest mistake is probably going to be launching into a paid early access. It looked like they had decent momentum coming out of the Steam nextfest demo, but they'll never get out of the 'game is DOA' accusations now.
Yep. They had mistakes before but this seems like the biggest. I think they really flopped when they had big streamers like Asmongold test their game like 2 or 3 phases ago. You are exposing the game to a wide audience without having the polish the average andy would come to expect. Asmongold, esfand, they are not here to beta test your game. They are just trying to have fun and I think u needed a crisper product before u put the game out to the greater gaming sphere. The dudes were so confused they weren't even building units the entire time or knowing what they were supposed to be doing. You at the very least needed all your onboarding and tutorials in place when you show it to someone who doesn't play RTS. Asmongold was genuinely interested in the game too. They didn't even have to pay him to play it and he talked before how he was interested in visiting their studio. Look how many views this has. This could have been a great chance to market to regular gamers outside of the niche community and leave a good impression and instead they got an unpolished turd. As I saw in a steam review, it looks like u ordered StarCraft off temu. I like the game and I think it has a lot of potential but this is not how you market a game, and I think frost giant even said they have no marketing department and it shows. Inept.
On August 06 2024 04:55 Garrl wrote: Their biggest mistake is probably going to be launching into a paid early access. It looked like they had decent momentum coming out of the Steam nextfest demo, but they'll never get out of the 'game is DOA' accusations now.
Yep. They had mistakes before but this seems like the biggest. I think they really flopped when they had big streamers like Asmongold test their game like 2 or 3 phases ago. You are exposing the game to a wide audience without having the polish the average andy would come to expect. Asmongold, esfand, they are not here to beta test your game. They are just trying to have fun and I think u needed a crisper product before u put the game out to the greater gaming sphere. The dudes were so confused they weren't even building units the entire time or knowing what they were supposed to be doing. You at the very least needed all your onboarding and tutorials in place when you show it to someone who doesn't play RTS. Asmongold was genuinely interested in the game too. They didn't even have to pay him to play it and he talked before how he was interested in visiting their studio. Look how many views this has. This could have been a great chance to market to regular gamers outside of the niche community and leave a good impression and instead they got an unpolished turd. As I saw in a steam review, it looks like u ordered StarCraft off temu. I like the game and I think it has a lot of potential but this is not how you market a game, and I think frost giant even said they have no marketing department and it shows. Inept. https://youtu.be/x9MvbZ0jmdY?si=juc8n9HDfjifXkFo
The game just isn't ready. It wouldn't have been that different if he plays the version we have now.
And he is well known to have an opinion along the line: gamers don't need to care about anything else other than the game being good. Not how small the team is or how hard they worked. Those are just bonuses, but the game is all that matters. (Which I agree)
The restricted vision view in UI is poor, you can barely fit 3 buildings in the centre. The warning sound effect for not enough luminate is obnoxious. It's just bad even as a placeholder.
And why the game isn't ready? Because they have spend so much into an engine that feel snappy, but the game does not intend to be extremely fast paced like battle aces or SC2. Units either die instantly or they barely do any damage.
It's like building a race track worthy road in the middle of a little suburb, hoping something will start there and bring in new money.
At the same time I think they were hoping for more fundings to get more done before EA, but Econ condition changed and that's that. I highly doubt this is the state they wanted to enter early access in, but who else to blame.
Either way I think give it a month after the official EA launch and we will see where it actually lands. I don't see how they can rebuild any hype for new users, with their art style and generally a very generic feel to everything. Even the tasteless tournament felt very corporate, good production value but it needs hype.
I think it's next to impossible to overthrow the already well established RTS games with a clone. This game was setup for failure from the start imho. You need proper design and graphics, fun - game unique - mechanics and decent balance at launch. I think the idea of showing an unpolished Beta versions really sucks for marketing, it's hard to create hype of off an unpolished turd. It's much better to just open with a big bang. Bee hive input with an open Beta may help you polish quicker and better, but it can also lead to generic answers in problem solving, and worst of all: bad exposure.
All content I've seen so far, which is hours of it already, has still not made me excited to try out the game. In fact I've completely lost interest in the game, especially after that Tasteless interview with the director(?) a few day ago. As a director you need to control that interview and make it hype. Do it at an offline event in person or make a proper video of sick game footage and snaps of the developers working on the game, create a story of vision, effort and result and show that on stream.
On August 06 2024 16:29 Peeano wrote: I think it's next to impossible to overthrow the already well established RTS games with a clone. This game was setup for failure from the start imho. You need proper design and graphics, fun - game unique - mechanics and decent balance at launch. I think the idea of showing an unpolished Beta versions really sucks for marketing, it's hard to create hype of off an unpolished turd. It's much better to just open with a big bang. Bee hive input with an open Beta may help you polish quicker and better, but it can also lead to generic answers in problem solving, and worst of all: bad exposure.
All content I've seen so far, which is hours of it already, has still not made me excited to try out the game. In fact I've completely lost interest in the game, especially after that Tasteless interview with the director(?) a few day ago. As a director you need to control that interview and make it hype. Do it at an offline event in person or make a proper video of sick game footage and snaps of the developers working on the game, create a story of vision, effort and result and show that on stream.
I said this same thing on twitter. RTS games are not like RPGs or FPS games. It takes more than just new graphics or new story content to get someone interested in a new RTS game. New just for the sake of new, isn't worth much in this genre.
RTS games are like board games like Chess or Go or Shogi. A really good game with a good fundamental design can be played forever since the fun of it comes from playing 1v1 against another player. If you're just going to create another game that is very similar then people are just going to default to the game they already know. Look how many players STILL prefer Brood War to any other RTS game.
And the thing is too. Stormgate doesn't offer anything flashy to even get people's attention in the first place. Aesthetically I think it's inferior to Starcraft 2 which is a 15 year old game almost. How the hell does Frostgiant expect to get anyone to even pay attention to their game when it looks worse than Starcraft 2 and plays so similarly that most casual players can hardly tell the difference? Why exactly would I want to play Stormgate when I can just boot up Starcraft 2 again?
It doesn't make any sense.
I don't think much of Zerospace for much the same reason. Its gameplay is similar enough to SC2's that it basically looks like something out of the SC2 arcade, but graphically it's so inferior to SC2 (at least at the moment) that it's not even worth comparing.
Sure if you're trying to be a pro gamer, you want Stormgate to succeed because Blizzard has abandoned Starcraft 2 and you want a fresh start to potentially make a career out of. Sure, your motivations are obvious to everyone, but they also aren't shared by everyone who just want a fun game to play.
I think this is the big disconnect here. Streamers, content creators and pro gamers WANT Stormgate to succeed because they personally stand to benefit if it does. For the rest of us that don't have a stake in it like that and just want a fun game to play and maybe watch, there just isn't enough here to generate enthusiasm.
I don't see it that way at all. For me the biggest problem is that the PvE modes are lacking. Be it campaign or coop. It's possible to make money with PvP as some Mobas and shooters are showing us, but they really should have focused on PvE to make money. Look at Helldivers, a pure PvE experience. Now think FG would have made their coop like this with RPG elements and a somewhat continueing character development and ever new and more difficult threats to the world that you and your friends have to stop. After a while People would have demanded a PvP experience! And then you give it to them
That's not how it works. PvP is a much simpler mode. It is easier to build and test. For example, you don't need AI to start testing PvP. You don't need complicated triggers. So the logical order of operations is to build 1v1 first to test fundamental gameplay stuff and then start adding more and more, which is what they have been doing.
On August 06 2024 04:55 Garrl wrote: Their biggest mistake is probably going to be launching into a paid early access. It looked like they had decent momentum coming out of the Steam nextfest demo, but they'll never get out of the 'game is DOA' accusations now.
Early access isn't paid. The preview period is. It is confusing but the game will be free to play for all starting on August 13 and it will still be in early access. 1.0 release is at least a year away.
On August 06 2024 19:54 Harris1st wrote: I don't see it that way at all. For me the biggest problem is that the PvE modes are lacking. Be it campaign or coop. It's possible to make money with PvP as some Mobas and shooters are showing us, but they really should have focused on PvE to make money. Look at Helldivers, a pure PvE experience. Now think FG would have made their coop like this with RPG elements and a somewhat continueing character development and ever new and more difficult threats to the world that you and your friends have to stop. After a while People would have demanded a PvP experience! And then you give it to them
The game you want to make, is probably the game that FrostGiant wants to make, but FrostGiant doesn't have enough money to do both up to the level they might want.
Starcraft 2 was a game that had both and that game took 10 years and an insane amount of money to make. Frostgiant doesn't have the resources to pull that off. No company that does wants anything to do with the RTS market since it just hasn't proven to be profitable enough.
On August 05 2024 20:53 WGT-Baal wrote: I also really enjoyed the wol campaign and all the rpg style progression and story telling (we will not talk about lotv) in that vein of not being directly rts.
Maybe try out Spellforce then? Its campaign focuses a lot on the hero units, having long sections on the map before the RTS part triggers (on most maps at least).
spellforce is great indeed
But what I meant is i d like a new game in the SC universe that is not a RTS, I m not particularly looking for another RTS. I play BW and that will probably always be the case, it s been 25 yrs. I dab in other games for fun (like Spellforce) but mostly entirely different genres (fallout, KSP, flight sims, civ) when I have time, which is not often.
I m sleptical SG can survive well enough till full launch if it s a year from now. But who knows if people forget about it and a year from now they suddenly come back with an exciting campaign and some flashy cinematics it could. GL to them, i dont like seeing any game fail in general in this market (RIP KSP2)
On August 06 2024 16:29 Peeano wrote: I think it's next to impossible to overthrow the already well established RTS games with a clone. This game was setup for failure from the start imho. You need proper design and graphics, fun - game unique - mechanics and decent balance at launch. I think the idea of showing an unpolished Beta versions really sucks for marketing, it's hard to create hype of off an unpolished turd. It's much better to just open with a big bang. Bee hive input with an open Beta may help you polish quicker and better, but it can also lead to generic answers in problem solving, and worst of all: bad exposure.
All content I've seen so far, which is hours of it already, has still not made me excited to try out the game. In fact I've completely lost interest in the game, especially after that Tasteless interview with the director(?) a few day ago. As a director you need to control that interview and make it hype. Do it at an offline event in person or make a proper video of sick game footage and snaps of the developers working on the game, create a story of vision, effort and result and show that on stream.
I said it at the time, other games can get away with it if they are working with some novel mechanic. Unpolished can be overlooked if there’s some gripping element, and most EA successes I can think of fit that pattern.
I mean a band can drop an album preview, if the songs are compelling I’ll be hyped for it to drop when all the mixing and production is done. But if most of the songs aren’t very good, well for me to return with interest they’ll need to redo the majority off the work.
Stormgate to continue this analogy, for me it’s not like every song sucks, there’s some potential there. But for the many tracks that don’t grip me I’m unsure if there’s either the will or the way to overhaul them.
And I’m in the cohort of people that really, really wants it to succeed. Someone new or a more casual RTS fan is just looking a game that grabs them. They’re even less likely to come check it out a second time.
On the plus side I guess it’s mostly the hardcore that have even been looking at the game, so perhaps there’s that rare second chance to make a first impression.
I can’t imagine that the Frost Giant crew actually think exposing these builds is a good idea, maybe I’m wrong on that but it feels necessity forced their hand.
On August 06 2024 19:54 Harris1st wrote: I don't see it that way at all. For me the biggest problem is that the PvE modes are lacking. Be it campaign or coop. It's possible to make money with PvP as some Mobas and shooters are showing us, but they really should have focused on PvE to make money. Look at Helldivers, a pure PvE experience. Now think FG would have made their coop like this with RPG elements and a somewhat continueing character development and ever new and more difficult threats to the world that you and your friends have to stop. After a while People would have demanded a PvP experience! And then you give it to them
The game you want to make, is probably the game that FrostGiant wants to make, but FrostGiant doesn't have enough money to do both up to the level they might want.
Starcraft 2 was a game that had both and that game took 10 years and an insane amount of money to make. Frostgiant doesn't have the resources to pull that off. No company that does wants anything to do with the RTS market since it just hasn't proven to be profitable enough.
Also, while people will rightly point out numbers showing that PvP players are the minority, they also appear to be by far the more invested minority. Hardcore fans are the ones screaming out for something new to play, casuals will give something a shot if they hear it’s good, but they don’t tend to be the ones who drive things when it’s at this stage.
In the seeming absence of the cash to just drop what you want to make, you seem caught in this Catch 22 where you need the hardcore PvP crowd to drive the hype, to playtest and showcase, do your grass roots marketing etc, for a game that ultimately might benefit from not being a 1v1 focused PvP game.
It’s not just Stormgate this applies to either, most of this RTS wave seems very driven by the hardcore RTS fans. Or they’re shooting for an unambitious but polished campaign, but without much multiplayer.
I’m not sure how you get around this without cash to just drop a finished product and unleash it to the public, as you say nobody is supplying the requisite cash.
Perhaps, if this wave can’t pull it off, there will be some hope that someone else can license the FG engine and with the savings of not having to build a quality RTS engine, be able to build something new and funky on a likely AA budget (at best)
I’m no expert on engines but I have heard it’s a real issue for most of these teams as there simply isn’t an out-the-box option suited for RTS demands, and having to develop a bespoke solution every time is a big resource drain
On August 06 2024 19:54 Harris1st wrote: I don't see it that way at all. For me the biggest problem is that the PvE modes are lacking. Be it campaign or coop. It's possible to make money with PvP as some Mobas and shooters are showing us, but they really should have focused on PvE to make money. Look at Helldivers, a pure PvE experience. Now think FG would have made their coop like this with RPG elements and a somewhat continueing character development and ever new and more difficult threats to the world that you and your friends have to stop. After a while People would have demanded a PvP experience! And then you give it to them
The game you want to make, is probably the game that FrostGiant wants to make, but FrostGiant doesn't have enough money to do both up to the level they might want.
Starcraft 2 was a game that had both and that game took 10 years and an insane amount of money to make. Frostgiant doesn't have the resources to pull that off. No company that does wants anything to do with the RTS market since it just hasn't proven to be profitable enough.
Also, while people will rightly point out numbers showing that PvP players are the minority, they also appear to be by far the more invested minority. Hardcore fans are the ones screaming out for something new to play, casuals will give something a shot if they hear it’s good, but they don’t tend to be the ones who drive things when it’s at this stage.
In the seeming absence of the cash to just drop what you want to make, you seem caught in this Catch 22 where you need the hardcore PvP crowd to drive the hype, to playtest and showcase, do your grass roots marketing etc, for a game that ultimately might benefit from not being a 1v1 focused PvP game.
It’s not just Stormgate this applies to either, most of this RTS wave seems very driven by the hardcore RTS fans. Or they’re shooting for an unambitious but polished campaign, but without much multiplayer.
I’m not sure how you get around this without cash to just drop a finished product and unleash it to the public, as you say nobody is supplying the requisite cash.
Perhaps, if this wave can’t pull it off, there will be some hope that someone else can license the FG engine and with the savings of not having to build a quality RTS engine, be able to build something new and funky on a likely AA budget (at best)
I’m no expert on engines but I have heard it’s a real issue for most of these teams as there simply isn’t an out-the-box option suited for RTS demands, and having to develop a bespoke solution every time is a big resource drain
I think it was a mistake for Frostgiant to even promise a PvE campaign and Co Op at the start of this thing at all. They obviously don't have the cash anymore to pull that off and now whatever they release is going to look cheap and unpolished compared to what RTS gamers have already experienced.
They should have gone all in on the multiplayer side of things, but then in that regard, I don't like their game from a multiplayer enjoyement perspective either. I don't like a lot of the design decisions, and I mostly don't like just how similar it feels to Starcraft 2 while not feeling as polished or as balanced and with an aesthetic that I just can't grow to like.
So it's failing on both fronts for me. Maybe it would have been different if they had focused their resources on one side of the game instead of spreading themselves too thin for both. Maybe. It's too late to know now.
On August 06 2024 19:54 Harris1st wrote: I don't see it that way at all. For me the biggest problem is that the PvE modes are lacking. Be it campaign or coop. It's possible to make money with PvP as some Mobas and shooters are showing us, but they really should have focused on PvE to make money. Look at Helldivers, a pure PvE experience. Now think FG would have made their coop like this with RPG elements and a somewhat continueing character development and ever new and more difficult threats to the world that you and your friends have to stop. After a while People would have demanded a PvP experience! And then you give it to them
The game you want to make, is probably the game that FrostGiant wants to make, but FrostGiant doesn't have enough money to do both up to the level they might want.
Starcraft 2 was a game that had both and that game took 10 years and an insane amount of money to make. Frostgiant doesn't have the resources to pull that off. No company that does wants anything to do with the RTS market since it just hasn't proven to be profitable enough.
Also, while people will rightly point out numbers showing that PvP players are the minority, they also appear to be by far the more invested minority. Hardcore fans are the ones screaming out for something new to play, casuals will give something a shot if they hear it’s good, but they don’t tend to be the ones who drive things when it’s at this stage.
In the seeming absence of the cash to just drop what you want to make, you seem caught in this Catch 22 where you need the hardcore PvP crowd to drive the hype, to playtest and showcase, do your grass roots marketing etc, for a game that ultimately might benefit from not being a 1v1 focused PvP game.
It’s not just Stormgate this applies to either, most of this RTS wave seems very driven by the hardcore RTS fans. Or they’re shooting for an unambitious but polished campaign, but without much multiplayer.
I’m not sure how you get around this without cash to just drop a finished product and unleash it to the public, as you say nobody is supplying the requisite cash.
Perhaps, if this wave can’t pull it off, there will be some hope that someone else can license the FG engine and with the savings of not having to build a quality RTS engine, be able to build something new and funky on a likely AA budget (at best)
I’m no expert on engines but I have heard it’s a real issue for most of these teams as there simply isn’t an out-the-box option suited for RTS demands, and having to develop a bespoke solution every time is a big resource drain
I think it was a mistake for Frostgiant to even promise a PvE campaign and Co Op at the start of this thing at all. They obviously don't have the cash anymore to pull that off and now whatever they release is going to look cheap and unpolished compared to what RTS gamers have already experienced.
They should have gone all in on the multiplayer side of things, but then in that regard, I don't like their game from a multiplayer enjoyement perspective either. I don't like a lot of the design decisions, and I mostly don't like just how similar it feels to Starcraft 2 while not feeling as polished or as balanced and with an aesthetic that I just can't grow to like.
So it's failing on both fronts for me. Maybe it would have been different if they had focused their resources on one side of the game instead of spreading themselves too thin for both. Maybe. It's too late to know now.
Battle Aces impressed me in this regard, and when I first heard of it on paper I really didn’t like the idea. But they had an idea, stuck it out there and it’s semi-polished already, and hey I actually found it much more compelling than I expected.
Not perfect but there’s a vision there, and the means to actually achieve what that vision is. Stormgate for me lacks both, I feel community feedback has somewhat bled through into a design-by-committee problem.
And the problems I do have with SC2, I don’t feel they’ve really solved either. It feels just as, if not more snowbally for example. You have, if anything fewer skirmishes, probably as a consequence of the aforementioned. I’m judging off a handful of games from one tournament in this build but games were either cheeses, or macro games where people danced around and ran away a lot and tried to kill workers instead, into one big engagement deciding the game.
I think if it lagged behind SC2 in some areas, but improved it in others then it being quite iterative is OK, instead it’s just worse in some areas (esp design and sound), but doesn’t have much to show in terms of improvements, or different approaches elsewhere.
SC2 can be brutal, but to me there’s few interactions as compelling yet as bio versus ling/bling or marine tank wars. I was a proponent of reducing TTK, but I don’t think it actually works here. Without devastating AoE it just seems we see very little but kiting and more kiting, a poke and if you’re at a disadvantage a fighting retreat where you don’t really get punished for that poke.
To give credit they did a pretty good job with the QoL stuff, but I never personally had an issue with macro in previous titles, indeed I actively enjoy it. But for some players that is an improvement so I’ll give em that.
On August 06 2024 19:54 Harris1st wrote: I don't see it that way at all. For me the biggest problem is that the PvE modes are lacking. Be it campaign or coop. It's possible to make money with PvP as some Mobas and shooters are showing us, but they really should have focused on PvE to make money. Look at Helldivers, a pure PvE experience. Now think FG would have made their coop like this with RPG elements and a somewhat continueing character development and ever new and more difficult threats to the world that you and your friends have to stop. After a while People would have demanded a PvP experience! And then you give it to them
The game you want to make, is probably the game that FrostGiant wants to make, but FrostGiant doesn't have enough money to do both up to the level they might want.
Starcraft 2 was a game that had both and that game took 10 years and an insane amount of money to make. Frostgiant doesn't have the resources to pull that off. No company that does wants anything to do with the RTS market since it just hasn't proven to be profitable enough.
Also, while people will rightly point out numbers showing that PvP players are the minority, they also appear to be by far the more invested minority. Hardcore fans are the ones screaming out for something new to play, casuals will give something a shot if they hear it’s good, but they don’t tend to be the ones who drive things when it’s at this stage.
In the seeming absence of the cash to just drop what you want to make, you seem caught in this Catch 22 where you need the hardcore PvP crowd to drive the hype, to playtest and showcase, do your grass roots marketing etc, for a game that ultimately might benefit from not being a 1v1 focused PvP game.
It’s not just Stormgate this applies to either, most of this RTS wave seems very driven by the hardcore RTS fans. Or they’re shooting for an unambitious but polished campaign, but without much multiplayer.
I’m not sure how you get around this without cash to just drop a finished product and unleash it to the public, as you say nobody is supplying the requisite cash.
Perhaps, if this wave can’t pull it off, there will be some hope that someone else can license the FG engine and with the savings of not having to build a quality RTS engine, be able to build something new and funky on a likely AA budget (at best)
I’m no expert on engines but I have heard it’s a real issue for most of these teams as there simply isn’t an out-the-box option suited for RTS demands, and having to develop a bespoke solution every time is a big resource drain
I think it was a mistake for Frostgiant to even promise a PvE campaign and Co Op at the start of this thing at all. They obviously don't have the cash anymore to pull that off and now whatever they release is going to look cheap and unpolished compared to what RTS gamers have already experienced.
They should have gone all in on the multiplayer side of things, but then in that regard, I don't like their game from a multiplayer enjoyement perspective either. I don't like a lot of the design decisions, and I mostly don't like just how similar it feels to Starcraft 2 while not feeling as polished or as balanced and with an aesthetic that I just can't grow to like.
So it's failing on both fronts for me. Maybe it would have been different if they had focused their resources on one side of the game instead of spreading themselves too thin for both. Maybe. It's too late to know now.
Battle Aces impressed me in this regard, and when I first heard of it on paper I really didn’t like the idea. But they had an idea, stuck it out there and it’s semi-polished already, and hey I actually found it much more compelling than I expected.
Not perfect but there’s a vision there, and the means to actually achieve what that vision is. Stormgate for me lacks both, I feel community feedback has somewhat bled through into a design-by-committee problem.
And the problems I do have with SC2, I don’t feel they’ve really solved either. It feels just as, if not more snowbally for example. You have, if anything fewer skirmishes, probably as a consequence of the aforementioned. I’m judging off a handful of games from one tournament in this build but games were either cheeses, or macro games where people danced around and ran away a lot and tried to kill workers instead, into one big engagement deciding the game.
I think if it lagged behind SC2 in some areas, but improved it in others then it being quite iterative is OK, instead it’s just worse in some areas (esp design and sound), but doesn’t have much to show in terms of improvements, or different approaches elsewhere.
SC2 can be brutal, but to me there’s few interactions as compelling yet as bio versus ling/bling or marine tank wars. I was a proponent of reducing TTK, but I don’t think it actually works here. Without devastating AoE it just seems we see very little but kiting and more kiting, a poke and if you’re at a disadvantage a fighting retreat where you don’t really get punished for that poke.
To give credit they did a pretty good job with the QoL stuff, but I never personally had an issue with macro in previous titles, indeed I actively enjoy it. But for some players that is an improvement so I’ll give em that.
Yea Battle Aces I know for sure I'm actually going to play. I don't know if I'm going to make it a main competitive game for myself (probably not) but it's at least different enough that when I play it I won't be thinking to myself, "why am I playing this instead of Starcraft 2?"
It seems like such an obvious thing, but I guess it isn't.
I had the feeling of "why am I playing this instead of SC2?" at times during the alpha/beta. Mainly because co-op progress was getting wiped and it was mostly players who were much better than me (pro/semi-pro) playing. I would play the first week or so and then get stomped 80% of games.
Also SC2 has a lot of quality of life things that I realize how much I missed such as:
-Quit and rewind (so convenient for learning) -User profiles, match history, checking other players' history after the game -Achievements/in-game progress (a lot of people don't care, but I like them) -My PC is old as hell so it doesn't run Stormgate well (runs SC2 fine). -I wasn't tired of SC2 and enjoying playing it again for the first time in a few years. -I found it fun to keep learning and improving in a well-established meta where as SG is all over the place (which is also fun, sometimes). -Balance is better in SC2. -No placeholder audio/graphics or other bugs in SC2 (obviously).
There's a ton of reasons to play SC2 over SG.
That said, I'm still having fun in SG - I'm enjoying the 1v1 experience more and more. There's really a lot to learn.
I had a pretty cool game yesterday, Vanguard vs. Celestial, that ended with a bunch of flying archangels slamming down on me. I wasn't even mad, I thought it looked really badass, considering the current state of the graphics. It was then fun to try to counter them with deployed hedgehogs - but the guy eventually overwhelmed me. I killed 3 of his bases on Jagged Maw before remembering the "hidden" middle bases are a thing. He had 5 collection arrays in there, with towers everywhere ... My bad for not really checking. I genuinely had fun though.
I plan on going back and forth between SC2 and SG.
I blew through the campaign quickly. It's missing a lot of "fun" stuff like:
-Upgrading/improving units between missions -Story dialogue between missions (like talking to people on the Hyperion in WoL) -Achievements are big. I always liked "complete this mission on hard and take over 3 lightning areas in the first 8 minutes" or whatever. Adds replayability. -Audio being off (Amara often sounded quiet to me) -Bugs (cinematic sound cut out for me). I also couldn't figure out the "put this data thing in the tornado" side quest.
Hopefully they plan on going back and adding stuff like that.
I'm very happy to keep waiting and watching them improve the game. I think the matchups are all pretty good, besides CvC and morph core nonsense.
On August 06 2024 19:54 Harris1st wrote: I don't see it that way at all. For me the biggest problem is that the PvE modes are lacking. Be it campaign or coop. It's possible to make money with PvP as some Mobas and shooters are showing us, but they really should have focused on PvE to make money. Look at Helldivers, a pure PvE experience. Now think FG would have made their coop like this with RPG elements and a somewhat continueing character development and ever new and more difficult threats to the world that you and your friends have to stop. After a while People would have demanded a PvP experience! And then you give it to them
The game you want to make, is probably the game that FrostGiant wants to make, but FrostGiant doesn't have enough money to do both up to the level they might want.
Starcraft 2 was a game that had both and that game took 10 years and an insane amount of money to make. Frostgiant doesn't have the resources to pull that off. No company that does wants anything to do with the RTS market since it just hasn't proven to be profitable enough.
Also, while people will rightly point out numbers showing that PvP players are the minority, they also appear to be by far the more invested minority. Hardcore fans are the ones screaming out for something new to play, casuals will give something a shot if they hear it’s good, but they don’t tend to be the ones who drive things when it’s at this stage.
In the seeming absence of the cash to just drop what you want to make, you seem caught in this Catch 22 where you need the hardcore PvP crowd to drive the hype, to playtest and showcase, do your grass roots marketing etc, for a game that ultimately might benefit from not being a 1v1 focused PvP game.
It’s not just Stormgate this applies to either, most of this RTS wave seems very driven by the hardcore RTS fans. Or they’re shooting for an unambitious but polished campaign, but without much multiplayer.
I’m not sure how you get around this without cash to just drop a finished product and unleash it to the public, as you say nobody is supplying the requisite cash.
Perhaps, if this wave can’t pull it off, there will be some hope that someone else can license the FG engine and with the savings of not having to build a quality RTS engine, be able to build something new and funky on a likely AA budget (at best)
I’m no expert on engines but I have heard it’s a real issue for most of these teams as there simply isn’t an out-the-box option suited for RTS demands, and having to develop a bespoke solution every time is a big resource drain
I think it was a mistake for Frostgiant to even promise a PvE campaign and Co Op at the start of this thing at all. They obviously don't have the cash anymore to pull that off and now whatever they release is going to look cheap and unpolished compared to what RTS gamers have already experienced.
They should have gone all in on the multiplayer side of things
The overwhelming majority of both players and monetisation comes from campaign and co-op. They outnumber ranked competitive by an order of magnitude.
On the contrary i think they've gone way too far overprioritising competitive play at the expense of everything else - especially because of recent developments like demanding ring 0 access to your PC in order to launch the game. No competitor (current or past) has required that and it's strictly a downside for campaign and co-op players.
-My PC is old as hell so it doesn't run Stormgate well (runs SC2 fine).
I have the best hardware available with the best daily stable overclocks and Stormgate didn't run well. SC2 was clearly at least around 3-5x faster.
On August 06 2024 19:54 Harris1st wrote: I don't see it that way at all. For me the biggest problem is that the PvE modes are lacking. Be it campaign or coop. It's possible to make money with PvP as some Mobas and shooters are showing us, but they really should have focused on PvE to make money. Look at Helldivers, a pure PvE experience. Now think FG would have made their coop like this with RPG elements and a somewhat continueing character development and ever new and more difficult threats to the world that you and your friends have to stop. After a while People would have demanded a PvP experience! And then you give it to them
The game you want to make, is probably the game that FrostGiant wants to make, but FrostGiant doesn't have enough money to do both up to the level they might want.
Starcraft 2 was a game that had both and that game took 10 years and an insane amount of money to make. Frostgiant doesn't have the resources to pull that off. No company that does wants anything to do with the RTS market since it just hasn't proven to be profitable enough.
Also, while people will rightly point out numbers showing that PvP players are the minority, they also appear to be by far the more invested minority. Hardcore fans are the ones screaming out for something new to play, casuals will give something a shot if they hear it’s good, but they don’t tend to be the ones who drive things when it’s at this stage.
In the seeming absence of the cash to just drop what you want to make, you seem caught in this Catch 22 where you need the hardcore PvP crowd to drive the hype, to playtest and showcase, do your grass roots marketing etc, for a game that ultimately might benefit from not being a 1v1 focused PvP game.
It’s not just Stormgate this applies to either, most of this RTS wave seems very driven by the hardcore RTS fans. Or they’re shooting for an unambitious but polished campaign, but without much multiplayer.
I’m not sure how you get around this without cash to just drop a finished product and unleash it to the public, as you say nobody is supplying the requisite cash.
Perhaps, if this wave can’t pull it off, there will be some hope that someone else can license the FG engine and with the savings of not having to build a quality RTS engine, be able to build something new and funky on a likely AA budget (at best)
I’m no expert on engines but I have heard it’s a real issue for most of these teams as there simply isn’t an out-the-box option suited for RTS demands, and having to develop a bespoke solution every time is a big resource drain
I think it was a mistake for Frostgiant to even promise a PvE campaign and Co Op at the start of this thing at all. They obviously don't have the cash anymore to pull that off and now whatever they release is going to look cheap and unpolished compared to what RTS gamers have already experienced.
They should have gone all in on the multiplayer side of things
The overwhelming majority of both players and monetisation comes from campaign and co-op. They outnumber ranked competitive by an order of magnitude.
On the contrary i think they've gone way too far overprioritising competitive play at the expense of everything else - especially because of recent developments like demanding ring 0 access to your PC in order to launch the game. No competitor (current or past) has required that and it's strictly a downside for campaign and co-op players.
-My PC is old as hell so it doesn't run Stormgate well (runs SC2 fine).
I have the best hardware available with the best daily stable overclocks and Stormgate didn't run well. SC2 was clearly at least around 3-5x faster.
I get that and I understand that, but then at that point I'd be totally supportive of them leaning more in the other direction of making an RTS that prioritizes the single player and co op experience and with perhaps less of a focus on competitive multiplayer like the Dawn of War or Command and Conquer Generals series.
The point remains that it is exceedingly difficult and expensive to make an RTS that is focused on both. It's even more difficult to do it and make it stand out when you are living in the shadow of Starcraft 2 which is still the greatest example of a game in the genre that shines at both elements.
Stormgate isn't doing it for me in either direction.
On August 06 2024 19:54 Harris1st wrote: I don't see it that way at all. For me the biggest problem is that the PvE modes are lacking. Be it campaign or coop. It's possible to make money with PvP as some Mobas and shooters are showing us, but they really should have focused on PvE to make money. Look at Helldivers, a pure PvE experience. Now think FG would have made their coop like this with RPG elements and a somewhat continueing character development and ever new and more difficult threats to the world that you and your friends have to stop. After a while People would have demanded a PvP experience! And then you give it to them
The game you want to make, is probably the game that FrostGiant wants to make, but FrostGiant doesn't have enough money to do both up to the level they might want.
Starcraft 2 was a game that had both and that game took 10 years and an insane amount of money to make. Frostgiant doesn't have the resources to pull that off. No company that does wants anything to do with the RTS market since it just hasn't proven to be profitable enough.
Also, while people will rightly point out numbers showing that PvP players are the minority, they also appear to be by far the more invested minority. Hardcore fans are the ones screaming out for something new to play, casuals will give something a shot if they hear it’s good, but they don’t tend to be the ones who drive things when it’s at this stage.
In the seeming absence of the cash to just drop what you want to make, you seem caught in this Catch 22 where you need the hardcore PvP crowd to drive the hype, to playtest and showcase, do your grass roots marketing etc, for a game that ultimately might benefit from not being a 1v1 focused PvP game.
It’s not just Stormgate this applies to either, most of this RTS wave seems very driven by the hardcore RTS fans. Or they’re shooting for an unambitious but polished campaign, but without much multiplayer.
I’m not sure how you get around this without cash to just drop a finished product and unleash it to the public, as you say nobody is supplying the requisite cash.
Perhaps, if this wave can’t pull it off, there will be some hope that someone else can license the FG engine and with the savings of not having to build a quality RTS engine, be able to build something new and funky on a likely AA budget (at best)
I’m no expert on engines but I have heard it’s a real issue for most of these teams as there simply isn’t an out-the-box option suited for RTS demands, and having to develop a bespoke solution every time is a big resource drain
I think it was a mistake for Frostgiant to even promise a PvE campaign and Co Op at the start of this thing at all. They obviously don't have the cash anymore to pull that off and now whatever they release is going to look cheap and unpolished compared to what RTS gamers have already experienced.
They should have gone all in on the multiplayer side of things
The overwhelming majority of both players and monetisation comes from campaign and co-op. They outnumber ranked competitive by an order of magnitude.
On the contrary i think they've gone way too far overprioritising competitive play at the expense of everything else - especially because of recent developments like demanding ring 0 access to your PC in order to launch the game. No competitor (current or past) has required that and it's strictly a downside for campaign and co-op players.
-My PC is old as hell so it doesn't run Stormgate well (runs SC2 fine).
I have the best hardware available with the best daily stable overclocks and Stormgate didn't run well. SC2 was clearly at least around 3-5x faster.
I get that and I understand that, but then at that point I'd be totally supportive of them leaning more in the other direction of making an RTS that prioritizes the single player and co op experience and with perhaps less of a focus on competitive multiplayer like the Dawn of War or Command and Conquer Generals series.
The point remains that it is exceedingly difficult and expensive to make an RTS that is focused on both. It's even more difficult to do it and make it stand out when you are living in the shadow of Starcraft 2 which is still the greatest example of a game in the genre that shines at both elements.
Stormgate isn't doing it for me in either direction.
Yeah i think Battle Aces is doing a good job with that hyperfocus on shortform 1v1 competitive.
EPT
