Sad thing is SG doesnt bring any next gen to the table.
In 1v1 SC2 i can troll as zerg and build 400 Overseers and put them in one control group. Then stack them and patrol them in the enemy base while rapid fire pressing c.
The game lacks super hard but doesnt crash. Thats like 2x full supply (both players) plus the mass spore forests, 400 Overseers and like 2-3 changelings/Overseer.
SG engine is trash, it would have been good 20 yrs ago but not in 2024
I just don't buy into Frost Giant needing more time to complete their masterpiece. You can say things need more time, and surely they do, but we can certainly comment on the studio's decision making, on what's partially finished, and what Frost Giant felt was important to bring to an audience by EA.
It's an odd feeling because I was hyped for years and had a lot of fun with the game when I got access last October. I also really liked when we saw that monk vs TLO showmatch clip, way before anyone had access. It looked vibrant and colorful, with lower unit counts and interesting little skirmishes. I was happy to look past the poor teaser trailer and remained confident that the factions would ultimately feel unique. I was also cautiously optimistic, but hopeful, about the worldbuilding and story.
I have no idea what happened, all we can judge is what comes out the other end. And these things I was hopeful for ultimately undelivered for me. So I thought oh well, I guess I'm just not the audience for this game.
The thing is, once your studio starts listening to reddit, or the public outcry, or whatever, I think your game is pretty much screwed. I don't know how you move forward or retain any confidence in yourself and your intuition at that point. I always thought the whole idea was to deliver something the audience can't imagine themselves, and couldn't make. Like something they didn't know they wanted. Like a big surprise! I guess when things start going really bad, you just listen 1:1 to your customers. But I don't know how you make a great game like that. So to me, time isn't really the issue, it's the quality of the imagination of the devs, what they think is cool and fun in RTS, and ultimately a lack of strong moves and confidence in bold ideas.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I will agree with Spartak on one thing, though: I'd much prefer a game that I can go hard on and play for 10+ years than casually dabble in a few small RTS and never feel too invested. But I think we have to wait for that while continuing to enjoy old games.
On November 23 2024 00:17 RogerChillingworth wrote: Like something they didn't know they wanted. Like a big surprise!
IMO, this is the best part of video games. I think 1980 Pacman was the first time that happened... or perhaps in the 70s when Billiard Halls with several Pinball machines put a Pong game alongside their offerings.
On November 23 2024 00:17 RogerChillingworth wrote: I just don't buy into Frost Giant needing more time to complete their masterpiece. You can say things need more time, and surely they do, but we can certainly comment on the studio's decision making, on what's partially finished, and what Frost Giant felt was important to bring to an audience by EA.
It's an odd feeling because I was hyped for years and had a lot of fun with the game when I got access last October. I also really liked when we saw that monk vs TLO showmatch clip, way before anyone had access. It looked vibrant and colorful, with lower unit counts and interesting little skirmishes. I was happy to look past the poor teaser trailer and remained confident that the factions would ultimately feel unique. I was also cautiously optimistic, but hopeful, about the worldbuilding and story.
I have no idea what happened, all we can judge is what comes out the other end. And these things I was hopeful for ultimately undelivered for me. So I thought oh well, I guess I'm just not the audience for this game.
The thing is, once your studio starts listening to reddit, or the public outcry, or whatever, I think your game is pretty much screwed. I don't know how you move forward or retain any confidence in yourself and your intuition at that point. I always thought the whole idea was to deliver something the audience can't imagine themselves, and couldn't make. Like something they didn't know they wanted. Like a big surprise! I guess when things start going really bad, you just listen 1:1 to your customers. But I don't know how you make a great game like that. So to me, time isn't really the issue, it's the quality of the imagination of the devs, what they think is cool and fun in RTS, and ultimately a lack of strong moves and confidence in bold ideas.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I will agree with Spartak on one thing, though: I'd much prefer a game that I can go hard on and play for 10+ years than casually dabble in a few small RTS and never feel too invested. But I think we have to wait for that while continuing to enjoy old games.
Yeah I think it’s fine to listen to some crit, features people want and how they prioritise them, when you start to factor it in for the overall vision of your game that is when problems arise.
It was still very much the ‘old internet’ then and nothing comparable to the outrage of Reddit era internet, I still recall plenty of pushback on forums from Blizz RTS fans that WC3 was gonna be some kind of RPG/RTS hybrid. But they stuck the course and stuck the landing. And for me and indeed many, a favourite RTS ever made was dropped.
The example that always springs to mind was what if Metal Gear Solid 2 was in development today, and it leaked that Kojima was replacing Solid Snake, basically iconic after only one game, as the protagonist. There’d be a giant shitshow! Raiden wasn’t as badass as Snake but this also let Kojima do different things narratively and I felt MGS2 was a great game.
Agreed 100%, I just want a game I can main for years. RTS is kinda complicated, it’s quite a time investment if you wanna be decent at PvP. An investment I’m fine to put in for one game, but hard to do for multiple titles on my current adult life schedule
Yeah, I mean listening to reddit about how your main character should look is a pretty bad sign. Like maybe reddit gets it right sometimes, but the studio should be setting trends. Like setting trends for other studios. Not listening to consumers. If you want to be like Blizzard and not just impersonate them, you need artists and leaders with very strong creative intuition. As veteran and technical as this FG team is, I just don't see this kind of intuition in their studio.
It's also a bit abstract, too, because it was eventually clear what Stormgate's in-game UI was going to be, and how Frost Giant was just going to use discord as their social hub. Like this is an example of poor intuition, lack of strong leadership, and too much "listening"--like listening in the abstract: discord is popular, people are using stormgate discord, so that's "good enough", when in reality it's pretty dogshit.
If it's a question of resources, a question of bandwidth, then the priorities should have been so much better. Like okay, we want a co-op component to the game, we want a campaign, and we obviously need 1v1. It seems like it'd be a great idea to make co-op campaigns 60% of the focus and 1v1 about 40%. No 3v3, no sc2 style co-op. Just focus, even if it takes years, on a story and world that isn't corny ass, that is mature and adult, has real science in it, discovery, adventure, and fulfill your story/casual gamer quota and co-op quota with one epic mode. And on the other hand, make 1v1 cutthroat and wild and brutal and mechanically challenging, since non-tryhards ditch out of the mode anyways after losing 5 games. So might as well make it for the people who are likely to stick around and hunger for a bit of competition.
There is obviously the component of oh shit, we're running out of money, which is another weird calculation on their part. I understand that engineers are expensive and you need to offer a competitive salary or people bounce. But shit man, take longer with a smaller team who won't bounce, and then pay a James Anhalt a fat one because that guy's like wagyu beef 3 ways (still waiting for Anhalt voice acting). Or just make a sick 2D game so it's lightweight, your artists have more fun, and you don't need as much bullshit!
At the end of the day there is so much to wonder about and scratch your head over. It's hard to focus on any one thing, like critiquing the Star Wars prequels. And while Stormgate isn't quite a Star Wars prequel, it is kind of like one of those Star Wars sequels. Where you just think damn, we could have done this better. xD
On November 22 2024 21:36 gingerfluffmuffnr2 wrote: Sad thing is SG doesnt bring any next gen to the table.
In 1v1 SC2 i can troll as zerg and build 400 Overseers and put them in one control group. Then stack them and patrol them in the enemy base while rapid fire pressing c.
The game lacks super hard but doesnt crash. Thats like 2x full supply (both players) plus the mass spore forests, 400 Overseers and like 2-3 changelings/Overseer.
SG engine is trash, it would have been good 20 yrs ago but not in 2024
You know the saddest thing is we can probably make a better version of RTS just with SC2 editor.... with modded units and exciting maps. LOL.
On November 23 2024 00:17 RogerChillingworth wrote: I just don't buy into Frost Giant needing more time to complete their masterpiece. You can say things need more time, and surely they do, but we can certainly comment on the studio's decision making, on what's partially finished, and what Frost Giant felt was important to bring to an audience by EA.
Personally I'd still fall into the "they need more time" camp. Especially with things like 3v3, UI improvements like hotkeys and social features, and a map editor on the way.
Much of the gameplay we have so far is solid. The campaign missions we got are good, although the story and characters are boring. The world building is certainly lacking.
1v1 is quite solid. I've watched plenty of fun matches. It needs work regarding speed and pacing, ttk, creeps, and maps and so on to get right. But the foundations are there.
Not to mention the visuals, for many people the weakest part of the game, are still gradually improving with each patch. The cinematics and cover art suck, but the art style works fine when you're actually playing. If they manage to put more effort into the maps, terrain, lighting, shading etc, the game will look great
Frost Giant's mistakes are largely in the business front, not the gameplay. The EA release was poorly planned, they clearly expected to have more money from it, and expected fans to be supportive of an unfinished game. They aren't. The best EA games are ones with a narrow scope but a lot more polish.
On November 23 2024 00:17 RogerChillingworth wrote: I just don't buy into Frost Giant needing more time to complete their masterpiece. You can say things need more time, and surely they do, but we can certainly comment on the studio's decision making, on what's partially finished, and what Frost Giant felt was important to bring to an audience by EA.
Personally I'd still fall into the "they need more time" camp. Especially with things like 3v3, UI improvements like hotkeys and social features, and a map editor on the way.
Much of the gameplay we have so far is solid. The campaign missions we got are good, although the story and characters are boring. The world building is certainly lacking.
1v1 is quite solid. I've watched plenty of fun matches. It needs work regarding speed and pacing, ttk, creeps, and maps and so on to get right. But the foundations are there.
Not to mention the visuals, for many people the weakest part of the game, are still gradually improving with each patch. The cinematics and cover art suck, but the art style works fine when you're actually playing. If they manage to put more effort into the maps, terrain, lighting, shading etc, the game will look great
Frost Giant's mistakes are largely in the business front, not the gameplay. The EA release was poorly planned, they clearly expected to have more money from it, and expected fans to be supportive of an unfinished game. They aren't. The best EA games are ones with a narrow scope but a lot more polish.
If it wasn’t the gameplay the rating and player count won’t be like this low. Even rogue command is getting similar number but less dip
What exactly is the definition of "NEXT GEN RTS" to be exact? And why are we looking for it? I hear all this next gen talk but does anyone even really know what their looking for? lol
On November 23 2024 00:17 RogerChillingworth wrote: I just don't buy into Frost Giant needing more time to complete their masterpiece. You can say things need more time, and surely they do, but we can certainly comment on the studio's decision making, on what's partially finished, and what Frost Giant felt was important to bring to an audience by EA.
Personally I'd still fall into the "they need more time" camp. Especially with things like 3v3, UI improvements like hotkeys and social features, and a map editor on the way.
Much of the gameplay we have so far is solid. The campaign missions we got are good, although the story and characters are boring. The world building is certainly lacking.
1v1 is quite solid. I've watched plenty of fun matches. It needs work regarding speed and pacing, ttk, creeps, and maps and so on to get right. But the foundations are there.
Not to mention the visuals, for many people the weakest part of the game, are still gradually improving with each patch. The cinematics and cover art suck, but the art style works fine when you're actually playing. If they manage to put more effort into the maps, terrain, lighting, shading etc, the game will look great
Frost Giant's mistakes are largely in the business front, not the gameplay. The EA release was poorly planned, they clearly expected to have more money from it, and expected fans to be supportive of an unfinished game. They aren't. The best EA games are ones with a narrow scope but a lot more polish.
If it wasn’t the gameplay the rating and player count won’t be like this low. Even rogue command is getting similar number but less dip
You can check the reviews for yourself. A lot of the negative reviews have less than 1 hour. Do you think those people had the time to judge the gameplay in that time? The most common complaints in negative reviews are about campaign cinematics/cutscenes, overall visuals, audio, performance etc. A lot of people opened the game, saw the first cutscene, closed the game and left a negative review.
On November 23 2024 00:17 RogerChillingworth wrote: I just don't buy into Frost Giant needing more time to complete their masterpiece. You can say things need more time, and surely they do, but we can certainly comment on the studio's decision making, on what's partially finished, and what Frost Giant felt was important to bring to an audience by EA.
Personally I'd still fall into the "they need more time" camp. Especially with things like 3v3, UI improvements like hotkeys and social features, and a map editor on the way.
Much of the gameplay we have so far is solid. The campaign missions we got are good, although the story and characters are boring. The world building is certainly lacking.
1v1 is quite solid. I've watched plenty of fun matches. It needs work regarding speed and pacing, ttk, creeps, and maps and so on to get right. But the foundations are there.
Not to mention the visuals, for many people the weakest part of the game, are still gradually improving with each patch. The cinematics and cover art suck, but the art style works fine when you're actually playing. If they manage to put more effort into the maps, terrain, lighting, shading etc, the game will look great
Frost Giant's mistakes are largely in the business front, not the gameplay. The EA release was poorly planned, they clearly expected to have more money from it, and expected fans to be supportive of an unfinished game. They aren't. The best EA games are ones with a narrow scope but a lot more polish.
If it wasn’t the gameplay the rating and player count won’t be like this low. Even rogue command is getting similar number but less dip
You can check the reviews for yourself. A lot of the negative reviews have less than 1 hour. Do you think those people had the time to judge the gameplay in that time? The most common complaints in negative reviews are about campaign cinematics/cutscenes, overall visuals, audio, performance etc. A lot of people opened the game, saw the first cutscene, closed the game and left a negative review.
How about making the first hour...you know...fun? Usually budget runs out towards the end of a game, not in the beginning
Nah, you have to play 60 hours to soak up in the devs' genius. As Todd 'It just works!' Howard tought us. (Spoiler: it's not fun even after 60 hours. You either skipped this game or kickstarted/invested in it and now trying to protect it everywhere from haters).
On November 23 2024 00:17 RogerChillingworth wrote: I just don't buy into Frost Giant needing more time to complete their masterpiece. You can say things need more time, and surely they do, but we can certainly comment on the studio's decision making, on what's partially finished, and what Frost Giant felt was important to bring to an audience by EA.
Personally I'd still fall into the "they need more time" camp. Especially with things like 3v3, UI improvements like hotkeys and social features, and a map editor on the way.
Much of the gameplay we have so far is solid. The campaign missions we got are good, although the story and characters are boring. The world building is certainly lacking.
1v1 is quite solid. I've watched plenty of fun matches. It needs work regarding speed and pacing, ttk, creeps, and maps and so on to get right. But the foundations are there.
Not to mention the visuals, for many people the weakest part of the game, are still gradually improving with each patch. The cinematics and cover art suck, but the art style works fine when you're actually playing. If they manage to put more effort into the maps, terrain, lighting, shading etc, the game will look great
Frost Giant's mistakes are largely in the business front, not the gameplay. The EA release was poorly planned, they clearly expected to have more money from it, and expected fans to be supportive of an unfinished game. They aren't. The best EA games are ones with a narrow scope but a lot more polish.
If it wasn’t the gameplay the rating and player count won’t be like this low. Even rogue command is getting similar number but less dip
You can check the reviews for yourself. A lot of the negative reviews have less than 1 hour. Do you think those people had the time to judge the gameplay in that time? The most common complaints in negative reviews are about campaign cinematics/cutscenes, overall visuals, audio, performance etc. A lot of people opened the game, saw the first cutscene, closed the game and left a negative review.
How about making the first hour...you know...fun? Usually budget runs out towards the end of a game, not in the beginning
It is not about the game being unfun. Some people might have found it unfun of course but that's not because the review score is so low, which is what I was responding to. A lot of reviews complain about presentation and production quality. Most of those reviews with less than 1 hour played aren't complaining about the first hour being unfun.
So, you launch the game. You see low quality cinematic, low quality main menu, then you start the campaign and play the first mission. You see low quality dialogues, low quality models, low quality animations, low quality UI, low quality sound effects. And all of this is under 15 minutes. But somehow reviews under 1h in which players complain about low quality aren't representative.
On November 23 2024 00:17 RogerChillingworth wrote: I just don't buy into Frost Giant needing more time to complete their masterpiece. You can say things need more time, and surely they do, but we can certainly comment on the studio's decision making, on what's partially finished, and what Frost Giant felt was important to bring to an audience by EA.
Personally I'd still fall into the "they need more time" camp. Especially with things like 3v3, UI improvements like hotkeys and social features, and a map editor on the way.
Much of the gameplay we have so far is solid. The campaign missions we got are good, although the story and characters are boring. The world building is certainly lacking.
1v1 is quite solid. I've watched plenty of fun matches. It needs work regarding speed and pacing, ttk, creeps, and maps and so on to get right. But the foundations are there.
Not to mention the visuals, for many people the weakest part of the game, are still gradually improving with each patch. The cinematics and cover art suck, but the art style works fine when you're actually playing. If they manage to put more effort into the maps, terrain, lighting, shading etc, the game will look great
Frost Giant's mistakes are largely in the business front, not the gameplay. The EA release was poorly planned, they clearly expected to have more money from it, and expected fans to be supportive of an unfinished game. They aren't. The best EA games are ones with a narrow scope but a lot more polish.
If it wasn’t the gameplay the rating and player count won’t be like this low. Even rogue command is getting similar number but less dip
You can check the reviews for yourself. A lot of the negative reviews have less than 1 hour. Do you think those people had the time to judge the gameplay in that time? The most common complaints in negative reviews are about campaign cinematics/cutscenes, overall visuals, audio, performance etc. A lot of people opened the game, saw the first cutscene, closed the game and left a negative review.
How about making the first hour...you know...fun? Usually budget runs out towards the end of a game, not in the beginning
It is not about the game being unfun. Some people might have found it unfun of course but that's not because the review score is so low, which is what I was responding to. A lot of reviews complain about presentation and production quality. Most of those reviews with less than 1 hour played aren't complainşng about the first hour being unfun.
Or maybe thats just your opinion, man
I was responding to the notion that the reason review scores were so low is because of gameplay. You can check negative reviews to see what is the issue that has been raised the most.
On November 24 2024 19:46 ChillFlame wrote: So, you launch the game. You see low quality cinematic, low quality main menu, then you start the campaign and play the first mission. You see low quality dialogues, low quality models, low quality animations, low quality UI, low quality sound effects. And all of this is under 15 minutes. But somehow reviews under 1h in which players complain about low quality aren't representative.
I didn't say they weren't representative. If you are going to be such a dedicated hater to create a new account for the explicit purpose of shitting on a game, at least pay attention. Be a high quality hater.
On November 23 2024 00:17 RogerChillingworth wrote: I just don't buy into Frost Giant needing more time to complete their masterpiece. You can say things need more time, and surely they do, but we can certainly comment on the studio's decision making, on what's partially finished, and what Frost Giant felt was important to bring to an audience by EA.
Personally I'd still fall into the "they need more time" camp. Especially with things like 3v3, UI improvements like hotkeys and social features, and a map editor on the way.
Much of the gameplay we have so far is solid. The campaign missions we got are good, although the story and characters are boring. The world building is certainly lacking.
1v1 is quite solid. I've watched plenty of fun matches. It needs work regarding speed and pacing, ttk, creeps, and maps and so on to get right. But the foundations are there.
Not to mention the visuals, for many people the weakest part of the game, are still gradually improving with each patch. The cinematics and cover art suck, but the art style works fine when you're actually playing. If they manage to put more effort into the maps, terrain, lighting, shading etc, the game will look great
Frost Giant's mistakes are largely in the business front, not the gameplay. The EA release was poorly planned, they clearly expected to have more money from it, and expected fans to be supportive of an unfinished game. They aren't. The best EA games are ones with a narrow scope but a lot more polish.
If it wasn’t the gameplay the rating and player count won’t be like this low. Even rogue command is getting similar number but less dip
You can check the reviews for yourself. A lot of the negative reviews have less than 1 hour. Do you think those people had the time to judge the gameplay in that time? The most common complaints in negative reviews are about campaign cinematics/cutscenes, overall visuals, audio, performance etc. A lot of people opened the game, saw the first cutscene, closed the game and left a negative review.
How about making the first hour...you know...fun? Usually budget runs out towards the end of a game, not in the beginning
It is not about the game being unfun. Some people might have found it unfun of course but that's not because the review score is so low, which is what I was responding to. A lot of reviews complain about presentation and production quality. Most of those reviews with less than 1 hour played aren't complainşng about the first hour being unfun.
Or maybe thats just your opinion, man
I was responding to the notion that the reason review scores were so low is because of gameplay. You can check negative reviews to see what is the issue that has been raised the most.
On November 24 2024 19:46 ChillFlame wrote: So, you launch the game. You see low quality cinematic, low quality main menu, then you start the campaign and play the first mission. You see low quality dialogues, low quality models, low quality animations, low quality UI, low quality sound effects. And all of this is under 15 minutes. But somehow reviews under 1h in which players complain about low quality aren't representative.
I didn't say they weren't representative. If you are going to be such a dedicated hater to create a new account for the explicit purpose of shitting on a game, at least pay attention. Be a high quality hater.
At least I am honest, because I do it for free. And I am right. BTW, it's my first and only account.
On November 23 2024 00:17 RogerChillingworth wrote: I just don't buy into Frost Giant needing more time to complete their masterpiece. You can say things need more time, and surely they do, but we can certainly comment on the studio's decision making, on what's partially finished, and what Frost Giant felt was important to bring to an audience by EA.
Personally I'd still fall into the "they need more time" camp. Especially with things like 3v3, UI improvements like hotkeys and social features, and a map editor on the way.
Much of the gameplay we have so far is solid. The campaign missions we got are good, although the story and characters are boring. The world building is certainly lacking.
1v1 is quite solid. I've watched plenty of fun matches. It needs work regarding speed and pacing, ttk, creeps, and maps and so on to get right. But the foundations are there.
Not to mention the visuals, for many people the weakest part of the game, are still gradually improving with each patch. The cinematics and cover art suck, but the art style works fine when you're actually playing. If they manage to put more effort into the maps, terrain, lighting, shading etc, the game will look great
Frost Giant's mistakes are largely in the business front, not the gameplay. The EA release was poorly planned, they clearly expected to have more money from it, and expected fans to be supportive of an unfinished game. They aren't. The best EA games are ones with a narrow scope but a lot more polish.
If it wasn’t the gameplay the rating and player count won’t be like this low. Even rogue command is getting similar number but less dip
You can check the reviews for yourself. A lot of the negative reviews have less than 1 hour. Do you think those people had the time to judge the gameplay in that time? The most common complaints in negative reviews are about campaign cinematics/cutscenes, overall visuals, audio, performance etc. A lot of people opened the game, saw the first cutscene, closed the game and left a negative review.
How about making the first hour...you know...fun? Usually budget runs out towards the end of a game, not in the beginning
It is not about the game being unfun. Some people might have found it unfun of course but that's not because the review score is so low, which is what I was responding to. A lot of reviews complain about presentation and production quality. Most of those reviews with less than 1 hour played aren't complainşng about the first hour being unfun.
More like a faction of people might have found it fun.
It's not JUST the review score, it's both review score and player count that are the signs. Even Silica which is also extreme early access, is doing better in rating (consistently) and slightly worse player count.
Ironically Tim just did a talk on early access launch, is he living in a bubble?
Everyone been complaining about dog meta, took them long to even balance it. Only now they are testing new maps and no creep camp.
At least he's honest about revenue not being there.
On November 23 2024 00:17 RogerChillingworth wrote: I just don't buy into Frost Giant needing more time to complete their masterpiece. You can say things need more time, and surely they do, but we can certainly comment on the studio's decision making, on what's partially finished, and what Frost Giant felt was important to bring to an audience by EA.
Personally I'd still fall into the "they need more time" camp. Especially with things like 3v3, UI improvements like hotkeys and social features, and a map editor on the way.
Much of the gameplay we have so far is solid. The campaign missions we got are good, although the story and characters are boring. The world building is certainly lacking.
1v1 is quite solid. I've watched plenty of fun matches. It needs work regarding speed and pacing, ttk, creeps, and maps and so on to get right. But the foundations are there.
Not to mention the visuals, for many people the weakest part of the game, are still gradually improving with each patch. The cinematics and cover art suck, but the art style works fine when you're actually playing. If they manage to put more effort into the maps, terrain, lighting, shading etc, the game will look great
Frost Giant's mistakes are largely in the business front, not the gameplay. The EA release was poorly planned, they clearly expected to have more money from it, and expected fans to be supportive of an unfinished game. They aren't. The best EA games are ones with a narrow scope but a lot more polish.
If it wasn’t the gameplay the rating and player count won’t be like this low. Even rogue command is getting similar number but less dip
You can check the reviews for yourself. A lot of the negative reviews have less than 1 hour. Do you think those people had the time to judge the gameplay in that time? The most common complaints in negative reviews are about campaign cinematics/cutscenes, overall visuals, audio, performance etc. A lot of people opened the game, saw the first cutscene, closed the game and left a negative review.
How about making the first hour...you know...fun? Usually budget runs out towards the end of a game, not in the beginning
It is not about the game being unfun. Some people might have found it unfun of course but that's not because the review score is so low, which is what I was responding to. A lot of reviews complain about presentation and production quality. Most of those reviews with less than 1 hour played aren't complainşng about the first hour being unfun.
Or maybe thats just your opinion, man
I was responding to the notion that the reason review scores were so low is because of gameplay. You can check negative reviews to see what is the issue that has been raised the most.
On November 24 2024 19:46 ChillFlame wrote: So, you launch the game. You see low quality cinematic, low quality main menu, then you start the campaign and play the first mission. You see low quality dialogues, low quality models, low quality animations, low quality UI, low quality sound effects. And all of this is under 15 minutes. But somehow reviews under 1h in which players complain about low quality aren't representative.
I didn't say they weren't representative. If you are going to be such a dedicated hater to create a new account for the explicit purpose of shitting on a game, at least pay attention. Be a high quality hater.
At least I am honest, because I do it for free. And I am right. BTW, it's my first and only account.
Oh, you are still continuing to lie about me having some sort of financial incentive despite not being able to answer back when I shut you down about it. Cool. I suppose no surprise here for someone whose whole participation in a forum is to engage in bad faith trolling about a game for some reason. And you are not even getting paid for it! Weird.
On November 23 2024 00:17 RogerChillingworth wrote: I just don't buy into Frost Giant needing more time to complete their masterpiece. You can say things need more time, and surely they do, but we can certainly comment on the studio's decision making, on what's partially finished, and what Frost Giant felt was important to bring to an audience by EA.
Personally I'd still fall into the "they need more time" camp. Especially with things like 3v3, UI improvements like hotkeys and social features, and a map editor on the way.
Much of the gameplay we have so far is solid. The campaign missions we got are good, although the story and characters are boring. The world building is certainly lacking.
1v1 is quite solid. I've watched plenty of fun matches. It needs work regarding speed and pacing, ttk, creeps, and maps and so on to get right. But the foundations are there.
Not to mention the visuals, for many people the weakest part of the game, are still gradually improving with each patch. The cinematics and cover art suck, but the art style works fine when you're actually playing. If they manage to put more effort into the maps, terrain, lighting, shading etc, the game will look great
Frost Giant's mistakes are largely in the business front, not the gameplay. The EA release was poorly planned, they clearly expected to have more money from it, and expected fans to be supportive of an unfinished game. They aren't. The best EA games are ones with a narrow scope but a lot more polish.
If it wasn’t the gameplay the rating and player count won’t be like this low. Even rogue command is getting similar number but less dip
You can check the reviews for yourself. A lot of the negative reviews have less than 1 hour. Do you think those people had the time to judge the gameplay in that time? The most common complaints in negative reviews are about campaign cinematics/cutscenes, overall visuals, audio, performance etc. A lot of people opened the game, saw the first cutscene, closed the game and left a negative review.
How about making the first hour...you know...fun? Usually budget runs out towards the end of a game, not in the beginning
It is not about the game being unfun. Some people might have found it unfun of course but that's not because the review score is so low, which is what I was responding to. A lot of reviews complain about presentation and production quality. Most of those reviews with less than 1 hour played aren't complainşng about the first hour being unfun.
More like a faction of people might have found it fun.
It's not JUST the review score, it's both review score and player count that are the signs. Even Silica which is also extreme early access, is doing better in rating (consistently) and slightly worse player count.
Ironically Tim just did a talk on early access launch, is he living in a bubble? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKbYztXs5uc Everyone been complaining about dog meta, took them long to even balance it. Only now they are testing new maps and no creep camp.
At least he's honest about revenue not being there.
I didn't say there were a lot of people who found it fun. Just that main complaints haven't been about gameplay.
EPT
