Ironically Tim just did a talk on early access launch, is he living in a bubble?
I didn't get this one either. SG is a prominent example of how NOT to do an EA. Who thought inviting this guy to the event was a good idea? Larian, Supergiants, and Eremiite know how to launch an EA, but this guy doesn't.
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.
Man, you have some sort of financial incentive indeed. You have admitted it. And you can't prove your good intentions because it isn't possible. All we have is facts about you having financial interest and using your power as a moderator on the different platforms to shut down the critique for this game. It isn't good faith by any definition.
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?
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.
The comments on gameplay is pretty much everywhere, from TL, reddit, Steam, youtube videos etc. And that's people who bother leaving the comments.
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.
Man, you have some sort of financial incentive indeed. You have admitted it. And you can't prove your good intentions because it isn't possible. All we have is facts about you having financial interest and using your power as a moderator on the different platforms to shut down the critique for this game. It isn't good faith by any definition.
This feels like reading megabuster all over again. . .
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.
Man, you have some sort of financial incentive indeed. You have admitted it. And you can't prove your good intentions because it isn't possible. All we have is facts about you having financial interest and using your power as a moderator on the different platforms to shut down the critique for this game. It isn't good faith by any definition.
I already said I will donate if I ever make a profit from investment into FG (I very much doubt it and never thought I would in the first place), I will donate it to a charity. So I have no financial incentive. That's a lie and you know about it. I have not changed my stance on Frost Giant/Stormgate before and after the investment campaign. My stance has been public and you know there has been no change, so you are being dishonest. Oh, moderators also don't shut down criticism of the game as everyone can see from the state of reddit. So that's another lie. So much for being honest huh.
On November 24 2024 01:32 Fango wrote: [quote] 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 24 2024 20:56 ETisME wrote:
On November 24 2024 19:17 _Spartak_ wrote:
On November 24 2024 19:01 rewfdstrewh wrote:
On November 24 2024 17:40 _Spartak_ wrote:
On November 24 2024 15:05 ETisME wrote:
On November 24 2024 01:32 Fango wrote:
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.
The comments on gameplay is pretty much everywhere, from TL, reddit, Steam, youtube videos etc. And that's people who bother leaving the comments.
I was responding to you saying if gameplay wasn't the issue the review scores wouldn't be so low. It would still be low because there have been a ton of negative reviews about non-gameplay stuff. I didn't say there wasn't criticism of gameplay.
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.
Man, you have some sort of financial incentive indeed. You have admitted it. And you can't prove your good intentions because it isn't possible. All we have is facts about you having financial interest and using your power as a moderator on the different platforms to shut down the critique for this game. It isn't good faith by any definition.
I already said I will donate if I ever make a profit from investment into FG (I very much doubt it and never thought I would in the first place), I will donate it to a charity. So I have no financial incentive. That's a lie and you know about it. I have not changed my stance on Frost Giant/Stormgate before and after the investment campaign. My stance has been public and you know there has been no change, so you are being dishonest. Oh, moderators also don't shut down criticism of the game as everyone can see from the state of reddit. So that's another lie. So much for being honest huh.
On November 24 2024 15:05 ETisME wrote: [quote] 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 24 2024 20:56 ETisME wrote:
On November 24 2024 19:17 _Spartak_ wrote:
On November 24 2024 19:01 rewfdstrewh wrote:
On November 24 2024 17:40 _Spartak_ wrote:
On November 24 2024 15:05 ETisME wrote:
On November 24 2024 01:32 Fango wrote:
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.
The comments on gameplay is pretty much everywhere, from TL, reddit, Steam, youtube videos etc. And that's people who bother leaving the comments.
I was responding to you saying if gameplay wasn't the issue the review scores wouldn't be so low. It would still be low because there have been a ton of negative reviews about non-gameplay stuff. I didn't say there wasn't criticism of gameplay.
That’s a big assumption considering plenty of games got good rating even with tons of placeholder and bugs. silica has buggy gameplay, rogue command has low polygon graphics and UI, the forever winter is basically alpha with bad AI but great game concept etc
It is not an assumption. You can see the reviews for yourself. Other games don't apply. There are different expectations, different target groups, the game being f2p is a factor etc. We don't have to look at other games either. We have the Stormgate reviews.
On November 24 2024 22:13 _Spartak_ wrote: It is not an assumption. You can see the reviews for yourself. Other games don't apply. There are different expectations, different target groups, the game being f2p is a factor etc. We don't have to look at other games either. We have the Stormgate reviews.
people have higher expectations going into a paid game than a f2p game. Not to mention we are talking about recent review (averaging like 10ish per day?) and all time review, they are both bad. Not as bad doesn’t mean it doesn’t stay bad.
It also didn’t get better with the graphic and model upgrades.
People don't spend money on games unless they decided they like the look of it. With Stormgate being f2p, a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise buy the game (and thus leave a review), downloaded it, didn't like it and then left a negative review. Are you arguing that people had higher expectations of games like Silica and Rogue Command than they did with Stormgate?
I already said I will donate if I ever make a profit from investment into FG (I very much doubt it and never thought I would in the first place), I will donate it to a charity. So I have no financial incentive. That's a lie and you know about it. I have not changed my stance on Frost Giant/Stormgate before and after the investment campaign. My stance has been public and you know there has been no change, so you are being dishonest. Oh, moderators also don't shut down criticism of the game as everyone can see from the state of reddit. So that's another lie. So much for being honest huh.
You can say whatever you want. It's just words. If you said Cthulhu or a tooth fairy made you put your money in FG it wouldn't change anything. The only thing that will change it is a charity donation proof. Until then it's just your word.
About this Reddit thing. Should I remind how you were caught spreading misinformation and deleted your messages? As a moderator?
About having discussions in general. I have one little advice. If someone hates the game you like it's not a reason to nitpick, make strawmen, and use the most disrespectful sophistic methods to "win the discussion". It won't work. People aren't idiots. Everyone sees you ignoring the whole message to nitpick one single less important thing. Hoho. I didn't say it wasn't representative. I just said, "Do you think those people had the time to judge the gameplay in that time?" So your whole take about one hour is enough to judge the bad game is invalid.
I already said I will donate if I ever make a profit from investment into FG (I very much doubt it and never thought I would in the first place), I will donate it to a charity. So I have no financial incentive. That's a lie and you know about it. I have not changed my stance on Frost Giant/Stormgate before and after the investment campaign. My stance has been public and you know there has been no change, so you are being dishonest. Oh, moderators also don't shut down criticism of the game as everyone can see from the state of reddit. So that's another lie. So much for being honest huh.
You can say whatever you want. It's just words. If you said Cthulhu or a tooth fairy made you put your money in FG it wouldn't change anything. The only thing that will change it is a charity donation proof. Until then it's just your word.
Unlike you, I am an honest person so you can take my word for it. If I didn't want to be honest about it, I wouldn't have mentioned that I invested in their StartEngine campaign as a disclaimer to my Steam review and you wouldn't even know about it.
About this Reddit thing. Should I remind how you were caught spreading misinformation and deleted your messages? As a moderator?
Yet another lie lol. Do you think you can spread lies like that because people here may not visit reddit as much? I think even people who are negative about the game can tell what you are doing, so I doubt you are tricking anyone.
Unlike you, I am an honest person so you can take my word for it. If I didn't want to be honest about it, I wouldn't have mentioned that I invested in their StartEngine campaign as a disclaimer to my Steam review and you wouldn't even know about it.
Sorry. I judge people by their actions, not by their words. This charity thing hasn't happened yet, but I already see your dishonest discussion methods.
On November 24 2024 22:20 _Spartak_ wrote: People don't spend money on games unless they decided they like the look of it. With Stormgate being f2p, a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise buy the game (and thus leave a review), downloaded it, didn't like it and then left a negative review. Are you arguing that people had higher expectations of games like Silica and Rogue Command than they did with Stormgate?
People spend money on the game if they think they will like it, not the look.
Just because it’s free doesn’t mean it is a game worth downloading, stormgate is far from being the only f2p game.
And yes, I do think people have a higher expectation when they paid for the game, because it is both a time and money investment. Eg they expect it to be the game they spent the money and time to download and play. And the game didn’t meet the standard or expectations, they would be refunding it which is hardly rare.
On November 24 2024 22:20 _Spartak_ wrote: People don't spend money on games unless they decided they like the look of it. With Stormgate being f2p, a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise buy the game (and thus leave a review), downloaded it, didn't like it and then left a negative review. Are you arguing that people had higher expectations of games like Silica and Rogue Command than they did with Stormgate?
People spend money on the game if they think they will like it, not the look.
Just because it’s free doesn’t mean it is a game worth downloading, stormgate is far from being the only f2p game.
And yes, I do think people have a higher expectation when they paid for the game, because it is both a time and money investment. Eg they expect it to be the game worth both the spent and time to download and play. And the game didn’t meet the standard or expectations, they would be refunding it which is hardly rare.
On November 24 2024 22:20 _Spartak_ wrote: People don't spend money on games unless they decided they like the look of it. With Stormgate being f2p, a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise buy the game (and thus leave a review), downloaded it, didn't like it and then left a negative review. Are you arguing that people had higher expectations of games like Silica and Rogue Command than they did with Stormgate?
People spend money on the game if they think they will like it, not the look.
Just because it’s free doesn’t mean it is a game worth downloading, stormgate is far from being the only f2p game.
Sure but it does increase the number of downloads from people who would otherwise not have bought it. Despite being an f2p game, Stormgate was the RTS with the highest level of customer expectation for a long time. The indie games you mention are not being judged by the same standards. Not even close.
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.
but you can't bring in 10s of millions of investment dollars that way. games like this have as their #1 first and most important customer the initial investor.
On November 24 2024 22:20 _Spartak_ wrote: People don't spend money on games unless they decided they like the look of it. With Stormgate being f2p, a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise buy the game (and thus leave a review), downloaded it, didn't like it and then left a negative review. Are you arguing that people had higher expectations of games like Silica and Rogue Command than they did with Stormgate?
People spend money on the game if they think they will like it, not the look.
Just because it’s free doesn’t mean it is a game worth downloading, stormgate is far from being the only f2p game.
Sure but it does increase the number of downloads from people who would otherwise not have bought it. Despite being an f2p game, Stormgate was the RTS with the highest level of customer expectation for a long time. The indie games you mention are not being judged by the same standards. Not even close.
I feel like we are talking past each other. Stormgate simply didn’t meet much of anyone’s standards, even when it’s free, hence low player count and rating. Meanwhile for games I listed, they were able to meet paying customers’ standards.
If stormgate wasn’t worth the dollars, then it’s a price issue. But it isn’t . It’s free to play with low draw to any players, I.e. not even worth the time and hard disc space atm.
On November 24 2024 22:20 _Spartak_ wrote: People don't spend money on games unless they decided they like the look of it. With Stormgate being f2p, a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise buy the game (and thus leave a review), downloaded it, didn't like it and then left a negative review. Are you arguing that people had higher expectations of games like Silica and Rogue Command than they did with Stormgate?
People spend money on the game if they think they will like it, not the look.
Just because it’s free doesn’t mean it is a game worth downloading, stormgate is far from being the only f2p game.
Sure but it does increase the number of downloads from people who would otherwise not have bought it. Despite being an f2p game, Stormgate was the RTS with the highest level of customer expectation for a long time. The indie games you mention are not being judged by the same standards. Not even close.
I feel like we are talking past each other. Stormgate simply didn’t meet much of anyone’s standards, even when it’s free, hence low player count and rating. Meanwhile for games I listed, they were able to meet paying customers’ standards.
If stormgate wasn’t worth the dollars, then it’s a price issue. But it isn’t . It’s free to play with low draw to any players, I.e. not even worth the time and hard disc space atm.
I am talking about the main reasons of the low review scores, not low player numbers. If Stormgate wasn't free to play, had lower expectations, had higher level of polish, it would have decent review scores. It is not true that the review score is so low because of gameplay. That doesn't mean everyone loved the gameplay of course.
EPT
