Guys, this is a pre-alpha showcase of the faction which is the most standard (imagine looking at sc2 terran, only a few units at that and extrapolate from there. "my god, marines again, and siege tanks, oh wow they have a dropship with heal now, how original") Seeing reactions like this one has to wonder though if it is a good idea to showcase things which are far from conclusive and finished, because they seemingly create fairly strong reactions anyway.
Personally i think the footage shows a lot of potential, and some of the design one can understand from it is pretty interesting. Like seeing that workers already don't mine as efficiently at 8 (one can tell from the obvious longer distances some have to travel), or the 2nd resource working completely differently as it isn't just neatly placed like vespine gas would be, allowing for more interesting map design. Same with the light forest, small units can go through while biggers cannot, great idea imo, and it being destructible is also allowing for neat map ideas.
A unit like the atlas also feels unique enough imo, obviously the role is similar to a siege tank, but the interaction is quite different and the potential there (when the balancing gets it right) should be quite fun.
A lot of people complain about the speed, and i mean that will be a big deciding factor and is down to taste, i certainly don't see why armies should melt like they often do in sc2. Giving more time to position, and potentially leave engagements if necessary without losing half your army, seems good to me. Imo this will be something one will get used to anyway, IF the interactions are fun.
Looks pretty promising imo, and interviews where design ideas are talked about a little more generally made me look pretty positively at it too. Not the biggest fan of the art style, but it also doesn't look cheap, even in this early alpha stage, i just wish it was a little more unique i guess. But even there i've seen fun designs already, i quite like the st. bernard dog with barrel design on the medic type units for example.
The next showcase certainly should try and show things which make it stand out more though, units which are more special, but i'd play that test build and probably have fun already.
Whether we like the footage so far or not: I don't think there is much doubt that if there has ever been a chance to revive the RTS genre, it's got to be Stormgate. And it has little to do with what we've seen so far and a lot with the fact that the developer seems to be the only one to really care about professional RTS scene.
With that said: the footage looks too much like WC3 and too little like SC2 for my liking. The comments by streamers (Rotterdam, for example) who stated that it's mostly because of the footage and not really representative for the game as a whole makes me more optimistic though. And the game looks pretty solid. The micro possibilities looked okay. I don't really like the style, but the clarity definitely benefits from the style.
Overall, I'm not really overwhelmed, but the positive comments by the developers and their intentions with the game still heavily overweigh the "not overwhelming parts", imo.
On June 12 2023 22:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: Guys, this is a pre-alpha showcase of the faction which is the most standard (imagine looking at sc2 terran, only a few units at that and extrapolate from there. "my god, marines again, and siege tanks, oh wow they have a dropship with heal now, how original") Seeing reactions like this one has to wonder though if it is a good idea to showcase things which are far from conclusive and finished though, because they seemingly create fairly strong reactions anyway.
Personally i think the footage shows a lot of potential, and some of the design one can understand from it is pretty interesting. Like seeing that workers already don't mine as efficiently at 8 (one can tell from the obvious longer distances some have to travel), or the 2nd resource working completely differently as it isn't just neatly placed like vespine gas would be, allowing for more interesting map design. Same with the light forest, small units can go through while biggers cannot, great idea imo, and it being destructible is also allowing for neat map ideas.
A unit like the atlas also feels unique enough imo, obviously the role is similar to a siege tank, but the interaction is quite different and the potential there (when the balancing gets it right) should be quite fun.
A lot of people complain about the speed, and i mean that will be a big deciding factor and is down to taste, i certainly don't see why armies should melt like they often do in sc2. Giving more time to position, and potentially leave engagements if necessary without losing half your army, seems good to me. Imo this will be something one will get used to anyway, IF the interactions are fun.
Looks pretty promising imo, and interviews where design ideas are talked about a little more generally made me look pretty positively at it too. Not the biggest fan of the art style, but it also doesn't look cheap, even in this early alpha stage, i just wish it was a little more unique i guess. But even there i've seen fun designs already, i quite like the st. bernard dog with barrel design on the medivac type units for example.
The next showcase certainly should try and show things which make it stand out more though, units which are more special, but i'd play that test build and probably have fun already.
It looks good, even if this early stage. Art style subjectivity, for an early build it looks solid. The way the units move looks intuitive,
I guess it’s a double-edged sword doing an early reveal, I think they judged it well. Many like myself were wanting to see some gameplay, but they didn’t push something super ropey and hype-killing out
The benefits of the slower combat will be in scale.
If you only have light skirmishes SC2’s micro is excellent. Very responsive, lots of well-designed units. When you hit 200 supply of concentrated fire, that’s when you have issues
We’ve only seen a handful of unit types here, but it’s promising and I think the pacing will shine more and more the more units are revealed and we see the other factions.
The siege tank equivalent is more of a zoning tool than something that wipes units out who tread too near by the looks. Depending on how strong their AoE DoT is you can cut off flanking routes and the like.
The game looks slow enough that inventive use of the ‘tank’ through manual targeting looks doable
Units seem to naturally spread out a little, and are less clumped. I think this is positive it both mitigates the twin problems of high concentrated DPS, as well as AoE being absolutely brutal.
On June 12 2023 23:29 Swisslink wrote: Whether we like the footage so far or not: I don't think there is much doubt that if there has ever been a chance to revive the RTS genre, it's got to be Stormgate. And it has little to do with what we've seen so far and a lot with the fact that the developer seems to be the only one to really care about professional RTS scene.
With that said: the footage looks too much like WC3 and too little like SC2 for my liking. The comments by streamers (Rotterdam, for example) who stated that it's mostly because of the footage and not really representative for the game as a whole makes me more optimistic though. And the game looks pretty solid. The micro possibilities looked okay. I don't really like the style, but the clarity definitely benefits from the style.
Overall, I'm not really overwhelmed, but the positive comments by the developers and their intentions with the game still heavily overweigh the "not overwhelming parts", imo.
At least in the near future it’s going to be Frost Giant that pull it off. One, because they’re actually trying and it’s a noted goal, plus they have the requisite resources.
My worry has always been that they’re perhaps too receptive to community feedback. You sometimes got the impression that rather than having a vision laid out and seeking feedback on the particulars, that they were maybe almost designing by committee to a degree. And as they say, too many cooks spoil the broth. Just from the outside looking in.
What I’ve seen so far, promising. Technically it looks solid for a pre Alpha, it doesn’t matter how great your ideas are if you can’t nail the aspects like pathing and unit responsiveness, and it looks like they will.
Secondly it does look to have an identity, with some ideas of what it’s meant to be, and some things of its own thrown in.
Looking closely at the vids you can also see some of the hotkey/unit/building selection tweaks they’ve made.
As someone who experimented with a WASD centred hotkey layout augmented with standard FPS buttons like Q and E, Stormgate’s default hotkeys look pretty similar to that idea. I tweaked so I was using similar buttons to my FPS games, I think this is more a move to make a transition smoother from MOBAs but it’s a solid move
From what I understand abilities will have unique hotkeys, as that will allow you to select your big force, have it off one hotkey but be able to cast all your abilities without tabbing.
I think that’s a decent quality of life change
I hope the game lightly forces you to use multiple control groups because it’s advantageous to do so, not through clunkiness
SC2 always annoyed me for not allowing a player to customise their caster priority. Anyone who’s played Protoss or Terran will have at some point felt the pain of accidentally boxing a Templar or a Ghost when some hungry Zergs are sauntering over ready to chow down. Go to forcefield them out or split only for nothing to do happen and end up as lunch
Stormgate will at least sidestep this by not needing to tab through unit types in a control group to use their ability, they’ll just be available whenever you select that grouping
On June 12 2023 22:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: Guys, this is a pre-alpha showcase of the faction which is the most standard (imagine looking at sc2 terran, only a few units at that and extrapolate from there. "my god, marines again, and siege tanks, oh wow they have a dropship with heal now, how original") Seeing reactions like this one has to wonder though if it is a good idea to showcase things which are far from conclusive and finished, because they seemingly create fairly strong reactions anyway.
Personally i think the footage shows a lot of potential, and some of the design one can understand from it is pretty interesting. Like seeing that workers already don't mine as efficiently at 8 (one can tell from the obvious longer distances some have to travel), or the 2nd resource working completely differently as it isn't just neatly placed like vespine gas would be, allowing for more interesting map design. Same with the light forest, small units can go through while biggers cannot, great idea imo, and it being destructible is also allowing for neat map ideas.
A unit like the atlas also feels unique enough imo, obviously the role is similar to a siege tank, but the interaction is quite different and the potential there (when the balancing gets it right) should be quite fun.
A lot of people complain about the speed, and i mean that will be a big deciding factor and is down to taste, i certainly don't see why armies should melt like they often do in sc2. Giving more time to position, and potentially leave engagements if necessary without losing half your army, seems good to me. Imo this will be something one will get used to anyway, IF the interactions are fun.
Looks pretty promising imo, and interviews where design ideas are talked about a little more generally made me look pretty positively at it too. Not the biggest fan of the art style, but it also doesn't look cheap, even in this early alpha stage, i just wish it was a little more unique i guess. But even there i've seen fun designs already, i quite like the st. bernard dog with barrel design on the medic type units for example.
The next showcase certainly should try and show things which make it stand out more though, units which are more special, but i'd play that test build and probably have fun already.
To some extent, I agree that people shouldn't be disappointed when Frost Giant said this would be the next iteration of War3/SC2, and are proceeding to deliver exactly that.
At the same time, I think it's on them to try and win over the fans with whatever 'wow factor' that makes this feel iterative in a meaningful way, whatever that may be (don't ask me exactly what; they're the designers).
On June 12 2023 22:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: Guys, this is a pre-alpha showcase of the faction which is the most standard (imagine looking at sc2 terran, only a few units at that and extrapolate from there. "my god, marines again, and siege tanks, oh wow they have a dropship with heal now, how original") Seeing reactions like this one has to wonder though if it is a good idea to showcase things which are far from conclusive and finished, because they seemingly create fairly strong reactions anyway.
Personally i think the footage shows a lot of potential, and some of the design one can understand from it is pretty interesting. Like seeing that workers already don't mine as efficiently at 8 (one can tell from the obvious longer distances some have to travel), or the 2nd resource working completely differently as it isn't just neatly placed like vespine gas would be, allowing for more interesting map design. Same with the light forest, small units can go through while biggers cannot, great idea imo, and it being destructible is also allowing for neat map ideas.
A unit like the atlas also feels unique enough imo, obviously the role is similar to a siege tank, but the interaction is quite different and the potential there (when the balancing gets it right) should be quite fun.
A lot of people complain about the speed, and i mean that will be a big deciding factor and is down to taste, i certainly don't see why armies should melt like they often do in sc2. Giving more time to position, and potentially leave engagements if necessary without losing half your army, seems good to me. Imo this will be something one will get used to anyway, IF the interactions are fun.
Looks pretty promising imo, and interviews where design ideas are talked about a little more generally made me look pretty positively at it too. Not the biggest fan of the art style, but it also doesn't look cheap, even in this early alpha stage, i just wish it was a little more unique i guess. But even there i've seen fun designs already, i quite like the st. bernard dog with barrel design on the medic type units for example.
The next showcase certainly should try and show things which make it stand out more though, units which are more special, but i'd play that test build and probably have fun already.
To some extent, I agree that people shouldn't be disappointed when Frost Giant said this would be the next iteration of War3/SC2, and are proceeding to deliver exactly that.
At the same time, I think it's on them to try and win over the fans with whatever 'wow factor' that makes this feel iterative in a meaningful way, whatever that may be (don't ask me exactly what; they're the designers).
My point is moreso that it's just a very early view on things, this is pre-alpha, with one faction (the most standard one) only, and we've only seen about 6 units of it. That is why i made that sc2 comparison, if you'd had a look at terran units of wol in a similar stage, it wouldn't blow ANYONE away either with interesting mechanics (though as i said, i think there are already some there).
I also think it is pretty hard to be really original, you just need certain unit types in an rts game, what one could say is that the art design is maybe too close to sc2 in that showcase especially with the 'marine' type, but how would one really design a guy with a rifle in some scifi setting to stand apart from that? It would mostly be achieved by the art style i guess, if it was grittier or whatever.
In any case, i just think some of the criticism at this point is a little misguided, though one could also say that it was simply a bad choice to show THIS now, that is the other way of looking at it.
I agree with Wax to a degree, but to me "the next iteration of War3/SC2" means it's got to have some neat innovations that deliver a fresh idea of what RTS can be. Broodwar, War3 and SC2 all had really innovative new ideas that had never been done in an RTS, and that was what made them iconic games. You really can't claim to be a spiritual successor to a series of games that have each delivered original new ideas if you are just making a casual-friendly rehash of your predecessors.
At the same time, I think this is more an issue of how Frost Giant is marketing this game than how they're building it. We still have so little information about what the game is even like - even the footage we have now is evidently from a pretty old build. I think it's just fundamentally a mistake for them to be trickling out information in this way; the only people who are paying attention to this marketing campaign are hardcore Blizzard RTS fans, and the game is in a state of development right now where the only thing they can do is disappoint us. I think they would have been better off waiting until they had something really solid and then dropping, like, a Tastosis-commentated pro showmatch and a Day[9] Lets-Play of some casual content. They don't owe anyone progress reports: Just be mysterious until you have something awesome, and let us see that.
On June 12 2023 17:58 AmericanUmlaut wrote: The ongoing theme for me is that every time Frost Giant releases more information about Stormgate, I become less excited about the game. I was really hoping that finally seeing a bit of gameplay was going to get me pumped, but it really just seems like a well-polished generic RTS inspired by Blizzard. I am still waiting to see what they are doing that is offering a substantially different experience than loading up SC2 or WC3. When the early gameplay footage of SC2 came out, I was really excited to make Blink Stalkers, because I could instantly see how much fun they would be to micro. I want to see at least one Stormgate unit that I am excited to learn to micro, or one mechanic that makes me say "wow." So far I am seeing SC2 with slower, smaller armies, mining that looks more like WC3, and dodgeable tank shots. I am not saying "wow" yet.
I think this is an important point. As I see it, it doesn't matter what type of QoL improvements you make - if you can't figure out how to make gameplay that appears exciting in a marketing video, the game won't do well.
I've been thinking many times myself on how I would approach making a new RTS and how I possibly could market this game. What I would focus on showcasing is action all over the map with microable units. A mix of core RTS micro (focus fire and pull back injured units) combined with some more creative micro-ideas I have. Ideally this should make any viewer within the target-group be excited to try it out. If not, my (imaginable) game would be dead on arrival.
So far I am seeing SC2 with slower, smaller armies, mining that looks more like WC3
After going through the gameplay footage again and listening to most of the content from the devs, I would summarize Stormgate as the following:
Sc2 with 100 max supply, normal speed, QoL improvements and creeps but fewer bases taken (at least it appears that way).
I wouldn't compare it as much to Wc3 because at least Wc3 had interesting stuff with their heroes, and while not my personal preference at least it resulted in some type of skillcap.
A lot of people complain about the speed, and i mean that will be a big deciding factor and is down to taste, i certainly don't see why armies should melt like they often do in sc2. Giving more time to position, and potentially leave engagements if necessary without losing half your army, seems good to me. Imo this will be something one will get used to anyway, IF the interactions are fun.
This is similar reasoning as we seen from every single RTS game since Sc2 release. All of them failed - although tbf they had many other issues than that. But at one point in time you have to wonder, why don't someone try and double down on Sc2 speed and design the game around it being "ok" to lose part of your army without it being a game-ending mistake?
Anyway, I am still open for the alternative of making the game more forgiving by slowing everything down. That can in theory work, however Wc3 was the only game that could succeed that way because it had a high enough skillcap due to the excessive amount of abilities.
In contrast if you take Sc2, but play it in Normal mode and reduce unit counts, the game becomes much less interesting. You would need to compensate with lots of new micro additions.
On June 12 2023 22:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: Guys, this is a pre-alpha showcase of the faction which is the most standard (imagine looking at sc2 terran, only a few units at that and extrapolate from there. "my god, marines again, and siege tanks, oh wow they have a dropship with heal now, how original") Seeing reactions like this one has to wonder though if it is a good idea to showcase things which are far from conclusive and finished, because they seemingly create fairly strong reactions anyway.
Personally i think the footage shows a lot of potential, and some of the design one can understand from it is pretty interesting. Like seeing that workers already don't mine as efficiently at 8 (one can tell from the obvious longer distances some have to travel), or the 2nd resource working completely differently as it isn't just neatly placed like vespine gas would be, allowing for more interesting map design. Same with the light forest, small units can go through while biggers cannot, great idea imo, and it being destructible is also allowing for neat map ideas.
A unit like the atlas also feels unique enough imo, obviously the role is similar to a siege tank, but the interaction is quite different and the potential there (when the balancing gets it right) should be quite fun.
A lot of people complain about the speed, and i mean that will be a big deciding factor and is down to taste, i certainly don't see why armies should melt like they often do in sc2. Giving more time to position, and potentially leave engagements if necessary without losing half your army, seems good to me. Imo this will be something one will get used to anyway, IF the interactions are fun.
Looks pretty promising imo, and interviews where design ideas are talked about a little more generally made me look pretty positively at it too. Not the biggest fan of the art style, but it also doesn't look cheap, even in this early alpha stage, i just wish it was a little more unique i guess. But even there i've seen fun designs already, i quite like the st. bernard dog with barrel design on the medic type units for example.
The next showcase certainly should try and show things which make it stand out more though, units which are more special, but i'd play that test build and probably have fun already.
To some extent, I agree that people shouldn't be disappointed when Frost Giant said this would be the next iteration of War3/SC2, and are proceeding to deliver exactly that.
At the same time, I think it's on them to try and win over the fans with whatever 'wow factor' that makes this feel iterative in a meaningful way, whatever that may be (don't ask me exactly what; they're the designers).
I agree that its pretty close to what i Imagined as well. But the problem is that it's Sc2 micro at something closer to Wc3 speed.
One of the stated goals of Stormgate is to make it so that it's more accessible to a casual playerbase. With its model being free to play it's absolutely imperative that it be easier for people who don't play RTS games to be able to pick it up.
This is where the slower speed is coming in. More than anything else, this is where it's coming in. This is also why they said earlier on in development that they want 3v3 to be one of the MAIN game modes that they will be balancing around as opposed to most RTS games that are ONLY balanced around 1v1.
This is to appeal to the casual audience they must be able to appeal to if they want to survive as a free to play game.
So try and understand that this is one of the core things the game is trying to push. It wants to cater to casuals where Starcraft 2 never really did aside from making certain QoL macro mechanics easier. Just keep that in mind when discussing why they are doing certain things or making certain design choices. They want to be the next e-sport, but they need to also be accessible to newbies in a genre that is notorious for not being accessible to newbies.
Honestly, hype isn't even important at this stage of development anyway. Hype is temporary by its very nature, it's fleeting and we're still in pre-alpha and have a LONG way to go.
Right now they need to just show that they are building something that actually works, and will be ready to actually play when Beta comes around. Late Beta when they start having showmatches and early access tournaments is when they will be able to start building hype.
What they showed yesterday was everything they SAID they were working on and nothing else: a successor to WC3 and SC2. I don't know what people expected to see, or what they wanted to get hyped about. I saw what I expected to see and nothing else. My expectations haven't changed a single bit from where they were.
I thought everything looked extremely good. Ironically, the only thing I'm worried about is public feedback negatively impacting the ongoing development of the game.
Here's to hoping Frost Giant follows their own internal clock and is excellent at discriminating feedback. ^__^
Also, like Nony said earlier, the important stuff really is the fundamental technical shit: the engine, snowplay, etc. Essentially, how the game runs and plays. All the other stuff can be iterated on over time.
This is similar reasoning as we seen from every single RTS game since Sc2 release. All of them failed - although tbf they had many other issues than that. But at one point in time you have to wonder, why don't someone try and double down on Sc2 speed and design the game around it being "ok" to lose part of your army without it being a game-ending mistake?
Anyway, I am still open for the alternative of making the game more forgiving by slowing everything down. That can in theory work, however Wc3 was the only game that could succeed that way because it had a high enough skillcap due to the excessive amount of abilities.
In contrast if you take Sc2, but play it in Normal mode and reduce unit counts, the game becomes much less interesting. You would need to compensate with lots of new micro additions.
I honestly don't think so. Most other rts games aren't just slower, they actually don't allow you to micro your units all that much because they don't have the same responsive feeling to them. Slowing it down compared to sc2 isn't fundamentally the issue, wc3 was, bw was, they both worked well for what they tried to be. Sc2 also works well for what it tries to be, but many people think that it is too unforgiving in its speed and ttk, i think it is too.
You just need to compensate by giving the player something interesting to do, that could be more multtiasking all across the map as well, without many abilities, as one example.
Casuals aren't attracted by easier gameplay. That might keep them playing, but not make the game interesting in the first place. The look and feel of the game and most importantly a trailer that gives chills and pumps adrenaline. That's why we discussed the art style and the trailer from last year. The team has some good ideas on why casual players stopped playing SC2, but, at least so far, they haven't produced anything to hype them up. Yesterday even D.O,R.F. looked much better in that regard.
On June 13 2023 02:20 Hildegard wrote: Casuals aren't attracted by easier gameplay. That might keep them playing, but not make the game interesting in the first place. The look and feel of the game and most importantly a trailer that gives chills and pumps adrenaline. That's why we discussed the art style and the trailer from last year. The team has some good ideas on why casual players stopped playing SC2, but, at least so far, they haven't produced anything to hype them up. Yesterday even D.O,R.F. looked much better in that regard.
If they're using a FTP game model, keeping players playing is FAR more important than just attracting them to the game in the first place. If you're using a traditional sales model, you just want players to buy the game, and if they stay and buy microtransactions all the better.
But they are using a model where anyone can pick the game up for free. They need to be able to get those players playing and invested so that they support the game through micro transactions.
Attracting them means nothing if they don't stay and play. And if the game is good and players are playing, word of mouth will draw people in. If the esports scene is good and the game is free to play and accessible, that will draw people in.
It's a different sales model.
On another angle, look at what's happening to SC2. The pro scene is shrinking every year, not only because of a drop in support from sponsors but also because SC2 isn't appealing to new players to come and play. If they want an esport to thrive long term they need to be able to keep drawing new players in, keeping and developing them, and having a long term structure in place to keep the game funded and profitable so that they can keep sponsoring the esports scene.
It makes perfect logical sense to me why the focus would be to make a game that people are able to play for free, that is easy to learn for new players but has a high skill ceiling for competitive play. Now whether or not you can actually pull that balance off, that's a completely different question altogether. But I can see the logic in that being the goal they are trying to shoot for.
On June 13 2023 01:05 Vindicare605 wrote: One of the stated goals of Stormgate is to make it so that it's more accessible to a casual playerbase. With its model being free to play it's absolutely imperative that it be easier for people who don't play RTS games to be able to pick it up.
This is where the slower speed is coming in. More than anything else, this is where it's coming in. This is also why they said earlier on in development that they want 3v3 to be one of the MAIN game modes that they will be balancing around as opposed to most RTS games that are ONLY balanced around 1v1.
This is to appeal to the casual audience they must be able to appeal to if they want to survive as a free to play game.
So try and understand that this is one of the core things the game is trying to push. It wants to cater to casuals where Starcraft 2 never really did aside from making certain QoL macro mechanics easier. Just keep that in mind when discussing why they are doing certain things or making certain design choices. They want to be the next e-sport, but they need to also be accessible to newbies in a genre that is notorious for not being accessible to newbies.
The idea of a slower game being more accessible to casuals isn't a new idea and I am pretty sure most people in this forum are aware of it. However, you have to make the gaming exciting/look awesome. And I believe that if you significantly reduce the micro-skillcap you significantly reduce the target audience who will be excited by the game.
But obviously you are right, it needs to be a lot easier to casuals than Sc2 is. As I wrote in one of my previous comments, one of the core issues with traditional RTS games is that they want to do force players to learn everthing. Scouting, macro, micro, tactics, strategy multitasking etc, it's too much when all at the same time.
Devs need to figure out what are the essential things that really matter for the success of their game, which parts needs depth/high-skillcap and what parts can be simple.
I don't think Sc2 but 30% easier in every way work. Instead, I believe in the following:
* Remove certain parts of what makes Sc2 be complex for new players. * Make it less punishing to lose engagements in most phases of the game. * Further improve micro opportunities. * Futher improve multitasking opportunities. * Increase strategic and tactical diversity (i guess everyone agrees on this point though)
It looks promising. The pace of the battles seems similar to BW, but with a faster start. If that's true, I think it will hit a sweet spot. Macro seems to be easier at first look, but let's wait until the macro abilities are revealed. I have read somewhere that creeps won't be there in 1v1, now I doubt...
I agree a trailer in the style of what D.O.R.F showed, or at least an expanded version of the Monk vs TLO showmatch would have done better to hype the game.
This is the D.O.R.F trailer for reference:
That being said, the first part of the gampley trailer of storm gate this video is really good. I really wonder why they didn't show that more in depth. The battles look much better.
From 0:11 to 0:43. Watch it multiple times as it has different engagements.
EPT
