|
On June 18 2022 05:41 Fanatic-Templar wrote:Agreed on the other points, but Show nested quote +On June 16 2022 04:13 Beelzebub1 wrote:
- No, "terrible terrible damage" units like Disruptors, Banelings or Widow Mines. I don't hate these units as much as some people do, but it just strikes me as inherently lazy design to include units that can outright end the game due to a single micro mistake. I hope for literally the opposite. More units like Disruptors, Banelings and Siege Tanks, fewer bland, generic units like Dragoons or Roaches. Nothing's lazier design than that. They punish bad engagements much harder than they punish 'a single micro mistake', and it's that kind of territorial control and map movement that I want to encourage. I want moving somewhere you shouldn't to be punishing, that's the core strategic element of the game, the very one you mentioned yourself when talking about aerial armies.
I like Terrible Damage units like the Siege Tank and the Reaver. They have immense potential balanced by huge weaknesses. The Reaver can do insane damage with every shot, but is practically immobile and its shots can also just dud out and do nothing. The tank can control territory, but is also immobile while doing so, and especially in BW its splash can be abused to do more damage to its own army than the enemy. That's fun and dramatic. Compare that to the Colossus, which doesn't have anything like the variance or microability or counterplay of more fun units.
|
Canada11363 Posts
The debate over bugs, I think misses the point.
Burst damage and the speed that a unit transitions from one direction to another and with what precision has nothing do with the pathing problems of BW like the dragoons freaking out (which largely was the result of the dragoon being larger than it thought it was and so tried to fit into spaces it could not.) Yes things like patrol and hold position micro where not intentionally programmed. Instead it was emergent gameplay that was discovered, but future games can intentionally recreate it.
The advantage of this sort of micro is it is visually simple to understand and it is exciting and it doesn't clog the screen with dozens of spells. You can still a-move units with modern pathing (although there is something to be said about magic boxes and having the option to move units in formation rather only be able to move in a fluid ball.) However, in the hands of a excellent player, a handful units gets tremendous value with attack-retreat micro. It's MicroPlus, not bad pathing and bugs. So you have lots of units that have a high skill ceiling with no extra information on the screen and then you only need a handful of spellcasters. This keeps spell casting special and keeps the screen visually clean and easier to understand for viewers instead of being inundated with lights and colours.
|
I also agree that it's important to have a good number of units with "natural" depth to them, that don't require special abilities to babysit and crowd the screen out with explosions, effects and targeting markers. Even just a simple ability, like Stim or Blink, works just fine. It still makes me itch to think about the Adept's shade ability, and how fussy it is design-wise. Wings of Liberty actually had a fair number of units very good depth of micro and also didn't encourage you to just mass them, but ultimately they were fairly straightforward. Marines, Banelings, Stalkers, Hellions, Phoenixes, Reapers, and probably more. They didn't all need to have a different skill-shot ability to be a robust, and interesting unit in different compositions and matchups. Your Sentries, Infestors, Templars, Ghosts and Ravens all stood out more when they had the majority of your special abilities, to boot.
I think there's definitely a good balance between the micro you saw as a result of compensating for bad pathing and the like in BW, and the explosive skillshot/harass fest that you have in LotV, that requires each unit type to hit a button and fire off its special ability just to hit its baseline efficiency. Ironically I think Wings of Liberty was not too far off that happy medium.
|
On June 18 2022 13:15 NewSunshine wrote:
I also agree that it's important to have a good number of units with "natural" depth to them, that don't require special abilities to babysit and crowd the screen out with explosions, effects and targeting markers. Even just a simple ability, like Stim or Blink, works just fine. It still makes me itch to think about the Adept's shade ability, and how fussy it is design-wise. Wings of Liberty actually had a fair number of units very good depth of micro and also didn't encourage you to just mass them, but ultimately they were fairly straightforward. Marines, Banelings, Stalkers, Hellions, Phoenixes, Reapers, and probably more. They didn't all need to have a different skill-shot ability to be a robust, and interesting unit in different compositions and matchups. Your Sentries, Infestors, Templars, Ghosts and Ravens all stood out more when they had the majority of your special abilities, to boot.
I think there's definitely a good balance between the micro you saw as a result of compensating for bad pathing and the like in BW, and the explosive skillshot/harass fest that you have in LotV, that requires each unit type to hit a button and fire off its special ability just to hit its baseline efficiency. Ironically I think Wings of Liberty was not too far off that happy medium.
I might be nitpicking here, but I think blink is one of the abilities you have to be very careful on core army unit. It negates most of the defensive terrain advantages and as a result limits a lot of the stuff you can have early on in the game. It pretty much means that every starting base has to be on high ground and that you pretty much always need to match the protoss army size. It also eliminates lot of possibilities in skirmishing on land units because the toss core army has such mobility in most situations.
We've kind of learned to play and balance around blink and it can lead to decent gameplay stuff too, but I think in many situations there would be a lot more interesting design space and strategical options available if the blink wasn't so readily available for any protoss stalker based army.
|
I'd add when lethality or volatility is lower, that doesn't necessarily translate into a lower skill ceiling because there is always room for optimizations in micro (for most pathfinding/hitbox/targetting/blocking../mechanics systems). So whenever the game is paced such that most players can deal with most critical things that happen, there should still be room for the faster or better players to use their extra action time on performing optimizations that won't necessarily turn the game around immediately but still count for something ; and this could also allow different playstyles where some players do that a lot in their own way and others less.
I define skill-cap more in the RTS-context in terms of "if I have 50 extra APM how much better will I get". So even if more APM always benefits you, in a low skill-cap the extra APM will make less difference.
Since the delta is declining as APM increases (meaning difference between 850 vs 800 is less than 450 vs 400), if you give all players twice the time it reduces the skill-cap per definition. (because they will be doing actions that are less valuable)
|
On June 18 2022 17:00 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I'd add when lethality or volatility is lower, that doesn't necessarily translate into a lower skill ceiling because there is always room for optimizations in micro (for most pathfinding/hitbox/targetting/blocking../mechanics systems). So whenever the game is paced such that most players can deal with most critical things that happen, there should still be room for the faster or better players to use their extra action time on performing optimizations that won't necessarily turn the game around immediately but still count for something ; and this could also allow different playstyles where some players do that a lot in their own way and others less. I define skill-cap more in the RTS-context in terms of "if I have 50 extra APM how much better will I get". So even if more APM always benefits you, in a low skill-cap the extra APM will make less difference. Since the delta is declining as APM increases (meaning difference between 850 vs 800 is less than 450 vs 400), if you give all players twice the time it reduces the skill-cap per definition. (because they will be doing actions that are less valuable)
I disagree with this. By the same token, would doubling the rate at which units die in SC2 increase the skill ceiling even further? I would argue that it would do the opposite because it would remove a lot of micro techniques that are currently used by making them humanly impossible to pull off. Similarly, there are a lot of things top-level players do in WC3 that are not done in SC2 even by the best players because it is simply not feasible. They are not taking an existing game and reducing the lethality. They are developing a new game from ground up. They can design the combat in a way that there are so many things one can do that it is still impossible to do everything perfectly and extra APM will always benefit players.
|
On June 18 2022 17:00 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I'd add when lethality or volatility is lower, that doesn't necessarily translate into a lower skill ceiling because there is always room for optimizations in micro (for most pathfinding/hitbox/targetting/blocking../mechanics systems). So whenever the game is paced such that most players can deal with most critical things that happen, there should still be room for the faster or better players to use their extra action time on performing optimizations that won't necessarily turn the game around immediately but still count for something ; and this could also allow different playstyles where some players do that a lot in their own way and others less. I define skill-cap more in the RTS-context in terms of "if I have 50 extra APM how much better will I get". So even if more APM always benefits you, in a low skill-cap the extra APM will make less difference. Since the delta is declining as APM increases (meaning difference between 850 vs 800 is less than 450 vs 400), if you give all players twice the time it reduces the skill-cap per definition. (because they will be doing actions that are less valuable)
In my opinion skill can be found in many other areas than APM (such as decision making and etc), and rewarding higher APM with too much value is detrimental to several things :
* Makes game too much about speed for any newer players (and even all players) and less about strategy
* Makes game kind of exhausting to play for everyone
* leads to actual injury for players who play a lot daily and for a long time
* also arguably reduces the viable playstyles towards speed optimization being the strongest style
|
On June 18 2022 07:15 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2022 05:41 Fanatic-Templar wrote:Agreed on the other points, but On June 16 2022 04:13 Beelzebub1 wrote:
- No, "terrible terrible damage" units like Disruptors, Banelings or Widow Mines. I don't hate these units as much as some people do, but it just strikes me as inherently lazy design to include units that can outright end the game due to a single micro mistake. I hope for literally the opposite. More units like Disruptors, Banelings and Siege Tanks, fewer bland, generic units like Dragoons or Roaches. Nothing's lazier design than that. They punish bad engagements much harder than they punish 'a single micro mistake', and it's that kind of territorial control and map movement that I want to encourage. I want moving somewhere you shouldn't to be punishing, that's the core strategic element of the game, the very one you mentioned yourself when talking about aerial armies. I like Terrible Damage units like the Siege Tank and the Reaver. They have immense potential balanced by huge weaknesses. The Reaver can do insane damage with every shot, but is practically immobile and its shots can also just dud out and do nothing. The tank can control territory, but is also immobile while doing so, and especially in BW its splash can be abused to do more damage to its own army than the enemy. That's fun and dramatic. Compare that to the Colossus, which doesn't have anything like the variance or microability or counterplay of more fun units.
One thing that always annoyed me about these units is that almost all of them have some assymetry in how easy it is to use vs. how hard it is to counter. Chucking a disruptor shot is easier than splitting your units around where its gonna explode. Setting up positioning and moving banelings into a bio clump is much easier than splitting to not get deleted by it. Burrowing a widow mine somewhere is easier than baiting it for some low damage and then dealing with it, and so on.
In the end, since all races have terrible terrible damage units, you often sort of get two people slinging some bullshit at each other where each is harder for the other to dodge than it is use their own bullshit, so it sort of balances out in fairness. But it still frustrates me in gameplay terms quite a bit.
|
A factor in the development of this product versus SC2 is ... funding source. Activision provided Blizzard with a bottomless pit of cash and resources. In February 2009, Dustin Browder triumphantly declared... "We're In The Home Stretch!". It would be another 14 months before a 3 month beta test would begin.
Activision was like the New York Yankees. Activision can just buy their way out of mistakes. This is not the case for Frost Giant. I hope this project does not run out of money. Tim Morten was a top dawg at Victory Games when their C&C project ran out of cash in 2013. Although I do not think the game will get cancelled outright I do think we'll notice promised features being moved off into the indefinite future.
It'll be interesting to see if the public faces of the company acknowledge budget concerns and try to play the "we're the little guy" card when they choose to "delay" certain game features.
|
On June 18 2022 07:15 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2022 05:41 Fanatic-Templar wrote:Agreed on the other points, but On June 16 2022 04:13 Beelzebub1 wrote:
- No, "terrible terrible damage" units like Disruptors, Banelings or Widow Mines. I don't hate these units as much as some people do, but it just strikes me as inherently lazy design to include units that can outright end the game due to a single micro mistake. I hope for literally the opposite. More units like Disruptors, Banelings and Siege Tanks, fewer bland, generic units like Dragoons or Roaches. Nothing's lazier design than that. They punish bad engagements much harder than they punish 'a single micro mistake', and it's that kind of territorial control and map movement that I want to encourage. I want moving somewhere you shouldn't to be punishing, that's the core strategic element of the game, the very one you mentioned yourself when talking about aerial armies. I like Terrible Damage units like the Siege Tank and the Reaver. They have immense potential balanced by huge weaknesses. The Reaver can do insane damage with every shot, but is practically immobile and its shots can also just dud out and do nothing. The tank can control territory, but is also immobile while doing so, and especially in BW its splash can be abused to do more damage to its own army than the enemy. That's fun and dramatic. Compare that to the Colossus, which doesn't have anything like the variance or microability or counterplay of more fun units.
I agree that the Colossus is just awful, I've been saying that since beta. Its "weakness" is that the Viking and Corruptor were basically designed solely to deal with it. But the Reaver? Even worse. Having sheer RNG as a weakness is terrible, I hate it so much. It's basically a Hearthstone card in my favourite RTS, and the Disruptor is an inconceivable improvement over it, I will die on this hill.
|
On June 19 2022 02:22 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
A factor in the development of this product versus SC2 is ... funding source. Activision provided Blizzard with a bottomless pit of cash and resources. In February 2009, Dustin Browder triumphantly declared... "We're In The Home Stretch!". It would be another 14 months before a 3 month beta test would begin.
Activision was like the New York Yankees. Activision can just buy their way out of mistakes. This is not the case for Frost Giant. I hope this project does not run out of money. Tim Morten was a top dawg at Victory Games when their C&C project ran out of cash in 2013. Although I do not think the game will get cancelled outright I do think we'll notice promised features being moved off into the indefinite future.
It'll be interesting to see if the public faces of the company acknowledge budget concerns and try to play the "we're the little guy" card when they choose to "delay" certain game features.
Yeah I expect some sort of continuous "early access" roll-out to get more funding. Nothing necessarily wrong with it as long as the game is fun.
|
On June 19 2022 02:22 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
A factor in the development of this product versus SC2 is ... funding source. Activision provided Blizzard with a bottomless pit of cash and resources. In February 2009, Dustin Browder triumphantly declared... "We're In The Home Stretch!". It would be another 14 months before a 3 month beta test would begin.
Activision was like the New York Yankees. Activision can just buy their way out of mistakes. This is not the case for Frost Giant. I hope this project does not run out of money. Tim Morten was a top dawg at Victory Games when their C&C project ran out of cash in 2013. Although I do not think the game will get cancelled outright I do think we'll notice promised features being moved off into the indefinite future.
It'll be interesting to see if the public faces of the company acknowledge budget concerns and try to play the "we're the little guy" card when they choose to "delay" certain game features.
but this is great news actually for me, I never knew Tim had this fail before, if he failed means he learned a lot so I think he will deliver a great product.
also, I hate the last 2 pages of comments saying terrible terrible damage is great, it is truly awful. you don't want to lose a 200/200 army on your side of the map because you were building a pylon and 2 disruptors kill 80 supply of units in a blink of an eye (colossus on top of stalkers). It happened to me so often to lose all my army when I was looking away, are you guys trolling or you don't play the game? same for worker lines. BW is too slow, sc2 is too fast, maybe there is an in-between?
I can imagine the casters feel the same, you don't just fill up the first 6 minutes of the game for then to wait 6 more minutes and have a big fight for 2 seconds.
|
On June 19 2022 02:22 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
A factor in the development of this product versus SC2 is ... funding source. Activision provided Blizzard with a bottomless pit of cash and resources. In February 2009, Dustin Browder triumphantly declared... "We're In The Home Stretch!". It would be another 14 months before a 3 month beta test would begin.
Activision was like the New York Yankees. Activision can just buy their way out of mistakes. This is not the case for Frost Giant. I hope this project does not run out of money. Tim Morten was a top dawg at Victory Games when their C&C project ran out of cash in 2013. Although I do not think the game will get cancelled outright I do think we'll notice promised features being moved off into the indefinite future.
It'll be interesting to see if the public faces of the company acknowledge budget concerns and try to play the "we're the little guy" card when they choose to "delay" certain game features.
That's not how budgeting works. A budget is allocated based on the projects expected revenue and required rate of return. If it looks like costs exceeds the budget too much the project will just be cut. Blizzard isn't going to put endless money into a game in a relatively niche market like StarCraft 2. There's a reason they haven't started on a StarCraft 3 yet years after lotv.
|
On June 18 2022 18:09 _Spartak_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2022 17:00 Hider wrote:I'd add when lethality or volatility is lower, that doesn't necessarily translate into a lower skill ceiling because there is always room for optimizations in micro (for most pathfinding/hitbox/targetting/blocking../mechanics systems). So whenever the game is paced such that most players can deal with most critical things that happen, there should still be room for the faster or better players to use their extra action time on performing optimizations that won't necessarily turn the game around immediately but still count for something ; and this could also allow different playstyles where some players do that a lot in their own way and others less. I define skill-cap more in the RTS-context in terms of "if I have 50 extra APM how much better will I get". So even if more APM always benefits you, in a low skill-cap the extra APM will make less difference. Since the delta is declining as APM increases (meaning difference between 850 vs 800 is less than 450 vs 400), if you give all players twice the time it reduces the skill-cap per definition. (because they will be doing actions that are less valuable) I disagree with this. By the same token, would doubling the rate at which units die
Units die by it self? No. But if you increase movement speed as well yes probably. Movement speed is generally what makes the skill-cap not lethality.
I argue that this is the case until it becomes impossible for humans to do any type of micro besides amoving around the map. As long as it is possible to micro (e.g. realistically speaking you can focus fire individual units in a larger battle - it's just not efficient useage of time) faster speed = larger skill cap.
It would be so incredibly difficult to play though and thus probably not be a fun experience.
I think you are confusing a concept: What you think of is "variety" of micro mechanics. It's true that if speed is so fast then you may downprioritize certain types of micro (like pulling injured units away). However, if just doing basic things is very very hard that is equal to a very high skill cap (but also skill floor).
Especially once we also take into account that the game is likely to become easier from a macro-perspective.
My point is that while variety of micro is good; you must keep the skill-cap there. So if you make everything about the game slower and thus give players more time to micro and hence reduces the skill cap, you need to find ways to increase it elsewhere.
|
I agree that skill ceiling should be kept as high as possible. I would also agree that lowering unit movement speed and making the game slower overall is probably not the way to go. But the point was about lethality specifically. I don't think Frost Giant have said anything about lowering the game speed overall. They only talked about decreasing lethality.
|
If a game is slower but there's more things happening around the map it wouldn't have a lower skill cap. If a game is too fast you can't deal with stuff happening simultaenously around the map so you can't have a higher skill cap in terms of managing things over a larger scale. Skill cap isn't really tied to speed so much. Tell you what I don't even like the term "skill cap" or "ceiling" so much because of the word cap or ceiling implying there is a limit : D But I think when you make a game too fast it can lose a lot of that and fall into reaction speed territory a lot.
|
On June 19 2022 22:20 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2022 02:22 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
A factor in the development of this product versus SC2 is ... funding source. Activision provided Blizzard with a bottomless pit of cash and resources. In February 2009, Dustin Browder triumphantly declared... "We're In The Home Stretch!". It would be another 14 months before a 3 month beta test would begin.
Activision was like the New York Yankees. Activision can just buy their way out of mistakes. This is not the case for Frost Giant. I hope this project does not run out of money. Tim Morten was a top dawg at Victory Games when their C&C project ran out of cash in 2013. Although I do not think the game will get cancelled outright I do think we'll notice promised features being moved off into the indefinite future.
It'll be interesting to see if the public faces of the company acknowledge budget concerns and try to play the "we're the little guy" card when they choose to "delay" certain game features. That's not how budgeting works. A budget is allocated based on the projects expected revenue and required rate of return. If it looks like costs exceeds the budget too much the project will just be cut. Blizzard isn't going to put endless money into a game in a relatively niche market like StarCraft 2. There's a reason they haven't started on a StarCraft 3 yet years after lotv.
huh? what are you talking about?
The money men decide everything. They make the projections. They change the projections whatever way they want at any time.
There was an adjustment made during SC2's development that altered the revenue projections. They moved from 1 expansion to two. This adjusted revenue projections. The money men signed off on it. This justified the really long development time and paid for Dustin Browder's "home stretch" that occurred for ~18 months from the start of 2009 to July 2010.
Budgeting works however the money men say its going to work. They create the revenue projections that justify the money spent. If the project is behind you can always go back to a guy (like Bobby Kotick or George Steinbrenner) with an endless supply of cash and ask for more.
Back then ,Blizzard was the New York Ynnkees of RTS game dev industry. Like the Yankees of baseball ... no RTS game had anywhere near the money spent on it that SC2 did. The #2 franchise back then was C&C. SC2 outclassed Red Alert 3, C&C3, and C&C4 by a wide margin. There was a 6 foot Jim Raynor Stand Up Model at every "GameStop//EB Games" in Canada.. prolly same in the USA.
Interesting how hated guys like George Steinbrenner and Bobby Kotick were despite spending the most money.
Does Stormgate have the benefit of an ATVI or New York Yankees to smooth over any mistakes with copious amounts of cash.... we'll find out soon enough.
|
On June 19 2022 02:03 gleed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2022 07:15 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On June 18 2022 05:41 Fanatic-Templar wrote:Agreed on the other points, but On June 16 2022 04:13 Beelzebub1 wrote:
- No, "terrible terrible damage" units like Disruptors, Banelings or Widow Mines. I don't hate these units as much as some people do, but it just strikes me as inherently lazy design to include units that can outright end the game due to a single micro mistake. I hope for literally the opposite. More units like Disruptors, Banelings and Siege Tanks, fewer bland, generic units like Dragoons or Roaches. Nothing's lazier design than that. They punish bad engagements much harder than they punish 'a single micro mistake', and it's that kind of territorial control and map movement that I want to encourage. I want moving somewhere you shouldn't to be punishing, that's the core strategic element of the game, the very one you mentioned yourself when talking about aerial armies. I like Terrible Damage units like the Siege Tank and the Reaver. They have immense potential balanced by huge weaknesses. The Reaver can do insane damage with every shot, but is practically immobile and its shots can also just dud out and do nothing. The tank can control territory, but is also immobile while doing so, and especially in BW its splash can be abused to do more damage to its own army than the enemy. That's fun and dramatic. Compare that to the Colossus, which doesn't have anything like the variance or microability or counterplay of more fun units. One thing that always annoyed me about these units is that almost all of them have some assymetry in how easy it is to use vs. how hard it is to counter. Chucking a disruptor shot is easier than splitting your units around where its gonna explode. Setting up positioning and moving banelings into a bio clump is much easier than splitting to not get deleted by it. Burrowing a widow mine somewhere is easier than baiting it for some low damage and then dealing with it, and so on. In the end, since all races have terrible terrible damage units, you often sort of get two people slinging some bullshit at each other where each is harder for the other to dodge than it is use their own bullshit, so it sort of balances out in fairness. But it still frustrates me in gameplay terms quite a bit.
Yes, exactly this. SC2 has done a really good job of evolving into a high quality game with an enjoyable competitive scene, but at the same time this was achieved in part by actually playing up these units, using harass as a way to force players to be fast and active (vs the 200/200 deathballs of old).
I like to think there was an alternate path that didn't go down this road, that would lead to a better game, or especially one that feels better to play at lower levels.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
Don’t super care about the art style, I’ll take generic art if it’s got stellar gameplay. It’s still very early doors after all.
I still recall a pretty strong dislike to both WC3’s art style and core mechanics, and it’s probably my favourite ever game.
Whatever their vision is, I hope they stick with it. We’ve seen enough recent efforts in the genre where devs try to please everyone and end up pleasing nobody.
SC2 was in retrospect completely broken at launch, but hey it improved over time and it showed the appetite people had to play a competitive RTS provided enough other people played it.
Which is why the F2P model makes absolutely perfect sense, for most of us who aren’t decades long RTS veterans. That cohort was big enough, young enough and had enough free time, plus the long-declined ‘Blizzard seal of quality bonus’ to keep a vibrant community.
That’s likely not enough anymore, people need a great game and ease of access, in an industry with insane value like Game Pass, folks aren’t going to drop retail price on a game in a genre they may never have played.
Kiddo doesn’t have much PC exposure outside of playing games when he’s with me, he finds Starcraft cool but a bit taxing as he wasn’t raised by a keyboard and mouse from about the age of 6 like me. In a few years when he has more familiarity with PCs when this drops, hey me and him can get it for free and try it out. Da/son RTS craic, see if he likes it.
RTS almost more than any genre, if it’s to be a competitive multiplayer game, needs the playerbase. They crowdsource the builds, the meta, expose balance issues that a developer doesn’t have the time to playtest. The resources, from basic builds for new players, to advanced micro techniques to optimised keyboard layouts.
Not going F2P I think would be a giant, giant mistake in this day and age. Frankly if they deliver something even 80% as good, and polished with some novel ideas I’ll throw way above retail at them in gratitude, I’m pretty RTS starved like the rest of you.
TLDR trailer feels like a trailer for ‘we’re doing something’s’ sake, I wouldn’t personally read too much into it. Any more in-depth interviews with devs, they seem to know what they are shooting for at the very least, which is a plus.
I’m still personally in the ‘positive until proven otherwise’ camp about this one. The personnel and how they have laid out their vision etc.
|
On June 22 2022 07:06 WombaT wrote:
Whatever their vision is, I hope they stick with it. We’ve seen enough recent efforts in the genre where devs try to please everyone and end up pleasing nobody.
This is what I'm most worried about. I have seen members of Frost Giant answer some questions about the game's design with something like "we want to get <concept> in front of the community early on so we can learn what they want." I don't want a game designed by the loudest voices on reddit. I hope the design choices they are making are coming from internal discussions where they talk about the pro's and con's of each approach and analyze how each piece fits in their game and not based on feedback they're getting from random people on the internet who haven't played their game and don't know how well something would and wouldn't fit in the game as a whole. They should know what they want to be in their game and how it all ties together. If Frost Giant goes looking to the internet for answers they're going to deliver a lukewarm product that pleases nobody.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
