EPTIf the main top creatives at King Art games are still around and part of the DoW4 development team then I'm very interested.
General RTS Discussion Thread - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17267 Posts
If the main top creatives at King Art games are still around and part of the DoW4 development team then I'm very interested. | ||
|
lestye
United States4186 Posts
| ||
|
qwerty4w
54 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26265 Posts
If I were to guess, maybe them going independent has something to do with it. Maybe those are the terms of the split, or maybe it was a fractious one, or perhaps Relic simply wanna stretch their wings a bit. Could be all kinds of things I suppose! | ||
|
ETisME
12683 Posts
89 Concurrent players vs 86 on stormgate. 190 vs 199 24hrs peak | ||
|
Miragee
8639 Posts
| ||
|
lestye
United States4186 Posts
With David Kim's project gone, is Dawn of War IV/AoE 4 expansions the last hope for quality RTS? | ||
|
Miragee
8639 Posts
On August 21 2025 04:44 Latham wrote: Dawn of War 2 was very divisive. On one hand - it was a terrible game if you considered it as a successor to Dawn of War 1. They lowered the scale of engagement, got rid of base building, much smaller unit roster and fewer upgrades per squad. BUT, if you can look past that - and NOT look at it as a successor to Dawn of War 1 and instead look at it as a Company of Heroes-like, smaller scale tactical RTS that just happened to be set in the Warhammer 40K universe (and for some odd reason shares the name with the GOATed and amazing Dawn of War 1), it was a fine, fun game that can stand on its own merits. Think of it as Mechanicus or Space Hulk Tactics or Battlefleet Gothic: Armada or even ChaosGate: DemonHunters, i.e a rip-off of already existing game formula just with a Warhammer 40K paint job on top of it, and you have Dawn of War 2. It's basically Company of Heroes in space with the licensing of Warhammer 40K franchise visuals... Now they should have NEVER used the name "Dawn of War 2" for it, and I think history (and people) would be a lot more forgiving towards that game's existence. That's a reasonable take. I remember I enjoyed the campaign back when the game came out but probably more so because it was coop. I recently played through it again alone and found lacking. On August 28 2025 19:05 lestye wrote: I played Stormgate for the first time. And I was completely underwhelmed. I really wanted it to succeed because on paper, a synthesis of SC2 and WC3 sounds incredible. I knew it probably wouldnt be as good as those titles but I figured it'd still be solid given it'd be a game from this decade. Unfortunately I don't think I can produce any critique that hasn't been said a thousand times before so I'll leave at that. With David Kim's project gone, is Dawn of War IV/AoE 4 expansions the last hope for quality RTS? It honestly depends on what you view as quality RTS. DoW games are super janky in their controls. I would rather micro a bunch of dragoons through a mineral line than to simply tell a big unit to just go somewhere in DoW games. DoW2 is somehow even worse than DoW in that regard. I think if you go through this thread, there a few more promising titles mentioned. AoE4 and DoW IV are the only ones with a big budget though. That doesn't mean those games are the only hope though. More money just means they have possibilities in certain areas that smaller studios don't have. In most areas that are in my eyes more important to make a great game, e.g. gameplay ideas, art choice, etc., I don't think money solves anything. | ||
|
lestye
United States4186 Posts
| ||
|
RogerChillingworth
Chad3116 Posts
But really, we just have to pass this painful, bloody stool and let enough time go by that things come back around, like in The Time Machine when it's so far into the future that shit has reset and people are living in tents again. The tent people might have something. but probably not In the meantime I'm still always interested in what people are making, especially smaller groups. I just feel like a lot of efforts fall into the same traps, and many feel more like glorified Risk than an evolution of Blizz RTS. | ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States725 Posts
| ||
|
RogerChillingworth
Chad3116 Posts
BTW, wondering what people think about this comment: On August 30 2025 01:20 qwerty4w wrote: If you make a solid AA-level Blizzard style RTS, like Armies of Exigo, or a great 2D RTS like StarCraft, I think it would likely be well-received in today's market. As a 2D artist who is currently making RTS-style assets, I do wonder how people feel about 2D. I imagine people like it I don't see any reason why they wouldn't. A better question might be if people would accept flatter lighting, and an art style that might not be their favorite, but to me 2D does look a lot better and is more performative. Maybe TL is not the greatest sample size as we are mostly older, but I still think about this often. The thing about 2D, like a full 2D game that doesn't utilize 3D models at all, is that it can be much more time consuming to go back and change things, especially if it's a core change to the 'model' of the character, or even changes to a walk cycle. For this reason, it'd be overall better to make a game that does not fundamentally change, like Brood War, or Chess, and instead change things like maps to keep the game fresh and balanced. So yeah, another question is if a game that does not fundamentally change much once completed could be attractive, as long as the design is great and the balance is good enough. | ||
|
Urth
United States1252 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
12036 Posts
On August 30 2025 11:42 RogerChillingworth wrote: I'll take a look at BAR. BTW, wondering what people think about this comment: As a 2D artist who is currently making RTS-style assets, I do wonder how people feel about 2D. I imagine people like it I don't see any reason why they wouldn't. A better question might be if people would accept flatter lighting, and an art style that might not be their favorite, but to me 2D does look a lot better and is more performative. Maybe TL is not the greatest sample size as we are mostly older, but I still think about this often. The thing about 2D, like a full 2D game that doesn't utilize 3D models at all, is that it can be much more time consuming to go back and change things, especially if it's a core change to the 'model' of the character, or even changes to a walk cycle. For this reason, it'd be overall better to make a game that does not fundamentally change, like Brood War, or Chess, and instead change things like maps to keep the game fresh and balanced. So yeah, another question is if a game that does not fundamentally change much once completed could be attractive, as long as the design is great and the balance is good enough. I personally have mostly moved on from 2D games. It has to be better than a comparable 3D game to spark my interest. I have nothing inherently against it but the RPG-Maker spam has pushed me away from it. When I see a screenshot I assume the worst and have to be proven it is worth a shot. | ||
|
Miragee
8639 Posts
On August 30 2025 11:42 RogerChillingworth wrote: I'll take a look at BAR. BTW, wondering what people think about this comment: As a 2D artist who is currently making RTS-style assets, I do wonder how people feel about 2D. I imagine people like it I don't see any reason why they wouldn't. A better question might be if people would accept flatter lighting, and an art style that might not be their favorite, but to me 2D does look a lot better and is more performative. Maybe TL is not the greatest sample size as we are mostly older, but I still think about this often. The thing about 2D, like a full 2D game that doesn't utilize 3D models at all, is that it can be much more time consuming to go back and change things, especially if it's a core change to the 'model' of the character, or even changes to a walk cycle. For this reason, it'd be overall better to make a game that does not fundamentally change, like Brood War, or Chess, and instead change things like maps to keep the game fresh and balanced. So yeah, another question is if a game that does not fundamentally change much once completed could be attractive, as long as the design is great and the balance is good enough. I haven't really thought about it in terms of RTS but in general I think 2D does quite well. There are a lot of 2D indie games that were/are very popular. I think it's most often more about the art style than it is about graphics fidelity or 2D/3D. Also, 2D games tend to age much better. The the background art of the old infinity engine games from around 2000 still look absolutely gorgeous. I also agree on your take that it's much better to make a competetive game that doesn't change itself, but change the rules around it to keep it fresh. Brood War and Chess are great examples and I think a lot of live service games should take a lesson from those. | ||
|
Garrl
Scotland1975 Posts
On August 30 2025 11:42 RogerChillingworth wrote: I'll take a look at BAR. BTW, wondering what people think about this comment: As a 2D artist who is currently making RTS-style assets, I do wonder how people feel about 2D. I imagine people like it I don't see any reason why they wouldn't. A better question might be if people would accept flatter lighting, and an art style that might not be their favorite, but to me 2D does look a lot better and is more performative. Maybe TL is not the greatest sample size as we are mostly older, but I still think about this often. The thing about 2D, like a full 2D game that doesn't utilize 3D models at all, is that it can be much more time consuming to go back and change things, especially if it's a core change to the 'model' of the character, or even changes to a walk cycle. For this reason, it'd be overall better to make a game that does not fundamentally change, like Brood War, or Chess, and instead change things like maps to keep the game fresh and balanced. So yeah, another question is if a game that does not fundamentally change much once completed could be attractive, as long as the design is great and the balance is good enough. While it is 8 years old now, Tooth and Tail did kinda prove 2D RTS can still work and for easy readability, 2D has a ton of advantages over 3D. | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
Chad3116 Posts
Yurie I have no idea what RPG-Maker is but it sounds awful, I'm sorry. I have seen a lot of 2D games do well, and they look really good. For RTS, doing the full animations for every unit (walk, death, attack, abilities, etc.) is immense. I was even thinking about how DORF is using some tech so they can tilt their sprites up or down depending on elevation, which is something SC doesn't have. For a full 2D thing, you'd have to go the SC way where it's just 'known' what the elevation is, and the units maintain their orientation. Otherwise you're doing everything three times, which is ridiculous. For my tests I do 8 directional movement, but that's not enough for a real game. In a video you can make it work, but otherwise I feel like you'd need at least 16. The google AI is telling me SC has 32, but it's because they used crude 3D models and then painted on top of them. And I don't think the game actually works in 32 directions, 16 at most. I'm not sure on this one. 16 angles does make sense, but you couldn't draw all that by hand. Not unless you reduced your unique unit count by a lot, or were ok conveyoring out a new asset every 4-6 months (as a solo). But anyway, I do love this idea of a game that doesn't fundamentally change once it's finished. It's way more memorable like that. No games do it because people expect constant new dopamine hits, but the other way is better. | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
Chad3116 Posts
Waiting to see a full DORF game. Curious about any gnarly stuff you can do, or if you run up to the enemy units and fire. It seems like more of a tactical game, which is cool enough. In their most recent vid, "infantry combat" + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
qwerty4w
54 Posts
If you don't need the modern graphical features, making an RTS on an RTS engine is much easier than making one on Unreal or Unity, which requires the developer to write most of the game logic from scratch, that even an AA-level Unreal/Unity game like Tempest Rising or Broken Arrow can lack some of the basic features like replay or save, or lack the optimization needed for moderately high unit counts. | ||
|
qwerty4w
54 Posts
Apparently many of the biggest FPS titles around PS3/Xbox 360 era cost less than $25 million to make (gamesindustry.biz/rein-puts-dev-cost-for-gears-of-war-at-10m digitalspy.com/videogames/a82352/halo-3-cost-15-million-to-develop gamewatcher.com/news/2008-20-08-crytek-reveals-crysis-cost-at-22-million-cryengine-2-around-2012), Warcraft 3 is about one generation older than Halo 3 and Crysis so probably cost significantly less, it may not even have a high-end AA budget by today's standard adjusted for inflation. | ||
| ||
