|
On August 01 2024 18:25 KingzTig wrote:
the biggest mistake is the scope, and their decision to go UE5.
Nothing so far show off the capability of UE5, and we ended up with a game that doesn't look good, poorly optimised, and netcode that doesn't even feel that different than battle aces.
I don't think that was a mistake. I think that was completely necessary. It's kinda obvious from how fast the marketing/development of this game was, they had to get it out quickly. I don't think there's many options outside of UE5, especially with the Unity shitshow yesteryear.
|
On August 02 2024 00:18 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2024 18:25 KingzTig wrote:
the biggest mistake is the scope, and their decision to go UE5.
Nothing so far show off the capability of UE5, and we ended up with a game that doesn't look good, poorly optimised, and netcode that doesn't even feel that different than battle aces.
I don't think that was a mistake. I think that was completely necessary. It's kinda obvious from how fast the marketing/development of this game was, they had to get it out quickly. I don't think there's many options outside of UE5, especially with the Unity shitshow yesteryear.
UE4 still likely has a larger library and solutions to problems. UE5 is of course more modern but I don't think you would use most of the new stuff for an RTS.
Quick checking seems to say most games are made with custom engines, at least a few years back. But that requires a long tradition of games since the engine is very expensive to make. Since then both Unity and UE4 have had RTS titles released.
|
So i did the campaign missions. I would say the last 3 missions are way better then the first 3.
Some people have said the first 3 missions are supposed to be more of a tutorial but if that's the case i dont think it accomplishes itself as a tutorial very well. The first mission reminded me of the first mission for allied red alert 2 where you just run around with a hero unit from place to place but go play that mission compared to this one and tell me which one is more memorable or fun.
The hero unit is way too overpowered and feels overpowered in a boring way as they just have a ton of health. The abilities dont feel very interesting in most missions. There was the mission in the temple where the abilities come across a little better but in most of the missions it feels like you just have a ton of health and the hero can almost take on anything seemingly itself. The best mission was probally 4 where its a rip off from outbreak in sc2 where you can defend from waves and can move out in between. Once you figure out that static defense is very strong that becomes pretty trival too though.
Overall i wouldn't recommend it though if your looking for a single player experience. There isnt anything new here and it dosnt do anything better that other games have done. The story isn't very interesting, there isnt really any cool physics going on and graphically it isn't noteworthy.
|
|
|
good feedback. though what worries me is the talk they said they seen most of the feedback on amara and no mouths. sure those are blaring issues but i think the cutscenes have a overall major quality issue. If they just fix these issues... it will still be bad.
|
"Developer words like golden dumplings, but game taste like old cabbage" - Ancient Chinese proverb
|
Campaign was the most uninspired thing I've seen in a hot minute.
Co Op is a bit better, but it'll be a long time before it's better than SC2's co-op if at all.
Anyone found a particularly effective build in co op? I'm still working on that myself.
|
Shout out to Spartak, who isnt getting much sleep these days.
FGS went backwards full speed with the day 0 hero dilemma. LOL
|
On August 02 2024 03:01 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2024 00:18 lestye wrote:On August 01 2024 18:25 KingzTig wrote:
the biggest mistake is the scope, and their decision to go UE5.
Nothing so far show off the capability of UE5, and we ended up with a game that doesn't look good, poorly optimised, and netcode that doesn't even feel that different than battle aces.
I don't think that was a mistake. I think that was completely necessary. It's kinda obvious from how fast the marketing/development of this game was, they had to get it out quickly. I don't think there's many options outside of UE5, especially with the Unity shitshow yesteryear. UE4 still likely has a larger library and solutions to problems. UE5 is of course more modern but I don't think you would use most of the new stuff for an RTS. Quick checking seems to say most games are made with custom engines, at least a few years back. But that requires a long tradition of games since the engine is very expensive to make. Since then both Unity and UE4 have had RTS titles released.
Lets be honest: They would have gotten so much shit thrown their way if they had used UE4. "You want to do next gen RTS but use 10 year old engine rolfmao what kind of loser are you"
And UE5 is of course widely known and played with, so the modding community is there already.
|
I can't tell what their reasoning is on the art direction. Either they genuinely don't understand that it is really off-putting for a lot of people, or they're in so deep that it would be too expensive to change. If it's the latter then it's understandable to not want to admit that. The art direction is going to hurt the game, and polishing up the graphics with fancier textures and lighting isn't going to fix what is fundamentally ugly.
The decision to release the campaign in such rough shape is baffling. Campaigns aren't like multiplayer; they aren't something that most people will play over and over again. You only get to experience a story for the first time once. The first impression is THE impression. Saying that they'll make it look better in the future is nice, but as is I think there's very little incentive to pay for it unless you're a diehard supporter of the game. Experiencing it now will lessen the experience of playing the improved finished product. That is of course assuming that the campaign ever actually becomes good enough to be worth the money.
|
I mean, stylized essentially means not hyper realistic. Stylized graphics tend to age better, whereas realistic doesn't since technology is constantly improving. Look at any kind of "realistic" game from the past compared to games being made today.
The graphics improving could be by roughing up the unit models a bit (less plasticky/shiny), fixing animations (less rigid), improving lighting, making it more gritty, etc.
SC2 in pre-alpha - people made the same comments and they made it a bit grittier to positive results. I think the models need more work in general - looking at something like the gaunt portrait makes it seem worse than Warcraft 3.
SC2 still looks a lot better - the maps and textures and lighting and everything is better than Stormgate. When I boot up SC2 after Stormgate I think "whoa!" it's like night and day in some scenarios. Especially factoring in performance. (As in, if Stormgate looks worse, I would expect it to perform better).
The graphics have improved but definitely a long way to go. If each major patch has noticeable improvements, that maybe we can have a little hope.
I don't think some major overhaul is realistic or possible. I wouldn't estimate how much better lighting, grittier textures, better graphics on maps, etc. can help. At least it should look like a higher fidelity SC2, eventually.
edit: one more thing - I really wish they would do 3D portraits. I think there was talk about it before, and they said it would cost a ton of money to do. For me it also makes the game look a lot nicer... we've had animated portraits since SC1. Hopefully it's something that eventually comes... some of the portraits are really bad IMO, even if I think the in-game models are decent for where we are.
|
You don't really have any cool physics going on either with death animations or dead things sliding down ramps or interacting with the environment.
At least from what i could see or notice.
|
8748 Posts
The decision to release the campaign in such rough shape is baffling. Campaigns aren't like multiplayer; they aren't something that most people will play over and over again. You only get to experience a story for the first time once. The first impression is THE impression. Saying that they'll make it look better in the future is nice, but as is I think there's very little incentive to pay for it unless you're a diehard supporter of the game. Experiencing it now will lessen the experience of playing the improved finished product. That is of course assuming that the campaign ever actually becomes good enough to be worth the money.
Imo it’s weird how people think that because they paid money, it’s magically a finished game. Any game I’m really interested in and have high expectations for, I would never ever touch alpha/beta/EA. I definitely wouldn’t pay money for it. Sometimes I don’t even touch release day but instead wait for the first major post-release patch. And I might even choose not to play it at all if the reviews are bad.
I’m playing the competitive 1v1 mode of SG knowing how flawed it is but enjoying the good parts, and also because it’s a continuous experience and not a one time playthrough. That’s my one exception to not playing unfinished games — I don’t mind getting involved in the competitive multiplayer as it develops.
Playing EA means it is an admittedly unfinished and flawed product and your experience is going to be significantly worse than someone who waits for 1.0 or 1.1. There are placeholders, things not implemented, things that need to be iterated upon a few times, etc etc.
It makes sense to give constructive feedback as part of the development process. What I don’t understand is people taking the angle of “I paid money and I’m upset this is clearly unfinished and flawed.” People with high standards have no business participating in EA.
|
On August 02 2024 23:49 NonY wrote:Show nested quote + The decision to release the campaign in such rough shape is baffling. Campaigns aren't like multiplayer; they aren't something that most people will play over and over again. You only get to experience a story for the first time once. The first impression is THE impression. Saying that they'll make it look better in the future is nice, but as is I think there's very little incentive to pay for it unless you're a diehard supporter of the game. Experiencing it now will lessen the experience of playing the improved finished product. That is of course assuming that the campaign ever actually becomes good enough to be worth the money. Imo it’s weird how people think that because they paid money, it’s magically a finished game. Any game I’m really interested in and have high expectations for, I would never ever touch alpha/beta/EA. I definitely wouldn’t pay money for it. Sometimes I don’t even touch release day but instead wait for the first major post-release patch. And I might even choose not to play it at all if the reviews are bad. I’m playing the competitive 1v1 mode of SG knowing how flawed it is but enjoying the good parts, and also because it’s a continuous experience and not a one time playthrough. That’s my one exception to not playing unfinished games — I don’t mind getting involved in the competitive multiplayer as it develops. Playing EA means it is an admittedly unfinished and flawed product and your experience is going to be significantly worse than someone who waits for 1.0 or 1.1. There are placeholders, things not implemented, things that need to be iterated upon a few times, etc etc. It makes sense to give constructive feedback as part of the development process. What I don’t understand is people taking the angle of “I paid money and I’m upset this is clearly unfinished and flawed.” People with high standards have no business participating in EA.
This argument has no teeth because this isn't funded to 1.0 launch.
I can't believe we are still debating about how beautiful it will be in the future, when the game NEEDS to sell the campaign packs to fund itself to the 1.0 launch.
They essentially let you play the most basic of all campaign and failing to build up any sort of intriguing plot to at least get players interested.
If they can't do it well, this does nothing but burn even more cash for the game. Campaign is the expensive cost side, VA and animation, custom models aren't cheap.
if you actually play a lot of EA titles, you'd know how many get abandoned or just get launched as a "1.0" and falls off.
Backers should be concerned, even FG is saying some visual improvements are costly.
|
On August 02 2024 23:49 NonY wrote:Show nested quote + The decision to release the campaign in such rough shape is baffling. Campaigns aren't like multiplayer; they aren't something that most people will play over and over again. You only get to experience a story for the first time once. The first impression is THE impression. Saying that they'll make it look better in the future is nice, but as is I think there's very little incentive to pay for it unless you're a diehard supporter of the game. Experiencing it now will lessen the experience of playing the improved finished product. That is of course assuming that the campaign ever actually becomes good enough to be worth the money. Imo it’s weird how people think that because they paid money, it’s magically a finished game. Any game I’m really interested in and have high expectations for, I would never ever touch alpha/beta/EA. I definitely wouldn’t pay money for it. Sometimes I don’t even touch release day but instead wait for the first major post-release patch. And I might even choose not to play it at all if the reviews are bad. I’m playing the competitive 1v1 mode of SG knowing how flawed it is but enjoying the good parts, and also because it’s a continuous experience and not a one time playthrough. That’s my one exception to not playing unfinished games — I don’t mind getting involved in the competitive multiplayer as it develops. Playing EA means it is an admittedly unfinished and flawed product and your experience is going to be significantly worse than someone who waits for 1.0 or 1.1. There are placeholders, things not implemented, things that need to be iterated upon a few times, etc etc. It makes sense to give constructive feedback as part of the development process. What I don’t understand is people taking the angle of “I paid money and I’m upset this is clearly unfinished and flawed.” People with high standards have no business participating in EA.
I don't disagree that paying money doesn't mean that it has to be a finished product; that is the essential idea behind EA. My point is that an extremely rough and unfinished campaign is something that is particularly unsuited to this sort of release, which creates a potentially damaging amount of negative attention. Multiplayer works better as an EA experience because it's something that is meant to be played over and over again. As you yourself point out, you can repeatedly play multiplayer and enjoy what works well there while appreciating the changes as they come.
There are certain single player experiences that can work well in EA. Darkest Dungeon comes to mind, because it was well suited to repeated play and grinding. Unfortunately most RTS campaigns aren't structured like this, and it looks like that includes Stormgate. These have an experience more akin to a movie, a linear story that most people will only enjoy once, so the initial impact needs to be strong. Take this unfinished cut of the ending of X-Men Origins: Wolverine (it's a bad movie, but the scene is a good example). There's a reason you don't usually see stuff like this get released prior to a movie's debut in theaters. Only a small group of really hardcore fans will be interested, everyone else would rather experience that scene in its finished form for the first time.
Single player is what gets the casuals through the door and has always been what most customers actually engage with when it comes to RTS. Us multiplayer fans are the minority. The campaign has a massive influence on how the game is perceived, so I question of the wisdom of releasing an extremely rough campaign when it's what will suffer the most and receive the most blowback in early access. I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that the mediocre campaign has played a huge role in Stormgate's negative reputation outside of the really hardcore RTS community, and most people just aren't going to come back to play a polished version of the campaign (if there ever is one) in the same way that they might for multiplayer.
|
On August 02 2024 23:49 NonY wrote:Show nested quote + The decision to release the campaign in such rough shape is baffling. Campaigns aren't like multiplayer; they aren't something that most people will play over and over again. You only get to experience a story for the first time once. The first impression is THE impression. Saying that they'll make it look better in the future is nice, but as is I think there's very little incentive to pay for it unless you're a diehard supporter of the game. Experiencing it now will lessen the experience of playing the improved finished product. That is of course assuming that the campaign ever actually becomes good enough to be worth the money. Imo it’s weird how people think that because they paid money, it’s magically a finished game. Any game I’m really interested in and have high expectations for, I would never ever touch alpha/beta/EA. I definitely wouldn’t pay money for it. Sometimes I don’t even touch release day but instead wait for the first major post-release patch. And I might even choose not to play it at all if the reviews are bad. I’m playing the competitive 1v1 mode of SG knowing how flawed it is but enjoying the good parts, and also because it’s a continuous experience and not a one time playthrough. That’s my one exception to not playing unfinished games — I don’t mind getting involved in the competitive multiplayer as it develops. Playing EA means it is an admittedly unfinished and flawed product and your experience is going to be significantly worse than someone who waits for 1.0 or 1.1. There are placeholders, things not implemented, things that need to be iterated upon a few times, etc etc. It makes sense to give constructive feedback as part of the development process. What I don’t understand is people taking the angle of “I paid money and I’m upset this is clearly unfinished and flawed.” People with high standards have no business participating in EA.
Here is what I will say. Stormgate is not a traditional early access game. Usually early access, like if u purchased the ultimate edition for dawntrail final fantasy 14 expansion u got early access about a week early. The game was not in an unfinished state. You just got to play early, hence early access. In the case of StormGate I think buyers did know to some extent they were getting an incomplete game (few campaign missions, few co-op heroes, and not all tier 3 in multiplayer) BUT they expected those to be polished at the very least. To me, this version of StormGate feels more like a beta than an early access. I think frost giants major issue was not tempering expectations. Clearly almost everyone who tried the campaign being shocked by the poor quality means there was some information not bridged to consumers.
|
The phrase “Early Access” in game development and marketing has been used almost exclusively to refer to a strategy of making an unfinished game available to players for money with the understanding that the developers will keep working on it over the next few years and the finished product may look very different (hopefully better). You should be thinking of a model like Minecraft or Kerbal Space Program or Hello Neighbor. The phenomenon of AAA titles selling a more expensive version of the game that lets you play a few days early is entirely unrelated and I’ve never seen it called Early Access, despite it involving players gaining access to the game early.
I haven’t played the Stormgate Early Access build, and can’t speak to whether it lives up to expectations even of an Early Access release, but I don’t think there’s much reason to be confused about the Early Access concept. It’s pretty well-trod ground at this point and players generally understand what it is and isn’t promising.
|
On August 03 2024 03:57 CicadaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2024 23:49 NonY wrote: The decision to release the campaign in such rough shape is baffling. Campaigns aren't like multiplayer; they aren't something that most people will play over and over again. You only get to experience a story for the first time once. The first impression is THE impression. Saying that they'll make it look better in the future is nice, but as is I think there's very little incentive to pay for it unless you're a diehard supporter of the game. Experiencing it now will lessen the experience of playing the improved finished product. That is of course assuming that the campaign ever actually becomes good enough to be worth the money. Imo it’s weird how people think that because they paid money, it’s magically a finished game. Any game I’m really interested in and have high expectations for, I would never ever touch alpha/beta/EA. I definitely wouldn’t pay money for it. Sometimes I don’t even touch release day but instead wait for the first major post-release patch. And I might even choose not to play it at all if the reviews are bad. I’m playing the competitive 1v1 mode of SG knowing how flawed it is but enjoying the good parts, and also because it’s a continuous experience and not a one time playthrough. That’s my one exception to not playing unfinished games — I don’t mind getting involved in the competitive multiplayer as it develops. Playing EA means it is an admittedly unfinished and flawed product and your experience is going to be significantly worse than someone who waits for 1.0 or 1.1. There are placeholders, things not implemented, things that need to be iterated upon a few times, etc etc. It makes sense to give constructive feedback as part of the development process. What I don’t understand is people taking the angle of “I paid money and I’m upset this is clearly unfinished and flawed.” People with high standards have no business participating in EA. Here is what I will say. Stormgate is not a traditional early access game. Usually early access, like if u purchased the ultimate edition for dawntrail final fantasy 14 expansion u got early access about a week early. The game was not in an unfinished state. You just got to play early, hence early access. In the case of StormGate I think buyers did know to some extent they were getting an incomplete game (few campaign missions, few co-op heroes, and not all tier 3 in multiplayer) BUT they expected those to be polished at the very least. To me, this version of StormGate feels more like a beta than an early access. I think frost giants major issue was not tempering expectations. Clearly almost everyone who tried the campaign being shocked by the poor quality means there was some information not bridged to consumers. I think you missed the last few years of game related..'stuff'.
Yes releasing unfinished product is now a days known as early access. People pay for the 'privilege' of helping test and give feedback to games and in doing so help studios fund the further development of said game (or they run off with the money never to return). Steam if full, and I mean full, of 'early access' games that follow this exact business model.
What SG is doing isn't new or different, its an industy staple.
|
On August 03 2024 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2024 03:57 CicadaSC wrote:On August 02 2024 23:49 NonY wrote: The decision to release the campaign in such rough shape is baffling. Campaigns aren't like multiplayer; they aren't something that most people will play over and over again. You only get to experience a story for the first time once. The first impression is THE impression. Saying that they'll make it look better in the future is nice, but as is I think there's very little incentive to pay for it unless you're a diehard supporter of the game. Experiencing it now will lessen the experience of playing the improved finished product. That is of course assuming that the campaign ever actually becomes good enough to be worth the money. Imo it’s weird how people think that because they paid money, it’s magically a finished game. Any game I’m really interested in and have high expectations for, I would never ever touch alpha/beta/EA. I definitely wouldn’t pay money for it. Sometimes I don’t even touch release day but instead wait for the first major post-release patch. And I might even choose not to play it at all if the reviews are bad. I’m playing the competitive 1v1 mode of SG knowing how flawed it is but enjoying the good parts, and also because it’s a continuous experience and not a one time playthrough. That’s my one exception to not playing unfinished games — I don’t mind getting involved in the competitive multiplayer as it develops. Playing EA means it is an admittedly unfinished and flawed product and your experience is going to be significantly worse than someone who waits for 1.0 or 1.1. There are placeholders, things not implemented, things that need to be iterated upon a few times, etc etc. It makes sense to give constructive feedback as part of the development process. What I don’t understand is people taking the angle of “I paid money and I’m upset this is clearly unfinished and flawed.” People with high standards have no business participating in EA. Here is what I will say. Stormgate is not a traditional early access game. Usually early access, like if u purchased the ultimate edition for dawntrail final fantasy 14 expansion u got early access about a week early. The game was not in an unfinished state. You just got to play early, hence early access. In the case of StormGate I think buyers did know to some extent they were getting an incomplete game (few campaign missions, few co-op heroes, and not all tier 3 in multiplayer) BUT they expected those to be polished at the very least. To me, this version of StormGate feels more like a beta than an early access. I think frost giants major issue was not tempering expectations. Clearly almost everyone who tried the campaign being shocked by the poor quality means there was some information not bridged to consumers. I think you missed the last few years of game related..'stuff'. Yes releasing unfinished product is now a days known as early access. People pay for the 'privilege' of helping test and give feedback to games and in doing so help studios fund the further development of said game (or they run off with the money never to return). Steam if full, and I mean full, of 'early access' games that follow this exact business model. What SG is doing isn't new or different, its an industy staple.
Sure, and maybe it is that way for a lot of games. I will admit I don't play those but I'll take your word. If you look at for example Early Access to Elden ring, world of Warcraft, final fantasy, lots of these big releases you are just getting access to play the game early, not that you are a beta tester. Some players may have seen how frost giant is marketing their game as a AAA RTS, successor to StarCraft etc and we're expecting more polish (though unfinished). I mean just look at the people who negatively reviewed it. They were shocked by the quality. I think that means they didn't get what they were expecting. So imo its gotta be a communication issue.
|
On August 03 2024 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2024 03:57 CicadaSC wrote:On August 02 2024 23:49 NonY wrote: The decision to release the campaign in such rough shape is baffling. Campaigns aren't like multiplayer; they aren't something that most people will play over and over again. You only get to experience a story for the first time once. The first impression is THE impression. Saying that they'll make it look better in the future is nice, but as is I think there's very little incentive to pay for it unless you're a diehard supporter of the game. Experiencing it now will lessen the experience of playing the improved finished product. That is of course assuming that the campaign ever actually becomes good enough to be worth the money. Imo it’s weird how people think that because they paid money, it’s magically a finished game. Any game I’m really interested in and have high expectations for, I would never ever touch alpha/beta/EA. I definitely wouldn’t pay money for it. Sometimes I don’t even touch release day but instead wait for the first major post-release patch. And I might even choose not to play it at all if the reviews are bad. I’m playing the competitive 1v1 mode of SG knowing how flawed it is but enjoying the good parts, and also because it’s a continuous experience and not a one time playthrough. That’s my one exception to not playing unfinished games — I don’t mind getting involved in the competitive multiplayer as it develops. Playing EA means it is an admittedly unfinished and flawed product and your experience is going to be significantly worse than someone who waits for 1.0 or 1.1. There are placeholders, things not implemented, things that need to be iterated upon a few times, etc etc. It makes sense to give constructive feedback as part of the development process. What I don’t understand is people taking the angle of “I paid money and I’m upset this is clearly unfinished and flawed.” People with high standards have no business participating in EA. Here is what I will say. Stormgate is not a traditional early access game. Usually early access, like if u purchased the ultimate edition for dawntrail final fantasy 14 expansion u got early access about a week early. The game was not in an unfinished state. You just got to play early, hence early access. In the case of StormGate I think buyers did know to some extent they were getting an incomplete game (few campaign missions, few co-op heroes, and not all tier 3 in multiplayer) BUT they expected those to be polished at the very least. To me, this version of StormGate feels more like a beta than an early access. I think frost giants major issue was not tempering expectations. Clearly almost everyone who tried the campaign being shocked by the poor quality means there was some information not bridged to consumers. I think you missed the last few years of game related..'stuff'. Yes releasing unfinished product is now a days known as early access. People pay for the 'privilege' of helping test and give feedback to games and in doing so help studios fund the further development of said game (or they run off with the money never to return). Steam if full, and I mean full, of 'early access' games that follow this exact business model. What SG is doing isn't new or different, its an industy staple.
It's a staple to pay a discounted price, for early access to a full priced game, that is under development.
whats the last game that has a paid for EA, for a F2P multiplayer game?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
