|
Been playing a bit of rogue command. A single player only RTS, with a rogue lite twist. Developed by two persons and launched into EA a weekish ago. Not the best pathing or models, but the twist in the genre is great. It just shows how much design space there still is for the genre. a battle aces style RTS with PvE mode like this would be very lite for casual.
$40million would have been launched a ton of great RTS
|
I would rather one RTS that I can play for a decade+ rather than bunch of smaller RTSes.
|
On November 21 2024 15:14 _Spartak_ wrote: I would rather one RTS that I can play for a decade+ rather than bunch of smaller RTSes. Not like that one has to be a triple A, plenty of best titles in all the genres are indies.
metroidvania: Hollow knight/ deadcell sim: Drawf fortress / rim world fast paced shooter: ultra kill/ turbo overkill RTS: BAR Tower defence: they are billions Extraction shooter coop: deep rock Galactica
Most if not all of them got way higher player count than SG, despite being much older. And SG isn't even a triple A, it's just a double A that just didn't deliver.
|
Well, obviously SG's current player numbers is not what they were aiming for.
|
On November 21 2024 16:42 _Spartak_ wrote: Well, obviously SG's current player numbers is not what they were aiming for. No shit, but that was foreseeable from the get go. You were still lobbying for them like no one else.
When someone has nothing to presentate, yet promise you THE BEST EVER, you know they are frauds
|
To make the "best ever" in a field where the top competitor has had a longer development cycle, bigger budget and a decade of post-release support, they will obviously need time. I can understand that there is no magic formula to make a better SC2 from the get go and they will need extra time. I can also understand not everyone has patience for that. I just hope enough people do because there is no other way to get a really big RTS success. There can still be small scale indie success stories of course but that's not really what I am looking for.
|
On November 21 2024 20:18 _Spartak_ wrote: To make the "best ever" in a field where the top competitor has had a longer development cycle, bigger budget and a decade of post-release support, they will obviously need time. I can understand that there is no magic formula to make a better SC2 from the get go and they will need extra time. I can also understand not everyone has patience for that. I just hope enough people do because there is no other way to get a really big RTS success. There can still be small scale indie success stories of course but that's not really what I am looking for. When you promise/advertise through WARCRAFT STARCRAFT BLIZZARD you better make sure that you deliver
|
I still have a sliver hope left that 3v3 is actually good and it might as well be a fun mode. Though knowing how the tech couldn't even cope with coop play I highly doubt they can make 3v3 playable to some sort of endgame. Even with less units pP
|
When was the last time you played? Performance has improved quite a bit in the last few patches.
|
Frost Giant is missing a key thing, like a tomato sauce without onions, that is hard to know how to solve without having some real insider knowledge.
On the one hand I feel for them because they are nice people trying to make a good thing, and their intentions in 2020 were excellent, but it also feels like all these RTS are phoning in key aspects that would make the game succeed, or are simply incapable of delivering in these key areas.
Partially unfortunate, but also leaves the door open for someone else. It's like when people are buying tickets for the lottery but no one's winning, so it keeps getting bigger. We'll see.
|
|
|
|