Stormgate - sci-fi/fantasy RTS from ex-Blizzard devs - now on Early Access

[RaggleFraggle]

Well, there’s also Zerospace and Immortal: Gates of Pyre.

 

[ghardy]

I spent a (rather enjoyable) twenty minutes reading the reviews on Steam for Stormgate.

• It looks as though the game merits all the opprobrium being heaped upon it
• The developers seem slow on the uptake

Between the art style, the monetization schemes and the campaign, it's being panned left and right.
It is estimated that the game is roughly two years away from a respectable finish.

 

[motherfucker]

Damn what riveting micro.

 

[Venser]

 

[Multidirectional]

Played a bunch of Zerg in this to start with, as I had during previous free access week. Had fun overall but started getting seriously triggered by Terran once I reached about 1.6k MMR. My army units kept derping, blocking each other while trying to chase their bio armies hopelessly. They just stutter-step backwards until my army disappears and it doesn't look like I can do shit. So switched to Terran. At first to figure out how to beat them with Zerg but ended up enjoying them quite a bit more so I'm sticking to that race for now. I mean, Terran in this game has both zerglings and chargelots, hard to beat that. Also they just seem to have much better unit choices in general and their army movement feels significantly smoother. This must be a race they made first as it's obviously the more developed one. Tried a few games of Protoss too but they seemed confusing as fuck and I wasn't feeling it, so I put it off until later.

This game, while also having lots of shit to do at any given moment, feels significantly less intense than SC II. Slower start and much lower lethality means significantly more time to react to things. I haven't had a single moment of "oops game lost because I looked away for couple seconds" in over 100 matches that I played so far. So this game could definitely appeal to people who like general idea of SCII but are intimidated by volatility of it. Provided devs end up polishing it to appropriate level and don't make too retarded decisions with balance patches. They need to fix performance too, game can drop below 60 FPS for me in 1v1 late game stage with massive armies. Scrolling replays also gives pretty bad FPS drops. I hear they are planning to include 3v3 soon and I find it hard to believe it will be playable for most people. Unless they bring some miracles of optimization with it somehow.

And oh yeah, league system in this seems to be baby mode, as I've never lost ranking points once. Actually there were some instances where I gained points even after I lost the game. Even got promoted like that once. It seems anybody can reach "high leagues" here as long as they play long enough. So MMR is pretty much the only thing that actually matters.

 

[thesheeep]

From the latest KS update:

Early Access, like our previous development phases, is about improving the game with each release as we move towards achieving our vision for 1.0. That said, we’re well aware that many players had higher expectations in terms of art and audio for our day one Early Access release, so we’re going to dedicate significant efforts to improving key areas that players have identified need additional work. We’re going to be updating the body proportions for the unit models in our in-game cutscenes and reworking Amara’s character design. We’re also going to be making changes to our map visuals that we’re excited to roll out for you all to see.

I guess the massive negative feedback in the form of "wtf is this shit" reviews finally made an impact.
Idiotic that they didn't foresee this.

I wonder if those changes will actually have an impact - but the main character not looking like a frog person caricature anymore would be an improvement either way...

 

[ghardy]

I spent (a rather enjoyable) twenty minutes reading some of the reviews of this train wreck on Steam. The developers really missed the boat.

Well, at least it's not Dustborn, good God!

 

[ghardy]

On the Steam discussion forums for Stormgate, the outlook is grim. Some people think it won't live to see a 1.0 version. Others liken it to a scam at this point.

One poster is amazingly sure that the 3v3 mode will be great, in spite of evidence that not even 1v1 is good performance-wise, let alone in terms of worthwhile content.

How? How? How can developers be so off the mark? Really all they had to do was take the old model of RTS and fix some QoL issues here and there. That would have been reasonably successful too. It truly wasn't that hard.

 

[ArchAngel]

Recently released Age of Mythology Retold has more playbase and interest than this trainwreck. I do not see how it recovers.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

80% of players never play competitive. We have multiple statistics from developers to back this up. It’s ridiculous that any RTS dev is still trying to chase the esports crowd instead of the general audience.

 

[Cyberarmy]

80% of players never play competitive. We have multiple statistics from developers to back this up. It’s ridiculous that any RTS dev is still trying to chase the esports crowd instead of the general audience.

Yeah, I'm here for campaign and occasional free for all on random maps. Map generators are always a bonus.

 

[Feyd Rautha]

 

[gooseman]

What killed RTS is gookclicking esports faggotshit, not mobas (maybe to a degree), and starcraft is directly responsible for it. That's why the only RTS we see are these shitty shartcraft clones, all the exact same shit, and shartcraft wasn't even that good. Same way as every fps being released are overwatch+csgo type heroshooters with moba elements made for esports (they miss the fact that for a game to become an esport it has to be a good game that people play, for a start).
Meanwhile, good RTS games like Zero-K with physics, tactics, strategy, terraforming, stealth cloaking, radar warfare, probably the best QOL of any RTS in existence (this is mostly enabled by the engine, BAR has some of this too), game lobbies up to 32 players (can be fun, but imo the game shines in small teams) and so much other cool shit and depth are completely fucking ignored and it's FREE.
You brought upon yourself.

 

[abija]

Esports has nothing to do with it. They just couldn't translate to the increases masses of normies. Pumping money into production values wouldn't guarantee sales so publishers didn't want to invest in them.

 

[ArchAngel]

What killed RTS is gookclicking esports faggotshit, not mobas (maybe to a degree), and starcraft is directly responsible for it. That's why the only RTS we see are these shitty shartcraft clones, all the exact same shit, and shartcraft wasn't even that good. Same way as every fps being released are overwatch+csgo type heroshooters with moba elements made for esports (they miss the fact that for a game to become an esport it has to be a good game that people play, for a start).
Meanwhile, good RTS games like Zero-K with physics, tactics, strategy, terraforming, stealth cloaking, radar warfare, probably the best QOL of any RTS in existence (this is mostly enabled by the engine, BAR has some of this too), game lobbies up to 32 players (can be fun, but imo the game shines in small teams) and so much other cool shit and depth are completely fucking ignored and it's FREE.
You brought upon yourself.

TA type games was always the smallest type of RTS, it would never get large amount of players compared with Crafts, C&Cs and Ages

 

[gooseman]

TA type games was always the smallest type of RTS

Because le normies want bad games like starcraft.
Esports shovelware (supposedly) makes money, which is why they are the only types of games being made. It's ultimately greed of cripple-A, and indies retardedly copying just about every single bad practice they see cripple-A do.

 

[ArchAngel]

TA type games was always the smallest type of RTS

Because le normies want bad games like starcraft.
Esports shovelware (supposedly) makes money, which is why they are the only types of games being made. It's ultimately greed of cripple-A, and indies retardedly copying just about every single bad practice they see cripple-A do.

Or TA type RTS is just not as interesting. I do not remember any such game having any type of interesting campaign and most RTS players only play campaign and only few skirmish games.

 

[Multidirectional]

I didn't play TA but I did try getting into Supreme Commander more than once and played few games of Zero-K. These games just bore the crap out of me, I'll stick to my bad gookclick games.

 

[ghardy]

FWIW, here's my sense of fun and interest of the Big Four:

*Crafts >= C&C > Age of * > TA/SC

 

[gooseman]

TA type games was always the smallest type of RTS

Because le normies want bad games like starcraft.
Esports shovelware (supposedly) makes money, which is why they are the only types of games being made. It's ultimately greed of cripple-A, and indies retardedly copying just about every single bad practice they see cripple-A do.

Or TA type RTS is just not as interesting. I do not remember any such game having any type of interesting campaign and most RTS players only play campaign and only few skirmish games.

Campaigns are the weakest part, but everything else is incomparably better than anything the competition has to offer. Zero-k has a campaign, but I didn't play it, because I spent hundreds of hours on MP, which no other RTS compelled me to play before.

*Crafts >= C&C > Age of * > TA/SC

I really don't understand how a game with peak mechanical depth is < than games where you just click really fast and memorize build orders and rock paper scissors units.
Maybe these games shouldn't be compared. I like campaigns and those games are good for that, but for pure gameplay, TA successors are just on another level. The studios that were making them, unfortunately, couldn't survive to push their vision of the genre to the level of recognition and praise that it deserves. But they must've done something very right, if, despite the much smaller community, multiple games in their image were made independently, and those games are great.

I'll admit I'm harsh on the other games, and they are good in their own right, but seeing the billionth identical starcraft clone with absolutely 0 creativity behind it is not encouraging. Genre is stagnant, I want something new (and I don't mean TA-likes, we have a few good ones already).

 

[almondblight]

SC1 is overrated as fuck.

Yes, but Broodwar much more so.

1. New units are stupid and directly undermine the asymmetry of the original. Terran organic units were the only units in the game that couldn't heal at all - so they give terrans a unit that will heal them. Terrans were the only race that had stealth attack units - so the protoss and zerg are given stealth attack units. That's half of the new units right there. The other half is every race gets a new air to air unit, but the zerg and terran ones are almost never used (and the terran is just a "destroy all mutalisks" unit). And then the dark templar, which is rarely used.

2. The story is stupid and destroys the Starcraft lore. The terrans in that sector left earth hundreds if not thousands of years ago. They're a lost colony. But then earth just pops in one day, and they have the exact same tech level? The ending of SC1 has Tassadar sacrificing himself to save Aiur from the zerg - but then Brood War starts with "haha, just kidding, actually the zerg still took Aiur." And everyone acts like an idiot that's easily tricked by Kerrigan or Duran.

3. Missions aren't designed nearly as well. The last three terran missions (skipping over the infiltration mission) can be won just by building a dozen battle cruisers and telling them to yamato the big building you need to destroy. This doesn't work in SC1, because ghosts will lockdown your battlecruisers and wraiths will wreck them. But for some reason it works in Brood War, I have no idea why.

Yeah, the intro is cool, but that's about it. It's always nuts to me to see how much love Brood War gets.

 

[ArchAngel]

TA type games was always the smallest type of RTS

Because le normies want bad games like starcraft.
Esports shovelware (supposedly) makes money, which is why they are the only types of games being made. It's ultimately greed of cripple-A, and indies retardedly copying just about every single bad practice they see cripple-A do.

Or TA type RTS is just not as interesting. I do not remember any such game having any type of interesting campaign and most RTS players only play campaign and only few skirmish games.

Campaigns are the weakest part, but everything else is incomparably better than anything the competition has to offer. Zero-k has a campaign, but I didn't play it, because I spent hundreds of hours on MP, which no other RTS compelled me to play before.

*Crafts >= C&C > Age of * > TA/SC

I really don't understand how a game with peak mechanical depth is < than games where you just click really fast and memorize build orders and rock paper scissors units.
Maybe these games shouldn't be compared. I like campaigns and those games are good for that, but for pure gameplay, TA successors are just on another level. The studios that were making them, unfortunately, couldn't survive to push their vision of the genre to the level of recognition and praise that it deserves. But they must've done something very right, if, despite the much smaller community, multiple games in their image were made independently, and those games are great.

I'll admit I'm harsh on the other games, and they are good in their own right, but seeing the billionth identical starcraft clone with absolutely 0 creativity behind it is not encouraging. Genre is stagnant, I want something new (and I don't mean TA-likes, we have a few good ones already).

As you said, you play it for MP. 80% of RTS players do not play MP. That is the whole deal, it is not about quality or esports.

 

[gooseman]

As you said, you play it for MP. 80% of RTS players do not play MP. That is the whole deal, it is not about quality or esports.

People don't play RTS in general and in MP specifically, because they are believed to be very competitive and unfun, requiring autismo micro and memorizing matchups, the starcraft gameplay. They also tend to be 1v1 or small teams, which puts much more pressure on an individual player. Esports amplify this perception, because those types of games are exclusively represented there and are the biggest, people think this is what RTS games are. They are balanced around esports, even if majority of the players don't play competitively. I did not play RTS games for the same reason. F2P starcraft 2 was the first RTS i played in mp, it was not fun.
But I can play Zero-k, because of the tons of quality of life features that make micro easier and less important, the skill ceilling is much higher and there are many more points of failure than just "you built the wrong building/unit type or didn't click fast enough, you autolose". But in an esports game, these features would never exist and all the fun stuff would be ironed out in favor of sterile balance. There are big lobbies, where individual player skill matters less and you get fewer units to control, stronger players to cover you. I've seen people who really suck just play it as a citybuilder, making no units, but improving the economy, which benefits everyone. It's also fun to just watch massive scale battles with superweapons. The only people left out are storyfags, but it's not like the game COULD have a great campaign, there's just no one to work on it for free (and there isn't any lore to work with).

 

[ArchAngel]

As you said, you play it for MP. 80% of RTS players do not play MP. That is the whole deal, it is not about quality or esports.

People don't play RTS in general and in MP specifically, because they are believed to be very competitive and unfun, requiring autismo micro and memorizing matchups, the starcraft gameplay. They also tend to be 1v1 or small teams, which puts much more pressure on an individual player. Esports amplify this perception, because those types of games are exclusively represented there and are the biggest, people think this is what RTS games are. They are balanced around esports, even if majority of the players don't play competitively. I did not play RTS games for the same reason. F2P starcraft 2 was the first RTS i played in mp, it was not fun.
But I can play Zero-k, because of the tons of quality of life features that make micro easier and less important, the skill ceilling is much higher and there are many more points of failure than just "you built the wrong building/unit type or didn't click fast enough, you autolose". But in an esports game, these features would never exist and all the fun stuff would be ironed out in favor of sterile balance. There are big lobbies, where individual player skill matters less and you get fewer units to control, stronger players to cover you. I've seen people who really suck just play it as a citybuilder, making no units, but improving the economy, which benefits everyone. It's also fun to just watch massive scale battles with superweapons. The only people left out are storyfags, but it's not like the game COULD have a great campaign, there's just no one to work on it for free (and there isn't any lore to work with).

To each their own. If I want to play MP I only like 1v1, I want it to be high stress and fast and I can do clever tactics and surprise my opponent and win fast.
And if I want this slow game where I can do mistakes as I am just part of a team and it is little stress I will rather play singleplayer and campaign as I can play that as fast as I want (due to pause and save game feature) and I get put into unique situations in missions that cannot be replicated in 1v1, 2v2 or 16v16

 

[Feyd Rautha]

Esports has nothing to do with it. They just couldn't translate to the increases masses of normies.

What I don't understand is that most kids that I grew up with played AoE, C&C and other RTS games during childhood. I'm talking nine year olds playing AoE, WC2, Red Alert for hours.

If normal kids could play those games at an age below 10 then why can't normies play and appreciate them?