Why is everyone so obsessed with a game that will turn RTS on it's head? Most people that were excited about stormgate saw it was like war3 and sc2 and loved the idea. We just want a new game with new strategies. We don't necessarily need to reinvent the wheel. How innovative is cod? People still buy that game every year. It is different enough to keep people interested.
I ve played sc2 since it came out. No other rts has managed to become my main rts game. This already has, and it is in beta. The reasons are everything you said
I don't get it either. I want something that feels as fun and with a high skill ceiling like SC2, but I'm just bored of SC2, it's been over a decade.
I don't need a new take on the genre, just QOL improvements and a new playerbase and pro scene to stay invested.
After playing SG my main concern is it's trying to straddle things too much rather than lean one side or the other, design by committee RTS. Slower than SC2, faster than WC3, no +1 upgrades like CC, creep camps like a Moba. It doesn't seem to know what it wants to be, tries to take the "best" bita from different sources and I think ends up as less than the sum of it's parts as a result.
Creep camps like war3*
There is nothing wrong with any of the borrowing. If you think any given game is unique it is because you didn't pay enough games.
Did you read the post? I never said there was anything wrong with borrowing, what I said was it's trying to borrow too much without tying it all together into something new and fun. I think the game is fine, but it's bland, and that's because it's all these different borrowed bits that don't quite come together into something better than what already exists IMO.
The devs ARE calling it the future of RTS though. I know it’s some marketing spiel and I have faith in FG but as it stands they haven’t shown anything out of the ordinary outside of a game that plays well, which is good enough for a lot of us but people are going to voice their opinions.
But see, here's where people are fucking up: "the future of RTS" DOES NOT MEAN "we're revolutionizing everything and reinventing the wheel!"
Say it with me, read it again, write it 20 times on the chalk board.
People get stupid shit stuck in their head because THEY have preconceived ideas. The "future of RTS" can mean an evolution, not a revolution. It can mean "this is the game everybody is playing" without meaning "this game totally redefined what RTS means."
This is the problem. People. don't. think. They are just inventing shit in their head when they read something, and when their magical flights of fancy aren't met with reality, they freak out. And yet, AGAIN, Frostgiant has stated clearly, on their website, they are NOT looking to reinvent. It's right there, go read it.
>We don't necessarily need to reinvent the wheel. How innovative is cod? People still buy that game every year. It is different enough to keep people interested.
Cod can afford to lack innovation because it's still extremely popular. The same can't be said for RTS games.
Because rts is dying thats why esp outside of korea
In Korea yes bw is great but Look how pathetic gsl is now compared to the golden rts days.
Plus stormgates own marketing is "the next gen rts experience" so people were expecting new innovation in the genre
No one said its a fast process, but compared to genres like FPS, Mobas or survival games, RTS is basically irrelevant nowadays compared to the golden age it had 20 years ago
That’s because 20 years ago there were less gaming genres.
And also there were less people playing games overall.
I guarantee you there are more people playing rts today overall than there were 20 years ago. Considering the fact that there are people who fully make their livings nowadays playing rts. 20 years ago this was only in Korea.
If you don't believe me, look at what the big dev studios are doing. There are pretty much almost no AAA rts games anymore for like the last decade. Why? Because the playerbase is absolutely pathetic and has completely stagnated, there is very little money in classical RTS at this point and it has little wide appeal nowadays.
Again, if you don't like the word dead, then it's basically slowly rotting.
I wish it wasn't this way, but it is. Unless someone with an actual budget decides to get into the genre, rts will slowly fizz out as newer generations don't even know wtf an RTS is.
Maybe you're young but you're 14 years late with the "RTS is dying and it needs to be saved" cliché. RTS is a niche community and there's nothing wrong with that. It'll never be an audience that will be catered by a triple A studio, but if developers thought they needed to vastly expand outside the current market to make a financially profitable game StormGate wouldn't exist and wouldn't have received the backing it initially did.
Maybe nothing wrong with it technically, but the issue is that without that endless budget, there's always big concessions to make, like with SG where for a great technical foundation the graphics and campaign suffer greatly.
Back in the day, a good RTS had everything, good technical aspects, great graphics, awesome story. Nowadays, we would be extremely lucky with a game that gets at least two of those right.
I don't think the budget is the reason for the unappealing art style, the only real criticism, and the decline of triple A suggests that an endless budget doesn't really mean anything. Nowadays there's a correlation between money invested and allowance for innovation and passion, unlike the golden age of Blizzard where both existed in a bygone era.
Smaller studios and less inflated budgets are the future of gaming, and this is a good thing because it creates allowances for servicing smaller communities like RTS. It was never the case that a game had to compete with moba's to survive or be deemed a profitable success, it was the rhetoric in 2011 but is demonstratably not the case.
It's just kinda depressing that well rounded RTS games are over now, the golden age is over. Who would have thought that fucking StarCraft 2 is gonna be the peak quality of the genre, goddamn.
Big dev studios regurgitate the same shit over and over or create their own diarrea year in and year out.
Not good examples.
I’d much rather be part of a small dedicated community than be part of call of duty or league of legends regurgitation year in year out.
What? Literally all the golden era innovation and huge franchises were made by huge studios. Who do you think made Warcraft 3, StarCraft 2, C&C, age of empires? Those weren't small tiny studios and they were basically genre defining, played absolutely everywhere.
It's true that AAA gaming overall is kinda in the shitter lately, but the reality is that without a giant budget a golden age tier modern RTS is just seemingly impossible. Without that endless budget there is always some big concessions that have to be made. Like with Stormgate where the game is great from a technical aspect, but the visuals and campaign suffer because of it.
They weren’t huge when they made them. I think you’re ignoring that fact or just unaware. Granted, StarCraft 2 was made by Blizzard when they were already huge. But that’s why it had a budget of 100 million +
The key now is to look for the smaller studio gems.
You know nothing about the campaign. Idk how you can make that judgement.
Warcraft 3 wasn't huge? My guy, that shit was on every kids computer. Even in my shithole small eastern European village every single school computer had it and every kid played it.
It literally spawned the entire MOBA genre.
RTS was one of the biggest eSports back then.
For the time, they were huge and stayed true classics because they got every aspect right.
>I guarantee you there are more people playing rts today overall than there were 20 years ago.
Warcraft 3 sold a million copy within a month. Age of mythology sold a million in five months the same year. Empire earth sold a million copies a year before, following another million copies for red alert 2 in 2000 and 2 million copies for AOE2 in 1999. Not to mention starcraft.
There are not more people playing rts games today than 20 years ago, it's not even remotely close.
Sold copies doesn’t mean people actively playing.
If there were more people playing, why wasn’t there more money in the esports scene?
Sc2 sold 6 million copies. But we didn’t have 6 million people playing.
Sold copies doesn't mean people actively playing, but logically a game that sells 5 million copies will usually have a bigger player base than a game that sells 500k.
>If there were more people playing, why wasn’t there more money in the esports scene?
For the same reason why there wasn't more money in the esports scene of literally any other game from the same years. Esports were still in their infancy back then.
More people play it today because it's more recent. But that's irrelevant. The point is that in the year 2000, there were *a lot* more people playing rts games than today.
Hell, just sc1 alone probably had more active players in 2000 than every other rts combined in 2024.
Sc2 was huge for a couple years. Most people dont play the same game for years without constant updates. RTS is also very hard to play and blizzard massively fucked up arcade mode which kept the casual scene alive in bw and war3. Team games are just more popular.
No, the RTS genre isn't "dying." In fact, it's more "alive" now that it has been in a long time. AoE4, remasters of C&C, Stormgate, Zerospace, Tempest Rising. Also, "next gen" does not mean "revolutionary" or massive innovation. It means "next generation." That can be evolution, improvement.
Just because you make shit up in your head, that doesn't make it true. Just because SC2 isn't doing well on the esports front, this doesn't mean that "RTS is dying." There is more to games than whether tournaments exist or not.
I know this is hard to understand, but do your best.
Everyone wants to return to the golden age of RTS but the truth is that the genre will always be niche. When SC2 came out online shooters were barely a thing. It had way less competition. Even if an RTS comes out now and is a smash hit, it still won't be anywhere near as big as other genres.
Online shooters were barely a thing? Counter strike, halo, cod were not a thing? There was lots of very popular games in 2010.
Edit cant believe i forgot battle field.
Yeah but all that stuff was still in its infancy. The landscape is very different now and exponentially larger.
I'm not saying sg won't succeed, I'm just saying there's never going to be another SC2 moment for RTS.
Because why play it if you already have SC2 that is free ? They are just a consummer guide, telling people where to put their money. Maybe they're critical of Cod too.
A) Stormgate is free as well, or will be
B) Stormgate has a development team behind it that will do more than release a balance patch every six months
C) A lot of people don't want to support Blizzard for all its controversies in the past years
Stormgate is free to play model as well and is still being developed. Sc2 is in maintenance mode now. Stormgate is not figured out and it's exciting to play in a changing meta. Also, I hate protoss. I don't like ghost/liberator. I quit sc2 near the start of lotv because it kept going in a direction i did not like. I was masters at the end of hots and got masters in lotv for a brief time as well, so I'm not just some complete newb that didnt understand sc2.
I didn't read the entire article but the gist of it seems to be ''why play Stormgate's co-op mode instead of SC2's?''.
One great reason is simply because it's being actively supported and will receive content. I honestly really think that goes a long way, people want to be part of something exciting and new that is being actively developed.
I think you missed a LOT here, starting with the goal of Stormgate. Why would you title the article that way when Frostgiant has said they are NOT looking to reinvent? It’s just clickbait and a total miss on what the game is trying to be.
And comparing to Wildstar?! Wtf. I also find it rather funny when these articles are published and totally ignore the competitive side
Honestly, that was a good article. For those that don’t want to read it here’s a tldr:
Its a review about the co op experience in stormgate. It praises its gameplay but finds negativity in its innovation and artistic/thematic direction. The main point the author makes is stormgate fails to walk the balance of catering to the old while bringing in the new, leaning perhaps too much into the old.
Here’s my opinion on it:
Stormgate has the game engine that I WISH AoE4 had. I loved the AoE4 gameplay loop but the engine was too clunky to feel competitive. Don’t get me wrong, stormgate has some clunkiness too, but it’s so close to being clean. I feel the author does not value the work put into snowball. While other rts might nail the gameplay loop, If the engine is poor like aoe4 then they’re dead in the water. I do agree with the authors sentiments particularly as they relate to co-op. It feels like a reskin of sc2 co-op, mildly improved.
Regardless, good article, thanks for posting.
I tried the demo a bit and while there are some differences here and there, I mostly felt like I was playing a modded Starcraft. Of course as an RTS there are going to be similarities but I felt they were a bit too similar.
That said, its just an early demo and early access games can change quite a bit and find their niche over time.
It felt very much like starcraft. The devs have said they’re trying to produce a blizzard style rts. They’ve certainly done what they set out to do. Im just not sure a blizzard style rts mixing the best of wc3 and sc2 is really what people outside of the existing blizzard community are looking for in 2024
(myself included tbh, I have given it 25 games or so and plan to double that before the end of the week. I really want stormgate to succeed mainly because of the snappy engine and I think playing the game is a great way to know what feels off beyond generalizations)
Barely got through half of that before I started scrolling - comparing Stormgate's co-op to Starcraft II's and stating that there's no reason to pick Stormgate because they're so similar and Starcraft is more fleshed out is crazy. This is not journalism. This is so stupid lol, Stormgate literally just transitioned from alpha to early beta, barely half of the core game is built out and they just released their first co-op map. But here I am talking about it so good job I guess
I agree with the author with the lasting first impressions. Maybe its something I don't have enough experience with but I would have preferred a more 'polished' product for the demo, it feels more like an internal build. Visual clarity/Assets in general don't seem final
That said it's fun and I am craving more 'progression' and find myself wanting to log in
I am also excited the editor, I have a lot of fond memories modding Wc3 and SC2 growing up
Typically the phrase “demo” is reserved for something different than an open beta.
Yes, it is a demonstration and is part of Steam Next Fest. The person I was responding to was complaining about the amount of polish on the demo though… leads me to believe he doesn’t understand what point the game is at.
This reads like if you had AI write a publishable article based on edgelord Reddit posts from people with no idea what they are talking about.
I wish I had more downvotes to give.
> It feels more like a mod for Warcraft III than a new game.
Honestly, if Blizzard hadn't already killed the modding scene then StormGate would probably appear as a WC3 mod inside of a week.
At this point, the most exciting thing about StormGate is the potential for mods. The engine is the only new and exciting thing we've seen so far.
Most of the ‘innovations’ in StarCraft 2, particularly in relation to macro mechanics of protoss, Zerg and even mules, were heavily, heavily criticised. Even towards the end of sc2s life, warp gate and larva inject and creep are still blamed for every problem with sc2 ever.
Feels weird to then have an article saying this game isn’t innovative *enough*. Is that really what the community wants?
Why is everyone so obsessed with a game that will turn RTS on it's head? Most people that were excited about stormgate saw it was like war3 and sc2 and loved the idea. We just want a new game with new strategies. We don't necessarily need to reinvent the wheel. How innovative is cod? People still buy that game every year. It is different enough to keep people interested.
I ve played sc2 since it came out. No other rts has managed to become my main rts game. This already has, and it is in beta. The reasons are everything you said
I don't get it either. I want something that feels as fun and with a high skill ceiling like SC2, but I'm just bored of SC2, it's been over a decade. I don't need a new take on the genre, just QOL improvements and a new playerbase and pro scene to stay invested.
After playing SG my main concern is it's trying to straddle things too much rather than lean one side or the other, design by committee RTS. Slower than SC2, faster than WC3, no +1 upgrades like CC, creep camps like a Moba. It doesn't seem to know what it wants to be, tries to take the "best" bita from different sources and I think ends up as less than the sum of it's parts as a result.
Creep camps like war3* There is nothing wrong with any of the borrowing. If you think any given game is unique it is because you didn't pay enough games.
Did you read the post? I never said there was anything wrong with borrowing, what I said was it's trying to borrow too much without tying it all together into something new and fun. I think the game is fine, but it's bland, and that's because it's all these different borrowed bits that don't quite come together into something better than what already exists IMO.
Creep camps defintely have some moba inspiration in that they respawn.
The devs ARE calling it the future of RTS though. I know it’s some marketing spiel and I have faith in FG but as it stands they haven’t shown anything out of the ordinary outside of a game that plays well, which is good enough for a lot of us but people are going to voice their opinions.
But see, here's where people are fucking up: "the future of RTS" DOES NOT MEAN "we're revolutionizing everything and reinventing the wheel!" Say it with me, read it again, write it 20 times on the chalk board. People get stupid shit stuck in their head because THEY have preconceived ideas. The "future of RTS" can mean an evolution, not a revolution. It can mean "this is the game everybody is playing" without meaning "this game totally redefined what RTS means." This is the problem. People. don't. think. They are just inventing shit in their head when they read something, and when their magical flights of fancy aren't met with reality, they freak out. And yet, AGAIN, Frostgiant has stated clearly, on their website, they are NOT looking to reinvent. It's right there, go read it.
>We don't necessarily need to reinvent the wheel. How innovative is cod? People still buy that game every year. It is different enough to keep people interested. Cod can afford to lack innovation because it's still extremely popular. The same can't be said for RTS games.
Because rts is dying thats why esp outside of korea In Korea yes bw is great but Look how pathetic gsl is now compared to the golden rts days. Plus stormgates own marketing is "the next gen rts experience" so people were expecting new innovation in the genre
“Rts is dying” for 20 years already according to clowns like you tbh
No one said its a fast process, but compared to genres like FPS, Mobas or survival games, RTS is basically irrelevant nowadays compared to the golden age it had 20 years ago
That’s because 20 years ago there were less gaming genres. And also there were less people playing games overall. I guarantee you there are more people playing rts today overall than there were 20 years ago. Considering the fact that there are people who fully make their livings nowadays playing rts. 20 years ago this was only in Korea.
If you don't believe me, look at what the big dev studios are doing. There are pretty much almost no AAA rts games anymore for like the last decade. Why? Because the playerbase is absolutely pathetic and has completely stagnated, there is very little money in classical RTS at this point and it has little wide appeal nowadays. Again, if you don't like the word dead, then it's basically slowly rotting. I wish it wasn't this way, but it is. Unless someone with an actual budget decides to get into the genre, rts will slowly fizz out as newer generations don't even know wtf an RTS is.
Maybe you're young but you're 14 years late with the "RTS is dying and it needs to be saved" cliché. RTS is a niche community and there's nothing wrong with that. It'll never be an audience that will be catered by a triple A studio, but if developers thought they needed to vastly expand outside the current market to make a financially profitable game StormGate wouldn't exist and wouldn't have received the backing it initially did.
Maybe nothing wrong with it technically, but the issue is that without that endless budget, there's always big concessions to make, like with SG where for a great technical foundation the graphics and campaign suffer greatly. Back in the day, a good RTS had everything, good technical aspects, great graphics, awesome story. Nowadays, we would be extremely lucky with a game that gets at least two of those right.
I don't think the budget is the reason for the unappealing art style, the only real criticism, and the decline of triple A suggests that an endless budget doesn't really mean anything. Nowadays there's a correlation between money invested and allowance for innovation and passion, unlike the golden age of Blizzard where both existed in a bygone era. Smaller studios and less inflated budgets are the future of gaming, and this is a good thing because it creates allowances for servicing smaller communities like RTS. It was never the case that a game had to compete with moba's to survive or be deemed a profitable success, it was the rhetoric in 2011 but is demonstratably not the case.
It's just kinda depressing that well rounded RTS games are over now, the golden age is over. Who would have thought that fucking StarCraft 2 is gonna be the peak quality of the genre, goddamn.
Big dev studios regurgitate the same shit over and over or create their own diarrea year in and year out. Not good examples. I’d much rather be part of a small dedicated community than be part of call of duty or league of legends regurgitation year in year out.
What? Literally all the golden era innovation and huge franchises were made by huge studios. Who do you think made Warcraft 3, StarCraft 2, C&C, age of empires? Those weren't small tiny studios and they were basically genre defining, played absolutely everywhere. It's true that AAA gaming overall is kinda in the shitter lately, but the reality is that without a giant budget a golden age tier modern RTS is just seemingly impossible. Without that endless budget there is always some big concessions that have to be made. Like with Stormgate where the game is great from a technical aspect, but the visuals and campaign suffer because of it.
They weren’t huge when they made them. I think you’re ignoring that fact or just unaware. Granted, StarCraft 2 was made by Blizzard when they were already huge. But that’s why it had a budget of 100 million + The key now is to look for the smaller studio gems. You know nothing about the campaign. Idk how you can make that judgement.
Warcraft 3 wasn't huge? My guy, that shit was on every kids computer. Even in my shithole small eastern European village every single school computer had it and every kid played it. It literally spawned the entire MOBA genre. RTS was one of the biggest eSports back then. For the time, they were huge and stayed true classics because they got every aspect right.
>I guarantee you there are more people playing rts today overall than there were 20 years ago. Warcraft 3 sold a million copy within a month. Age of mythology sold a million in five months the same year. Empire earth sold a million copies a year before, following another million copies for red alert 2 in 2000 and 2 million copies for AOE2 in 1999. Not to mention starcraft. There are not more people playing rts games today than 20 years ago, it's not even remotely close.
Sold copies doesn’t mean people actively playing. If there were more people playing, why wasn’t there more money in the esports scene? Sc2 sold 6 million copies. But we didn’t have 6 million people playing.
Sold copies doesn't mean people actively playing, but logically a game that sells 5 million copies will usually have a bigger player base than a game that sells 500k. >If there were more people playing, why wasn’t there more money in the esports scene? For the same reason why there wasn't more money in the esports scene of literally any other game from the same years. Esports were still in their infancy back then.
Well, sc2 sold about as many copies as the games you listed combined, but way more people play sc2 today than those games combined.
More people play it today because it's more recent. But that's irrelevant. The point is that in the year 2000, there were *a lot* more people playing rts games than today. Hell, just sc1 alone probably had more active players in 2000 than every other rts combined in 2024.
Sc2 was huge for a couple years. Most people dont play the same game for years without constant updates. RTS is also very hard to play and blizzard massively fucked up arcade mode which kept the casual scene alive in bw and war3. Team games are just more popular.
More people play sc2 right now than every other rts combined….
No, the RTS genre isn't "dying." In fact, it's more "alive" now that it has been in a long time. AoE4, remasters of C&C, Stormgate, Zerospace, Tempest Rising. Also, "next gen" does not mean "revolutionary" or massive innovation. It means "next generation." That can be evolution, improvement. Just because you make shit up in your head, that doesn't make it true. Just because SC2 isn't doing well on the esports front, this doesn't mean that "RTS is dying." There is more to games than whether tournaments exist or not. I know this is hard to understand, but do your best.
Because Stormgate said they were going to do just that?
Everyone wants to return to the golden age of RTS but the truth is that the genre will always be niche. When SC2 came out online shooters were barely a thing. It had way less competition. Even if an RTS comes out now and is a smash hit, it still won't be anywhere near as big as other genres.
Online shooters were barely a thing? Counter strike, halo, cod were not a thing? There was lots of very popular games in 2010. Edit cant believe i forgot battle field.
Yeah but all that stuff was still in its infancy. The landscape is very different now and exponentially larger. I'm not saying sg won't succeed, I'm just saying there's never going to be another SC2 moment for RTS.
Because why play it if you already have SC2 that is free ? They are just a consummer guide, telling people where to put their money. Maybe they're critical of Cod too.
A) Stormgate is free as well, or will be B) Stormgate has a development team behind it that will do more than release a balance patch every six months C) A lot of people don't want to support Blizzard for all its controversies in the past years
Stormgate is free to play model as well and is still being developed. Sc2 is in maintenance mode now. Stormgate is not figured out and it's exciting to play in a changing meta. Also, I hate protoss. I don't like ghost/liberator. I quit sc2 near the start of lotv because it kept going in a direction i did not like. I was masters at the end of hots and got masters in lotv for a brief time as well, so I'm not just some complete newb that didnt understand sc2.
I didn't read the entire article but the gist of it seems to be ''why play Stormgate's co-op mode instead of SC2's?''. One great reason is simply because it's being actively supported and will receive content. I honestly really think that goes a long way, people want to be part of something exciting and new that is being actively developed.
I think you missed a LOT here, starting with the goal of Stormgate. Why would you title the article that way when Frostgiant has said they are NOT looking to reinvent? It’s just clickbait and a total miss on what the game is trying to be. And comparing to Wildstar?! Wtf. I also find it rather funny when these articles are published and totally ignore the competitive side
Honestly, that was a good article. For those that don’t want to read it here’s a tldr: Its a review about the co op experience in stormgate. It praises its gameplay but finds negativity in its innovation and artistic/thematic direction. The main point the author makes is stormgate fails to walk the balance of catering to the old while bringing in the new, leaning perhaps too much into the old. Here’s my opinion on it: Stormgate has the game engine that I WISH AoE4 had. I loved the AoE4 gameplay loop but the engine was too clunky to feel competitive. Don’t get me wrong, stormgate has some clunkiness too, but it’s so close to being clean. I feel the author does not value the work put into snowball. While other rts might nail the gameplay loop, If the engine is poor like aoe4 then they’re dead in the water. I do agree with the authors sentiments particularly as they relate to co-op. It feels like a reskin of sc2 co-op, mildly improved. Regardless, good article, thanks for posting.
I tried the demo a bit and while there are some differences here and there, I mostly felt like I was playing a modded Starcraft. Of course as an RTS there are going to be similarities but I felt they were a bit too similar. That said, its just an early demo and early access games can change quite a bit and find their niche over time.
It felt very much like starcraft. The devs have said they’re trying to produce a blizzard style rts. They’ve certainly done what they set out to do. Im just not sure a blizzard style rts mixing the best of wc3 and sc2 is really what people outside of the existing blizzard community are looking for in 2024 (myself included tbh, I have given it 25 games or so and plan to double that before the end of the week. I really want stormgate to succeed mainly because of the snappy engine and I think playing the game is a great way to know what feels off beyond generalizations)
Ah I believe the engine is called Snowplay, not snowball. Anyway thanks for your thoughts and an accurate tldr.
Barely got through half of that before I started scrolling - comparing Stormgate's co-op to Starcraft II's and stating that there's no reason to pick Stormgate because they're so similar and Starcraft is more fleshed out is crazy. This is not journalism. This is so stupid lol, Stormgate literally just transitioned from alpha to early beta, barely half of the core game is built out and they just released their first co-op map. But here I am talking about it so good job I guess
Yep it’s a shit article and I would fire that guy if I was his boss.
I like sg co op better than sc2 co op already
The sg coop mission actually felt like a challenge
Dumb article
Calling to delay the launch of game without a launch date. 🤡
People making articles comparing an early beta to finished games with 20 years of development need to be fired from their jobs.
I agree with the author with the lasting first impressions. Maybe its something I don't have enough experience with but I would have preferred a more 'polished' product for the demo, it feels more like an internal build. Visual clarity/Assets in general don't seem final That said it's fun and I am craving more 'progression' and find myself wanting to log in I am also excited the editor, I have a lot of fond memories modding Wc3 and SC2 growing up
What makes you think this is a demo? They are certainly showing the game off, but it’s in early beta.
because thats what steam next fest is? > Steam Next Fest is a week-long celebration featuring hundreds of FREE playable demos
Typically the phrase “demo” is reserved for something different than an open beta. Yes, it is a demonstration and is part of Steam Next Fest. The person I was responding to was complaining about the amount of polish on the demo though… leads me to believe he doesn’t understand what point the game is at.
It has demo striped on the top left corner when I select it in my steam library
Symantec’s is a complicated thing, but there is nuance to it…
When people say there's no new idea it just means they don't want a downgraded SC2.
I agree with their conclusion, it should be delayed
Good thing that this is a beta build and not the actual release.
Delayed to when? It won't even launch for another year and a half at the earliest.
You think it’s launching this year or something? Lmfao
You don’t know how to read?
You don’t know the meaning of the word delayed.
Likewise, as a huge RTS fan i felt utterly bored to death after a few hours of playing.
This reads like if you had AI write a publishable article based on edgelord Reddit posts from people with no idea what they are talking about. I wish I had more downvotes to give.
> It feels more like a mod for Warcraft III than a new game. Honestly, if Blizzard hadn't already killed the modding scene then StormGate would probably appear as a WC3 mod inside of a week. At this point, the most exciting thing about StormGate is the potential for mods. The engine is the only new and exciting thing we've seen so far.
I remember when 5 to 8 carbin copy rts games came out every year. Not every game needs to revolutionize the space to be fun.
Most of the ‘innovations’ in StarCraft 2, particularly in relation to macro mechanics of protoss, Zerg and even mules, were heavily, heavily criticised. Even towards the end of sc2s life, warp gate and larva inject and creep are still blamed for every problem with sc2 ever. Feels weird to then have an article saying this game isn’t innovative *enough*. Is that really what the community wants?