Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Not sure what went wrong with you there.
As an old school RTS player of things like Starcraft and Red Alert, this game is way too linear with little freedom in many missions.
I really miss the feeling of base building and bigger battles.
I will, though, contribute to this post and hope it helps you see things. :)
Firstly, I am not familiar with the rating system of Steam so "%88" could mean literally anything to me. You said the game is a "%75" however, based on the idea that this is a rating system designed for a massive amount of people, I highly doubt you deciding "This is a %75" means it'll be a %75. No, not because other people will rate different things, but because I believe that's the average rating that Steam is generating based on it's many fluctuating ratings. (Maybe this is common sense but like I said, I am not familiar with this rating system so please bear with my thought process.. :)) Someone rating "%30" and someone else rating "%70" might give this a "%50", for example, therefore if you rate a "%75" and someone else rates a "%100" then you'll probably see a rating like "%88" or some such. I think that logic is reasonable.
As for WHY this rating is what it is, we can only speculate based off of accounts. Based on my very limited observation of the community (Which itself is limited in just those participating in it, than that actually played it and play it and contribute to it's community) my opinion archetypes many different players in some sort of stereotypical category I'll try listing.
LOVE the game.
HATE the game.
Find the game boring.
Find the game fun.
With this specific game, not a lot of people absolutely LOVE this game while also not caring too much for Starship Troopers. That's just how it is.
-They don't care for Starship Troopers and find this game to not be what they expected. (Usually technically/mechanically and often compare it to other games they've played)
-Wasn't what they were expecting.
-Didn't feel the game was a technological or mechanical marvel or masterpiece but found the game enjoyable for it's faults.
-It's a Starship Troopers game set in the movie universe. (Which it does a perfectly fine job staying in line with canon and not going beyond the lore of the movies and messing up in-universe history or creating plot holes and discrepancies.)
And that's it. End of story.
The LOVE category are MOSTLY people that LOVE Starship Troopers and found a generally good game regarding it. But usually not people that find the game a masterpiece alone without Starship Troopers attachment. They just learned to love this game an dall of it's quirks due to usually their love for Starship Troopers. (And it's easy to do since this game is well-made.)
The HATE category often derives from people that can't accept the game for what it is. Requesting new features and deciding their entire purchase on that, saying the game is absolutely abysmal since it doesn't include Rotating Cameras or something, basing it off of what it isn't than what it is. The others often have distaste for it's handling of the Starship Troopers IP, but %99 of these kinds of people are basing it off of lore the game didn't have in mind such as the book. (So, again. Not accepting the game for what it is: In the movie universe. It's rare when someone says this is a bad depiction of the movie universe.)
The Boring category are mostly people that aren't blinded/influenced by their love/deprivation of Starship Troopers Content over the years and kind of see the game for what it is: A regular well made game. Nothing spectacular/nothing new. Of course I'M not saying it's boring or that this is a fact that it's boring but usually in this category, people just don't find a marvel video game and often times it's just not what they were expecting as far as hoping to have their socks blown off. (Especially for the Starship Troopers fans in this category)
The Fun categoryis likely similar: Sees the game for what it is. A regular, well made game. These ones, however, just happened to have more enjoyment with it simply due to I guess experience/taste differences.
With all of that being said, I think a %50-60 is calling the game mediocre/poor. I don't think many of those categories up there will call it this. Anyone even close to rating it this way usually believes the game is well-made. Either just boring or fun... but that's it. Which wouldn't be that rating. It'll likely be exactly the rating you gave it: %75. Mostly good. Well-made solid game but nothing absolutely top-blowing off.
However, that's where the %88 percent comes from, probably. The LOVE of Starship Troopers from many people rating this with borderline %100s because of their passion of Starship Troopers and how this game truly gave them their enjoyment (Good for them). This causes a change in the rating system.
Then it gets knocked down by the few that call the game poor but I think the industry here plays a factor. A lot of people that play these kinds of games it appears to me (Again, just basing off of the community. I'm probably very wrong) they are reluctant to even try games that don't fit their preference. (These kinds of games require commanding armies so, naturally, very demanding or at least controlling types of individuals are attracted to these games, completely turning away if it isn't exactly what they're looking for as they need control in their life even in their enjoyment selection. Not saying everyone that plays these games are, just that it attracts many of the sort) Therefore if they never tried the game, they aren't likely to give it such the poor rating they probably would give it for not being what they want. Therefore I think many of this category just sort of refuses to rate/review the game and bring the average down a bit more than it is, hence %88.
Anyways, that was long but I hope it gave you an understanding of the rating of this game and why, probably, this game sits at %88 while many people probably would rate this game a %75 instead.
EDIT: It's a %100 for me... Just want to throw that out there. LOL!
So a game that is amazing to half the players that play it but horrible to the other half will fare worse than a game that is "it's ok, 1 thumbs up" for 90% of people that play it, even if none of those consider the game to be more "wow" than "meh".
This game was bolder in that version that they allowed us to test before launch, then the devs got rid of everything that was hinted as complicated or divisive and then we were left with a more bare-bones version of it that is more into the "well, it's okay, I guess" category.
And honestly? I think the devs made the right choice - provided they eventually add the more unique features they hinted before launch through DLCs.
So I think the problem is with Steam, there simply isn't a way for players to portray a fairer rating for the game here. I own the game on GoG, there it has a 3.8 (out of 5.0 possible) verified owners rating and a 3.5 / 5 overall rating, which portrays well what I think of the game as of now.
Also very cool, almost like Mech Commander version of ST.
The tactical/maneuvering aspect of the game is also very fun. Using choke points and terrain to your advantage really makes a difference. It is simple, but also has some complexities to it in comparison to similar titles.
As for the maps being linear, I think for the campaign they need to be. Otherwise you would kind of end up in a skirmish type mode. It would be nice to see a different mode in the future with base building though and a more open map. This would open the game up to more people I would think and offer greater replayability.
The last thing for me is the sit back and chill aspect of the game. I don't have to be clicking like crazy to manage everything typically. I usually have a few units to manage and maneuver. At this point in my life, when I get to sit down and game it is really nice to have a nice chill gaming experience. Plus, it is Starship Troopers and they got the theme and atmosphere of that perfect in my opinion.
Agree with all that. Plus it awesome that we dont have to shoot at other humans. Shooting bugs is a lot more wholesome :)
It is simple, this game is very good for what it is. SP tactical RTS
How about "the true line" of fire mechanic? I do not know other RTS with this, and it is esential feature in ST Terran Terran Command
Very well said @Adventurous350
I would highlight, that ST Terran Command focuses on tactical gameplay, but is not "hardcore strategy game" with heavy micromanagment for "hardcore players" , Terran Command also does not work with a basic rock-papper-scissors system, but with unit roles
In starcraft or C&C , the enviroment, hills and elevation give some advantage / disadvantage, but it does not have so much impact in practice, here it is the main element
Yes, they hit the nail with atmosphere, even without 3D animations & videos. It has retro 50' sci-fi vibe and is not a forced parody like the movies
Eg.This game,Turok remasters Command and Conquer remasters.
Even if they objectively have many lacking features.
Also Starship is not a full priced game far from it so it is pretty good for the price tag.
Decent SP campaign,decent enough controls.Does not need 300 APM.
Has mods content.
It has very good mission introduction movies.
+ it has enemy bugs.
Not every RTS has to be I wanna be an Esport and flop 1 month later......
That Terminator game which got recently released is also likely much more hardcore in that sense it is complex so it is not good for the "wider audience"but very good for the target audience.
As complex games get released much less same with RTS games.
And when games fail to impress the target audience even if the game is objectively not that bad it will get bad reviews.
Usually happens when they go for the"wider audience"(dumped down gameplay)
or the"modern audience"(usually politically charged)
Eg.Homeworld 3 which is not a bad game but a very very bad homeworld game.
So it got very bad reviews.
I probably gave it a positive rating if not I would have and still would, /b haven't played in over a year and only 50hrs. /b
I'm a lifetimer of RTS games myself.
Same! Same exact feeling.
I recall just having to amass troopers in a battle line and just blasting until the bug hole was taken care of, move to the next one. Nothing different than line up, blast bugs, blow up bug hole, was the only success in the game. No other strategies like bomb em into the next planet.
I'm going to replay the campaign. Only 50hrs and haven't played since May 2023, I'll check out if anything is new beyond 'shme', I'm curious now.
And 88% doesn't mean we liked the game 13% more than the OP, but means 12% of people can only be bugs/aliens and Patrick Muldoon to actually downvote such a wondrous game.