Flop, or Not?

[No' Name]

So man, as a fan of Command and Conquer, and especially the Oldschool Dune/II RTS games which this game is definitely giving the vibe of a real mix between both of them, harvesters from dune, and Mammoth Tanks from Command and Conquer, I kind of really had decent hopes for this game.

But after seeing the trailer, and them saying there's only 11 missions for both factions, kind leaning towards this game not doing so well. I don't see this game doing too well in the Multiplayer battle department, mainly because it's not innovating anything new to the RTS Genre, and simply banking on the Nostalgia factor, back int he good old days where Command and Conquer, and Dune weren't in the "e-sports" entertainment business, but mostly just single player fun. I honestly feel like the course of the competitive RTS gameplay has kind of run it's course through Starcraft II, and again, it's simply because this game does absolutely nothing innovative to change it up.

Even if the game does do decently well with multiplayer, I can already see the issues from the one faction literally being able to speed up production of their units at a cost of some of their buildings health being lost, which is basically going to be nothing but a "Zerg Rush", and people are going to b-tch about it, and start review bombing the game saying it's unfair.

It's a bit odd they would make such a short campaign, have a lack-luster multiplayer mode, and bet all their chips on it.

I really do wish this game will do well, but I for one will not be purchasing it day one, at least not for 11 missions for each faction for an hour long campaign for each faction. That is not worth the price of a $50 price tag, at least not to me.

[f1r3storm]

"An hour long campaign for each faction." Wtf are you talking about?

[DannyMM21]

FLop, No, Good game, Yes.

[Cat]

Generals also had 22 missions including the training stage. Red Alert 2 has 12 missions per faction so 11 in tempest isn't that bad.

No comment about its multiplayer yet right now.

[Gin Kenshin98]

It's not even out yet. And that mission count is common for most of these games.

This 'lack of innovation' is a double edged sword, and it's not like modern RTS players know what they want from the genre at this point anyway.

Some like you want innovation, but don't say how and in what aspect. And even if some devs do do it, you won't support it.

Some want a game just like the ones they played way back one. And if a game is even slightly changed from that to try and make it it's own thing (with some inspiration), then it's not good enough for them.

Moral of all this is to not make dumb judgements before the game is even out.

If you actually care, then either buy it, or play it long enough to then refund it and write good feedback. Otherwise this cycle with continue until the genre is dead and everyone who played it in the 'good ol days' is dead too.

[Mavirregular]

Not trying to be mean or anything, but ppl seriously need to drop the hype that this will be the "next" C&C. It's a Spiritual successor to the franchise if you will but obviously not the same.

You'll probably enjoy yourself more you let go of that mindset. 11 mission campaign isn't that bad and 9 multiplayer maps for online and skirmish is a start.

This is most likely because it's not only their first base building RTS but also because they need to see how well it does first before they put more effort in via additional maps, units and what not. Perhaps we will also get a map editor with some modding support for the game in the future as well.

[Xero]

It's currently rated #20 top sellers in the Real-Time Strategy category. And the game isn't even officially released yet.

Real-Time Strategy - Top Sellers :
https://store.steampowered.com/category/strategy_real_time/?flavor=contenthub_topsellers

The price is going to remain the same price for the Deluxe Edition even post 1.0 release. You are paying for the Digital Artbook and 40+ track soundtrack. The preorder bonuses are just additions that are only for a limited time.

This game is history in the making. This is the rebirth of RTS. If you want to miss out, more power to you, but the rest of us are going to experience and witness the best moment that's happened in gaming history since C&C and Starcraft.

[No' Name]

Originally posted by Xero:

It's currently rated #20 top sellers in the Real-Time Strategy category. And the game isn't even officially released yet.

Real-Time Strategy - Top Sellers :
https://store.steampowered.com/category/strategy_real_time/?flavor=contenthub_topsellers

The price is going to remain the same price for the Deluxe Edition even post 1.0 release. You are paying for the Digital Artbook and 40+ track soundtrack. The preorder bonuses are just additions that are only for a limited time.

This game is history in the making. This is the rebirth of RTS. If you want to miss out, more power to you, but the rest of us are going to experience and witness the best moment that's happened in gaming history since C&C and Starcraft. :gordon:

I like how people are saying "It's top #", and how it's not even released yet. With that Logic, "No Man's Sky" should have been a giant success when it released, the only difference is, they kept working on the game, and adding free update, after update to make, and continue working on their game.

Just because something is a "top seller" doesn't mean nothing. It just means they got people's money for now, until the refunds start piling in.

Again, like I said, hope the game does well, I just really have doubts about nostalgia amassing thousands of players, and keeping them.

But meh, take it with a grain of salt.

[Astronimo]

Demo was alright. And I play these games for skirmish mostly.

[Cat]

Originally posted by No' Name:

Just because something is a "top seller" doesn't mean nothing. It just means they got people's money for now, until the refunds start piling in.

Sales matter a lot for video game companies. Top sales matter a lot more than top players or top rated. At the end of the day, if the game made a lot of money, all these haters whining mean nothing even if they are legit complains.

Unless it's tied to a bundle like C&C4.

[Bisceti]

The demo missions seemed pretty high quality, lasted a while (30-40 minutes from what i remember) and they we're missions I'm assuming were very early game...

11 for each faction is pretty good and in this day and age expect DLC

[Oscar the Ham Bandit]

11 missions? That's a decent number if they give you your full arsenal from the get-go, but these games always tended to drip-feed units and technologies to the player, so that only one or two missions are playable with a full army.... going all the way back to Dune 2 where palaces were only available at the very end. If that's the case, that's a real bummer.

[Zylon]

I so hope this game will be the one rts game that will revive the entire genre.

People liked simple strategy games that where fun. instead of the micro cluster ... games that followed.

Less e sport, more fun.

[startrekmike]

Originally posted by No' Name:

So man, as a fan of Command and Conquer, and especially the Oldschool Dune/II RTS games which this game is definitely giving the vibe of a real mix between both of them, harvesters from dune, and Mammoth Tanks from Command and Conquer, I kind of really had decent hopes for this game.

But after seeing the trailer, and them saying there's only 11 missions for both factions, kind leaning towards this game not doing so well. I don't see this game doing too well in the Multiplayer battle department, mainly because it's not innovating anything new to the RTS Genre, and simply banking on the Nostalgia factor, back int he good old days where Command and Conquer, and Dune weren't in the "e-sports" entertainment business, but mostly just single player fun. I honestly feel like the course of the competitive RTS gameplay has kind of run it's course through Starcraft II, and again, it's simply because this game does absolutely nothing innovative to change it up.

Even if the game does do decently well with multiplayer, I can already see the issues from the one faction literally being able to speed up production of their units at a cost of some of their buildings health being lost, which is basically going to be nothing but a "Zerg Rush", and people are going to b-tch about it, and start review bombing the game saying it's unfair.

It's a bit odd they would make such a short campaign, have a lack-luster multiplayer mode, and bet all their chips on it.

I really do wish this game will do well, but I for one will not be purchasing it day one, at least not for 11 missions for each faction for an hour long campaign for each faction. That is not worth the price of a $50 price tag, at least not to me.

I know that "innovation" is still a pretty big buzzword for gamers and those that talk about games on Youtube but it only really tells a small fraction of the story.

Here is the thing. Some games are going to be innovative. Some games have the creative space to make big innovative swings and in some cases, those swings land perfectly and that game becomes an instant classic. Like any other art/entertainment media, this isn't going to happen with everything and nor should it.

Let's think about it in another context. When we look at the history of mainstream music (music that managed to insert itself into mainstream culture in one form or another), there are quite a few artists/bands that managed to bring something truly "innovative" to the table. These were the kind of artists that either established whole new genres/sub-genres or completely rewrote the rules of an established one. Bands like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Beach Boys, and later Black Sabbath, Metallica, and even Korn (and obviously many more across the decades) managed to truly break from the norm and do something that people hadn't really heard before (at least not in any mainstream, accessible context).

The same can be said of individual artists like Frank Zappa, Jimi Hendrix, Robert Fripp, and the like. They challenged the status quo and truly innovated.

There is one thing that all of these share in common. They were not just trying to "innovate". They were doing what their creativity demanded of them. They were simply following their individual artistic processes and it happened to produce work that we consider innovative. They didn't try to be innovative. They didn't sit there and go "I can't do that because someone else already did." The innovative aspects came forward organically.

On the other side of the equation you have "iteration". For every one innovative artist, you have hundreds (or even thousands) that are deeply inspired and go on to learn those songs, learn the process behind them, and iterate on it with their own creative spin. This isn't as flashy and it doesn't make for good hyperbole in a discussion but it is how art and entertainment media works. It is how genres find their audiences and how those genres maintain their distinct identity even when iterated on several hundred or thousand times.

Tempest Rising isn't trying to be innovative because that isn't really required. It is iterating on what older RTS's set up and bringing those ideas into a more modern context. I can't speak for how successful they will be in this endeavor but if it doesn't work, it isn't because it "wasn't innovative enough". A good chunk of the playerbase for a game like this isn't even looking for "innovation" anyway.

[MacrossPlus]

Te juego 1vs1 y te como maldito guzano.

[Jules]

Having only 9 multiplayer/skirmish maps is pretty bad, especially when they are so small. C&C/RA remastered had about 30 maps, with up to 8 Players. TR will not succeed with such poor selection of maps.