Honestly? I'm seriously disappointed with this game -_-

[Seqqik94]

Starcraft which came out in 1998 had 10000 times better graphics than stormgate. Then we got starcraft in 2010 which looked amazing! Then we got a starcraft remaster and a totally successful remaster!

Now we get stormgate. I played the closed beta tests. However, when I played today, it was just a disappointment for me...
The graphics are 5 levels lower than starcraft 1 and 2. Candy graphics that look tragic. Have you seen the game "tempest rising"? I would like to get graphics like that. Where it is dark, there are beautiful unit models and not something... It is a tragedy how could they ruin the graphics like that. After the beautiful starcraft 1 and 2...

I turned on the first campaign mission. I played for 7 minutes and turned it off... You can see starcraft here, but as I said earlier, a poor copy. There is no such wooow effect here as when I played the first mission in StarCraft 2. You made a woman as if she was the new Raynor and it shows. It shouldn't be like this ...

The costs of packages and other things are tragic prices ... I seriously wonder what you have from this Blizzard. Because I thought talent and you will make a wonderful game. And it turns out that you will be masters of micropayments than quality -_- Especially since from the very beginning, from what I have seen here on the forum, no one likes the graphics. Graphically, Zerospace looks similar to StarCraft. Your Stormgate is seriously 5 levels lower than StarCraft from 1998. It's a tragedy.

When you founded a studio with veterans of StarCraft and WarCraft, I was waiting for your game to be an inspiration for a new RTS. However, what you had when making StarCraft 1 or even 2, you did with your heart. And you do Stormgate for money and you don't make games with passion. And unfortunately, you can see it here. The first ratings on Steam already say a lot. You had to tell yourself. Seriously, the graphics are tragic and we are making a new one. Maybe you will do something there in time, but I do not see here the heart that you have put in Starcraft or Warcraft. I am very sorry, but I am seriously disappointed with Stormgate.

[realgrandrew]

I agree gfx is horrible, but in defence of this launch...

1. They literally had no skins for some of the units/structures up till I guess a month ago or so, so graphics was LEAST priority thing in the development so far (now guess what did they spend most of dev time at ;-)
2. Starcraft 2 upon release had graphics arguably worse than Starcraft 1 and improved beyond recognizable over the next several years
3. It is hard to compete with Free-to-Play starcraft with a non-"free" game
4. I would welcome alternative monetization mode as we're rapidly moving past capitalist economy into a gift economy and not turning back

[ZexXx]

Agree. I dislike the style for sure but other than that the quality level is pretty low.

[Viscount Thalvaus]

Originally posted by Seqqik94:

Starcraft which came out in 1998 had 10000 times better graphics than stormgate. Then we got starcraft in 2010 which looked amazing! Then we got a starcraft remaster and a totally successful remaster!

If you like the look of a 1998 game, then that is the aesthetics and not the graphics.

If people don't read between the lines and think you actually mean graphics when comparing it to something from 1998, it will weaken any future arguments or statements made in the post -- if they even deign to bother reading it at that point.

Someone else mentioning GFX is a more astute subjective observation.

[ZelaS]

Originally posted by Seqqik94:

Starcraft which came out in 1998 had 10000 times better graphics than stormgate. Then we got starcraft in 2010 which looked amazing! Then we got a starcraft remaster and a totally successful remaster!

Now we get stormgate. I played the closed beta tests. However, when I played today, it was just a disappointment for me...
The graphics are 5 levels lower than starcraft 1 and 2. Candy graphics that look tragic. Have you seen the game "tempest rising"? I would like to get graphics like that. Where it is dark, there are beautiful unit models and not something... It is a tragedy how could they ruin the graphics like that. After the beautiful starcraft 1 and 2...

I turned on the first campaign mission. I played for 7 minutes and turned it off... You can see starcraft here, but as I said earlier, a poor copy. There is no such wooow effect here as when I played the first mission in StarCraft 2. You made a woman as if she was the new Raynor and it shows. It shouldn't be like this ...

The costs of packages and other things are tragic prices ... I seriously wonder what you have from this Blizzard. Because I thought talent and you will make a wonderful game. And it turns out that you will be masters of micropayments than quality -_- Especially since from the very beginning, from what I have seen here on the forum, no one likes the graphics. Graphically, Zerospace looks similar to StarCraft. Your Stormgate is seriously 5 levels lower than StarCraft from 1998. It's a tragedy.

When you founded a studio with veterans of StarCraft and WarCraft, I was waiting for your game to be an inspiration for a new RTS. However, what you had when making StarCraft 1 or even 2, you did with your heart. And you do Stormgate for money and you don't make games with passion. And unfortunately, you can see it here. The first ratings on Steam already say a lot. You had to tell yourself. Seriously, the graphics are tragic and we are making a new one. Maybe you will do something there in time, but I do not see here the heart that you have put in Starcraft or Warcraft. I am very sorry, but I am seriously disappointed with Stormgate.

StarCraft: Remastered is visually superior!

[x3m_smart]

Graphics is like on a mobile phone. But I hope you will fix it later. Thanks for your job and I wish you a good luck.

[N'Zoth]

I'm not saying you're point is invalid, I agree with you. BUT in defense of the game/devs this is a start up studio with a limited budget. This isn't a huge monolith mega corp like Blizzard pooping out Warcraft 3 on our heads. This is more or less an indie studio with experienced developers. They are probably planning on making money from the EA and reinvesting it into the game/their studio.

We didn't just get Baldur's gate 3, Larian had to take the baby steps they did to become a huge name in the RPG world. You just don't start out with Baldur's gate 3

[tacohunter]

Originally posted by N'Zoth:

I'm not saying you're point is invalid, I agree with you. BUT in defense of the game/devs this is a start up studio with a limited budget. This isn't a huge monolith mega corp like Blizzard pooping out Warcraft 3 on our heads. This is more or less an indie studio with experienced developers. They are probably planning on making money from the EA and reinvesting it into the game/their studio.

We didn't just get Baldur's gate 3, Larian had to take the baby steps they did to become a huge name in the RPG world. You just don't start out with Baldur's gate 3

No, just no. The amount of cash theyve raised is insane. The budget for rts games coming out alongside this is lower by an order of magnitude and yet most of them are in a way better state far faster.

[tacohunter]

Originally posted by N'Zoth:

I'm not saying you're point is invalid, I agree with you. BUT in defense of the game/devs this is a start up studio with a limited budget. This isn't a huge monolith mega corp like Blizzard pooping out Warcraft 3 on our heads. This is more or less an indie studio with experienced developers. They are probably planning on making money from the EA and reinvesting it into the game/their studio.

We didn't just get Baldur's gate 3, Larian had to take the baby steps they did to become a huge name in the RPG world. You just don't start out with Baldur's gate 3

I also don't care for how theyy phrase themselves as an indie studio. They arent. look at who owns equity in this company. Frost giant just owns the majority.

[Scyt]

I completely disagree. You know how much Tim risked to even start this venture? It's unimaginable. The game will continue to develop. Give it at least a year before you give any sort of opinion. They spent years building this game, while you whip up an opinion in 1 minute. Paaaatience. I understand your generation has trouble with that, but its important.

[Seqqik94]

The problem is that the game raised a lot of money on Kickstarter. After that, they should do everything to, for example, change the stupid graphics since a lot of people don't like it...

And what did they do? They gave 3 packages. The most expensive one is over 50 euros... What will they give you in these packages? Oh well... It will be months before the first mission package comes out. Not to mention that when you bought, for example, StarCraft 2, you had the entire campaign on the day of the premiere, i.e. 29 missions. And what do you have for 50 euros? Nothing. The point is that they raised money, didn't change anything, but they want a fortune for micropayments -_-

[Daimos]

Originally posted by realgrandrew:

I agree gfx is horrible, but in defence of this launch...

1. They literally had no skins for some of the units/structures up till I guess a month ago or so, so graphics was LEAST priority thing in the development so far (now guess what did they spend most of dev time at ;-)
2. Starcraft 2 upon release had graphics arguably worse than Starcraft 1 and improved beyond recognizable over the next several years
3. It is hard to compete with Free-to-Play starcraft with a non-"free" game
4. I would welcome alternative monetization mode as we're rapidly moving past capitalist economy into a gift economy and not turning back

If what you say is true, then they made a HUGE mistake releasing the game to the public with such visuals. I guess, they worked mostly on the engine, unit mechanics, etc. The problem is that MOST people DON'T CARE about all those technical aspects. They will see it on YT and say to themselves: "lol, this looks like trash". This is EXACTLY the worst first impression you can make, for a game.

[Terotrous]

It boggles my mind how many people are complaining about the visuals. I mean, there's plenty of actual issues to complain about, like the hotkeys or the crashes or what not, but the visuals are the one thing that I haven't had any issue with so far.

[Nerazim]

I really don't understand why they went with the Pixar aesthetics.

[Daimos]

Originally posted by Nerazim:

I really don't understand why they went with the Pixar aesthetics.

I read something, that they want to make a "casual RTS", so they went for a "casual style", often used in mobile games. This marketing strategy is idiotic, because Blizzard's RTS fans are often older guys, who play such games for decades, exclusively on the PC. Thus, they picked probably the WORST style of them all, because the "PC Master Race" uses "mobile" as a derogatory term. When a PC gamer says that something looks "mobile", it's supposed to be an insult.

[Vibe High!]

I love the style! =))))))))))))