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
24 
Report this post
1. The artstyle was bland and missed.
2. The soundtrack was bland and missed.
3. No mod support.
4. There was just no creeping, no alternative rts mechanics...
5. COOP launches with no content and no mod support.
Who does that?!
Who asks for $60 on a KS then hides content on day one behind a paywall?!
There is massive delusion in peoples' mind in the gaming industry. They see someone sell a skin for as much as a full game, and some people will buy it... But I'm convinced most people can see when they are getting ripped off.
Hold BG3 and this game side by side... or let's take POE2. BG3 = $60 for game of the year vs. SG (Maybe the full campaign would cost you idk, $140, they won't even tell you, and it sucks).
Then you have POE2, insane graphics, content that dwarfs D4, and they say it will double over a year for $30.
Where is the value proposition with SG?! $60 and day one give me the "privilege" to pay $10 more for one hero. I wish a dev would just respond to this post and say anything... But there is nothing to say I guess.
I'm upset they have any of my money, especially $60 of it.
I think the devs don't understand which things kids and teenagers find cool.
When I was a kid I thought SC1, Fallout 1,2, and Planescape Torment were the best games style-wise. They had a grim and realistic (often real digitalized sculptures and photos) style: blood, gore, loud and cool shooting sounds, etc. If someone asked me which is cooler: Mario 64 or Fallout 2, I wouldn't think more than 3 seconds. I always thought goofy and cartoony stuff was for kids even when I was in elementary. You always like cool adult things as a kid and you want to be like cool adults.
Nowadays we have lots of family-friendly content. And I find most of it very, well, infantile.
I think we underestimate our kids.
Older gamers(which form the majority of rts fans) for the most part have wised up to the current ♥♥♥♥♥♥ industry practices, that's why they are less likely to fall for them. Kids are obviously less experienced and more impulsive, that's why they are the target demo for these kind of games. Are kids being too coddled these days?, No, ironically, they are not being protected from forming harmful, potentially life-long spending habits. Hook them early right?(straight out of the McDonalds playbook).
Compared to FPS rendering code, RTS rendering isn't difficult (because a lot of the complexities of FPS rendering aren't applicable to RTS, such as occlusion calculations (due to high potential overdraw in FPS), high LoD variation, complex lighting/shadow situations, realtime resource loading and unloading, raytracing (not helpful with basic top-down terrain)). So, if you're competent enough to build all the other aspects of a RTS game (especially the hard bits like synchronous multiplayer and pathing) then you're easily competent enough to create all the rendering code you need (a terrain and model renderer and a GUI, in vulkan/DX).
Third-party graphics engines massively constrain engine design, requiring you to align your game state objects with the graphics engine's objects (which will likely result in a lot of duplicated data). And, for an RTS, the graphics engine will end up doing a lot of unnecessary things (see above) that impact performance.
Manually creating everything that Stormgate needs from UE5 (raw vulkan/DX calls, terrain, model rendering, shaders including lighting) for the core game and interface shouldn't take more than say 5% of their workload - although it does mean it will take longer before content (models etc) can be integrated into the game and actually tested. (There's also a slight increase in the workload of cross-platform testers and fixes).
Of course, realtime-rendered cutscenes will benefit more from UE5 because they actually can make use of LoD and occlusion. But a small drop in rendering efficiency (and perhaps quality) during cutscenes is not that big a loss IMHO.
But the flexibility freedom of not being tied to a third-party graphics engine lets you code your game to be exactly what you want it to be, and makes all other development faster and less stressful.
This game should first become stormgate then it will be good.
so if you ask the devs, stormgate did nothing wrong, the haters players are the ones that are wrong wrong.
and that for an early access with diminishing players is a dooming great strategy.
Procedurally Generated Maps
Introducing procedurally generated maps would revolutionize the scouting, making it more dynamic and engaging. This approach would also vastly increase replayability, as each match would present unique challenges and opportunities. Players enjoy adapting to fresh conditions rather than memorizing static, handcrafted maps. Age of Empires 2 serves as a perfect example: its map diversity, ranging from Arabia to Nomad or Gold Rush to Black Forest or Team Islands to Arena, requires entirely different strategies and skills, keeping gameplay fresh and exciting across thousand of matches.
Evolving Economy and Resources
A more diverse economy system could further enrich gameplay. Imagine resources with distinct mechanics: one tied to fixed points on the map, like gold or minerals, and another that players can harvest or generate anywhere, turning the entire map into potential strategic hotspots. Such a design would shift the focus dynamically during matches, ensuring that battles and critical moments happen in varying locations. Art-wise, resources should also stand out visually, adding aesthetic appeal and aiding gameplay readability. This diversity would make every match unique and create opportunities for more complex strategies, enhancing both player experience and spectator enjoyment.
Buildable Walls for Strategy and Comebacks
Walls are essential for creating strategic depth in RTS games. Cheap, high-HP walls allow for defensive maneuvers, buying time, and enabling dramatic comebacks—especially in team games, where protecting allies becomes vital. Walls also influence the flow of battles, shaping chokepoints and forcing creative unit compositions. The destruction of walls can spark tense, exciting moments across the map, keeping viewers and players alike engaged. Without such a tool, gameplay risks losing variability and tactical nuance.
Aiming Beyond SC2: Learning from Age of Empires 2
Stormgate aspires to be a next-generation RTS, but to surpass Starcraft 2’s appeal, it must broaden its scope. While SC2 excels in fast-paced 1v1 matches, Age of Empires 2 boasts the highest active player base in RTS history due to its unmatched gameplay diversity and robust multiplayer modes (1v1 through 4v4). Even if one personally prefers SC2, the numbers don’t lie: Age of Empires 2 has found a formula that resonates with a wider audience. Stormgate can benefit from adopting and improving upon these mechanics without losing its identity. Procedural maps, diverse resources, and walls would not make Stormgate a clone of Age of Empires, but rather a richer game that combines the best elements of various RTS titles.
Embracing Innovation
The success of RTS games lies in openness to innovation. Just as Stormgate borrows successful elements like early scouting from Age of Empires and player abilities from C&C Generals and AOM, it should embrace new features that foster replayability, strategic variety, and accessibility. Procedural maps, walls, and an evolved economy are not constraints—they are opportunities to craft an RTS that stands out in the modern gaming landscape. By combining the best ideas from across the genre, Stormgate can deliver the diversity, excitement, and depth that players crave.
To limit its scope would be to limit its audience, ensuring it remains a niche game rather than a genre-defining masterpiece. A broader, more adaptable vision will unlock Stormgate’s true potential.
Listen to the nay-sayers who like Starcraft 2 will not improve Stormgate much. They want a game like Starcraft 2 and how successful this was and is we can see. It has less active players than SC 1 and Age of Empires 2. So they have to think about if they want to build a game for a niche or they really want to build the best next gen rts possible.
There are still plenty of things that differentiate Stormgate from Age of Empires. Not only the futuristic setting but also the look and feel of the units, the better technical execution, and the improved unit responsiveness make the game still feel like a Blizzard RTS. By the way, Age of Empires, like Warcraft 3, features units with higher HP, which is one reason Age of Empires has a larger player base as Starcraft 2 and why Starcraft 2 is beyond its potential. Even the developers of Stormgate knows that and that is the reason why they increase the life of all units and structures compared to Starcraft 2. But here the good parts of Age of Empires doesn't stop. There is more like the benefits of procedural generated maps, walls and a bit more different economy. There are also good things for the economy in other games like C&C. The concept of power plants that work a bit like Pylons have a big potential to create interesting mechanics and decisions during one match. Don't just think about the mechanics in other games one by one, but also be creative. Change something in a new direction to the things you take from other games.
To be successful, a game needs casual players, not just professional ones. The pros will come on their own if the game is successful with the broader audience—if players not only enjoy playing it themselves but also watching others play. Seeing the same revealed maps repeatedly, already knowing how they will be played (as is typical in Blizzard RTS games), becomes very boring for viewers. It lacks the variety and surprises that make for exciting spectator experiences.
Everyone opposed to these changes should carefully consider their effects: fewer players, longer queue times in ranked matches, fewer tournaments, less support, and ultimately a less developed game. Is that what you really want? Then continue to be endlessly enthusiastic about Blizzard RTS games and ignore everything other RTS games have to offer.
You can dislike Age of Empires, but you can't dislike walls or procedural-generated maps, because they offer to much for the exciting gameplay and the replayability and from which game these ideas come doesn't matter. There are lot of other games with procedural generated maps and buildable walls.
Sounds much better
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmxfUARsi8k
As one of the commenters in that video so succinctly put it:
As someone who is admittedly out of touch with modern gaming(though apparently not as much as some of these studios), I can't believe this pattern is so common lol.