Classical case of putting the cart before the horse.... StarCraft did not emerge into this world with everyone wanted to do eSports in it right away. People got hooked on the fictional universe first then multiplayer
Whilst I don't think the art style is the absolute worst I've ever seen I do think there is an issue with how they've used it. Some units look too similar and the environments are way too cluttered and busy which can be distracting or outright blocking in some cases. It's part of what I think won't be able to be changed in a meaningful way for the better during the game's early access run.
This game looks so ugly and uninspired. There are zero reasons to prefer this to SC2, and Stormgate manage to look way worse than a 10+ years old game, meanwhile an unknown studio can deliver a way better quality with immortals gate of pyre. Same engine by the way, you may not like it, but it's well done. Units in Stormgate looks like plastic toys, boring, badly made, and they have the amount of poligons you could find in the first quake. All this in unreal engine 5? That engine can eat millions of poligons like it's nothing and this is what we get? Also the maps are all blurry, zero details, repetition like there is no tomorrow...this would be ok for an indie solo dev, not mighty ex Blizzard
Thanks for the game reccomendation, I'll look into it. The engine itself isn't an issue, I have similar complaints with the art style which I think lead into how the game itself feels. That visceral feeling is missing so far and something I can hope they add though I'm not holding my breath.
@@just-a-simple-mirageIf I ever want to play like this art style. I rather play war legends because they had more interesting storyline than stormgate.
At 4:22 you made a very insightful comment that I haven't seen mentioned in reviews or forums. "If you're playing an RTS, you're probably an introvert who doesn't like other people or want to play with them". Completely agreed. It's not catering to solo gameplay, and it is odd.
I think it mixes with the larger point of the game not target the core RTS demographic with quality singleplayer content. Introverted or not, most RTS games live and die by their campaigns.
I still remember the emotional moments in warcraft 3 campaign so many years later even though mechanically, it was clumsy and graphics were intentionally underpowered for it's time. With Stormgate one, my main feeling so far was "Is that it?" Both story and length are lacking. Actual missions get better over time, but so far 9 missions were announced and I played through 6 of them in half an afternoon. It would be a nice free intro to the campaign but if I am paying full price for future mission packs they better have more stuff in them. And I would like them to add more content to the current ones as well to restore good faith.
100%, Starcraft 2 was my first RTS and the moment the Zerg overrun Mar Sara has stuck with me even before the cutscene kicked in. Launching into EA without an intro campaign to match that or have any kind of hook will require some reputation repair for me personally.
It's not about being afraid of playing with other people, it's about not wanting to have to be connected to the Online Metagame that many multiplayer games have especially RTS games.
AI don't use the most comically cheesy sweaty and OP meta tactics every single time. Modern sweatlords do, however. Why play a game when it is a stressful sweat-fest, when I could just play some singleplayer game and have fun?... If I wanted heavy competition, I'd join a boxing league.
I feel like most modern devs are pretty out of touch with the community they are trying to make games for. Most RTS games from the early 2000s became successful because they had solid campaigns with decent characters and voice acting and story. The multiplayer success came after that. Now devs are trying to skimp on the campaigns because they are hard to make. They require the most investment of time and resources. But most gamers nowadays are casual people that have jobs and families, they are not the try hard kids of the 90s who were a niche in the entertainment industry. And the numbers also show that most people play RTS games for the campaign, not the pvp aspect. Here is a good question: when is the last time you played a RTS game that had such a good story campaign that you still remember it to this day? For me it was Homeworld Deserts of Kharak which had a short but memorable campaign with a great story and decent voice acting. Those guys didnt try to make it into the e-sports scene, they just made a great sci fi RTS game on a desert planet and made it look interesting. Stormgate feels like an ugly retarded deformed clone of SC2 and that is too sad. Giant Grant Games made a very good video on this subject called "Why the next RTS game will fail". He is talking about RTS games in general, but boy it sure feels like it targeted this game...
I agree largely with what you're saying, though I don't think the devs or execs of these games are out of touch it's just that they only listen to the praise. Short small changes or criticism is fine, we see this with Stormgate where they're saying they're going to fix the models and polish of the campaign pieces they've released, yet this won't change the story or the content that just isn't grabbing people. That kind of change is too big, even though the campaign seems hardly built, so the devs will only in that respect uplift and highlight voices that praise those elements. Is Stormgate the worst story I've ever watched/read/played? No. It could be way better though but that would require a fair amount of time and effort that would be seen as a draw away from the money-making Online. I'll check out that video as well because I do think RTS as a genre is one that never broke out of that traditional hardcore gamer that wants that good solo experience and that doesn't make the millions and billions companies want.
well keep in mind that they marketed it as a free starcraft so they kinda made it for multiplayer more pvp than for campaign and all that. I mean the campaign is weak, weak story not very "i care about these characters" like, but thing about it as a free rts like age of empires online was once, and it was closed later. But i think its a nice game from a lets play a rts pvp for free game.
To me it wasn't clearly communicated that it was going to focus so heavily on the multiplayer PvP. I backed the project thinking that the online was just a bonus if I liked the campaign they were doing. I think a FTP RTS is a good idea but the monetization heavily leans towards a pay-to-win exploitative loop that really doesn't fit for an RTS and since a lot of other free RTS games have closed down I don't see a bright future for the game as of right now.
@@just-a-simple-mirage when i read about the game this is what i undersstood from that very old article and that is was going to be free. But my opinion is that the game needs a lot of refining from a design point of view and i like a free rts. But again if you backed it i understand your displeasure, plus you payed more than the game itself. On crowdfunding i'd never pay more than what i pay for a pizza, because tehre are lot of project that show a overachieved project.
Most people who are still playing SC2 and WC3 do so for 1v1 multiplayer, and I think among hardcore fans that's seen as the "core" game mode of RTS. And Frost Giant has said that they don't intend to release a full campaign at launch - it will theoretically be released in mission packs of 2-3 at a time. That said, I agree with all the other points you made. What they've released so far looks unpolished and like the company is spread thin. And for people who are looking for an engaging single-player RTS campaign to play, this ain't it.
Most people that are playing SC2 are doing it for the custom games. The ladder is dead and does not represent a sustainable playerbase. Campaign, co-op and Arcade players, that sometimes go on the ladder are the heart of an RTS. Not the 1v1 fanatics that, as their own graph shows, are a minority. By forgetting WHO are the true RTS players, they doomed their game. The gameplay could be perfect, with that art direction and story, there is NO WAY I'm switching over to Stormgate.
I can understand seeing the long-term players as 1v1 players but I also think that there needs to be consideration of converting casual players into hardcore players and that comes with a decent solo experience with RTS games in my opinion. As for the campaign releases, we'll have to see how it goes and their quality upon their release. It does look so far that this will be a mostly online experience which is a shame for me personally.
@@just-a-simple-mirage Completely understood - I generally tend towards single-player games, even though I played a lot of 1v1 StarCraft, so I get it. The weakness of the campaign definitely contributes to sapping my enthusiasm for StormGate.
This is why they can keep this shit!! I care an crap about pvp!! Thats not the reason to play Rts.If you cant deliver an Rts with good Story campaign then they can go fck themselves!! But what else im expecting from ACTIVISION Bobby Kottik bootlickers!? They make the same shit like theyr previous greedy company!!💩🖕
I really dislike the resources in this game crystals and gas is awesome gold and lumber (and oil) is awesome food lumber gold stone is awesome yellow glowy mineral and green glowy mineral is not good
The bad "player vs player" players dont care about pvp and the other features are farther behind (because competitive pvp is a lot more important) so they dont like the current state of the game. Rather than moving on, they are crying and watching other videos just to complain about it.
And yet, your "most important" pvp mode only represent 15% of the launched games. Because what REALLY brings customers to a RTS is, and has ALWAYS been, the campaign.
I'm a little confused on if this is insulting me or people who like RTS PvP. In either cases I think PvP is important for the genre but without a strong base for solo or casual play would there be enough fans to support a competitive scene?
I think Stormgate will bring the RTS genre forward.
In the sense that future RTS developers can look at it and know what mistakes to avoid.
Early access games with micro transaction day one is so sad.
I would be surprised if the game will still be worked on in a year
Classical case of putting the cart before the horse.... StarCraft did not emerge into this world with everyone wanted to do eSports in it right away. People got hooked on the fictional universe first then multiplayer
It feels like a SC2 Custom Map ported to Warcraft Reforged.
what is even more important than good gameplay for an esports game is a large viewer base, and that comes from just a big audience
The worst is the artstyle and graphics, looks so ugly and nothing makes sense from a visual perspective.
Whilst I don't think the art style is the absolute worst I've ever seen I do think there is an issue with how they've used it. Some units look too similar and the environments are way too cluttered and busy which can be distracting or outright blocking in some cases. It's part of what I think won't be able to be changed in a meaningful way for the better during the game's early access run.
This game looks so ugly and uninspired. There are zero reasons to prefer this to SC2, and Stormgate manage to look way worse than a 10+ years old game, meanwhile an unknown studio can deliver a way better quality with immortals gate of pyre. Same engine by the way, you may not like it, but it's well done. Units in Stormgate looks like plastic toys, boring, badly made, and they have the amount of poligons you could find in the first quake. All this in unreal engine 5? That engine can eat millions of poligons like it's nothing and this is what we get? Also the maps are all blurry, zero details, repetition like there is no tomorrow...this would be ok for an indie solo dev, not mighty ex Blizzard
Thanks for the game reccomendation, I'll look into it. The engine itself isn't an issue, I have similar complaints with the art style which I think lead into how the game itself feels. That visceral feeling is missing so far and something I can hope they add though I'm not holding my breath.
@@just-a-simple-mirageIf I ever want to play like this art style. I rather play war legends because they had more interesting storyline than stormgate.
Sounds like you only played the beta
@@jesseroper1206 I backed the game, I got access to all betas and EA
At 4:22 you made a very insightful comment that I haven't seen mentioned in reviews or forums. "If you're playing an RTS, you're probably an introvert who doesn't like other people or want to play with them". Completely agreed. It's not catering to solo gameplay, and it is odd.
I think it mixes with the larger point of the game not target the core RTS demographic with quality singleplayer content. Introverted or not, most RTS games live and die by their campaigns.
3:45 yes yes yes wholeheartedly agree, Stormgate feels like it wants to do so many things but it lacks a clear direction.
I still remember the emotional moments in warcraft 3 campaign so many years later even though mechanically, it was clumsy and graphics were intentionally underpowered for it's time. With Stormgate one, my main feeling so far was "Is that it?" Both story and length are lacking. Actual missions get better over time, but so far 9 missions were announced and I played through 6 of them in half an afternoon. It would be a nice free intro to the campaign but if I am paying full price for future mission packs they better have more stuff in them. And I would like them to add more content to the current ones as well to restore good faith.
100%, Starcraft 2 was my first RTS and the moment the Zerg overrun Mar Sara has stuck with me even before the cutscene kicked in. Launching into EA without an intro campaign to match that or have any kind of hook will require some reputation repair for me personally.
AOE2 and the age games are still out there for the RTS itch if you're boycotting Activision
10:18 oh yeah Im gonna buy starcraft remastered and play the campaign for the first time since the 1998 lunch
Honestly game looks like trash, its super slow, sc2 was action packed. And visually its really bad as well, which doesnt help.
I don't understand why you people are so afraid of playing with other players, just pretend they are AI its not like you need to talk to them
It's not about being afraid of playing with other people, it's about not wanting to have to be connected to the Online Metagame that many multiplayer games have especially RTS games.
AI don't use the most comically cheesy sweaty and OP meta tactics every single time. Modern sweatlords do, however.
Why play a game when it is a stressful sweat-fest, when I could just play some singleplayer game and have fun?...
If I wanted heavy competition, I'd join a boxing league.
I feel like most modern devs are pretty out of touch with the community they are trying to make games for. Most RTS games from the early 2000s became successful because they had solid campaigns with decent characters and voice acting and story. The multiplayer success came after that. Now devs are trying to skimp on the campaigns because they are hard to make. They require the most investment of time and resources. But most gamers nowadays are casual people that have jobs and families, they are not the try hard kids of the 90s who were a niche in the entertainment industry. And the numbers also show that most people play RTS games for the campaign, not the pvp aspect.
Here is a good question: when is the last time you played a RTS game that had such a good story campaign that you still remember it to this day?
For me it was Homeworld Deserts of Kharak which had a short but memorable campaign with a great story and decent voice acting. Those guys didnt try to make it into the e-sports scene, they just made a great sci fi RTS game on a desert planet and made it look interesting.
Stormgate feels like an ugly retarded deformed clone of SC2 and that is too sad.
Giant Grant Games made a very good video on this subject called "Why the next RTS game will fail". He is talking about RTS games in general, but boy it sure feels like it targeted this game...
I agree largely with what you're saying, though I don't think the devs or execs of these games are out of touch it's just that they only listen to the praise. Short small changes or criticism is fine, we see this with Stormgate where they're saying they're going to fix the models and polish of the campaign pieces they've released, yet this won't change the story or the content that just isn't grabbing people. That kind of change is too big, even though the campaign seems hardly built, so the devs will only in that respect uplift and highlight voices that praise those elements.
Is Stormgate the worst story I've ever watched/read/played? No. It could be way better though but that would require a fair amount of time and effort that would be seen as a draw away from the money-making Online. I'll check out that video as well because I do think RTS as a genre is one that never broke out of that traditional hardcore gamer that wants that good solo experience and that doesn't make the millions and billions companies want.
well keep in mind that they marketed it as a free starcraft so they kinda made it for multiplayer more pvp than for campaign and all that. I mean the campaign is weak, weak story not very "i care about these characters" like, but thing about it as a free rts like age of empires online was once, and it was closed later. But i think its a nice game from a lets play a rts pvp for free game.
To me it wasn't clearly communicated that it was going to focus so heavily on the multiplayer PvP. I backed the project thinking that the online was just a bonus if I liked the campaign they were doing. I think a FTP RTS is a good idea but the monetization heavily leans towards a pay-to-win exploitative loop that really doesn't fit for an RTS and since a lot of other free RTS games have closed down I don't see a bright future for the game as of right now.
@@just-a-simple-mirage when i read about the game this is what i undersstood from that very old article and that is was going to be free. But my opinion is that the game needs a lot of refining from a design point of view and i like a free rts. But again if you backed it i understand your displeasure, plus you payed more than the game itself. On crowdfunding i'd never pay more than what i pay for a pizza, because tehre are lot of project that show a overachieved project.
Most people who are still playing SC2 and WC3 do so for 1v1 multiplayer, and I think among hardcore fans that's seen as the "core" game mode of RTS. And Frost Giant has said that they don't intend to release a full campaign at launch - it will theoretically be released in mission packs of 2-3 at a time. That said, I agree with all the other points you made. What they've released so far looks unpolished and like the company is spread thin. And for people who are looking for an engaging single-player RTS campaign to play, this ain't it.
Most people that are playing SC2 are doing it for the custom games.
The ladder is dead and does not represent a sustainable playerbase.
Campaign, co-op and Arcade players, that sometimes go on the ladder are the heart of an RTS.
Not the 1v1 fanatics that, as their own graph shows, are a minority.
By forgetting WHO are the true RTS players, they doomed their game.
The gameplay could be perfect, with that art direction and story, there is NO WAY I'm switching over to Stormgate.
I can understand seeing the long-term players as 1v1 players but I also think that there needs to be consideration of converting casual players into hardcore players and that comes with a decent solo experience with RTS games in my opinion. As for the campaign releases, we'll have to see how it goes and their quality upon their release. It does look so far that this will be a mostly online experience which is a shame for me personally.
@@just-a-simple-mirage Completely understood - I generally tend towards single-player games, even though I played a lot of 1v1 StarCraft, so I get it. The weakness of the campaign definitely contributes to sapping my enthusiasm for StormGate.
This is why they can keep this shit!! I care an crap about pvp!! Thats not the reason to play Rts.If you cant deliver an Rts with good Story campaign then they can go fck themselves!! But what else im expecting from ACTIVISION Bobby Kottik bootlickers!? They make the same shit like theyr previous greedy company!!💩🖕
I really dislike the resources in this game
crystals and gas is awesome
gold and lumber (and oil) is awesome
food lumber gold stone is awesome
yellow glowy mineral and green glowy mineral is not good
The bad "player vs player" players dont care about pvp and the other features are farther behind (because competitive pvp is a lot more important) so they dont like the current state of the game. Rather than moving on, they are crying and watching other videos just to complain about it.
And yet, your "most important" pvp mode only represent 15% of the launched games.
Because what REALLY brings customers to a RTS is, and has ALWAYS been, the campaign.
I'm a little confused on if this is insulting me or people who like RTS PvP. In either cases I think PvP is important for the genre but without a strong base for solo or casual play would there be enough fans to support a competitive scene?