Writer here, kind of wished for more specific information on what elements people would want to see out of an RTS campaign. We know what people want from GiantGrantGaming's famous surveys (singleplayer campaign is THE THING to solve). From my perspective there are two things that have to be in play for a solid RTS campaign; 1. A Betrayal. This is because the game needs to showcase a matchup between all possible factions, which means there must be some kind of understandable reason why a faction would fight against its own. 2. A System Story. A System Story is a story created by the systems of the game itself. An example of this is the classic Dune 2 and C&C. You're fighting over Tiberium, and whoever controls the Tiberium is able to outproduce and outspend the other player so you must do everything in your power to control the Spice/Tiberium.
3:53 It's true when you compare Normal and Hard, but when you switch from Hard to Brutal, you immediately notice the enemy computer actually micro-controls it's units. For example, in WoL it will mercilessly snipe down medics in your bio-ball, in HotS it will actively ignore spawned units with timed life(roachlings, broodlings, locusts etc), in LotV enemies will scatter from your AoE spells(Psi Storm, Disruption Web), if attacked by your cloaked units it will be far more responsive with detection. I've played about a hundred different RTS games so far and I haven't seen this advanced difficulty range in any other game
You know actually I also noticed this too but sadly after I'd made the video. I was playing with a mate, teaching the SC2 and was playing the first terran mission and noticed the brutal AI was sniping my medics. Actually crazy cool tidbit I never noticed and now I'm replaying SC2 yet again trying to notice what micro the AI has
Non-linearity I think is just not feasible for most games unless you have a budget for it or creating the game is very resource efficient. I do agree on customisation, co-op, etc. being very important for a campaign to be able to measure up to what StarCraft 2 managed to achieve. Additionally, RPG player progression through its characters and companion units I think are very important aspects to what is an evolution of Heroes that WarCraft 3 popularised. Having your army feel personalised as you level up and seeing your Hero evolve with new abilities, passives, gear, etc. would be the natural conclusion from just having your Heroes level up and finding items on each map like in WarCraft 3. Combining the RPG philosophies of WarCraft 3 with army composition unlocks of StarCraft 2 are really what needs to be done to make Stormgate feel like an evolution of the Blizzard styled RTS genre. The devs have luckily been discussing these ideas from what I have seen where achievements, army unlocks, between mission character progression, etc. are going to be in the game for 1.0. It's just a matter of getting their engine and art assets ready to expand the Campaign after they have fixed the more obvious flaws like Mission lengths, unpolished mechanics, the issues with the writing, etc. We likely won't be seeing some of this polish until next year considering their comments about the map editor still having lots of work before it is ready for release some time early next year. Knowing the work done on their previous games and from what they have teased I am pretty confident that they can build these systems for 1.0. It's just a matter of keeping the playerbase engaged until then and making priorities that improve the health of the game over time. Also, only release systems and content that have reasonable levels of polish and keep the WIP stuff like Mayhem under NDA until it is good enough for a wider release. The fact of the matter is that most people don't enjoy testing unfinished content unless the hook is so good that people can overlook those flaws, especially in regards to story content. Don't repeat those mistakes and stuff like the EA Campaign won't happen again.
hard agree, it's why I didn't compare a lot to the current version of sg's campaign. As I said in the video, I'm actually personally really enjoying sg even with it's failings in other areas rn but I have confidence we'll get there. I more wanted to praise sc2 (especially WoL) for everything it did well but show that even if it was really good, there was obvious room for growth that sc2 didn't get around to. Honestly I'm glad this video has generated a good amount of discussion from everyone though both here and on reddit. It's exciting seeing that the solo modes are as important to other people as it was to me.
sc2's writing is quite a low bar to surpass (though hilariously I don't think any recent rts was able to), what really carries the campaign is the cinematic experience that accompanies it, and the interesting setting that sc1 crafted and copied from warhammer's IP
I think sc1 and WoL's writing isn't as bad as the rest. They went a bit off the rails with HotS and LotV imo but I personally really enjoyed sc1&WoL writing But hard agree, it's not an insane bar to pass really
Not every Game is made to have non-linear stories. Especially if you want to continue the story through iterations (expansions/novels etc.) branching story archs just aren't feasable. Don't get me wrong, i absolutely love innovative storytelling, but there is a time and a place for non-linear stories. I've written an entire thesis on it. But RTS isn't really the place for it imo. Choices don't have to be limited to story development. Unit customization and the ability to solve problems in multiple ways is enough. I'd rather have a beautifully crafted linear story ("a movie you are interacting with") and the possibility to play it with a friend. Branching stories are ultimately a highly individual experience, and the story in an RTS should create a unifying backdrop, introducing the game and lore.
Yeah I actually agree with you here, that not every game has to have branching stories. I don't necessarily agree that RTS' aren't suited for it. The point of that section though was highlighting what other RTS hadn't done yet and what could be done in a new game to make it different. I don't think I expected each and every point to be used or seen in any new game.
What does starcraft, warcraft, command and conquer, dawn of war and company of heroes have in common? Story, characters, and even tho its all different the solid impact feel of abilities, unit movement, fight animation. that last bit feels lacking in newer rts
Starcraft 2 is a modern RTS, it's only old in when it's released. It is lacking global hotkey and that's about it. You should be analysing all the great RTS campaigns. It's the variety of missions, the lore (even if it's simple), the well crafted missions. Very few RTS after sc2 have great campaign missions, stormgate obviously don't even come close, let alone the weird campaign packs with free missions that hook nobody, absolutely terrible vibe.
Writer here, kind of wished for more specific information on what elements people would want to see out of an RTS campaign. We know what people want from GiantGrantGaming's famous surveys (singleplayer campaign is THE THING to solve). From my perspective there are two things that have to be in play for a solid RTS campaign;
1. A Betrayal. This is because the game needs to showcase a matchup between all possible factions, which means there must be some kind of understandable reason why a faction would fight against its own.
2. A System Story. A System Story is a story created by the systems of the game itself. An example of this is the classic Dune 2 and C&C. You're fighting over Tiberium, and whoever controls the Tiberium is able to outproduce and outspend the other player so you must do everything in your power to control the Spice/Tiberium.
3:53 It's true when you compare Normal and Hard, but when you switch from Hard to Brutal, you immediately notice the enemy computer actually micro-controls it's units.
For example, in WoL it will mercilessly snipe down medics in your bio-ball, in HotS it will actively ignore spawned units with timed life(roachlings, broodlings, locusts etc), in LotV enemies will scatter from your AoE spells(Psi Storm, Disruption Web), if attacked by your cloaked units it will be far more responsive with detection.
I've played about a hundred different RTS games so far and I haven't seen this advanced difficulty range in any other game
You know actually I also noticed this too but sadly after I'd made the video. I was playing with a mate, teaching the SC2 and was playing the first terran mission and noticed the brutal AI was sniping my medics. Actually crazy cool tidbit I never noticed and now I'm replaying SC2 yet again trying to notice what micro the AI has
Non-linearity I think is just not feasible for most games unless you have a budget for it or creating the game is very resource efficient. I do agree on customisation, co-op, etc. being very important for a campaign to be able to measure up to what StarCraft 2 managed to achieve.
Additionally, RPG player progression through its characters and companion units I think are very important aspects to what is an evolution of Heroes that WarCraft 3 popularised. Having your army feel personalised as you level up and seeing your Hero evolve with new abilities, passives, gear, etc. would be the natural conclusion from just having your Heroes level up and finding items on each map like in WarCraft 3. Combining the RPG philosophies of WarCraft 3 with army composition unlocks of StarCraft 2 are really what needs to be done to make Stormgate feel like an evolution of the Blizzard styled RTS genre.
The devs have luckily been discussing these ideas from what I have seen where achievements, army unlocks, between mission character progression, etc. are going to be in the game for 1.0. It's just a matter of getting their engine and art assets ready to expand the Campaign after they have fixed the more obvious flaws like Mission lengths, unpolished mechanics, the issues with the writing, etc. We likely won't be seeing some of this polish until next year considering their comments about the map editor still having lots of work before it is ready for release some time early next year.
Knowing the work done on their previous games and from what they have teased I am pretty confident that they can build these systems for 1.0. It's just a matter of keeping the playerbase engaged until then and making priorities that improve the health of the game over time. Also, only release systems and content that have reasonable levels of polish and keep the WIP stuff like Mayhem under NDA until it is good enough for a wider release. The fact of the matter is that most people don't enjoy testing unfinished content unless the hook is so good that people can overlook those flaws, especially in regards to story content. Don't repeat those mistakes and stuff like the EA Campaign won't happen again.
hard agree, it's why I didn't compare a lot to the current version of sg's campaign. As I said in the video, I'm actually personally really enjoying sg even with it's failings in other areas rn but I have confidence we'll get there. I more wanted to praise sc2 (especially WoL) for everything it did well but show that even if it was really good, there was obvious room for growth that sc2 didn't get around to.
Honestly I'm glad this video has generated a good amount of discussion from everyone though both here and on reddit. It's exciting seeing that the solo modes are as important to other people as it was to me.
sc2's writing is quite a low bar to surpass (though hilariously I don't think any recent rts was able to), what really carries the campaign is the cinematic experience that accompanies it, and the interesting setting that sc1 crafted and copied from warhammer's IP
I think sc1 and WoL's writing isn't as bad as the rest. They went a bit off the rails with HotS and LotV imo but I personally really enjoyed sc1&WoL writing
But hard agree, it's not an insane bar to pass really
Not every Game is made to have non-linear stories. Especially if you want to continue the story through iterations (expansions/novels etc.) branching story archs just aren't feasable.
Don't get me wrong, i absolutely love innovative storytelling, but there is a time and a place for non-linear stories. I've written an entire thesis on it.
But RTS isn't really the place for it imo.
Choices don't have to be limited to story development. Unit customization and the ability to solve problems in multiple ways is enough.
I'd rather have a beautifully crafted linear story ("a movie you are interacting with") and the possibility to play it with a friend.
Branching stories are ultimately a highly individual experience, and the story in an RTS should create a unifying backdrop, introducing the game and lore.
Yeah I actually agree with you here, that not every game has to have branching stories. I don't necessarily agree that RTS' aren't suited for it. The point of that section though was highlighting what other RTS hadn't done yet and what could be done in a new game to make it different. I don't think I expected each and every point to be used or seen in any new game.
What does starcraft, warcraft, command and conquer, dawn of war and company of heroes have in common? Story, characters, and even tho its all different the solid impact feel of abilities, unit movement, fight animation. that last bit feels lacking in newer rts
Starcraft 2 is a modern RTS, it's only old in when it's released. It is lacking global hotkey and that's about it.
You should be analysing all the great RTS campaigns.
It's the variety of missions, the lore (even if it's simple), the well crafted missions.
Very few RTS after sc2 have great campaign missions, stormgate obviously don't even come close, let alone the weird campaign packs with free missions that hook nobody, absolutely terrible vibe.
Why do you work making video on a dead game ?
Time is precious friendo
Copegate vs SC2 gotta be kindding me
who
Here man, you've dropped - 🤡