Alright guys they've announced the name of the game is "Battle Aces" - with a closed beta later this month, signup to play here: www.playbattleaces.com/
my biggest worry is the fact that it will apparently be free to play, that combined with the 'card' thing makes me think it's monetization system will be kinda questionable
Agreed, especially since uncapped games is owned by Tencent (Chinese multi-media conglomerate company renowned for free online games full of pay wall transactions...)
Yeah basically. It looks like an "official" version of old maps like footman frenzy, where you have a big single building, upgrade troops, and just fight a lot for the sake of fighting. Looks like they just added some points of interest/resource collectors and added in some card systems and are calling it a day lol
Isn't League of legends, one of the most popular games in the world, just a WC3 custom game? I may have misjudged your tone though, but I don't see this as a problem. All new games borrow from older games.
My hot take comparing what I just saw with say StormGate (which I've also only seen) is if StormGate is a watered-down StarCraft, Battle Aces is StarCraft Distilled!
Setup reminds me of DoW2. The flexibility of choosing what units to field remind me of C&C4. The action is about as fluid as SC2. It may not be for me yet, but if there's one thing new RTS games take from SC2, its the responsiveness of movement and whatever tech they use for unit clumping.
I think this game relates to the typical base-building RTS like Counter-Strike relates to Fortnite. FPS is such a broad and developed genre that it has many well-defined, distinct sub-genres (arena shooter, hero/role shooter, battle royale, extraction shooter...). Fortnite has longer matches and more mechanics: gathering gear and resources, building, deployment, shrinking map... CS has shorter, more intense matches with a single-minded focus on the basics: shooting. Same here. SC2 has a whole fuckton of systems (buiĺding, research, economy, expansions, scotuing...) and drawn-out matches. Battle Aces seems to be focusing entirely on 1 aspect: controlling your army. And I'm starting to like the idea of having different, distinct sub-genres of RTS.
Eh, doesn't really speak to me. Tbf, I'm not the audience for it, as I don't like MOBAs. I like when gameplay has objectives beyond just "beat the other guy." SC, for example, has immersive campaigns with varied objectives throughout, and its style and characters have more personality than "I am high pitched quirky robot!" Straight PvP is meh. It can be fun, but it's not the main attraction. And there's a reason SC2 coop is way more fun to play than SC2 ladder.
What are your thoughts on how zerospace has exp tower and rich resources in the middle to fight over? Does it still give you a meh vibe, or does it make it more appealing for you?
@@Lazycat410 I'm more interested in zerospace's campaign. As for how pvp plays out, I'm indifferent. That idea at least plays to having some kind of objective, but I'd be interested in seeing more if they have multiple scripted objectives in a pvp game that your opponent might try to hinder you on. Maybe several minutes into a match, a bonus objective to escort a convoy and get some upgrade would be cool, and then the opponent would have to make the decision to attack that convoy to prevent you from getting rewarded, or push while you're focused on protecting it. Something more like that would be cooler than just a resource rich hotspot (which SC2 already has). I'm just spitballing ideas though. I'm not the audience for pvp anyway and I don't see any RTS going that route anytime soon, but I'd definitely be intrigued to try something like that.
o ye nvr actually played with the Crawlers. Heard it was bad and never bought it 😅 Also I was sick of EA games shutting down servers after a year or 2 after release. RIP RA3 😭
I think C&C4 might have had a chance if it didn't have the Command and Conquer name on it. There are certain expectations that come along with that franchise and C&C4 just colored too far outside the lines. Also, the story was... lacking. I appreciate what they tried to do gameplay-wise but C&C4 was trying to fix problems that no one had. Maybe this game will do better since it isn't carrying the C&C franchise's baggage.
@@dwmarch Well battleforge was somewhat successful but dev's greed (IIRC it was initially "Buy a deck to play" but then it transitioned into F2P with decent starter decks and GOD AWFULLY SLOW F2P Progression system) and extremely slow expansion releases killed it.
So it is Push-The-Line RTS. There were a lot of similar SC II minigames reminding this one. I just wish that someone will make Catch'n;Run/Probe vs Zealot kind of game one day.
Less is more.. The less it takes to build a base the more bases you can build.. Looks like it takes one click in Battle Aces.. :D ... But sure there could be more options for creativity than building one kind of base.. But maybe they'll ad units that can become static building - so you could design your base.. But I lie there being less "microing the macro" -- I want to choose building and where I build it and it be about as simple as possible to actually execute it. Making choice is where the strategy is - executing the motions to make the choice go well is - more "arcade skill".. Sure there's room for skill based units but those should be more in the combat end and optional - just building the base and gathering resources quickly should not require skill or too much attention.
As a PvP enjoyer, the game does look fun, and I do like the idea of playing a rapidfire RTS where you can get in-and-out of a match in 10 minutes or less. The problem that I foresee is that simplification, counter-intuitively, doesn't really bring in new players or retain casual players, because half of the joy of learning a PvP game is the discovery of things you can do. And simplification means that there's less things that you can discover you can do before you start to reach the nerdy levels of memorising specific timings or data tables or whatever, which tends to be the point where most casual players nope out. I hope there's enough variety in the units and abilities that discovery at the casual level is extensive enough to keep casual players around
Simple doesn't mean less enjoyable gameplay really. Updates also means metas need to be relearned and whatnot. I vastly prefer fast paced RTS and wish there were more sub 10 minute games on the market.
It seems like there's plenty of things to do and discover in this game, but instead of discovering mineral walking (like, wtf) or what supply blocks are, it's fun things that make sense to have in a game. In a full-fat all the varied and different fun stuff is locked behind a tech tree that you need fifteen minutes to climb through as a newbie. Having to deal with all the base building and harassment and juggling the fiddly bits of your economic engine on the way will often mean that you simply won't even get to try your brilliant new silver-league invention unless the stars align.
@@ComradeSulomon tl;dr: Macro is great when done right. I want to play a strategy and tactics game, not a speed accountancy simulator without spreadsheets and a crap interface. My favorite is probably Beyond All Reason with its exponential eco scaling, and I'm weirdly fond of Offworld Trading Company. That freakish thing is an experimental RTS WITHOUT any micro. Sins of Solar Empire has a good take on macro-centered UI and I'm there fore it. Or Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns, that one was full of great ideas. I do love me some macro-oriented gaming with complexity, I just recognize that it doesn't necessarily lead to greater gameplay variety. Look at Age of Empires II with its four resources to gather, the eco upgrades to research, scouting for resources, how crucial it is to control resource areas and trade paths - and yet the viable build order variety is actually really low compared to a game with a streamlined economy like StarCraft. Even with its 30+ factions, there's only a handful of approaches, and each AoE2 game has a deliberately slow buildup that activelly prevents new players from exploring different options. What I super don't love is when 90s design paradigms are inherited as received wisdom, and this is coming from an 80s kid who remembers the genre just being called "Dune II clones". I've likely played the majority of them ever released. With bad 90s design I mean stuff like how you can't even queue units up before you have the resources for them. I'm supposed to be the boss in these games. If I issue an order to make something, that should mean BUILD THIS AS SOON WHEN WE HAVE THE MEANS TO DO SO, and I want the game to accept that simple instruction. I never want to hear "nOt EnOuGh mInErAls" again. For all it's streamlining, that's still the one thing that incredibly irritated me while playing the up-and-coming StormGate public beta this February.
@@ComradeSulomon Now if it weren't for the hard paywall that makes it tragically unplayable to non-cetaceans, my second favorite RTS would be Clash Royale. A FREEMIUM LOOT CRATE MOBILE GAME. In my book, standing tall and proud next to Beyond All Reason. Why? That thing distills economy and production into some of the most streamlined mechanics possible and still keeps economy and cost efficiency central to decision making. In a game with five-minute rounds that plays on a single screen, there are timing attacks, spam rushes, scouting, turtling, all-ins, multiprong attacks, early expands, it's nuts. The variety of approaches and counter-plays is huge but hard counters (deck-wise) are rare. It's an immensely rich game built on simple but rock-solid principles that were imaginatively built-upon. Peak game design, at least when I was playing a few years back. No idea what state it's in now. I'd pay full price for it in a heartbeat, but the pay-to-win bullshit has gone far beyond palatable. "You call that an RTS? A mobile card game, and you call it an RTS?" IT IS, AND I'M TIRED OF PRETENDING IT'S NOT.
Not the game for me. I love the macro aspect of traditional RTS games. Micro is a neat little mini-game, but it's an afterthought to macro. Accumulating many small advantages over time through better macro execution. Seems like Battle Aces loses a good chunk of that in favor of micro and quick impactful decisions. But I admit 2v2 with friends for some casual fun looks promising.
This is close to something I have been looking for. I would like some amount of base building, defense structures, etc. When and where to expand are large strategic choices. I don't mind eliminating worker creation. But I could see me putting some hours into this. Thinking about it a little more - instead of a timer that has a hard stop end to the game, they should automatically complete unit powerups every minute beyond 10 minutes and let them game play out. Player with more units is going to win normally but still let positioning, micro, and unit mix dictate the winner instead of a hidden score.
I think it's going to be very much it's own thing. It's framed almost like a fighting game. It's not going to compete against, say, Zerospace. Nor is it going to replace Starraft 2. Nor does it need to.
@@Turned2Ice No offense but I don't think you understand what an RTT is. It's a strategy game that removes or has little emphasis on base building and economy management in order to focus primarily on battles, which is exactly what this game does. Another RTT which this seems to take inspiration from is Dawn of War II (not the first one, which is an RTS, but specifically the 2nd one).
@@WhitePointerGaming RTS game without building is still an RTS. What really differs RTS from RTT is design of units ( well, yes, combined with emphasis on fights rather economy), in RTT they are usually squads or bunch of hero units.
It took them how many years to make this? This isn't an RTS, because they removed the fundamental aspect of RTS: macro. Have RTS players asked for a MOBA?
Well, I remember a ton of people on Blizz forums asking for the "APM tax" mechanics to be removed (chrono, inject, creep, muledrops...). Even as far back as Heart of the Swarm. If that's not your cup of tea, there's 2-3 more traditional RTS titles coming out soon, and nobody is taking away our beloved SC2, BW, WC3, etc. I'm still on the fence about the complete lack of base building, but I don't see any reason to stress out or be angry that a studio tries something different. And If this game attracts some new players to the RTS genre - it's good for everyone.
Hmm, my first impression is "oh, a marine arena style game"... And disappointment that the macro mechanics that RTS players have polished are not transferrable to this game. The macro was one of the reasons I loved RTS. But I do think this may be a necessary sacrifice to get a wider audience interested in the game Fast games and ability to rapidly iterate on your strategies was good choice by the devs, it makes it more addicting earlier since you'll feel yourself rapidly gaining understanding of the game. It'll be interesting to see how deep the strategy goes though given the limited time.
This actually looks like something to be casually picked up and enjoyed with casual friends. Smooth, clear visuals, familiar clicking.. could rts as a broad genre be back, again?
It's always nice to play a casual rts. I always find myself going back to Halo wars. Fast paced and infantry focused. They teach some really bad habits. Lol
Looks like it has potential to be a fast paced and highly tactical game. However every unit serves the purpose of to kill things and that makes it feel already monotonous. In other rts games you have units that build, that transport, and that scout.
How sure are you about that tho? Maybe you'd love it, maybe you'd hate it, but it seems pretty clear they've gone for something that's really unique. It's free to play, so I hope it's fun for you.
I feel like base building isn't really the issue, it's map design. Everything is flat and on one plane, there's zero zoning, so the battles seem real boring.
@@jaho101 God damnit, man. Do we understand the point of a game? The point of a game is to be fun to play. I don't know if this game will be fun or not, but it's just insane how many people are upset it doesn't check this or that random box they deem to be necessary. A handful of extremely-hard-core RTS players played the alpha, and from all reports I've seen, it seems like they had a lot of fun. Of all possible things, I can't imagine anything more minor than map design in a game that's not even to beta yet.
A relatively simple RTS like this one has a potential today. It's because RTS fans are getting older and have less gaming time than 10~20 years ago. People have jobs, families and other responsibilities, but no time to learn millions of stuffs for a new RTS. Shorter and simpler RTS caters to these demographics.
Meh I think it's less about getting the old people, as much as pulling in new. I know StarCraft well enough that it took me like an hour or two to get my Stormgate to a playable level. This game is more for people that are breaking into the genre. This game requires much less attention span, and at the risk of sounding elitist, appeals to the lowest common denominator. I don't know if it'll scratch the same RTS itch for me, but it looks fun and seems much more likely to succeed than stormgate in today's environment.
@@gundamkid I think it's both. I do love Starcraft but the grind associated with improve in it just does not appeal to me as much as it used to. Also, shorter games allow for a much more enjoyable experience. For example, anybody's average winrate is ~50%, (Serral-like people aside). if I have an hour to play and I end up playing a nerve-wrecking 40 minute macro and end up losing... Well it's not really "time well spent". But playing six 10-minute games, losing some and winning some is much more sustainable.
Honestly, this seems really awesome! The state of casual RTS is like, autobattlers and Clash Royale and stuff, and... I'd really love something that could be the 10 minute microfest. I do kinda wish there was more movement/reinforcement/information potential--the choice of where to take a fight doesn't seem quite as interesting as it does in SC2 or even in something like a tactical shooter. If you could invest minerals/time in changing the map somehow, or had something to fight for beyond protecting against run-bys, that feels like it'd add a lot? Zero Space is still the most exciting of the new RTSes for me, but... in the way I was turned off of Stormgate by its battles feeling bad, this one nails the feeling of good unit control.
I'm not sure why every dev wants to dumb things down and make things more 'accessible' and slow. I get everyone wants to maximise profit, but there is a reason SC2 still pulls in the players after what, 14 years? Not many games can claim that. If SC2 wanted to, they could add plenty to make more money, but for whatever reason they shifted focus. Don't get me wrong.. I'm slow as shit, and can barely squeak D3, but I love the high ceiling and highs and lows it brings. Oh well, here's to another decade of SC2 :D
True. Stormgate and now this both try to lower the skill ceilings and its kinda annoying. Sc2 cracked the code for rts. Someone just needs to hard copy sc2 with a few more bells and whistles and will make a ton of money instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.
I think this game isn't as much a competitive e sports game, I think it a more casual fun with friends game. Not to mention, they need their own niche. Some of the new rts coming out still have base building and such, so they need to be more different
would be interesting to see what that would be like. But it's hard to complain about SC2. It's so perfect in so many ways. I mean beside the whole Activision and life support situation...
@@Broockle honestly occasional minor balance adjustments and new maps is a lot more then almost any other rts, and most other games in general, this old that comes to mind except maybe AoE 2, so I'm fairly fine with the state of it honestly.
@@OldSpaghettifactory89 I'm sad af about basically every EA RTS. There's so many great games but they're all out of service and basically unplayable unless you're really committed to get that fan-made ladders to work. I'd love to play RA3 again xD Maybe even give it coop modes and stuff. What EA does to its games should be illegal, they should all just go open source.
Meh. I'm honestly looking far more to Sins of a Solar Empire 2 - though if they don't add a campaign, it's going to whoosh over most players' heads like the first one and be just as niche. Which is sad, cuz it could be such a great community. EDIT: Finished watching the video, honestly, this looks like some mobile game than an RTS. No base building, very dumbed down, overly simplified, all the above simply means there's very little room for strategy, come backs, tactics and playing your opponent instead of playing the game. To each their own, if people enjoy it and it's a success, it is what it is.
I really like that they are trying something different but this game looks like it will turn out like a micro battler out of sc2 arcade, or a mobile game i personally am not liking what im seeing and mostly likely won’t try it unless it has some drastic changes, Ive been looking for a new rts for years i have always loved rts since i was a kid but i feel like there hasn’t been a unique new rts in a very long time they all just copy and reuse the same concepts but usually worst then previous installments
can yu elaborate on this? Why do you feel it is soul less. Is it from a classic RTS view and that some classic RTS features like Base building is missing or is it the design of the units. They are robots/mechs so they are literally soulless. ^^
@@Jeff-fc7nf I feel like this is a good thing for the scene! Most MOBA players have never played an RTS before, so they are most likely not going to jump directly into a new RTS. This game could be a stepping stone for getting more people into traditional RTS, even if this game itself might not cater as much to the aging RTS audience
AOE 2 DE is the best game in the world when it comes to that side of RTS. Would be cool to see a new game designed just like that to fulfil that base-building and macro side of RTS
This looks really fun, especially for someone who watches more starcraft than he plays nowadays. I like the idea of being able to just dive in and feel it out rather than have to do homework before I stand a chance.
Modern rts death blobs. Modern pathfinding flocking algorithm ruined rts games. All units have basically same range, they all gather into a death blob and bump into each other. They push eachother out into the front line when not attacking. Sc2 had the same problem but at least units had different abilities movement speed and range. In this game i see no tactical or micro plays. I only see blobs bumping into each other. I see no micro plays with units. At least create long range artillery units and highground mechanics so at least you can make some strategic positioning.
the thing i didn't like with RTS games was the suspense in building up your base in the first few minutes, but i don't know what would be a fix for that, if you got a starting army then a good enough player would be able to win then and there without a single structure built.
@@BroockleI think we all are. For sure. I’m just surprised that this is what they went with. It looks like the first three months of game development thrown at a consumer. Catbuses and Space squid god? I’m all for a new player base but I think they should have leaned in heavily to the manufacturer/factional aesthetic and thought more about how to supplement the parts of the game they just flat out cut out. I don’t need a replacement but I did expect some innovation. This is all stuff we’ve seen in the last ten years.
@@unagiandroe You got some examples where we saw it? Making RTS accessible is a great approach I think. There's lots RTS can learn from the Moba genre. Even if this game ends up stinking I think we can learn some things here.
oh it's just zone control. that's awesome! lmao at kim for trying to take credit for "shifting the paradigm" lol SC1 players realized in 1998 that mining and cluttered terrain are boring and fixed it (zone control, golems, evolves, etc). The starcraft engine is so good for fighting and strategy, let's skip the build order torture and just start with fun units. skill is back:)
Anyone remembers Command and Conquer 4? Anyone remembers End of Nations? Man feels like history is replaying itself over and over again but I hope this game could success in becoming a moba rts hybrid
what is moba about this game? theres no creeps no xp gain no towers no itmes? and btw moba are a sub genre of rts so obvious you can draw a tiny comparison, but this doesnt seem bo be anything like dota2/LoL
@@averagetobbe MOBA - "multiplayer online battle arena". Its an arena with units you control for battle? There pretty much nothing else to do but micro battles? Whats hard to understand about this?
I don't know, there's probably an addictive gameplay loop here. Short matches, simple core mechanics that create difficult situations and great demands on the player's skills. Looks like a good candidate to be salty from lost games.
@@Jeff-fc7nf the likelyhood of the exact same combination grows exponentially lower with the number of options to choose from I'd very very much hesitate to call this symmetrical
Right off the bat... this looks like it has more polish than Stormgate, in terms of the tightness of unit control, looks very SC2. Cleaner look, nice visual presentation, good unit silhouettes. whereas Stormgate looks and feels a little janky. I AM sad about not seeing basebuilding tho.. But I love the look of that fog of war, very natural looking. Good look to them, hope it works out, Will play it when I get the chance.
I really thinking they're cooking with this one. It reminds me a lot of Marvel Snap (in terms of short addicting gameplay) which is ben Brode's, former lead designer of Hearthstone, card game that focuses on short addicting games, and it works. I think with the small map size they can definitely implement a large map pool where each map brings its own flavor to keep things interesting even if it is a mirror match (people WILL netdeck with this game). For those who are unfamiliar, netdecking is just looking up what the meta currently is and copy and pasting. It can ruin card games for sure but adding that extra flavor to the game via unique maps I think they can counter that much like how marvel snap does. It could range from anything like random towers on the map, passive buffs and/or debuffs, environmental events etc. (use your imagination). I think adding cards that are simply just towers can help with the base building itch. Support cards would be cool and even spells like an AOE attack rate boost or boost to health, meteors from the sky or a heal spell. I suggest those kinds of cards only because the units themselves lack any kind of spellcasting, but I don't think that's a bad thing. I think adding armor and/or shields would be cool where armor decreases physical attacks and shields help with energy-based attacks and having builds revolving around such is interesting. I think this game can either do really well or be DOA but with how things are currently looking I think it is quite promising and I'm very interested in playing. The monetary aspect worries me a bit as marvel snap seems a little similar to this game and their system blows. If you aren't playing since launch, then the catch up to collect cards takes wayyyy to long and deters new players in the long run as short term the game can still be quite fun UNTIL you want to be competitive and realize how long or HOW MUCH you'd have to spend to become remotely close to the competitive player base. TL:DR ooga booga doog booga sooga ugg dugg bunga *farts in Mongolian* Ty for you're've'ist time. God bless
So the first game that played in the background really looked like i imagine the low-level games are gonna look like: Giant armies moving in blobs around the map, barely ever fighting (except for those bottom-tier-games in which they'll probably fight all the time) and a big clash at some point then with little going on in the meantime. 2nd game seems much more what I would appreciate about this kind of RTS: multiple groups of units running around the map, sniping eco (although the eco sniping happens WAY TOO FAST imo, two units killing all eco in around 5 seconds is pretty obscene), fighting in small skirmishes everywhere. Sc 2 pros have lately started doing that (at least serral and clem did) and it's pretty awesome to watch, more so than the big blobs of army bashing their heads into each other imo. Also it seems a bit more strategical than most other RTS, perhaps with the exception of supreme commander and AoE, because SC 2 is not about strategy at all but about 80% of it is pure mechanics, as people like uThermal show time and time again, rolling over much worse players with really silly strats that only work because of his gigantically superior mechanics.
Usually, when someone says "This is gonna redefine XYZ" I'm like "yeah right, clickbaiter, whatever", but it really does feel like a different angle to remove most of the macroing and the spying on the opponent's tech, while also making it a deckbuilding game, so I admit that in this case it is truly a new angle to the RTS genre, but not a redefinition, more like a new subcategory in my opinion. The game looks great and I'll probably try it out when it releases. I won't join the closed beta though because I feel like they'd expect me to actually invest a certain amount of time into the game and help betatesting and I don't have that much free time. So now it is on my Steam wishlist, together with Zero Space, Tempest Rising and Storm Gate. Yeah, I definitely won't be able to give each of those games the attention they deserve, but I will 100% play Zero Space's plant race.
This doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell with a large majority of RTS players. Base building has always been such an integral part of RTS games. For sure this will find an audience, but it most likely won't come from the RTS space. If I had to guess, MOBA fans might enjoy this.
Really good description pig. I don't play sc2. I love watching it. But never good enough to get the cool troops!! This seems like something people can learn and play quick!! ❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉
First watched the review on Winter's channel, and I really didn’t like the complete removal of base building and resource management. But after watching a few more of these, I think I'm having a change of heart. As in, I already have a ton of games to scratch that base-building itch, from SC2 all the way to Factorio if I only wanna build today. But what if I only wanna control an army and micro with no distractions? I don't have an option to scratch that itch at the moment. So it's good to have that variety. And as a diamond zerg player, I never get to do micro and watch my battles, lol. So that can actually finally give me an opportunity to focus on my units, run-bys, and even harass. Sounds a lot better than I initially thought.
I think this looks cool as shit! It's funny looking at the comments of people saying they hate it without trying it. if ARTOSIS of all people (the most old-school, "get off my lawn kids", person in the scene) is getting excited about this then I'm not worried about "Oversimplification"
Hmmm...I dunno. I'm trying to withhold judgement, as being fun to play matters more than anything. But my first impressions are honestly a bit...meh. As I said elsewhere the base-building just seems like a stripped down, less interesting version of what Battle for Middle Earth did twenty years ago, while it doesn't have the same strong aesthetic and character to draw me in.
Maybe I will feel differently after I try it but the idea of timer is immediately off-putting to me. I don't even like timers in fighting games, where they are much less likely to cut the match short. Winning in the end based on the score calculated by computer? I've lost loads of games in SC2 where I had higher score, won games where I had lower score and I'm not sure I'd want it to be different. Visuals and audio seem more polished than in Stormgate but design philosophy is less appealing to me.
Looking forward to checking this out! As much as I love SC2, I never play ladder because I don't have the time to invest. This seems like it would be much less time-intensive.
I appreciate games going for less "The unit has 13 skills and you have to use them from 5 different units to win the game". I prefer just walking in and shooting things in RTSes, unless I'm building a base where I enjoy depth on units so that you can do interesting things.
Honestly.... with a slightly bigger maps , something similar to company of heroes type of thing where a part of the map can become a standalone front by itself , and it seems it could use some more defensive advantage for the attacked player, and some features of the map , maybe something similar to rocks and sight blocker and slow zone in sc2 or something totally different .... I would say this game goes far, for now it's going in the right direction and I'm really pleased on what I'm seeing ;
As a casual I want to try it out. I also like the robot, drone, mech vipe. Definatelly better than Stormgate for me. However I dont think that players that enjoy SC2, WC3 will like it. It is too simple without the base or hero management.
This looks super cool :) I always thought memorizing build-orders were the most annoying thing about starcraft. The fact that first five minutes were often just clicking the same things in the same order is baffling to me.
It's interesting to reverse-engineer the game design logic behind BA. It seems David Kim realized SC2 requires a lot of mechanical macro skill and decided to eliminate base building to level the playing field.
MOBAs are also simplified RTS but they have lane creeps, jungle creeps, towers, items, and levels. This game has so much less depth and dimensions than MOBA. I wonder how it's going to work out.
I think this is more like a battle arena, just not with heroes, but with armies. If fog of war were removed, and thus backstabbing into opponents economy, then this would really just be armies clashing against each other. The word strategy means something different to me.
Think this looks awesome, I love the idea of a deck and loads of units for us to choose, that kraken looks cool! I like the design and army management, but I feel that beginners and new players actually really like the base building aspect of RTS more than the highest fights, you see casuals just building bases for 20 minutes and doing nothing else. I would like to see them go all the way and add in more base building, sure you can't build workers but what about a defensive turret you can place like a moba inhibitor or tower that could shoot 1by1 or an aoe splash, or a tower that heals units close to it in base, go all the way with tower defense and bases but allow you to put some sort of structure down that satisfies the tower defense and base building folks too. The time limit and quick fast paced action is great but as you say, can't see it replacing sc2 or satisfying the base building folks and I honestly think a lot of new players really like that part of the games.
I kinda hate that this game claims to have a radically different approach to base building but its map and resource layout is still bog standards starcraft "bases at the edge, empty map" approach. RTS designers, put resources out there, I beg you.
There are lots of elements of bunkers wars (brood wars ums game) in this. I had tons of fun back in the day with this, but it’s more fast paced, better path nav, and more spacing micro opportunities. Will be interesting to try.
In Game 4 I love that the robotic voices remind me of the turrets in Portal. It'd be cool if they could add some easter egg voices lines like "There you are" or "Target lost" with the same inflection, if that's legally allowed.
Yes, if i tried to imagine game that David Kim is capable of making, something like this exactly fits the image. Tank you David for confirming that all those years of all of us pointing finger at you, we were right.
The only thing I don't like about it is that they haven't even started closed beta yet. All these new RTS and I can't play any of them. But it does look like it could make me much happier than Stormgate will.
This looks great! I think a classic example of just a need for morr unit clarity visually but other than that looks great. Different than storm gate where the game itself looks bland and visually clarity on the units wint change that
This looks like a game i can play. The short games make ot easier on the parents, but still gives you a satisfying battle experimce But i like the balance of macro/micro builds.
Tbh I'm not a huge fan of the timer, doesn't seem like it'll be necessary for most games and will sometimes curtail a fun close fight long game. But I'm intrigued
I don’t see this game getting very far. It’s a shame we can’t get a StarCraft 3 . SC evo mod is the closest thing to it imo. I’ve seen all the new rts games in the works and unfortunately none of them are near the level of StarCraft 2.
Alright guys they've announced the name of the game is "Battle Aces" - with a closed beta later this month, signup to play here: www.playbattleaces.com/
will you be bringing out anymore gameplay vids covering this game? I think its got a lot of potential
my biggest worry is the fact that it will apparently be free to play, that combined with the 'card' thing makes me think it's monetization system will be kinda questionable
It's just going to have a battle pass and everything
Agreed, especially since uncapped games is owned by Tencent (Chinese multi-media conglomerate company renowned for free online games full of pay wall transactions...)
Yep - it seems absolutely directly built to be gatcha-monetised from top to bottom, there is no chance this is an rts in the genre of any current rts.
It's disappointing they will be going for "free to play" monetization.
@@Sensorium19 You mean "Pay to Win" monetization.
With deck building, they could have a rogue like single player mode. Each time you beat an ai, you choose one of three new units to unlock.
Isn't this just Marine Arena with base building and a timer?
Yeah basically. It looks like an "official" version of old maps like footman frenzy, where you have a big single building, upgrade troops, and just fight a lot for the sake of fighting.
Looks like they just added some points of interest/resource collectors and added in some card systems and are calling it a day lol
[Insert mix of custom SC maps]
@@rintv3675had the same reaction. However, I loved footmen frenzy
Isn't League of legends, one of the most popular games in the world, just a WC3 custom game? I may have misjudged your tone though, but I don't see this as a problem. All new games borrow from older games.
@@AntonTheAntlion I think the comparison to League makes sense, but this game can be a better stepping-stone into RTS.
My hot take comparing what I just saw with say StormGate (which I've also only seen) is if StormGate is a watered-down StarCraft, Battle Aces is StarCraft Distilled!
Setup reminds me of DoW2. The flexibility of choosing what units to field remind me of C&C4. The action is about as fluid as SC2.
It may not be for me yet, but if there's one thing new RTS games take from SC2, its the responsiveness of movement and whatever tech they use for unit clumping.
I think this game relates to the typical base-building RTS like Counter-Strike relates to Fortnite. FPS is such a broad and developed genre that it has many well-defined, distinct sub-genres (arena shooter, hero/role shooter, battle royale, extraction shooter...). Fortnite has longer matches and more mechanics: gathering gear and resources, building, deployment, shrinking map... CS has shorter, more intense matches with a single-minded focus on the basics: shooting.
Same here. SC2 has a whole fuckton of systems (buiĺding, research, economy, expansions, scotuing...) and drawn-out matches. Battle Aces seems to be focusing entirely on 1 aspect: controlling your army. And I'm starting to like the idea of having different, distinct sub-genres of RTS.
Meh
The next big RTS disappointment after Stormgate. At this point I just accept there will never be an RTS as good as WC3 or SC2
Eh, doesn't really speak to me. Tbf, I'm not the audience for it, as I don't like MOBAs. I like when gameplay has objectives beyond just "beat the other guy." SC, for example, has immersive campaigns with varied objectives throughout, and its style and characters have more personality than "I am high pitched quirky robot!"
Straight PvP is meh. It can be fun, but it's not the main attraction. And there's a reason SC2 coop is way more fun to play than SC2 ladder.
What are your thoughts on how zerospace has exp tower and rich resources in the middle to fight over? Does it still give you a meh vibe, or does it make it more appealing for you?
@@Lazycat410 I'm more interested in zerospace's campaign.
As for how pvp plays out, I'm indifferent. That idea at least plays to having some kind of objective, but I'd be interested in seeing more if they have multiple scripted objectives in a pvp game that your opponent might try to hinder you on. Maybe several minutes into a match, a bonus objective to escort a convoy and get some upgrade would be cool, and then the opponent would have to make the decision to attack that convoy to prevent you from getting rewarded, or push while you're focused on protecting it. Something more like that would be cooler than just a resource rich hotspot (which SC2 already has). I'm just spitballing ideas though. I'm not the audience for pvp anyway and I don't see any RTS going that route anytime soon, but I'd definitely be intrigued to try something like that.
@Suprentus yeah the campaign and coop are sounding really good. Those ideas are pretty cool, I could see the convoy being in zerospace honestly
moba usually have more objectives than rts, just saying
@@Turned2Ice sort of. It was probably the only thing that was good about league
It's footman frenzy.
Yes indeed. It looks a little better than footman frenzy but at the end of the day that's the gist of this game.
Footman frenzy slaps
@@Ziegfried82 No its Zealot Frenzy
so this is amazing but when Command & Conquer 4 did this 15 years ago y'all buried it so deep in the ground it became coal
o ye nvr actually played with the Crawlers. Heard it was bad and never bought it 😅
Also I was sick of EA games shutting down servers after a year or 2 after release. RIP RA3 😭
I think C&C4 might have had a chance if it didn't have the Command and Conquer name on it. There are certain expectations that come along with that franchise and C&C4 just colored too far outside the lines. Also, the story was... lacking. I appreciate what they tried to do gameplay-wise but C&C4 was trying to fix problems that no one had. Maybe this game will do better since it isn't carrying the C&C franchise's baggage.
@@dwmarch ye that's tru too
@@dwmarch Well battleforge was somewhat successful but dev's greed (IIRC it was initially "Buy a deck to play" but then it transitioned into F2P with decent starter decks and GOD AWFULLY SLOW F2P Progression system) and extremely slow expansion releases killed it.
So it is Push-The-Line RTS. There were a lot of similar SC II minigames reminding this one.
I just wish that someone will make Catch'n;Run/Probe vs Zealot kind of game one day.
Man, I want MORE base building not less!
Go play city building games then
Beyond All Reason.
That's what city builders are for!
Try They Are Billions or Age of Drakness. They kick so much ass!
Agreed. Base building is a huge part of RTS. A game that focuses so heavily on combat is too much like a MOBA.
Less is more.. The less it takes to build a base the more bases you can build.. Looks like it takes one click in Battle Aces.. :D ... But sure there could be more options for creativity than building one kind of base.. But maybe they'll ad units that can become static building - so you could design your base.. But I lie there being less "microing the macro" -- I want to choose building and where I build it and it be about as simple as possible to actually execute it. Making choice is where the strategy is - executing the motions to make the choice go well is - more "arcade skill".. Sure there's room for skill based units but those should be more in the combat end and optional - just building the base and gathering resources quickly should not require skill or too much attention.
As a PvP enjoyer, the game does look fun, and I do like the idea of playing a rapidfire RTS where you can get in-and-out of a match in 10 minutes or less. The problem that I foresee is that simplification, counter-intuitively, doesn't really bring in new players or retain casual players, because half of the joy of learning a PvP game is the discovery of things you can do. And simplification means that there's less things that you can discover you can do before you start to reach the nerdy levels of memorising specific timings or data tables or whatever, which tends to be the point where most casual players nope out. I hope there's enough variety in the units and abilities that discovery at the casual level is extensive enough to keep casual players around
Simple doesn't mean less enjoyable gameplay really. Updates also means metas need to be relearned and whatnot. I vastly prefer fast paced RTS and wish there were more sub 10 minute games on the market.
It seems like there's plenty of things to do and discover in this game, but instead of discovering mineral walking (like, wtf) or what supply blocks are, it's fun things that make sense to have in a game.
In a full-fat all the varied and different fun stuff is locked behind a tech tree that you need fifteen minutes to climb through as a newbie. Having to deal with all the base building and harassment and juggling the fiddly bits of your economic engine on the way will often mean that you simply won't even get to try your brilliant new silver-league invention unless the stars align.
@@martinkrauser4029 Yeah macro seems on the weak side which isn't my preference.
Edit: Oh you like the simple macro, to each their own
@@ComradeSulomon tl;dr: Macro is great when done right. I want to play a strategy and tactics game, not a speed accountancy simulator without spreadsheets and a crap interface.
My favorite is probably Beyond All Reason with its exponential eco scaling, and I'm weirdly fond of Offworld Trading Company. That freakish thing is an experimental RTS WITHOUT any micro. Sins of Solar Empire has a good take on macro-centered UI and I'm there fore it. Or Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns, that one was full of great ideas.
I do love me some macro-oriented gaming with complexity, I just recognize that it doesn't necessarily lead to greater gameplay variety. Look at Age of Empires II with its four resources to gather, the eco upgrades to research, scouting for resources, how crucial it is to control resource areas and trade paths - and yet the viable build order variety is actually really low compared to a game with a streamlined economy like StarCraft. Even with its 30+ factions, there's only a handful of approaches, and each AoE2 game has a deliberately slow buildup that activelly prevents new players from exploring different options.
What I super don't love is when 90s design paradigms are inherited as received wisdom, and this is coming from an 80s kid who remembers the genre just being called "Dune II clones". I've likely played the majority of them ever released.
With bad 90s design I mean stuff like how you can't even queue units up before you have the resources for them. I'm supposed to be the boss in these games. If I issue an order to make something, that should mean BUILD THIS AS SOON WHEN WE HAVE THE MEANS TO DO SO, and I want the game to accept that simple instruction. I never want to hear "nOt EnOuGh mInErAls" again. For all it's streamlining, that's still the one thing that incredibly irritated me while playing the up-and-coming StormGate public beta this February.
@@ComradeSulomon Now if it weren't for the hard paywall that makes it tragically unplayable to non-cetaceans, my second favorite RTS would be Clash Royale. A FREEMIUM LOOT CRATE MOBILE GAME. In my book, standing tall and proud next to Beyond All Reason. Why?
That thing distills economy and production into some of the most streamlined mechanics possible and still keeps economy and cost efficiency central to decision making. In a game with five-minute rounds that plays on a single screen, there are timing attacks, spam rushes, scouting, turtling, all-ins, multiprong attacks, early expands, it's nuts. The variety of approaches and counter-plays is huge but hard counters (deck-wise) are rare. It's an immensely rich game built on simple but rock-solid principles that were imaginatively built-upon.
Peak game design, at least when I was playing a few years back. No idea what state it's in now. I'd pay full price for it in a heartbeat, but the pay-to-win bullshit has gone far beyond palatable.
"You call that an RTS? A mobile card game, and you call it an RTS?"
IT IS, AND I'M TIRED OF PRETENDING IT'S NOT.
Not the game for me. I love the macro aspect of traditional RTS games. Micro is a neat little mini-game, but it's an afterthought to macro. Accumulating many small advantages over time through better macro execution. Seems like Battle Aces loses a good chunk of that in favor of micro and quick impactful decisions.
But I admit 2v2 with friends for some casual fun looks promising.
This is close to something I have been looking for. I would like some amount of base building, defense structures, etc.
When and where to expand are large strategic choices. I don't mind eliminating worker creation.
But I could see me putting some hours into this.
Thinking about it a little more - instead of a timer that has a hard stop end to the game, they should automatically complete unit powerups every minute beyond 10 minutes and let them game play out. Player with more units is going to win normally but still let positioning, micro, and unit mix dictate the winner instead of a hidden score.
It's probably a lot of fun to play but looks really boring to watch
This seems to be less of an RTS and more of an RTT (real time tactics). It looks interesting but not sure it's going to fill that RTS void.
you have no idea what RTT is
I think it's going to be very much it's own thing. It's framed almost like a fighting game.
It's not going to compete against, say, Zerospace. Nor is it going to replace Starraft 2. Nor does it need to.
@@Turned2Ice No offense but I don't think you understand what an RTT is. It's a strategy game that removes or has little emphasis on base building and economy management in order to focus primarily on battles, which is exactly what this game does. Another RTT which this seems to take inspiration from is Dawn of War II (not the first one, which is an RTS, but specifically the 2nd one).
@@WhitePointerGaming RTS game without building is still an RTS. What really differs RTS from RTT is design of units ( well, yes, combined with emphasis on fights rather economy), in RTT they are usually squads or bunch of hero units.
It took them how many years to make this? This isn't an RTS, because they removed the fundamental aspect of RTS: macro. Have RTS players asked for a MOBA?
Well, I remember a ton of people on Blizz forums asking for the "APM tax" mechanics to be removed (chrono, inject, creep, muledrops...). Even as far back as Heart of the Swarm. If that's not your cup of tea, there's 2-3 more traditional RTS titles coming out soon, and nobody is taking away our beloved SC2, BW, WC3, etc.
I'm still on the fence about the complete lack of base building, but I don't see any reason to stress out or be angry that a studio tries something different. And If this game attracts some new players to the RTS genre - it's good for everyone.
Hmm, my first impression is "oh, a marine arena style game"... And disappointment that the macro mechanics that RTS players have polished are not transferrable to this game. The macro was one of the reasons I loved RTS. But I do think this may be a necessary sacrifice to get a wider audience interested in the game
Fast games and ability to rapidly iterate on your strategies was good choice by the devs, it makes it more addicting earlier since you'll feel yourself rapidly gaining understanding of the game. It'll be interesting to see how deep the strategy goes though given the limited time.
Thanks, I hate it
update: I like it
This actually looks like something to be casually picked up and enjoyed with casual friends. Smooth, clear visuals, familiar clicking.. could rts as a broad genre be back, again?
This game hits a different core part of RTS. It seems like it would be great to teach people army tactics without the huge work of a full RTS like SC2
It's always nice to play a casual rts. I always find myself going back to Halo wars. Fast paced and infantry focused. They teach some really bad habits. Lol
Looks like it has potential to be a fast paced and highly tactical game. However every unit serves the purpose of to kill things and that makes it feel already monotonous. In other rts games you have units that build, that transport, and that scout.
looks like a micro fest. I hope it's not like a ZvZ every game 😆
Knew it would be, but this game is the antithesis of what I like in RTS. Oh well. Hope its fun for others.
How sure are you about that tho? Maybe you'd love it, maybe you'd hate it, but it seems pretty clear they've gone for something that's really unique. It's free to play, so I hope it's fun for you.
@@macedindu829 Removal of Base building is what killed Dawn Of War, it's just an arena army game not a true RTS or anything I want from an RTS
@@Daggoth65 RTS means real time strategy, this is real time strategy, so it is absolutely an “real RTS”
I feel like base building isn't really the issue, it's map design. Everything is flat and on one plane, there's zero zoning, so the battles seem real boring.
@@jaho101 God damnit, man. Do we understand the point of a game? The point of a game is to be fun to play. I don't know if this game will be fun or not, but it's just insane how many people are upset it doesn't check this or that random box they deem to be necessary. A handful of extremely-hard-core RTS players played the alpha, and from all reports I've seen, it seems like they had a lot of fun. Of all possible things, I can't imagine anything more minor than map design in a game that's not even to beta yet.
A relatively simple RTS like this one has a potential today.
It's because RTS fans are getting older and have less gaming time than 10~20 years ago.
People have jobs, families and other responsibilities, but no time to learn millions of stuffs for a new RTS.
Shorter and simpler RTS caters to these demographics.
Meh I think it's less about getting the old people, as much as pulling in new. I know StarCraft well enough that it took me like an hour or two to get my Stormgate to a playable level. This game is more for people that are breaking into the genre. This game requires much less attention span, and at the risk of sounding elitist, appeals to the lowest common denominator. I don't know if it'll scratch the same RTS itch for me, but it looks fun and seems much more likely to succeed than stormgate in today's environment.
@@gundamkid I think it's both. I do love Starcraft but the grind associated with improve in it just does not appeal to me as much as it used to. Also, shorter games allow for a much more enjoyable experience. For example, anybody's average winrate is ~50%, (Serral-like people aside). if I have an hour to play and I end up playing a nerve-wrecking 40 minute macro and end up losing... Well it's not really "time well spent". But playing six 10-minute games, losing some and winning some is much more sustainable.
Honestly, this seems really awesome! The state of casual RTS is like, autobattlers and Clash Royale and stuff, and... I'd really love something that could be the 10 minute microfest. I do kinda wish there was more movement/reinforcement/information potential--the choice of where to take a fight doesn't seem quite as interesting as it does in SC2 or even in something like a tactical shooter. If you could invest minerals/time in changing the map somehow, or had something to fight for beyond protecting against run-bys, that feels like it'd add a lot?
Zero Space is still the most exciting of the new RTSes for me, but... in the way I was turned off of Stormgate by its battles feeling bad, this one nails the feeling of good unit control.
That's really interesting - to offer late-game large-scale fights so.... ubiquitously =) and accessibly. That's really neat.
Tempest Rising and DORF! SAVE ME FROM THIS BLAND ARTSTYLE AND ESPORTS FOCUSED HELL HOLE !!!
Reddit moment
I'm not sure why every dev wants to dumb things down and make things more 'accessible' and slow. I get everyone wants to maximise profit, but there is a reason SC2 still pulls in the players after what, 14 years? Not many games can claim that. If SC2 wanted to, they could add plenty to make more money, but for whatever reason they shifted focus. Don't get me wrong.. I'm slow as shit, and can barely squeak D3, but I love the high ceiling and highs and lows it brings. Oh well, here's to another decade of SC2 :D
True. Stormgate and now this both try to lower the skill ceilings and its kinda annoying. Sc2 cracked the code for rts. Someone just needs to hard copy sc2 with a few more bells and whistles and will make a ton of money instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.
This games going to be free to play, wouldn't hurt to try it out.
I think this game isn't as much a competitive e sports game, I think it a more casual fun with friends game. Not to mention, they need their own niche. Some of the new rts coming out still have base building and such, so they need to be more different
This is what David Kim wanted SC2 to become. Very fast. Nothing like brood war.
They could've made both and prospered...
Units that can walk in a straight line
would be interesting to see what that would be like.
But it's hard to complain about SC2. It's so perfect in so many ways. I mean beside the whole Activision and life support situation...
@@Broockle honestly occasional minor balance adjustments and new maps is a lot more then almost any other rts, and most other games in general, this old that comes to mind except maybe AoE 2, so I'm fairly fine with the state of it honestly.
@@OldSpaghettifactory89
I'm sad af about basically every EA RTS. There's so many great games but they're all out of service and basically unplayable unless you're really committed to get that fan-made ladders to work.
I'd love to play RA3 again xD
Maybe even give it coop modes and stuff. What EA does to its games should be illegal, they should all just go open source.
Meh. I'm honestly looking far more to Sins of a Solar Empire 2 - though if they don't add a campaign, it's going to whoosh over most players' heads like the first one and be just as niche. Which is sad, cuz it could be such a great community.
EDIT: Finished watching the video, honestly, this looks like some mobile game than an RTS. No base building, very dumbed down, overly simplified, all the above simply means there's very little room for strategy, come backs, tactics and playing your opponent instead of playing the game. To each their own, if people enjoy it and it's a success, it is what it is.
I really like that they are trying something different but this game looks like it will turn out like a micro battler out of sc2 arcade, or a mobile game i personally am not liking what im seeing and mostly likely won’t try it unless it has some drastic changes, Ive been looking for a new rts for years i have always loved rts since i was a kid but i feel like there hasn’t been a unique new rts in a very long time they all just copy and reuse the same concepts but usually worst then previous installments
Ya, looks fun and fast-paced. Hello adrenaline rushes, sit down, we've got work to do.
Lame!
Jk
Or maybe not
Really lame game. Fast pace and no base building. Rip hope.
I feel this is missing the soul of what RTS games are. To me at least.
The “soul” wtf does that even mean?
@@waffen98 Meaning that its just a "MOBA", more than a traditional RTS.
can yu elaborate on this?
Why do you feel it is soul less. Is it from a classic RTS view and that some classic RTS features like Base building is missing or is it the design of the units. They are robots/mechs so they are literally soulless. ^^
@@Jeff-fc7nf 🤔
@@Jeff-fc7nf I feel like this is a good thing for the scene! Most MOBA players have never played an RTS before, so they are most likely not going to jump directly into a new RTS. This game could be a stepping stone for getting more people into traditional RTS, even if this game itself might not cater as much to the aging RTS audience
But base building is the best part of an RTS!
Micro is what I don't really enjoy that much.
I want the opposite of this game.
play city building games
AOE 2 DE is the best game in the world when it comes to that side of RTS. Would be cool to see a new game designed just like that to fulfil that base-building and macro side of RTS
This looks really fun, especially for someone who watches more starcraft than he plays nowadays. I like the idea of being able to just dive in and feel it out rather than have to do homework before I stand a chance.
Its like the arcade fighter of RTS.
That's not a bad niche to fill!
Modern rts death blobs. Modern pathfinding flocking algorithm ruined rts games. All units have basically same range, they all gather into a death blob and bump into each other. They push eachother out into the front line when not attacking. Sc2 had the same problem but at least units had different abilities movement speed and range. In this game i see no tactical or micro plays. I only see blobs bumping into each other. I see no micro plays with units. At least create long range artillery units and highground mechanics so at least you can make some strategic positioning.
truth. slop RTS with slop units that move like slop... while everything is frantically fast.
Feels like a speed version of Dawn of War. Now Dawn of War has all the history of warhammer, idk if that one would stick.
Dawn of war 1 was the good one and this is not like dawn of war 1
@@rockun7929 I like DoW2 as well. The single player it's quite fun.
I'm excited. This looks awesome.
this is the game speed i always wanted!
Anyone here remember shattered galaxy? That game was fun when the servers were popping.
I am so surprised with these comments. I was cheesed the whole time. I like it it. Cant wait to play
They nailed the visuals. Very easy to tell what's going on while still looking great.
Lfg RTS!
the thing i didn't like with RTS games was the suspense in building up your base in the first few minutes, but i don't know what would be a fix for that, if you got a starting army then a good enough player would be able to win then and there without a single structure built.
I am not sure what I expected out of Uncapped. But it wasn't automated resource generation and zero base building. Oof.
Yes it's a ugly game from a design perspective. It's gonna be figured out pretty quickly.
i'ma give it a shot fur sure. I might be surprised.
@@BroockleI think we all are. For sure. I’m just surprised that this is what they went with. It looks like the first three months of game development thrown at a consumer. Catbuses and Space squid god?
I’m all for a new player base but I think they should have leaned in heavily to the manufacturer/factional aesthetic and thought more about how to supplement the parts of the game they just flat out cut out.
I don’t need a replacement but I did expect some innovation. This is all stuff we’ve seen in the last ten years.
@@unagiandroe You got some examples where we saw it?
Making RTS accessible is a great approach I think. There's lots RTS can learn from the Moba genre. Even if this game ends up stinking I think we can learn some things here.
This feels like C&C tiberian Twilight from back in the day...
maybe i need more info but it doesnt seem like it could be very competitive
That's how it felt for me too, seemed more casual/new rts player based to me
oh it's just zone control. that's awesome! lmao at kim for trying to take credit for "shifting the paradigm" lol SC1 players realized in 1998 that mining and cluttered terrain are boring and fixed it (zone control, golems, evolves, etc). The starcraft engine is so good for fighting and strategy, let's skip the build order torture and just start with fun units. skill is back:)
I would like to see Florencio try this game at some point and see what kind of funny strats he'll make up
I really wonder which brave new ways of driving people nuts he'll come up with.
I first saw the Tastosis cast and it felt pretty bland, but seeing the back to back games here made it look a lot more enticing
Thats crazy, they invented MOBAs again. This was the main reason dawn of war 3 failed.
That's funny because David Kim worked for Relic Entertainment before he went to Blizzard for SC2.
Anyone remembers Command and Conquer 4?
Anyone remembers End of Nations?
Man feels like history is replaying itself over and over again but I hope this game could success in becoming a moba rts hybrid
Yeah I always hated the hero aspect of dawn of war. Just let the marines slug it against guardsmen.
what is moba about this game? theres no creeps no xp gain no towers no itmes? and btw moba are a sub genre of rts so obvious you can draw a tiny comparison, but this doesnt seem bo be anything like dota2/LoL
@@averagetobbe MOBA - "multiplayer online battle arena". Its an arena with units you control for battle? There pretty much nothing else to do but micro battles? Whats hard to understand about this?
Hmm. Looks like it'd be fun for a few weeks, but I'm wondering what will keep it engaging over the long term tbh.
I think this games will just develop hard army metas and become rather stale. WIth no Asymmetry, there isnt strengths or weaknesses to lean into.
I don't know, there's probably an addictive gameplay loop here. Short matches, simple core mechanics that create difficult situations and great demands on the player's skills. Looks like a good candidate to be salty from lost games.
Not to mention look how boring the unit clumping is
@@Jeff-fc7nf the likelyhood of the exact same combination grows exponentially lower with the number of options to choose from
I'd very very much hesitate to call this symmetrical
Right off the bat... this looks like it has more polish than Stormgate, in terms of the tightness of unit control, looks very SC2. Cleaner look, nice visual presentation, good unit silhouettes. whereas Stormgate looks and feels a little janky.
I AM sad about not seeing basebuilding tho.. But I love the look of that fog of war, very natural looking. Good look to them, hope it works out, Will play it when I get the chance.
This reminds me a lot of Smelog’s Playground, but with the more typical RTS unit production paradigm.
just reading comment and see this 😀
I really thinking they're cooking with this one.
It reminds me a lot of Marvel Snap (in terms of short addicting gameplay) which is ben Brode's, former lead designer of Hearthstone, card game that focuses on short addicting games, and it works. I think with the small map size they can definitely implement a large map pool where each map brings its own flavor to keep things interesting even if it is a mirror match (people WILL netdeck with this game). For those who are unfamiliar, netdecking is just looking up what the meta currently is and copy and pasting. It can ruin card games for sure but adding that extra flavor to the game via unique maps I think they can counter that much like how marvel snap does. It could range from anything like random towers on the map, passive buffs and/or debuffs, environmental events etc. (use your imagination). I think adding cards that are simply just towers can help with the base building itch. Support cards would be cool and even spells like an AOE attack rate boost or boost to health, meteors from the sky or a heal spell. I suggest those kinds of cards only because the units themselves lack any kind of spellcasting, but I don't think that's a bad thing. I think adding armor and/or shields would be cool where armor decreases physical attacks and shields help with energy-based attacks and having builds revolving around such is interesting. I think this game can either do really well or be DOA but with how things are currently looking I think it is quite promising and I'm very interested in playing. The monetary aspect worries me a bit as marvel snap seems a little similar to this game and their system blows. If you aren't playing since launch, then the catch up to collect cards takes wayyyy to long and deters new players in the long run as short term the game can still be quite fun UNTIL you want to be competitive and realize how long or HOW MUCH you'd have to spend to become remotely close to the competitive player base.
TL:DR ooga booga doog booga sooga ugg dugg bunga *farts in Mongolian*
Ty for you're've'ist time. God bless
So the first game that played in the background really looked like i imagine the low-level games are gonna look like: Giant armies moving in blobs around the map, barely ever fighting (except for those bottom-tier-games in which they'll probably fight all the time) and a big clash at some point then with little going on in the meantime.
2nd game seems much more what I would appreciate about this kind of RTS: multiple groups of units running around the map, sniping eco (although the eco sniping happens WAY TOO FAST imo, two units killing all eco in around 5 seconds is pretty obscene), fighting in small skirmishes everywhere. Sc 2 pros have lately started doing that (at least serral and clem did) and it's pretty awesome to watch, more so than the big blobs of army bashing their heads into each other imo.
Also it seems a bit more strategical than most other RTS, perhaps with the exception of supreme commander and AoE, because SC 2 is not about strategy at all but about 80% of it is pure mechanics, as people like uThermal show time and time again, rolling over much worse players with really silly strats that only work because of his gigantically superior mechanics.
Usually, when someone says "This is gonna redefine XYZ" I'm like "yeah right, clickbaiter, whatever", but it really does feel like a different angle to remove most of the macroing and the spying on the opponent's tech, while also making it a deckbuilding game, so I admit that in this case it is truly a new angle to the RTS genre, but not a redefinition, more like a new subcategory in my opinion. The game looks great and I'll probably try it out when it releases. I won't join the closed beta though because I feel like they'd expect me to actually invest a certain amount of time into the game and help betatesting and I don't have that much free time. So now it is on my Steam wishlist, together with Zero Space, Tempest Rising and Storm Gate. Yeah, I definitely won't be able to give each of those games the attention they deserve, but I will 100% play Zero Space's plant race.
This doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell with a large majority of RTS players. Base building has always been such an integral part of RTS games. For sure this will find an audience, but it most likely won't come from the RTS space. If I had to guess, MOBA fans might enjoy this.
Looks dum
Really good description pig. I don't play sc2. I love watching it. But never good enough to get the cool troops!! This seems like something people can learn and play quick!! ❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉
First watched the review on Winter's channel, and I really didn’t like the complete removal of base building and resource management. But after watching a few more of these, I think I'm having a change of heart. As in, I already have a ton of games to scratch that base-building itch, from SC2 all the way to Factorio if I only wanna build today. But what if I only wanna control an army and micro with no distractions? I don't have an option to scratch that itch at the moment. So it's good to have that variety.
And as a diamond zerg player, I never get to do micro and watch my battles, lol. So that can actually finally give me an opportunity to focus on my units, run-bys, and even harass. Sounds a lot better than I initially thought.
I think this looks cool as shit!
It's funny looking at the comments of people saying they hate it without trying it.
if ARTOSIS of all people (the most old-school, "get off my lawn kids", person in the scene) is getting excited about this then I'm not worried about "Oversimplification"
man we have like 4 different studios filled with pretty smart people making rts that are not sc3 my heart cant take it
Hmmm...I dunno. I'm trying to withhold judgement, as being fun to play matters more than anything. But my first impressions are honestly a bit...meh. As I said elsewhere the base-building just seems like a stripped down, less interesting version of what Battle for Middle Earth did twenty years ago, while it doesn't have the same strong aesthetic and character to draw me in.
Multiplayer-only, esports-first RTS sadly means it will have like 200 people playing and that's it. Fighting game syndrome. Looks cool!
Maybe I will feel differently after I try it but the idea of timer is immediately off-putting to me. I don't even like timers in fighting games, where they are much less likely to cut the match short. Winning in the end based on the score calculated by computer? I've lost loads of games in SC2 where I had higher score, won games where I had lower score and I'm not sure I'd want it to be different. Visuals and audio seem more polished than in Stormgate but design philosophy is less appealing to me.
Looking forward to checking this out! As much as I love SC2, I never play ladder because I don't have the time to invest. This seems like it would be much less time-intensive.
A deckbuilding RTS without base building mechanics? So they've just reinvented Eugen's Wargame format?
I appreciate games going for less "The unit has 13 skills and you have to use them from 5 different units to win the game".
I prefer just walking in and shooting things in RTSes, unless I'm building a base where I enjoy depth on units so that you can do interesting things.
Honestly.... with a slightly bigger maps , something similar to company of heroes type of thing where a part of the map can become a standalone front by itself , and it seems it could use some more defensive advantage for the attacked player, and some features of the map , maybe something similar to rocks and sight blocker and slow zone in sc2 or something totally different .... I would say this game goes far, for now it's going in the right direction and I'm really pleased on what I'm seeing ;
As a casual I want to try it out. I also like the robot, drone, mech vipe. Definatelly better than Stormgate for me. However I dont think that players that enjoy SC2, WC3 will like it. It is too simple without the base or hero management.
So Bunker Wars.
Reminds me of Zone Control more than bunker wars.
@@Jeff-fc7nf The way the units work is like bunker wars.
This looks super cool :) I always thought memorizing build-orders were the most annoying thing about starcraft. The fact that first five minutes were often just clicking the same things in the same order is baffling to me.
being a tencent game, already disqualifies it from me ever playing it, period
It's interesting to reverse-engineer the game design logic behind BA. It seems David Kim realized SC2 requires a lot of mechanical macro skill and decided to eliminate base building to level the playing field.
Super intresting, original and inovativ. I like.
I just would'nt call this RTS. I would call this RTT (real time tactic).
MOBAs are also simplified RTS but they have lane creeps, jungle creeps, towers, items, and levels. This game has so much less depth and dimensions than MOBA. I wonder how it's going to work out.
NGL I suck at base building but I like micro so I think I'll like this game
I think this is more like a battle arena, just not with heroes, but with armies.
If fog of war were removed, and thus backstabbing into opponents economy, then this would really just be armies clashing against each other. The word strategy means something different to me.
Think this looks awesome, I love the idea of a deck and loads of units for us to choose, that kraken looks cool! I like the design and army management, but I feel that beginners and new players actually really like the base building aspect of RTS more than the highest fights, you see casuals just building bases for 20 minutes and doing nothing else. I would like to see them go all the way and add in more base building, sure you can't build workers but what about a defensive turret you can place like a moba inhibitor or tower that could shoot 1by1 or an aoe splash, or a tower that heals units close to it in base, go all the way with tower defense and bases but allow you to put some sort of structure down that satisfies the tower defense and base building folks too. The time limit and quick fast paced action is great but as you say, can't see it replacing sc2 or satisfying the base building folks and I honestly think a lot of new players really like that part of the games.
I kinda hate that this game claims to have a radically different approach to base building but its map and resource layout is still bog standards starcraft "bases at the edge, empty map" approach. RTS designers, put resources out there, I beg you.
There are lots of elements of bunkers wars (brood wars ums game) in this. I had tons of fun back in the day with this, but it’s more fast paced, better path nav, and more spacing micro opportunities. Will be interesting to try.
In Game 4 I love that the robotic voices remind me of the turrets in Portal. It'd be cool if they could add some easter egg voices lines like "There you are" or "Target lost" with the same inflection, if that's legally allowed.
Yes, if i tried to imagine game that David Kim is capable of making, something like this exactly fits the image. Tank you David for confirming that all those years of all of us pointing finger at you, we were right.
The only thing I don't like about it is that they haven't even started closed beta yet. All these new RTS and I can't play any of them. But it does look like it could make me much happier than Stormgate will.
This looks great! I think a classic example of just a need for morr unit clarity visually but other than that looks great. Different than storm gate where the game itself looks bland and visually clarity on the units wint change that
This looks like a game i can play. The short games make ot easier on the parents, but still gives you a satisfying battle experimce But i like the balance of macro/micro builds.
So, halo wars?
halo wars with micro!
Tbh I'm not a huge fan of the timer, doesn't seem like it'll be necessary for most games and will sometimes curtail a fun close fight long game. But I'm intrigued
ClashRoyaleStarcraft2 !
I think the future of RTS is to have a team each managing something. Like one base building, another controlling army or something
I don’t see this game getting very far. It’s a shame we can’t get a StarCraft 3 . SC evo mod is the closest thing to it imo. I’ve seen all the new rts games in the works and unfortunately none of them are near the level of StarCraft 2.
So it's like Warhammer: Dawn of War but without lore or style. Really paradigm-shifting: a game without anything cool
expansions come up so fast that it doesn't feel like there's a 1 base, then 2 base, then 3 base periods, and then late game. U blink and boom 4 base.
Reminds me of the Bunker Wars custom map. Not too interesting but probably good fun. I love the King Crabs xD