As someone who plays the campaign and almost exclusively ( because I suck at MP and can’t keep up these days) having a RTS dev focus on the campaign is a awesome plus for me. And on going SP levels too!!
Same, I don't have the time and patience anymore to get good at pvp games so I was looking forward to this as a pve oriented RTS, but I am still a bit confused if that is actually the case. Seems to have a lot of micro and its going to have pvp (1v1 seems to be the focus) so it means that they will have to balance it around that... I'm really curious to see how it turns out.
The speed of combat being between Warcraft 3 and StarCraft 2
The forrest letting some units through and keeping others out.
That the artillery shots were dodgeable.
Things I thought were meh:
The combat lacked umpf
The sound design was ok but StarCraft 1 had some of the best sound design of all time where just clicking a unit was fun. This is probably something in the polish phase.
Overall, I'm into it. And I was surprised at how good it looked visually, especially since the budet of this game is probably nowhere near StarCraft 2.
As the game is pre-alpha, there's not much to go by.
I believe the base game, including multiplayer and co-op are going to be free. For PvP and co-op content the only thing to pay for is cosmetics. IIRC, that includes commanders and such.
Aside from cosmetics, the other monetization strategy is in the campaign, which I believe is going to be paid, but much cheaper than a typical $60 game.
This is all up in the air, and based on developer interviews from a few months ago.
IIRC, that is how the game is currently being tested. Whether this architecture continues to be possible is unknown. If any component needs to query a server during play for any reason, then offline play becomes difficult to impossible. Though LAN was a pretty big issue when SC2a launched and maybe they decided to ensure that it was possible.
Never signed up for a beta so fast. It sounds like they’ve learned the lesson so many studios learned the hard way the last 2 decades: Real time strategy is casual fun first, sweaty multiplayer second.
Whether that will manifest in the game design or just lip service is still in question, since the gameplay footage was very much on the “sweaty multiplayer” side.
Their stated intent is to have a campaign that regularly releases new level packs, it doesn't just do 3 campaigns and then end. They'll also have a much more polished version of SC2's co-op mode as well. So you'll get some campaign content.
And honestly, a lot of people played SC just for the campaign and social, I think that FG has seen this and has promised to give those elements some love.
Naturally, it is much easier to present a 1v1 game with no AI and no complex map than it is to make and show off a PvE experience. I think that will be demonstrated when it's ready.
From the rather small snippet they showed, it looked pretty promising to me. It seems that it is very faithful as a SC successor.
I wonder how they'll manage the balance between playable factions. As far as I understand, the game will be faithful to SC in that regard too, as in three quite different factions to play with.
I grew up with Command & Conquer, particularly Red Alert 2.
I don't know that I could articulate what I like about it so much, but I've never found another RTS that hits the same way.
I think the thing I love and hate about RTS is the pressure of the pace of the game, especially in some of the more fast paced games like Starcraft 1 & 2.
I have been off the genre for some time, but I have never found the intensity of a closely contested 1v1 ladder game in SC2 anywhere else. Then that results in either pure elation or extreme disappointment/rage. For me it has always been a gaming experience with really high highs and really low lows, and that can be addicting, haha.
I loved SC2, but it was also bad for me. The fog of war made me really tense, and ladder anxiety made me feel awful after a loss. I know you could say that I should A) scout more and B) remember it's just a game, but I remember seeing an interview with these designers recognizing that they experience the same things I did, seeing them as problems to be solved, so it wasn't just me.
Add comment