Introducing Frost Giant Studios - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Games |
dugokontov
Bosnia-Herzegovina0 Posts
I have been involved in the space for at least 15 years, and I would look into to be in the space for another 15 years. This means that this RTS will be set in space! SC successor confirmed! + Show Spoiler + When she said space, she was referring to RTS genre (: Wish all the best to Frost Giant! | ||
[Phantom]
Mexico1 Post
Sc2 success was because it was made from the beginning to be an espectator esports. And it succeeded. Compared to league of legends the ammmount of people who watches sc2 esports was an order of magnitude biggest in comparison to the playerbase. I don't remember the exact numbers but it was something like 3% of lol players watches esports vs 40% for StarCraft players. I would need to look at the stats again. This was in 2012. The problem was that league just simply had a massive playerbase. If you can make a game that's great to watch, that also appeals to the masses. That's the winning formula. Easier said than done of course. | ||
nimdil
Poland347 Posts
On October 22 2020 02:05 [Phantom] wrote: This is my advice for the studio: make the RTS good to watch from the ground up, while also making it free to play/accessible to the masses. Sc2 success was because it was made from the beginning to be an espectator esports. And it succeeded. Compared to league of legends the ammmount of people who watches sc2 esports was an order of magnitude biggest in comparison to the playerbase. I don't remember the exact numbers but it was something like 3% of lol players watches esports vs 40% for StarCraft players. I would need to look at the stats again. This was in 2012. The problem was that league just simply had a massive playerbase. If you can make a game that's great to watch, that also appeals to the masses. That's the winning formula. Easier said than done of course. SC2 succeeded because it was "SC" and because it came out when neither LoL nor Dota2 was in position to massively drain viewerbase. I'm not convinved that esports orientation was really that big of a factor, and I suspect it kind of inhibited growth of playerbase. Each massively popular esport title has it's own path. I have serious doubts whether sc2-like RTS game can really contend with games like LoL or Dota2 or CS:GO in popularity without reinventing the genre. Maybe s.t. like WC3 but team-based. | ||
Teoita
Italy64 Posts
On October 21 2020 19:47 nimdil wrote: This hype reminds me Daikatana story. Please don't be Daikatana story. I've been monk's bitch when he was editing my Starcraft articles back in the day. It's not that bad really. On a more serious note, good luck to you all but especially monk! | ||
Sufinsil
United States2 Posts
Riot Games and others have lots of VC money into other studios. Bonfire Studios, Ron Pardo's studio with many ex-Blizzard staff, was party funded by Riot. We haven't heard from them for awhile other than they were focused on online multiplayer game using the Unity engine. | ||
Dave4
0 Posts
Still, glad to see some of the Blizz heroes of past looking to reforge games for gamers rather than Activision/EA's pure focus on money at the expense of the communities that have made them the companies they are. | ||
Manit0u
Poland942 Posts
To me the real successor to SC:BW was Armies of Exigo, unfortunately EA did a shit job at marketing and it died before it had a chance to spread its wings. Some of you might even remember the fun we've had with it on those very forums doing our own tournaments and playing over Hamachi (since game servers were taken down soon after release). | ||
ProMeTheus112
France0 Posts
Say there is some number of different buildings techs and units that you can make in the first 5 minutes of a game, make sure that just about any order doesn't lead to a later loss, and a lot of variation in the nuances as well (how many of each at which timing etc). This should ensure that many follow ups are possible and the strategies and games structure varied and unpredictable. Generally avoid stuff that can destroy something critical in the space of a few seconds (this is SC2's biggest flaw). It should be possible to play and win consistently against a faster player with about 150 apm [highly debatable i guess.. watching war3, the best play with high apm but the game's tempo and level of detail seem really good. I'd say it would be a good quality if you can beat with better decision making despite lower apm even at a high level, not so sure anymore though]. Depth of tactics complements depth of strategy, here again SC2 is not a model, lacking defender advantage, positioning and obstacling or maneuveuring complexity. Make sure that there are strong scouting options so that the game isn't too much about gambling and more about strategy. There is a lot of room for making a better RTS than any that currently exist due to limitations in strategic depth coming from balance (internal balance included, not just match up balance or winrate balance) and other things. Even in SC:BW which i think is the best alongside AoE2 and War3, playable map types, openings and follow ups can actually be quite limited! And scouting can be insufficient. | ||
Manit0u
Poland942 Posts
On October 23 2020 01:59 Hesxy wrote: On Average, how much money do you have to spend in order to play a Blizzard or Activision game? Around $50 for SC2 at the moment I believe. It wasn't so cheap at release though, most of their titles are full priced AAA games so are $60 at launch. | ||
| ||
