What went wrong with this game?

User avatar
McNash
Lieutenant
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun 15 Apr 2012 18:06
Contact:

Re: This game failed because of... us

Postby McNash » Sat 7 May 2016 09:37

But before you do more content, the basics must be done right.
RTS games are indeed something really hard to make compared to most other game genres.


I believe you are emphasizing too much the balance aspect. I saw EALA following your though pattern, honestly, I can live with an unbalanced game with a lot of content (eg: Battlefleet Gothic: Armada) over one theoretically well balanced, but with a serious lack of content (8-bits Armies). We may argue BF:A cheats by using 40k massive lore, but Petroglyph is actually attempting to do the same by catering to the C&C audience, except they don't have the copyrights.

Balance does give you the feel that the game is fair. Beside balance, you must actually like what you play.


Ah, well, here we have a problem here, trying to find something "fair" it's quite hard in a game, ultimately that's subjective, and someone who just lost a game will have a very biased opinion of what is fair due the emotional feedback.

Maybe my point would be more clear If I explain it by a game I like.
The point why I still do write here on the forums is RUSE. Just 6 years ago by Eugen Systems was done a really great game.


I didn't buy it for the same reason I didn't buy CoH or WaW, I feel WW2 has been so overdone by the media I may not look into it for 2 or 3 decades, but ok, I guess everyone has his fav theme.

1-There was a really good manual and tutorials.

I did play a really good story, that did explain me the mechanics. And there was this in-game Rusopedia. It did not only explain to me the units, but also did provide some backs story for them, you had missions that were designed to use them in the story or play vs them, which made for each Unit some how a personality.
http://ruse.wikia.com/wiki/R.U.S.E._Wiki


Agreed, this is something AoA utterly lacked.


2- Next one is the game play itself. I liked by RUSE the tactical possibilities, reliable units and the diversity in game play.
You have to make a good mix of units, to win there.


You can do the same with WRD, but this sounds more like a RTT, not a bad thing, but I think AoA was intended to be a RTS.

3- Its still pretty good populated. Once week I do look again and do find always people to play this.


WW2, no real effort there, while the game may be good, just as with 40k, it already has a established fanbase.


4- I liked the economy that did provide me "in time" with resources to build base and units.
In RUSE you have 200 Credits, for 40 Credits you could have the expansion that did provide money.
So you did build 4 or 5 of them and had for the rest of the game enough resources for everything without waiting.


I do agree with you that a good economy is quite important, Eugen Systems could make things better by adding another oil derrick to the starting points.

5- Well you could attack without forcing your enemy to instant give up.
I mean if he did loose one or two resource expansions, but could still be in the game and make a come back.
I like to spend time fighting my enemy. If I can defeat him easy, that's not fun for me either.
I want to feel like I did deserve this victory and he had a fair chance to fight me.

That is the reason why 3 resource points for each player just can't be enough,
in any RTS game you have much more, so you can retreat, reorganise and rethink your approach.


I am a turtle by nature, for me it's ok to successfully turtle, sadly a lot of people on this forum think otherwise, the lack of choke points on the maps may have something to do with making early bases defensible.

Well AoA+Reboot is at least an "Experience" . I hope they will have much more luck by next projects , what ever that will be.


I think Eugen is ok with this one, but it may be some years before we get another AoA like game, as ever, sales are the engines of prosperity for a goods company.
.
.
.
By the way, here is my list of what did go wrong with this game, from inception:
-Overcomplicated economy, the need for LEMs, different resources, the fact you couldn't build up a strong economy without being forced to expand, and being extremely vulnerable to rushes.
-Lack of a tutorial oriented campaign, sadly not everyone is a veteran of the RTS genre, I have nothing against your visual style, in fact, I like it, but make the cutscenes and missions useful.
-Essential micromanagement options missing, no reverse button, awfully programmed hold-fire, no use-highway option, turn off/on weapons, I understand the company may be using rookie game designers, but sometimes you need someone who may think on these details even if that means some additional cash.
-Lack of one-click wonder powers, yes, I know it may take a lot of balance, but games such as Generals and Tiberium Wars were awesome because you had those special skill which could turn the tide of the battle in the crucial moment, if at least for the joy of "casting" your special abilities.
-Too few maps and too open to rush and frontal assaults, in most RTS games maps where you can actually turtle are viable, sadly Eugen Systems seems to share the opinion of some players that turtling shouldn't be a a viable strategy, ok, it's not that bad, but still, there is a reason why everyone played Big Game Hunters.
-Visual features, seriously, how hard can it be to add more player colors? Or turn the Cartel units in the campaign red? Also, they implemented many essential icons too late, and don't get me started with the infantry color identifiers, look silly.

Finally, and this is one I strongly believe matters, just because a lot of people love the visuals of this game (and not everyone turns everything to very low in visual setting) there is the lack of shader and particle effects, smoke trails look extremely bad, fire effects look like they were 90s gifs, Cartel Orbital strike and Chimera Blitz look simply bad, your models are great but they need better FX.
Image

torinus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri 15 May 2015 22:39
Contact:

Re: What went wrong with this game?

Postby torinus » Sat 7 May 2016 19:50

They added that resource slider with Reboot, so it was added 9 months after release. And it is the least of problems the game had at release.

The main sales were lost with not good enough singleplayer campaign and then with slow and unresponsive MP.

User avatar
McNash
Lieutenant
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun 15 Apr 2012 18:06
Contact:

Re: What went wrong with this game?

Postby McNash » Mon 9 May 2016 08:36

Amusingly enough, you can actually get a faster starting economy in the original AoA, the fact you require so much time to get most of your base running favors rushing strategies, as even with long distances the lapsed time is not enough to allow more defensive players to build up their defenses, while a rushing player may have a great chance to be successful in his assault, in the end, this becomes frustrating for the less "hardcore" gamers, as they neither have the resources or the time to explore the game.

Ultimately I would agree AoA failed for the same reason EA C&C games eventually failed, with every new iteration the developers created a weaker and weaker economy turning the newer games into RTT games, but without actually having any real micromanagement content, on that sense RA3 at least tried to bring some microing with the secondary abilities, by the time EA released Tiberian Twilight, they decided to remove the old economy altogether, get rid of the "one-click wonders" and go for a very enforcing hard-counter system.

All in the name of vanquishing spam from their games, and make RTS into an "e-sport", in the end, they only managed to run RTS franchises to the ground, I believe it's time to understand that:

basebuilding=massive economy

Eugen Systems fell in the same trap as EALA, and it was actually a bit sad to see this whole scenario again in just 9 months.

Oh, and by the way, if any developer is reading this, do yourselves a favor and stop getting feedback from "pros" who demand a game with less spam and more "micro-intenstive" design, there is a reason why most people who play RTS games get "selfies" of huge armies.

We love them, those massive armies, with our whole heart, and we love a massive influx of cash every minute, is already annoying to never get all the money you want in real life these days, to see yourself stuck in the same situation in a videogame is the epitome of sadness.

Now do something good for us and before dropping this game support, add another starting oil derrick and halve the refinery's construction price, ok?
Image

torinus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri 15 May 2015 22:39
Contact:

Re: What went wrong with this game?

Postby torinus » Mon 9 May 2016 13:09

McNash wrote:Amusingly enough, you can actually get a faster starting economy in the original AoA, the fact you require so much time to get most of your base running favors rushing strategies, as even with long distances the lapsed time is not enough to allow more defensive players to build up their defenses, while a rushing player may have a great chance to be successful in his assault, in the end, this becomes frustrating for the less "hardcore" gamers, as they neither have the resources or the time to explore the game.

Ultimately I would agree AoA failed for the same reason EA C&C games eventually failed, with every new iteration the developers created a weaker and weaker economy turning the newer games into RTT games, but without actually having any real micromanagement content, on that sense RA3 at least tried to bring some microing with the secondary abilities, by the time EA released Tiberian Twilight, they decided to remove the old economy altogether, get rid of the "one-click wonders" and go for a very enforcing hard-counter system.

All in the name of vanquishing spam from their games, and make RTS into an "e-sport", in the end, they only managed to run RTS franchises to the ground, I believe it's time to understand that:

basebuilding=massive economy

Eugen Systems fell in the same trap as EALA, and it was actually a bit sad to see this whole scenario again in just 9 months.

Oh, and by the way, if any developer is reading this, do yourselves a favor and stop getting feedback from "pros" who demand a game with less spam and more "micro-intenstive" design, there is a reason why most people who play RTS games get "selfies" of huge armies.

We love them, those massive armies, with our whole heart, and we love a massive influx of cash every minute, is already annoying to never get all the money you want in real life these days, to see yourself stuck in the same situation in a videogame is the epitome of sadness.

Now do something good for us and before dropping this game support, add another starting oil derrick and halve the refinery's construction price, ok?

#1 Biggest problem for the game was singleplayer campaign that didn't catch player attentions. It was confusing, with characters having heavy accents and conversations and events being generally not very interesting. Most players play campaigns only and don't care for the rest.

#2 Second biggest is that game was unpolished in so many places. Engine was unpolished, game was crashing months after release, even now people have a crashing problem that is fixed for some after they start the game for 5+ times (this should really not happen in a serious game). Slow unit reactions, MP desyncs, units doing their own thing all the time, bad ingame and lobby UI, unpolished game interfaces, still there is a button that says function is coming(wft?!). All these little things when combined create a greater whole that screams amateur job.

#3 And then at third place comes the gameplay itself. The gameplay itself could have worked for both vanilla or reboot if the game itself came out with #1 and #2 perfect. Of course gameplay itself is not perfect in any game at release (well they could and should have had a longer and open beta and took people feedback more seriously).

Now they mostly changed #3 with #1 and #2 are still mostly the same.

For #1 even just changing every mission to work with Reboot mechanics will not be enough and they should not do that. Better to make more missions using Reboot mechanics and sell it as a standalone expansion.
Get proper voice actors this time, do the campaign like Starcraft where each faction story follows the previous one so it is easier to follow for average player or make it like C&C games and give us two parallel (or 3) campaigns.
Make sure the story behind the missions is properly explained and create characters players can get attached to. Having commando units like Tanya in C&C/Red Alert games is what made them interesting. Also Starcraft follows this model with hero units you command during missions in addition to your armies.

#2 makes both #1 and #3 better, I still don't understand why they didn't make improvements to this for Reboot. If they make anything more for AoA, #2 must be at top of the list this time.

#3 is highly subjective, someone likes more rush/harass nature of Reboot and others will like more turtle and spam nature of Vanilla. Someone else will like something none of these offer.

TLDR;
Give people a good Campaign and they will more likely to stay in this game and try Skirmish and MP (I played lots of RTS in my time, but I spent most time playing Starcraft 1 and some C&C games because I enjoyed their Campaigns and that game world, I wanted more and MP was one way to get that; other RTS I would just finish the campaign, say "Eh" and move on to next RTS/game). Then when people try MP and something else than Campaign, you keep them there by #2, by giving them a highly polished gaming experience, not a game that has basic crashing, UI and behaviour problems. These problems can be ignored while playing a nice campaign with strong storytelling and fun missions but cannot once you move onto MP.
And then for long term success you fix gameplay problems fast and efficient. You put good people on analyzing player feedback and have a good long term plan.

Uppy
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu 14 May 2015 00:11
Contact:

Re: What went wrong with this game?

Postby Uppy » Mon 9 May 2016 13:29

A good designed rts is based on micro , ,the lesser the spam is the better the gameplay is , so yeah for that reason generals was loved and remembered by many

If u want huge army there is always ashes of singularity

User avatar
AndreB
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 601
Joined: Sun 17 May 2015 18:49
Location: Mars Republic
Contact:

Re: What went wrong with this game?

Postby AndreB » Mon 9 May 2016 15:35

Personaly id like to think its a mix of both that makes a good game.

Total annihilation was a great example of a game that had micro and macro mixed together. People forget you could actually micro pewees/flash tanks around tier 2 buldogs and win. Or kite micro with rocko Kbots, while also repairing them or ressurecting them with special units.

Something planetary annihilation forgot entirely, that micro actually was present in TA.

All of that on a seemly massive macro game which allowed for huge teamgames with large armies, and cool 1v1, 2v2 micro you could do. Hell even the commander had a 1 shot weapon ability.

To me it feels people just want extremes these days.


Oh we hate micro clickfests, then you get games like ashes of the singularity where all you do is spam a unit composition, and unit clicking is as unresponsive as ever. Even massive games like sins of a solar empire has micro and abilities with their cruisers, together with massive defensive structures that you can individually customise.

Oh we hate base building and spam, then you get games like C&C4 and red alert 3(this one which wasn't that bad). But they died fast and were fairly rock, paper scissors in build orders becoming very stale and boring.

Oh we hate complexity and RTS has to be acessible, then you get games like 8-bit armies and grey goo with an already dead playerbase. Nobady plays RTS games for simplicity, they can be acessible but people play these games because they are challenging.

Oh the problem with RTS is focusing on multiplayer, well just look at homeworld deserts of kharak or even the homeworld remastered edition, dead as it will ever be multiplayer and single player wise.

When will people understand it is a mix of EVERYTHING that makes a good game, even supreme commander FA can be super fast in 1vs1 while being super complicated in teamgames.

You must allow casuals to spam and turtle fest with 10 minute no rush games. But that doesn't mean a 1v1 can't be super fast and micro intensive.

Hell age of empires II HD edition is super macro oriented and requires a lot of skill to play, but there are a ton of casuals playing no rush black forest games on steam with almost a 1 hour no rush timer.

User avatar
McNash
Lieutenant
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun 15 Apr 2012 18:06
Contact:

Re: What went wrong with this game?

Postby McNash » Mon 9 May 2016 18:11

Actually, I don't hate units having a certain amount of micro to make them feel good, that's why I pointed out at C&C3.

There you could build a massive army and yet had chance to make them count trough micromanagement, as options such as reverse, move, special abilities and one-click powers could actually turn the tide of the battle at any moment, the thing is, there was both a chance for micro and macro gaming.

Again, it's quite evident a lot of fans here will hate unit blobs as most AoA players came from Wargame Red Dragon, a RTT micro-intensive game.

Sadly, this didn't work to catch the C&C fanbase.
Image

Return to “Act of Aggression”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests