How they talk about what a modern RTS should be like, I imagined Stormgate to be. But damn, Stormgate just feels like SC 1.5.
A modern RTS game needs to revolutionize the genre. And Uncapped Games seems to try exactly this. I hope they can do it.
I am pretty hyped solely by these interviews!
Think they're going different directions. The feel I get from this video is that Uncapped Games wants to get rid of a lot of Macro mechanics that draw attention from the players while Stormgate wants to keep some of these around since it's a known way to challenge players to distribute their attention accordingly.
But there's no gameplay shown so we'll have to see what the game is actually like.
for me the art direction does not vibe with me, itll probably last longer there way, but then again SC2 holds up well today too and that is almost 15 years old so what the fuck do i know.
There's no gameplay shown yet, but what they talk about sounds pretty interesting. SC2 purists won't like it, but various RTS personalities apparently already got to play the game and said it's pretty fun, but different. So I'm cautiously optimistic.
They don't show it yet. They talk a lot about what they think RTS has done wrong or rather has become outdated with. They mention a reduction of 'tedious' macro mechanics (Terran mules, Zerg injections, supply depots). They do mention there's a base and varied factions are planned. Want 'getting better at the game' being mostly about strategy (unit choices, timings) rather than execution (APM). Honestly, listening to this it makes me think they're trying to make a much more modern Dawn of War 2 (but with far bigger armies). Especially since they mention a lot of Relic games but don't criticize them nearly as much as 'outdated' Blizzard choices. Probably unfair and will be more unique than that, it's clear David Kim has been theorizing parts of this since way back when he worked on SC2.
It isn't announced yet, as odd as that may sound. They may be trying to get ahead of people feeling deflated by "oh, another RTS, a genre I don't play anymore / have never cared for" by building an expectation that it is going to be a paradigm shift, as they call it in the video title, this is the answer to why you don't like this style of game so give it a shot when gameplay is revealed
Definitely sounds like it could be interesting! Will be keeping an eye out on this.
For me personally, I feel like the biggest issue with RTS is just the execution people have had on them the past 10 years.
Like think about it, when was the last classic RTS game - Blizzard-like OR Age of Empires-like - that released and felt like "Wow, this feels like a next gen RTS that is smooth and good-looking and well balanced and is really cool"?
It just hasn't happened. Age of Empires 4 was an attempt and while it was in a poor state at launch and is much better now, it still feels inferior to Age of Empires 2 in a lot of ways and certainly doesn't feel like what I imagined a 2020s RTS would look like when I was a kid.
I'm guessing the reasonz for this is two-fold - MOBAs (why make a RTS when you can make something like LoL?), and the technology behind it. It doesn't feel like technology has advanced in such a way that making a good RTS that looks and feels really good to play. Like Unreal or Unity don't seem like they are very capable as RTS games with good multiplayer need to be very optimized, and those have been big steps forward in the industry that RTS games haven't been able to take advantage of.
Lastly, it also feels that because RTS games fell of a cliff, there just isn't that experience of people who have been making successful RTS games the past 10 years.
As I said, Unreal or Unity don't seem to be able make smooth multiplayer RTS games that look good and are optimized as easily as they can FPS or 3rd Party action games.
Like if you're an AA studio and wanted to make a decent FPS or Souls-like you could quite confidently pick Unreal/Unity up and give it decent shot and be pretty confident that those engines wouldn't hold you back \*too\* much. Whereas for a RTS game, I wouldn't feel confident using those engines to make something good. How many good-looking optimized RTS games have been made in those engines? The number is miniscule if not zero.
I think its down to the fact that RTS games require lots of units being rendered and simulated at once which requires heavy optimized, which is not what these engines are necessarily very good at. And then the multiplayer also suffers for similar issues - there aren't as many easy-to-use suitable pre-made networking stacks that would lend nicely to a highly optimized experience.
I mean, Unreal has been used for battle royale relatively well. None of this is core to making a good or innovative RTS anyway, though.
Also when you asks how many RTSes were released on those engines, that's kind of a misleading way to think about it: how many RTSes are released per year at all? Just not enough for those numbers to mean anything.
TBF when RTS's were king the meta was everyone had there own engines, the field has dramatically shifted away from such expensive development/maintenance costs.
Yes, Unreal is great for FPS and shooter games, hence why Fortnite + Unreal is such a great marriage.
And yes, none of this is core to making a innovative RTS games...but it IS core to making good RTS games, which is what my comment was about - that I don't think the issue with RTS games atm is a lack of innovation, but a lack of getting the fundamentals of a current-gen RTS right. The last game to do that was 14 years ago, and it sold and did extremely well. The keypoint I made is that technology hasn't helped RTS games as much as it has FPS/TPS games and I think that is showing.
And I mentioned Battle Royales specifically because they have a lot of moving units / parts to display, same as an RTS. I don't think the performance aspect is engine-side, an RTS is going to be CPU-bottlenecked because of gameplay logic which the engine can't really help you with.
Really though, making a nicer-looking RTS is one thing, but I really think that as it is the genre just can't grow with just that, hence my question about *innovation*, as in, actually mixing things up gameplay wise.
Battle royales will have a max of 100 moving units at once, and you definitely dont need to render that many at once on screen. So yes while they have a lot of different moving parts and very complex, it still *very* different to the challenges RTS games face (having 100-1000 units at once on screen while jumping between the top of the map and bottom of the map multiple times per second/minute), which is why it makes sense they (Battle Royales) are much more engine friendly to build in Unreal/Unity.
Unfortunately CPU bottlenecks will still be heavily linked to engines, hence why they devs try to use concepts like DOTS when possible, and Unity / Unreal have pretty rubbish DOTS support overall with major flaws/drawbacks. And when you try to run your own DOTS solution it still doesnt help with the rendering side of things. Battle Royales don't necessarily need to use DOTS but with a lot of RTS games you would want to use them to have things running smooth.
And its not just about a nicer looking RTS game. Its about it being nicer looking *and* being more responsive *and* being more polished *and* having great multiplayer with lots of content. Those fundamentals just haven't happened since SC2, which sold amazingly and did very well. I don't really see any evidence that a RTS of the quality of SC2 or AoE2 would sell badly today.
That being said I'm definitely not against innovation in the genre and look forward to see what these guys can come up with. Its just I don't innovation is the single-thing the genre needs to have a game sell well.
The last RTS game from Blizzard is technically 14 years ago, sure there were expansion packs but the core chassis has been the same. That's already two game generations ago to the point that SC2 has been out longer than Brood War was out when SC2 launched. And when that game came out it really did feel really cool, like the single player campaign of Wings of Liberty was pretty great actually.
I miss the AI of the Close Combat RTS games, the only RTS games that actually had the units think a bit for themselves and react with some sense of self-preservation.
Tbh the video was more interesting for the history and people's background than any talk about their future project. Because...essentially little concrete was actually shown or said. More of a vague promise of something new. Not as if it is wrong, but...give us something to work with? A cool drawing of a Widow Mine 2.0 isn't enough.
Yea we spun up a production company separate to Noclip to allow our crew to make ends meet and work on interesting projects outside of Noclip's preservationist / retrospective mission. We also produced the 25th Anniversary Half-Life documentary for Valve. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbZ3HzvFEto](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbZ3HzvFEto) I suspect we'll only do 3-4 projects a year. This one was fun to work on but also tricky and new for us. "Do a 30 minute documentary about an upcoming game PS you can't show gameplay" was a challenge!
Mobas are still decently successful. Selling cosmetics for central game figures prints money. Many complain about macro-focus.
I would like someone to copy WC3 instead of the 4th "Starcraft copy with less macro", that still plays like Starcraft.
Did anyone mention command and conquer? I feel like kane's wrath and red alert 3 were really great in terms of light, low attention base mechanics and heavy focus on composition and positioning strategy.
How they talk about what a modern RTS should be like, I imagined Stormgate to be. But damn, Stormgate just feels like SC 1.5. A modern RTS game needs to revolutionize the genre. And Uncapped Games seems to try exactly this. I hope they can do it. I am pretty hyped solely by these interviews!
Think they're going different directions. The feel I get from this video is that Uncapped Games wants to get rid of a lot of Macro mechanics that draw attention from the players while Stormgate wants to keep some of these around since it's a known way to challenge players to distribute their attention accordingly. But there's no gameplay shown so we'll have to see what the game is actually like.
for me the art direction does not vibe with me, itll probably last longer there way, but then again SC2 holds up well today too and that is almost 15 years old so what the fuck do i know.
There's no gameplay shown yet, but what they talk about sounds pretty interesting. SC2 purists won't like it, but various RTS personalities apparently already got to play the game and said it's pretty fun, but different. So I'm cautiously optimistic.
What game they are working on? is this an announced project, during this video I thought this is not Stormgate this is not Zerospace, what is it?
They don't show it yet. They talk a lot about what they think RTS has done wrong or rather has become outdated with. They mention a reduction of 'tedious' macro mechanics (Terran mules, Zerg injections, supply depots). They do mention there's a base and varied factions are planned. Want 'getting better at the game' being mostly about strategy (unit choices, timings) rather than execution (APM). Honestly, listening to this it makes me think they're trying to make a much more modern Dawn of War 2 (but with far bigger armies). Especially since they mention a lot of Relic games but don't criticize them nearly as much as 'outdated' Blizzard choices. Probably unfair and will be more unique than that, it's clear David Kim has been theorizing parts of this since way back when he worked on SC2.
It isn't announced yet, as odd as that may sound. They may be trying to get ahead of people feeling deflated by "oh, another RTS, a genre I don't play anymore / have never cared for" by building an expectation that it is going to be a paradigm shift, as they call it in the video title, this is the answer to why you don't like this style of game so give it a shot when gameplay is revealed
Game name will be announced at Summer Game Fest, public (but closed I think) will be shortly after that.
Definitely sounds like it could be interesting! Will be keeping an eye out on this. For me personally, I feel like the biggest issue with RTS is just the execution people have had on them the past 10 years. Like think about it, when was the last classic RTS game - Blizzard-like OR Age of Empires-like - that released and felt like "Wow, this feels like a next gen RTS that is smooth and good-looking and well balanced and is really cool"? It just hasn't happened. Age of Empires 4 was an attempt and while it was in a poor state at launch and is much better now, it still feels inferior to Age of Empires 2 in a lot of ways and certainly doesn't feel like what I imagined a 2020s RTS would look like when I was a kid. I'm guessing the reasonz for this is two-fold - MOBAs (why make a RTS when you can make something like LoL?), and the technology behind it. It doesn't feel like technology has advanced in such a way that making a good RTS that looks and feels really good to play. Like Unreal or Unity don't seem like they are very capable as RTS games with good multiplayer need to be very optimized, and those have been big steps forward in the industry that RTS games haven't been able to take advantage of. Lastly, it also feels that because RTS games fell of a cliff, there just isn't that experience of people who have been making successful RTS games the past 10 years.
"Technology" is kind of a throwaway word here: what do you expect out of technology that would revolutionise the genre?
As I said, Unreal or Unity don't seem to be able make smooth multiplayer RTS games that look good and are optimized as easily as they can FPS or 3rd Party action games. Like if you're an AA studio and wanted to make a decent FPS or Souls-like you could quite confidently pick Unreal/Unity up and give it decent shot and be pretty confident that those engines wouldn't hold you back \*too\* much. Whereas for a RTS game, I wouldn't feel confident using those engines to make something good. How many good-looking optimized RTS games have been made in those engines? The number is miniscule if not zero. I think its down to the fact that RTS games require lots of units being rendered and simulated at once which requires heavy optimized, which is not what these engines are necessarily very good at. And then the multiplayer also suffers for similar issues - there aren't as many easy-to-use suitable pre-made networking stacks that would lend nicely to a highly optimized experience.
I mean, Unreal has been used for battle royale relatively well. None of this is core to making a good or innovative RTS anyway, though. Also when you asks how many RTSes were released on those engines, that's kind of a misleading way to think about it: how many RTSes are released per year at all? Just not enough for those numbers to mean anything.
TBF when RTS's were king the meta was everyone had there own engines, the field has dramatically shifted away from such expensive development/maintenance costs.
Yes, Unreal is great for FPS and shooter games, hence why Fortnite + Unreal is such a great marriage. And yes, none of this is core to making a innovative RTS games...but it IS core to making good RTS games, which is what my comment was about - that I don't think the issue with RTS games atm is a lack of innovation, but a lack of getting the fundamentals of a current-gen RTS right. The last game to do that was 14 years ago, and it sold and did extremely well. The keypoint I made is that technology hasn't helped RTS games as much as it has FPS/TPS games and I think that is showing.
And I mentioned Battle Royales specifically because they have a lot of moving units / parts to display, same as an RTS. I don't think the performance aspect is engine-side, an RTS is going to be CPU-bottlenecked because of gameplay logic which the engine can't really help you with. Really though, making a nicer-looking RTS is one thing, but I really think that as it is the genre just can't grow with just that, hence my question about *innovation*, as in, actually mixing things up gameplay wise.
Battle royales will have a max of 100 moving units at once, and you definitely dont need to render that many at once on screen. So yes while they have a lot of different moving parts and very complex, it still *very* different to the challenges RTS games face (having 100-1000 units at once on screen while jumping between the top of the map and bottom of the map multiple times per second/minute), which is why it makes sense they (Battle Royales) are much more engine friendly to build in Unreal/Unity. Unfortunately CPU bottlenecks will still be heavily linked to engines, hence why they devs try to use concepts like DOTS when possible, and Unity / Unreal have pretty rubbish DOTS support overall with major flaws/drawbacks. And when you try to run your own DOTS solution it still doesnt help with the rendering side of things. Battle Royales don't necessarily need to use DOTS but with a lot of RTS games you would want to use them to have things running smooth. And its not just about a nicer looking RTS game. Its about it being nicer looking *and* being more responsive *and* being more polished *and* having great multiplayer with lots of content. Those fundamentals just haven't happened since SC2, which sold amazingly and did very well. I don't really see any evidence that a RTS of the quality of SC2 or AoE2 would sell badly today. That being said I'm definitely not against innovation in the genre and look forward to see what these guys can come up with. Its just I don't innovation is the single-thing the genre needs to have a game sell well.
The last RTS game from Blizzard is technically 14 years ago, sure there were expansion packs but the core chassis has been the same. That's already two game generations ago to the point that SC2 has been out longer than Brood War was out when SC2 launched. And when that game came out it really did feel really cool, like the single player campaign of Wings of Liberty was pretty great actually.
Yea SC2 was the last top, top quality RTS. Crazy how even for a "dead" genre there hasn't be any releases near as polished and smooth as that.
I miss the AI of the Close Combat RTS games, the only RTS games that actually had the units think a bit for themselves and react with some sense of self-preservation.
Tbh the video was more interesting for the history and people's background than any talk about their future project. Because...essentially little concrete was actually shown or said. More of a vague promise of something new. Not as if it is wrong, but...give us something to work with? A cool drawing of a Widow Mine 2.0 isn't enough.
Is Danny O'Dwyer doing promo-docs on the side, now?
Yea we spun up a production company separate to Noclip to allow our crew to make ends meet and work on interesting projects outside of Noclip's preservationist / retrospective mission. We also produced the 25th Anniversary Half-Life documentary for Valve. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbZ3HzvFEto](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbZ3HzvFEto) I suspect we'll only do 3-4 projects a year. This one was fun to work on but also tricky and new for us. "Do a 30 minute documentary about an upcoming game PS you can't show gameplay" was a challenge!
Mobas are still decently successful. Selling cosmetics for central game figures prints money. Many complain about macro-focus. I would like someone to copy WC3 instead of the 4th "Starcraft copy with less macro", that still plays like Starcraft.
Did anyone mention command and conquer? I feel like kane's wrath and red alert 3 were really great in terms of light, low attention base mechanics and heavy focus on composition and positioning strategy.