Why I am disappointed with this game

from AshesoftheSingularity Forums

I realize that every RTS I bought, it was initially because there was something cool about the unit design and I wanted to try them out. Grey Goo (who doesn't want to try the Goo?), Starcraft 1 and 2 (just moving hydralisks around is joy in itself - the game even devotes a significant chunk of its UI for animated portraits that serve no purpose other than to make you care about the units), SupCom, etc. Every RTS except AotS; that one I bought because it kinda looked like SupCom and SupCom has the most exciting and ambitious units I've ever seen. I was mislead.

If there's one comment that even the positive reviews seem to agree on it's that the artwork lacks soul and personality. The sound design is particularly appalling; I thought I had seen the worst with SoaSE where each race is voiced by a single actor with cheesy effects (SoaSE had redeeming qualities like great UI and visuals in general), but here it's like I was hired to do the sounds using items around the house, Audacity and a microphone, and I can't do sound design.

I've mentioned it during the beta but I'm very disappointed to see it in the released game: all units are the same more or less medium-sized platform with some random turrets and lasers on it, floating above ground for no other apparent reason than to save budget on animations, making them feel weightless and disconnected from the battlefield. There doesn't seem to be any physical justification for their appearance or behavior, or why anyone would design war machines like this. It seems like the game has very talented engine programmers but very little artistic vision. The amazingly utilitarian campaign also exemplifies this (and really, reviews wouldn't have complained half as much about the campaign if there had been none whatsoever, as we saw for SoaSE.).

Also, I don't what is it about the lighting but everything seems to be made out of plastic. This really reinforces the impression of looking at lightweight toys.

The game unfortunately steals some of SupCom's shortcomings rather than its achievements: unresponsive controls, poor-looking UI (at launch - SupCom was much improved later) and bland, low-resolution environments. 

That's not to say the game lacks strategic depth or cannot be fun in multiplayer, which I haven't evaluated; but I am not enticed to evaluate it because nothing entices me about the artwork. It bores me. And as much as the game is likely to be improved in future patches and DLC, it's unlikely to have any significant change in artistic direction. Which is ultimately why I'm disappointed with this game.

40,913 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

I think many of these things are legitimate.  The game's art direction is not its greatest strength to be sure.  It is one of those trade offs of dealing with a new engine.

What Ashes gives in return is the ability to evolve quickly in terms of raw gameplay.  Eye candy will keep flowing in as well but that will naturally take time.

 

+1 Loading…
Reply #2 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Art is expensive, both in terms of development and performance. May get better over time as the development budget increases and hardware gets better. My perspective differs from yours in that I'm more interested in a deep and replayable gameplay experience, not so much art. The former holds my interest for many hours, the latter for only a few.

It's funny I read one post that said "This game is terrible without a fully-fleshed out campaign experience" and another that said "I don't care about the campaign at all, I want a good skirmish/multiplayer experience." See how hard it is to be an indie developer? Your criticism is valid, but some slack is warranted.

DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Well, perhaps I overstate my case, but ultimately I'm not playing this game I bought and this is the reason why. About the campaigns, I think all criticism is entirely warranted. If the game includes campaigns, some people are going to buy the game for the campaigns. In this case it would have been better to ship without altogether IMO, perhaps introduce them as DLC later.

 

My gripe with the floating unit design is really the utter absurdity of it. Basic newtonian physics dictate that you're not going to put out much propelling power into any sort of missiles if you're carefully balanced above ground using thrusters or magnetic levitation or what have you. The recoil will push you all around the place. It seems like the entire reasoning behind it is "this won't cost any animations". And if was just a couple of units like this, ok, but they all follow that idea.

Anyway, I'm happy with Frogboy's answer, just hoping to give some insights.

Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top

I completely agree with most of these criticisms (except that I do like some of the unit sounds/barks, not all, but some) but I still have clocked 200+ hours playing the game already simply because it makes for a fun MP experience. The gameplay itself (mainly 1v1 so far) is compelling and solid enough. I really do hope it draws in more people though and that they continue to flesh the game out, including aesthetic aspects.

Reply #5 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Quoting DrAsik, reply 3

In this case it would have been better to ship without altogether IMO, perhaps introduce them as DLC later.

Most RTS games have terrible campaigns, with more focus on strong single player vs AI skirmish, or multiplayer. I agree that leaving out campaign entirely is an acceptable decision for this genre. Although, I feel that the story that could be told within the AotS universe could be enjoyable once it is fleshed out.

 

Quoting DrAsik, reply 3

My gripe with the floating unit design is really the utter absurdity of it. Basic newtonian physics dictate that you're not going to put out much propelling power into any sort of missiles if you're carefully balanced above ground using thrusters or magnetic levitation or what have you.

If a species has developed technology to the point that FTL communication is possible, then Newton has very little right to get in their way.

If the reduced cost of animations allows the team to focus on improved gameplay, I personally wouldn't care if all the units hovered, walked or crawled.

The monotonous design of the units all hovering is a common complaint, however I feel it could make sense from a design perspective. If hover magic (technology?) existed, and allowed units to move over unknown rough terrain, then it wouldn't make much sense investing resources into producing tracked/wheeled/legged units which would get stuck in the first swamp they encounter. Mass production of hover pads that can be slapped on everything would be reasonable. 

Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting eviator, reply 2

Art is expensive, both in terms of development and performance. May get better over time as the development budget increases and hardware gets better. My perspective differs from yours in that I'm more interested in a deep and replayable gameplay experience, not so much art. The former holds my interest for many hours, the latter for only a few.

It's funny I read one post that said "This game is terrible without a fully-fleshed out campaign experience" and another that said "I don't care about the campaign at all, I want a good skirmish/multiplayer experience." See how hard it is to be an indie developer? Your criticism is valid, but some slack is warranted.

 

Depends on where you live. Definitely not everywhere, and by that i dont mean Africa or Antarctica, but relatively developed parts of the world. 

Reply #8 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

I agree with Drasik.  AOTS lacks "Soul" and is overall "Plain".  However, the underlying mechanics are very sound.  I hope the future DLCs will flesh this out.

Reply #9 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Quoting kreyson135, reply 8

I agree with Drasik.  AOTS lacks "Soul" and is overall "Plain".  However, the underlying mechanics are very sound.  I hope the future DLCs will flesh this out.

It depends on what you mean by DLC.  If you mean the DLC where publishers milk more $$$ from people just because they can, then no, it shouldn't be DLC to fix the base game...

This game needs patches to fix AotS and bring it up to speed, then, they can offer DLC for extras, like different music, or extra campaign missions could work, if they are complete, and well, I don't know what else could be charged for in a RTS game, since units split the community, maps are a dime a dozen, and there is nothing stopping people from pretty much making the same map and offering it to the public, textures fall into the same boat.