Ashes of the Singularity

[Mánagarmr]

So it apparently has a trailer now. Anyone played it? It's scratching my SupCom/TA itch something fierce watching that trailer...

[Aklyon]

I've seen people play it, but haven't myself.

[Mánagarmr]

After seeing the trailer I'm genuinly intrigued. But well...SupCom 2 happened. I'm very careful these days.

[Wingflier]

Be careful with this game. A 75% approval rating by users, especially in early access, is a big warning sign. Generally people are pretty lenient during the EA period because well...it's Early Access. But when a solid 1/4th of the people who spent $50 on the game didn't like it, you should be wary.

Third review from the top:

I love RTS
I Love Forged Alliance (Not the Dumbed Down SupCom2)

This game just does not feel right...or play right.

Its a very generic RTS, bringing nothing new, its a bit messy really.

It does look nice, but I've just spent quite a bit of money on a game that I dont have much hope for.

I totally understand its a BETA, so I'm sure it will be more polished, but thats not it....there is something that doesnt feel right.....

The units all hover, like AEON in FA, but there is no feel of "big ships beating one another", it feels like you are playing with avatars rather than actuall tanks and ships/aircraft.

I wish I had waited longer, for £40 you just dont get enough right now....and its not promising to get much better.

Sorry, really wanted to like this

Furthermore, if you have an itching to play FA, why not just play FAF? As far as grand-scale strategy goes, and massive, multiplayer battles, you aren't going to do much better. I haven't seen anything to convince me that this isn't just a wannabe FA on a smaller budget.

In perhaps a year or two of balancing, optimization, bug fixes, and new content, I might consider it; but games on this scale are rarely worth getting on release in my experience.

[Mánagarmr]

Be careful with this game. A 75% approval rating by users, especially in early access, is a big warning sign. Generally people are pretty lenient during the EA period because well...it's Early Access. But when a solid 1/4th of the people who spent $50 on the game didn't like it, you should be wary.

I know, I've read some of the reviews and they're not really that helpful. The ones that like it just like it and the ones that don't rarely have a reason for not liking it. More "it didn't click" or "it didn't play right". Those are very vague reasons. Also I AM careful which is the whole reason for this thread ^^

Furthermore, if you have an itching to play FA, why not just play FAF? As far as grand-scale strategy goes, and massive, multiplayer battles, you aren't going to do much better. I haven't seen anything to convince me that this isn't just a wannabe FA on a smaller budget.

In perhaps a year or two of balancing, optimization, bug fixes, and new content, I might consider it; but games on this scale are rarely worth getting on release in my experience.

Mostly because of the "new" factor. FAF is still one of the best RTSs out there and it would be refreshing to see something similarly good, but brought to the next level. Kind of how SupCom brought Total Annihilation to the present.

[Draco18s]

Friend just made a comment to a group chat that he made his first steam refund ever.  For Ashes of the Singularity.

A poorly polished and rushed out the door RTS game.

It was made by Stardock, loved Sins, it looked like it was fun, saw some gameplay videos that make it look good, but playing it was just down right awful!
Nothing like the games it mentions like SupCom or the sort.
It lacks in simple key featrures.

[Wingflier]

I was kinda worried that would happen.

[Mánagarmr]

A lot of people get REALLY hung up on the lack of the strategic map. But I'll wait and see. Angry Joe's video was less than helpful as it was heavily edited AND sponsored. So I'll reserve judgement for a little longer.

[zespri]

I tried the game and I agree that it is not that great for the reasons outline above by others.
Now, I always had deep respect for Brad Wardell, but it's starting wearing thin.

I've read his tweeter post (attached) and... well... it's not something that a reasonable person would post as far as I'm concerned. Calling his game "objectively excellent title" with a straight face indicates to me that he is either dishonest or delusional. Now, when some one trying to point that out, Brad calls this person "an idiot" (also attached). This is, in my opinion just childish and does not deserve any respect at all.

So.... that's all rather sad. I thought better of him. Much better.

[Misery]

I look at that second one and see "You're an idiot.  Buzz off." as you stated.

....is that really the developer saying something like that?  Seriously?

.....you just don't DO that, when you're in a position like that.  Seriously.  You don't.  I can understand having a difficult time when someone says your game isn't good or whatever but really, you cant please everyone, and everyone has their own opinions.  Even if they're being a bit snotty about it, you still don't SAY things like that to the consumers.  I don't care how nasty they may be acting.  You don't do it.

And really, if a developer cannot accept the flaws that their own game may have, how can they improve their design skills?

This sounds to me like someone that just cant deal with the fact that they may have made some mistakes in the game's overall design. 

Honestly it kinda reminds me of Phil Fish again.   Obviously not NEARLY as bad, but that same type of childish response.

[Mánagarmr]

Well...crap. I was looking forward to this

[eRe4s3r]

From the twitch stream I saw this is pretty far away from being anything like supcom

[Mick]

Stardock is one of those companies where I have to compartmentalize. I like some of their games, but Wardell never seems to miss an opportunity to show he's kind of a douche.

[Mánagarmr]

I'm watching a few videos and streams and while it doesn't look like SupCom, it still looks interesting. I don't think I'll learn enough in two hours though, so I'm very reluctant to purchase it. I think my next purchase will be Dark Souls 3 instead and let this brew for a while longer.

[doctorfrog]

I look at that second one and see "You're an idiot.  Buzz off." as you stated.

....is that really the developer saying something like that?  Seriously?

.....you just don't DO that, when you're in a position like that.  Seriously. 

I remember the old pre-podcast drama Tales from the Afternow had a line that always stuck with me: "Consumers are mercenaries." Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense just said out of context, and maybe not with context, but the idea is that people will ignore just about anything about a company if they make a thing that tickles their Elmo enough.

The general consumer market of video game players do not care whether Brad Wardell is a turd or not.

Phil Fish didn't get away with it because he coupled being a turd with emotional instability, essentially becoming a target. Can't respect that. Being a jerk, and nothing but a jerk? Lots of video gamers respect that immensely, if they care enough about anything other than games in the first place. Being a constant bully or an emotionally stunted jackass without the capacity for apology or change in behavior is a show of strength to a lot of pale males.