On RTS Games

[Yahtzee Croshaw]

On RTS Games

No, Yahtzee will not be reviewing StarCraft 2.

Read Full Article

 

[CitySquirrel]

I'm sure RTSs are great, I just suck at them and therefore get no enjoyment. Now, make it turn based and we are talking...

 

[sms_117b]

Shame he wont pick it to pieces, but, fair enough he's not going to pick it to pieces for the sake of it.

To each their own

 

[Bobic]

Natural selection had a commander playing an rts style game with player controlled first person troops, and that was awesome.

 

[Artemus_Cain]

I somewhat agree. All the reviews for Starcraft 2 are glowing and say it's perfect, but none have said it will win over people who aren't RTS fans like myself. Plus, I think the ad campaign is wrong. Looking at promos it comes off as an action/shooter title not an RTS. I can imagine young players not familiar with 1 getting it and be seriously dissapointed.

 

[CitySquirrel]

Also, Yahtzee... maybe the FPS players could be playing a rail shooter where the rails are directed by the commander?

 

[Arcthelad]

I'm surprised that someone like you who bashes his viewers/readers because they stick it 'safe' 'with games is not even willing to give rts's a try.

 

[kingcom]

Battlezone was an excellent mix of RTS and FPS. Great game.

 

[Shamgarr]

Or what if you did a First/Third Person shooter vs. the RTS, with the player playing the RTS taking the role of like say the AI director thing from Left for Dead, and they can lay traps, change the environment, or move units and the like.

 

[Cabisco]

I thought about such a type of game to where your people on the ground are actual players, it just wouldn't work. Well, it wouldn't work outside of a small community (hint hint escapist).

I suppose their is a the potential mix of both normal npc units and players on the battlefield. You control an army of npcs, then have some special units which are players.

Might be worth thinking about, i'd love to be involved in such a thing but I think it would need to be small scale with a closed off community of very dedicated people rather than just everyone.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I think we all know what happens next:

The fanboys will wail and wail for months on end, eventually he will cave,. just as with Borderlands and Smash Bros Brawl, and then he will review Starcraft II. He won't like it, will tear it apart in a review, and all of the fanboys won't understand how he couldn't like it despite his having expressed the opinion several times.

History repeats itself people.

Anyway, nice idea, but I don't personally think the two can ever be integrated fully. FPS/3rdPS players want that freedom to do what they want, RTS players want total control. The two don't mesh, not now not ever.

 

[hamster mk 4]

I think the problem with blending the RTS and shooter generals lie in the boredom of combat. Most of the time RTS units are moving from place to place or waiting for enough forces to consolidate at one point for an attack. Getting itchy trigger finger shooter enthusiasts to spend more than 10 seconds waiting for the commander to be ready is just a bad idea.

In fact a Racing/RTS hybrid would make more sense. The driver that can get his troops in and out of the combat area fastest would be a great asset to a commander, and driving a transport through a maze of gun turrets could be fun if executed right.

 

[qbanknight]

Kind of disappointed you don't want to butcher Starcraft 2 like you did to Final Fantasy 13, was hoping you were interested in trying another genre out before playing through a sea of copy-pasted shooters this year with Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, and some other game involving a faceless soldier fighting faceless terrorists.

As to your idea though, it's absolutely insane and possibly fun. Online multiplayer these days is all about forging uneasy alliances anyways. Your design is practically encouraging a risk-reward system of betrayl and loyalty that is barely ever done in videogames (Kane and Lynch tried it, but I felt they could iron it out a bit more. Though I think your system may work as single-player game as well if you crafted the right story and balanced the gameplay issues that would break it.

 

[uppitycracker]

Okay, being someone who is NOT an RTS fan by any means (mainly because i suck at them, but also because i find micro management to be a chore, and far from fun), this game has gone above and beyond amazing me. The RTS elements are certainly there, but what else you walk away with is quite a bit more. The story is amazing, the in between management (upgrading units, research, ect.) are also quite amazing. The game doesn't make you feel like that overlord, commanding the forces all the time. There are those missions with limited, iconic units that add a different level to the game. These are the kinds of missions i used to hate, but have enjoyed thoroughly in this one.

Overall, yahtzee, normally I would feel the same way. But SC2 has certainly impressed me and kept me captivated.

 

[Eric the Orange]

Figgin, Diskworld reference, was funny. If you don't get it read diskworld. Or read them anyway cause the're AWESOME.

 

[qbanknight]

Or what if you did a First/Third Person shooter vs. the RTS, with the player playing the RTS taking the role of like say the AI director thing from Left for Dead, and they can lay traps, change the environment, or move units and the like.

Actually that's a pretty cool idea. It seems way too multiplayer focused though. I would like a single player to accustom myself and get into the multiplayer later.

 

[Kollega]

Adding Racers to the game: Make them war time delivery boys or something. They need to deliver X component/ officer/ etc in a certain amount of time. Maybe while being chased in a NFS: Hot Pursuit style. Oh and add weapons (like Wipeout or even Mario Kart).

Throwing a courier missions with vehicular combat into modern or futuristic warfare may not be too logical, but damn if it isn't cool. And as you all know, rule of cool trumps logic all the time.

EDIT: Also, if you don't review RTS because you admittedly aren't well-versed in them, why do you review JRPGs?

Because Yahtzee is first and foremost a professional troll. He is iddifferent towards RTSes, which makes it quite hard to tear 'em down - but he hates JRPGs, which makes it very easy to tear 'em down.

 

[mjc0961]

EDIT: Also, if you don't review RTS because you admittedly aren't well-versed in them, why do you review JRPGs?

Refer to the Final Fantasy 13 review. I think you'll find your answer (Hour 3 part).

 

[Uber Waddles]

This is a good choise for Yahtzee.

Lets cut the Bullshit. He either praises it, which, people will ***** about. THATS NOT FUNNY, I DIDNT LIKE IT, ETC.

Or, b. He rips it a new one. In which case, look at Brawl. That + More. It will just annoy him.

 

[Kollega]

Or what if you did a First/Third Person shooter vs. the RTS, with the player playing the RTS taking the role of like say the AI director thing from Left for Dead, and they can lay traps, change the environment, or move units and the like.

I've had that idea, like, six months ago. I've imagined it like "overpowered shooter protagonists" divided into classes taking on the massed but weak troops and defenses of an RTS player. Also the "shooter" side would be alien spec-ops.