On RTS Games
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I like Mercenaries.
That did not have the RTS general blahs because you could go slow and you only had six bastards to care for.
That did not have the RTS general blahs because you could go slow and you only had six bastards to care for.
How about this:
Design the FPS gameplay like a arcade game in the sense that you will die a lot unless you know what your doing and know the levels well (but you'll still die once in a while). The level's lay out will change every time it's played[footnote]I took this from an idea for a stealth multiplayer game I have.[footnote]Not that I have a game like that, it's just an idea.[footnote]Hopefully this idea is of my own and won't get me killed[/footnote][/footnote][/footnote]. As a result, players can't survive, even when working as a team. This is where the RTS player comes into play. The RTS player has an unrestricted view of the level (because sending players to their death probably isn't as good an idea as sending AI solders to the same fate). The RTS player tells the FPS players where enemies are, what routes to take, and so forth. The RTS player can even mark specific places FPS player can hide to ambush enemies, and mark the enemies as well.While the RTS player doesn't have detect control over their army, they can still build bases and call support like vehicles that FPS players can drive.[footnote]
Obviously, the first game would have to be simple compared to other RTS games.
Design the FPS gameplay like a arcade game in the sense that you will die a lot unless you know what your doing and know the levels well (but you'll still die once in a while). The level's lay out will change every time it's played[footnote]I took this from an idea for a stealth multiplayer game I have.[footnote]Not that I have a game like that, it's just an idea.[footnote]Hopefully this idea is of my own and won't get me killed[/footnote][/footnote][/footnote]. As a result, players can't survive, even when working as a team. This is where the RTS player comes into play. The RTS player has an unrestricted view of the level (because sending players to their death probably isn't as good an idea as sending AI solders to the same fate). The RTS player tells the FPS players where enemies are, what routes to take, and so forth. The RTS player can even mark specific places FPS player can hide to ambush enemies, and mark the enemies as well.While the RTS player doesn't have detect control over their army, they can still build bases and call support like vehicles that FPS players can drive.[footnote]
Oh, come on![footnote]At lest my stealth game idea doesn't seem to have already been done.[/footnote][/footnote]Zeithri said:
Obviously, the first game would have to be simple compared to other RTS games.
That isn't really what he is saying, he is saying that his viewpoint would be tainted by the fact that he isn't as adept at RTS's as the other games he reviews.Arcthelad said:
Anywho, OT: I am going to be picking up SC2, but I'm glad that Yahtzee isn't going to review it. It would be redundant.
Besides, gaming is about personal experience. I thank him for his (blunt) honesty.
Let's get down to the big secret: Yahtzee reviews JRPGs... because... well... he plays them pretty often?
I think back to his TWEWY review and it was all about the system of play and compaints about the story. He then wrapped it all up with "Is TWEWY a good game? I have no idea..." (paraphrasing)
These days he knows more about JRPGs, because in his little escursion into other types of games a while back, he found out that he DOES like some JRPGs (and is probably a Nazi sympathizer). He's probably been playing them since then.
And then, in Brutal Legends... he had to ask a friend if it was a good RTS. He doesn't know jack about them...
...and I, for one, wouldn't like to hear him wax ignorance to be funny with lots examples of why he doesn't know or like RTS...s...sssssss.
I think back to his TWEWY review and it was all about the system of play and compaints about the story. He then wrapped it all up with "Is TWEWY a good game? I have no idea..." (paraphrasing)
These days he knows more about JRPGs, because in his little escursion into other types of games a while back, he found out that he DOES like some JRPGs (and is probably a Nazi sympathizer). He's probably been playing them since then.
And then, in Brutal Legends... he had to ask a friend if it was a good RTS. He doesn't know jack about them...
...and I, for one, wouldn't like to hear him wax ignorance to be funny with lots examples of why he doesn't know or like RTS...s...sssssss.
There's a version of what Yahtzee was talking about in Battle.net of Frozen Throne. It's called Kings and Knights. There are 4 kings who have their castle and lots of gold mines around it, and there are 8 knights (mercenaries) who can become incredibly powerful if they get a lot of gold (from a king)
I did WAY better as a king, because I gave two people 1000 gold every 5 minutes, and they became incredibly powerful in no time. They were able to take out one base (of the 4) by themselves. It was EPIC. And I didn't have to pay them, but then they could always turn on me, which wouldn't be pleasant at all.
At the end of the day, it was incredibly fun for me the armchair general. While the whole thing is an RTS in my example, mixing RTS and third of first person sounds like an EXCELLENT idea to me.
I did WAY better as a king, because I gave two people 1000 gold every 5 minutes, and they became incredibly powerful in no time. They were able to take out one base (of the 4) by themselves. It was EPIC. And I didn't have to pay them, but then they could always turn on me, which wouldn't be pleasant at all.
At the end of the day, it was incredibly fun for me the armchair general. While the whole thing is an RTS in my example, mixing RTS and third of first person sounds like an EXCELLENT idea to me.
What Yahtzee mentiones at the very end of the article about RTS-players just wanting to play straight-forward RTS-games is a valid point. But what about this then, would'nt that add to the stragegic elemt? The third factor which is "completly" unpredictable. Could add to the gaming experience. The commanders, as he says, could try to buy their loyalties, but in the end that would'nt really add to the predictabilety since they essentially can do whatever the fuck they feel like doing. So I think it could actually make a really good game (maybe even a new kind of hybrid genre). Ofcourse there would be faults in the beginning, but hey. Isn't that kinda to expect with something new? But if it shows promise it can be perfected later on in the prosess. After all that's how it goes with new game mechanichs right? Starts in one game, then gets perfected in another game and then gets used in almost all other games of that type because it works.
If Yahtzee sees this comment I hope he uses his influence as the secret leader of the world to push it through. The he can enjoy "RTS-games" as well. Oh and if he mentions it in a Zero Punctuation-episode that would be awesome ^^ (even though it's not likely)
HAIL!
If Yahtzee sees this comment I hope he uses his influence as the secret leader of the world to push it through. The he can enjoy "RTS-games" as well. Oh and if he mentions it in a Zero Punctuation-episode that would be awesome ^^ (even though it's not likely)
HAIL!
Upon the laziness of reading the last 7 pages of comments I may just be parroting what someone else said, but the latest installments of the battlefield saga have perfected a pretty nice system of commander-commandee that works pretty well.
Particularely in Battlefield 2142, the commander submits the request the get in command and is voted by a simple yay or nay keystroke on the fly by the whole team (in case of more than one candidates, I think it was decided by rank/exeperience in game). And the dynamic works amazingly well with people's free will, since it had a unique common interest in mind: every player gets a better in game score if they were to follow the commander's orders (commander got more points if he got his troops to score his particular commands). So as it is, the omniscient guy had a great view of the battlefield and could issue "attack here, defend there" orders and, most importantly, direct tactical EMP and orbital bombardments towards the enemy armor and troops, while also deploying care packages to forward munition and health to the troops, and even large and localized sensor scans to help the team figure out where the enemy was, giving them the edge when they needed to capture or defend a certain flag. All of this rendered the larger score to both players who acquitted their commanders ruling, and commanders who correctly deployed their orders in the most helpful manner. The better teams, with a close cooperation between commander and troops, inevitably won by having an edge against more disorganized squads.
This has proven to be a masterfully articulated system and quite the foothold on what Yahtzee relayed as a simple "possibility". I'm kinda bummered no one seems to have given him the heads up of how this already exists and works well.
Particularely in Battlefield 2142, the commander submits the request the get in command and is voted by a simple yay or nay keystroke on the fly by the whole team (in case of more than one candidates, I think it was decided by rank/exeperience in game). And the dynamic works amazingly well with people's free will, since it had a unique common interest in mind: every player gets a better in game score if they were to follow the commander's orders (commander got more points if he got his troops to score his particular commands). So as it is, the omniscient guy had a great view of the battlefield and could issue "attack here, defend there" orders and, most importantly, direct tactical EMP and orbital bombardments towards the enemy armor and troops, while also deploying care packages to forward munition and health to the troops, and even large and localized sensor scans to help the team figure out where the enemy was, giving them the edge when they needed to capture or defend a certain flag. All of this rendered the larger score to both players who acquitted their commanders ruling, and commanders who correctly deployed their orders in the most helpful manner. The better teams, with a close cooperation between commander and troops, inevitably won by having an edge against more disorganized squads.
This has proven to be a masterfully articulated system and quite the foothold on what Yahtzee relayed as a simple "possibility". I'm kinda bummered no one seems to have given him the heads up of how this already exists and works well.
Preferably soon...Not surprised by this news, good to know beforehand there won't be any, I loved Starcraft, but since RTS moved to 3d, I lost interest, and I will force myself to point defects I can find in any fps as well, but I'll stick to FPS in the end.
Well, I look forward to ZP's next review.
Well, I look forward to ZP's next review.
Not everything is for everyone. Personally I'm enjoying SC2, but there have been plenty of great games I just couldn't get into (Arkham Asylum comes to mind) so to each their own.
What I would like to point out is two things, first that the 'everyone plays their own game' thing has been sort of done in the past already, Planetside allowed you to play as a frontline soldier, a mechanic who kept the base running, a pilot whizzing about, a tank driver maneuvering through a battlefield, or a small team of commandos infiltrating the secure facility. It was far from perfect, but it worked pretty well and had a good blend of different gametypes. I don't know of another game that allowed you to go from commander (platoon leader, you could only give directions and set waypoints but that was almost always enough, especially if it wasn't a pick-up group) to commando (infiltrating and wrecking the enemy facility) in the same game during the same play. It can work, and it can work well.
And yeah, the RTS commander+FPS soldiers thing has already been done quite a few times, and in some pretty big name games. Battlefield 2142 had a pretty good balance IMHO, though the Empires mod is also pretty good (Battlefield tends to have more focus on the FPS, with the commander aiding the soldiers, whereas empires has more focus on RTS, with the commander building all the tech, weapons and armor).
What I would like to point out is two things, first that the 'everyone plays their own game' thing has been sort of done in the past already, Planetside allowed you to play as a frontline soldier, a mechanic who kept the base running, a pilot whizzing about, a tank driver maneuvering through a battlefield, or a small team of commandos infiltrating the secure facility. It was far from perfect, but it worked pretty well and had a good blend of different gametypes. I don't know of another game that allowed you to go from commander (platoon leader, you could only give directions and set waypoints but that was almost always enough, especially if it wasn't a pick-up group) to commando (infiltrating and wrecking the enemy facility) in the same game during the same play. It can work, and it can work well.
And yeah, the RTS commander+FPS soldiers thing has already been done quite a few times, and in some pretty big name games. Battlefield 2142 had a pretty good balance IMHO, though the Empires mod is also pretty good (Battlefield tends to have more focus on the FPS, with the commander aiding the soldiers, whereas empires has more focus on RTS, with the commander building all the tech, weapons and armor).
That's actually... a really good idea. Granted, a developer can't be bothered to (And would probably require more space than a standard CD could store) make more than one systems to play a game by, although Splinter Cell: Double Agent did, so maybe there is hope.
Myself, I like RTS games (Mostly I've just played a bit of Command and Conqueror and Warcraft III), but I'm awful at them. I have this bad habit of building towers to defend myself at the start and neglecting to build many troops.
Myself, I like RTS games (Mostly I've just played a bit of Command and Conqueror and Warcraft III), but I'm awful at them. I have this bad habit of building towers to defend myself at the start and neglecting to build many troops.