he picked a RTS that RTS fans dont like and would be easy to rip onValkyrie1981 said:
its like basing your view of FPS on Chex quest (if you spent $100 AUS on it)
On RTS Games
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
its like basing your view of FPS on Chex quest (if you spent $100 AUS on it)
I never had the patience or the required grade of manic megalomania to properly play RTS games. The actual strategy is no being bored out of your mind before your enemy does, and making the biggest army, I never really felt there was much 'strategy' to it. Also, once you define the best route to win a game, it all becomes like playing a song, if you wanna do it properly, play all the notes in the right order.
I for one played Age of Empires II's quick matches against the CPU, but just played architect and built my perfect utopia. Or drew genitalia using wooden walls, depending on the situation.
I for one played Age of Empires II's quick matches against the CPU, but just played architect and built my perfect utopia. Or drew genitalia using wooden walls, depending on the situation.
don't know if this has been said yet (too lazy to comb through the comments), but here's my two cents on a meta game. rts guys run bases, building defenses and fortifications. for income, resource gathering would be done ala Metal Fatigue, where commanders build solar panels to collect energy. fps guys would choose a loadout (maybe create characters mmorpg style?), and go to work. commanders would see everything, so could communicate via voicechat, telling the troops where the enemy is, where to set an ambush, etc. racers would be scouts; as the base gets enough funds and the right building, the commander can build better and better vehicles. pilots, well, duh. rpg style, with exp and levels. after so many levels, the player has the option of going free agent and joining an outfit. of course, different factions and outfits would come with different bonuses/perks to keep gameplay balanced.
What if you took the 40k warhammer dawn of war 2 approach to RTS and applied it to your idea?Yahtzee Croshaw said:
For example:
People can choose to be either the leader or in charge of on one small unit or a special like a tank.
If the peeps that all being lead doesn't listen to the leader's orders... they lose bonuses to damage, a minimap radar, experience points, powers, and possible help from others on their team.
The leader has a top down look while the squads have a third person perspective.
The other players have three or five man squads that they lead and outfit based on money or experience points they earn in the battlefield. They get double the experience points if they are lead by a leader player.
The leader loses a squad and becomes one man on the battlefield needing the help of the other players to win the battle. But if the battle is won, the leader can either spread the experience/wealth with the team or horde for himself. So people can play as either a douche or a team player.
You could also allow the other players to be able to mutiny against the leader and take his stuff or give the leadership to someone better fit for the role.
I could see something like that occuring... but a starcraft2 or comand&conquer style RTS wouldn't work.
One free online game, Battle Swarm, does combine RTS and FPS by having them compete dorectly against each other. FPS for the humans, each individualy powerful but not as numerous. RTS for the insects, thier 'hive mind' coordinating them and using thier numbers to try and overwhelm the humans, though each individual bug isn't that powerful. It's just the sort of thing Yhatzee was talking about for cross-platform interaction, except you know not FPS mercs helping RTS generals, and I wonder if he knows about it. I'd mention it to him in an e-mail but I'm afraid he'd just laugh, call me a tosser, make me faceless retard #347 for the next vid, and call it a day. After setting a small puppy on fire of course.
What is this? 1994?CitySquirrel said:
Rail shooters died out for a reason and were only brought back to life so the Wii could say "look! We can do violence too." The only way they could be made these days would be if there was some kind of narrative stringing you along like in Resident Evil: UC or if there's a certain je ne sais quoi that makes you want to keep playing like the humour and direction of House of the Dead. Those weren't exactly feature game either. The only way that would work would be as a bolted on mini game really. If you made it part of core gameplay then the RTS player will just think it's a waste of time. If you tried to make it a crossover, why would the FPS fan want to do what someone else tells him to do? Why wouldn't he just play a game where he's the hero?
Therein lies the rub. While I have to say the concept outlined in the article is an intriguing one, in a time of continued financially uncertainty, I don't think any dev would risk it. It seems like every genre has its fans and the devs are just drumming to their song. No envelopes are being pushed. Last game I bought was Metro 2033. A pretty impressive game in terms of atmospherics. It has some glaring flaws but it's good enough. But on the face of it, there's nothing new going on there. Nothing new has happened for a good while now that I can remember. The whole gaming industry seems to have reversed into a ditch and they need something pretty big to push themselves back out.
im too lazy to read all the posts.
i think that idea for a rts/fps hybrid is great. an old game called savage tried it, but since the commander had no units he could directly control there was no strategy element.
give fps players cool guns and powers they can use when "on mission"(airstikes hooray for airstikes, medevac, purchase vehicles mabye) and give the rts players weak but buildable mobile gun turrets, and remote control tanks and planes (like we have already, see SWORDS, NLOS, and Reaper)that can be directly controlled by the rts player and you could have some real fun. but i dont think you could mmo it, at least not fully.
i think that idea for a rts/fps hybrid is great. an old game called savage tried it, but since the commander had no units he could directly control there was no strategy element.
give fps players cool guns and powers they can use when "on mission"(airstikes hooray for airstikes, medevac, purchase vehicles mabye) and give the rts players weak but buildable mobile gun turrets, and remote control tanks and planes (like we have already, see SWORDS, NLOS, and Reaper)that can be directly controlled by the rts player and you could have some real fun. but i dont think you could mmo it, at least not fully.
Battleswarm: Field of Honor
According to the main page, it's an MMO that pits FPS players AGAINST RTS players in a Starship Troopers type setting. The FPSers are space marine-types, and the RTS players control armies of space bugs.
Sounds awesome, but I've never played it.
According to the main page, it's an MMO that pits FPS players AGAINST RTS players in a Starship Troopers type setting. The FPSers are space marine-types, and the RTS players control armies of space bugs.
Sounds awesome, but I've never played it.
How utterly dissapointing...I was looking forwards to seeing you review something other than another FPS or platformer I haven't heard or cared about previously.
While I understand you don't like RTS games as a whole because you cant relate to the role you play in one. It is however curious that you won't even try ripping it a new one, considering how many would like you to see you do it. Since you hate JRPG's with a passion, yet still review them from time to time.
On the notion that WoW froze the Warcraft story, it is wrong. The Warcraft story continues, abit very slowly, which is sort of realistic since the apocalypse doesn't happen three times a week.
While I understand you don't like RTS games as a whole because you cant relate to the role you play in one. It is however curious that you won't even try ripping it a new one, considering how many would like you to see you do it. Since you hate JRPG's with a passion, yet still review them from time to time.
On the notion that WoW froze the Warcraft story, it is wrong. The Warcraft story continues, abit very slowly, which is sort of realistic since the apocalypse doesn't happen three times a week.
What of the two Battlezone games? Where you're both in the action and controlling a bunch of units in real time? They're old games and the first one really looks like shit by today's standards, but you're in a hover tank. And you can leave said hover tank, snipe an enemy unit and steal their hover tank.
I like the use of the word "figgen" in that article. It's a pretty direct reference to "Guards! Guards!", by Terry Pratchet, which is a great book. Yatzee's rts/fps idea actually sounds pretty decent, but it seems like there is no way that any single company would be able to create it (to its full potential). It would basicly be two games in one, with 2 completely different version of each map and situation.
That last line about clashing genres -- what's Portal if not a combination of FPS and puzzle adventure?
I'm glad you realized little hiccup in logic too. Is he saying there's no 'experience' in the SP for SC2?Stilton said:
I'm disappointed in Yahtzee not reviewing Starcraft 2. Just because the genre is not his cup of tea doesn't mean he should not voice his opinion on it.
He's a critic!
He reviewed Halo Wars, and he also reviewed FFVIII. I used to like all genres but now I like only a few. If a game comes out that everyone is raving about I usually try it anyways. Burnout Paradise was an example of a game that I really liked despite not liking the genre. CODMW2 was a game I didn't care for even though I generally like FPSs.
Even if his review ends up in him not liking the game, he can just admit he's not familiar/dislikes the genre in general, give his suggestions, crack his jokes, etc. I like his reviews and I find them very entertaining. Even though I don't agree with all of them, theres usually some truth to his criticisms.
I love Starcraft 2, but I still want to hear what he thinks of it.