On RTS Games
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My cousin and I have talked about this very idea a few times because of our different tastes in games. I am good at RTS games, he is good at shooters. His idea was mostly for the old singleplayer Battlefield games where you control 1 guy and the rest of the people on your team are NPCs. He said if he could play his character from first-person and fully control, and I could control the rest of the army as well point him in the direction of the most important objectives at the moment, that we would probably make a pretty good team.
His idea kind of reminds me of how Sins of a Solar Empire works. You have however many players playing, but then you have an AI controlled Pirate faction that basically attacks whoever has the highest bounty when they launch. It could work.
Going off the idea of mixing RTS with other gameplay modes, you should have a look at the pc game Savage 2.
Its a free to play game where you control a character in either a 3rd or 1st person persepective depending on if your attacking with melee (3rd) or projectiles (1st), while a player plays from an RTS standpoint and makes buildings and the like to support the people on the ground. Overall a pretty damn fun game, even if there can be only one person playing the RTS style per team.
Its a free to play game where you control a character in either a 3rd or 1st person persepective depending on if your attacking with melee (3rd) or projectiles (1st), while a player plays from an RTS standpoint and makes buildings and the like to support the people on the ground. Overall a pretty damn fun game, even if there can be only one person playing the RTS style per team.
Savage XR is the answer for you. It features one player as a commander who orders around other players who play all (well, most of) the little guys on the ground. So the combat is dependent on both the commander being able to issue strategic commands, and the skill of the players on the ground.
Their official youtube channel is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/HurlyBurly3027
Their official youtube channel is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/HurlyBurly3027
It sounds like a good idea to me. I've contemplated a similar idea, but I got to the phase of "What if I don't want to march in this line" and gave up. The idea of mercenaries didn't come to me.
As for my opinions on RTS games, I like them, I just suck too much.
As for my opinions on RTS games, I like them, I just suck too much.
I feel the other way around actually. Real-time (despite only just getting into them and playing Starcraft 2 on casual) I find better because if the enemy is attacking a major objective, you can send out a counter-attack right away. Turn-based requires a lot more preparation for what MIGHT happen (something I'm not very good at), and if you mess it up you can't stop them because it's not your turn.CitySquirrel said:
I shall be having a look, do people still play it?Reagus said:
Two points.
One as I was one of those guys who did ask about Starcraft 2, my bad. I just feel like everyone's got rose covered glasses on when it comes to this game, and I wanted someone to look at it with a somewhat more open perspective.
Further note: Having now played it myself, is it just me, or does it feel like the same game from 13 years ago? Normally, I would shake my fist about no innovation in 13 years being kinda lazy, but considering the fanbase, I have to think if Blizz deviated even an iota, there would have been riots. Korea would probably just leave.
Yes, leave. As in get up and walk away. It's happened before. Israel went on strike like 3 times in a six month period a few years back when I was keeping tabs on that spot of the world.
Second thing.
Am I the ONLY guy out there who actually had a blast with Brutal Legend?
One as I was one of those guys who did ask about Starcraft 2, my bad. I just feel like everyone's got rose covered glasses on when it comes to this game, and I wanted someone to look at it with a somewhat more open perspective.
Further note: Having now played it myself, is it just me, or does it feel like the same game from 13 years ago? Normally, I would shake my fist about no innovation in 13 years being kinda lazy, but considering the fanbase, I have to think if Blizz deviated even an iota, there would have been riots. Korea would probably just leave.
Yes, leave. As in get up and walk away. It's happened before. Israel went on strike like 3 times in a six month period a few years back when I was keeping tabs on that spot of the world.
Second thing.
Am I the ONLY guy out there who actually had a blast with Brutal Legend?
Besides Natural Selection mod for Half Life, there's also this mod called "Empires" for Half Life 2. RTS/FPS hybrid and all, one player on a team is a commander and plays in a RTS perspective. Everyone else is an infantry and the commander gives orders. It even has base building and vehicles. Main problem however, you always have random people that refuses to follow orders and just goes off to do their own thing.
Considering some innovations with other genres have resulted in horribly balanced games (Not mentioning any certain FPS games), I think we should be more focused on game balance than trying out new ideas. I'd imagine if Blizzard opt to go for something different, same thing would've happened to Starcraft 2 as it did to Dawn of War 2, massive disappointment to how the sequel changed for the sake of innovation.jtesauro said:
Just mentioned Savage 2 up above, whats the difference between Savage 2 and Savage XR?deth2munkies said:
You would be suprised just how many people do play it, I know I sure am hehe. Yeah, theres currently quite an active community and it is definatley not hard to get in a match with plenty of servers for newbs and country specificMegacherv said:
IIRC, the company that developed Savage 2 went under and stopped supporting the game, XR is the community project to preserve it and they've made some improvements. I never played Savage 2, so I really don't know what the differences are specifically.Reagus said:
Has Yahtzee not heard of Zombie Master [http://www.zombiemaster.org/]? I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up yet. A team of human players play the game as an FPS, and one player, the "Zombie Master" plays it as an RTS, commanding a horde of zombies against them.
I've actually never played it though, so I don't know how good it is.
I think an RTS/FPS where one player controls the others could actually work if some thought was put into it. The standard RTS is actually very unrealistic in how it represents a general's way of commanding his troops. And yet, a real life general is still very much in command, and whole books are written about military strategy. If a more realistic RTS interface could be devised, the idea might work.
I've actually never played it though, so I don't know how good it is.
I think an RTS/FPS where one player controls the others could actually work if some thought was put into it. The standard RTS is actually very unrealistic in how it represents a general's way of commanding his troops. And yet, a real life general is still very much in command, and whole books are written about military strategy. If a more realistic RTS interface could be devised, the idea might work.
Yahtzee's idea reminded me of MAG for the PS3. Doesn't it's combat kind-of work like that? With some players being commanders and others being troops. I never played it so I couldn't be sure.
I've had ideas like that before. I was thinking there would be squads of ground infantry, some specialized air units (some in fighter jets, some in bombers, some in transport helicopters) and then there would be the commander, who can see the entire map and can give orders to the other players. Obviously there would be the problem of people not actually listening to their teammates and just running around killing people, but teams that work together would be more successful. Sometimes that's incentive enough, as left 4 dead has shown me.
We've seen Mr. Croshaw's behavior on RTS games on Halo Wars. Most likely even I consider certain RTS games are a game of chess and checkers.
It is amusing if you take the original 1980's game Donkey Kong and while one player controls Mario, the other 3 controls the barrels to see what happens. Most likely that the player who plays Mario will quit, much to anyone who continues to play a losing game.
It is amusing if you take the original 1980's game Donkey Kong and while one player controls Mario, the other 3 controls the barrels to see what happens. Most likely that the player who plays Mario will quit, much to anyone who continues to play a losing game.
I don't think you could ever marry the mentality of your average rts player and and your average fps player. I do think you could merge a turn based strategy game and an fps much more successfully. The turn base commander assigns the missions and the fps guys fight it out on the ground. Imagine mechwarrior 4 mercenaries with strategic commanders offering missions, mercs heiring on to fight it out on the ground.
