On RTS Games

[Taipan]

What about something akin to DOTA? In that game, you play as a single powerful hero with specific abilities and wargear, but you are surrounded by NPC-generated cannon fodder. Shift the perspective from top-down to first-person, and thats pretty much an FPS/RTS hybrid.

The question is; do you want the masses of lesser NPC's to be player-controlled, or just generated automatically (thus leaving you free to go on one-man rampages, which is what all FPS lives on)? My feeling is that a little real-time control would be nice (ie select from a sidebar or menu, depending on what the enemy is spamming, develop counters or nice combo's etc), but not the full-blown tech-trees of a true RTS.

 

[_Algernon]

On a different tack, does anyone still remember Sacrifice? Rather than an RTS with shooter elements, it was the opposite: You were the general (a crazed sorcerer), placed on the ground with a third-person camera.

You summoned troops, tried to capture the souls of slain enemies to make into more creatures, and led your minions into skirmishes while conjuring volcanoes and explosions all over the deformable landscape. Not terribly deep on RTS elements - basic rock-paper-scissors stuff - but it had all the immediacy of a shooter and a reasonable helping of strategy.

 

[Danallighieri]

Interesting article, and I can completely understand why ya don't wanna review it... I couldn't review a fps game hehe

 

[greenflash]

how about a game that has FPS players VS RTS players! FPS players would have better stuff but could not destroy the bases for the first 15 minutes then they could (try to) fight there way into the enemy bases or try to team up with the other RTS player that would be good because it would be a more open world aspect and the RTS players and FPS player would not get in each others way.

 

[DarkPanda XIII]

Truly? I love RTSs, and if it's not Yahtzee's cup of tea, than I won't complain. It's like me not being able to really do first-person shooter games very well. I occasionally venture into it, but fail for the most part.

So really, I understand if people wanted to see him rip it to shreds, but if he won't do it, I'm all for it. Besides I'd feel disappointed if I've been waiting for Thursday to buy it just for people to slam it down...hence why I've been ignoring most of the discussion boards for it :3

 

[mattaui]

SC2 is quite possibly the only game that can't change, but it shouldn't change. You change too much away from what you are, and for every fan you might gain, you'll lose a dozen, because there's such a huge fan base for wanting RTS games to be just the way they are, and the SC franchise has been the gold standard since it hit. You can see a number of examples of RTS games that went off the beaten path listed earlier in the threat here, and while they got points for originality, they ended up not holding anyone's interest for long.

SC2 does what it can in the single player campaign to try and feel a little less like a marathon of maps strung together, offering the illusion of choice and allowing you to play with more powerful upgraded units and mercenaries than you'd get in a typical multiplayer game, but it's the last RTS I'd expect to ever convince anyone that doesn't like RTS games to want to play it. It's not going to do what WoW did with MMOs and create a new market for RTS games, and I imagine that WoW itself sold plenty of copies of SC2 just because you've had faithful Blizzard customers looking forward to whatever they put out.

SC2's basic gameplay is extremely similar to SC, because that's exactly what they wanted it to be, and what most of their customers were clamoring for. I'd compare it to something like Magic the Gathering, which sure, the production values are better and there are more casual play options, but at its core it's still the same old game with very few differences from when it started. There's a hard core audience that demands it, and to do otherwise would be a disastrous move.

 

[Haunted Serenity]

As much as I would like to see a RTS reviewed I understand why it won't. That idea sounds cool. I'd play it but it doesn't win my heart on the mixing of genres. Us RTS'ers sometime look down with disdain on the trigger happy FPS. Or maybe thats just me and my brother.

 

[Grey_Area]

Hehe. That game would rock! "Yeah, you're my best friend and all, but that guy has nuclear pogo sticks. NUCLEAR POGO STICKS! What have you got?"

I'd certainly be on the Mercs side, but actually fighting against armies with actual intelligence rather than artificial would be something completely other.

 

[Kurt Horsting]

You could always review Blazblue CS. Came out on the same day, and you reviewed other fighting games before (except, this one is good.) How can you say no to playing a game with a giant robot demon who uses magnetism as a weapon, an autocratic vampire princess that can control the wind, or a Super hero Ninja with a super move that has its own theme song?

Anyway, I think the game your describing is close to 'Kings and Knights', a custom map for starcraft. 'Kings' are the rts general who can pump out fodder, build structures, and etc. While 'Knights' are basically super soldiers for hire by either King. The King can use his resources to build up his kingdom, or to hire a knight and improve his weapons, armor, and abilities and have the knight do his work for him. I think that would come close to what you described.

I'm not saying you should review starcraft 2, but you should check out the single player before swearing off the genre. Even people that don't know how to rts to save there lives can beat it (hell, sometimes they even have fun too).

 

[Common Knowledge]

I played an RTS called Rise & Fall: Civilizations at War a number of years ago where the idea was that you could lead your troops in typical RTS style, base building, troop management and upgrades etc. You could then jump into the role of your leader unit Dungeon Keeper Posses Creature style and fight out the battles first person style.

As fun as that may sound it really didn't work out well, it just lead to a single commander taking out entire armies in what felt like a poorly balanced and mis-matched combat style. The trouble with RTSs in general (of which I greatly enjoy) is that they have a well established formula in order to be good:

1. The sides need to be distinct
2. Everything needs to balance up
3. Base building, upgrading and troop management

Although I wouldn't say that story isn't important I would say that it's less so than in other genres - the story in Dawn of War Dark Crusade basically boiled down to "everyone wants Kronus so pick a side and get stuck in."

The RTS as a genre is pretty inxflexible, sure some people might look at C&C4 and think "okay this is fun" but the C&C series hasn't felt like a proper RTS since Tiberian Sun. Dawn of War switched from one of the best RTSs I've ever played into some kind of stupid RP game where you micro manage a bunch of elite space marine twats instead of commanding armies. All I've got to look forward to is Civ 5 now since EA butchered the Red Alert/C&C series.

 

[gl1koz3]

There's some 50000 years to go for our brain to catch up with such complicated systems. Not from gameplay perspective, but from "implementing the Matrix" perspective.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I get a strong feeling that a large number of people who want Yahtzee to review SCII actually want him to give it a good review so that they can bolster their own egos. The odds of that are exceedingly slim, given that he doesn't like RTS games. I can't really play them very well myself (not that that stops me from trying... I'll learn them someday, dammit!) so I'm certainly not about to get on his case about it.

Still... maybe someday we'll see Fun RTS/FPS Mashup Hybrid Game: The Game?

Has any major battle in history been decided by an illegal street race?

Not yet... but soon. My plans proceed apace. You mark my words, Croshaw. SOON.

 

[WanderingFool]

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

I was hoping to see him rip SC2 a new one, but oh well...

 

[romxxii]

awww c'mon! Even the other caustic critics are gushing over this game, I need to hear something negative about it!

 

[quantum mechanic]

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

I just don't understand why hanging someone up next to a small short-crust pastry containing raisins would be considered a terrible fate...

 

[pigmy wurm]

I kind of had an idea for an game similar to your RTS variants but instead of starting with a game like starcraft think of something like battlefront, less about buildings and resources, but more about huge armies capturing territories. You would have two or more teams, each with a general and a number of "elite" troops. The general has at his disposal an army of bots that he can deploy and control while the other players play as more powerful (and more competent) troops who can customize their characters and get more powerful Modern Warfare style. But here is the real key; the bots are powerful enough that a single human can't necessarily go-it-alone without the aid of the general and as the army as a whole meets objectives the general gets points that he can spend to power you up, thus giving you a benefit for working together and giving the general power without removing free will.

Now, this still has the problem that killed the commander idea from TF2: what if your general is incompetent. My only suggestion for that would be some way to, in the middle of the game, elect a new one if the players don't like their current one, but that could create further problems.

 

[Jake the Snake]

The reason I don't play RTS's is because I can not multi task whatsoever, and therefore find them impossibly difficult. I tend to not like things I'm not good at.

 

[BobisOnlyBob]

As a fan of Starcraft (I and II alike) and RTS in general, I'm perfectly okay with this. Yahtzee doesn't have to waste his time playing a game he doesn't enjoy, and we get to be spared him ripping apart perfectly good gameplay because it's not his kind of thing.

I like the ideas outlined in this - the result would not be a serious, twitchy RTS like Starcraft, but a slightly more crazy, dynamic deal in which the actions of the wild third parties can cause unexpected consequences. It'd be disliked by those who adhere to RTS standards and uphold the value of "APM" and suchlike, but probably enjoyable to more casual players like me.

Thinking about it, something akin to this setup could be possible with custom Starcraft maps. Player 1 and 2 play "regular" skirmish, while Players 3 through 8 play as individual hero units. With the "Use Map Settings" mode, you could play it online against or with just about anyone. It would require a lot of tweaking and balancing, but it's doable.

 

[Senrab]

Ok. Fair enough.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

The only thing more boring than playing an RTS is reading articles about an RTS.
opinion, don't crucify me