On RTS Games

[yourbeliefs]

I also won't be playing SC2, unless someone ends up buying it for me or donating it, neither of which I see happening. It just comes down to different strokes for different folks. I used to be into the C&C games, but after a while I just got too frustrated and would cheat to win.

 

[Weaver]

The game Savage and Savage 2 had players on the field controlled by a player doing things RTS style.

 

[Little Duck]

NO! MY IDEA! IT IS STOLEN!!!

Ah well, wasn't like I was gonna do anything with it.

Soooo I'm guessing fun space game won't have RTS aspects.

 

[RC1138]

No one has mentioned BF2? Really? Common. Battlefield 2 had exactly everything he mentioned. If you want to mess as infantry, you could do that. If you wanted to blow stuff up in a tank, that too, or fly both combat missions AND/OR bombing missions. Even attack and transport helos were available. And on top of that it had not one but two levels of chain of command. The squad leader which could set small objectives and make requests from the COMMANDER who could order around all the squads and drop support assets like artillery, supplies and vehicles. It's that last part that tended to make human players listen to the commander. Often times when (as a Squad leader) when I would make a request for supplies, before it would be filled the commander would set a new objective point (take or go here) which was a subtle "You want that crate? I need you here." And it worked 90% of the time. And when I played commander I got similar results. Usually people followed my orders. That and I usually dropped the UAV's on where I wanted them to go so if they WANTED a UAV, they needed to follow orders.

So in that regard the RTS element was still present even with human "FPS" players.

 

[HaraDaya]

Still think he should do Men of War.

I second this. That game caught my attention, and I don't really touch RTS games either. Part of the blame is probably getting my ass handed in them by my older brother when I was 8 or so.

No one has mentioned BF2? Really? Common. Battlefield 2 had exactly everything he mentioned. If you want to mess as infantry, you could do that. If you wanted to blow stuff up in a tank, that too, or fly both combat missions AND/OR bombing missions. Even attack and transport helos were available. And on top of that it had not one but two levels of chain of command. The squad leader which could set small objectives and make requests from the COMMANDER who could order around all the squads and drop support assets like artillery, supplies and vehicles. It's that last part that tended to make human players listen to the commander. Often times when (as a Squad leader) when I would make a request for supplies, before it would be filled the commander would set a new objective point (take or go here) which was a subtle "You want that crate? I need you here." And it worked 90% of the time. And when I played commander I got similar results. Usually people followed my orders. That and I usually dropped the UAV's on where I wanted them to go so if they WANTED a UAV, they needed to follow orders.

So in that regard the RTS element was still present even with human "FPS" players.

Yes, YES! I was awfully disappointed by Bad Company 2, because I expected it to be Battlefield 3. Only a small part of the team work the Battlefield series have had is present in BC2.

 

[RC1138]

Well I didnt mention BC2 for that reason. I don't consider it part of the Battlefield Series.

That said, it stands to reason BF3 will have the RTS elements in BF2 and BF2142 (and modded 1942 as well). I'm guessing that BC games are the plot games while the regular Battlefield games have the more "sandbox" feel of "Here's a battlefield, some vehicles and guns, go kill stuff and hold points."

I think BC's and BC2's biggest letdown, for me, was the lack of real LARGE team coordination that BF2 and 2142 had (that and lacking large numbers of vehicles, 5 tanks per map only? WTH!). And you need the commander chair for that to work.

 

[GoGo_Boy]

Woah so why did it take him 2 pages to simply say personally isn't attracted to RTS games?
I mean that's no shame really.

I'm personally not really interested in RPGs or worse an RPG shooter (*caught* Mass Effect *caught*).

And I'm kinda glad he doesn't review SC2. I think his opinion sucks mostly(yes his opinion, which he can voice freely). And he doesn't stop contradicting himself and writes too many pointless articles just like this.
However his reviews sometimes are funny, at least if I don't like the game or dunno much about it. Because once you do you actually realize stupid his reviews are ;p

 

[Ed.]

Mixing genres is HARd from a design perspective seriously hard i map for eternal silence which has FPS and flight sim star-wars battlefront style but the transitions are better and the flight is more like free-space

anyway mixing the two is hard and its where star wars battlefront tripped up a bit making everyone's contribution worth the same is much harder than it sounds


As fro FPS/RTS that does exist its called empires mod and it is good but there are two issues one is disobedient soldiers but this isn't too much of a problem as its no more crippling than having a total noob in your team on say TF2 you can work past it if it's just say 2 or 3 guys
The bigger problem that isn't really easy to solve is having an idiot in command you are basicly screwed you can eject your commander with a vote and have someone els take the helm but sometimes the damage is done
Also the problem of balancing everyone's contribution comes up how do you balance a tank and a man? its really hard to do.


Those are just two examples of mixing genres imagine adding more

There is another approach though another HL2 mod that i cant remember right now i dont think it ever got released but you didn't have to coexist you fought each other.

one team was just a single guy controlling an army of AI combines building turrets ect ect
the other team where rebels they could get Jeeps and air-boats and various weapons from crates but they basicly had to fight the hordes sounded like an awesome and not so hard to balance concept.

 

[duchaked]

I have to say, the idea of a freelance mercenary faction really has me interested... that's one way I could get in all the computer gaming action my friends have been geeking out over lol

 

[Supp]

Awwww, he could just play it anyways. That's what I did for WC3 and I ended up loving it even though I was god awful at it.

 

[cikame]

Natural Selection, commander is playing a basic RTS essentially while everyone else is in first person and it was brilliant, i never took up the reigns of commander seriously but i know many who did.

If a half life mod is too old for people now then the sequel is currently in alpha, very buggy at the moment but hey it's an indie game in alpha, looks promising.

 

[machvergil]

I would totally beta test the proposed 3rd-person shooter/RTS hybrid that Yatzee posts here. It sounds like a neat concept and in the right hands it could be a ton of fun for all involved, especially if as a side effect the RTS player can watch his enemy's base burn from the perspective of his/her units.

In the end though it'd probably fail to garner the full attention of either audience.

 

[samus17]

As long as yahtzee stayed away from the extremely competitive multiplayer (which he always does anyways) I believe he could give a review of the single player; it is vastly different from multiplayer, with a lot of story and rpg elements. But hey, way to not take ANY risks Yahtzee, it's not like you might not enjoy this or anything (or hate it, but what do you have to lose? You review JRPG's even though you say you hate them.)

 

[RC1138]

RTS and play, like I said, is not new or old. There are MANY games that have both. BF2 like I said did it as did 2142. Battalion Wars and it's sequels did it. That KF mod has it. And in a manner of speaking the Rainbow 6 games (not counting Vegas) were very RTS as you could order around your teams to locations, blow up doors, rescue hostages and the like.

 

[Jackel86]

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

Yes it was. I played that game way more than TF back in the day.

 

[Agent_PoRK]

we don't give two shits what u think Yahtzee review it anyway.

 

[Quorothorn]

"I think what it's that I've never liked games where the main character is just some kind of amorphous, otherworldly entity pulling the strings from on high."

For the record, the Age of Mythology campaign put you in the role of a group of heroes. The control scheme was the same as any other RTS, but there were actual, clearly defined main characters like in a RPG. For that matter, a couple scenarios from the Age of Empires series were the same, and Warcraft 3 did that, too.

 

[Mukil]

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

Chh the battle for my loved ones heart!

 

[snowman6251]

Honestly I'm a little surprised. I thought Yahtzee would review Starcraft 2 as part of his "broadening my horizons" plan, but I can't disagree with his decision. I personally don't give a shit about RTS's or Starcraft 2 so I'm not heartbroken over this but honestly what criticism could Yahtzee give to SC2. It has a hugely devoted fanbase and they know they like it. He can't change an opinion on the game. Not only that but he isn't exactly in a position to criticize the game on its merits not being familiar with the RTS genre.

The same thing he said about The World Ends with You applies here. He doesn't know about RTS the same way he doesn't really know JRPG so why bother.

The same applies to me and racing games and sports games like Madden. I don't like them. Never have. Never will. Any criticism I have on the genre regarding gameplay is really void because I'm coming from a different world.

 

[Skyy High]

we don't give two shits what u think Yahtzee review it anyway.

Wow. That's so contradictory I can't tell if it was intentional.

I'll also chime in with a "Natural Selection was awesome" comment.