On RTS Games
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Lol, I'm kinda dissapointed, it would be great to hear him verbally knock the crap out of Starcraft :/ But at the same time I totally agree with why he won't review it. Btw, that game idea sounded pretty cool. Much opportunity for back-stabbing and general rebellious shenanighins sounds great to me XD
Natural Selection and Mount&Blade Warband!
Yahztee you must consider trying games! Both are cross genre games.
NS is an FPS with 1 player as the Commander who builds spawn points, medstations, armories with the aid of the shooters. He places them and they build it. Commanders can also drop guns and medpacks on the fly.
M&B:Warband, well you get to command an army (albeit crudely) and fight on the frontlines with them in third person or first person. And if Lancing someone from the back of a Horse at full gallop sounds like a good time, do have a go at it. It looks like crap but man is the game fun in battle. (not sure you'll have the patience for the single player campaign, buts its a game with cheats built in to expedite any tedious activity)
Yahztee you must consider trying games! Both are cross genre games.
NS is an FPS with 1 player as the Commander who builds spawn points, medstations, armories with the aid of the shooters. He places them and they build it. Commanders can also drop guns and medpacks on the fly.
M&B:Warband, well you get to command an army (albeit crudely) and fight on the frontlines with them in third person or first person. And if Lancing someone from the back of a Horse at full gallop sounds like a good time, do have a go at it. It looks like crap but man is the game fun in battle. (not sure you'll have the patience for the single player campaign, buts its a game with cheats built in to expedite any tedious activity)
I don't like RTS games in general, but I loved Starcraft, mostly for the Zerg. Having said that, I'm not buying this game simply because you can only play the Terrans in SP. That is shit, because you know they'll charge $50 for an expansion or possibly make us wait for another game before we can play as the other races.
I had a similar idea which hasn't been said in the comments yet: GTA mixed with SimCity. One player is the sandbox thug, free to wander around the city and cause as much destruction as they want. The other player is resource managing the city, controlling utilities, construction, and traffic, all indirectly. The SimCity player wants to kill the thug, but he only gets police units if the thug commits a crime. The beginning of the game would be the RTS player trying to annoy or tempt the thug into breaking the law, like control traffic via stoplights to run him over if he crosses the street, or trying to make the crowds constantly bump into him, or even use taxpayer money to mail a sniper rifle to his hideout, betting he won't be able to resist the allure. Because the goal of the thug is to bankrupt the city. Helicopters are expensive, and declaring martial law moreso. A thug that can get the army on him before the RTS player has gathered resources to pay the army could win if they can survive. The RTS player can raise taxes, but then they run the risk of the population rioting.
Want to make it really interesting? Don't tell the thug if he's playing against a human or the AI.
I had a similar idea which hasn't been said in the comments yet: GTA mixed with SimCity. One player is the sandbox thug, free to wander around the city and cause as much destruction as they want. The other player is resource managing the city, controlling utilities, construction, and traffic, all indirectly. The SimCity player wants to kill the thug, but he only gets police units if the thug commits a crime. The beginning of the game would be the RTS player trying to annoy or tempt the thug into breaking the law, like control traffic via stoplights to run him over if he crosses the street, or trying to make the crowds constantly bump into him, or even use taxpayer money to mail a sniper rifle to his hideout, betting he won't be able to resist the allure. Because the goal of the thug is to bankrupt the city. Helicopters are expensive, and declaring martial law moreso. A thug that can get the army on him before the RTS player has gathered resources to pay the army could win if they can survive. The RTS player can raise taxes, but then they run the risk of the population rioting.
Want to make it really interesting? Don't tell the thug if he's playing against a human or the AI.
Though I've yet to put it out there, I've come across the idea of a third faction of mercenaries because it's actually a very elegant solution to another problem: pit two sides against eachother, and there will be inevitably a power upset sooner or later, with players fleeing to the winning side at the first sign of trouble. The mercenaries can even things out, keep the game going longer, by giving them incentives to support the underdog, including the incentive that if one side wins the mercenaries (as good little war profiteers) lose.
Also, give Majesty 2 a spin. It's similar in that it's an RTS played form the perspective of a fellow giving out incentives to free-ranging adventurers. You don't order adventurers to move places, but rather you put bounties on getting things done. Granted, your bands of NPC heroes are thick as stumps, but it's an interesting approach to the genre.
Also, give Majesty 2 a spin. It's similar in that it's an RTS played form the perspective of a fellow giving out incentives to free-ranging adventurers. You don't order adventurers to move places, but rather you put bounties on getting things done. Granted, your bands of NPC heroes are thick as stumps, but it's an interesting approach to the genre.
Eve Online + Dust514. The former being a grand scale space sim, the latter being a merc-based FPS. The touted feature is that the players of the former can hire players of the latter to help them capture important resource planets. The Latter receive XP and Cash and the Former get right to exploit the resources of the planet...if they win.
Interesting idea with the "Two commanders + mercenaries" idea, the only problem is that the mercenaries would probably be so powerful that all strategy would be completely negated. Think of a single-player FPS on Normal, how easy it is to mow down enemies... now imagine if you're the commander that's trying to get those same paper enemies to do something useful.
This is probably a bit like using a pair of tweezers to pull a single mote of discolored sand out of a beach, and I'm likely to get pounced upon for yanking out a "weak flannel of excuses" or something. So be it.
From my perspective, World of Warcraft's story is not "frozen in a single moment of time."
Yes, NPCs and bosses respawn so that every single one of the 11 million people playing the game can either speak to or kill them. Yes, this is a concept that makes any attempt at real storytelling feel redundant and silly. Yes, you're going to be exploring this in your novel.
But there are changes that happen in the game, especially with the advent of instanced zones. This occurred in a few places in Northrend during the last expansion, and will be more prevalent in Azeroth proper come Cataclysm. You enter a zone at a certain level, and by the time you leave that zone, it's different, at least from your perspective because your character undertook the quests to make an actual change.
Again, this is not applicable to the entire world, so saying it's not stuck as it is seems silly to say now. But, I'm a writer of both fiction and non-fiction in the realm of video games. Have the things that come out of my mouth or fingers is silly. This is nothing new, and this post is unlikely to change anything.
From my perspective, World of Warcraft's story is not "frozen in a single moment of time."
Yes, NPCs and bosses respawn so that every single one of the 11 million people playing the game can either speak to or kill them. Yes, this is a concept that makes any attempt at real storytelling feel redundant and silly. Yes, you're going to be exploring this in your novel.
But there are changes that happen in the game, especially with the advent of instanced zones. This occurred in a few places in Northrend during the last expansion, and will be more prevalent in Azeroth proper come Cataclysm. You enter a zone at a certain level, and by the time you leave that zone, it's different, at least from your perspective because your character undertook the quests to make an actual change.
Again, this is not applicable to the entire world, so saying it's not stuck as it is seems silly to say now. But, I'm a writer of both fiction and non-fiction in the realm of video games. Have the things that come out of my mouth or fingers is silly. This is nothing new, and this post is unlikely to change anything.
Yahtzee Croshaw" post="6.223269.7509023 said:Snip/quote]
So your not reviewing it because, you don't do RTSs. While Starcraft has been the mile stone of all RTSs and there are a few missions where you are controlling one unit instead of the entire army (one of these has you as an invisible mercenary called a ghost, sneaking around, ripping apart the enemy from the inside, destroying unit porducing buildings, and dropping nukes while your allies attack the base), I don't hold it against you for not reviewing this.
Of course, you may of saved your self from tons of fanboy rage by not reviewing this, since they would jump at you for the slightest complaint related to anything
His idea could work to an extent, ok you would probably get some morons on thier who abuse the system (mercenaries) and just get the biggest weapons they can an try to mess up everyone elses fun, and the RTS fans could get annoyed over not being able to control everything on the field thats fighting for them, i suppose with some trial and error it could work out in the end
I guess I'm floating on the same boat as you here... Never been able to play them... My God have I tried though... I've played most of the C&C and I even own Halo Wars... Still I can't get my head round them. Halo Wars is supposed to be like RTS for dummies and I still can't manage that.
Then again I haven't had that much trouble with the Total War series but they aren't all that much RTS's. Your units know what to do and can fight reasonably well without your help, you just give out helpful suggestions when you think they should be doing other things.
I also liked the Age of Empires series or things like that but that's mostly for missing about in the map editors and giving my self 20000000 archers and 40 layers of walls while I wait for the enemy to try and kill me.
I did manage to beat Battle for Middle earth 2 but again, that's like RTS for wimps and I've only ever braved online once or twice.
That said I liked your idea... Mainly the Merc part, I would love to play an arse hole double crossing each army just for the fun of it. That or when I'm not doing a bit of double crossing I'm sat on top of a cliff edge using the soldiers as target practise. Though this would create a good amount of issues, especially in the graphics department and the game play mechanics.
Then again I haven't had that much trouble with the Total War series but they aren't all that much RTS's. Your units know what to do and can fight reasonably well without your help, you just give out helpful suggestions when you think they should be doing other things.
I also liked the Age of Empires series or things like that but that's mostly for missing about in the map editors and giving my self 20000000 archers and 40 layers of walls while I wait for the enemy to try and kill me.
I did manage to beat Battle for Middle earth 2 but again, that's like RTS for wimps and I've only ever braved online once or twice.
That said I liked your idea... Mainly the Merc part, I would love to play an arse hole double crossing each army just for the fun of it. That or when I'm not doing a bit of double crossing I'm sat on top of a cliff edge using the soldiers as target practise. Though this would create a good amount of issues, especially in the graphics department and the game play mechanics.
I'd like to point out that the commander to an army idea has been tried.. I'm not much of a judge of how well it worked but for my time playing battlefield 2142 it seemed.. if not helpful, downright awesome.
I don't know if this is just me, but I dislike these articles, Yhatzee wanders far away from facts and just ends up writing 2 pages of opinion, completely unbacked by fact or (usually) relevant precedent... Is that why we're here?
I don't know if this is just me, but I dislike these articles, Yhatzee wanders far away from facts and just ends up writing 2 pages of opinion, completely unbacked by fact or (usually) relevant precedent... Is that why we're here?
Actually, this gives me a great idea.
Imagine Team Fortress 2 with that commander character. He looks through his available units (Soldier, Heavy, Medic, etc.), and you give them suggestions on where to go and what to kill, what objectives to take, who to stick together with. This makes winning is a matter of teamwork. They don't HAVE to listen to the commander, and very well may win if they don't, but if they're fighting against a team that's well coordinated, then they'll probably have significantly less success, unless they're significantly more skilled.
He would issue commands by clicking on one of his players, right clicking something to say "move to this location" or "Attack this" or "Defend here" etc. You could also set Fireteams, where you want a certain group of players to stick together, maybe a Heavy and a medic, or w/e combination you think is best.
Now, maybe this can just be a secondary mode, like capture the flag or other similar play mode, instead of being the main meat of the game.
And of course, this would be great for clans. The clan leader can recruit people, and they'll be more likely to listen to him because of a bond of friendship.
Maybe it wouldn't work too well for Team Fortress 2, specifically. Maybe it would be better suited to a game like MAG, or perhaps better might be to come up with a brand new game in which you carefully tailor the classes that can be played to fit with particular strategies.
Oh! And we can't forget resource mining. Let's removing the mining aspect, and change the resource to money. Every time one of your blokes gets a kill, you get some money. This can allow you to upgrade their weapons, armor, perks, etc. Maybe you can have some cheap upgrades that give your bloke a better weapon until he dies, and some expensive ones to permanently upgrade it. Much Strategy to be had there. Do you upgrade your weapons right now for cheap to get potentially more gains, or do you save your money to buy the permanent ones that will give you the edge later in the battle?
This could easily break up the monotony you usually get in an online shooter like CoD. Usually, after the first 5 minutes of a game, you already know who is going to win. Sometimes the tides turn, but it's rare. At least, it is in my experience. But, buffing up one side with upgrades because you have a commander who knows his shit? That could very well turn the tide of a match.
Perhaps, if you can't get players to work together, create a rewards system. Every time you complete an objective that your commander gives you, you get a temporary boost to your character. (Besides a move command.) So, say you kill the bloke that your commander had you targeting, perhaps you get your health refilled, or you get a damage bonus, or something of that nature.
Now, maybe this game needs to be based on an open field, with lots of structures placed along to please the people who like to hobble around corridors and such. Now maybe you need to have it so you can build buildings. Fair enough, let's see what we can do about that...
Add back in resource mining. Take the Command and Conquer approach. Build a foundry, have a harvester NPC, make it a tactical advantage to control certain areas that will give you an income. Perhaps have some buildings where if controlled, your team gets particular bonuses, or a big ass turret that shoots at passersby. Then maybe you can make it like Battlefield, you can build tanks for your team to use, or have stolen, with your money. Maybe even fighter jets and such. Perhaps you could have these as minor support upgrades, that only help marginally, but this worked for battlefield, so I don't see why it can't work here. You could even have specialty vehicles, and maybe you could have a character that gets damage bonuses and such for being in one of the vehicles.
Unless you could get a game as big as MAG with these aspects, you would have to keep all these things very small-scale, however.
Wow, this post is huge. I could go on and on past this about some ideas that came to mind, but I think I might break The Escapist if I type anymore.
Imagine Team Fortress 2 with that commander character. He looks through his available units (Soldier, Heavy, Medic, etc.), and you give them suggestions on where to go and what to kill, what objectives to take, who to stick together with. This makes winning is a matter of teamwork. They don't HAVE to listen to the commander, and very well may win if they don't, but if they're fighting against a team that's well coordinated, then they'll probably have significantly less success, unless they're significantly more skilled.
He would issue commands by clicking on one of his players, right clicking something to say "move to this location" or "Attack this" or "Defend here" etc. You could also set Fireteams, where you want a certain group of players to stick together, maybe a Heavy and a medic, or w/e combination you think is best.
Now, maybe this can just be a secondary mode, like capture the flag or other similar play mode, instead of being the main meat of the game.
And of course, this would be great for clans. The clan leader can recruit people, and they'll be more likely to listen to him because of a bond of friendship.
Maybe it wouldn't work too well for Team Fortress 2, specifically. Maybe it would be better suited to a game like MAG, or perhaps better might be to come up with a brand new game in which you carefully tailor the classes that can be played to fit with particular strategies.
Oh! And we can't forget resource mining. Let's removing the mining aspect, and change the resource to money. Every time one of your blokes gets a kill, you get some money. This can allow you to upgrade their weapons, armor, perks, etc. Maybe you can have some cheap upgrades that give your bloke a better weapon until he dies, and some expensive ones to permanently upgrade it. Much Strategy to be had there. Do you upgrade your weapons right now for cheap to get potentially more gains, or do you save your money to buy the permanent ones that will give you the edge later in the battle?
This could easily break up the monotony you usually get in an online shooter like CoD. Usually, after the first 5 minutes of a game, you already know who is going to win. Sometimes the tides turn, but it's rare. At least, it is in my experience. But, buffing up one side with upgrades because you have a commander who knows his shit? That could very well turn the tide of a match.
Perhaps, if you can't get players to work together, create a rewards system. Every time you complete an objective that your commander gives you, you get a temporary boost to your character. (Besides a move command.) So, say you kill the bloke that your commander had you targeting, perhaps you get your health refilled, or you get a damage bonus, or something of that nature.
Now, maybe this game needs to be based on an open field, with lots of structures placed along to please the people who like to hobble around corridors and such. Now maybe you need to have it so you can build buildings. Fair enough, let's see what we can do about that...
Add back in resource mining. Take the Command and Conquer approach. Build a foundry, have a harvester NPC, make it a tactical advantage to control certain areas that will give you an income. Perhaps have some buildings where if controlled, your team gets particular bonuses, or a big ass turret that shoots at passersby. Then maybe you can make it like Battlefield, you can build tanks for your team to use, or have stolen, with your money. Maybe even fighter jets and such. Perhaps you could have these as minor support upgrades, that only help marginally, but this worked for battlefield, so I don't see why it can't work here. You could even have specialty vehicles, and maybe you could have a character that gets damage bonuses and such for being in one of the vehicles.
Unless you could get a game as big as MAG with these aspects, you would have to keep all these things very small-scale, however.
Wow, this post is huge. I could go on and on past this about some ideas that came to mind, but I think I might break The Escapist if I type anymore.
Yeah, I mean, it's not like he's getting *paid* to do this.... oh waitabsoul11 said:
EDIT: Kidding aside, you're sort of right, he has some latitude on what he reviews. On the other hand, it's not just a hobby. He is technically answerable for his content, even if not directly to you or me.
The Savage community hates Savage 2 because it's no real sequel, it has a boring RTS mode where everything is automated, a bad combat system and too many RPG stuff which make it less skill based etc. I think they started creating Savage XR when they realised Savage 2 will be a fail game.Reagus said:
There are 2 videos and an essay which compare the games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvZJqZiZ_as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87YdIcXBn4I
http://www.newerth.com/smf/index.php/topic,10403.0.html
Entirely different combat:
Savage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EaaRoACrk
Savage 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzcPUjivtk0
I hope it helped
sounds like a great idea to me, i'd definatly buy one if it came out
he has played a lot of jrpgs and has liked some of them i think, this is more an issue of not liking controll systems and prefering character based stories. the jrpg hate is because the way he sees it stories in them are too long winded and full of bullshit.s69-5 said:
I've only just discovered Zero Punctuation, and I must say, well done, Yahtzee. It's been a good long while since reviews have made me laugh so much.
I would think the easiest way to discourage griefers on the FPS level of the game would be to give RTS commanders a chance to retaliate - FPS players might not be inclined to cause trouble with an enormous battleship hovering over their heads...
Re: Starcraft, I quite enjoy it as an RTS, but as I share Yahtzee's interest in character-centric games, I should point out that it's the single-player storyline that's kept my interest all these years; characters like Raynor, Zeratul, Mengsk and Kerrigan are absolutely the driving force of the plot, and I think that's really where Starcraft 2 excels. It could've easily fallen into the same trap as Warcraft 3 by making the cast subservient to the needs of the story (ie: why does Arthas go rogue? Well, apparently he was a galactic-level prat even before he "died").
On a more personal level, I've always had a bit of nostalgic affection for Starcraft, being one of the first games I ever played with a halfway-decent (let alone stunningly competent) female villain - between Katrina getting defanged in Quest for Glory V, Elexis Sinclair in Sin and yet another Tomb Raider game, I don't recall 1998 being a great year for female gamers. And then you had Kerrigan's character arc, ending with her manipulating and outwitting every other faction, and completely laying waste to armies three times larger than hers. Queen ***** of the Universe indeed.
I would think the easiest way to discourage griefers on the FPS level of the game would be to give RTS commanders a chance to retaliate - FPS players might not be inclined to cause trouble with an enormous battleship hovering over their heads...
Re: Starcraft, I quite enjoy it as an RTS, but as I share Yahtzee's interest in character-centric games, I should point out that it's the single-player storyline that's kept my interest all these years; characters like Raynor, Zeratul, Mengsk and Kerrigan are absolutely the driving force of the plot, and I think that's really where Starcraft 2 excels. It could've easily fallen into the same trap as Warcraft 3 by making the cast subservient to the needs of the story (ie: why does Arthas go rogue? Well, apparently he was a galactic-level prat even before he "died").
On a more personal level, I've always had a bit of nostalgic affection for Starcraft, being one of the first games I ever played with a halfway-decent (let alone stunningly competent) female villain - between Katrina getting defanged in Quest for Glory V, Elexis Sinclair in Sin and yet another Tomb Raider game, I don't recall 1998 being a great year for female gamers. And then you had Kerrigan's character arc, ending with her manipulating and outwitting every other faction, and completely laying waste to armies three times larger than hers. Queen ***** of the Universe indeed.