On RTS Games
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Upon the laziness of reading the last 7 pages of comments I may just be parroting what someone else said, but the latest installments of the battlefield saga have perfected a pretty nice system of commander-commandee that works pretty well.
Particularely in Battlefield 2142, the commander submits the request the get in command and is voted by a simple yay or nay keystroke on the fly by the whole team (in case of more than one candidates, I think it was decided by rank/exeperience in game). And the dynamic works amazingly well with people's free will, since it had a unique common interest in mind: every player gets a better in game score if they were to follow the commander's orders (commander got more points if he got his troops to score his particular commands). So as it is, the omniscient guy had a great view of the battlefield and could issue "attack here, defend there" orders and, most importantly, direct tactical EMP and orbital bombardments towards the enemy armor and troops, while also deploying care packages to forward munition and health to the troops, and even large and localized sensor scans to help the team figure out where the enemy was, giving them the edge when they needed to capture or defend a certain flag. All of this rendered the larger score to both players who acquitted their commanders ruling, and commanders who correctly deployed their orders in the most helpful manner. The better teams, with a close cooperation between commander and troops, inevitably won by having an edge against more disorganized squads.
This has proven to be a masterfully articulated system and quite the foothold on what Yahtzee relayed as a simple "possibility". I'm kinda bummered no one seems to have given him the heads up of how this already exists and works well.
Particularely in Battlefield 2142, the commander submits the request the get in command and is voted by a simple yay or nay keystroke on the fly by the whole team (in case of more than one candidates, I think it was decided by rank/exeperience in game). And the dynamic works amazingly well with people's free will, since it had a unique common interest in mind: every player gets a better in game score if they were to follow the commander's orders (commander got more points if he got his troops to score his particular commands). So as it is, the omniscient guy had a great view of the battlefield and could issue "attack here, defend there" orders and, most importantly, direct tactical EMP and orbital bombardments towards the enemy armor and troops, while also deploying care packages to forward munition and health to the troops, and even large and localized sensor scans to help the team figure out where the enemy was, giving them the edge when they needed to capture or defend a certain flag. All of this rendered the larger score to both players who acquitted their commanders ruling, and commanders who correctly deployed their orders in the most helpful manner. The better teams, with a close cooperation between commander and troops, inevitably won by having an edge against more disorganized squads.
This has proven to be a masterfully articulated system and quite the foothold on what Yahtzee relayed as a simple "possibility". I'm kinda bummered no one seems to have given him the heads up of how this already exists and works well.
Not surprised by this news, good to know beforehand there won't be any, I loved Starcraft, but since RTS moved to 3d, I lost interest, and I will force myself to point defects I can find in any fps as well, but I'll stick to FPS in the end.
Well, I look forward to ZP's next review.
Well, I look forward to ZP's next review.
Not everything is for everyone. Personally I'm enjoying SC2, but there have been plenty of great games I just couldn't get into (Arkham Asylum comes to mind) so to each their own.
What I would like to point out is two things, first that the 'everyone plays their own game' thing has been sort of done in the past already, Planetside allowed you to play as a frontline soldier, a mechanic who kept the base running, a pilot whizzing about, a tank driver maneuvering through a battlefield, or a small team of commandos infiltrating the secure facility. It was far from perfect, but it worked pretty well and had a good blend of different gametypes. I don't know of another game that allowed you to go from commander (platoon leader, you could only give directions and set waypoints but that was almost always enough, especially if it wasn't a pick-up group) to commando (infiltrating and wrecking the enemy facility) in the same game during the same play. It can work, and it can work well.
And yeah, the RTS commander+FPS soldiers thing has already been done quite a few times, and in some pretty big name games. Battlefield 2142 had a pretty good balance IMHO, though the Empires mod is also pretty good (Battlefield tends to have more focus on the FPS, with the commander aiding the soldiers, whereas empires has more focus on RTS, with the commander building all the tech, weapons and armor).
What I would like to point out is two things, first that the 'everyone plays their own game' thing has been sort of done in the past already, Planetside allowed you to play as a frontline soldier, a mechanic who kept the base running, a pilot whizzing about, a tank driver maneuvering through a battlefield, or a small team of commandos infiltrating the secure facility. It was far from perfect, but it worked pretty well and had a good blend of different gametypes. I don't know of another game that allowed you to go from commander (platoon leader, you could only give directions and set waypoints but that was almost always enough, especially if it wasn't a pick-up group) to commando (infiltrating and wrecking the enemy facility) in the same game during the same play. It can work, and it can work well.
And yeah, the RTS commander+FPS soldiers thing has already been done quite a few times, and in some pretty big name games. Battlefield 2142 had a pretty good balance IMHO, though the Empires mod is also pretty good (Battlefield tends to have more focus on the FPS, with the commander aiding the soldiers, whereas empires has more focus on RTS, with the commander building all the tech, weapons and armor).
That's actually... a really good idea. Granted, a developer can't be bothered to (And would probably require more space than a standard CD could store) make more than one systems to play a game by, although Splinter Cell: Double Agent did, so maybe there is hope.
Myself, I like RTS games (Mostly I've just played a bit of Command and Conqueror and Warcraft III), but I'm awful at them. I have this bad habit of building towers to defend myself at the start and neglecting to build many troops.
Myself, I like RTS games (Mostly I've just played a bit of Command and Conqueror and Warcraft III), but I'm awful at them. I have this bad habit of building towers to defend myself at the start and neglecting to build many troops.
I'm glad several people mentioned Savage, it's a good game by a better company. This also means that for once I'm disappointed in Yahtzee for not doing enough research 
Um...why was this called "On RTS games" when Yahtzee never spoke of RTS games in it? He talked about his "awesome" idea for MMO and how RTS players could fit in it, but nothing more.
Anyway, thumbs up for Carl von Clausewitz reference.
P.S. If this wasn't a Clausewitz reference, but a lucky strike I would laugh.
P.S.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_War
P.S.S.S. Someone pointed out earlier that Yahtzee criticized Nintendo fans for not trying new things. They are probably laughing all the way to McDonalds right now.
Anyway, thumbs up for Carl von Clausewitz reference.
P.S. If this wasn't a Clausewitz reference, but a lucky strike I would laugh.
P.S.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_War
P.S.S.S. Someone pointed out earlier that Yahtzee criticized Nintendo fans for not trying new things. They are probably laughing all the way to McDonalds right now.
There's that one mod for Source where one team plays a bunch of survivors, and the other is one guy in an RTS-mode with an army of zombies. That seems pretty cool, right?
You reviewed Brütal Legend, play this.
I would call myself "not a fan" of RTS's, only ever playing StarCraft when my friend brought it over for the N64, and cheating my way through the last few missions of Warcraft 3 and Frozen Throne, however (and this may be pushed aside as simple Blizzard fanboyism) but I loved SC2. The single player is so much more than a RTS and playing it through normal as I did never requires much after you produce lots of the units that are designed to beat the level until they throw a wrench in your plan and make you make a army of a different unit to counter said wrench. But through its simplicity, the few moments where you feel that your absolutely screwed, and you barely squeak through makes it that much better, and is sparse enough to allow access to those who only bought it for the new tower defense maps to play through, or give challenge to the South Korean juggernauts that make a living playing the original.
More towards the article, I don't buy that you because this isn't your sort of thing your not going to play it. To me it is the same as someone not playing Limbo because they don't like black and white. Your reason for objecting is completely irrelevant to the fact that it is a good game, and if a game is large enough, as revered as SC2 is, and obviously important enough to write an article about why you DON'T want to review it should override your distaste for the genre.
While I do see the value of objecting to some games on taste, and would prefer to not hear every review for KittyPuff Adventure for Kinect, this is a game that is obviously a big enough force in the hardcore gaming culture that deserves attention, and not the kind it is getting from you now.
I would call myself "not a fan" of RTS's, only ever playing StarCraft when my friend brought it over for the N64, and cheating my way through the last few missions of Warcraft 3 and Frozen Throne, however (and this may be pushed aside as simple Blizzard fanboyism) but I loved SC2. The single player is so much more than a RTS and playing it through normal as I did never requires much after you produce lots of the units that are designed to beat the level until they throw a wrench in your plan and make you make a army of a different unit to counter said wrench. But through its simplicity, the few moments where you feel that your absolutely screwed, and you barely squeak through makes it that much better, and is sparse enough to allow access to those who only bought it for the new tower defense maps to play through, or give challenge to the South Korean juggernauts that make a living playing the original.
More towards the article, I don't buy that you because this isn't your sort of thing your not going to play it. To me it is the same as someone not playing Limbo because they don't like black and white. Your reason for objecting is completely irrelevant to the fact that it is a good game, and if a game is large enough, as revered as SC2 is, and obviously important enough to write an article about why you DON'T want to review it should override your distaste for the genre.
While I do see the value of objecting to some games on taste, and would prefer to not hear every review for KittyPuff Adventure for Kinect, this is a game that is obviously a big enough force in the hardcore gaming culture that deserves attention, and not the kind it is getting from you now.
That was the first thing I thought reading this. NS was my Half-Life mod-of-choice for quite some time. My friend and I were in the early Beta for that, and played all the way through until version 3. Great stuff - I think NS2 comes out some time this year or next.Bobic said:
I like RTS games, my favourite series is the Dawn of War series, I also don't like Starcraft and don't give a crap about Starcraft 2. I can completely understand why someone would not like RTS games, I can think of something bad about every kind of game and I accept the fact that people are looking forward to Starcraft 2, I'm just not one of them, but I do like RTS games.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but check out a source mod called Zombie Master.
One player is the ZM; he spawns and controls a variety of AI zombies, activates traps (such as blowing bridges, shorting electronic doors, etc), and just generally has a good time with the players, while the others spawn in first person mode, and have to fight their way through the mission like normal, with a variety of guns and melee weapons.
It's amazing - take a look.
One player is the ZM; he spawns and controls a variety of AI zombies, activates traps (such as blowing bridges, shorting electronic doors, etc), and just generally has a good time with the players, while the others spawn in first person mode, and have to fight their way through the mission like normal, with a variety of guns and melee weapons.
It's amazing - take a look.
Hell, you've reviewed games you didn't want to in the past. You reviewed Final Fantasy for gossakes. I think you're just getting senile.
the RTS arent for everyone i mean their fun if you have time on your hands but its better to be in the action actually moving around then just selecting a buch of troops leading them into a ambush you know is there. A RTS is like chess each move can either set you or screw you. yeah its fun to spawn countless troops then send them to their doom if its a RTS where there death animation is funny but its no all out war killing game.
I bet someone already pointed this out to you, but I will do so tooYahtzee Croshaw said:
WoW Has not really frozen the story of WarCraft in a single moment of time. Unless you mean that every bit of the story is active at the same time all around the WoW world.
But the story as a whole has progressed quite a bit, at least through the expansions. And hell they are blowing up the friggin world in Cataclysm...
So yeah WoW isnt really that static anymore
What is this, I don't even...Yahtzee Croshaw said:
Any and all single-player experiences are played for the experience of playing them. Isn't that obvious?
The point at which Starcraft becomes, as you so put it, chess with an orchestral score, is in multiplayer, in terms of which Starcraft is the kobe beef to Bioshock's spam.