On RTS Games

[The Mythmaker]

An interesting idea, but ultimately unworkable, in my opinion.

The same things that make me love Starcraft and hate RISK would be in full force: arbitrary victory. The ability of the defenders to win when outnumbered by a factor of five would likewise make the system you propose much of the same, with the variance a result of skill level instead of luck. Further, systems like this have been tried, though admittedly not to the degree you propose, in games like MAG (APB?).

Another problem is that, unfortunately, this sort of project is not well suited for market. Single player would have to conform to either the RTS or FPS part of its multiplayer, or would simply be removed in hopes of promoting multiplayer play. The latter, which has has been the case with games that have done this in recent years, has proven to be a blunder, and the former would simply be seen as a tack-on to the multiplayer.

In the end, it just seems unworkable.

As for the start of the article, I'm willing to give you a by, despite my opinion on the matter. You've reviewed an RTS before, though it seems you didn't like it. And making the sort of procolomation you did without even considering the quality (or lack therof) of the game seems to me to be a bit unprofessional. I'm not going to tell you to review the game; that is your perogative, and I'm not going to tell you how to do your job. But as someone who has played the game, I recommend you at least try to play it.

 

[Playbahnosh]

Actually, there IS a game like that. It's called Free Allegiance, the freeware continuation of the old Microsoft space simulator Allegiance. It's totally free to play, and you get exactly the same gameplay described in that article.

There are two or more waring factions placed on a huge map, divided into smaller sectors connected with jumpgates. There is one player elected as Commander, and he mostly plays from an RTS point of view. He builds stations and buildings, sends out miners, researches new tech, places turrets/mindfields/etc, and he can order his team around. While his team, also consisting of real players, can fly ships of all kinds, fight and either be team players and do what the commander says (if they are more experienced they already know where they can help out the most so go there), or they can totally disregard orders and just fly around goofing off. But at this point, the Commander most likely will boot(kick) the renegade player from the game. Of course the Commander is not a demigod. If the team feels he is not suited for the job or messes up big time repeatedly, the team can mutiny and elect a new commander on the spot.

Its a really old game with really dated graphics, and it really sunk into obscurity so not many people know about it, but it does exist, and there is a very active - albeit small - playerbase. The learning curve is like a brick wall, so members of the community actually put together a Cadet training program, where new players can volunteer and experienced members teach them the basics of the game. Like a live, personal tutorial. Then there is Cadet II and the Command School, where eager players can learn more advanced stuff and how play as a commander. It's a really great game when you get past the obviously lacking graphics, because the gameplay and the community is great.

 

[greenflash]

Seems that the RTS/FPS crossover would be more fun for the FPS players than the RTS ones. I wouldn't know, I've never bothered to play one myself, but I think I'd have a lot more fun picking up orders and doing missions from an actual human player that I can talk to to give me supplies to help me on my mission than sitting back and hoping that the guy I picked to do the job isn't a total dick and won't just take your money and run. Still, kinda adds some realism since the world is like that. People are dicks, there's no escaping that fact, and FPS players are probably the biggest dicks of them all; I should know, I am one.

then the RTS players will team up and destroy the dicks. RTS players are not fools and in most RTS game there is a team up order.
It also brings into question of who has the real power here. I mean obviously the commander has command of all of his units and a base the size of Texas, but once a merc is involved then it's really the merc who calls the shots because they can just tell the commander to go screw themselves and sabotage the mission if the commander tries to push things too far. However, the commander is the one who has the cash and the stuff that the merc needs so there's a little bending to the commander's will to do if you want that shiny new gun, jet fighter, APC or tank.

It's kind of symbiotic and would work in theory, you've just got to know who to trust; which, as I said before, when it comes to FPS players that's no easy task.

 

[timax]

wasn't the PC game savage an rts/fps?

 

[SAMAS]

I should've known you didn't play RTS' after your ExPunc about Kinect/Move.

But an RTS where you get to actually join the action? Already been done at least twice:

Batallion Wars and BWii for the Gamecube and Wii [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeO3233fBKw]

Battlezone 2 for the PC [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGJXk03TLkw]

 

[Daemonate]

I know he hates RTS, but if he played it, he would not rip it apart - because the single player storyline is fantastic, and he will get caught up in it. On lower difficulties it's very newbie-friendly, the branching missions let you skip things you find too hard or annoying, and the super RPG-style upgrades between missions can let you breeze through the annoying bits.

Anyone can absolultely have a blast and would admit it was a fun game if they played it - I'm astonished to admit it, but the single player campaign is just amazing.

 

[Tyrant T100]

Zombie Master is a pretty fun hl2 mod that's a fps/rts hybrid.
One player chosen at random is the Zombie Master; he conjures and controls legions of the undead to slay the humans.
Meanwhile the humans have to work together in FPS mode to fight against the undead hordes.

It actually works really really well and I certainly suggest trying it if you haven't.
Think L4D if a 5th player controlled the AI director.

 

[Thedarkestofsouls]

Yahtzee, sign me up for that game!

And while you're at it, throw in a pair of those nuclear pogo sticks.

 

[Clockwork Scarecrow.]

I do enjoy WarCraft as a strategy game, I only have WarCraft three. You get the fun of a pseudo-rpg and can send in your commander in to help if the minions can't handle it.

It really drew me in to Azeroth as well.

 

[Captain Pancake]

I suppose on a difficulty curve level that system could work quite well. Early on Generals would only have a small amount of resources to pay with, but the tasks required would be simple enough to only warrant such small rewards. As the Generals build and develop, so too do the mercenaries and their arsenals, and they have to pay more and more for larger tasks. What could be interesting is special, commando units that the general could hire that would be tougher than their basic infantry, and geared toward the specific goal of fending off the PC mercs. They would come in similarly sized squads, but would work as a team thanks to the AI control. This would force the mercs to work together similarly, which would worm out petty griefers. Again, this all depends upon play testing, but it could work for both types of players, as specific attack orders from the generals would appear as mission objectives for the mercs. The only problem would be how to incorporate a graphical system that was pleasing enough for the Mercs but didn't wreak too much havoc on the General's CPUs.

 

[Valdsator]

I like how WWII Online did it. I'm not exactly sure how it worked, that's because I haven't played the game enough, but I believe there were these HQ guys looking over the whole campaign (campaigns are basically the war in Europe, that restart whenever one faction takes over, which can take weeks/months). HQ suggest what towns to attack, who needs support, etc. Then you have 3 different groups on each faction. Army, Airforce, Navy. After choosing one of those you choose an "attack group." (forget what they're actually called) These attack groups have orders/goals to take over a town, defend one, or attempt to take out an attacking camp of the other faction.

In the army, you can be an Airborne trooper, a normal infantry, or a vehicle driver. Trucks are used to set up spawn points by the battlefield, so infantry can spawn closer than the attack camp. There's a limit to how close you can get, though. You can also drive armored vehicles, and use AA guns. I remember a time in a huge city battle, 5 tanks in a row came in once we cleared an area, and told us to hop on so we could get to another part of the battle. Quickly after getting off, the tank I was sitting on blew up, so it felt like a movie. Airforce spawn at an airbase and have orders to either support the infantry in a battle, whether it be through destroying attacking planes, or attempting to destroy the vehicles and infantry on the ground. Some airforce attack groups also might have bombing orders, to destroy attacking/defending ships, or to bomb the hell out of the infantry. Navy have boats, of course. I haven't played as them, but it's basically the same thing as the other groups. Support and attack, except in water.

It may not have a complete RTS element, and racing fans aren't going to get some Lamborghini to run over infantry with, but I think it combines many genres extremely well, and it being an MMO, some people messing around isn't a problem. Note, I haven't played the game in a while, so some of this information might not be completely true.

 

[NostalgiaImitator]

SC2 does the RTS basics right. Dawn of War 1 kept these basics and then added a slightly different type of combat. Company of Heroes took that and made RTS combat a much more interesting experience.

SC2 is not innovative like DOW and COH, but it is a solid RTS. It is easy to get into and has a interesting campaign. I was worried Blizzard would do a DOW 2 or it would be a standard RTS, but somehow they just made it do the basics so well that it is a great game you can play again and again.

Why you wouldn't review a game with a good story line, easy on noobs, and different from your FPSs that you whine about never changing, is beyond me. It's not that you don't understand the genre, it's that you don't like it.

 

[Fearzone]

Me and probably most people suck at RTSs when they first start playing them. That was, I found, the appeal: to become good at something I'm bad at. I mean I suck at brawlers too but there was no appeal to become good since the gameplay is just too... basic. RTSs are deep and rich and overcoming the growing pains of multitasking and resource management rewards the effort with enjoyment in spades. Being God looking down upon an army and sending sacrificial lambs to their death is a sadistic bliss no first-person perspective can provide. Moment to moment decisions between spamming troops and teching up is the slot machine equivalent of multiplayer with all the same addictive fun. It is a taste that is worth acquiring.

 

[Fearzone]

I should've known you didn't play RTS' after your ExPunc about Kinect/Move.

But an RTS where you get to actually join the action? Already been done at least twice:

Batallion Wars and BWii for the Gamecube and Wii [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeO3233fBKw]

Battlezone 2 for the PC [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGJXk03TLkw]

Battlezone 1 I loved, and it was similar but sadly underappreciated.

Also Brutal Legend, and we saw how well that went over in Zero Punctuation. I thought it was great though, probably my favorite game of 2009.

Also battlegrounds in World of Warcraft play like RTSs, to the degree that other players are willing to listen to me instruct them how to play. Many times it is just a bunch of idiots running around like retards. But often a group will appreciate one of the experienced players taking on an organizational role.

 

[ark123]

Well, since Natural Selection came up in every page of comments, I'll add my voice to the chorus. It was awesome, it was hard as fuck, and you could play it as a RTS, as a FPS with guns, or as a FPS with alien abilities. It was everything an AVP game should be, and more.
This is not to say that it would work if you had 200 people on each side, but you can do 10x10 easily, and if the commander is good he even makes up for people who can't shoot for shit.

 

[lolnoobzor]

I see a lot of people have mentioned Savage, but has anyone talked about Planetside? I have very very fond memories of that game, it was basically Battlefield inside an MMORPG. Never found anything quite like it since.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Savage: Battle for Newearth is already 7 years ahead of you Yahtzee.
That and like, 4 other games.

It's a good concept nonetheless, but the truth is that gamers do not want to take orders from anyone; it's an ego trip. The sole reason it works in the MMORPG scenario is because without competent cooperation, they aren't getting their shinies. The same idea is what drove the level-grind races in Diablo 2; and why that game is now a whole different load of boring "Why fucking bother?".

If I haven't made this perfectly clear yet; the GRIND is the motivation, nothing else (ok, maybe social obligations and friendships matter too, but that just means you have friends).

People might assume that WINNING would be a good reason to follow orders, but everyone has their own idea of how to win (and most of them are dead wrong or plain awful at tactics/strategy). This was the chief problem with Savage, and every other game of this type; while mob strategies can beat any individual, it can't beat true cooperation.

I've had games of Savage where my 4 LAN buddies listened to my orders and accomplished far more than the other 16-17 players on my team, and I won't claim to be anything beyond competent.

 

[4484448444844484]

IIRC there was this free space sim/RTS that was something like that called Allegiance.

EDIT: Also, in Battlefield 2 and 2142 with the commander it's basically this.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Yeah, I have not interest in star craft 2 either.

Good game idea though...

 

[RicoADF]

Extra Punctuation: On RTS Games

No, Yahtzee will not be reviewing StarCraft 2.

Read Full Article

RTS already works with FPS, its called ArmA II and its expansion Operation Arrowhead. I recommend you give them a try Yatzee, they openess will suprise even you.

EDIT: btw the mission you can do that in is Warfare and another is CTI. Suggest you try bennys warfare tho.