On RTS Games

[Valkyrie1981]

If I do remember he did give RTS's a try... the Halo on.... As good as Starcraft 2 is I am sure the same problems would pop up.

The problem I have with RTSs is that it will always boil down to 1 Strategy or the game will force you to use 1 Strategy... They are very much like rail shooters.

 

[Dhatz]

you see the problem exactly same as me, which means we both don't playstrategies ebcause of the impersonality. And it wuldn't be hard to add it, imagine battle center which has the played remotely controling chief battlemech and sending other units, so it would mix RTS and FPS/TPS. Voila,you have the formula to build SC2-killer and RTS-bringer for many players. And don't forget to get rid of the everpresent darkness remaining from dark ages of strategy games when in "strategic overview" mode. And as user before already mentioned, it must not feel like player is supposed to find the best strategy for given scenario, as there must not be any "indended strategy".

 

[Adventurer2626]

I've had that very idea you mentioned but never could get around the free will problem either. I'll leave it up to more creative, dedicated minds to bridge the gap between RTS commanders and first/third person shooters. Maybe constrain the players to playing only for the side they play on but besides that they can do whatever from doing what the commanders suggests as targets to standing there sucking on your gun barrel to playing water polo on the naval boats. May the least incompetent army win!

 

[gamegod25]

"The WarCraft series had quite an in-depth one before World of WarCraft came along and froze it into a single moment of time."

That's not true. The story continued with every expansion and update. The Lich King has finally been defeated, and with Cataclysm the entire world is going to be changed.

Not bashing you because it's something you probably wouldn't know if you don't play WoW. Just wanted to point out that there is a story and it has been constantly changing and advancing.

 

[MasterKirov]

Reading this reminded me of playing Savage 2 - it had some nice ideas, but it was ruined because of the little players running around yelling "NEXUS!!!!" or whatever.

 

[ecoho]

Extra Punctuation: On RTS Games

No, Yahtzee will not be reviewing StarCraft 2.

Read Full Article

thank you i know you hate RTS games so haveing you reveiw it would be a painfull experiance all around and would cause a flame war the like of witch has not been seen since halo3's reveiw so thank you for not reveiwing it.

 

[J-Alfred]

A man doesn't have to review games he doesn't want to. No matter what his fans say.

 

[Mycreativename]

an RTS with FPS mercenary elements... that does sound cool. But how would mercenaries win? Don't they automatically win no matter what because it doesn't matter which RTS general wins? Anyway, that sounds like a bad ass concept.

 

[Razorback0z]

I will gladly officiate at the ceremony to strip you of title as a gamer

I too suck at RTS but it is a foundation genre, got noob ?

 

[Bloodstain]

Or what if you did a First/Third Person shooter vs. the RTS, with the player playing the RTS taking the role of like say the AI director thing from Left for Dead, and they can lay traps, change the environment, or move units and the like.

Check out Zombie Master. ^^

 

[beema]

Some pretty interesting ideas there on genre-mixing. I'm pretty pessimistic about it ever working out though. As you mentioned, the human element usually just screws it all up.

I actually like RTS games, despite being godawful at them, for some reason. Played through most of the C&C games, SC, Warcrafts, etc.
From what I've seen, it looks as though your desire for a central character to follow through the game is actually what happens in SC2.

Oh, and for fracks sake, stop referencing the Roger Ebert thing! This is like the 4th goddamn time in a row you've brought it up. Who cares anymore?

 

[gxs]

Natural Selection 2 is similar to what Yahtzee described.
Maybe he could review that when it comes out.

 

[Arronax]

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

Ditto

 

[Canid117]

I like your idea though I would probably try to exterminate the mercenaries if they got on my nerves. It would be even better if I could play a one v one game with a friend and grief the mercs if they got too annoying. (Which would certainly happen)

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

I remember thinking back in the day with friends about making an 'omnigame' as you put it. It's an interesting idea and yours is even fairly well fleshed out [in comparison].

It also correlates to [what I'm sure is currently] a hot topic -- the notion of a Starcraft MMORPG.

I'm not a big RTS fan either. It seems like an awfully big learning curve to get from casual -> beating the single player campaign -> multiplayer. In my younger years with SC1 I'd always opt for the tower defense or players vs cps on battlenet.

 

[Continuity]

The problem with the omnigame yahtzee describes (and we've all dreamed of previously), is simply that the game for a whole bunch of people will pivot around the commander (i.e. the RTS player) if they don't take it seriously, or aren't up to scratch, or leave mid game - thats going to mess up the gameplay for everyone else in the game... However I'd like to see it done, who knows, maybe it would be the best thing since counterstrike.

 

[Tdc2182]

Yahtzee
Here's my proposal. Start with the standard RTS model - two players directly controlling two warring armies of units across a massive battlefield. But also spawning on the map is a third group. Mercenaries, individual warriors controlled by human players as in a third person sandbox shooter. They can do whatever they want. Fight amongst themselves, fight troops of either side, blow places up, steal vehicles, basically everything they could do in, say, Just Cause 2.

Or, make it so that they person who is on the RTS side and is controlling the characters is actually fighting the people who are experiencing it first person.

The RTS player has the advantage of seeing the battlefield and all available roots and combat decisions to take while the "Commando" players have the advantage of human reaction.

 

[Da Ork]

I'd so play this.

 

[MercurySteam]

I stopped expecting Yahtzee to reveiw RTS games a looooooong time ago. This was no surprise, but at least he reviewed Halo Wars.

 

[Dody16]

I actually like the idea here. I play RTS's, but I've never been a dedicated player (I lose when I play against other people). In the game idea described, I think I would be more inclined to be a mercenary.

I do also see a lot of problems with it though. What if we have too many players playing one, and not enough the other? Would we, for example, have a battlefield full of mercenaries doing whatever they want while two armies are just starting to get their base up and running? How would the game pace? could we find a tempo that is just right for both types of players?

It would be hard, and therefore probably not a good game unless a lot of consideration and effort go in to it, but it at least seems like it has potential.