On RTS Games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

League of Legends is a great mix of an RTS and a more conventional RPG style thing. It's made by some of the same people who made DoTA

Hm, I think I'd play that game. Or at least give it a fair go.

I was going to, right away, bring up Natural Selection (because I'm in LOVE with that game), but I see everyone already beat me to it. I also see some people mentioned the Empires mod as well. Another good one. However I think it's ironic and certainly very funny that both games are absolutely plagued by the problems that Yahtzee himself mentioned in this review. If you've played NS at all then you know that you'll have your commander and team barking at you constantly to "DO THIS OR THAT YESTERDAY, NOW!!" or at least to not suck. All they care about is the win and this one aspect can turn action people off right away. Certainly you could play as the aliens and not have a commander but then it's "Who built defense chambers first!?! NOOBS!". Honestly I wish I could talk to Yahtzee and tell him to get in touch with Unknown Worlds Entertainment before Natural Selection 2 comes out. He, quite frankly, has some brilliant ideas and they are certainly a very community driven developer.

Thank god...no starcraft!!!

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.

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".

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!

"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.

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.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
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.

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

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.

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

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

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. ^^

yeah and the commercials for halo reach make it look like a CGI movie. The fact is it's well known enough for them to just use flashy images to remind fans that its out.
Imagine if every ad for Coke had to explain that it was a drink.

I'm surprised that someone like you who bashes his viewers/readers because they stick it 'safe' 'with games is not even willing to give rts's a try.

He didn't say he's never tried them.
Oh wait, your one of those guys that looks for hypocrisy in every internet article. Wouldn't want to interfere with your sad life, carry on.

I think we all know what happens next:

The fanboys will wail and wail for months on end, eventually he will cave,. just as with Borderlands and Smash Bros Brawl, and then he will review Starcraft II. He won't like it, will tear it apart in a review, and all of the fanboys won't understand how he couldn't like it despite his having expressed the opinion several times.

History repeats itself people.

Anyway, nice idea, but I don't personally think the two can ever be integrated fully. FPS/3rdPS players want that freedom to do what they want, RTS players want total control. The two don't mesh, not now not ever.

not ever, that's a really creative way too look at things. Just like the idea of controlling huge armies instead of one solder would "never work, not now, not ever"
BTW it doesn't matter if he likes a game or not, his job is to tear it apart. I think the people requesting this game would understand that. It's the only reason people watch the videos. Only a very idiotic person would watch it to decide what he or she should and shouldn't buy.

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?

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

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


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)

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.

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.

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.

I'd so play this.

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

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.

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.

he picked a RTS that RTS fans dont like and would be easy to rip on

its like basing your view of FPS on Chex quest (if you spent $100 AUS on it)

I never had the patience or the required grade of manic megalomania to properly play RTS games. The actual strategy is no being bored out of your mind before your enemy does, and making the biggest army, I never really felt there was much 'strategy' to it. Also, once you define the best route to win a game, it all becomes like playing a song, if you wanna do it properly, play all the notes in the right order.

I for one played Age of Empires II's quick matches against the CPU, but just played architect and built my perfect utopia. Or drew genitalia using wooden walls, depending on the situation.

don't know if this has been said yet (too lazy to comb through the comments), but here's my two cents on a meta game. rts guys run bases, building defenses and fortifications. for income, resource gathering would be done ala Metal Fatigue, where commanders build solar panels to collect energy. fps guys would choose a loadout (maybe create characters mmorpg style?), and go to work. commanders would see everything, so could communicate via voicechat, telling the troops where the enemy is, where to set an ambush, etc. racers would be scouts; as the base gets enough funds and the right building, the commander can build better and better vehicles. pilots, well, duh. rpg style, with exp and levels. after so many levels, the player has the option of going free agent and joining an outfit. of course, different factions and outfits would come with different bonuses/perks to keep gameplay balanced.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Extra Punctuation: On RTS Games

No, Yahtzee will not be reviewing StarCraft 2.

Read Full Article

What if you took the 40k warhammer dawn of war 2 approach to RTS and applied it to your idea?

For example:

People can choose to be either the leader or in charge of on one small unit or a special like a tank.
If the peeps that all being lead doesn't listen to the leader's orders... they lose bonuses to damage, a minimap radar, experience points, powers, and possible help from others on their team.

The leader has a top down look while the squads have a third person perspective.
The other players have three or five man squads that they lead and outfit based on money or experience points they earn in the battlefield. They get double the experience points if they are lead by a leader player.
The leader loses a squad and becomes one man on the battlefield needing the help of the other players to win the battle. But if the battle is won, the leader can either spread the experience/wealth with the team or horde for himself. So people can play as either a douche or a team player.

You could also allow the other players to be able to mutiny against the leader and take his stuff or give the leadership to someone better fit for the role.

I could see something like that occuring... but a starcraft2 or comand&conquer style RTS wouldn't work.

One free online game, Battle Swarm, does combine RTS and FPS by having them compete dorectly against each other. FPS for the humans, each individualy powerful but not as numerous. RTS for the insects, thier 'hive mind' coordinating them and using thier numbers to try and overwhelm the humans, though each individual bug isn't that powerful. It's just the sort of thing Yhatzee was talking about for cross-platform interaction, except you know not FPS mercs helping RTS generals, and I wonder if he knows about it. I'd mention it to him in an e-mail but I'm afraid he'd just laugh, call me a tosser, make me faceless retard #347 for the next vid, and call it a day. After setting a small puppy on fire of course.

While I'm not a hue fan of the Command and Conquer franchise, CnC: Renegade was an interesting development. Basically, it took the setting of the RTS games and put you in it from an FPS perspective, seeing the story from ground level.

Also, Yahtzee... maybe the FPS players could be playing a rail shooter where the rails are directed by the commander?

What is this? 1994?
Rail shooters died out for a reason and were only brought back to life so the Wii could say "look! We can do violence too." The only way they could be made these days would be if there was some kind of narrative stringing you along like in Resident Evil: UC or if there's a certain je ne sais quoi that makes you want to keep playing like the humour and direction of House of the Dead. Those weren't exactly feature game either. The only way that would work would be as a bolted on mini game really. If you made it part of core gameplay then the RTS player will just think it's a waste of time. If you tried to make it a crossover, why would the FPS fan want to do what someone else tells him to do? Why wouldn't he just play a game where he's the hero?

Therein lies the rub. While I have to say the concept outlined in the article is an intriguing one, in a time of continued financially uncertainty, I don't think any dev would risk it. It seems like every genre has its fans and the devs are just drumming to their song. No envelopes are being pushed. Last game I bought was Metro 2033. A pretty impressive game in terms of atmospherics. It has some glaring flaws but it's good enough. But on the face of it, there's nothing new going on there. Nothing new has happened for a good while now that I can remember. The whole gaming industry seems to have reversed into a ditch and they need something pretty big to push themselves back out.

im too lazy to read all the posts.
i think that idea for a rts/fps hybrid is great. an old game called savage tried it, but since the commander had no units he could directly control there was no strategy element.
give fps players cool guns and powers they can use when "on mission"(airstikes hooray for airstikes, medevac, purchase vehicles mabye) and give the rts players weak but buildable mobile gun turrets, and remote control tanks and planes (like we have already, see SWORDS, NLOS, and Reaper)that can be directly controlled by the rts player and you could have some real fun. but i dont think you could mmo it, at least not fully.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here