On RTS Games

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

That was the COOLEST sounding game Ive ever heard of.
It would be like MAG, only better... and FUN!
I would love to see what its like to merc then to run an army and try to bribe guys like me.

It would be hard to mix the damage/hit between rts and fps though. A merc with a snipe would expect his headshot to kill the lieutenant, but how would that correlate to the lieutenant being a good strong character in a mob of rts fighting?

Would contracting a merc make it easier to win fights against mobs? If they were allowed to easily kill key, important figures on the battlefield, that would ruin a commander's vat grown soldiers? Creating the idea of "is paying and arming a merc more or less worthwhile than using the same resources to make more troops?"

This concept has me so excited. Im sad I don't know how to program, or own a company that'll do that for me.

I' probably not the first person to have mentioned this (and there's no way I'm reading through 140 comments to find out) but although the idea could work, I think FPS' and RTS' are fine the way there are; kept seperate. I wouldn't buy an FPS so I could play rts elements as well and I wouldn't buy an RTS..... but if I did then vice versa.

terry pratchet refrences ftw!

I honestly prefer the idea at the ned with the free agent style people and the rts commanders, sounds like a great way to ruin freind ships if you're playing with mates though. otherwise with some refining it could work. it'd probably have to be more of a MMO for the mercinary bit though, so it'd probably just end up as a fusion of starcraft and WoW. Plus it's be a total compete and utter flop of you didn't take quite a bit of care with it, but if you did it right it might work.

the main problem i can see is the acctual games, if there's no rts players the mercs have nothing real to do, so you could probably set up a bunch of servers that would allow the rts players to drop in and out as they pleased and let their bases function or be taken over by another player. The only trouble there is that it encourages turtlling so my solution would be that your base will micro manage and deffend itself if you put it into afk mode, but that resorce production will drop to very low levels while you're gone until you come back, add to this a maintainace feature, something where you pay a certain charge depending on the building level and type and if you can't pay it you get that building demolished or knocked down a level. make sure that the resorce colection level is enough to support a level 1 infantry making building, a base, and a couple of resource harvesters. then you give the ability for the rts comanders to drop out for short periods of time and come back in, or hand control of their base as-is to another player who requests it. also i'd give the rts commanders the ability to price the equipment they sell, add an element of competition and keep the tech prices dynamic sort of thing. but ah well this is all hypothetical

I would play that game. Unless it turned out to be Bladestorm+.

I too can't really get on board with RTS games. I find I tend to get a sort of tunnel-vision, focusing on carefully building and crafting one small area while the rest of it goes to hell. When I get told there's a battle going on it takes me forever to find it, and by the time I do I've already had my ass handed to me.

And is the prospect of being hung up beside a raisin scone really that frightening?

Natural Selection is exactly what was described: an RTS/FPS with a God's-view commander and FPS-playing individual troops on the ground. It was a great game that really deserved more attention than it got; granted, it was "just" a HL1 mod, but so was Counter Strike. I feel like so much of this article/discussion here acts like the RTS-FPS hybrid thing is a hypothetical just to ponder about, when NS--and some other games, from what I hear--have actually done it, and quite well. The article basically went "wouldn't it be neat if we could do X? Well, it's impossible, so we'll settle for this other idea, Y," even though X was successfully done years ago.

Admittedly, Natural-Selection probably does demand more teamwork than most FPS games, and it might be more than some gamers are willing to give (particularly those that are the cliche X-Box Live players), so maybe the game was better off as a niche title instead of a major release.

That's an interesting idea that I've always wanted to see done. I've always thought that might be interesting to do that within a medieval fantasy setting. Basically, you'd have the RTS player running a kingdom or something (think Age of Empires, or maybe a Total War game), and have other people playing as adventurers ( you could even have D and D style classes, encouraging people to form groups). The RTS player posts quests and bounties and stuff. RTS players are trying to meet some kind of Civ style victory condition(s), while first/third person players want to level, get loot, etc. You could add in even more factors for quests. For example, have a bunch of kobolds harassing one of your cities, but you can't spare the troops to clean them out? Post a quest. You could create fetch quests by littering the world with baubles that provide a benefit to the side that gets them. Put in the family/general system from the Total War games, and you've got potential assassination/escort missions. There's a lot of possibilities there.

I for one force myself not to believe the hype. I don't see anything about SC2 that makes it any better or worse than any other AAA title out there. As for the reviewers only giving positive impressions, well don't get me started...

I have to say that I agree, I will not be getting Starcraft II wither. {Unless my wife decides to get it for me because the trailer has played over every single video I have watched on this site for the past few weeks. Yes, she has threaten to get it.}
A MMO war game is interesting. I would hate to see the development cost of such a thing, but something of that nature could rival World of Warcraft.

Isn't yahtzee a professional reviewer? He should at least give it a try before tossing it aside. I'm not saying he should be forced to play any given game, but when some game stirs up the gaming beehive like this it's kinda weird to just ignore it because it's not your cup of tea.

You could at least put a *subjectivism ahead* warning. Also RTS's are only mind bogglingly difficult when you go online, there is always the *build tons of units and attack* approach.

I hear ya Yahtzee, I don't give a shit about SC2 either.

Cool idea, Yahtzee.
I just think that for this to work the allegiance of the free agents must be unchangeable.

That way the free agents are at worst just useless to the general on their team (no friendly fire).

If you would allow the agents to swap sides, then playing as the general is going to be just too frustrating.

What you just said Yahtzee, sounded exactly like 2 games: Savage 2 and Majesty 2. Might want to look into them.

You know, MAG for the ps3 does this. And it works. I command 64 people, i give them rewards, objectives, incentives. I call in air strikes, gas grenades fromt sky, shooting runs. Its great. It feels weird when im NOT playing MAG as an RTS. What, i just get these guns and grenades?.
...lol but im a pretty good sniper as wel.

If the past 150 comments haven't mentioned it enough times, I would like to remind that there are both FPS/RTS hybrids (wonderful Battlezone) and RTSes where you control other players from above (Savage 2, i think?).

RTS for me...

I have been playing this genre (competitively) since I was around the age of 8 with the launch of Warcraft 2. Nothing has been more satisfying for me ever since. Yes, I dabbled in the world of MMO's. Yes I have raced the streets of various fake highways and alleys. Yes I have sniped and shotgunned every person who got smart enough to either enter my scopes or to try to assassinate me. Yes I have role played my fair share of turn based storylines that end the same way every time. Yes I have scrolled on two-dimensional platforms, collecting "x" items for extra lifes or power ups. Yes I have done tedious missions in a sandbox for hours on end to get my "rep" up. Yes i have boxed Mike Tyson and many other cookie-cutter versions of him.

But for the people who prefer puzzles with action rather than over it...
For the people who dine the fine wine of storylines...
For the people who play style comes out at max force in this genre...

Those are the people who make the RTS population.

'Cept for DotA freaks..

There's a Used Map Settings map on Star Craft Brood War that seemed to mix both Control and Freedom. It was Called Kings and Fighters, and the other one was called Overmind Defense. The point of both of them was to create units and give each player on your team control of certain units, so they can protect you while attacking the other team. It's actually a really simple game.

To be able to convert something like that into a "Strateshooter", the commander would have to be able to have enough resources to produce enough of a certain unit, which the team-mates pick, and go for the other team. The commander would say something like, "Friend1, pick the sniper and go to the top of the mountain and face east, Friend2, pick the Trooper and wait for Friend1 to fire the first shot, then attack everyone when they are focused on Friend1."

To be honest I think that's a pretty good idea but sadly no one's going to read this post

Interesting read. I can see how the concept of mixing several genres into one mega-game might be as appealing as it might be disastrous.

You've already addressed the initial problems I immediately thought of so instead:

Adding Racers to the game: Make them war time delivery boys or something. They need to deliver X component/ officer/ etc in a certain amount of time. Maybe while being chased in a NFS: Hot Pursuit style. Oh and add weapons (like Wipeout or even Mario Kart)

dude, that sounded so awesome i creamed myself. just kidding, but really. too bad jrpgs turn based shit would be left out of the fun.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Extra Punctuation: On RTS Games

YES, Yahtzee will be reviewing StarCraft 2.

Read Full Article

I fixed it for you as it looked like you wrote it wrong...

Oh wait! You didn't? What do you mean your not reviewing it? That's it, I've had enough of you ironic talk!

*sounds of a chainsaw with a swift scream*

That's it folks he won't be reviewing any game no more!

You know... I'd pay good money for a modern game that mixed FPS and RTS together. Maybe even play console-&-PC... the console guys are a limited number of special ops dudes with more health and weapon choices, the PC guy controls the RTS elements to give them boosts, build structures, and send in easy to kill but helpful support units to swarm positions. It'd basically be like fighting off a computer generated horde, but it'd be a player trying to nail you.

Normal FPS and RTS strategies wouldn't come into it as much, since there'd be more of a need for real tactics... after all, you're trying now to trick and conquer human opponents on the field of war, not just another guy who has access to the same limited pool of units and buildings, and on the FPS side, you can't count on normal tricks to beat the computer, since the real person can choose to negate you or focus on you, send waves, send one or two units to distract you, hide units then spring them on you...

...holy heck, this game could seriously kick ass! Anyone know Bobby Kotick's work number? I think I have a game proposal...

What about something akin to DOTA? In that game, you play as a single powerful hero with specific abilities and wargear, but you are surrounded by NPC-generated cannon fodder. Shift the perspective from top-down to first-person, and thats pretty much an FPS/RTS hybrid.

The question is; do you want the masses of lesser NPC's to be player-controlled, or just generated automatically (thus leaving you free to go on one-man rampages, which is what all FPS lives on)? My feeling is that a little real-time control would be nice (ie select from a sidebar or menu, depending on what the enemy is spamming, develop counters or nice combo's etc), but not the full-blown tech-trees of a true RTS.

On a different tack, does anyone still remember Sacrifice? Rather than an RTS with shooter elements, it was the opposite: You were the general (a crazed sorcerer), placed on the ground with a third-person camera.

You summoned troops, tried to capture the souls of slain enemies to make into more creatures, and led your minions into skirmishes while conjuring volcanoes and explosions all over the deformable landscape. Not terribly deep on RTS elements - basic rock-paper-scissors stuff - but it had all the immediacy of a shooter and a reasonable helping of strategy.

Interesting article, and I can completely understand why ya don't wanna review it... I couldn't review a fps game hehe

how about a game that has FPS players VS RTS players! FPS players would have better stuff but could not destroy the bases for the first 15 minutes then they could (try to) fight there way into the enemy bases or try to team up with the other RTS player that would be good because it would be a more open world aspect and the RTS players and FPS player would not get in each others way.

Truly? I love RTSs, and if it's not Yahtzee's cup of tea, than I won't complain. It's like me not being able to really do first-person shooter games very well. I occasionally venture into it, but fail for the most part.

So really, I understand if people wanted to see him rip it to shreds, but if he won't do it, I'm all for it. Besides I'd feel disappointed if I've been waiting for Thursday to buy it just for people to slam it down...hence why I've been ignoring most of the discussion boards for it :3

SC2 is quite possibly the only game that can't change, but it shouldn't change. You change too much away from what you are, and for every fan you might gain, you'll lose a dozen, because there's such a huge fan base for wanting RTS games to be just the way they are, and the SC franchise has been the gold standard since it hit. You can see a number of examples of RTS games that went off the beaten path listed earlier in the threat here, and while they got points for originality, they ended up not holding anyone's interest for long.

SC2 does what it can in the single player campaign to try and feel a little less like a marathon of maps strung together, offering the illusion of choice and allowing you to play with more powerful upgraded units and mercenaries than you'd get in a typical multiplayer game, but it's the last RTS I'd expect to ever convince anyone that doesn't like RTS games to want to play it. It's not going to do what WoW did with MMOs and create a new market for RTS games, and I imagine that WoW itself sold plenty of copies of SC2 just because you've had faithful Blizzard customers looking forward to whatever they put out.

SC2's basic gameplay is extremely similar to SC, because that's exactly what they wanted it to be, and what most of their customers were clamoring for. I'd compare it to something like Magic the Gathering, which sure, the production values are better and there are more casual play options, but at its core it's still the same old game with very few differences from when it started. There's a hard core audience that demands it, and to do otherwise would be a disastrous move.

As much as I would like to see a RTS reviewed I understand why it won't. That idea sounds cool. I'd play it but it doesn't win my heart on the mixing of genres. Us RTS'ers sometime look down with disdain on the trigger happy FPS. Or maybe thats just me and my brother.

Hehe. That game would rock! "Yeah, you're my best friend and all, but that guy has nuclear pogo sticks. NUCLEAR POGO STICKS! What have you got?"

I'd certainly be on the Mercs side, but actually fighting against armies with actual intelligence rather than artificial would be something completely other.

You could always review Blazblue CS. Came out on the same day, and you reviewed other fighting games before (except, this one is good.) How can you say no to playing a game with a giant robot demon who uses magnetism as a weapon, an autocratic vampire princess that can control the wind, or a Super hero Ninja with a super move that has its own theme song?

Anyway, I think the game your describing is close to 'Kings and Knights', a custom map for starcraft. 'Kings' are the rts general who can pump out fodder, build structures, and etc. While 'Knights' are basically super soldiers for hire by either King. The King can use his resources to build up his kingdom, or to hire a knight and improve his weapons, armor, and abilities and have the knight do his work for him. I think that would come close to what you described.

I'm not saying you should review starcraft 2, but you should check out the single player before swearing off the genre. Even people that don't know how to rts to save there lives can beat it (hell, sometimes they even have fun too).

I played an RTS called Rise & Fall: Civilizations at War a number of years ago where the idea was that you could lead your troops in typical RTS style, base building, troop management and upgrades etc. You could then jump into the role of your leader unit Dungeon Keeper Posses Creature style and fight out the battles first person style.

As fun as that may sound it really didn't work out well, it just lead to a single commander taking out entire armies in what felt like a poorly balanced and mis-matched combat style. The trouble with RTSs in general (of which I greatly enjoy) is that they have a well established formula in order to be good:

1. The sides need to be distinct
2. Everything needs to balance up
3. Base building, upgrading and troop management

Although I wouldn't say that story isn't important I would say that it's less so than in other genres - the story in Dawn of War Dark Crusade basically boiled down to "everyone wants Kronus so pick a side and get stuck in."

The RTS as a genre is pretty inxflexible, sure some people might look at C&C4 and think "okay this is fun" but the C&C series hasn't felt like a proper RTS since Tiberian Sun. Dawn of War switched from one of the best RTSs I've ever played into some kind of stupid RP game where you micro manage a bunch of elite space marine twats instead of commanding armies. All I've got to look forward to is Civ 5 now since EA butchered the Red Alert/C&C series.

There's some 50000 years to go for our brain to catch up with such complicated systems. Not from gameplay perspective, but from "implementing the Matrix" perspective.

I get a strong feeling that a large number of people who want Yahtzee to review SCII actually want him to give it a good review so that they can bolster their own egos. The odds of that are exceedingly slim, given that he doesn't like RTS games. I can't really play them very well myself (not that that stops me from trying... I'll learn them someday, dammit!) so I'm certainly not about to get on his case about it.

Still... maybe someday we'll see Fun RTS/FPS Mashup Hybrid Game: The Game?

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Has any major battle in history been decided by an illegal street race?

Not yet... but soon. My plans proceed apace. You mark my words, Croshaw. SOON.

Shame he wont pick it to pieces, but, fair enough he's not going to pick it to pieces for the sake of it.

To each their own

I was hoping to see him rip SC2 a new one, but oh well...

awww c'mon! Even the other caustic critics are gushing over this game, I need to hear something negative about it!

Eric the Orange:
Figgin, Diskworld reference, was funny. If you don't get it read diskworld. Or read them anyway cause the're AWESOME.

I just don't understand why hanging someone up next to a small short-crust pastry containing raisins would be considered a terrible fate...

 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