On RTS Games

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

I kind of had an idea for an game similar to your RTS variants but instead of starting with a game like starcraft think of something like battlefront, less about buildings and resources, but more about huge armies capturing territories. You would have two or more teams, each with a general and a number of "elite" troops. The general has at his disposal an army of bots that he can deploy and control while the other players play as more powerful (and more competent) troops who can customize their characters and get more powerful Modern Warfare style. But here is the real key; the bots are powerful enough that a single human can't necessarily go-it-alone without the aid of the general and as the army as a whole meets objectives the general gets points that he can spend to power you up, thus giving you a benefit for working together and giving the general power without removing free will.

Now, this still has the problem that killed the commander idea from TF2: what if your general is incompetent. My only suggestion for that would be some way to, in the middle of the game, elect a new one if the players don't like their current one, but that could create further problems.

The reason I don't play RTS's is because I can not multi task whatsoever, and therefore find them impossibly difficult. I tend to not like things I'm not good at.

As a fan of Starcraft (I and II alike) and RTS in general, I'm perfectly okay with this. Yahtzee doesn't have to waste his time playing a game he doesn't enjoy, and we get to be spared him ripping apart perfectly good gameplay because it's not his kind of thing.

I like the ideas outlined in this - the result would not be a serious, twitchy RTS like Starcraft, but a slightly more crazy, dynamic deal in which the actions of the wild third parties can cause unexpected consequences. It'd be disliked by those who adhere to RTS standards and uphold the value of "APM" and suchlike, but probably enjoyable to more casual players like me.

Thinking about it, something akin to this setup could be possible with custom Starcraft maps. Player 1 and 2 play "regular" skirmish, while Players 3 through 8 play as individual hero units. With the "Use Map Settings" mode, you could play it online against or with just about anyone. It would require a lot of tweaking and balancing, but it's doable.

Ok. Fair enough.

The only thing more boring than playing an RTS is reading articles about an RTS.
opinion, don't crucify me

Well, I've skimmed through, and no one seemed to have mentioned Planetside?

It was successful, in the techincal sence, at making an MMOFPS - but with RTS elements for those few elites amounst the 400 odd combatants in any zone.

You could fly, bomb, drive, gun, use giant mechs, repair bases, refuel bases, create spawn points, lead global fronts of 100+, lead specialist squads of 2-10, lead a platoon of 12-30...

Its sadly jsut died now as its too old to look good, but Planetside 2 is supposedly in developement... I urge people to check it out, as the best part is that fact its ACTUALLY large battles (like you'd see in a RTS) rather then lots of little instanced fights that vaguely effect each other.

I don't get the hype with RTSs the fun of battle is running around and shooting people in the head, or slashing down monsters with your sword that according to the laws of physics you shouldn't be able to pick up let alone swing around. But that is just my opinion.

As Yahtzee said it is basically chess, and while I have no problem with playing a chess game I ain't going to pay to play it no matter how pretty it is.

A game genre hybrid I do want to see is something where Hack and Slash elements and Third Person Shooter elements combine (well, might I add). Where you can pick to shoot your enemies but when you run out of bullets or get tired of firing you can take out your melee weapons and use combos to take out enemies.

play the game zombie master its on steam its a mod for half life 2 its basically one guy controls a huge amount of zombies spawning them using resources. then the players try to overcome these zombies. also the zombie master has a few traps made by the map maker. also these zombies varry from the hulk who is a fairly fast and strong tank that can whipe the floor with a whole team but the attacks are extremely slow to the banshee who acts like the half life 2 fast zombie. and theres some others. its farely old but really fun.

So Yahtzee: How is Fun Space Game: The Game going?

Battlefield 2 sortof took a crack at it, with it's commander role. Ofc it wasn't much RTS, since every one of his "units" was a player, who he could only give orders, without knowing wetehr or not the player owuld follow them.
He could spot enemies, and send in vehicles, ammo and air strikes.

As for the mercenary thing, you could do an RTS in the style of DotA, Heroes of Newerth, League of legends Demigod.
In those games all the normal units are computer controlled and just follows predetermined paths, and has some aggro rules, and the players each controlls a hero, like the heroes in Warcraft 3. They'er sortof like a mix of RTS and combat RPG (the don't have teh role playign elements, but they have the leveling and gear elements of RPG's scaled down)

But i don't see why you couldn't have one player controll all the creeps (the AI controleld weaker units) on each team, and have heroes controleld by players as well. That way one guy on each team would be playing RTS and x otehr players on each team would be playing solely their hero like in the games mentioned above.
Demigod had a feature, where players could use their money not only on new gear for themselves, but also on upgrades for the team, like shorter respawn rate, thougher buildings, tougher creeps, more gold income etc. Stuff liek this could be handled in a more RTS-ish way by a single player controlling all the non-hero action.

Heck, you could even let some heroes be played in first person with ranged weapons to please the FPS players. I seem to remember that in dungeon keeper 2, there was a spell taht allowed you to directly controll one of your minions from 1st perosn view, so i don't see why it shouldn't be possible here. You'd just haev some sort of cooldown on your attack, like a lot of weapons have in FPS games.

Dunno how to turn this into a single player thing though, but i guess thats redundant anyways, cause if they wanna play RTS, they could just pick up an RTS, and teh same for otehr genres.
Only problem with it not beeing single-player friendly i can think of atm, would be that story would suffer greatly. As all the above mentioned games are pvp games (or player vs AI) and are played out in rounds, so having an story more complex than faction A hates faction B so they fight in them would prolly be kinda hard.

mjc0961:

s69-5:
EDIT: Also, if you don't review RTS because you admittedly aren't well-versed in them, why do you review JRPGs?

Refer to the Final Fantasy 13 review. I think you'll find your answer (Hour 3 part).

Okay, but what about The World Ends with You? Then again, it's been a while since I watched that one.

I actually think the idea of the two commanders going at it with a bunch of mercinaries messing things up would be a great idea, the other commander would be messing up your plans anyway so it wouldn't pose too much of a problem, so long as you didn't make the mercinaries able to cut down an entire army it would probabally work, i know i'd play it.

Valve attempted a "commander/squad" mix of fps and rts with team fortress 2. Despite many months working on the ideas.. they didn't find one that would work so they stuck with the fps style.

qbanknight:

Shamgarr:
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.

Actually that's a pretty cool idea. It seems way too multiplayer focused though. I would like a single player to accustom myself and get into the multiplayer later.

I think back to playing Dungeon Keeper 2 back in the day, and I always thought it would be a good time playing against real goody-two-shoes archetypes.

Ok so does this mean Yhatzee won't be reviewing any of the high profile fighting games either like say Marvel vs. Capcom 3?

Dirty Apple:

qbanknight:

Shamgarr:
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.

Actually that's a pretty cool idea. It seems way too multiplayer focused though. I would like a single player to accustom myself and get into the multiplayer later.

I think back to playing Dungeon Keeper 2 back in the day, and I always thought it would be a good time playing against real goody-two-shoes archetypes.

zombie master plays just like what shamgarr was wanting

This idea was used in a user made map on Starcraft 1, Kings and Knights, up to 4 players would be kings and play much like a normal Starcraft battle, while the knights would have super powered single units and go around killing what ever they wanted (they were paid through kings sending them money for certain actions, or just to keep them from killing their units.

It was a fun map, and maybe with Starcraft 2 could be extended into a much better first person view or with tighter control for the knight.

I've lost your line of thought somewhere, but it seems to me you want to make every player play a single unit in a strategy game. While I have no clue as to why you want to do that, I'd have to spoil it for you. It has already been done. In the Chinise emperrors' court they used to played live chess. And yes, the pawns did kill eachother when ordered. I think your plan will have the same success and result.

Uber Waddles:
This is a good choise for Yahtzee.

Lets cut the Bullshit. He either praises it, which, people will bitch about. THATS NOT FUNNY, I DIDNT LIKE IT, ETC.

Or, b. He rips it a new one. In which case, look at Brawl. That + More. It will just annoy him.

Exactly.

To the folks asking why he reviews JRPGs if he doesn't like those either, I would hazard a guess that a JRPG is a hell of a lot simpler to play than an RTS assuming you don't like the mechanics of either type of game. Hell, I LIKE Starcraft 2 and I still fumble with build orders and micromanagement and, well, just about everything to do with the game. Final Fantasy - the more recent entries in the series, at least - you can pick up and figure out well enough to break them pretty quickly. The whole turn-based thing helps a lot with that: you can pause every turn to consider what you want to do in a fight if you're new/confused/in a bad position. In RTS games, well, that's what the "RT" part means. You don't get breaks. You don't get time to think. If you're under attack you'd better do something about it NOW or else nevermind it's over you lost bye get out.

It's not a very forgiving genre is what I'm saying.

s69-5:

Eqan Asif:

He says, it's not just that he sucks at them, but because "it's not [his] cup of tea."

Right. That's why I used the term "well-versed". Where did you get the idea that it means: "sucks at them"? It means, not very knowledgeable.

You might say "JRPGs" are also not his cup of tea.

Don't mind me, I'm a hyperbole junkie.

Yeah, there's really no point in him reviewing Starcraft II. I can already predict the comments page afterwards:
-You didn't try the multiplayer
-You suck at RTSs
-You didn't play the first game so you didn't understand the story
-You just hate Blizzard

etc, etc. As someone who personally loves Starcraft I - in fact I would go as far as saying it's my favourite game of all time - Starcraft II is a disappointment. It's not a poorly designed game or anything, and the campaign is absolutely spectacular as per what usually happens when Chris Metzen rolls up his sleeve, but it honestly does not feel like 12 years have passed. My brother's first comment upon playing the game was "it's basically the same but with better graphics", and I've heard many say the same. Sure, there are new units in the multiplayer, but there are absolutely no gameplay innovations. Which coming from Blizzard is absolutely pathetic - it would be like if they had released Warcraft III without adding heroes, items, merc camps, creeps etc.

So despite taking twelve years to add almost nothing to the game - and indeed to subtract things such as LAN under the slim justification of targeting pirates - Blizzard are charging people 60 bucks for a graphical update. That, in conjunction with the way they didn't hand out any pre-release copies of the game to reviewers, says: "You know what? We can do whatever we want, and people will still pay for it." And no one is really prepared to call them out on it, and the same excuse gets parroted over and over again: "it doesn't have to change, the Koreans would riot if it did". No one's saying it HAS to innovate, but if you're prepared to obligingly accept sudden mark-ups in price for little to no extra content, in a few years time you'll swiftly be paying a hundred dollars for your games. That's why I was hoping Yahtzee might knock it down a peg or two, but since he admits he's not really knowledgeable on the subject of RTSs it's better for him to just leave it.

I might not be the first to mention it, but I'm tired and not going to read 6 pages to check:

Yhatzee my man, you just described DUST 514, the console MMO/FPS hybrid being developed by CCP, creator of that other game you really, really don't like; EvE Online :P

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Extra Punctuation: On RTS Games

No, Yahtzee will not be reviewing StarCraft 2.

Read Full Article

I'd suggest to you the following games;

Battlezone - It's an oldgame but it combined FPS with the element of RTS. You contstructed a base, told workers to work, got more attackers and tried to defend your base against attackers and eventually, wipe them off the map.

Natural Selection - A mod for Half-Life and I believe is under construction for Half-Life 2. The human side can have one commander who issues orders to the others in RTS style.

Of course, the term for RTS is false as well as a friend have told me and the True term for RTS is actually more RTT, or just Tactics.

Seems like a reasonable outlook on RTS's.

personally, I decided against playing them because I think I lack patience for them, building up enough ships to maybe shame Nazi Germany's airforce only for it to nearly-instantly get blasted by anti-air units, had that problem playing Starcraft 64.

Slight issue with most real-time strategy games is most strategies end up swarming with the best unit.

Real-time tactics on the other hand, real strategy is the only way to play since the units you get at the start is all you get.

Also, since Yahtzee said that Halo Wars "didn't sell him on the genre", then it's no wonder... Halo Wars is FAR from the best example of it's kind, for one it's on a console.

i like how on the front page this is listed right next to, Review: Starcraft 2

I like Mercenaries.
That did not have the RTS general blahs because you could go slow and you only had six bastards to care for.

*Cough. Cough.

"WW2 ONLINE: BATTLEGROUND EUROPE"

YAHTZEE?

ANYONE?

I heard that there is really nice Russian-made WWII RTS game that lets you take direct control of individual soldiers and go FPS style with them.

My good sir Yahtzee, I present to you the add on to Eve Online, "Dust 514".

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

Pretty sure that's how Croatia was founded.

How about this:

Design the FPS gameplay like a arcade game in the sense that you will die a lot unless you know what your doing and know the levels well (but you'll still die once in a while). The level's lay out will change every time it's played[1]. As a result, players can't survive, even when working as a team. This is where the RTS player comes into play. The RTS player has an unrestricted view of the level (because sending players to their death probably isn't as good an idea as sending AI solders to the same fate). The RTS player tells the FPS players where enemies are, what routes to take, and so forth. The RTS player can even mark specific places FPS player can hide to ambush enemies, and mark the enemies as well.While the RTS player doesn't have detect control over their army, they can still build bases and call support like vehicles that FPS players can drive.[4]

Obviously, the first game would have to be simple compared to other RTS games.

[1] I took this from an idea for a stealth multiplayer game I have.[2]
[2] Not that I have a game like that, it's just an idea.[3]
[3] Hopefully this idea is of my own and won't get me killed
[4]

Zeithri:
Natural Selection - A mod for Half-Life and I believe is under construction for Half-Life 2. The human side can have one commander who issues orders to the others in RTS style.

Oh, come on![5]

[5] At lest my stealth game idea doesn't seem to have already been done.

Dobrev:
I've lost your line of thought somewhere, but it seems to me you want to make every player play a single unit in a strategy game. While I have no clue as to why you want to do that, I'd have to spoil it for you. It has already been done. In the Chinise emperrors' court they used to played live chess. And yes, the pawns did kill eachother when ordered. I think your plan will have the same success and result.

You know, minus the actual killing.

Arcthelad:
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.

That isn't really what he is saying, he is saying that his viewpoint would be tainted by the fact that he isn't as adept at RTS's as the other games he reviews.

Anywho, OT: I am going to be picking up SC2, but I'm glad that Yahtzee isn't going to review it. It would be redundant.

Besides, gaming is about personal experience. I thank him for his (blunt) honesty.

Let's get down to the big secret: Yahtzee reviews JRPGs... because... well... he plays them pretty often?

I think back to his TWEWY review and it was all about the system of play and compaints about the story. He then wrapped it all up with "Is TWEWY a good game? I have no idea..." (paraphrasing)

These days he knows more about JRPGs, because in his little escursion into other types of games a while back, he found out that he DOES like some JRPGs (and is probably a Nazi sympathizer). He's probably been playing them since then.

And then, in Brutal Legends... he had to ask a friend if it was a good RTS. He doesn't know jack about them...

...and I, for one, wouldn't like to hear him wax ignorance to be funny with lots examples of why he doesn't know or like RTS...s...sssssss.

 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
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here