On RTS Games

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

I couldn't give a dam about Star craft 2 either, I do like RTS's but never played the first starcraft and dont see wahts so special about it from all the hype.

There's a version of what Yahtzee was talking about in Battle.net of Frozen Throne. It's called Kings and Knights. There are 4 kings who have their castle and lots of gold mines around it, and there are 8 knights (mercenaries) who can become incredibly powerful if they get a lot of gold (from a king)

I did WAY better as a king, because I gave two people 1000 gold every 5 minutes, and they became incredibly powerful in no time. They were able to take out one base (of the 4) by themselves. It was EPIC. And I didn't have to pay them, but then they could always turn on me, which wouldn't be pleasant at all.

At the end of the day, it was incredibly fun for me the armchair general. While the whole thing is an RTS in my example, mixing RTS and third of first person sounds like an EXCELLENT idea to me.

Not to force you into joining the RTS bandwagon, but a good and uncomplicated RTS is World in Conflict. Unfortunately, the Cold War escalated to WWIII in that game so might be a bit too uncreative for your taste.

What Yahtzee mentiones at the very end of the article about RTS-players just wanting to play straight-forward RTS-games is a valid point. But what about this then, would'nt that add to the stragegic elemt? The third factor which is "completly" unpredictable. Could add to the gaming experience. The commanders, as he says, could try to buy their loyalties, but in the end that would'nt really add to the predictabilety since they essentially can do whatever the fuck they feel like doing. So I think it could actually make a really good game (maybe even a new kind of hybrid genre). Ofcourse there would be faults in the beginning, but hey. Isn't that kinda to expect with something new? But if it shows promise it can be perfected later on in the prosess. After all that's how it goes with new game mechanichs right? Starts in one game, then gets perfected in another game and then gets used in almost all other games of that type because it works.
If Yahtzee sees this comment I hope he uses his influence as the secret leader of the world to push it through. The he can enjoy "RTS-games" as well. Oh and if he mentions it in a Zero Punctuation-episode that would be awesome ^^ (even though it's not likely)



Upon the laziness of reading the last 7 pages of comments I may just be parroting what someone else said, but the latest installments of the battlefield saga have perfected a pretty nice system of commander-commandee that works pretty well.

Particularely in Battlefield 2142, the commander submits the request the get in command and is voted by a simple yay or nay keystroke on the fly by the whole team (in case of more than one candidates, I think it was decided by rank/exeperience in game). And the dynamic works amazingly well with people's free will, since it had a unique common interest in mind: every player gets a better in game score if they were to follow the commander's orders (commander got more points if he got his troops to score his particular commands). So as it is, the omniscient guy had a great view of the battlefield and could issue "attack here, defend there" orders and, most importantly, direct tactical EMP and orbital bombardments towards the enemy armor and troops, while also deploying care packages to forward munition and health to the troops, and even large and localized sensor scans to help the team figure out where the enemy was, giving them the edge when they needed to capture or defend a certain flag. All of this rendered the larger score to both players who acquitted their commanders ruling, and commanders who correctly deployed their orders in the most helpful manner. The better teams, with a close cooperation between commander and troops, inevitably won by having an edge against more disorganized squads.

This has proven to be a masterfully articulated system and quite the foothold on what Yahtzee relayed as a simple "possibility". I'm kinda bummered no one seems to have given him the heads up of how this already exists and works well.

To each his own, as they say. I for one love RTS games. So I will be buying Starcraft II at somepoint :) Preferably soon...

Not surprised by this news, good to know beforehand there won't be any, I loved Starcraft, but since RTS moved to 3d, I lost interest, and I will force myself to point defects I can find in any fps as well, but I'll stick to FPS in the end.

Well, I look forward to ZP's next review.

Not everything is for everyone. Personally I'm enjoying SC2, but there have been plenty of great games I just couldn't get into (Arkham Asylum comes to mind) so to each their own.

What I would like to point out is two things, first that the 'everyone plays their own game' thing has been sort of done in the past already, Planetside allowed you to play as a frontline soldier, a mechanic who kept the base running, a pilot whizzing about, a tank driver maneuvering through a battlefield, or a small team of commandos infiltrating the secure facility. It was far from perfect, but it worked pretty well and had a good blend of different gametypes. I don't know of another game that allowed you to go from commander (platoon leader, you could only give directions and set waypoints but that was almost always enough, especially if it wasn't a pick-up group) to commando (infiltrating and wrecking the enemy facility) in the same game during the same play. It can work, and it can work well.

And yeah, the RTS commander+FPS soldiers thing has already been done quite a few times, and in some pretty big name games. Battlefield 2142 had a pretty good balance IMHO, though the Empires mod is also pretty good (Battlefield tends to have more focus on the FPS, with the commander aiding the soldiers, whereas empires has more focus on RTS, with the commander building all the tech, weapons and armor).

That's actually... a really good idea. Granted, a developer can't be bothered to (And would probably require more space than a standard CD could store) make more than one systems to play a game by, although Splinter Cell: Double Agent did, so maybe there is hope.

Myself, I like RTS games (Mostly I've just played a bit of Command and Conqueror and Warcraft III), but I'm awful at them. I have this bad habit of building towers to defend myself at the start and neglecting to build many troops.

I'm glad several people mentioned Savage, it's a good game by a better company. This also means that for once I'm disappointed in Yahtzee for not doing enough research :(

Um...why was this called "On RTS games" when Yahtzee never spoke of RTS games in it? He talked about his "awesome" idea for MMO and how RTS players could fit in it, but nothing more.

Anyway, thumbs up for Carl von Clausewitz reference.

P.S. If this wasn't a Clausewitz reference, but a lucky strike I would laugh.
P.S.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_War
P.S.S.S. Someone pointed out earlier that Yahtzee criticized Nintendo fans for not trying new things. They are probably laughing all the way to McDonalds right now.

There's that one mod for Source where one team plays a bunch of survivors, and the other is one guy in an RTS-mode with an army of zombies. That seems pretty cool, right?

You reviewed Brütal Legend, play this.

I would call myself "not a fan" of RTS's, only ever playing StarCraft when my friend brought it over for the N64, and cheating my way through the last few missions of Warcraft 3 and Frozen Throne, however (and this may be pushed aside as simple Blizzard fanboyism) but I loved SC2. The single player is so much more than a RTS and playing it through normal as I did never requires much after you produce lots of the units that are designed to beat the level until they throw a wrench in your plan and make you make a army of a different unit to counter said wrench. But through its simplicity, the few moments where you feel that your absolutely screwed, and you barely squeak through makes it that much better, and is sparse enough to allow access to those who only bought it for the new tower defense maps to play through, or give challenge to the South Korean juggernauts that make a living playing the original.

More towards the article, I don't buy that you because this isn't your sort of thing your not going to play it. To me it is the same as someone not playing Limbo because they don't like black and white. Your reason for objecting is completely irrelevant to the fact that it is a good game, and if a game is large enough, as revered as SC2 is, and obviously important enough to write an article about why you DON'T want to review it should override your distaste for the genre.

While I do see the value of objecting to some games on taste, and would prefer to not hear every review for KittyPuff Adventure for Kinect, this is a game that is obviously a big enough force in the hardcore gaming culture that deserves attention, and not the kind it is getting from you now.

Nice to see someone else that doesn't care for RTS-es or the massive amount hype being accrued for this one.
I think I tried to play Starcraft once or twice, I did not care for it.

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

That was the first thing I thought reading this. NS was my Half-Life mod-of-choice for quite some time. My friend and I were in the early Beta for that, and played all the way through until version 3. Great stuff - I think NS2 comes out some time this year or next.

"Of course they abandoned it because, of course, it wouldn't work."
Pay moar attention to syntax, pl0x.

But really, any concept that relies on cooperation in a multiplayer game can never work. Except maybe in LAN, where you're within arms reach of shoving a newspaper upside the head of your allies when they deliberately team kill you. That whole mercenaries concept can't work because the commanders would just station a squad of nameless, faceless grunts to camp the spawn points and the only way to prevent that would be making the players on the ground into unstoppable, immortal badasses capable of annihilating anything the commanders throw at them. In other words, making them into this guy:


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.

Yeah, he must never have heard of the game or else he would have mentioned it. It is the pinnacle of RTS FPS hybrid games, or was rather, until marketting dropped the ball and it fell into obscurity.

Scary. I was thinking of a similar concept earlier this week. And ahtzee, you should try World In Conflict. It's my first RTs and i'm having heaps of fun with it. virtually no base building/resource gathering.

I like RTS games, my favourite series is the Dawn of War series, I also don't like Starcraft and don't give a crap about Starcraft 2. I can completely understand why someone would not like RTS games, I can think of something bad about every kind of game and I accept the fact that people are looking forward to Starcraft 2, I'm just not one of them, but I do like RTS games.

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but check out a source mod called Zombie Master.

One player is the ZM; he spawns and controls a variety of AI zombies, activates traps (such as blowing bridges, shorting electronic doors, etc), and just generally has a good time with the players, while the others spawn in first person mode, and have to fight their way through the mission like normal, with a variety of guns and melee weapons.

It's amazing - take a look.

I still find it perplexing that the only RTS game he reviewed was Halo Wars. I mean, really?

Hell, you've reviewed games you didn't want to in the past. You reviewed Final Fantasy for gossakes. I think you're just getting senile.

the RTS arent for everyone i mean their fun if you have time on your hands but its better to be in the action actually moving around then just selecting a buch of troops leading them into a ambush you know is there. A RTS is like chess each move can either set you or screw you. yeah its fun to spawn countless troops then send them to their doom if its a RTS where there death animation is funny but its no all out war killing game.

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

I bet someone already pointed this out to you, but I will do so too ;)

WoW Has not really frozen the story of WarCraft in a single moment of time. Unless you mean that every bit of the story is active at the same time all around the WoW world.

But the story as a whole has progressed quite a bit, at least through the expansions. And hell they are blowing up the friggin world in Cataclysm...

So yeah WoW isnt really that static anymore

Yahtzee Croshaw:
One does not play through, say, BioShock just for the sake of victory against Andrew Ryan. One plays it for the experience of playing it.

What is this, I don't even...

Any and all single-player experiences are played for the experience of playing them. Isn't that obvious?

The point at which Starcraft becomes, as you so put it, chess with an orchestral score, is in multiplayer, in terms of which Starcraft is the kobe beef to Bioshock's spam.

Well, I think Spore was one of the best genre-defying games I've played, and it had more potential, so I'd challenge the notion that genre mixing always ends badly.

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

There is nothing to "pick to pieces" because it's a hell of a game, and Yahtzee is apparently a laid back console gamer who can't get his head around a strategy game. Good thing he said so himself.


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

I bet someone already pointed this out to you, but I will do so too ;)

WoW Has not really frozen the story of WarCraft in a single moment of time. Unless you mean that every bit of the story is active at the same time all around the WoW world.

But the story as a whole has progressed quite a bit, at least through the expansions. And hell they are blowing up the friggin world in Cataclysm...

So yeah WoW isnt really that static anymore

Yeah that's a bullshit comment as well. Warcraft develops *IN* WoW.

God... so many comments...

Anyway, even though I have my doubts you'll read this, there's a free-to-play game out that that blends action and RTS gameplay. It did it pretty well and was solid as far as gameplay was concerned. It was pretty much like Halo with a commander telling people where to go. That's as good as it got though. There weren't that many classes to choose from and since it was the foot soldiers that usually built, it really ended up being one of those games where "you know what to do" and you do it. The RTS elements in it were all but gone-- sure there were buildings and turrets you could build, but the engineer in TF2 could to the exact same thing. To an extent.

Anyway, I would give Savage 2 a look if I were you. I know I just said a list of things the game did wrong, lol, but I didn't say what could be done to make the so-close-to-perfect-balance better.

Moreover, even though I haven't looked into them, there are apparently more games like it on the market.

But, yeah, I can see something like Battlefield with a Sargent class that issues waypoint commands, makes npc peons build stuff, and call in airstrikes, etc, would be fun. What killed Savage 2: A Tortured Soul for the type of game it was was precisely that there weren't enough RTS elements in it, meaning I had no real reason to keep playing when I had something more action oriented in hand. Though... the combat in it WAS fun and probably the best I've seen in a swordplay game.

I think the FPS-RTS game could work...ish. I think there was a game called Raven commandos(not sure on the name) that has done it.

Natural Selection
Tribes (to a certain extent)
Savage and Savage 2

Are all games that have an RTS commander issuing orders to real humans. When you get the right teams together (serious BUT in that) these can all be awesome games. Especially Allegiance, that was way ahead of it's time.

Starcraft 2 is not so much chess with an orchestral soundtrack as it is an action game zoomed out a few levels, but I understand the difficulties of reviewing it in ZP-style. Apart from a couple of goofy points in the story and cutscenes, there's not really much else one can make fun of. Still, I do find it weird that a guy exactly my age like Yahtzee, who grew up during the "golden age" of PC gaming, doesn't like RTS games and treats them with the "special" disposition of a 00's teenager whose first game was Halo. To each their own I guess.

Didnt expect him to review Starcraft 2 either. RTS games just arent for everyone. Same with JRPGs and those multiplayer shooters.

I could see that working. Possibly some kind of hub city, or rival city's if done in the Warcraft generally start to hate the alliance and boo at them in Blizcon way. Some kind of a ranking system for commanders that gives the people being hired some idea of their chances of survival and the same for mercs so if they slow down a game they don't get into another too soon.

but why make a new game? World of Warcraft was mentioned earlier which is in many ways already attempting this. However the leader (interesting side note other than myself I have never been in a guild with a non-Dutch leader) is in the action so needs to focus on both their roll in the team as well as telling the rest of the group what to do. Also the only system for communicating with the players of any use is Teamspeak / vent / that thing wow tried to replace TS with but sort of failed. They don't give instructions fast enough for you to tell NOOBTANK01 that they need to get behind the ice block or whatever before they get insta-killed by the ten tonn ice monster charging up a glowing hammer (hypothetically). However the current system does work for the current PVE system very well so in many ways the concept is already in use (that and every other MMO since Ultima Online). But imagine how awesome it would be to play through a PVP battle (or possibly PVP style PVE with bots) where one leader is given the job of commanding the troops of a 40 man raid group against a rival guilds. Imagine how much fun it would be to successfully have a rogue scout out an area so the rest of the party can flank an alliance group taking them out before they had time to react. World of Warcraft is a well established game and guild members do tend to do what the leader tells them to in a raid so there is no reason this couldn't work. Also it would add a fresh way to play a rapidly stagnating genre.
Also Starcraft 2 is probably the only RTS I have managed to enjoy. Warcraft 1-3 I gave up (story was good though), Total war I had no idea how to actually win rather than all gang up on the smallest group until they are all dead. And as for Starcraft 1 I honestly couldn't stand the graphics (1st game was spyro Im not backwards compatible). The strategy in Starcraft 2 is rely well balanced out though and each race feels like another race rather than the same one in a different hat. This is probably not the best game for me to get into the RTS genra with because of the complex strategy and large amount of ridiculously good Korean players pawning everyone on the leaderbord but I have to admit I'm hooked. :)

 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