On RTS Games

[greenflash]

sorry but that idea is bad because it would mess up all of my plans and pincer movements and how would clocked units fit into all of this. also what is stopping the trolls form destroying new defence less bases and getting killed by the two RTS players teaming up and zerg rushing them to death.

 

[Jezixo]

This exact idea has been done, precisely the way you described it (the first idea, not the mercenaries one). It was called Savage: Battle for Newerth, and I personally loved it, and I usually don't like RTS's, so I suppose it did exactly what it was designed to do.

Other opinions may differ, but I still remember Savage as a unique playing experience, several years after playing it. They released a sequel which didn't take my fancy, and I have no idea what's happened to the series now, but I for one hope somebody takes up the idea and runs with it.

The key point is, they mixed genres, and as far as I'm concerned, it totally worked. So, you should consider giving it a go, since it's totally free to download and play now.

EDIT - Here is the link to the game's site. http://www.s2games.com/savage/

It also had a lovely map editor that led to it having thousands of different maps, many of which were spectacularly huge and supported a full 64 players beating the crap out of each other, directed by a single commander and elected officers. Definately one of those gaming moments that stay with you.

 

[absoul11]

Yahtzee has the right to review whatever he wants, and besides if he did review it, we already know what it'd be like.

 

[ImprovizoR]

I saw this coming. And damn, I like his idea of mixing strategy with shooters. But it wouldn't work with RTS and shooters. It could work pretty well with micro management strategies and shooters.

 

[spartan231490]

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 has reviewed several rts. Halo wars comes to mind, but i believe he has done at least one other.
OT: I hate rts for the same reasons yahtzee does. They are unemersive to me, and u don't really need much strategy to beat them. U can almost always win by just building enough tanks to embarrass general paton and steamrolling from one side of the map to the other.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

No, Yahtzee will not be reviewing StarCraft 2.

Good.

Not that I wouldn't enjoy it, but please...some of us still play other games.

One thing though Yahtzee...Hiring Mercenaries to fight on either side of wars...isn't that what most MMOs do between their NPCs?

 

[yourbeliefs]

I also won't be playing SC2, unless someone ends up buying it for me or donating it, neither of which I see happening. It just comes down to different strokes for different folks. I used to be into the C&C games, but after a while I just got too frustrated and would cheat to win.

 

[Weaver]

The game Savage and Savage 2 had players on the field controlled by a player doing things RTS style.

 

[Little Duck]

NO! MY IDEA! IT IS STOLEN!!!

Ah well, wasn't like I was gonna do anything with it.

Soooo I'm guessing fun space game won't have RTS aspects.

 

[RC1138]

No one has mentioned BF2? Really? Common. Battlefield 2 had exactly everything he mentioned. If you want to mess as infantry, you could do that. If you wanted to blow stuff up in a tank, that too, or fly both combat missions AND/OR bombing missions. Even attack and transport helos were available. And on top of that it had not one but two levels of chain of command. The squad leader which could set small objectives and make requests from the COMMANDER who could order around all the squads and drop support assets like artillery, supplies and vehicles. It's that last part that tended to make human players listen to the commander. Often times when (as a Squad leader) when I would make a request for supplies, before it would be filled the commander would set a new objective point (take or go here) which was a subtle "You want that crate? I need you here." And it worked 90% of the time. And when I played commander I got similar results. Usually people followed my orders. That and I usually dropped the UAV's on where I wanted them to go so if they WANTED a UAV, they needed to follow orders.

So in that regard the RTS element was still present even with human "FPS" players.

 

[HaraDaya]

Still think he should do Men of War.

I second this. That game caught my attention, and I don't really touch RTS games either. Part of the blame is probably getting my ass handed in them by my older brother when I was 8 or so.

No one has mentioned BF2? Really? Common. Battlefield 2 had exactly everything he mentioned. If you want to mess as infantry, you could do that. If you wanted to blow stuff up in a tank, that too, or fly both combat missions AND/OR bombing missions. Even attack and transport helos were available. And on top of that it had not one but two levels of chain of command. The squad leader which could set small objectives and make requests from the COMMANDER who could order around all the squads and drop support assets like artillery, supplies and vehicles. It's that last part that tended to make human players listen to the commander. Often times when (as a Squad leader) when I would make a request for supplies, before it would be filled the commander would set a new objective point (take or go here) which was a subtle "You want that crate? I need you here." And it worked 90% of the time. And when I played commander I got similar results. Usually people followed my orders. That and I usually dropped the UAV's on where I wanted them to go so if they WANTED a UAV, they needed to follow orders.

So in that regard the RTS element was still present even with human "FPS" players.

Yes, YES! I was awfully disappointed by Bad Company 2, because I expected it to be Battlefield 3. Only a small part of the team work the Battlefield series have had is present in BC2.

 

[RC1138]

Well I didnt mention BC2 for that reason. I don't consider it part of the Battlefield Series.

That said, it stands to reason BF3 will have the RTS elements in BF2 and BF2142 (and modded 1942 as well). I'm guessing that BC games are the plot games while the regular Battlefield games have the more "sandbox" feel of "Here's a battlefield, some vehicles and guns, go kill stuff and hold points."

I think BC's and BC2's biggest letdown, for me, was the lack of real LARGE team coordination that BF2 and 2142 had (that and lacking large numbers of vehicles, 5 tanks per map only? WTH!). And you need the commander chair for that to work.

 

[GoGo_Boy]

Woah so why did it take him 2 pages to simply say personally isn't attracted to RTS games?
I mean that's no shame really.

I'm personally not really interested in RPGs or worse an RPG shooter (*caught* Mass Effect *caught*).

And I'm kinda glad he doesn't review SC2. I think his opinion sucks mostly(yes his opinion, which he can voice freely). And he doesn't stop contradicting himself and writes too many pointless articles just like this.
However his reviews sometimes are funny, at least if I don't like the game or dunno much about it. Because once you do you actually realize stupid his reviews are ;p

 

[Ed.]

Mixing genres is HARd from a design perspective seriously hard i map for eternal silence which has FPS and flight sim star-wars battlefront style but the transitions are better and the flight is more like free-space

anyway mixing the two is hard and its where star wars battlefront tripped up a bit making everyone's contribution worth the same is much harder than it sounds


As fro FPS/RTS that does exist its called empires mod and it is good but there are two issues one is disobedient soldiers but this isn't too much of a problem as its no more crippling than having a total noob in your team on say TF2 you can work past it if it's just say 2 or 3 guys
The bigger problem that isn't really easy to solve is having an idiot in command you are basicly screwed you can eject your commander with a vote and have someone els take the helm but sometimes the damage is done
Also the problem of balancing everyone's contribution comes up how do you balance a tank and a man? its really hard to do.


Those are just two examples of mixing genres imagine adding more

There is another approach though another HL2 mod that i cant remember right now i dont think it ever got released but you didn't have to coexist you fought each other.

one team was just a single guy controlling an army of AI combines building turrets ect ect
the other team where rebels they could get Jeeps and air-boats and various weapons from crates but they basicly had to fight the hordes sounded like an awesome and not so hard to balance concept.

 

[duchaked]

I have to say, the idea of a freelance mercenary faction really has me interested... that's one way I could get in all the computer gaming action my friends have been geeking out over lol

 

[Supp]

Awwww, he could just play it anyways. That's what I did for WC3 and I ended up loving it even though I was god awful at it.

 

[cikame]

Natural Selection, commander is playing a basic RTS essentially while everyone else is in first person and it was brilliant, i never took up the reigns of commander seriously but i know many who did.

If a half life mod is too old for people now then the sequel is currently in alpha, very buggy at the moment but hey it's an indie game in alpha, looks promising.

 

[machvergil]

I would totally beta test the proposed 3rd-person shooter/RTS hybrid that Yatzee posts here. It sounds like a neat concept and in the right hands it could be a ton of fun for all involved, especially if as a side effect the RTS player can watch his enemy's base burn from the perspective of his/her units.

In the end though it'd probably fail to garner the full attention of either audience.

 

[samus17]

As long as yahtzee stayed away from the extremely competitive multiplayer (which he always does anyways) I believe he could give a review of the single player; it is vastly different from multiplayer, with a lot of story and rpg elements. But hey, way to not take ANY risks Yahtzee, it's not like you might not enjoy this or anything (or hate it, but what do you have to lose? You review JRPG's even though you say you hate them.)