what should they have done differently? well I think if you are asking about their commercial success not much, since they are obviously one of the best selling RTS games, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are any way novel in the game design.
on another topic:
there are a lot of successful mergers of game standards categories such as RPG + RTS in games like dota, or FPS + RTS games like empires, natural selection, etc... and it would be interesting to see how some of these will take off in the future.
RTS Design Theory Thread
Moderator: Moderators
-
bobthedinosaur
- Blood & Steel Developer
- Posts: 2702
- Joined: 25 Aug 2004, 13:31
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
i mean to be more unique games to avoid the "warcraft in space" thing.
Natural Selection is still mainly an FPS.
(Both and some other games (ie Machines) allow to fps controll a unit but that does not make them fps shooters.)
DOTA is more like hack'n'slay (like Diabolo) I think.
Natural Selection is still mainly an FPS.
(Both and some other games (ie Machines) allow to fps controll a unit but that does not make them fps shooters.)
DOTA is more like hack'n'slay (like Diabolo) I think.
-
bobthedinosaur
- Blood & Steel Developer
- Posts: 2702
- Joined: 25 Aug 2004, 13:31
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
i really liked the concept of RUSE before it came out and I read the reviews and ubisoft did a major lock down on the modifiability of the game. It seemed to kind of play with the art of war (Sun Tzu) strategy.
I wanted to make a game that had a complex trading(supply and demand) and resource system, with compromisable trade/supply routes (naval blockades, blow up rail road, capture bridge, etc..) Additionally supporting a strategic scale art of war strategy to a concept might work such as: supplying units/ espionage/ deception, but I don't really see that kind of game working on spring. It seems like something like that might almost limited a turn based strategy though.
I wanted to make a game that had a complex trading(supply and demand) and resource system, with compromisable trade/supply routes (naval blockades, blow up rail road, capture bridge, etc..) Additionally supporting a strategic scale art of war strategy to a concept might work such as: supplying units/ espionage/ deception, but I don't really see that kind of game working on spring. It seems like something like that might almost limited a turn based strategy though.
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
compromised supply route = Blocking enemy harvesters from reaching tibierium/space
espionage = cloaked units and scouts are in basically all games. comcenter scan of SC terrans, US drones in C&C Generals, spending gold in Ages of Ampires to locate the enemies king,...
naval blockades = you have those in any game with naval units.
capture bridge = put some units in front of a bridge/choke point. standard gameplay in rts
deception = stealth units in general, mirage tanks that looks like a tree in C&C Red Alert 2, GBA bomb trucks disguises as any enemy vehicle in C&C Generals, "projection" units (clones of units that die in one hit to make a fake army) in Emperor: Battle for Dune, dummy buildings in several C&C games,...
trading(supply and demand) = resource market & trade karts in Age of Empires
and thats just examples taken from the mainstream games: C&C, SC, Dune, AoE
espionage = cloaked units and scouts are in basically all games. comcenter scan of SC terrans, US drones in C&C Generals, spending gold in Ages of Ampires to locate the enemies king,...
naval blockades = you have those in any game with naval units.
capture bridge = put some units in front of a bridge/choke point. standard gameplay in rts
deception = stealth units in general, mirage tanks that looks like a tree in C&C Red Alert 2, GBA bomb trucks disguises as any enemy vehicle in C&C Generals, "projection" units (clones of units that die in one hit to make a fake army) in Emperor: Battle for Dune, dummy buildings in several C&C games,...
trading(supply and demand) = resource market & trade karts in Age of Empires
and thats just examples taken from the mainstream games: C&C, SC, Dune, AoE
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
But you don't have to be novel to be good.bobthedinosaur wrote:what should they have done differently? well I think if you are asking about their commercial success not much, since they are obviously one of the best selling RTS games, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are any way novel in the game design.
And yeah there's something similar to those elements you want in every good RTS bob. They might be much more abstract than what you'd want, but the important part is the strategic choices that demand to be made. Like it's a limited info game, of course there's espionage and deception even if there isn't little James Bonds running around.
-
bobthedinosaur
- Blood & Steel Developer
- Posts: 2702
- Joined: 25 Aug 2004, 13:31
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
espionage is not reconnaissance.
and yes those all have a cute version of the others but lack the supplying lines to the units and the supply demand trading system, but I think I've seen what i am talking about in other games. something similar to a fluctuating market price where players would want to have reserves on many types of resources in order to manipulate the market or take advantage of certain market opportunities, kind of like trade wars.
also: I'm aware that games don't have to be novel to be good, but also if that is the case I will rate a game more on gameplay and less on newer aesthetics or a continuing cheesy franchise storyline, which just happens that many games series seemed to drift from good start but may improve in those 2 such as the blizzard series, the CnC series, and the Chris Taylor series. It's just my opinion that the older games seem more 'fun'.
and yes those all have a cute version of the others but lack the supplying lines to the units and the supply demand trading system, but I think I've seen what i am talking about in other games. something similar to a fluctuating market price where players would want to have reserves on many types of resources in order to manipulate the market or take advantage of certain market opportunities, kind of like trade wars.
also: I'm aware that games don't have to be novel to be good, but also if that is the case I will rate a game more on gameplay and less on newer aesthetics or a continuing cheesy franchise storyline, which just happens that many games series seemed to drift from good start but may improve in those 2 such as the blizzard series, the CnC series, and the Chris Taylor series. It's just my opinion that the older games seem more 'fun'.
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
On the official '1944' maps that is how flag placement is generally done, but we chose to make it playable on most standard spring maps. I guess we could try and cleverly reduce the number of flags spawned, guess I should talk to Car about it.knorke wrote:http://www.danielthomas.org/pop/videoga ... page02.htm
thats how flag should be placed on S44 maps imo. Not this "one flag every 200 meter"
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
Add Major Amstrong to add new flags on the moon. Worked for Full Metall Alchemist.
Design Theory, the player feels elated, when he pulled of something amazing, and i dont talk about cheap archievments. I mean, getting defeated, and recover from that. Capturing a enemy unit, and dropping it off a cliff. Manging a Airdrop into the enemys base unnoticed.
Its basically the reason why singleplayer stupidAI exists, to allow players this moments of superiority. Problem is - you cant massproduce such stuff, without ruining the effect. But you can think of new ways to do such stuff- for exampel, allowing a enemy to raid one of your outposts, which you charged up with tnt before, blowing them all up, while those guys celebrate early easy victory.
Or keeping a might closecombat out of reach with the newton in zerok, feels like a turtle on his back for the enemy.
Producing this situation awesome, has to be rewarded ingame. For exampel, antiair should not be the end of the line- if you keep it busy, you still should be able to do a airdrop. Everything else is boring porcing, basically cuting out a part of gameplay. Sound strange, but a overeffective unit, that cant be bypassed, is a dead end, basically nullifying all your precious designdecision on airdrops or shiplanding operations. Make a version of your mod without towers, if you dont believe me. Try it. Be suprised what is possible if you disable the disabilitys which garant safety.
Design Theory, the player feels elated, when he pulled of something amazing, and i dont talk about cheap archievments. I mean, getting defeated, and recover from that. Capturing a enemy unit, and dropping it off a cliff. Manging a Airdrop into the enemys base unnoticed.
Its basically the reason why singleplayer stupidAI exists, to allow players this moments of superiority. Problem is - you cant massproduce such stuff, without ruining the effect. But you can think of new ways to do such stuff- for exampel, allowing a enemy to raid one of your outposts, which you charged up with tnt before, blowing them all up, while those guys celebrate early easy victory.
Or keeping a might closecombat out of reach with the newton in zerok, feels like a turtle on his back for the enemy.
Producing this situation awesome, has to be rewarded ingame. For exampel, antiair should not be the end of the line- if you keep it busy, you still should be able to do a airdrop. Everything else is boring porcing, basically cuting out a part of gameplay. Sound strange, but a overeffective unit, that cant be bypassed, is a dead end, basically nullifying all your precious designdecision on airdrops or shiplanding operations. Make a version of your mod without towers, if you dont believe me. Try it. Be suprised what is possible if you disable the disabilitys which garant safety.
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
RTS has various problems:
It is skill dependent. People dont have equal skills. In a shooter or racing game everyone can luck out, and feel a heroe for a second, even if it is the AI he hit, even if this AI was just dumbed down for you in the background, even if you have to be practically invurnerable. The people who were always asking for cheats -before- the game has started, they have taken the show over. If you want a large crowd, they are your target, but they are a target that wants you to transform your weapon.
Emotional Distance:
Look at the Games who had successes.. there cameras are close to the characters (in sc2 the camera eats its way through the gui) we pride ourselves in having zoomed into the stratosphere. But it would be even better if we had some 2nd on the ground-drama cam. Showing from FP and Shogun. Its sounds stupid, but every sucessfull game either had that... or units so slow, you zoomed in just to see them moving at all (shogun etc.). I try to combat these in jw. Which brings us to another point. Use sound. Its the living proof that something down there is alive, and not only when its killing stuff.
Forget about Missions: SC Story quality Missions are the Spring pidgeon on the roof. Get something realistic at hand to start some in-game-drama.
For exampel: Add "Personalized AIs to Units." These AIs learn by driving into battle, but they luv and hate each other, and they lose XP if there unit dies - or can even get rampant and psychotic. That way, you get a drama circus. Just imagine in how much troublz you get your players, if there is this lone-Wulf-Tank, which attacks everything on sight, but needs dire repairs....
False Prioritys:
People forgive a lot, hell the hardcore spring crowd is most-forgiving. Lobby-crashes, server updates, and yet they are there. So if they do not like your game, something is wrong. With the game. Not with the crowd. They try other games. Supcom, SC2 you name it, they play it.
So seriously why doesent your game catch them. And dont try to put out some lame excuses like (oh, because my units are all biological and they hate that) or because this or that arbitrary feature is not ready yet. What needs work, is the core-gameplay. Hurts? Well then i stop there, so that you can call me a apropriate liar and point into a diffrent direction, so that the wounded can be carried away.
It is skill dependent. People dont have equal skills. In a shooter or racing game everyone can luck out, and feel a heroe for a second, even if it is the AI he hit, even if this AI was just dumbed down for you in the background, even if you have to be practically invurnerable. The people who were always asking for cheats -before- the game has started, they have taken the show over. If you want a large crowd, they are your target, but they are a target that wants you to transform your weapon.
Emotional Distance:
Look at the Games who had successes.. there cameras are close to the characters (in sc2 the camera eats its way through the gui) we pride ourselves in having zoomed into the stratosphere. But it would be even better if we had some 2nd on the ground-drama cam. Showing from FP and Shogun. Its sounds stupid, but every sucessfull game either had that... or units so slow, you zoomed in just to see them moving at all (shogun etc.). I try to combat these in jw. Which brings us to another point. Use sound. Its the living proof that something down there is alive, and not only when its killing stuff.
Forget about Missions: SC Story quality Missions are the Spring pidgeon on the roof. Get something realistic at hand to start some in-game-drama.
For exampel: Add "Personalized AIs to Units." These AIs learn by driving into battle, but they luv and hate each other, and they lose XP if there unit dies - or can even get rampant and psychotic. That way, you get a drama circus. Just imagine in how much troublz you get your players, if there is this lone-Wulf-Tank, which attacks everything on sight, but needs dire repairs....
False Prioritys:
People forgive a lot, hell the hardcore spring crowd is most-forgiving. Lobby-crashes, server updates, and yet they are there. So if they do not like your game, something is wrong. With the game. Not with the crowd. They try other games. Supcom, SC2 you name it, they play it.
So seriously why doesent your game catch them. And dont try to put out some lame excuses like (oh, because my units are all biological and they hate that) or because this or that arbitrary feature is not ready yet. What needs work, is the core-gameplay. Hurts? Well then i stop there, so that you can call me a apropriate liar and point into a diffrent direction, so that the wounded can be carried away.