h a l f b a k e r yExpensive, difficult, slightly dangerous, not particularly effective... I'm on a roll.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
RTS FPS
Think Halo Wars as it should have been. | |
Make a real time strategy game where you can zoom down and completely control a character as though it were a first person shooter. You could move around, pick up weapons, and enter buildings. You may think it would take a lot of effort for a program to run each and every unit as individual computers,
but consider it in a backward manner. A game like Halo already has multiple units and vehicles that all interact with each other on the global level (aka use of environmental factors [those floating platform things..] and individual objectives [when units go from one spot to another to "do" something]) as well as on a local level (nearby unit recognition, equipment use, ect.). Very little need be added to turn such a game into an rts. It would be, more or less, just a sort of limited campaign editor program, by which I mean you place units and vehicles in starting positions and then direct their goals. Having structures that are actually in the proper scale would probably be necessary. People could actually be manufacturing vehicles inside of a building and the enemies would have to go in and destory the workers (or machines) in order to destroy the building. Alternatively, large weaponry (artillery, per se') could be used to bring down the structure of the building. Both of these would have their advantages and disadvantages. Such a game would be more strategic than the typical RTS while also being more fun than the typical FPS.
VBS2
http://www.youtube....watch?v=vBf8uMaKPHs
Youtube video [AusCan531, Nov 25 2011]
Battlezone 2: Combat Commander
http://en.wikipedia...:_Combat_Com mander
[fho, Nov 27 2011]
Savage
http://en.wikipedia...Battle_for_New erth
[fho, Nov 27 2011]
Spring Engine
http://en.wikipedia...pring_(game_engine)
Has a FPS feature where you can take control of one of your units [fho, Nov 27 2011]
Operation Flashpoint
http://en.wikipedia...nt:_Cold_War_Crisis
[Alizayi, Nov 27 2011]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Note; This is much different than the half-baked "rts fps". This is just a single person controlling an army who can play as each individual unit as opposed to an army of players. |
|
| |
[+] ... may I suggest that instead of you zooming in
and out (which will make you lose focus), there is
another player who is in charge giving orders at
the RTS level.
But everyone will want to be the general ...
everyone can be, as long as they have proven
themselves as loyal soldiers down at the FPS level.
FPS players get points for kills, but also for
precisely following orders precisely and selflessly
sacrificing themselves for higher strategic goals.
The top scoring FPS soldier will get to be the RTS
general in the next round.
What about spawning? Players are ordered in
score queue. Top scoring players spawn first.
They also have the first pick to change from
"peons" to "soldiers" to "knights" as those new
units are built. If there are not enough human
players to go around, remaining units are just AI. |
|
| |
Virtual BattleSpace 2 (VBS2) mostly does this. It is more of a military training tool than a retail game however. See link for Youtube video or google VBS2 |
|
| |
That's the suggestion of 'rts fps' and I think it would run into too many problems. You would have people disobeying or doing stupid things. It'd also have to be online. It would experience lag (you have input from hundreds of consoles spread out across the world at once). Also, you could build hundreds of units in a short amount of time. Some of them would have to be not controlled by a player, so what's the point? The zooming down would make you lose focus on the big picture, but I imagine you could set up an operation and then lead it as a unit meanwhile you set up some unit creations to be continuously going on while you're busy. You'd still be alerted to things such as if you are being attacked. (actually, I suggest a more complex description of the threat. Starcraft's vague "We are under attack." vs. a more helpful "The enemy is attacking with a large army of tanks. I don't think we can hold out very long.") |
|
| |
sorry ... but this is totaly baked |
|
| |
Some examples include old battlezone titles and the first
operation flashpoint.
There is even a game that does exactly what is described in
the post and in the comments. You play a soldier and every
round one player is elected to be the commander for their
party. Shame that i forgot the name, was based in a fantasy
setting. |
|
| |
Can you put up a link to one of these battlezone titles, or operation flashpoint, or at least describe them? I've got another point that goes against the 'rts fps''s idea: at the beginning of the game, there won't be enough units to go around. Later in the game, there will quickly become too many units for the amount of players available. That could be incredibly annoying if you are playing at the soldier level. I would suggest a unit transfer such as Battlefield 2 had as opposed to respawning. Regardless, that is not my idea. The switch! That is what is important. The clear transition between modes where you select your unit and then play as it. That's the element that I don't think has been baked. |
|
| |
Battlezone:
Players control a vehicle but are able to 'zoom out' and
construct building and command other units in a tactical
overview. |
|
| |
Operation Flashpoint:
Players control one of (many) soldiers and the group
leaders can zoom out and command their subordinates
around. OPF (and the extensions) makes a great game for
lan parties ... there are even coop missions.
The sequel Operation Flashpoint 2 wasn't even close to the
original game. |
|
| |
(you could have googled that) |
|
| |
And finally Savage ... the game i was looking for before.
Gameplay exactly as descripted by the OP ... although if i
remember right there was no building feature |
|
| |
And another thing: the Spring Engine has a feature where
you can control any of your units in FPS mode at any time. |
|
| |
And another other thing: search the halfbakery for
"battlezone" and you'll find some entries like this one. |
|
| |
There are still some fps elements that are missing, but yes, I would agree that these are great starts. Savage indeed does have every unit played as, which I think is just insane. "1 to 127" other players.. Yes. Most of these things have building, unit creation, and fps modes. But weapon-pickup, entering vehicles, entering buildings, and, surprisingly, ammunition appear to be missing. Battlezone is buildings making vehicles. Vehicles just going around shooting each other. I can't argue with the graphics or the sheer weirdness of it due to its age, but even if it were updated in those regards it'd still be missing the essence of an fps. Savage appears to be infantry bound and it seems more like a Starwars Battlefront style in terms of unit creation. There seems to be a lot of stuff to Spring, but it's hard to determine what it all is. I think it might allow for a game such as I'd want to be created. By the way, I, being the OP, am not suggesting a commander and soldier division. That is the idea of "rts fps"! |
|
| |
In Battlezone you could get off your vehicle and several of
the buildings where large enough that you could enter them.
Actually if i remember correct the panels where you could
build other buildings where installed in the buildings. |
|
| |
But you are right ... most of the action was in vehicle
combat. |
|
| |