I love to hear other people's ideas when it comes to games and the like and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas recently in relation to RTS' or similar genres.
Full Version: RTS Game Ideas?
I have an idea.
Should i describe it?
Should i describe it?
QUOTE (Die Hindenburg @ 13 Sep 2015, 22:26) 
I have an idea.
Should i describe it?
Should i describe it?
Yeh mate, go ahead
That's what I was looking for.
Here are a few general things that make a good RTS:
Game play diversity
Each faction should have at least 2 viable strategies against another. If there is only 1 overarching strategy, then it better be very interesting in terms of how it plays out.
Dynamic, engaging game play
Throughout the game the player should either be thinking, doing something, or both. Modern games have a lot of "cinematic moments", which are fine in small amounts but increasingly, games are focusing on visuals over good game play.
Non-redundancy & uniqueness
At the same stage in a game, one unit should never eclipse another in every single way. To build off of that, units should be relatively unique. Often times that means emphasizing strengths and weaknesses. At other times this means giving units different skill sets/abilities.
Counter plays/back and forth action
With regards to overall strategy, usually this means one side will have power spikes at a certain stages, while another side will have power spikes at other stages. This gives rise to more advanced forms of game play (e.g. timing attacks, safe expansion/resource acquisition times, etc.)
Appropriate level of randomness
Predictability is important in planning plays and counter plays. This doesn't mean randomness needs to be eliminated; often times it can make things more interesting when implemented properly. When taken too far, randomness leads to coin flip match ups/battles, which are generally unfun.
Minimal gimmicks
There are game mechanics, and then there are gimmicks/novelties. A game mechanic is a resource or interaction that is important to how each game plays out (e.g. HP, resource systems, cover systems). A gimmick is what appears to perhaps be a game mechanic, but is more so a marketing ploy to get people to buy the game (i.e. very shiny but very shallow game mechanic). Usually gimmicks are appear "cool" the first few times you use it, but quickly become boring/repetitive and then you realize it adds nothing of value to the game.
Supportive of team play/social interaction
Few RTS games can survive on 1v1 game types alone. When someone loses a 1v1 game, they are either one of two kinds of people. The first kind takes the experience and wants to get better, often practicing or playing more because of it. The second kind becomes quickly demoralized and decides to play something else or avoid 1v1s. Most gamers fall into the latter category (just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with feeling that way, since many people are too busy to practice a game over and over). However when it is a team game, people can have fun even if they lose just by virtue of social interaction with their friend(s). This applies more so to MP games.
Game play diversity
Each faction should have at least 2 viable strategies against another. If there is only 1 overarching strategy, then it better be very interesting in terms of how it plays out.
Dynamic, engaging game play
Throughout the game the player should either be thinking, doing something, or both. Modern games have a lot of "cinematic moments", which are fine in small amounts but increasingly, games are focusing on visuals over good game play.
Non-redundancy & uniqueness
At the same stage in a game, one unit should never eclipse another in every single way. To build off of that, units should be relatively unique. Often times that means emphasizing strengths and weaknesses. At other times this means giving units different skill sets/abilities.
Counter plays/back and forth action
With regards to overall strategy, usually this means one side will have power spikes at a certain stages, while another side will have power spikes at other stages. This gives rise to more advanced forms of game play (e.g. timing attacks, safe expansion/resource acquisition times, etc.)
Appropriate level of randomness
Predictability is important in planning plays and counter plays. This doesn't mean randomness needs to be eliminated; often times it can make things more interesting when implemented properly. When taken too far, randomness leads to coin flip match ups/battles, which are generally unfun.
Minimal gimmicks
There are game mechanics, and then there are gimmicks/novelties. A game mechanic is a resource or interaction that is important to how each game plays out (e.g. HP, resource systems, cover systems). A gimmick is what appears to perhaps be a game mechanic, but is more so a marketing ploy to get people to buy the game (i.e. very shiny but very shallow game mechanic). Usually gimmicks are appear "cool" the first few times you use it, but quickly become boring/repetitive and then you realize it adds nothing of value to the game.
Supportive of team play/social interaction
Few RTS games can survive on 1v1 game types alone. When someone loses a 1v1 game, they are either one of two kinds of people. The first kind takes the experience and wants to get better, often practicing or playing more because of it. The second kind becomes quickly demoralized and decides to play something else or avoid 1v1s. Most gamers fall into the latter category (just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with feeling that way, since many people are too busy to practice a game over and over). However when it is a team game, people can have fun even if they lose just by virtue of social interaction with their friend(s). This applies more so to MP games.
The point on gimmicks instantly reminded me of the much advertised ColdTech feature in Company of Heroes, how your infantry units would lose temperature on winter maps and eventually freeze to death unless you babysit them near a heat source and every five minutes, a blizzard would appear, wiping out unprotected infantry and sharply reducing all sight ranges, essentially grinding gameplay to a hault for all sides involved. It was beyond annoying, ruined the pacing of the game and added no real benefit. The most recent patch thankfully added an option that allows you to disable ColdTech in custom games and boy, am I glad. Now I actually care to play the winter maps because based on their own merits, they are actually pretty nice. Goes to show how a mishandled gimmichanic ruined half the map selection.
My idea...Well not really my idea,I mean I am not first that came up with this,
as a matter of fact I am pretty sure people tried this earlier.
RTS/tactical FPS...
I would love if game developers would have further explored and developed
Battlefield 2's Commander System in some future games,instead it ended up just as a experiment.
As for FPS part of the game,well BF2s gameplay was pretty enough imo.
as a matter of fact I am pretty sure people tried this earlier.
RTS/tactical FPS...
I would love if game developers would have further explored and developed
Battlefield 2's Commander System in some future games,instead it ended up just as a experiment.
As for FPS part of the game,well BF2s gameplay was pretty enough imo.
I want a RTS game that is 100% about SP rather than those MP first, SP maybe secondary or not available types of game.
QUOTE (Sharpnessism @ 4 Oct 2015, 6:11)
Here are a few general things that make a good RTS:
Game play diversity
Each faction should have at least 2 viable strategies against another. If there is only 1 overarching strategy, then it better be very interesting in terms of how it plays out.
Dynamic, engaging game play
Throughout the game the player should either be thinking, doing something, or both. Modern games have a lot of "cinematic moments", which are fine in small amounts but increasingly, games are focusing on visuals over good game play.
Non-redundancy & uniqueness
At the same stage in a game, one unit should never eclipse another in every single way. To build off of that, units should be relatively unique. Often times that means emphasizing strengths and weaknesses. At other times this means giving units different skill sets/abilities.
Counter plays/back and forth action
With regards to overall strategy, usually this means one side will have power spikes at a certain stages, while another side will have power spikes at other stages. This gives rise to more advanced forms of game play (e.g. timing attacks, safe expansion/resource acquisition times, etc.)
Appropriate level of randomness
Predictability is important in planning plays and counter plays. This doesn't mean randomness needs to be eliminated; often times it can make things more interesting when implemented properly. When taken too far, randomness leads to coin flip match ups/battles, which are generally unfun.
Minimal gimmicks
There are game mechanics, and then there are gimmicks/novelties. A game mechanic is a resource or interaction that is important to how each game plays out (e.g. HP, resource systems, cover systems). A gimmick is what appears to perhaps be a game mechanic, but is more so a marketing ploy to get people to buy the game (i.e. very shiny but very shallow game mechanic). Usually gimmicks are appear "cool" the first few times you use it, but quickly become boring/repetitive and then you realize it adds nothing of value to the game.
Supportive of team play/social interaction
Few RTS games can survive on 1v1 game types alone. When someone loses a 1v1 game, they are either one of two kinds of people. The first kind takes the experience and wants to get better, often practicing or playing more because of it. The second kind becomes quickly demoralized and decides to play something else or avoid 1v1s. Most gamers fall into the latter category (just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with feeling that way, since many people are too busy to practice a game over and over). However when it is a team game, people can have fun even if they lose just by virtue of social interaction with their friend(s). This applies more so to MP games.
Game play diversity
Each faction should have at least 2 viable strategies against another. If there is only 1 overarching strategy, then it better be very interesting in terms of how it plays out.
Dynamic, engaging game play
Throughout the game the player should either be thinking, doing something, or both. Modern games have a lot of "cinematic moments", which are fine in small amounts but increasingly, games are focusing on visuals over good game play.
Non-redundancy & uniqueness
At the same stage in a game, one unit should never eclipse another in every single way. To build off of that, units should be relatively unique. Often times that means emphasizing strengths and weaknesses. At other times this means giving units different skill sets/abilities.
Counter plays/back and forth action
With regards to overall strategy, usually this means one side will have power spikes at a certain stages, while another side will have power spikes at other stages. This gives rise to more advanced forms of game play (e.g. timing attacks, safe expansion/resource acquisition times, etc.)
Appropriate level of randomness
Predictability is important in planning plays and counter plays. This doesn't mean randomness needs to be eliminated; often times it can make things more interesting when implemented properly. When taken too far, randomness leads to coin flip match ups/battles, which are generally unfun.
Minimal gimmicks
There are game mechanics, and then there are gimmicks/novelties. A game mechanic is a resource or interaction that is important to how each game plays out (e.g. HP, resource systems, cover systems). A gimmick is what appears to perhaps be a game mechanic, but is more so a marketing ploy to get people to buy the game (i.e. very shiny but very shallow game mechanic). Usually gimmicks are appear "cool" the first few times you use it, but quickly become boring/repetitive and then you realize it adds nothing of value to the game.
Supportive of team play/social interaction
Few RTS games can survive on 1v1 game types alone. When someone loses a 1v1 game, they are either one of two kinds of people. The first kind takes the experience and wants to get better, often practicing or playing more because of it. The second kind becomes quickly demoralized and decides to play something else or avoid 1v1s. Most gamers fall into the latter category (just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with feeling that way, since many people are too busy to practice a game over and over). However when it is a team game, people can have fun even if they lose just by virtue of social interaction with their friend(s). This applies more so to MP games.
Double ditto
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.