Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Banner advertising on our site currently available from just $5!


1. Learn about the promo. 2. Sign up for GDNet+. 3. Set up your advert!


Mratthew

Member Since 20 Apr 2011
Offline Last Active Jul 02 2015 11:15 PM

#5019236 What makes an RTS great?

Posted by Mratthew on 08 January 2013 - 05:00 PM

You probably shouldn't talk for everyone Shiftycakes, but you do make a strong point for the shortcomings of past RTS, its time to show off the worth of the individual surviving unit in an RTS. Black Ops 2 took RTS elements and used them in a FPS (fairly successfully from how I hear it) but this couldn't have happened without standing on the shoulders of successful RTS games.




#5019197 RTS Factions With Different Organization

Posted by Mratthew on 08 January 2013 - 03:17 PM

I think so long as the game offers unit growth (so each soldier can be as strong as the strongest factions unit) then this works fine. Balance is something that strategy games should be fighting against in my opinion. The whole idea of strategy is to use it to beat the odds. To outsmart your enemy and use all strategies to win against them. Balancing became an issue with "races" because players would get attached to a race and hated to lose with that race. I think there should be weak and strong factions to represent the real strife that any organism has to face. Adapt and evolve or be wiped out.




#5018924 What makes an RTS great?

Posted by Mratthew on 08 January 2013 - 12:47 AM

I also like the idea of squad building. I've brought this up before but I'm going to try and reword it. If you are going to send a squad of 20 soldiers head long into death, any survivors should be worth more then the average soldier. And by stacking a new group of 20 soldiers on that surviving veteran, that 20 soldiers should be more effective and easier to issue commands to like issuing a single macro command along with a supporting kite skill command to the veteran instead of micro control over the 20 units to achieve a successful kite tactic against the enemy. I like building and customizing my units (even one at a time) but I hate losing them because I couldn't keep track of them or because they "weren't as important". Sometimes you need to crack a few eggs but the idea of these games is that you should be able to achieve a level of play where you don't have to. That's what superior strategy is.

 

This could go further as well, stacking multiple veteran controlled squads onto single platoon leader and multiple platoon leaders onto an outfit commander and issuing a single assault command to the outfit commander then jumping down the ranks to issue skill commands to platoon leaders, squad leaders and soldiers alike to achieve the advantage. Then dropping a nuke on the whole mess because I still failed, that's what superior strategy is ;D




#5018919 What makes an RTS great?

Posted by Mratthew on 08 January 2013 - 12:32 AM

Something I'd like to see in RTS is more vertical game play. I realize visibility limitations occur for the average RTS but there is also many well established systems for character selection and unit following now that jumping to a platoon of soldiers on the 312 floor of a building that is being cleared should not only be possible but I should have played it by now. A holographic display of units inside structures, etc would help to keep the player immersed in the look of the game the same way that Company of Heroes sound design uses a static filled radio call from units off screen to keep the player immersed in the sound. Vertical game play could carry over to more creative species like Zerg, enabling units to wall crawl and hide on the ceiling and in vents properly (not burrowing through steel plating). Mage's could control tall spires to summon greater titans and bring down more terrible wrath on the hordes below. Great apes could climb buildings eating people to keep his strength up.

 

In any case, I think you get the idea.




#5018700 RTS games, looking for some 'racy' ideas... :D

Posted by Mratthew on 07 January 2013 - 01:44 PM

Human capitalist society vs. the theoretical resource based economy society

 

Capitalist organization

-everything is part of the market (worth something)

-success is measured in profit

-each unit looks to make money and is measured by its monetary worth

-commanders pay for kills, soldiers are taxed and pay for weaponry (slow tech growth)

-everything requires monetary incentive to accomplish

-no account for the enviroment (extraction of resources destroys the map randomly)

-scarcity is key

-or however best to translate the ideals of a capitalist driven society to RTS gameplay

 

RBE organization

-all resources must be accounted for before production can occure

-success is measured by sustainability (low resource impact, advanced tech, low to no collateral damage strategy)

-high level of technical growth and wide variety of technology

-everything requires organization to accomplish

-defining needs and achieving abundance is key

-or however best to translate the ideals of this movement to RTS gameplay




#5018666 MMO RTS, what if blown up stuff didn't disappear?

Posted by Mratthew on 07 January 2013 - 12:22 PM

I think this disabled, immobilized or destroyed permanent wreck system combined with Company of Heroes cover system could make the wreck of a defeated tank column into the covered approach of an infantry platoon. could be a lot of fun. Lighter vehicles could act like red barrels, being an explosive target for someone fighting someone foolish enough to use it as cover.

 

To save on data the library of instanced map objects could have a dynamic portion that allows dead units to be added and subtracted (if destroyed or salvaged) from it making the rules of the map's instanced objects apply to it. Maybe create a texture set that can be carried over to any wreck and corpse, the dead unit could then be replaced with the identical instanced map object and the instanced texture data, making the dynamic object into a static part of the map and level design.

 

This could be especially impressive with huge ships in low orbit crashing into the surface. Becoming a whole new part of the map and dynamic addition to the game since every time it crashed it would be different.




#5018102 Dynamic Game Content for an MMO RTS...

Posted by Mratthew on 06 January 2013 - 01:19 AM

Different types of geographical choke points are important as well. Heavy cover, high ground, rough terrain, city choke points, constructed and burnt ground should all have useful units/unit skills that enable various lesser units to hold out against heavier more armored/armed units.




#5016467 Card mechanics (for a strategy game)

Posted by Mratthew on 01 January 2013 - 02:48 PM

1) Don't use a top down view, go isometric for the discarded cards. It'll take up less room but still be recognizable.

5721617-pile-of-index-cards-on-white-bac

 

2) Force the player to either use a card or discard a card at each turn. So the player cannot end a turn without missing at least one card from their hand.




#5014260 Feedback on RPG Assets

Posted by Mratthew on 25 December 2012 - 04:21 PM

The mage and paladin type characters look great, I might explore some more diversity in armor design for the sake of color, lots of grey going on there. The swordsmen looks like he saw an old man fall off a bike. Not so much angry as a "yikes" and the rogue looks like he's smelling something unfortunate. Unless that's what you were going for ;D




#5007643 What are various ways to "do evil/bad" or "do good" in a game?

Posted by Mratthew on 05 December 2012 - 11:34 PM

It depends on the cultural norms you want to establish. It could actually be a really neat exercise to write/explore>play in a culture unlike anything we are used to and learning what that culture considers good/acceptable or bad/taboo. Learning a new way to live. Where the "F" word can be said in front of your grandmother but giving a high-five is illegal. No matter what the cultural norms however, your first step is to determine the actions you'd like the player to explore, (gather objects, help someone, move something, build something, find something, etc).

Check out lists of verbs and find ones that stick out for you and write out a situation based on the verb. Take the action and consider the most wonderful outcome that could follow that action (affecting the character or affecting many people) and the worst and you're dichotomy is set.

I would like to point out that the great part of most stories is exploring the grey area of things. When the worst actions can be justified where morality as we know it crumbles under circumstance. Creating a third option for players to explore good, bad and subjective.


#5003648 What would you want from a zombie apocalypse simulator.

Posted by Mratthew on 23 November 2012 - 08:59 PM

You should make a Black Friday game ;D no need for zombies. Surviving a store is scary enough on Black Friday.

Have you played Left 4 Dead? I'd say it sets the bar for zombie combat. Plenty of dismemberment there. However realistic weapons use here could be interesting (since you're looking to simulate).

You should consider the use of zombies as well, being able to trap them "alive" and use them as weapons against other dangerous survivors could be interesting. The idea treads on some grey area but I've never seen this done in a zombie story (short of necromancers I suppose).


#5003260 What would you want from a zombie apocalypse simulator.

Posted by Mratthew on 22 November 2012 - 10:04 AM

Crowds, real threatening crowds of humans and zombies and the true spread of panic and confusion. Watching the faces of people shift from being unsure and unsettled, to worry, to panic then to horror and true fear and flight. Dynamic true sim of group fear during a disaster. If this is meant to be a simulator then this is the angle you should explore, navigating the chaos of panicked dangerous people. Capturing the emotional distress of the masses and the true disaster of the chaos these masses create. Zombies aren't scary, people are scary. Zombies (like all monsters) just show a side of people that we can't escape.

I disagree with this being something other then a zombie game however if its suppose to be a simulation, then zombies should be just another part of what is the real survival during this type of apocalyptic outbreak. Since the real threat is surviving each other. Finding ways to survive together (this is why walking dead is so go).

The book World WarZ explores the idea of people losing their mind and believing that they are zombies and how dangerous they are because although they can feel pain they have full mobility these are proper running zombies.


#5002178 Something that bothers me...

Posted by Mratthew on 18 November 2012 - 06:46 PM

TheChubu I kind of agree with this statement if we're suppose to be getting immersed into a game's world, we shouldn't be thinking about the camera and any head bob or sway should be minimal at best to seem natural not to remind us we are in first person (this should be self evident;).


#4994349 Affecting the actual player as an alternative to affecting the playable chara...

Posted by Mratthew on 26 October 2012 - 11:52 PM

DaveTroyer's right Hideo Kojima is the king of blurring the lines between an in game experience and a player's experience.

*Spoilers below* The battle with Pscho Manits in Metal Gear Solid actually read the memory card on the Play Station this boss battle involved Mantis making comments about the games the player had made saves for, required the player use another controller and pretended to change the video input on the tv by momentarily going to a blue screen and displaying a familiar green "Hideo" in the top right corner. These mechanics made for a great boss battle.

A reflection of the player's choices represents that the game designer(you) are interested in the players, this conversation is important in any art, but like so many game design ideas it doesn't mean it will be fun. Build and test! Its the only way to be sure.


#4989831 So, What makes players to play a game over and over?

Posted by Mratthew on 13 October 2012 - 11:37 AM

Lauris I'd have to agree. There are stories we come back to because its plain and simple a good story (not just a novel idea). It is harder to nail down the tangible elements that make these stories something so successful (other then great writers). We tend to come back to our favorite stories especially to share with people. IMO Interactivity only stands in the way of a great story if it ruins the pace of the story's progression. I feel this element of story telling is important and so often overlooked.

I'd also say the control choice is hugely important. The peripheral or control scheme defines the players connection to their experience, like so many people are attached to physical books (compared to digital books) its the tangible connection to our experiences that make them memorable




PARTNERS