It’s out now.
It’s out now.
Oooh, this sounds very interesting.
I finally looked into what Fall Guys is about, thought, “that looks a lot like Transformice”, and came here to post that.
At least I’m consistent.
Yup, it’s got a lot of transformice vibes. But that game was a race where you could see all the other players, and Fall Guys is a race where you can bump into the other players.
Horizon Zero Dawn is now on Steam. If you haven’t played this yet, I highly recommend it. From an environment and storytelling perspective, it was probably the best gaming experience I’ve had in the past few years.
It’s so shame that Arkham Knight burned me out so badly that I can’t really get excited about Knights. I could hope they learned that too much game is too much, but with 4 main characters, I doubt that.
Yeah, I’ve not that much interest in gotham knights, but Suicide Squad looks like it could be fun.
Smo Joe as Sharkie and Bombs Over Baghdad in the trailer? I’m sold.
All your base, and then some more bases on top of that.
I’ve thought of this concept before, and I’m hype that someone is going for it. Who knows if it’s good, but we won’t know until we try.
I also have long thought a co-op RTS of that type, with different roles in building the whole, would be a cool concept. Very interested to see how it plays out. I would be willing to bet its to be a pretty standard feature to put into the mix going forward.
Even if it’s implemented very well, there is one major problem I foresee. Everyone wants to manage the town. Almost nobody wants to micro the military. Sure, it will be substantially easier if it’s the only thing a person has to do, but it will be very difficult to make it any fun.
That’s def a good point, I always prefer the base building and defensive strategy to the army micro, but I assumed that the way a lot of people play (maybe that’s just a bias of mostly only seeing competitive RTS gameplay be recorded) that army micro aggressive offensive play is what many are there for, and the base building is stage-setting to get their army, or novice turtle tactics; and that if many players could just tell someone on their team what army they need the infrastructure for, they’d be free to do general shit and micro that army without worrying about how many farms are at optimal yield or where they are with developing the tech tree.
Certainly having sub-objectives in the field such as sending small squads out to claim towns, occupy structures, etc would give the army control a lot of macro depth, whild allowing opportunities for real hardcore micro of figuring out which streets and buildings are most vital. And stuff like that is what I also would enjoy in RTS games like Generals. I would often give myself objectives in skirmish like “occupy the entire western city of the map with troops, and defend the resource points there” despite that being a strategically absolutely pointless goal in the context of skirmish. If the game had more tactical depth such as many truly critical resource points across a map that are more than just a field of gold but might involve sending teams of engineers to setup work camps and defending them, searching a region for artifacts or hidden enemy outposts, controlling access to a major bridgehead or sending engineers to construct a new one, working out entrenchments and field works, having supply trains and command posts, and/or clearing the enemy from those towns, certainly that would have a lot of potential in my mind for really cool army micro.
In other words maybe what I’m saying is if the micro-level tactical aspect is more like the serious RTT games, but with the added layer that there’s still some macro going on that you have influence over, but no direct control over, it might add a spark missing from the pure RTT games.
If the general is responsible for constructing fortifications while the logistics manager is responsible for feeding the army and running supplies to the expanding (or contracting) front, there is a bit of overlap of play elements as well.