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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGMhTsK-hh4
The Switch continues to be the perfect gaming console for me.
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.
2 Likes
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.
Scott, I have the exact opposite desire. Base building in RTS feels like a distraction from the tactics and combat strategy (I know its a key part of the deeper strategy).
That’s why Company of Heroes and Company of Heroes 2 were the RTS games I truly fell in love with. Resources being purely derived from map control points meant it forced strategic conflicts and made scouting, patrolling, and spreading out a necessity. Base building was largely distilled into what to tech to when and efficient resource use in force composition vs tower defense mixed with sim city (I joke).
Well, Company of Heroes is unique-ish in that the micro management of the troops actually made sense in an almost X-Com way. Ordering individual dudes to take cover here or there. Lines of sight mattering. It was definitely more of a squad based thing than a *craft or Command & Conquer style RTS. But producing and outfitting a smaller number of units like that is going to make life rather uninteresting for the player doing base-building.
The point is that the more traditional RTS micro is not so great. I’m sure that there are people that enjoy it, but I always felt like most people who did it were simply prioritizing winning over having fun. Or they were the kind of people for whom winning was fun, regardless of the means required to achieve it.
The game you describe of tower defense + sim city sounds awesome. I want to play that.
1 Like
I somehow find this “people don’t find games they like fun to play” -argument baffling. LIke I dislike some games and I think people who enjoy them are dumb for doing so, but I’d never question the idea that they still enjoy it in the first place.
1 Like
Believe it or not there are people who do things they do not like doing, but they do them anyway. They have their reasons, and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes those are good reasons, and sometimes they aren’t.
That’s not what we’re talking about here, though. This is a situation when a person likes a thing, but dislikes parts of that thing. They still like the overall thing enough to continue to engage with it, despite its flaws. You see this a lot in larger games, because they often include several systems that are entire games in and of themselves. Most players will gravitate towards some of those systems and away from others, especially when the game doesn’t mandate interaction with all of those systems.
Take for example, Pokemon. One person likes to catch 'em all. Another player likes to train the strongest team for battle. Players aren’t required to do either.
I’m fairly confident that the micro-management of military units in the classic RTS games is something that most players would list as the part of the game they like least. Notice how every single new spin on the RTS genre that gets developed, especially by indies, is trying to get away from that? If people really enjoyed the micro, we would see games that are “just micro the soliders and nothing else.” I have never seen or heard of such a game. I’ve never heard anyone express a desire for that kind of game. If such a game did come out, I think it would do poorly. It might do well as a satirical art piece. “Hey, I made a game that takes most people’s least-favorite part of RTS games and removed all of the other stuff!”
There are a lot of games that are basically that. Look at… I don’t know… King Arthur’s Gold.
Go to fighting game player and throw an idea of fighting game that is just about combo execution and nothing more and they’d say that’s trash idea. Then suggest removing combos and combo execution completely from fighting game and that idea will also be trashed. So what’s the issue, are these people just hypocrites who claim they like a part of a game but don’t actually want it, as they don’t want a game that’s just that one thing.
Meditate on that for while.
You’re only controlling one guy, and it’s a platformer.