 |
|
|
| |
FPS and RTS Game Concepts Combined
by Luke Bergeron on 01/23/10 03:21:00 pm
|
|
| |
|
Posted 01/23/10 03:21:00 pm
|
| |
FPS (First Person Shooter) games are getting tired. The entire genre is tired, even the more innovative games. The formula has remained mostly unchanged for years, and although they are still fun, it’s time get some real innovation going. Sure, we’ve had a little innovation in the category: Left 4 Dead, Battlefield 1942, Team Fortress, and some others. I don’t want to get too caught up with talking about old games, or even justifying why I think the FPS genre is tired. There are just so many games in the space that I feel the market can support more innovation than is currently out there. Now, like I always say, I have little patience for the presentation of problems without the presentation of solutions, so I’d like to focus this post on how to breathe some new life into the FPS genre.
I believe that one way to revamp FPS is to include elements from Real-Time Strategy. There’s already a game out that tried to do this, called Raven Squad. Raven Squad attempts to blend some RTS elements, but it doesn’t do it right. It’s just too shallow.
Raven Squad puts players in control of soldiers in two squads. The game allows players to switch between the soldiers, and also switch between an overhead RTS view and a first person FPS view. However, what the game doesn’t seem to do is integrate the most important feature of RTS: base-building.
I know that some newer RTS games, like Dawn of War 2, have abandoned traditional RTS base-building and focused more on micromanagement of units. That’s fine – RTS needs innovation also, and I can see why removing base-building seems like a logical direction, especially as units get more complicated with individual abilities that must be triggered. That type of play doesn’t leave players much time to spend back at the base, queuing up space marines and building barracks.
However, when looking at how to combine RTS and FPS, base-building is necessary, and I’ll explain why. Team Fortress and Team Fortress 2, both FPS games, allow a limited amount of base-building with the Engineer class. Engineers can build gun turrets, medicine and ammo dispensers, and teleporters to get their teammates to the front lines faster. The play style is extremely rewarding, and popular among players who don’t enjoy the twitch gameplay FPS normally encourages. Playing an Engineer is all about setup, base-building, supporting your teammates with your structures.
So, unlike Raven Squad, I think that any type of FPS and RTS combination should adopt and expand the base-building gameplay style, similar to the TF2 Engineer class. So here’s my idea, detailed in what a typical gameplay session might look like:
I’ve been watching all the Starcraft 2 trailers and information lately, getting all hot and bothered about playing that game, so I’d like to use Starcraft as a way to talk about RTS. Since my idea is about combination, not RTS innovation, using an established game makes things easier to describe. So here we go:
Imagine linking up with your friends in a lobby and beginning a Starcraft game. I have three friends I usually game with: Justin, Shawn, and Jeremy, so I’m going to pretend I’m playing this theoretical game with them, just for the sake of explanation.
So, we meet up in a lobby, greet the other team, and begin the game, me and my three friends versus four other people. Once the game begins, instead of the usual RTS overhead view, my friends and I are inside individual “hero” units, looking out from the first person perspective. We’re all playing on the same team, say, as the Blue Terrans. We have weapons and can shoot them in true FPS style (none of that Fallout 3 RPG targeting nonsense).
Our team has shared resources, just as we would if we were playing an RTS and all controlling the same team. Since we’re using Starcraft as a model for this discussion, my imaginary team shares a pool of minerals and gas, just like in Starcraft.
Each member of my team has the ability to build buildings. If we have the minerals to build a building we want, all that’s required is one of us to select the building from a HUD menu, just like in an RTS, and place it somewhere, much like the Engineer places gun turrets and dispensers in Team Fortress 2. However, this system is much more advanced – all the buildings that can be built in Starcraft can be built here.
So, my three friends and I start a game. Justin and Jeremy decide to go scout the enemy’s base, while Shawn and I focus on base building. Shawn places our first building, the Command Center, and it begins to build. With the Command Center we will be able to build SCVs, the units we’ll need to harvest more gas and minerals. However, in hopes of getting us started faster, Shawn and I begin to harvest minerals ourselves, while we wait for the Command Center to build. We don’t have to do this, we could wait for the Command Center to finish and SCVs the build, but we want to get a jump on our enemies, and that means building a strong economy as fast as possible. So, we go to the minerals and harvest them, using a collection method similar to World of Warcraft’s: a progress bar that fills up, then the item joins our inventory.
Meanwhile, while Shawn and I are harvesting minerals and waiting for the Command Center to build, Jeremy and Justin have moved across the map and spotted the enemy base. The enemy is playing Terran also, but their color is red. Only three of the players are there. Justin and Jeremy assume that the fourth must be out scouting. All three players are furiously harvesting minerals, and not paying attention to what’s around them. Jeremy and Justin decide to have a little fun. Both pull out their weapons and start shooting up the camp. The three enemies respond by halting their mineral harvest and rushing out of their base to counterattack. Justin and Jeremy, caught in a two on three firefight, decide to slowly withdraw, firing the entire time. They don’t manage to kill any of the enemies, but they’ve helped our team by halting the enemy’s economy.
Back at the base, Justin and Jeremy show up just and the Command Center is finished. Shawn and I have harvested a decent amount of minerals in that time, enough for three SCVs and a Barracks. While those things build, Jeremy and Justin help Shawn and I harvest.
Once the SCVs are done, we set them to harvesting the minerals and begin to build a harvester platform over our gas mine. Controlling non-player units (NPUs) can be done in one of two ways:
a) Using an in-game menu that brings up the typical RTS-view for the player. However, this should seem as immersive as possible, so it should be done almost like the Pip-boy in Fallout 3, the player in the game brings up a menu that is built into his wrist, or equipment somehow, rather than just a HUD (Head’s Up Display). The menu allows the player to direct NPUs to their tasks.
b) Directly interacting with the NPU by engaging in some sort of conversation with it. This means physical proximity. The player walks up to the unit and tells it to harvest minerals, much like in RTS, by clicking on the unit and then clicking on the minerals. This would simply take place from a FPS view, instead of an RTS view. Of course, line of sight of the NPU and the objective would be required for this method.
I’m not sure which way would be more fun, but there’s no reason why both can’t be implemented. However, if using option A, physical proximity should still be required, simply to balance the methods.
Once the SCVs are harvesting both gas and minerals, the barracks is also ready. We’re set to start building our first combat units, Space Marines. Now, combat units can be handled in several different ways:
They can use FPS style squad mechanics, must like Tom Clancy-style FPS games, giving the combat NPUs commands like FOLLOW ME, HOLD THIS POSTION, ATTACK, and so on. That’s one option.
Another option is to use the RTS map built into the player’s gear. However, this option would be cumbersome in a firefight, so I don’t like it, unless it could be accessed fast, and without much disorientation as the player switched menus. The user interface needs to be good to make this type of game work – that’s a point I can’t stress enough.
A third option is a DOTA style attack mode. DOTA is a Warcraft 3 map. In it, NPUs (called “creep” in that game) are continuously sent at enemy bases, in a continuous stream. I don’t think the FPSSt should provide a continuous stream of enemies, but, but it could provide a pathing between bases that was similar. It would work like this: once a combat NPU was built, players could send it to ATTACK. Then NPU would now follow a path to the enemy base and attack. Players could join the attack if they wished. I like this method for simplicity’s sake. I also like that it allows a 4-player team to focus entirely on base-building if they so choose, but I don’t like that it nullifies most of the micromanagement tactics that make RTS good, since running blindly to an enemy base and attacking would probably just get the NPU killed without doing any damage.
As the game goes on we continue to build structures, contribute to the battle by commanding units and fighting personally. Similar to Starcraft, building different types of structures allows us to create new units, upgrade units, and create new equipment. In the FPS RTS hybrid, building “store” structures should also allow the players (that’s me and my friends) to purchase equipment upgrades that allow us to remain powerful, both offensively and defensivly. These equipment upgrades can be equipped in a style similar to Warcraft 3 or World of Warcraft. Drops from enemy units are also a possibility.
As is RTS style, base-building and combat continue until the other team is eliminated, surrenders, or another objective is reached.
Anyway, so that’s the general idea of a good way to mix FPS and RTS. The most important thing to remember is that base-building is necessary component in order to mix the two genres effectively. That aspect cannot be overlooked.
|
| |
|
|
But I think that players can both build, command and fight them selfs is a bit disorientating and will mess things up. I would rather work with classes like TF2, or call it ranks for this concept. Say once person plays the Chief Engineer, he places the buildings and is handling resource management, he is playing like an RTS. Than you would also have a general, more like your hero unit, he is standing by his troops on the battlefield but not at the front. He can draw out maneuvers on a battle-map. Like telling the scouts to go and search in a particular area, or telling troops to form a formation. These troops would see a guide on their mini-map or something else to receive the order. Then you would also have the battle classes. Snipers, Scouts, Soldiers, Demomen, maybe even Medics. These actually do the fighting and should follow the orders. They also should protect the HQ where the General is in and the main base.
(You could also maybe get more engineers, one Chief Engineer and some Support Engineers, who would try to work together to form the best base they can.)
Now, to make this fun, like an RTS with a large battlefield. We need a lot of troops and big maps. So AI support is really necessary, and I would do it like this. Squad based. Every human player, that decides to play a battlefield class (Soldier, Sniper, ...) should spawn as a Leader of a squadron of their class. (When of course the Engineers decide to train these kind of troops, could also be the General who is in command of troop dropping/training). And then the squad simply can be controlled or follows the ways of their Leader (like in Brothers in Arms for example).
In this way I'm convinced there is no mix up in ranks. Generals and Chief Engineers talk to each other to exchange strategies. And Generals talk and command the Squad Leaders. So each level has smaller minds to sync together and work to a common goal. And if you have more players, you can play on a world map. You would have several Generals, each on a battlefield. And behind them Chief Engineers trying to fix the resource lines to keep their troops fighting in those areas.
So, I think the main concept is, you need numbers to make it fun. And bringing a lot of players together is a problem maybe. But only the Chief Engineers and Generals are the most important and should play for entire battle. While battlefield classes, like a game of TF2 or any other shooter, can just drop in and out as they like, because they play a smaller role. And if there are more squads ordered than there are people on the server, just let AI take control of that squad, and fill in the role of Leader when there is a new user joining.
Your solutions are quite similar to a mad project I as envisioning for UT2004 for the NVidia Make Something Contest, which would use the Onslaught gametype as starting point. It was called UTS (Unreal Time Strategy).
Players being like the Heroes in RTS games and everybody being able to build, with some important buildings needing aproval of 2-4 players.
For the classes part which Steven talks about, my project was to let players upgrade their respawners with different classes and different levels, so everybody could switch classes when respawning, and you could also destruct, unbuild or hack the enemy upgraded respawners.
The Onslaught maps (Warfare in UT3) had pickup and vehicle placement defined, so I had building-bases, which where pre-determined places to build. And with that I had 3 size-categories for my buildings: small, medium and large. Having the HUD I'd implement in mind, I restricted a limit of 4 buildings into each category.
Here is the list I just took form the old GDD, I'm gonna skip descriptions cause it's a mix of english and portuguese that will take me a lot of work to fix now.
Buildings
• Small Buildings:
- Weapon Store (+4 packages)
- Pickup Deliver (ammo, medicine...)
- Small Defense Turret (A.I.)
- Powerup Deliver (major pickups)
• Medium Buildings
- Small Vehicle Factory: Manta/Raptor/Scorpion...
- Large Defense Turret (needs one operator)
- Team Upgrade: Damage/Health/Armor/Knowledge
- Technology Research: Anti-Vehicle Weapons/Power Suits(Special Classes)/Vehicle Upgrades/War Buildings(+A.I. turrets, shields, auto-repair...)
• Large Buildings
- Large Vehicle Factory: (Hellbender/Cicada/Goliath...)
- War Drone Factory: (A.I. drones/squads, since players are the champions)
- Powerup Tower: (improve habilities of team members in range)
- Bunker: (small complex with suplies, shield and defenses)
The Power Core (the main base in Onslaught gametype) could be upgraded as in any RTS, an also would work as the market (exchanging resources with other servers running the same gametype).
And the most important, which is the why I liked that project in comparison to all FPS/RTS hybrids around at that time. Every player would start with the Raise Weapon. Switching to this weapon is like switch to an RTS cursor, with allows for every needed RTS interaction. Point this weapon at anything gives it's info, and description if hold for a while. The first fire-mode is interaction with context-sentive menus of almost everything, from building structures, making upgrades, hacking enemy buildings/A.I. units/Vehicles..., marking hotspots and targets for the team, aproving pendant medium/large buildings, giving orders to A.I. units, spying enemy players/structure stats, everything... All in the game world with no HUD menu, just scroll a circular 3D menu around the target.
The second fire-mode of this weapons was to launch a builder drone, which allows player to construct small structures without the preset building bases, anywhere in the map. Drones would combine into bigger drones when put together, becoming able to make medium and large building aswell. Lauching each drone costs team resources, and the weapon has a cooldown before being able to launch another.
At the time I projected it I was 17 maybe, very fresh of ideas and passionate about having a game design career. I didn't have enough experience to bring it to life and everybody knows how much "game ideas" value, so it was never done and I moved into the indie scene. No more AAA pursuing for me.
(Now it's 2AM and I just woke up, should stop going overtime in saturday morning after working the whole night on personal projects)
Sacrifice is sort of another example of this type of blend. (not FPS exactly, but similar enough to provide some inspiration)
I like your particular take. It's much more influenced by today's RTS games than a lot of the previous FPS/RTS games. It'd be interesting to see a first person shooter game within the game mode provided by DotA style games.
One thing to note is that a blend of the two genres is not only harder to balance, but it's also harder to regulate the experience of each individual player when they're so dependent on another player's actions. This was the reason Valve changed their direction with TF2.
I think Luke's original suggestions is the one that most resembles a RTS with FPS elements, i guess that game would work better with a few numbers of players (like the suggested 4vs4) as it better suits the close cooperation needed in such a game.
Stevens suggestion also sounds interesting while slightly different, here the RTS part would only apply to a few players (the builders and generals) while the majority of players being normal "grunts". This aproach would look more like Battlefield 2 with commanders who being able to build stuff.
I still feel like a definitive RTS/FPS hybrid is yet to come, and will be quite successful if pulled off properly.
http://cgi.ebay.com/UltraBots-(PC-Games)-Ultra-Bots---EA_W0QQitemZ260534755457QQ
cmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20100108?IMSfp=TL100108234005r36137