Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games) Real Time Strategy (Games) Entertainment Games

Bruce Shelley On Future Of The RTS 44

Posted by simoniker from the age-of-rts-repetition? dept.
Thanks to GameSpy for posting an interview with Bruce Shelley of Ensemble Studios, talking to the strategy game veteran about his work on the Age Of Empires series, as well as the forthcoming Age Of Mythology expansion. However, Shelley also talks about the future of real-time strategy titles, suggesting: "There is a risk that gamers will become tired of the explore/build up/fight model for RTS games. The industry has now explored most of the good topics for an RTS game. Future excitement has to be generated largely by gameplay innovation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bruce Shelley On Future Of The RTS More

Bruce Shelley On Future Of The RTS

Comments Filter:

  • Suggestions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Sunday August 10, 2003 @02:30PM (#6660703) Journal
    I am constantly surprised by how conformist the game industry is. Game companies have barely scratched the surface of RTS. Combat could be drastically improved. Most current games concentrate mainly on unit differences. A far more interesting system could be made using the elements of formation, terrain, and maneuver. Control is rarely explored beyond simple point and click directions to individual units. An interesting system would be to make a few computer commanders which the human player could direct. With even simple AI such a system could have real potential. And RTS elements could also be easily combined with a true RPG style game or with FPS games to make for an interesting experience.

    • Re:Suggestions (Score:5, Insightful)

      by August_zero ( 654282 ) on Sunday August 10, 2003 @02:48PM (#6660794)
      You should check (if you haven't already)out the Total War series of games.(Shogun, Medeival and upcoming Rome) These games are all about tactics and formation. THere is no real-time resource management either, if your playing the campaign you have to manage you empire but when battles arise you must fight with what you have available. Two people playing with the same army could have the battle turn out completly differently everytime they play it just based on the tactics employed.

      ANother game that took a decent and unique approach to RTS is the Kohan series; also fairly decent if not a little dry.

      • Re:Suggestions (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Txiasaeia ( 581598 )
        There's just too much junk in TW: Medieval. TW: Shogun was pretty good, tho... misinterpreting the parent poster or not, I'd like a RTS set in 300 BCE in China, where the difference between armies is negligible, and the game is all about tactics. You wage an extended war against an opponent (or not... whoops, another enemy with a grudge has attacked your home turf and now you need to retreat.)

        When I play an RTS, I want to be the general, not the accountant. Let the computer worry about agriculture, tra

        • Re:Suggestions (Score:3, Informative)

          by Henry V .009 ( 518000 )
          I played Shogun and I liked it a lot. Historical realism obviously limits what the designers could do with the gameplay. But at the same time that's a strength as well because it focuses conception. Beyond the paper-scissors-stone (or Janken Pow?--I recently read that children all over the world play that same hand game and have for centuries) of the unit types, the terrain was the most important part of the game. Gameplay revolved around the hills, bridges, and forests. I felt that it was unfortunate,
          • Anybody remember The Art of War? I had it long ago for a Mac Classic. You started with units (basically squads) of different types and you had to accomplish an objective. You could either kill all the enemy's units or (as the frequent quotes from Sun Tzu recommended) accomplish your goal by more elegant means. When you met enemy units you saw a tactical screen where you could direct formations, attack, withdrawl, etc.

    • Re:Suggestions (Score:3, Interesting)

      by KDan ( 90353 )
      I agree. That might take a lot of the tedium out of some RTSs too - if you can leave a base with its "commander" and expect to still find it standing and productive when you get back, instead of having to micromanage everything. Also having intelligent units, as you've almost suggested with "control expanded beyond simple point and click directions" would make it all pretty sweet. All they need is a good interface for giving complex instructions to units. Eg, convince your night elf archer to always stay ou
      • I do like the idea of intelligent individual units. I always feel that the computer should do whatever it's capable of, and leave the strategy to me.

        What I was getting at with the commander idea though, was having some sort of general that you could assign a dozen of your troops to or some such. Then you could order him to defend a certain section of the map or to attack the enemy somewhere or raid or something like that. That would knock down the god of the battlefield feeling you get when playing mos
        • If you like that then take a game like The Moon Project where you can code up your own unit AIs. Write some good ones, then let your units do their own micro management, you just concentrate on the strategy.

    • Re:Suggestions (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You talk more about a war simulation than about a RTS, but nevertheless every feature you mentioned is tested in other games yet.
      Those features were dropped in WarCraft3, because they don't add much to the fun of the game. They make it more complex and harder for casual and new gamers.
    • > An interesting system would be to make a few computer commanders which the human player could direct.

      See _Conquest_. Also notable for being about the only RTS I know of that makes you maintain a supply chain.

      Chris Mattern
      • Offtopic I know, but awesome to see someone else that played (or plays) Conquest.. I loved that game, just found the original diskettes the other day and planned to install this evening.. Graphics sucked, didn't get a variation of units really, but you had so much control over what was going on.. Something lacking in todays RTS games in my opinion, I always feel like.. Either the games are simplified for morons, or the complex options you get are just tedious things that you end up never using/hate using..

      • Re:Suggestions (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Henry V .009 ( 518000 )
        Supply -- that was what I forgot to mention. Now, logistics is something that I wouldn't mind leaving up to the computer since it can count faster than I can. But supply makes holding ground important. In too many RTS games the map is just a place to fight. When you have supply lines however, you have to be much more careful with troop placement. There are certain areas that are vital to defend and any attack has to be carefully conducted so that it will not get cut off. Now, much of this stuff should
    • Have you heard of Natural Selection (mod for Half Life)?

      Its a combination FPS and RTS, where the commander has an overhead view, commanding other human players what to do. Its effectivly "Starcraft: The FPS".

      Another game on the horizon, Savage. Google for it, as I couldnt find the homepage for it quickly. Its also another Overhead commander/FPS game.

      what I really miss in a LOT of RTS's, is the ability to tell units either
      1) Hold fire
      2) Return Fire
      3) Fire When Safe
      4) Fire at Will.
      5) Flee when health at X
      • Yes, I've played Natural Selection and enjoyed it a lot. I think that it really should have two teams with overhead commanders, but it's still fun the way it is. I think that it provides a strategy cooperation element that multi-player games have sorely lacked.

        I think, however, that an FPS, RTS, combo could work well as a single player game. Perhaps most of the RTS part of the game could be automated, and the player could hop around to different individual units in the thick of battle -- imagine jumpin

    • Re:Suggestions (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ComputerSlicer23 ( 516509 ) on Sunday August 10, 2003 @06:19PM (#6661771)
      I have read a number of your posts in this thread. It sounds like you really want a RTT (Real Time Tactics). What you're talking about isn't strategic in the military sense. I do like the concept of having to maintain supply lines.

      Kohan, is kind of a push in direction you describe. Essentially, you can't control minute details of the battle, in fact, once a battle starts you have 3 options, rout, retreat, and keep fighting. Once you get within range, you start to battle. You can control formation, and relative positions of the different companies.

      Some of the things you might like about Kohan, and that I wish got included in more RTS games, is moral is important. If you have been fighting non-stop for extended periods of times, eventually your units will just rout, run away, and you'll have no control over the situation. Even if they are crushing the opponents, at some point they have to rest. I like the concept of experienced units. I like that as long as the entire company doesn't die, you get to keep the experience (possibly that should be modified).

      The other game, I haven't seen mentioned is the Myth series of games. They are strictly tactics games. Here's the force you have, accomplish objectives X, Y, and Z.

      Another game is Warlords Battlecry I & II, have some concept of supply, and having to hold ground to keep getting your resources.

      I think there are several problems with the game you want. First, the game you describe, you'll either have no control over the details (like Kohan), or you won't have enough time to deal with everything at once, or there will only be a single battle. The games style you are talking about is relatively common in turn based games, where people have lots of time to deal contemplate things like the terrain.

      However, I've used formation, terrain, and maneuver to my advantage in WarCraft III. It's easy to tell how much attacking, from uphill works out better. I've crushed a number opponents that outnumbered me by hitting their magic support from behind.

      The one thing I really, really wish I could get my hands on, is a scripting language that was very powerful to write my own scripts to deal with priorities, and input things into it. The concept of trading scripts, and downloading scripts. The problem of course, it could completely ruin the performance of the game. I just wish I had more control over each individuals units reaction to certain events, (kinda like I was the general who laid out the training plan for them).

      Kirby

      • Re:Suggestions (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Sunday August 10, 2003 @06:59PM (#6661883) Journal
        I think that most of my suggestions have both a tactical element and a strategic element, and actually I'm more interested in the strategic side of things. I don't mean for all of my suggestions to be combined into one game, either. I'd simply like to see attention paid to them issues in future game.

        All issues of strategy have a tactical base. Formation is technically a tactics issue. But combined arms is a strategy issue, and in games without formation, it's hard to effectively use combined arms. Terrain is a tactics issue, but holding ground is strategy. Maneuver is the essence of tactics, but you can't have very much strategy at all if you are simply limited to clicking where you want your troops to go. (Or, more correctly, if you aren't limited in how you can order your troops to move.) Though terrain exists to some degree in Warcraft III, for example, there isn't a great deal of thought about strategic position. Rather, it is mostly about tactical position, quite a different thing.

        I think that the most interesting improvements in regard to strategy might come from finding some way of limiting the player's knowledge and power over the battlefield. That was the impetus behind my idea of having individual AI generals.

        Kohan sounds a little bit like Shogun, though you have more control in Shogun. I think morale is a realism issue, but it can add a dimension that provides a lot of fun.

        I think your scripting idea is very good, and there are ways around the performance issue. The easiest would be to ration CPU time to player's scripts. That would mean that a more complicated script would take more gametime to execute. If a unit has 5 rules of engagement, it will react more slowly than a unit with 3, for example. I think that it would be very interesting to go up against a player with your own custom AI, to see how it does against his.

      • OMFG (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Canar ( 46407 )
        Yes! Yes! Scripting support! Something good like that! Mod the parent up!

        Seriously, with scripting support, you could automate all the trivial micromanagement away and do what you wanted to. I hate, hate, hate RTS's for not doing this. This single feature would make me buy a game, and I haven't bought a game since Tomb Raider 1.
    • Many of your ideas have been implemented well. The idea of formation, terrain and maneuver have been the very foundation of the Myth [bungie.com] series. It becomes very much a tactical game rather than a strategy game.

      Combining the RTS elements within other genres has also been covered. The half-life mod Natural Selection [natural-selection.org] puts one player in a commanding RTS style view, while other players act as their peons.
    • Everything you mention has been or is being done before in multiple games, and what you think is easy isn't.

      Myth is very formation and terrain-oriented, and has very little resource management. It's more of a real-time tactical game. The "Total War" series is also heavily tactical. Homeworld makes extensive use of formations. Kohan models formation in a more abstract way, as well as supply and zones of control.

      Close Combat gives its units much more AI than a standard RTS, and models terrain and morale
      • I have played both Myth and Shogun. I was impressed by the tactics side of both games, but not by how the strategy side took advantage of it. As you say, I wouldn't really consider either to be RTS. I think that I wrote some comments on Shogun above. My comments on supply were a reply to a comment on Kohan which I have not played.

        Warcraft 3 certainly did drop RPG elements, but that was hardly because of some inherent difficulty with combining the two.

        I've mentioned Natural Selection in another comme

    • As another poster mentioned, the Close Combat [atomic.com] games are great RTS games, highly recommended. No mining or tree cutting, just WW2 combat with fairly smart units, i.e. they'll seek cover on their own instead of standing around and getting butchered.

      Another really interesting series is Combat Mission [battlefront.com]. It's a not quite real time game, with a pretty decent 3D engine. The 3D engine makes terrain hugely important when fighting. The steppe looks flat, but in reality it's a gently rolling plain, with lots of plac

  • Close Combat (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Sunday August 10, 2003 @03:30PM (#6660979) Journal
    I recently played C&C Generals. It looked great. It played, well it played like the original C&C. The same idiocy of having to build a production center right near the frontlines. Still being asked to fight a war and a mining operation. Okay so the americans could build a structure wich actually seemed to give you money from the home country. But the units was the same rock-paper-scissors mix. And the AI seem to have all the faults that date back to dune.

    In Dune, you had ornicopters wich went in and would fly damaged vehicles back to base for repair. This is the only time I have ever seen intelligent behaviour in a westwood game. It really helped out as you could launch an attack and then depend on the choppers to rescue the most endangerd units. In the C&C followups you can't even count on units in front of an endangered unit to join in the fight. Hell most often the unit underfire will just stand and take it.

    Now enter Close Combat. It scaled down the units and grouped them together, but most importantly the units seem to react to things going around them. If you order a unit to cross a field and it came underfire it would seek cover and return fire. Other units you held back to cover them would supply covering fire.

    It even went so far that units with nothing to do would advance on their own or seek better positions to fire from. It gave you the idea that you were a commander not a babysitter.

    But AI seems to be the most difficult thing to code. We can generate graphics that would have dropped our jaws a few years ago. But has anyone of us seen the same increase in AI? I at least have not.

    Sure in vietcong the enemy seems slighly more intelligent then those in say Doom but youre own team mates seem not able to keep up.

    Sadly I don't think anybody cares. The sales figures for the more realistic wargames are pityfull next to the C&C and AoE franchises. Apperantly people like sheepherding braindead units.

    • I completely agree, the units are for the most part brain-dead. They do exactly what you tell them no more no less, the problem is there are too many units to deal with so it is easier to just rush and hope for the best.

      Many of the best units can't be used effectively because you have to hand hold them.

      Also, vi is the best ;-)
    • I wouldn't exactly agree with you on the comformity in games, at least in the RTS genre. Theres will always be brand names that sell, and attract no matter how crappy they get. Chances are we all remember Dune 2 (or at least C&C:Red Alert 1) and I think, at least some of us, recognize the fact that gaming has been on a decline for the most part.

      Most notably, AI has not improved much at all. Decent AI will never be formed with in the next 20 years; we have a better chance of discoving time travel, havi

      • This is very true. When Command and Conquer: Tiberian Sun was being hyped in the lead up to its release, Westwood were talking about how the AI was 'intelligent' would 'adjust its tactics' and how pathfinding was fixed. It all ended up being just that, hype. Although the Unit pathfinding was vastly improved. While we're on the subjet, lets bow our heads in a minutes silence in respect for the demise of beloved Westwood, recently consumed by the 'beast' aka EA.

  • Small Unit Combat Tactics (Score:4, Informative)

    by TheRealGigabyte ( 691973 ) on Sunday August 10, 2003 @04:58PM (#6661403) Journal
    One new RTS im looking forward to is Homeworld 2. Its includeing the bundled unit system where you make one unit and it spits out a couple. You control the group together instead of the individual units. More groups you add together the more the AI will alter the tactics and formations for best effect. I think this will be the big new fad in RTS games. Small units with scaleing tactics and formations that respond dynamicaly to battlefield events and situations.

  • I do not think so (Score:3, Funny)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Sunday August 10, 2003 @09:53PM (#6662590) Homepage Journal
    "There is a risk that gamers will become tired of the explore/build up/fight model for RTS games"
    Why it has worked for the last few thousand years. Why would it get boring now?
  • I think the next greatest thing will a true port of the text game Empire. I have yet to have seen a game that incorporates all the military units BF1942 comes close but no subs and getting the units to go where you want them too is difficult, its like they have a mind of their own!
  • Has anyone here heard of this game? It's not gotten mentioned yet, despite being practically synonymous with "innovative RTS"... GSC's definitely taking the genre in an extremely interesting direction, diametrically opposed to that of Warcraft III but just as interesting. By the last version of Cossacks proper, it was possible if not routine to field thousands of troops at a time, and be fighting more or less plausible 17th- and 18th century wars... The scale was infinitely larger than AoE or Warcraft, and
  • Another rather unique variation on rts is the commandos series. There's no resource management - no resources at all. You control a set number of units per mission - your commandos - each with his own specialty - eg thief, sniper, diver. It's difficult to master, but if you're looking for a drastic change from, say, age of empires, this may be for you.
  • I'm surprised that no mention of Natural Selection or Savage were mentioned when they were discussing innovation in RTS gamming. I think having units are that real people that has been one of the biggest changes to the RTS genre.

    • Re:natural selection (Score:2, Interesting)

      by gtshafted ( 580114 )
      man my grammar sucks... What I meant to type: "I'm surprised that there was no mention of Natural Selection or Savage when they were discussing innovation and the future of RTS gamming. I think having units are that real people that has been one of the biggest changes to the RTS genre."
  • For you looking for inovation in RTS, take a look at Total Annihilation. It's old, but rather unoticed game, by far the best gameplay and replayability in this genre. There are so many inovations, and the battles are much more realistic.
    • Or Natural Selection [natural-selection.org]. This free multiplayer mod pits a team of aliens against space marines counter-strike style. The game is really an RTS, however, with a tech tree and resources. The marines have a commander in charge who runs their strategy, makes buildings, and buys upgrades while the aliens work as a collective.


      -m

    • TotalA is to date my favorite RPG. Good terrain influence. Huge # of units support. 500 is settable through configs, get the patch for 5000.

      I love the sheer # of units. With starcraft and waht not, its rock paper scissors. X counters Y counters Z counters X. Blah. With TA, theres always a myraid of options to choose from. I feel like combat is much more spontaneous when you have to play against the other player, not the game engines predefined unit-trump cycles.

      I really really would like to see mor

Slashdot Top Deals

Professional wrestling: ballet for the common man.

Close