🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
"Me LEADER!!!!!!"
Wavinator : agreed a 100%
Screaming at the soldiers because they can''t find the damn path to the point you clicked is kinda understandable when playing an RTS. But put yourself in the soes of the sergeant that has to do the actual job, do it in First Person view ... they cry.
Suddenly this patch of forest becomes a nightmare, and you jsut can''t see where this "point Bravo32" you have to go to is, lucky you have a map, but do you have any sense of orientation.
In this case, it would be much more fun to have the sergeant do the pathfinding job (by cheating shamelessly), and the player would be totally blasted, watching his group actually getting there while he simply tries to save his skin.
Definitely love the idea
The question about the AI acting as a good leader seems pretty much biased to me as well. When you are observing the battlefield from a RTS PoV, it''s just not the same thing than when you are ON the battlefield.
At last you can see why chain of command is so important, and all the problems caused by it would probably be a good way to actually make the AI seem better than it is, because it actually get you out of the troubles.
I think you should actually cheat even more, by making the whole battle almost totally scripted ... the player would be only a pawn amidst gigantic forces clashing. Now that would be class.
''cause I don''t know if it would be interesting for the player to not have any control over the battle.
If the player is told that the whole thing is resolved real time, but as hard as he tries, he doesn''t seem to make a difference, think it would be more frustrating than having everthing nicely scripted, with room for dramatic situations.
I agree with the idea to keep it simple. Just try to save your own skin, and follow the sergeant...and if you get lost, remember the helicopter won''t wait for you !
(ahhhh, I would love to play Tour of Duty !)
youpla :-P
Screaming at the soldiers because they can''t find the damn path to the point you clicked is kinda understandable when playing an RTS. But put yourself in the soes of the sergeant that has to do the actual job, do it in First Person view ... they cry.
Suddenly this patch of forest becomes a nightmare, and you jsut can''t see where this "point Bravo32" you have to go to is, lucky you have a map, but do you have any sense of orientation.
In this case, it would be much more fun to have the sergeant do the pathfinding job (by cheating shamelessly), and the player would be totally blasted, watching his group actually getting there while he simply tries to save his skin.
Definitely love the idea
The question about the AI acting as a good leader seems pretty much biased to me as well. When you are observing the battlefield from a RTS PoV, it''s just not the same thing than when you are ON the battlefield.
At last you can see why chain of command is so important, and all the problems caused by it would probably be a good way to actually make the AI seem better than it is, because it actually get you out of the troubles.
I think you should actually cheat even more, by making the whole battle almost totally scripted ... the player would be only a pawn amidst gigantic forces clashing. Now that would be class.
''cause I don''t know if it would be interesting for the player to not have any control over the battle.
If the player is told that the whole thing is resolved real time, but as hard as he tries, he doesn''t seem to make a difference, think it would be more frustrating than having everthing nicely scripted, with room for dramatic situations.
I agree with the idea to keep it simple. Just try to save your own skin, and follow the sergeant...and if you get lost, remember the helicopter won''t wait for you !
(ahhhh, I would love to play Tour of Duty !)
youpla :-P
I think this post has just made an excellent point for a new strain of FPS games Single player ones at least.
People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
Single player ones at least.People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
I had that same thought with my brother about a year ago (not being the party leader) because we were trying to think of a prequel to a game (we like to think backwards) and it occured to us that it''d be cool if you weren''t the massive big hero''s great great grandfather so we decided to make the main character the sidekick.
this is kind of like the game design i am working on now. where you play as a soldier in an army going against a whole onslaught of the other army. so its not just to complete missions....the goal is to actually survive. orders are given to you...and if you follow them, then you might have a better chance of survival. on the other hand...maybe your superior officer doesnt really know what they are doing...so you would be better off going it alone. totally up to the player.
-Luxury
-Luxury
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
