Discussion:
Halo as FPS -- AND -- RTS
(too old to reply)
A Man, Just Like Other Men
2005-08-16 05:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Gamespot had a 'rumor control' article addressing some rumored discussions
of adding Real Time Strategy elements to the Halo universe. My mind was
working tonight while trying to sleep so I thought I'd type out some
thoughts on just how this could work and be very cool, especially on-line.

We are seeing some games with different 'classes', not all super-soldier
types: medics who are needed to heal, engineers who are needed to set
explosives, etc. So in my version of "Halo RTS" you get on-line and pick a
'campaign'. A campaign will be a series of battles on a pre-determined map.
Somehow 'units' for each campaign will be determined. A unit will be a
collection of soldiers and vehicles: a squadron of banshees, scorpions, or
ghost-supported infantry for example.

When you sign on to the campaign you pick whether you want to be a
'general', 'soldier', or even both. The general will be able to move his
units across the terrain -- thus the RTS portion -- to take control of
strategic locations depending on the main objectives of the campaign. For
example, you could use your scorpion unit to secure a strategic bridge (king
of the hill), or send your infantry in to blow up a fuel depot (assault), or
even execute a SAR (Search And Rescue) of a valuable prisoner (capture the
flag). The soldier could be of specific classes if you like (sniper,
scorpion driver, etc.).

Once one or more of the general's units need to go into battle against enemy
units, that hex becomes a 'map' like coagulation, mid-ship, etc. The
servers go 'recruit' soldiers for the battle on that map, much like
matchmaking in the playlists. So if you sign on as a soldier you'll have
access to all the battles that are seeking recruits. You can sign on based
on the type of unit you want to be a part of: banshees, scorpions, a sniper
unit, etc, or by the map. One cool aspect is you won't necessarily know
what you're going up against, just the unit you'll be in. You could be way
outmatched but defending a high-value prisoner, or you could be in a
scorpion unit assaulting an infantry position -- it depends on how good your
general was in moving units across the terrain.

If the general wants to jump into one of the battles he just set-up, then
he'll be able to no problem. Each 'turn' of the RTS portion could have a
time limit and if enough soldiers can't be found for all the battles needed
that turn then the server can roll the dice in the background to determine
the outcome, just like today's RTS games, so there's no loss there. But of
course when enough soldiers are found, we now have a great mix of RTS and
FPS elements; both working together, both skills needed to complete the
campaign. Each battle would take between 5 and 15 minutes like today's
Halo2 battles, so the RTS portion could still move along fairly quickly;
also helped by the fact that the servers can recruit for multiple battles
going on simultaneously across the board, and units not involved with a
battle can still be moved across the board to other strategic objectives.
Bots could be used for un-filled slots in the unit or even for quitters.

And "Halo RTS" will add a sense of reality to RTS games because the outcomes
of each battle won't just be dice rolls -- they'll be played out by real
soldiers. If you wanted to throw some light Roll Playing elements in you
could do so easily by keeping 'rankings' like today's Halo2 Playlists, and
as you gain ranks you can level up your character's skills, or cross train.
Also, battles can be composed of similarly ranked soldiers, just like
today's playlists.

Time for bed, and time for "Halo RTS". Thank you for your time.
Doug Jacobs
2005-08-17 00:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Man, Just Like Other Men
Gamespot had a 'rumor control' article addressing some rumored discussions
of adding Real Time Strategy elements to the Halo universe. My mind was
working tonight while trying to sleep so I thought I'd type out some
thoughts on just how this could work and be very cool, especially on-line.
RTS's traditionally consist mainly of building your forces and the
infrastructure (buildings, economy) to support them. What you describe
below is basically a more elaborate team-based FPS - not that that would
be a bad thing, mind you, I just wonder about the logistics of having
enough players to actually play a decent game.

Traditional RTS games haven't done well on consoles since their
controllers aren't really suited to that sort of game. Besides, to make
it more interesting you'd need to have more than just 2 different
races/armies represented... A 2 sided RTS is so C&C. ;)
babanoosh
2005-08-17 01:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Jacobs
Post by A Man, Just Like Other Men
Gamespot had a 'rumor control' article addressing some rumored discussions
of adding Real Time Strategy elements to the Halo universe. My mind was
working tonight while trying to sleep so I thought I'd type out some
thoughts on just how this could work and be very cool, especially on-line.
RTS's traditionally consist mainly of building your forces and the
infrastructure (buildings, economy) to support them. What you describe
below is basically a more elaborate team-based FPS - not that that would
be a bad thing, mind you, I just wonder about the logistics of having
enough players to actually play a decent game.
Traditional RTS games haven't done well on consoles since their
controllers aren't really suited to that sort of game. Besides, to make
it more interesting you'd need to have more than just 2 different
races/armies represented... A 2 sided RTS is so C&C.
I love C&C so much. I can spend endless hours playing that game, even to
this day. Have you tried Act of War?
A Man, Just Like Other Men
2005-08-17 04:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Jacobs
Post by A Man, Just Like Other Men
Gamespot had a 'rumor control' article addressing some rumored discussions
of adding Real Time Strategy elements to the Halo universe. My mind was
working tonight while trying to sleep so I thought I'd type out some
thoughts on just how this could work and be very cool, especially on-line.
RTS's traditionally consist mainly of building your forces and the
infrastructure (buildings, economy) to support them. What you describe
below is basically a more elaborate team-based FPS - not that that would
be a bad thing, mind you, I just wonder about the logistics of having
enough players to actually play a decent game.
The beauty is the FPS part is implemented almost the exact same as H2 is
now. When I sign on XBL to be a soldier, instead of going into a randomly
generated game based on the playlist I choose, I get put in a randomly
generated game based on the playlist I choose (though the options of
playlists can include specific campaigns). The difference is my battle
affects someone else's campaign -- the General's campaign that I may or may
not know. If I care to track all the battles of the campaign I can, but if
I just want to do the slayer-thing, then I just do the slayer thing. The
General will benefit or suffer loss based on my performance, just like he
would with randomly generated outcomes, but the game is more meaningful when
it's real people duking it out in each of the battles across the board. If
my team fails to plant the bomb in the supply depot, then my General's
enemies will still be able to resupply, but if we do get the bomb planted,
he can outrun his enemy to the capital.
Post by Doug Jacobs
Traditional RTS games haven't done well on consoles since their
controllers aren't really suited to that sort of game. Besides, to make
it more interesting you'd need to have more than just 2 different
races/armies represented... A 2 sided RTS is so C&C. ;)
Dai Senryaku is awesome, and I can picture the intersection between it and
Halo2. I can move my units around and decide where and when to engage enemy
units, and have real people execute those battles, and even jump into some
myself.

From a marketing standpoint you are taking the Halo universe and trying to
bring in strategy gamers by offering them the chance to direct the battles
that all us Halo on-line players are playing anyway. Us online soldiers are
like real soldiers in that we may not necessarily have insight into the
master game plan. All we know is our immediate objective and we do our best
to execute.
Doug Jacobs
2005-08-19 02:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Man, Just Like Other Men
The beauty is the FPS part is implemented almost the exact same as H2 is
now. When I sign on XBL to be a soldier, instead of going into a randomly
generated game based on the playlist I choose, I get put in a randomly
generated game based on the playlist I choose (though the options of
playlists can include specific campaigns). The difference is my battle
affects someone else's campaign -- the General's campaign that I may or may
not know. If I care to track all the battles of the campaign I can, but if
I just want to do the slayer-thing, then I just do the slayer thing. The
General will benefit or suffer loss based on my performance, just like he
would with randomly generated outcomes, but the game is more meaningful when
it's real people duking it out in each of the battles across the board. If
my team fails to plant the bomb in the supply depot, then my General's
enemies will still be able to resupply, but if we do get the bomb planted,
he can outrun his enemy to the capital.
It'd be neat if there was a system where Generals would be the hosts of
the game, and then they could recruit soliders, based on who signs up for
the game. As a solider, you'd gain points based on what sort of actions
you took. For instance, if you made a lot of kills with the sniper rifle,
your sniping score would be higher - marking you as a sniper expert. This
way, generals could assemble a better team based on available resources.
I'd foresee making a team from 5-7 different positions. Scoring would be
linked to your position. So, if you played the Medic, but grabbed a
sniper rifle and just went after the enemy instead of healing your
buddies, your score would reflect that you suck as a medic. ;)

There could also be a handicapping system in place so that an experienced
general might not have access to more experienced soliders. This could be
a benefit to everyone since the more experienced soliders could help
counteract a bad decision by the general, meanwhile, a good general would
try to use his resources more intelligently. At least with XBox Live,
at least you wouldn't have to worry about "sharks" - that is, people
pretending to be newbies, when they're actually aces.
Post by A Man, Just Like Other Men
Halo2. I can move my units around and decide where and when to engage enemy
units, and have real people execute those battles, and even jump into some
myself.
I'll have to check this game out. I've heard good things about it.
Ameilius
2005-08-19 05:06:48 UTC
Permalink
i just cant get into it
my brother plays it constantly...
A Man, Just Like Other Men
2006-03-28 16:26:25 UTC
Permalink
But that's the beauty of the system I tried to describe as Halo RTS. If
you
want to keep doing the playlist thing, that's all you have to do. It's
just
that the outcome of your battle may or may not affect someone else's
"campaign". Plus, slayer works great -- well, team slayer, at least. In
fact, most battles on a battlefield probably look more like team slayer
then
CTF.
Interesting and it does leverage existing infrastructure.
I guess the last question to be asked is what is the size of the
market for something like RTS? As described the general would have
little involvement in the actual action on the field. I tend to think
most people would want some interaction with the players and that adds
a lot of complexity (you'd need officers and then grunts).
Personally I think that is where online FPS is heading. Essentially
it will be like real warfare only online (and no one dies).
In an earlier post I explained that the "general" could at any time enter
any one of the battles in his/her campaign, thus be able to do both
Command/Control AND the FPS portion of the actual battles. So you not only
target the mainly strategic gamers but possibly expand the current FPS pool
just a bit.

Maybe someday I'll get motivated enough to actually present something formal
to Bungie. :)

Loading...