Game Development Community

My take on an RTS/FPS hybrid

by Joar Nessosin · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 08/05/2005 (6:23 am) · 10 replies

Here's my idea so far... I'm going with the working title "Overlord". I chose the name because I'm terrible at names and it was the best I could think of. (Overlord is also the name of a very special/important unit, but we'll get to that later.)

The concept is to have a war in a futuristic war-torn urban setting. I haven't gone into enough detail on the plot to figure out why these areas are war-torn or who is even fighting for what. (I'm no good at story telling.) Now, the main concept behind this game is the combination of RTS and FPS. I've thought these would make a good combo for a while now, so I finally sat down and wrote up my take on how it would work.

Systems necessary to mix RTS and FPS gameplay -

Squad Leader Units - These are the players means of becoming part of the squads. They issue commands to the NPU (Non-Player Units) and are controlled by the player via top-down or first-person views. When not being directly controlled by the player, they act as an above average NPU. NPU's recieve performance bonuses for having a Squad Leader present. The player may switch to first-person control of any Squad Leader Unit, but may only control one at a time. Squad Leaders will generally cost approximately twice the resources of an average NPU. (This offers flexibility for both player types. RTS fans will generally opt for more NPU's per control unit, while FPS players will opt for smaller squads, giving them more control units to switch between.)

Overlords - The Squad Leaders' Squad Leader. The player is always in control of the Overlord, but the control is initially subtle. (Think of the Overlord as the players window into the RTS side of the game, as he is the commander issuing the orders.) The Overlord can be deployed as a particularly strong unit, just as a Squad Leader can. Again, NPU's recieve performance bonuses for an Overlord, just as they do for Squad Leaders. If the Overlord is destroyed, the campaign is failed. Overlords can issue a retreat command to surrender the current territory and fall back to safer ground. If a retreat command is issued, leaderless NPU squads still in enemy territory may be captured. The Overlord cannot be captured or destoryed unless it has been dispatched by the player. When the player runs out of territory to retreat to, the Overlord is forced into play until more territory/resources can be acquired.

The above units act as the connections between the RTS and FPS game(S). When the player is satisfied with his current stategy, he can take to the field with the squad leader units to insure his tactics will succeed. If he so chooses, he may also largely sacrifice strategy for sheer bravado. (Though it will be less likely to succeed in the long run.) Control of the above units may be switched on-the-fly. When switching to a different unit, the player may choose to make his squad continue with a planned action, (Such as moving an NPU squad to a certain location, or patrolling a post.) or he may choose a stand-by mode, where the NPU's will not act, but react if enemy units come to their location. Players will never directly control the NPU grunts, but may direct them with commands issued as Squad Leader or Overlord. If an NPU squad loses their Squad Leader, they will continue to perform their last selected command. A replacement Squad Leader may be issued, but in the mean time, the NPU's will have to fend for themselves.

Below I detailed a few thoughts I had on how to make the game fun for both of its target audiences. As with the rest, I may have just had enough caffeine to think it was a good idea at the time.

(Continued)

#1
08/05/2005 (6:23 am)
Ways to ensure a FUN RTS experience -

RTS is all about resource management. However, some elements of resource management border on tedium and cliche. (Collecting Ore/Gas/Food/Gold/ETC.) One way to solve this could be capturing of enemy territories to increase resources automatically, rather than spending time gathering resources throughout the game. Destroyed enemy units could be tallied and added to resource totals, as well as enemy structures. (Perhaps with less resource yield when a unit or structure is "Overkilled".) This forces strategic capturing/destroying as opposed to arbitrary resource gathering. At the beginning, players will start with X units and Y resources to expand. X can be increased by decreasing Y, and capturing enemy units/structures can increase Y. If a call for retreat is made, the retreating player forfeits half the value of their current structures to the opponent. The resource totals are then tallied and rolled over to the next campaign. (Kind of like a game of tug-of war.) This system should make die-hard resource management fans happy, while cutting out the fat of resource gathering for the rest.

Ways to ensure a FUN FPS experience -

FPS is all about twitch action and gun-blazing bravado. FPS influence should be strong in this game as it will appeal to the people who play games to be the hero. Being a star Squad Leader or Overlord should be entirely possible, as it simply constitutes a change of focus. Instead of focusing on an overall strategy, the player can choose to focus on his field strategy. The inherent risk involved is the loss of the NPU leader unit, resulting in the loss of control over an NPU squad. Making it feasible to win battles based solely on field ability will appeal to the FPS player, but they may find that a cunning strategy will prove too much for their singular ability. While utilizing the FPS mode, players should have complete freedom in commanding their squad leader unit. They should also be allowed to command their current NPU squad, but only have a general overview of what is happening elsewhere. (Warnings and reports should be issued if danger is faced elsewhere.) Players focusing too closely on a single Squad (Ignoring warnings, etc.) may find they've cleaned up with that squad, but lost the overall battle regardless.

Making them work together -

The end-all concern of making both genre's work together is making it POSSIBLE to win with any balance of the two. Players who focus on the FPS aspect should be able to produce results comparable to those who focus on the RTS aspect. That said, players striking any balance of the two should also be able. By accomplishing this balance between genres, it opens the game up enough that it could actually be considered multiple games combined. (This not only affects gameplay and fun factor, but also replay value and general playability.)

Whew. That's about all I've got in the designs for now, and there are quite a few holes. So, I'd like some opinions. What works and what sounds like garbage? What would you do differently? How would you expand on the idea? Questions and comments are welcome and appreciated!
#2
08/05/2005 (7:35 am)
RTS games are based on leadership under confrontation, FPS games focus more on individuals under confrontation. Overall, they both stem from war tactics.

You sound like you have an interesting design there and I hope you proceed with it.

- Ronixus
#3
08/05/2005 (7:48 am)
What you say does ring true, I think... I wonder if being faced with confrontation as both a leader and an individual would be too daunting? It is the ultimate resource management though, having to manage your own focus. (Impossible for people like me. lol)
#4
08/05/2005 (11:35 am)
Heh, I hate to double post and all, but I had more to add to the concept. Instead of leaving the units so basic as grunt soldiers, maybe the player could select from various jobs to assign the NPU's on his various squads. (Maybe even extend that system to include the squad leaders.) You could have a crack team of demolition experts, heavy infantry, light infantry, scouts, snipers or various things in that vein. Even different flavors of squad leader, so that the player can participate in the various jobs. Also, maybe the Overlord should be special. He could be a unit capable of all jobs, or maybe a special vehicular unit? (Like a small mech or something? I'd have to consider my options.)

Also, I was thinking... One large part of RTS games is planning and building your base of operations... Maybe that could extend to this, but with some special catches. For example, since this is to take place in war-torn cityscapes, maybe the player could build onto standing structures and make them part of the "base". Doing so could be rewarded by costing the player less resources to build or some such. Also, instead of cutting out resources entirely, maybe a salvage system could be worked out? Specialized units could go salvage materials from ruined buildings (Which would be in fair abundance.) or units (Which the players could kill and salvage.) then turn around and "spend" the salvaged materials on base structures, friendly units, weapons and ammo, etc. (I'm debating on the ammo part... NPC's with ammo? A nightmare, I'm sure.)

Having the resource management portion would be nice and all, but I'm not sure if it would slow down the gameplay too much or seem too tacked on or something... It would only appeal to the RTS fans, too. Also, unless you kept sentries with your salvaging parties, they would make prime targets for opponents. Stuff to consider.
#5
08/05/2005 (11:54 am)
Obviously its always good to have your own plan, but have you seen or played Savage: The Battle for Newerth? it seems quite good, I bought it recently for
#6
08/05/2005 (11:57 am)
I saw a review for it when I did a little research to see if RTS/FPS had been attempted before, but I didn't think too much about it. From what I read, it seemed sort of similar to my own idea, except they had other players filling the "squad leader" roles. Looks kinda neat though... Maybe I'll hunt up a copy at some point.
#7
09/08/2005 (5:01 am)
Savage is a GREAT game...and I think that Battlefield 2 stole the "commander" idea straight from Savage.

BTW, the game is offically abandonware...if you download the demo and do a bit of googling, the devs gave out a universal cd-key so that all can play for free :)
#8
09/12/2005 (12:01 pm)
Natural selection I think had the commander idea first. Its a Half-life 2 mod that added an RTS aspects.
#9
09/12/2005 (1:16 pm)
Savage was a great game with an interesting idea.. Think poor marketing was to blame on that one?

It would be great to see more games come out with that sort of cross-genre.. You can appeal to RTS players as well as FPS players.

Run with it, but start simple and don't over extend yourself :)
#10
10/06/2005 (6:23 pm)
Hi, I'm new. :-)

I first encountered a mix of FPS and RTS when I played Battlezone 2.
It had some errors, but I absolutely loved the game, and I was sad that the series didn't continue.
Actually, I think it is alot like Savage, only I liked the BZ setting better. It has the commander-feature and even bots, too. Also, it has a brilliant single-player story line.
Too bad it had so few players.

So Savage is abandonware already? What a shame. I shall have to get that universal cd-key, though...