About dimensions in RTS'es

#1 "I of the Enemy"is a 2D RTS (released in 2004) and it did pretty well...
As long as it has good game play, I don't think if it really matters if it's 2D or 3D...

My favourite RTS games are the C&C games... they have brilliant game play that keeps you playing for hours.

#2 I think the reason why you see so many 3D RTS games today is the "ooh" and "aah" factor more than anything else. It also makes it much easier to incorporate things like terrain height, etc.

One of my favorite RTS games ever was "Total Annihilation", which was really more of a 3D / 2D hybrid.

Rise of Nations is also kind of a hybrid (most units are 3D sprites).

2D games either require a boring "top-down" view of the action, or they have pretty heavy animation requirements (you have to do all animations for all characters rendered in at least four different facings).

But 2D also allows you greater control over the "look" of your game (IMO). You can hand-draw (or pre-render) stuff that looks MUCH better than anything that has to pass through real-time rendering.

Anyway - that's my $0.02. I may be an exception to the rule, but I'd be interested in a GOOD RTS with interesting subject matter and mechanics long before I'd be concerned with whether or not it was 2D or 3D.

Jay Barnson
Tales of the Rampant Coyote

#3 Anders,

Here is my quick brain dump, hope this helps.

Are 2D RTS games too dated? I would say no. I have worked on a number of published RTS titles, all 3D, and while 3D "can" add to the visual quality, it "generally" adds little to the actual play value of a game. Which isn't to say that it can't.

There are a couple big budget 2D RTS games in development, but the names elude be at the moment. The obvious 3D titles to note would be www.ageofempires3.com/ and the soon to be released www.riseoflegends.com/ these two are arguably at the cutting edge (if only graphically) of RTS development.

A good example of gratuitous 3D would be Rome: Total War. The 3D nature of the game can actually be a huge henderence to fluid rapid user friendly play. I will be the first to admit that zooming down into a pitched battle and watching it rage, is very entertaining, but that is only practical once there are no real decision left to make in the game and the outcome is more or less determined.

In short, its what developers call "screen shot mode" And it is wonderful for creating pretty promotional material, but has little or nothing to do with the actual play of the game. And unless given due consideration during the design of the game, it will generally add nothing to the play value, and can often create a lot of problems.

Is there a market for indi RTS titles? In my opinion, Yes. There are at least 2-3 in development right now, this thread comes to mind www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=39544 although I am not sure if that particular group is still in development.

Personally I am amazed that the indi community has yet to develop a number of RTS titles, but I expect it is just a matter of time before that happens.

GG community members Robert Stewart www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=9763 is working on path finding implementation, and Geom www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=9750 is working on A.I. if I am not mistaken, both of which have been a big hurdles for the RTS developers the in community.

Regarding what is easier to create, the answer honestly is "it depends". Unless you are going to have hand painter sprites (not recommended) for the 2D game, then you have to create the 3D art to render the Sprites from in the first place. But there is a lot more to consider besides just the creation of art assets. The design and implementation of a 2D game differs greatly from a 3D game, that 3rd D can affect everything from path finding to projectiles, camera control, mini map functionality, etc.

So my answer is it depends. It depends on the game you want to make, and the resources available to you.

FYI Just about any on one in the industry today ...at least any producer, will tell you that it has to be 3D to get published.

Almost forgot, my favorite RTS is still Metal Fatigue, I was one half of the art team, and it was the first video game I worked on. It would have been the first 3D RTS title released, but it was delayed a few months, and the rest is history. I still play it occasionally.

#4 Wow! Metal Fatigue is one of my favorite RTS's (I still haven't been able to convince anyone at GG to play it with me =P). It has long been a goal of mine to do a sucessor to it one day =)

#5 @ Matt

HAHAHA ROFL! Wow!, We should play some time.

Ya, I cut my teeth on that game, it was actually started as a 2D game, but went to 3D when I joined the company.

It is funny, the min spec was so low for the time that we sort of knee capped our self, graphically speaking.

The shipped game ran very well on the min spec, and the really funny thing, is that the AI works off of the speed of the PC , so with faster modern PCs, it gets more clock cycles for "thinking" so it can be really tough to beat on a current system.

We showed it at E3 way back when, with the 3 levels of play, underground, surface, and orbit, within a few months of that Earth 2150 started talking about this revolutionary feature it was going to have ...surface and underground simultaneous play. :P we were delayed, partly because Psygnosis, the publisher was in the process of collapsing at the time, which we were unaware of. Earth 2150 shipped first, It undoubtedly looked better than us, but the play was nothing new, and it ran like hell on its min spec system.

We also ended up not having any marketing to speak of because Psygnosis was folding. I actually remember we called them one day to ask about talk to someone, and the secretary was like "hang on, I already pack up my roladex", that was the first clue we had things were going south with them.

I have tried to track down who owns the publishing rights for a number of years now, but its in limbo. Psygnosis sold everything (if I am not mistaken) to Strategy First. But no one seems to know who owns it. No doubt some one would start shouting if I tried to develop and publish it.

I would absolutely love to remake that game, or make a follow up.

#6 Thank you for all your answers - Some more questions here, i would appreciate if someone could take their time and answer them...

If there was two games, that was exactly the same, in pricing, availability, and everything else, EXCEPT that one is in 2D and one is in 3D, which one would you rather purchase?
Which "theme" do you believe is least exploited? What theme would you like to see in an RTS?

#7 2d or 3d...
Thats a tough one. Here is why, If they are exactly the same, then the designer has almost certainly failed to take full advantage of the two formats.

After giving it some thought, can honestly answer. I can't think of an example that is comparable, so I really cant pick one over the other.

As for what theme is "least exploited", well, I could say Ancient south pacific island nations waring against each other, which I am pretty sure has not been done as a theme for an RTS, but what I think you mean, and please correct me if I am wrong, is of the themes that have been done, which one has been done the least. Which I guess would be ....cave men. Stone age is the beginning part of the original Age of Empires, and actually my personal favorite, so it has been done, but to my knowledge, that is the only time it has been done.

On a side note, I have an idea for a stone age MMORPG that I think would be a blast.

What theme would I like to see done in an RTS? ...Hmm.... a Zombie apocalypse RTS. That I am pretty sure has also not been done.

#8 Thank you for the reply, Todd!

I've had some thoughts on the Stone age as well, but the main problem is that most RTS'es are about creating a civilisation and evolving it. If you would have a game in the stone age, There wouldn't be too much to be found out, since most stuff came in the bronze age. Yeah, i am a hard-core AoE player... does it show? ;)

I've had a lot of ideas, like Atlantis, Asia, Joanne D'Arc and everything in between. Though it is much more fun than thinking of themes for Match-3's. Anyway, i am going to do some more thinking, and come back with some more questions ;)

#9 Does "worms" count as an RTS? That was far more fun in 2D!

#10 Naw, i don't believe it does. More like a platform-lemmings-action hybride. Though i completely agree - Worms rock completely. And especially the one's in 2D.

#11 @ Anders - Actually, there's quite a bit on the first moderns and perhaps you underestimate it's potiential... wait, I guess I should shut my mouth since this is something I'm working on. Nuts!

Okay Todd, I guess I do have to start putting more time to this - been working on other another project helping out with GUI design.

Anders, your idea about Atlantis and stuff is good but I rather like the idea Michael had - Empire of the Worms! Fighting off Ant mauraders and other pesky garden interlopers. Periodically "The Gods" mow the lawn - kinda funny really.

An idea I'm working on is a version of Watership Down, a nation of rabbits, which might make an interesting RTS - Not sure if the range is there for a full fledge game but something to explore.

Okay, now forget Todd mentioned anything about the Stone Age, you will forget... forget... forget... forget....

...sorry, what was I talking about again?

#12 Hehe, thanks for your reply, James!

Gardenwars - Quite some potential there ;)

#13 @ James, I was thinking about a Watership Down theme as well, but never really develop the idea.

@ Anders,

I have to go with James on the early man. I would also point out that unless you are trying to make and educational title, or a historical simulation, then bend things a bit.

The part I enjoyed the most about Age of Empires was taking a handful of my cave men at the start of the game and hunting animals ...and occasionally the enemy, but mostly the animals. I would find a spot where the terrain, trees and such formed a bottleneck, then I would set up my main group there for the ambush, then I would take one or two guys and chase the animals into the trap.

There are all sorts of things you could do with the game, you could give it a bit of a comedic flare, you could add dinosaurs, you could have the player evolve form hairy knuckle draggers to upright wheel users, or you could make the two opposing sides. You could even through in some form of sleestacks if you were so inclined.

If you want to give it more of a fantasy spin, look at Dinotopia. You could have the player using the Dinosaurs as mounts for battle, etc.


@ Michael, I completely forgot about worms, it could go either way. You could call it an RTS.

#14 When i think about it, a Stone age theme could actually be quite fun. Houses built of Legs and stone, Instead of deers, you have Dinosaurs, and you fight aginst other tribes. And everything rendered with a cartoonish look. I need too think some about this - thanks alot, everybody, for your replies. You have gotten me going now ;)


Maybe i'll post a plan later about some ideas. Thanks!

#15 2D vs 3D:
I was recently playing the TA Spring Project which takes Total Annihilation and ported it wholesale to a 3D engine (they didn't touch the gameplay at all) and honestly...it didn't make a single bit of difference to me. That is about as close as I've ever seen to an RTS game that is exactly the same in 2D and 3D so it might be worthwhile for you to take a look at.

Realistically, unless you are leveraging the 3D to effect the gameplay in a specific way (like locking the camera close to the ground in a 3rd person view or allowing people to switch into a 1st person view) then it makes close to *zero* difference what format you use. With modern hardware the 2D and 3D graphics are going to look pretty much the same with a locked camera perspective (Rise of Nations is a great example of that). There are going to be some graphical tricks you can get away with in 3D that you won't in 2D (rotating/tilting the camera) and some graphical tricks you can do in 2D that are much more work in 3D (2D animations can be a *lot* easier on an artist and look better than a lot of 3D animations...for example, cartoon and anime art styles rarely translate well into 3D).

In general I have found free flying cameras (or even those with limited rotations) to be fairly useless in classic RTS's. After the initial "Wow! I can look at my base from a different angle" moments, most players will leave their camera locked at a single view and just pan around and zoom in and out. This is especially true if the selection and mouse over system handles picking objects behind other objects well (ghosting out the object blocking the view for example).

On the technical limitations side of things: you can push *way* more objects on the screen if they are 2D and they can look *way* more detailed. Even with modern top end hardware you are going to be pushing things to get more than a 300-400 reasonably detailed 3D models on the screen at a time with everything else going on (buildings and evironments and water and particle effects and gui). There are ways to push that number up higher (like the thousands in Total War) but that takes some serious work and graphics know-how. With modern top end hardware you can easily put thousands of 2D objects on the screen (just look at some of the videos that Melv did with TGB). Of course not evey game should be trying to put a ton of units on the screen (TA vs C&C for example).

Another thing you should conisder is what the strengths of your artists are. Do they primarily work in 2D (either computer or traditional) or do they work mostly in 3D? If you don't have any artists then you also need to consider which type of artist is easier to find. In the Torque community there is a definite shortage of 3D artists so you would probably be better off doing a 2D RTS. But you may be tapped into a whole different community that is full of 3D artists just waiting to bust out with some art for an RTS.

The last thing I want to leave you with is an observation from my own personal experiences. I used to run a weekly LAN party that was made up of half hardcore gamers and half essentially non-gamers (they liked playing games but never went out of their way to do so). I tried several times to interest the non-gamers in Rise of Nations but they turned up their noses at the art look of it (some of it was the style, some was the screenshots, some was the 2D look). Then one day I left the intro screen for C&C Generals up. It is filled with a frantic 3D battle between hummers and helicopters and RPG troops and is absolutely gorgeous to watch. The non-gamers were immediately captivated and were like "We want to play that game! What is it?" So we ended up playing C&C Generals for a couple weeks and I asked them if they wanted to play another game "like it" and they agreed so I pulled up Rise of Nations. Before I knew it they were totally hooked and we played it for a couple of months (they also took it home to play it). The gameplay hooked them more (which I knew it would) but they would have never have tried it if it hadn't been for the prettiness of C&C Generals.

What should you take away from that? You need to consider your target audience carefully. If you are aiming to draw in the casual or non-gamers then you are going to need some very serious bling to get them to even try the game. It also needs to be approachable bling...the tanks and helicopters were things the non-gamers were familiar with...a fantasy themed C&C Generals would not have had nearly the same effect. If you are aiming for people who are already into RTS's (even if it is just one game into the genre =P) then you have a bit more freedom in what your game can look like and the gameplay becomes *very* important.

#16 Todd,
What I remember first about Metal Fatigue is that it brought my computer completely to its knees when it launched (it was OpenGL only wasn't it?). Once I got a better machine I tried it again and was immediately hooked. The core gameplay was just so sweet (giant mechs slamming each other around and collecting/building parts to make more custom mechs). I also liked the fast start option (instant build, 5 min, good chunk of resources) and I haven't seen that really done well anywhere since which is a huge shame (we used to declare 1-2 truces at the beginning of our TA games to concentrate on base/technology building). The other thing I enjoyed is that it really boiled down the gameplay into essentials. Having the resource gatherer be the builder and repairer and a cheap sorta scout (stealing parts from the battlefield) helped to greatly reduce the complexity of the game and let me focus on the fun part (building giant mechs). It all came together into a nice sweet and tight package. Generally the games would be 30 mins to an hour long (versus the 13 hours sessions of TA we also played at the time). I also have poked around a few times to see if I could find out who owns the IP (didn't even get as far as you did) because I have long thought that the game was slightly unfinished. The next version of the game could have sooo refined the fun aspects and built on them and have done away with a few of the things that really didn't work that well (like the underground sections). There were a few aspects of the gameplay that needed a little bit of tightening (energy collection, teleporters, and base defenses). Just one more version of the game could have made it into one of the best RTS's of all times IMHO.

So, we should talk sometime =)

Quote:
As for what theme is "least exploited", well, I could say Ancient south pacific island nations waring against each other, which I am pretty sure has not been done as a theme for an RTS

You mean kinda like Tribal Trouble? =P

#17 @ Matt,

Good observations on the RTS stuff.

I would point out that the wide appeal and success of the Lord of the Ring movies has probably opened up the fantasy genera a bit.

On Metal Fatigue, I don't remember if it was OpenGL only or not, but you are probably right. Also don't know what to say about your system running slow. Running well on the min spec was a Biggy for the publisher, and one of the things we regretted working so hard on, it could have been a more polished and nicer looking game had the man hours and such been otherwise spent.

On the critique, I agree with you almost 100% The exception being the underground. I became know around the office for my "Mole Man" strategy...which actually feel apart when the tectonic torpedo got added.

Have you played the mode where you limit the number of available Combots to 8? I think that was the limit, would have to spin up the game to check. It was an idea I came up with pretty late in development, but became the most popular mode of play around the office. It gave the game a bit of a squad feel. Made for an interesting twist.

And talk about work ....Every map in the game was remade from scratch a least 3 time over the course of development. And half way through, one complete environment was changed. The Snow environment was originally a funky blue crystal planet.

Yes we should talk, that game was truly a diamond in the rough.

#18 Almost forgot,

The Tribal Trouble game has been around a good while, but I was thinking of something more focused on the south pacific tribes ...as much as I love them, no vikings.