Re: Aspirer

I don't know whether this is related, but you could consider it another motivation to do what you are doing:

For a player like me that gets motion sickness playing FPS, if the game has a way for me to participate solely from a top view or isometric view, that could let me play with friends who are playing the game through FPS. I think for this particular motivation, the TopView player doesn't need a different set of abilities, but a comparable gameplay so that the soldier controlled by the TopView player is neither too strong or too weak. Currently, if you play an FPS using only the map view, the TopView player would be too weak because he can't aim, can't shoot, etc...

So this is a slightly different idea compared to yours, because the TopView player isn't trying to be a commander, just another soldier but be able to play the game from a different view.

I suggest you try Savage 2, it's the only game (I know of) that mixes RTS with something else well. The 'action' players play a 3rd person hack 'n' slash so it isn't entirely the same, but it's worth checking out.

The commander's jobs are:
Construct the base
Use spells and buffs
Organise and order people around.
Build and use peons

Action players:
Kill enemy units
Attack enemy bases
Speed up base construction
Kill NPCs


The important thing to note is that there is a limit of 3 peons per team, and they are almost defenceless. This forces commanders to keep the players organised and to use 'proper' tactics (flanking, deep strikes etc).

I don't think the whole 'fps players have the attention spans of gnats' thing is an issue. The people who play your game will probably be the kind of people who like drawn-out epic battles. If you build it, they will come. Savage 2 games can last upwards of an hour (although resources run out after 45-50 mins) but no one complains. The awesome feeling of victory after an hour of intense teamwork will block any complaints.

Thanks to all of you for your input! JamesPenny, that is DEFINITELY the crowd I'm looking for--ones who want 30 minutes, an hour of intense action. The feeling of winning (or even losing) after that is one of the best rushes you can get from a game, in my opinion.

But, yes, I'm going to try and get this monster designed over the next [unspecified amount of time]. lol

I'd appreciate any other comments or suggestions you people have on what you believe should be controlled by the FPS and what should be controlled by the RTS?

You have an opportunity to optimize the interface a bit.

I'd go play Battlefield (recommended earlier) and see how it went.

My thinking is that you can focus the UI a lot.

As an FPS player, if you stop to look at a map or do other things that break from the first person perspective interface, you may put yourself at risk.

They're trying to deal with up close tactical situations, their minds are occupied with shooting, finding ammo, not dying.

We they have something like voice chat, they can easily communicate to the commander to deal with things that warrant a different interface.

BF probably works fine, but you can make less concessions on interface complexity by deciding what the two parties do, and giving them carefully crafted ways to do that.

I'm developing a mix of RTS and "FPS" game too, thought it is no shoot (fantasy setting).

In a mix like this the player will be able to pick up different roles, for one the roles typical encountered in a FPS (soldier, medic etc.) and the roles which are common to RTS games (builder, commander etc.).

The complexity of game should consider the number of roles a single player can or must pick up. If you plan to create a multiplayer game where each player can pickup only a single role, a more complex design is feasable. On the other hand, if a player is forced to pickup more than one role, maybe all roles (singleplayer game), you should shift or drop complexity.

Take a look at the stresslevel of a FPS and RTS game. IMHO FPS games are not as stressful as multiplayer RTS games. In a RTS game you have to make lot of decisions in relative short time over a game session(20-40 mins), whereas in a FPS game you can take a break (hide, don't respawn, waiting for round ending).

If you force the player to take up a FPS and RTS role, he needs to switch between the roles (i.e. displaying a map and make some decisions). In this case you must reduce the stresslevel i.e. by giving the player the ability to withdraw to a safe spot in FPS mode and remove the necessarity to micromanage units in RTS mode.

An already mentioned example is Battlefield2/Battlefield2142. One player was able to pick up the commander (RTS) additionally to a standard soldiers(FPS) role. Although it was possible to play both roles, a good commander needed to be dedicated to his commander role (=easy target for other players, needed to hide).

Take a look at allegiance a space shooter which delivers FPS and RTS elements in a multiplayer game.