 |
|
Traianvs
|
 |
Belgium, land of plenty (corruption)
Jan 2000 time: 06:28
|
|
UR!
civ2 is a whole lot better man.. not only is it nicer to look at, it's balanced better, and it's bigger!
AoW2 wasn't really a bad game, I kind of liked it, in the beginning I was totally confused because the game was to be played differently than AoW1, but after a few games I really enjoyed it..
Later on I installed AoW1 again, it was just horrible: slow, boring graphics, long turns, too easy to finish your opponent (by simply using your mighty wizard to wipe out everything) etc...
Btw you might want to play Risk II on the computer.. it's great! especially multiplayer!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Alex
|
 |
Brasil
Mar 1999 time: 02:28
|
|
I think it is difficult to create a new formula for TBS games. When you've already seen perfection in a genre, it is difficult to think about innovations.
RON is an example that RTS games still have some room for improvement, and the same is true for shooters or third-person action-adventure games. But TBS? You can't get much better than what we already have. Notice that I'm talking about the basic engine here, the fundamentals of the genre. Sure, we can add a personal preference here or there, but the mechanics won't change, and shouldn't change anyway.
When I said "we are dead", I meant that we no longer sustain the same level of interest that we used to. Okay, maybe it's just me, but how long have you been playing Civ3 when compared to the total play time you dedicated to Civ2? Some may say that the lack of scenarios in Civ3 hampers its longevity, but I wonder if any scenarios would be able to really make the experience feel fresh again. I don't think so.
Games are increasingly blurring the lines that used to divide genres. We now have shooters with RPG and adventure features, simulations mixed with adventure, and strategy combined with anything. That seems to be the real trend now, so it is difficult to maintain a genre as a real niche apart from any intersections.
And as someone already mentioned, games with multiplayer features tend to be more lucrative for the companies, and TBS doesn't really lends itself well to an online environment.
Maybe when artificial intelligence reaches the next level, providing players with more challeging opponents, then TBS may resurface and be important again. But now I feel that the genre is almost dead.
Sure, many people said that same thing about RPGs in the middle 90's, and then came Baldur's Gate. But to me the huge success that BG experienced was due more to people who wanted to play good RPGs and not to the fact that it has brought anything new to the genre.
I may be wrong, of course, and I happen to think that I would like to be wrong. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
da_hal
|
|
Historically, it's not so much that a particular genre has "died" as much as that the imagination of the developers has stagnated. Then, some new upstart with new ideas comes in and "revolutionizes" (when actually it is just a historical pendulum swing) the genre.
Examples:
Castle Wolfenstien 3-D
Moo1
Ultima 1, Ultima 3, Ultima 4, Ultima 6
Wizardry 1, Wiz 7.
Might and Magic 1, Might and Magic 3
Starcraft 1, 3.
Civ
etc etc etc.
What happens is that these prototype games are analyzed and broken down into component parts, and are then made into a formula for sales.
Luckily for players, every so often, somebody is able to think outside of these limits, and make something fresh and new. However, as time goes by, and costs go up, it's harder and harder for non-formulaic games to get into production.
As far as players go, it's obvious to us that TBS offers more thoughtful and strategic play over RTS. My friends with consoles also got sick of arcade games as time went by and looked for more strategic games, which were often turn based. It's like reading books: the longer books tend to be more interesting than the shorter books, but nobody starts reading with the long books.
Sadly, most new players are younger, and most older players stop playing to get on with their lives. Thus, the market for RTS gets bigger faster than TBS, and more TBS players drop out than come in for RTS.
I haven't bought a game since Diablo II last January, and Moo 2 in 1999 (not including some stuff I dl'd from theunderdogs.) I work full time, and have a part time job, so most of my interest in games is talking about them here and on various other boards.
I suppose every few years, a handful of "good" TBS will emerge, then be copied to death. But, I think it will never go away completely.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by St Leo
And now RoN - from all accounts has pushed "RTS" further towards TBS like depth than previous "RTS" endeavours - also pausible and variable speed - and TB strategic wrapper (albeit rather thin, IIUC)
The accounts in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic disagree wtih that statement. My experience with the demo also disagree with that statement.:P |
i have difficulty following discussions at CSIPIGS, what with the EEP wars, the crosspossting, the RTS fanboys, and the general Usenet nastiness. war-historical is almost as bad, with the political spam, though there seems less of the hardline grognard netcopping then there used to be. All in all i find this place the best for discussing games.
I have followed the discussion of RON here - I understand its a true RTS, not an EU type compromise - but based on Yin's description it still sounds excellent, and some of its excellence seems to be based on some of the new features that are not typically RTS (yeah, i seem to recall that the people whove played dozens of RTS' can usually dig up some prior RTS that had every feature - dont see why that should matter)
My point was not that RON showed TBS isnt dead - if that was all that was out there, TBS might well be dead. My point was that there is a range of games that are blurring the TBS-RTS genre boundary - RON is probably at the RTS end of that range - Simultaneous execution TB games are probably at the other end - RTS/TBS hybrids and Paradox type grand strategy games are probably in between. The TBS genre isnt so much dying, as evolving into something else.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Some may say that the lack of scenarios in Civ3 hampers its longevity,
|
Civ will live forever through the scenarios designed for Civ 2 and not with what Civ 3 will provide. So long as there are people thinking up new ideas for scenarios, then we will see 'new' versions of civ.
One example is Red Front, in which I am astonished at the sheer number of modifications made to the original game in order to reflect historical events with greater precision.
I can even see a day, if the scenarios get good enough, when people use civ to teach history, at least in terms of the maps and the overall positions of armies at the start of the scenario, military units. I know that when I become a teacher, I would favour this method of getting boys interested in historical events.
There are not many people playing straight single player civ 2, at least not what I see. Most play scenarios, or some kind of multiplayer format.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001 time: 05:28
|
|
There is still room for TBS: Galciv is successful enough that they're talking of Galciv2 now, and apparently making serious plans for it. Stardock has other games projects, so they may also provide a MOM-like TBS if I read them well.
It is however unlikely to see major publishers distribute new TBS games.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001 time: 13:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark
My point was that there is a range of games that are blurring the TBS-RTS genre boundary - RON is probably at the RTS end of that range - Simultaneous execution TB games are probably at the other end - RTS/TBS hybrids and Paradox type grand strategy games are probably in between. The TBS genre isnt so much dying, as evolving into something else. |
Simultaneous execution (Combat mission calls it wego as oppose to you go, I go) is probably the future for TBS, but it is still TBS. With Combat Mission, I can still spend as much time planning my moves, just like any other TBS.
But there's nothing really RTS about wego, at least the way it works with Combat Mission.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001 time: 13:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Apocalypse
Some of the major companies (Interplay, Infograms) don't want to waste time on turn based games because they need money right now. |
Yup, and the big guys don't want to take chances on something that's unproven.
But new TBS could come from small developers who bypass regular distribution models and sell directly through the Internet. The developers may sell fewer games, but they keep all the profits (instead of signing over a large chunk to the distributors).
Selling games only through the Internet is a proven strategy so we'll see more of it happening.
Websites like Apolyton provide a natural market for these games so I suspect that in the coming years, developers will start making the games they want to make, they'll sell the games through the Internet and market the game through games forums. If the game proves successful, they'll go mass market.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|