Can RTS and TBS be combined? a.k.a. The Road to SMAC 2

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Can RTS and TBS be combined? a.k.a. The Road to SMAC 2

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Can RTS and TBS be combined? a.k.a. The Road to SMAC 2

yin26 posted 03-22-99 01:58 AM ET
[Shiny, this is a semi-continuation of your other thread "RTS SMAC," which seems to have gone blank on the server (by the way, I was agreeing with you in that thread--I think you missed the sarcasm) ]
Well, that's the question.
What would SMAC2 look like if Firaxis tried to combine the immediacy of RTS and the intelligence of TBS?
Should it be done? Can it be done?
Shining1 posted 03-22-99 02:40 AM ET
Nope. Still there. And I did get the sarcasm - read my comment in the original thread.
jig posted 03-22-99 02:52 AM ET
No, 'SMAC II' shouldn't be an RTS game but perhaps 'SMAC: The wars of Sparta' or something could be released that focuses on the battles and the Real Time side of it and taking out the empire building. Of course, there would have to be a linear storyline also.
If Firaxis doesn't want to do it perhaps they could sell a license to the fictional Alpha Centauri world so that another company can do it. Oh, and not just any company either. Westwood? Blizzard? Cavedog?
But I doubt it'll ever happen...
Shining1 posted 03-22-99 02:56 AM ET
Jig: SMAC II should definitely be an upgraded TBS. I was proposing something exactly along those lines: AC - wars of Sparta is quite a good title, actually.
NOT WESTWOOD. I'd go cavedog, then blizzard, simply because of the former's experience with 3D graphics. We don't want to take a backwards step, now. And lend them Brian to write the story.
Imran Siddiqui posted 03-23-99 12:51 AM ET
I'd like Blizzard, and then Cavedog. Actually. I think Blizzard has a bit more creativity that they could lend to the game.
And, of course, SMAC 2 should be TBS all the way.
Imran Siddiqui
Brother Greg posted 03-23-99 01:04 AM ET
SMAC RTS as a seperate game wouldn't be too bad. I wouldn't like to see a RTS system tacked onto a TBS though (like for every battle in SMAC, you have the option of going into a TBS combat screen). That was what I always argued against.
Personally, unless it was revolutionary though, I wouldn't buy it. I have been RTSed to death, and apart from a few games like TA and Dark Reign, there's mostly just evolution going on right now. Starcraft was a step backwards in most respects, though I would give them marks for truly different units.
And yeah, I realise that SMAC is evolutionary too. Just I haven't been TBSed to death yet.
jig posted 03-23-99 02:30 AM ET
I don't really like Blizzard that much. They're creative??? Wow, they made a cow go moo! when you click on it a dozen times...
Ok, ok, I'm being unreasonable. But I still don't like them much.
Shining1 posted 03-23-99 08:13 PM ET
jig: Blizzard = Humor, personality, fun. They haven't been pushing the technical envelope any, but the level of balancing in Starcraft is amazing, the campaigns had a decent storyline (like SMAC), and the units are fun.
Checklist complete, SOB.
BG: A step back? As in back to warcraft? I didn't really mind that - WCII has to be the second most fun game of all time - next to CivII.
*sigh* I'm just waiting for T.A: Kingdoms. 45 part story based campaign, four unique factions, 3D units with variable weapons, a simple resource system, no early game rushes (apparently those stone towers will be immune to arrows - what a revolutionary idea...), unit experience system - my number one most wanted title. As well as Diablo II and AoEII. And maybe Heavy Gear II, if it gets down right.
Roll on 1999 - the year of the Sequels II
jig posted 03-24-99 04:12 AM ET
Like I said, I'm being unreasonable. I guess it comes from my fanatical liking of Red Alert as opposed to Warcraft II. I shamefully confess though, I played countless hours of Starcraft on battle net. Until Commandos: Behind enemy lines came along...
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Can RTS and TBS be combined? a.k.a. The Road to SMAC 2
yin26	posted 03-22-99 01:58 AM ET [Shiny, this is a semi-continuation of your other thread "RTS SMAC," which seems to have gone blank on the server (by the way, I was agreeing with you in that thread--I think you missed the sarcasm) ] Well, that's the question. What would SMAC2 look like if Firaxis tried to combine the immediacy of RTS and the intelligence of TBS? Should it be done? Can it be done?
Shining1	posted 03-22-99 02:40 AM ET Nope. Still there. And I did get the sarcasm - read my comment in the original thread.
jig	posted 03-22-99 02:52 AM ET No, 'SMAC II' shouldn't be an RTS game but perhaps 'SMAC: The wars of Sparta' or something could be released that focuses on the battles and the Real Time side of it and taking out the empire building. Of course, there would have to be a linear storyline also. If Firaxis doesn't want to do it perhaps they could sell a license to the fictional Alpha Centauri world so that another company can do it. Oh, and not just any company either. Westwood? Blizzard? Cavedog? But I doubt it'll ever happen...
Shining1	posted 03-22-99 02:56 AM ET Jig: SMAC II should definitely be an upgraded TBS. I was proposing something exactly along those lines: AC - wars of Sparta is quite a good title, actually. NOT WESTWOOD. I'd go cavedog, then blizzard, simply because of the former's experience with 3D graphics. We don't want to take a backwards step, now. And lend them Brian to write the story.
Imran Siddiqui	posted 03-23-99 12:51 AM ET I'd like Blizzard, and then Cavedog. Actually. I think Blizzard has a bit more creativity that they could lend to the game. And, of course, SMAC 2 should be TBS all the way. Imran Siddiqui
Brother Greg	posted 03-23-99 01:04 AM ET SMAC RTS as a seperate game wouldn't be too bad. I wouldn't like to see a RTS system tacked onto a TBS though (like for every battle in SMAC, you have the option of going into a TBS combat screen). That was what I always argued against. Personally, unless it was revolutionary though, I wouldn't buy it. I have been RTSed to death, and apart from a few games like TA and Dark Reign, there's mostly just evolution going on right now. Starcraft was a step backwards in most respects, though I would give them marks for truly different units. And yeah, I realise that SMAC is evolutionary too. Just I haven't been TBSed to death yet.
jig	posted 03-23-99 02:30 AM ET I don't really like Blizzard that much. They're creative??? Wow, they made a cow go moo! when you click on it a dozen times... Ok, ok, I'm being unreasonable. But I still don't like them much.
Shining1	posted 03-23-99 08:13 PM ET jig: Blizzard = Humor, personality, fun. They haven't been pushing the technical envelope any, but the level of balancing in Starcraft is amazing, the campaigns had a decent storyline (like SMAC), and the units are fun. Checklist complete, SOB. BG: A step back? As in back to warcraft? I didn't really mind that - WCII has to be the second most fun game of all time - next to CivII. sigh I'm just waiting for T.A: Kingdoms. 45 part story based campaign, four unique factions, 3D units with variable weapons, a simple resource system, no early game rushes (apparently those stone towers will be immune to arrows - what a revolutionary idea...), unit experience system - my number one most wanted title. As well as Diablo II and AoEII. And maybe Heavy Gear II, if it gets down right. Roll on 1999 - the year of the Sequels II
jig	posted 03-24-99 04:12 AM ET Like I said, I'm being unreasonable. I guess it comes from my fanatical liking of Red Alert as opposed to Warcraft II. I shamefully confess though, I played countless hours of Starcraft on battle net. Until Commandos: Behind enemy lines came along...