posted 11-30-98 06:29 PM ET        

The first thing I will tell you will make you think I am crazy, but I didn't play any game of the Civilisation series. Don't get the white jackets yet, hear my words.

I play RTS and I like it. I wonder if I will buy Alpha Centauri. I would like responses from turn-based lovers (if their are none on this forum then get out the jackets...).
What is good about Sid's turn-based games?
My buying/not buying the game will mostly depend on your responses and the sense you make.

On another topic completely, I am secretly working during week-ends to build an atomic bomb. But I replaced Uranium with a big chunk of salt. Anyone interested in buying it to blast anyone I don't care, just ask me I'll send it to you on my fastest turtle. Just ask me fast or summer will come and the salt will not stay frozen (yes, I put it in a big chunk of ice so the blast won't spread it to much...).

So, without more waiting, good bye.

posted 11-30-98 06:44 PM ET            

RTS is alright if you want flash and dazzle, but if you want a serious game that will keep challenging you long after the game has been removed from the shelves then go for a turn-based game.

As far as what makes Sid's games so good...they're well rounded and challenging and FUN! The only games that've ever remained on my hard-disk for more than six months were Sid games...

posted 11-30-98 06:45 PM ET            

Personally, I prefer turn based games. They allow me to think(I'm slow ) for a few minutes, & plan strategies on a grander scale(an entire world, rather than a small map). Plus, they have a more addictive quality. You can play it over & over again, & get a (guaranteed) different game every time. In games like Starcraft, after beating all the missions a few times, it gets boring! You really have to play all m-player games to get a kick out of it! Turn based are just as good in single, as in multi!

Just my 3 cents (you all say 2 cents, I say 3, HA!)

posted 11-30-98 07:45 PM ET            

A combination of 1 and 2 is what leads me to the conclusion that RTS would be more aptly called RTT(Real-Time-Tactical).

3. Also related to the time issue is complexity. When you have more time to process information, you can handle a more complex environment. Note that, if handled poorly, this can also be one of the biggest weaknesses of the turn based model(e.g. the end game micromanaging bloom that affects so many turn based games). From what I can see, SMAC should be handling this fairly well, with the ability to issue order to units(or stack thereof) like "patrol", "wait here and attack invaders", etc.

posted 11-30-98 11:53 PM ET            

The main flaw in the current RTS crop is that all games are broken up into linear missions (so they are turn based in a way!) - you get a set of instructions and a set goal; if you mess it up the game is finished. In Civ2 and SMAC, there is no commander-on-high giving you tasks, YOU set the goals and control the interactions with the other players, as well as which new units you get next turn.

posted 12-01-98 12:07 AM ET            

TBS gives you the time to carefully plan things out, to think about what you are doing. And as already mentioned, it has far more depth. In CIV II you have over 90 techs, and about 50-60 units. Add in city improvements, diplomacy, the fact that you can watch video in the MIDDLE of a game, and the whole variability of the thing, and RTS can never really compete with TBS.

Mind you, RTS has it's place. I enjoyed AOE, Warcraft I and II, C&C, Dune II, Red Alert, Dark Reign, and probably a few others.

But time after time, I come back to CIV and CIV II. There is just so much more depth and replayability. And the design of the game is just awesome.

Mind you, I think we're the wrong crowd to be asking this question. We're all pre-addicted to this game, based on Brian and Sid's work on CIV and CIV II, so it's like asking an American what is the best country. We're so fanatical, we can't help but state the obvious.

posted 12-01-98 12:59 AM ET            

Question: Do I(you) still play mine(your) RTS games after a year or two or three?
Answer: I don't, there just no longer fun.

posted 12-01-98 07:34 AM ET            

Here's a little test to see if TBS is anything for you:

Which game do you like better:

SimCity (2000) or Doom/Quake/Duke Nukem?

posted 12-01-98 08:11 AM ET            

Unfortunately, not many other RTS games can be played like this. I think this style of gameplay, combined with easily accessible time flow regulator and automatic pause on important events could lead to a great RTS empire building game. As I've said before - unless someone actually tries to write a game like this, we'll never know if it works.

I agree with Shining that the biggest disadvantage of the current style of RTS is the stupid mission system. Even though I love TA, I didn't play more than 3-4 missions before returning to Civ II. I think the fact that the game is split into missions with set objectives is what makes RTS more tactical then strategic.

I think a good example of RTS was the XCom series. Although the tactical combat was turn based, the strtegic management of your organisation was briliantly implemented RT.

As to other RT games, I haven't played SC yet (is it really that good? Can anyone compare it to TA?), but I did try AoE and I hated it. The 'diplomacy' was a joke, and the AI was pitiful. I don't think there was a shred of strategy in the game - it was based on micromanaging your little soldiers/farmers. I really don't know what the designers had in mind with having to manually rebuild the farms all the time (reminds me of Outpost - and the total pointlessnes of pressing a set of buttons in a predefined sequence). I think this is the classic case of graphics becoming top priority and gameplay being forgotten.

Your opinions?

So to summarise: RTS are currently fun for what they are. I probably get the most satisfaction out of building an empire - and at the moment all such games are TB. Whether there will ever be a true RTS empire building game, I don't know. I do still have hope though :-)

posted 12-01-98 12:34 PM ET            

To me though, Civ2 is the most addictive game I've ever played (after friggin minesweeper .. lol) !!!

Although giving it the term addictive makes it sound bad, it's really a special game if it keeps you coming back for more years after it was released !!!

posted 12-01-98 01:05 PM ET            

When I went on to Battle.net I soon started to make several friends on the British channel (Matt, JRaw, Boylard, and many many more), before then, playing against nameless, faceless players was getting a little repetitive and I probably would have lost interest (surprisingly I have very rarely payed with CWAlers :P), but now I will regularly log onto battle.net with everyone else, have a gigantic SC game (or set of games), I find it more fun than sitting around relentlessly ordering my Armour to pierce the flank of an uncaring computer.

Playing with people you know is great! Put bluntly, as long as my friends play Starcraft, I will too. And I have already convinced several of them to get SMAC... Another Social gamer's dream.

As for how fast SC and Civ2 got old... I found Civ 2 got old much quicker, no human factor, real turnoff for me.

I like having to think on my toes, which is possibly another reason I prefer SC to Civ. But the majority of RTS players play games at too high a speed. Way too high a speed. I tend to play at Normal speed, the majority of players play at Fastest speed. The difference is astounding.

I completed the SC missions, but didn't get much of a kick out of it (although the SC plot is amazing, the in game SC plot is far superior to the SMAC story so far :P) Multiplayert is where Starcraft really shines.

As for rushes, most in not all of the players I play with are able to counteract rushes, so the games I play tend to be a complex web of tactics - most often won through teamwork and manipulation of your opponents.

To Spoe - I only play SC in Multiplayer mode. Your AI comments are valid, but unapplicable in my case. Like I said earlier I prefer to have to think fast, keeps me on my toes. In regards to Complex starges of the game, SC has the Team Melee option, which is remarkably underused and allows 2 or more players to control the same units and structures. Often this can be more fun than an ordinary game as it allows you to perform extremely complex maneuvers.

Darkstar : yep, it did make them react But it wasn't *my* idea, and as i've said I only came along to see if it would work

Snowfire : In SC one of the most important points is the uniqueness of all the units. One thing I disliked about Civ was that so many units were bland... One thing about SC's units is that from the Marine to the Siege Tank to the Vulture, no two units in a side's arsenal are designed to function the same way.

AUH : Diplomacy in RTS games My entire post is sayinghow I feel that there is more diplomacy in a multiplayer game than in a single player game Of course, with SMAC hitting the board that may change.

The one problem I look set to have with SMAC multiplayer is that they will take a long time to play through. I have to p[ay for my phone bills so I can't afford that luxury, I will probably only be playing it over my network with several friends of mine... Actually that is the only worry I have about SMAC,that I won't be able to play it enough

Omnidude : I hate quake and Duke Nukem, love Doom 2... how do I fit into your scheme...

Dushan : You'lllike TA more if you prefer huge variety of units, with a lot less consideration given to game balance. Generally for a player who is likely to spend a short amount of time on a game, load it up play it for a while, put it away, TA is rthe best bet. But for a player who enjoys a deeper level of strategy i'd give my vote to Starcraft anyday.

Hey i'm a CWALer who doesn't hate TA! It's a miracle! On the other hand I haven't played it in.... Hey it's not on my hard disk any more.. Huh? I have 8 Starcraft directories? Obsessed? Nope, not me...

Anyway, I prefer Real Time, because ther has yet to be a Turn based game that satisfies my desire to play in groups, that and the fact that they are all too damn slow for me to consider playing a TBS game on the net (sniff)

I will reply to more on this thread later I guess.

posted 12-01-98 01:34 PM ET            

Although RTS and TBS sound similar and are often compared, I think that they are just fundamentally different genres. Comparing the two is like comparing DOOM to Wizardry 7. Yes, both are first person views and involve you running around and killing things, but one is a (real-time) action game while the other is a (turn-based) role-playing game. Nobody every asks which one is better because everyone just agrees that they are entirely different.

I think that the same thing applies here. TA, SC, AoE and the rest of the RTS games are the DOOM/Quake analogs of the strategy world. They are based on fast-paced action and quick reactions in a limited theatre (level). Onthe other hand, Civ/Civ2/SMAC are the role-playing equivalent in the strategy world. Their niche involves a grand scale evolution over a long period of time. It is important to plan ahead (yes, planning is important in RTS games, but being able to react is more important). The two "Genres" are really quite different and one isn't "better" than the other. They are each different and appeal to different people.

That said, here's the two main reasons why I (and probably more others here) are so looking forward to SMAC:
- long, involving game in single-player mode that will draw you in and keep you going for "just one more turn" because of a constant sense of discovery (new tech, new unit prototype, new area of map to uncover, one more deal to do in the diplomatic arena, etc.)
- NEVER the same game twice (there are no "levels" or "scenarios") Yes, the tech tree is the same and the opponents are the same, but the order in which things happen, the alliances and hatreds that form and the units that you see (now that we can design our own units) and the map will always be different from game to game

posted 12-01-98 01:40 PM ET            

I view socializing on-line as having a conversation. So things like this SMAC board are far more "social" than the actual games as far as I'm concerned.

posted 12-01-98 02:07 PM ET            

The trouble is that so few people realise that Starcraft has more than one speed setting...

And on battle.net after the game, we tend to have a long drawn out chat, but the game gives the chat a nice flavour in my opinion.