Gamespot article on TBS vs. RTS

[Sarxis]

I thought I would link this here. Not necessarily Civ related, but still involves the TBS genre (plus there is a poll, hehe):

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/gamespotting/100401/p6_01.html

[Akron]

Nice article.

It's funny that he hasn't yet noticed the computer's constant cheating in civ 2.

But he does know about that one more turn feeling.

[Urban Ranger]

<em>Disciples: Sacred Lands</em> is quite bad. Extremely repetitive and boring.

<em>Age of Wonders</em> or <em>Warlords</em> are better.

[Moral Hazard]

I like the fact that TBS is winning by a 2 to 1 margin in the poll of course I've already voted three times

I've found Trey Walker's columns and reviews to be quite good; Same goes for Greg Kasavin. Actually the entire Gamespot crew write excellent reviews, the scores seem a little biased toward companies who spend money on advertising, but the reviews are good.

[Dauphin]

Whilst many games can easily be split in to the categories of TBS and RTS, turn-based are much more strategic than real-time IMO.

I do enjoy games that are notable exceptions, such as Commandos. Now that is a classic Real-Time game that is not a "click fest, who can churn out armies like Russia and rush the other players first".

[Mars]

good article thanks for posting it

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Whilst many games can easily be split in to the categories of TBS and RTS, turn-based are much more strategic than real-time IMO.

I do enjoy games that are notable exceptions, such as Commandos. Now that is a classic Real-Time game that is not a "click fest, who can churn out armies like Russia and rush the other players first".

I have always thought TBS is more strategic, while most, if not all, RTS games are primarily tactical in nature. Thought really, they both have a little of strategy and tactics.

[Chuckles]

I always like TBS, but I am playing all RTS now. Why? That's what all the companies are developing. It's where all the money is going. They are easier to make and you can get a faster payback. So I am quite excited to see new developments in C3, MOO3, and Stars!

[shawng1]

Most RTS games are nothing mroe than exercises in how fast you can click your mouse. I don't think much of that at all.

There's one exception, and it breaks every rule that's been mentioned. Europa Universalis, a RT game that has as much strategic depth as any TBS game one can mention, including Civ.

[Provost Harrison]

They both have their merits. RTS is fun for a quick blast and war and is enjoyable. But I still state that it has nothing like the draw of a good TBS like civ. Because you are not continually fighting with the clock and you can thus engage in more effective long-term planning, you can produce richer games and although not actually functioning in real-time, is a lot more immersive. So TBS should be the winner!

[Moral Hazard]

What about Shogun? That's what an RTS should be. I'm really hoping that, they make some others like it, for example Midieval, Roman or Napoleanic version would be alot of fun.

I actually enjoy Warcraft etc. but only single player where you figure out the best tactics. MP always ends up being a click-fest as others have mentioned. Don't get me started on the AI

[shawng1]

Provost,

In EU you're not really "fighting" the clock. You can set it as fast or slow as you like. It is something you are aware of, but if it becomes a "fight" you can reduce it.

Also EU has as much depth as Civ II. For instance, EU actually takes the issue of faith and religion seriously. It is not merely the "opiate of he masses" as Sid (mis)treats it. As much as I love Civ, this has always been a weakness of the game. Also EU has more diplomatic options than Civ II had. It's not a shallow "resource collection" clickfest.

Re: Shogun. I love it too. But it isn't actually a RTS game. It is a turn based game with real based elements (namely combat). Seeing you can automatically resolve conflict and thus skip those elements, it is closer to Turn-based than to RTS.

That doesn't change my opinion of it, BTW, I think its one of the best games I've ever played.

[The Commodore]

I love them both. Sorry, but I couldn't vote...

[Dauphin]

In EU you're not really "fighting" the clock. You can set it as fast or slow as you like. It is something you are aware of, but if it becomes a "fight" you can reduce it.

True. You can even issue orders, negotiate treaties, send colonists etc with the game paused. So there is no need for any fight against time. Many RTS don't allow you to do that.

ctrl+ and ctrl- are a much used combination in that game.

[Provost Harrison]

I have never actually played EU, although some of you love it but there have been more mixed opinions about the game. Is there anywhere I can download a demo?