TBS truly dead now?

[Skanky Burns]

I'm having fun playing it. Won the tutorial game twice, then played a random map.
I keep trying to get to the end of the research tree before winning, but I keep accidently winning. First I got over 70% of the map, next game I captured the capital, 3rd game I discovered that building enough wonders makes you win.

[Alex]

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.

[Grumbold]

I agree with some of your points but draw different conclusions.

Civ III has sold enough copies to prove that there is still a strong TBS market audience, it is just that in these days of 10 new titles or more a month, games have to go the extra mile to get us to part with our cash. MoO3 had that same potential but failed to capitalise on it.

Some games achieve longevity and extra attractiveness by adding an online element. Competing against players worldwide certainly gives some people a real buzz and keeps them playing long after the know the location of every item on the game map and can find them blindfolded. For that type of player, whatever is "the best" FPS is the one that gets their attention so 2 years later most will have moved on. Others sit playing chess for years and never bat an eyelid when any other games are release.

There are people (like me) for whom the TBS and RPG genres will always get my attention. When any new company rejects the big boys assertions that 'X is dead' and produce an acceptable new game we will be queuing up to buy. It doesn't require a Baldurs Gate, Combat Mission or Europa Universalis to come along and revitalise the genre, but they are certainly welcome when they do.

Increasingly TBS and RPG may be an area where original new talents can make their mark. With the sort of resources it takes to produce a quality RTS or FPS these days it offers better potential.

Therefore I don't think the market is 'dead'. Is it stale? Again I do not believe so. There is just so much more on offer that more players feel free to pick and choose more games to play. Computer games have been getting cheaper in real terms for years so buying one a month is easy to do. Designers don't feel they have to make a wholly different game every time that will last for months of play. Something fun to play with its own unique twists is quite good enough.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[Harry Seldon]

Then it's up to us to make the smaller publishers into major ones, eh?

[Grumbold]

The publishers don't need to grow too much as long as the developers they support do alright. Strategy First seem to be doing a nice enough job for Paradox (even if it means I have to pay for a US import, it is a price I'm willing to pay). In fact Strategy First seem to be doing a good job for a lot of small time strategy developers.

[St Leo]

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

No, it's not. Kohan and possibly Majesty are at the RTS end of that range. RON is a traditional RTS in pretty much everything except borders. Unfortunately, they didn't do as good a job of copying the TA user interface as Warlords Battlecry II did, so I am not buying it. RON borders are cool, but not that cool.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Well it depends how much you played them I guess...............Civ2 made largely balance changes that the casual gamer may think irrelevant tweaks, but they were good balance changes.

I realise that, but the changes weren't big enough to warrant it a higher ranking than Civ. As I said, the first one is revolutionary, second one merely evolutionary.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Trajanus
Btw you might want to play Risk II on the computer.. it's great! especially multiplayer!

Yeah, Risk II is kinda fun. Never got any MP game going though, and the computer players were pretty weak.

[Tingkai]

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]

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.

[DrSpike]

Combat Mission is great..........very innovative, but I'm not sure we will see a spate of games in this quite specialised subgenre.