TBS truly dead now?

[Sarxis]

With Brian Reynolds making CIVish RTS games, and the steady stream of crapware spawning from TBS developers, is it finally safe to say that Turn Based Strategy is 'nostalgia gaming'?

I think they've simply lost the art of creating the TBS game.

[Jamski]

I hope to God that you're wrong... but I don't see any good TBS games in the near future. Perhaps GalCiv will go into the history books as the last great TBS game.

IF we get a SMAC 2 or a MoM 2, then it might look rosier...

-Jam

[Urban Ranger]

Not that most RTS aren't crap

[Traianvs]

crapware spawning from TBS developers?? can you give examples of what is TBS crapware?

[Jac de Molay]

I see no reason why the TBS genre should be discontinued. If they're good games, they sell like hotcakes.

[DinoDoc]

Galactic Civilizations wasn't enough for you people?

[Apocalypse]

It isn't just TBS. All turn-based game production is dropping off. Studies show it isn't economically feasible as real time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Apoc: I assume that's because multiplayer isn't as entaining in TBS games? Real Time is much easier to play online, and since the future of gaming is going that way (grumble)...

[da_hal]

i'd vote for reduced tbs until the economic model changes. of course, you know that online tbs chess is probably the most played game in the world, so it will never completely go away.

until they figure out a way to reduce the human delay in tbs, tbs will never become popular on the net.

so, looking at say yahoo games, what they do is have timers for each player's turns, and the games are simple enough that each turn can be played in 2 seconds.

moo2's rotating turn system is not bad, but not great either. what might speed tbs's up is have similar rules to blitz chess, where you have a set total time to make all your moves, so you can take longer when you need it, and move faster in other turns to save more time.

in my mind though, tbs is best for solo gaming, rts for multiplayer. unless we warp back to the monk gamers of the 80's and 90's, the money just isn't there anymore for solo gaming.

[Apocalypse]

Multiplayer is part of the reason, but there had been studies made even before multiplayer was that important. People typically want faster-paced games. It's also why you rarely see RPGs with the legnth of Baldur's Gate.

Some of the major companies (Interplay, Infograms) don't want to waste time on turn based games because they need money right now.

[alva]

'Even some people' on a worldwide basis is a lot of potential customers.

Many niche products are much more lucrative then a swamped middle of the road market. Which is likely to switch it's taste on a minutes notice by nature.

[Mr. President]

SimCity is easier to get into than a Civilization game. Especially now that they've changed the road-building model around so you don't have to build roads inside large zone blocks.

I think less micromanagement is the way to go. Using SimCity as the example again, you put down your zones, put down your roads, put down your water system, and let it grow. Even in a micromanagement-light CivGame like Call to Power, you have to use lots of screens and buttons, and move millions of non-combat units forward one space.

[DrSpike]

TBS has been on a downward trend for a while..........but recently the failure of Civ3 and MOO3 to be as compelling as their predecessors was a sharp blow to the genre. I have no doubt that a Civ4 would sell many copies though..........that is probably the best bet, along with independent projects.

[Urban Ranger]

I have to disagree that Civ 3 is a failure. It sold enough to spawn one (or even more) expansions. That's how success is measured, not how much you, as a hardcore gamer, like it.

[DrSpike]

Hey hey hey...........I said "failure of Civ3 and MOO3 to be as compelling as their predecessors" which is a long way from just "failure".

I have made many posts opining that Civ3 is not a bad game.