Your favorite game, for each genre

[Unspeakable Horror]

The Secret of...

LBA: Little Big Adventure.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by ADG


Well... I have to set the limit somewhere, otherwise we'd end up having 1000+ different genres...

so why not just put strategy - why divide into RTS and TBS at all (dont take it personally - i know youre not responsible for this arbitrary distinction - just taking issue generally with the distinction)

The response would be that gameplay is dramatically different for TBS and RTS. Well if gameplay is the distinction, does EU play more like Civ or like warcraft? (in terms of pacing, etc, not subject matter)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by St Leo
Strategy:
1) Warlords III
2) Civilization 2
3) Imperialism

RTS:
1) Warlords Battlecry II
2) Total Annihilation
3) Kohan

Shooter:
1) Duke3D
2) Doom
3) Serious Sam

Sim:
1) Transport Tycoon Deluxe
2) SimEarth
3) SimCity 2000

Happy?

EU disappeared from your list. Making a point?

[Adagio]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The response would be that gameplay is dramatically different for TBS and RTS. Well if gameplay is the distinction, does EU play more like Civ or like warcraft? (in terms of pacing, etc, not subject matter)

Since I've never played EU, I can't answer that question!

...and Agathon who was the first one to include EU, put it under RTS...

[Verto]

Turn-Based Strategy
Civilization series
Axis & Allies
Risk

RTS
Star Wars Rebellion
Red Alert 2

RPG
Final Fantasy III
Morrowind

Racing
Test Drive 5 (haven't played games of this genre in a while)
Super Mario Kart

FPS/Tactical Shooter
Ghost Recon
Wolf3D
Return to Castle Wolfenstein
Enemy Territory

[Adagio]

Which of the Civ games are you reffering to?

And you do realize Enemy Territory wont be calculated (When I do the calculations tomorow..?

[Zero]

Originally posted by ADG


There's no difference in gameplay if it's 3D or not... it only changes the graphics...

then you dont hit the arcades as often enough to play a decent game of mvc2/tekken etc.

how does having real time and turn based affect the gameplay of strategy games?

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

The response would be that gameplay is dramatically different for TBS and RTS. Well if gameplay is the distinction, does EU play more like Civ or like warcraft? (in terms of pacing, etc, not subject matter)

Eu is technically RTS, however it plays like TBS, due to constant pausing, and the ability to speed up and slow it down to the pace that suits you.

It is closer to Civ than Warcraft, as far as the feel of the game.

I think it should go into TBS.


...but that's just my humble opinion.

[Adagio]

And RoN is also played more with the use of pause, but it's still an RTS game because the "standard" way of playing it is without the pauses... they only included the pause function to make us TBS players happy

Originally posted by Zero
then you dont hit the arcades as often enough to play a decent game of mvc2/tekken etc.

I've played my share of Tekken (2 & 3) and old 2D fighters like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, and as far as I see, the only difference they make in gameplay is the difference in the time they where created (Kinda like the difference between Civ1 and Civ2)

Originally posted by Zero
how does having real time and turn based affect the gameplay of strategy games?

In TBS games you tend to do a lot more thinking than in RTS games... and with this, the game also becomes much more deeper

[Pave]

TBS:
1) Civilization: Call to Power
2) Worms Armageddon

[Maquiladora]

I've played my share of Tekken (2 & 3) and old 2D fighters like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, and as far as I see, the only difference they make in gameplay is the difference in the time they where created (Kinda like the difference between Civ1 and Civ2)

They should be in seperate catagories, but seeing as theyll be only a few votes for either genre they may aswell be lumped together.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by ADG
You mean SMG/SMA is two different games?

SMA was released with some actual changes to the engine, not just additional scenarios, so I guess technically its considered a new game. My impression is that most successor games change a whole lot more than SMA did from SMG. Its customary in the wargames biz to release essentially the same engine modded for a different battle, and price it as a new game. This is known affectionately as the John Tiller model. Thats cause the hobby has become so small its almost impossible for a developer (other than Norm Koger ) to make money otherwise . Of course SMA had the name "Sid Meier" on it and so was able to command sales wargames rarely get. So its seems a bit unreasonable for Firaxis to have have released what was really an x-pack at new game prices . Of course Firaxis was just getting started then, so i suppose they felt they could justify the fleecing. (not that i can complain, since i bought the 2 games together for $10 US as shovelware ) I tend to think of them as one game, and call it SMG/SMA, or just SMG.


By the way, this is one reason wargames need a seperate category. They follow a different business model from mainstream strategy games, and so present unique issues.

[Adagio]

Ok, in the next update of the votes, you'll see it mentioned as "Sid Meyers Gettysburg"

[centrifuge]

Meier's ?

[Zero]

Originally posted by ADG

I've played my share of Tekken (2 & 3) and old 2D fighters like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, and as far as I see, the only difference they make in gameplay is the difference in the time they where created (Kinda like the difference between Civ1 and Civ2)

im sorry but if you think that ability to sidestep in 3d games isnt a big difference, then you're defintely a a fighting game scrub.