TBS truly dead now?

Sarxis · June 14, 2003, 06:43

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 · June 14, 2003, 07:36

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 · June 14, 2003, 09:14

Not that most RTS aren't crap

Traianvs · June 14, 2003, 09:32

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

Jac de Molay · June 14, 2003, 10:50

I see no reason why the TBS genre should be discontinued.

If they're good games, they sell like hotcakes.

DinoDoc · June 14, 2003, 10:54

Galactic Civilizations wasn't enough for you people?

Apocalypse · June 14, 2003, 13:23

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 · June 14, 2003, 13:29

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 · June 14, 2003, 13:34

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 · June 14, 2003, 13:36

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 · June 15, 2003, 01:30

'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 · June 15, 2003, 01:57

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 · June 15, 2003, 08:27

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 · June 15, 2003, 08:50

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 · June 15, 2003, 09:33

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.

monolith94 · June 15, 2003, 18:46

too bad you're wrong.

Skanky Burns · June 15, 2003, 20:01

With regards to producing future TBS games, Civ 3 is a success as it brought in more money than it cost to produce. Compared to its predecessors though, I spent more years playing Civ 1 than I did weeks playing Civ 3.

DrSpike · June 15, 2003, 20:19

Quote:

Originally posted by monolith94
too bad you're wrong.

I don't think it's good either. Jeez, attacked from all sides for some decidedly reasonable posts I am perfectly willing to back up if anyone is going to come up with arguments, instead of just posting empty rubbish.

Jamski · June 15, 2003, 20:27

Well I would love to argue with you Spikie, because I think Civ3 is actually a better game than its predecessors. HOWEVER - I must admit that in the last two months the CD's not even come out of the box, and before then I didn't play for about 3 months. Actually I've not taked SMAC out of the CD drive for about 5 weeks, apart from a quick game of CtP2. So, what I'm saying is that Civ3 has failed to be as compelling as its predecessors - the same as Spikie.

-Jam

DrSpike · June 15, 2003, 20:43

Fair enough WoA.

For me though the reason Civ3 is not as compelling as Civ2 is that the game was neutered, and as such I do not consider it a better game. People rave about the AI, but it's not that much better when you remove the effect dumbing down the game has.

Now I spent ages defending Civ3 in the Civ2 forums to people who would not even play a game, because in all fairness I have played many many worse TBS games than Civ3. But the longevity is not there for many gamers, because the game is inherently less versatile IMO.

And if I had to have a stab at why that is, I'd blame the growing number of Sunday gamers........but that seems to annoy people, so I wont.

Harry Seldon · June 15, 2003, 23:12

There always seem to be TBS droughts. They'll fire up development again sometime and we'll all be there to ooh and aah and throw our money down on the latest and greatest. Even bad TBS sells a decent number of copies, if not what was expected.

St Leo · June 16, 2003, 00:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
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.

What are you smoking? Last year we had (the admittedly botched but very beautiful) Age of Wonders 2 and the excellent Disciples II. This year, the Disciples II expansion pack has just come out and Warlords IV will be out by Christmas.

Yes, we are a bit overdue for an original TBS.

Urban Ranger · June 16, 2003, 00:25

Disciples II sucks worse than the original, which sucks dead donkey behinds

AoW II isn't as good as the original, either.

Urban Ranger · June 16, 2003, 00:29

Quote:

Originally posted by 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'd say MoO 3 is a huge failure. It upsets the old timers and confuses the newcomers.

As for Civ 3, as far as I see, it made some small steps in the right direction, namely to move away from a city-centric game to a nation-centric game. But it still lags behind other efforts such as Clash of Civilizations in this area.

To me, I rate Civ 2 below that of the original. The first one was groundbreaking, the second one, merely more of the same.

Alexander's Horse · June 16, 2003, 01:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Studies show it isn't economically feasible as real time.

Wtf does that mean?

DrSpike · June 16, 2003, 05:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

To me, I rate Civ 2 below that of the original. The first one was groundbreaking, the second one, merely more of the same.

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.

Also I played Civ1 on my Amiga so I was more than happy to buy a prettier and better version of the game I already played.

If Civ3 was to Civ2 as Civ2 was to Civ1 I'd be happier.

Jamski · June 16, 2003, 10:27

Quote:

...and Warlords IV will be out by Christmas.

But, as a realist, it won't be as good as Warlords 2, will it? Sure it will look nice, new races, new magic... but...

Well, we'll see, but I bet it doesn't have the one more turn factor anymore.

-Jam

lord of the mark · June 16, 2003, 11:16

everyone here seems to be thinking typical TBS - Civ, Moo, smac vs typical multiplayer oriented RTS.

I tend to be interested in thoughtful games, regardless of the technical genre. As long as there are games that seriously address interesting subhects, and i can pause them to think and strategize, and can either give enough orders while paused, or set speed slow enough so that click speed is not crucial in SP, Im happy.

I admit that due to my aged PC, I havent played many of the games Im about to enthuse about, but let me discuss some anyway.

SMG/SMA - technically an RTS(or RTT?), yet a serious thoughtful, treatment of history with almost grognard level accuracy. Engine applied to Napoleonic period.

Citybuilders - both Maxis style - latest release is Simcity4 - and Impressions style - latest is a chinese theme - allows deep play, history, interesting issues, etc, although technically in real time.

Total war series - Started with Shogun TW, a highly accurate (IIUC) RT military game, with a TB strategic wrapper. With Medieval TW the TB strategic wrapper got deeper and more important. Series to continue with Rome:TW.

Europa Univeralis : TEchnically RT, but pausible and variable speed, most historically accurate empire builders yet. Series has gone to EU2, HOI, and soon Crusader Kings and Victoria.

1602 AD - slow paced, peaceful citybuilder/RTS. 1503 now out.

Combat Mission - Simultaneus turn Grognard war game, has helped revive war game genre, several incarnations.

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)

So what i see is a future where while classic Civ style TBS may move in the direction of a niche genre (though still probably a much bigger niche then wargames) there continues to be plenty of interesting strategy games for those of us not into warcraft clones.

Apocalypse · June 16, 2003, 14:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Wtf does that mean?

Turn based games don't typically bring in as much money...

Frogman · June 16, 2003, 16:43

I don't think its dead. AoW2 is coming out with an expansion that should fix the major problems and hopefully give a decent editor.

Dominions is getting some good chatter on its gameplay even with poor graphics and a clumsy interface. Dominions II will improve the graphics and the interface but should leave the great gameplay. Its the first game I've seen that is specially designed for pbem.

The new patch for MOO3 seems to fix the biggest problems and there will likely be one more patch. Can't say that MOO3 wasn't a collosal disappointment for everyone though. When you have to resort to paying people to take the game, thats as big a flop as you can have.