» Wrong on RTS Games and all that Rot
It seems to me you're saying that the Turn based genre is in fact better than the RTS genre. Nothing could be further from the truth. While it is true the RTS genre has spawned some frantic and micro tasking RTSs, this is why some of them are good and why some fail. My main problem with the RTS genre is that many Devs take it like its a mini genre of turn based strategy.
For example, Age of Empires is a historical RTS game, with civilizations and the option to build a civilization. But to be honest, I don't see the option to build a mighty empire. all it is representing a tiny scuffle on a small map and whoever wins, wins the map. In theory. But I have not seen any RTS game, none of the Age series have this.
Total War games are Turn Based and RTS hybrids, but I feel that one could easily make a pure RTS Total War game given the time of thinking things out and implementing tools to help the player. Supreme Commander is massive, for example, but if we could utilize that kind of zooming in and out of battles and combat situations on a total war scale map with realistic countries and thousands of units, we would no longer need Turn based gameplay.
You could manage your cities like you do now in a Total War game by double clicking on the icon of the city, or you could zoom right into the city, and order on a taskbar that appears when you zoom in on the city (all in real time) what you want to build, and how etc. You'd need tools, and a streamlined interface of course, but it can be done. And it will be. I have a dream, that one day this game will come out, that will have my ideas in it. Flag this | Edit this post |
