I have always preferred TBS, thought RTS can be a nice change once in a while. Paradox "RTS" also works, but isn't the same

The more I think to it, the more I think that this entire thread was initiated by a masterpiece troll.



Dont feed it guys.

racccoon wrote:
I can't understand why you'd go turn based in this present day.

I think by making a turn based game your going to only get a minority of game players over the majority space game players if it wasn't. It is a major marketing loss of revenue.

From what I see of the game on You Tube it is a well created and a good graphical experience game, a lot of work is ploughed in there, but it won't get sold to the majority of players as most prefer non turn based gaming.

The game does look interesting though.

Personally I like both RTS and TBS (although separately - I'm not fond of many cross-over mechanics, like simultaneous moving...), but I don't think they're really comparable - it's an entirely different style of game, and each has its appeal. For example, Civilisation in real-time would not be a Civ game, imo (although Civ V barely qualified anyway ).



If I fancy a contemplative evening gaming, I'll play turn-based. If I just want a quick blast, I'll play RTS (or an FPS, or whatever).



Who are 'most players', anyway? Are they on PC, Mac or console? Do you have any kind of data to back up your claims?

racccoon wrote:
I can't understand why you'd go turn based in this present day.

I think by making a turn based game your going to only get a minority of game players over the majority space game players if it wasn't. It is a major marketing loss of revenue.

From what I see of the game on You Tube it is a well created and a good graphical experience game, a lot of work is ploughed in there, but it won't get sold to the majority of players as most prefer non turn based gaming.

The game does look interesting though.

Yeah, you're right. The devs should do an FPS of that.

Well.

No.

We want turn based. That's it. Those that like to have time to think just don't have anything in the space genre from a decade. Please, let us have something that woudl cater to us. And from the tidal wave from the forum, I just don't agree with the fact that they won't earn a lot of money.

I for my part, really am glad that there seems to be a rightful heir to MoO2 .. since 3 was a total desaster

racccoon wrote:
I can't understand why you'd go turn based in this present day.

I think by making a turn based game your going to only get a minority of game players over the majority space game players if it wasn't. It is a major marketing loss of revenue.

From what I see of the game on You Tube it is a well created and a good graphical experience game, a lot of work is ploughed in there, but it won't get sold to the majority of players as most prefer non turn based gaming.

The game does look interesting though.

Cause it adds a whole new level of strategy gameplay, one that usually is missing in real time strategies.

Another guy here who likes turn based games. I like that I can think about my moves, look through all the menus at my own pace to see how things develop and also alt-tab out of the game when I want.



Wouldn't have it any other way with this game.

Ashbery76 wrote:
Why not make it a space FPS so that majority players will like it.You know for the majority players who do not play any strategy games.

hell yeah, how about you fire each weapon hardpoint /manually/ now that would be tedious.



But no, seriously Turn-based offers strong gameplay arguably stronger than RTS it is in no way dead or impossible to implement in the current gaming market.

More people like first person shooters than strategy games. Why isn't this a FPS!?

Considering that turns take place a year apart, I think that having the game be real-time would leave the devs unable to fully preserve a player's immersion. I mean, if you assign an arbitrary timescale to each turn, someone's going to be extremely dissatisfied no matter what the ratio is. And honestly, how slow of a thinker would the player character be if an entire year goes by in 20 seconds or so?

Turn-based is still very alive in this day. Just because almost all developers make real-time "strategy" dosen't mean everyone should. For one, a turn-based game feels more new than just another rts. Plus, this game works great as a turn-based game.

racccoon wrote:
I can't understand why you'd go turn based in this present day.

I think by making a turn based game your going to only get a minority of game players over the majority space game players if it wasn't. It is a major marketing loss of revenue.

From what I see of the game on You Tube it is a well created and a good graphical experience game, a lot of work is ploughed in there, but it won't get sold to the majority of players as most prefer non turn based gaming.

The game does look interesting though.

Why not make it a space FPS so that majority players will like it.You know for the majority players who do not play any strategy games.

I can't understand why you'd go turn based in this present day.

I think by making a turn based game your going to only get a minority of game players over the majority space game players if it wasn't. It is a major marketing loss of revenue.

From what I see of the game on You Tube it is a well created and a good graphical experience game, a lot of work is ploughed in there, but it won't get sold to the majority of players as most prefer non turn based gaming.

The game does look interesting though.

There are games in both camps, so everyone can have his cake and eat it too. I like this game because it is TBS.

Just being an RTS game wouldn't guarantee sales. Fact of the matter is that the more popular an genre is, the more saturated it would be. This means that you have to bring an increasingly good game in order to be noticed and to sell enough copies to make a profit. Niche games are much more likely to sell, if only because the audience isn't as likely to have as many choices available. Of course, if you want to make more games in that genre, you still have to make a good product - you just don't have to worry as much about competition siphoning away sales.

Civilization. I think that speaks pretty well for itself.

racccoon wrote:
I can't understand why you'd go turn based in this present day.

I think by making a turn based game your going to only get a minority of game players over the majority space game players if it wasn't. It is a major marketing loss of revenue.

From what I see of the game on You Tube it is a well created and a good graphical experience game, a lot of work is ploughed in there, but it won't get sold to the majority of players as most prefer non turn based gaming.

The game does look interesting though.

Humm... cant tell if troll...



From the looks of it this game is not aiming for the greater market share. I am sure if it was it would be a FPS that is supported on all consoles with one unique feature. As Quade said... "Open your mind"

I prefer turn-based.

Some people prefer Turn Based Strategy, some people prefer Realtime Strategy. Perhaps the Devs are in the former camp?

Personally I prefer turnbased over real-time strategy.

RTS is fine in games with a small scale like Age of Empires or Sins of a Solar Empire(although I find this one a bit overwhelming when you are playing with multiple star systems ...), but strategy games with a huge scale and lots of micromanagement need a turnbased approach.

A nice way to do this in real time is provided by the game Distant Worlds. You don't have to manage every single aspect of the game and are even able to delegate your entire empire to the AI's control. In later games, where you control a huge part of the galaxy and are battling on several fronts, while needing to manage the building of mining, research and touristic stations and scouting stars for more suitable planets, fending of pirates and space monsters you need to depend on the AI.

In turnbased strategy games you can take it slower and think about your actions before giving orders and still manage every aspect of your empire.