Tombstone
Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000 From: Los Angeles, California Status: offline
|
There are some who are vehemently opposed to real-time games. I am not. I feel that most real-time games aren't about tactical combat, (which is probably why turn-based old-timers aren't into them) they tend to make an effort toward creating a game experience that is fun, enjoyable, and an interesting challenge. The last part is the tricky part since an 'interesting challenge' can be found in many ways. I'm not certain how the specific developers feel about their games, but from my standpoint most of the games rely on creating a situation that floods the players with an organizational task that goes far beyond what is reasonable and that this is a GOOD thing. It makes the most important element of the game the player's attention. You take a simple system where both sides follow the same rules mixed with some play-testing/balancing and you can get a decent result. This method goes counter to the concept of tactical wargaming, the behavior that wins is a product of the system rather than making a system that rewards the behaviors we're interested in practicing (mobile warfare, positional warfare, maneuver and fire, etc.) It's a complex topic, and taken from differing standpoints results in widely differing explanations, but I think in the end we'll end up with some bitchin' real-time war simulations... (man, I hate typing that much and not re-reading for typos... hope it makes sense.)
Tomo
_____________________________
|