Diamondeye
So Happy I Could Die
You can, but you're not making much sense by doing it. Like skiing.
the "once and for all!" topic
- Thread starter narmox
- Start date
You can, but you're not making much sense by doing it. Like skiing.
AfterShafter
Deity
I'd argue you can, though it is somewhat of a stretch. Give this a try...
Start up a single player game of Starcraft versus several CPUs. Time five seconds, pause, tell your units to do something, unpause. Wait five seconds, pause, tell your units to do something, unpause. Repeat and try and do a Zergling rush this way, only issuing commands when paused. When you're done, tell me you don't feel like you've just done an axemen rush, at least just a little?
The fundamentals of form and function are actually quite similar between a lot of RTS and TBS games. Not to say there aren't notable differences, but the fluidity of a lot of TBS doesn't change the ways that units interact, and while it changes the flavour of the focus of micromanagements in some cases, it doesn't in many other cases.
What got me thinking in these terms originally were Bioware's RPG games... Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, etc, were essentially turn based strategy games, in their combat, focusing on just a couple of units. You issued orders in turns, through menus, much like you do in a Civ game. When they released Knights of the Old Republic, they noticed that all they had to do to make the game real time was take away the pauses. They did so, and their Baldur's Gate formula, which was turn based, became real time. You could take the Civ formula and convert it to real time - though it would be *terrible* without a great deal of tweaking.
In short, yes, you can compare RTS to TBS... It's just a comparison that needs to be clarified a fair bit, and taken only so far
You can compare anything to anything. You just can't make a meaningful comparison between some things.
Trying to compare a TBS game to anything real time isn't going to be a meaningful comparison. One might as well compare Chess and Baseball. Sure, you can probably come up with some incredibly weak equivalences. But there's no useful comparison between the two.
Bh
Trying to compare a TBS game to anything real time isn't going to be a meaningful comparison. One might as well compare Chess and Baseball. Sure, you can probably come up with some incredibly weak equivalences. But there's no useful comparison between the two.
Bh
Stylesrj
Tabitha SEAL
Wait, you can pause a game of Starcraft during the actual game?
You can give orders while paused? I thought you can only pause by hitting F-10, and that brings up a menu.
In Warcraft II, pressing Pause turns the field grey
You just can't say an RTS is better than a TBS. No matter how many times you pause and give orders, it's still an RTS. Just like a First Person Shooter.
You can't compare a FPS to a TBS.
Civ is about ordering armies and telling them to attack during turns. A FPS is about controlling one guy with a gun and shooting all the bad guys. Different thing altogether, with only a slight similarity
You can give orders while paused? I thought you can only pause by hitting F-10, and that brings up a menu.
In Warcraft II, pressing Pause turns the field grey
You just can't say an RTS is better than a TBS. No matter how many times you pause and give orders, it's still an RTS. Just like a First Person Shooter.
You can't compare a FPS to a TBS.
Civ is about ordering armies and telling them to attack during turns. A FPS is about controlling one guy with a gun and shooting all the bad guys. Different thing altogether, with only a slight similarity
AfterShafter
Deity
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic with pauses after actions turned on = turn based strategy combat. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic with pauses after actions turned off = real time strategy. If they were so far apart as to make any comparison meaningless, it wouldn't be so utterly simple for some games to make the conversion.
Stylesrj
Tabitha SEAL
I thought in a TBS, enemy units couldn't move at the same time your ones are.
Unless it's that Risk Game, but there's still an End of Turn Button when everyone has moved.
Now here's a claim I'll make:
A WWII Plane Simulator is better than a WWII Tank Simulator, because you fly planes
Unless it's that Risk Game, but there's still an End of Turn Button when everyone has moved.
Now here's a claim I'll make:
A WWII Plane Simulator is better than a WWII Tank Simulator, because you fly planes
AfterShafter
Deity
First off, I never suggested that RTS is better than TBS... Not even close. Just say that they are similar. Honestly, I prefer TBS, so it would be silly for me to argue that RTS is better.
Secondly, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that TBS and FPS are comparable - in any meaningful way - to RTS. I'm suggesting that, since many of the fundamentals of the two games are the same, and in some real gaming cases the difference between TBS and RTS is simply a pause after turns to issue new orders, the two can be meaningfully compared in some cases.
And it is definitely possible to pause the game in the N64 version of Starcraft... Really can't remember for the PC version.
Just for the record, I'm not trying to say that one game is better than another. You take Starcraft and make it TBS with a series of pauses and organization of "turn times" (all Starcraft units operate on "turn times" with their attacks, you know) and it would be... Bad. You take Civ and make it real "real time" with a series of massive mofications, while trying to maintain the current values of units in some form or another, and it would be way too complex to deal with in real time. Doesn't change the fact that a lot of the fundamentals are meaningfully comparable, and that in certain instances, the change between RTS and TBS is as simple as adding a pause after turns.
AfterShafter
Deity
Civ IV must not be TBS then, since in multiplayer with "simultaneous moves" on, everyone moves at the same time. Advantage goes to the person who more effectively uses their time - like in an RTS
Uh... I have no comment on your claim :S
Stylesrj
Tabitha SEAL
That's the quote I really hate though. Comparing several different games altogether to cIV.
They're not TBS games, so they should stay out of cIV's way
AfterShafter
Deity
Ooohhh, yes. No, that type of comparison is garbage. That's not an issue of saying "genre X is better than genre Y" though. That's some mook who wants to pick a fight coming in to the forum for one of the best games released this decade and saying "Nya ha! My games are better!". Cross genre comparisons can be made, I'd say, though... Civ IV is *way* better than, let's say, Killzone. Civ IV and Half Life II are in the same league, with genre preference winning out on a person per person basis.
Intrinsically though, no genre is really better than another... One game cna be better than another, but the standards by which you determine "better" would have to be debated - fruitlessly debated, most likely, but whatever.
Besides - Civ IV rocks all those games
KotOR has turn based combat no matter which system you use - in one case it's noticable, in another it's not. Regardless, having turn based combat does not change a game into a turn based strategy game.
Bh
pxpdoo
Ninja Burger Fry Cook
Hear hear, Bh
Now let's get back to the original point of this thread lol
Now let's get back to the original point of this thread lol
Swein Forkbeard
Nintendo Fan
Besides - Civ IV rocks all those games
Those are all games that IGN rated better than Civ4. The only two of those that I think are better are MP3C and SMG, but here are some more games that were rated higher than Civ4 by IGN (who gave Civ4 a 9.4)
Homeworld (9.5)
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (9.5)
Fire Emblem (9.5)
WarioWare Twisted! (9.5)
Mario Kart DS (9.5)
Halo 3 (9.5)
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes (9.5)
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (9.5)
StarCraft (9.5)
The Orange Box (9.5)
New Super Mario Bros. (9.5)
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (9.5)
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (9.5)
Unreal Tournament (9.6)
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (9.6)
Super Smash Bros. Melee (9.6)
Black & White (9.7)
BioShock (9.7)
Super Mario Galaxy (9.7)
Halo: Combat Evolved (9.7)
Halo 2 (9.8)
Super Mario 64 (9.8)
Metroid Prime (9.8)
Advance Wars (9.9)
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (10)
r_rolo1
King of myself
^^something tells me that IGN ppl loves plataform games.......
Swein Forkbeard
Nintendo Fan
Only three of the listed games are platformers (six if you count the Metroid Prime series, like me).
Öjevind Lång
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,371
You, as well as that other poster, forget the first strike ability of Longbowmen. After a couple of promotions, they are pretty damned hard to beat. So frankly, I think your statistics are worthless.
AfterShafter
Deity
Oh, you want to play that game, eh? First of all, IGN is one reviewer's opinion. Why not go to a site that's more than a "Oh, he said ITS TEH BESTEST so it's obviously so much better than Civ!" With that in mind, go here:
http://www.gamerankings.com/
You'll get averages of game reviews from dozens of sites, not just one. That seems a heck of a lot more authoritative than one guy saying "It's a 9.5," right? Besides, since when does a reviewer saying "It's the best" make it the best?
Now, with my last statement in mind, I want you to do me a favour. Take your favorite kinds of beers and wines... Stop drinking them. Instead, start drinking whatever it is that the Wine Spectator and All About Beer magazines say are the best. Then, stop watching movies you like - instead start watching whatever gay cowboys Independent film critics are hailing as the best. Then, stop listening to the music you like best, and start listening to whatever MTV is giving top ratings to this week. Then, once you've completely conformed to what reviewers are saying is "the best," then come back and tell me how much more you enjoy what those reviewers told you to do.
Once that's all said and done, you can consider this: exactly what is a reviewer's review score? The gaming review community doesn't even have a set standard by which all sites go (though this may be to their credit, since it's ultimately impossible to establish such standards for subjective matters), so what's the "quality control" that prevents someone who *really* loves shooters getting Half Life II and rating it much higher than Starcraft, though they may be comparable games? What are their qualifications? Lots of gaming? But we do that. Heck, have you ever read the Civ IV review at Gamespot? It's the only one I did read, and even then - let alone now - it was quite obvious I knew *WAY* more about the game than the professional reviewer did. Is a given reviewer's opinion the most qualified out there to say "this is good?" And even if you do get the most qualified person's opinion to say "this is good," does that make anyone else like it more? Does that give it more longevity to the people who are into that sort of thing?
And a final thing to consider... You've heard of Diablo II, right? This game is a phenomenon to this day. It's one of the most beloved games released in the past 15 years, even now, still has a larger online community than most games released in the past two years. Do you know what your ever so insightful IGN gave it? 83%. You know what the very clever review community averaged it as not even a 90% game? Do you know that even now they give 90%+ scores to games that won't bring the tiniest fraction of people happy gaming experiences for a fraction as long much higher scores?
So, all this considered, please, tell me... What is IGN's opinion worth when trying to decide "the best game" out there?
AfterShafter
Deity
I played it and didn't enjoy it much at all... Was the game that originally got me thinking "Zeldas are going downhill since they went 3D." If it's so clearly the best game of all time, it should be easy to convince me despite my playing it and not finding it very fun.
So.... Go. Convince me. Should be easy, since it's simply true that it's the best game of all time - I mean, there must be some compelling, communicable reason for you to make a statement like that.
