home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Monster Media 1996 #14
/
Monster Media No. 14 (April 1996) (Monster Media, Inc.).ISO
/
magazine
/
cgw3.zip
/
ART5.DAT
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1996-02-17
|
6KB
|
108 lines
┌───────────────────┐
│ E D I T O R I A L │
└───────────────────┘
╔══════════════════════════╗
║ TURN-BASED OR REAL-TIME? ║
╚══════════════════════════╝
Ever since Avalon Hill released the first true wargame, Tactics II, the
turn-based system has been a staple of board and computer gaming. This is quite
natural - how is a real-time board wargame possible anyway? - and lends itself
well to the deep thought required in most hard-core war and strategy games.
But with the incessant clamoring of gamers for more realism in computer
simulations, some companies have made the inevitable switch to real-time games.
The first memorable real-time effort would have to be Three-Sixty's classic na-
val wargame Harpoon. Harpoon was an instant hit; its unconventional design in-
cluded no hexes or squares (another heated debate in the world of computer war-
gaming), and everything ran in real time. A bit later, MicroPlay released Com-
mand HQ, a strategic-level game running in real time. Both Harpoon and Command
HQ were pure wargames, even though they ran in real-time - both stressed brains,
careful planning, and careful execution. These strategic-level real-time games
are broad enough in scope to allow even a slow player to cook up a sound strat-
egy before the real-time fighting erupts.
As real-time combat became more and more common, Blizzard Entertainment
released a classic game as shareware - Warcraft: Orcs and Humans. Warcraft was
an instant hit, and rightly: its gameplay was fast, furious, and intuitive. Yet
even though the action was so fast, there was still a lot of room for resource
management and clever tactics. The sequel, Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness, has
just arrived in stores and is being hailed as a worthy successor to the original
game.
Most recently, Virgin/Westwood have released two stunning and revolu-
tionary real-time strategy games, Dune II (which actually came out before War-
craft, and was copied by Blizzard) and Command & Conquer. These two gems invol-
ve individual unit level, real-time resource management, base building, and com-
bat. Unlike the earlier Harpoon or Command HQ, the tactical-level action is so
fast there is little time to think. And therein lies the problem with real-time
tactical strategy (oxymoron alert) games. Many have argued that Command & Con-
quer is not a strategy game, it's an action game. While not entirely true, it
is possible to support that argument.
The problem with many real-time games, Command & Conquer included, is
that many times common sense leads to more success than sound military tactics.
In Command & Conquer, the rule of the game is to pile up as many units as you
can on the opponent's weak spot. While still amounting to an extremely enjoy-
able game, Command & Conquer really doesn't allow for clever tactics or brill-
iant, drawn-out strategies.
So the big question is: who can strike the perfect balance between ac-
tion and strategy in a real-time game? Or, who can make a turn-based game as
fast-paced and fun to play as a real-time one?
MicroProse hit the bullseye with the second question. Two years ago,
their European import, X-COM: UFO Defense stunned the U.S. with its incredible
tactical combat engine, grafted into a shell of resource management and SimCity-
like base building. The turn-based combat was a wonderful implementation of the
venerable wargame staple. Yet the rest of the game, in real-time, was a perfect
way to manage other elements. And even beginners, and people who find wargames
dry and boring, got into the combat of X-COM; the tactical engine was virtually
perfect.
The above examples prove that both kinds of games - real-time and turn-
based - can make for great fun. But which will prevail?
In the end, I believe real-time games will prove the most popular. This
is because game companies are making moves to make their games more accessible
to beginners. Real-time games generally involve more action, and therefore more
excitement (though X-COM was a noteworthy exception). Also, real-time games
definitely make for more exciting modem and network games, both of which have
become more and more popular, especially with the debut of DOOM, possibly the
most popular game ever.
Turn-based games will still survive, certainly, but I believe it will be
for hard-core wargamers, board gamers, and "combo" games like X-COM. Once any
company creates the perfect balance of strategy and action in a real-time game,
that genre will likely blow away the dated, albeit still very enjoyable, world
of turn-based games. I myself enjoy both types. For an in-depth, 100-hour,
value-packed, thought-provoking game, I'll take Panzer General or V for Victory,
sure. But for a quick action-packed, exciting game, give me Command & Conquer
over Pacific War (not meaning any slight on Gary Grigsby's magnum opus) any day.
Editor, CGW
DJPS31D@prodigy.com
More stuff shamelessly stolen from various places...
Murphy's Laws of Combat:
Incoming fire has the right of way.
The easy way is always mined.
If the enemy is in range, so are you.
If your attack is going well, you have walked into an ambush.
The enemy diversion you are ignoring is the main attack.
Anything you do can get you shot, including nothing.
Make it tough for the enemy to get in and you won't be able to get out.
Friendly fire isn't.
The only thing more accurate than incoming fire is incoming friendly fire.
Field experience is something you don't get until after you need it.
If it's stupid but it works, it isn't stupid.
The enemy always attacks on two occasions: (a) when you're ready for them; or
(b) when you're not ready for them.
When in doubt, empty your magazine.
Tracers work both ways.
If you're short of everything but the enemy, you're in a combat zone.
-=≡<CGW3>≡=-