PC gamers in the mid-to-late 90s apparently started turning up their noses at turn-based strategy games in favour of the new hotness of the Command & Conquers and Warcrafts of the day

A review of X-Com Apocalypse from the time:

“to be honest, the new real-time combat is so good I really can’t see why anyone would want to play the much slower (and often infuriating) turn-based tactical game”

:kitty-cri-screm:

spoiler

That’s like preferring Diablo over Fallout

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
0 points

Yeah I’m the same, it’s also that and when it comes to playing against players it feels like it’s more about knowing the general metas and then having a good enough apm to implement them better than your opponent.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Most of the time in an RTS it’s about focusing on your economy and production while executing a gameplan. Metagaming is fine and all but someone playing the current meta but missing production cycles will lose to a solid macro player who doesn’t follow the current meta

permalink
report
parent
reply

It doesn’t change the fundamental problem (and yes I do think that this is a kind of problem) that everything is still ultimately, mainly determined by ones APM abilties.

permalink
report
parent
reply

games

!games@hexbear.net

Create post

Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.

Rules

  • No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia. Don’t care if it’s ironic don’t post comments or content like that here.
  • Mark spoilers
  • No bad mouthing sonic games here :no-copyright:
  • No gamers allowed :soviet-huff:
  • No squabbling or petty arguments here. Remember to disengage and respect others choice to do so when an argument gets too much

Community stats

  • 1.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 4.6K

    Posts

  • 39K

    Comments