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
Idk about anyone else but I get much more annoyed at most RTS games because I’m at an inherent disadvantage playing against an AI with perfect awareness that can multitask flawlessly and isn’t limited by a user interface.
Also where the fuck are all the pirates coming from, Sins of a Solar Empire? I know for a fact they don’t have an economy, how in the goddamn are they able to send thirty warships into my territory, over and over like clockwork, every 10 minutes? It’s not like they bolster their numbers with the survivors of previous raids, because there are none.
Yeah if you’re playing against the computer it’s not nearly as fun because either the AI is too good/cheating like you say or the AI is artificially bad to allow you to win.
RTS, in my old man opinion, is far superior when playing a person of similar skill level
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.
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
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.