What genre do you like most/least?

[Aszurom]

What sort of games do you prefer? Pick ONE for each.

Most:
Flightsims - I've always loved a good sim. IL2 and Longbow2 are my top 2.

Least:
Realtime Strategy - I'm just not into that whole "produce buildings and soldiers faster than the other guy" scene.

[Midnight Son]

Most:
Turn based strategy. Warlords IV, Civ, MOO1&2

Least:
RTS's I don't take speed and I'm not a teenager....

[Jobe]

Most: basically "RPGs where I actually have to hit the guys", so what is that, Action/RPG? Games like Secret of Mana.

Least: RTS as well.

[Luke M]

Most:
Action/FPS - These games are almost always quick and easy to get into, and they usually look pretty to boot!

Least:
Sims - I can theoretically do pretty much everything I can do in these games in the real world. Therefore, I have no interest. However, I'll make a big huge exception for some mech/space flight sims.

[Supertanker]

Most: FPS.

Least: RTS. If we all hate RTSs, who's buying them? Better speak up, RTS fans!

[Nellie]

Most :- Build an empire type games, Civ, Tropico, RRT, Capitalism, Pharoah etc.

Least:- RTS and I guess FPS, its the ones I love(d) (delta force and CS most notably) that build my expectations that most others frequently shatter.

[Jon R.]

I'd have to go with racing games as the favorite. Anything from Ridge Racer to F-Zero.

RTSes i will loathe until i can project the entire battlefield on my wall and control things telepathically. It always feels like you're fighting with the RTS interface as much as you are with the opponent.

[Jim Preston]

Most: Action/FPS - from HL to Undying to NOLF to BF1942, a varied and interesting genre that isn't stuck in elves/robots dichotomy.

Least: Turn-based strategy - I'd rather play chess than Disciples II or even the superb Advance Wars

[Brian Minsker]

Most: Turn-based strategy--Civ, Combat Mission, AoW

Least: RTS--Mongolian hordes and tank rushes are not strategy.

[Tyjenks]

Mostest favoritist: Turn-Based Strategy (HoMM series is the ginchiest followed closely by Empire of Magic)

Yuckiest: FPS - major reason: I cannot play them due to the sissy-boy nausea thing

[Brandon Clements]

Most: FPS/Space Sim stuff like Freespace 2

Least: RTS. I'm just not very good at them :(

[Silverlight]

Ah, man, only one?

Most: Can I pick "well-executed concepts"? I just looked over my favorite games of the past nine months, and there's no way I could pick three categories, let alone one.

Least: RTSes that don't allow pause-and-command. Note that this specifically leaves Homeworld [1,Cata,2] out of my least-favorite category. :)

[Brian Rucker]

Most: Simulation-roleplaying-strategy. Because I'm the kind of gamer who sees suspension of disbelief as a holy grail, games that allow me the elbow room to experiment, dynamic or emergent consequences to arise and shape my environment, and opportunities to turn around or make the best of bad situations tend to be my favorites.

Least: Adventure and puzzle oriented games. The antithesis of the strengths of computer gaming. Close second, any game dependant on scripted scenarios or narrative cutscenes.

[Peter Frazier]

First- FPS... wait... Turn based... uhhh... how about a tie between the two?

Last- Any racing game without weapons.

[quatoria]

First: Turn Based Strategy games. Almost said RPG's, but, ultimately, I'm still a dyed in the wool sissypig.
Least: Crappy Command & Conquer style unpausable innovation-absent cookie cutter RTS titles. Not least because they helped kill my favorite genre.

[Jobe]

Most :- Build an empire type games, Civ, Tropico, RRT, Capitalism, Pharoah etc.

Least:- RTS

Wait, to me these are basically the same thing. What's the difference?

[Albert Woo]

Most: FPS, a large part of the reason being the exploration aspect, which was why I dug Tron 2.0, NOLF 1/2 and the Dark Forces/Jedi Knight games so much.

Least: RTS. I've tried, but it always seems like a chore, churning out unit after unit to replace all the ones I lose in my poorly-planned and executed battles. The thing was, I didn't mind the early missions with relatively few units in games like AOK or WCIII, which basically involved a small core of units clearing out the map. Sometime later I realized it was due to the (admittedly slight) resemblance to party-based RPGs like BGII or IWD, which I guess were what I really wanted to play instead.

[Creole Ned]

Most:

FPS's, with RPG's close behind.

Least:

Not to jump on a bandwagon but I'd probably have to say RTS's. I loved Age of Empires, enjoyed AoK and basically played AoM a few times and abandoned it. The pattern was pretty much the same with a few others, like the WarCraft series. The genre really needs to break away from some horrible (IMO) mechanics. Heck, I think Populous was and is a better RTS than many that are out today. I'd say realistic flight sims next because they are hard and make me cry.

[quatoria]

They're just such shit games, with a few exceptions. Build some crap. Lasso a whole bunch of the crap you just built. Go fling it at the enemy base. Do it five or six more times. Fucking whee. I just never managed to grasp how it was supposed to be fun. I honestly think the last one I finished was the original Command and Conquer, and by the halfway point, I was only hanging on to see the hilariously bad video sequences.

[Nellie]

Wait, to me these are basically the same thing. What's the difference?

With the possible exception of Civ, all the others have a heavier economic slant. My typical RTS examples (which will illustrate probably how long it has been since I touched one with a 10ft barge pole) are Total Annihilation, which I actually adored and still play, and Command and Conquer which I absolutely loathed.

With Pharoah for example, I tend to turn the combat off because it is elementary in the extreme, the aim of that (as far as I'm concerned) is to build, basically a pyramid with a profitable city around it.

Topico its to build a profitable island whilst stopping your minions booting you out of power. Startopia build a space station, again most of the time I dont bother with having more than one opponent, I'm not really interested in the combat, its the building/economic element that I am more interested in.

For me these are all single player games where I am not actually that interested in competing against the AI or anyone else. I like building things, whether its a city, a railroad, a space station, island business or anything else. I dont mind competition per se, I'm just not that interested in having the sole aim about destroy or be destroyed.

[kenhotlanta]

Most: RPG's...STILL playing Morrowind Mods.

Least: RTS

[tromik]

Most: FPS (Day of Defeat, Halo, Ghost Recon, SWAT 3) and turn-based strategy (Moo2/3, Civ3, LSN, Total War games)

Least: FPS/RPG hybrids (Deus EX, System Shock)

[Jupiter Jones]

Most: Might And Magic syle first-person, large party RPGs that are not based on D&D rules.

Least: Any mission-based, base-building RTS. I'm still waiting for a great "world conquering" game, that creates dynamic RTS battles depending on which territories you try to fight over. Have I missed it?

[Ben Sones]

I'm still waiting for a great "world conquering" game, that creates dynamic RTS battles depending on which territories you try to fight over. Have I missed it?

Yes, several times over. Medieval: Total War does this, as did Shogun (Medieval is a better game in every respect, though). Warlords Battlecry II was also this sort of animal.

[Kitsune]

Most liked: Fighters. Truly the genre ordained from the gods! These games tend to have some of the longest lasting and truly deep and incredibly diverse multiplayer scenes in all of gaming. They feature tons and tons of great personalities developed by my favorite character development technique: animation and drawing. The controller becomes an extension of your body more than any other genre demands. A good fighter doesn't just give you moves, it gives you ways to flow and sway and move like a real human body. Street Fighter's sense of control with its moves is so precise despite the lack of realism the control mirrors how hard it is to learn and pull off respectably real fighting styles and keep your head straight. Fighters, at their best, make you dizzy and drunk with technique. Virtua Fighter is poetry of the soul captured by movement.

There is no greater genre for me than fighters! Bring it on! From the Looney Tunes, Acme-explosions of Power Stone and Smash Bros. to the stately, calm and measured rhythm of Samurai Shodown II and Bushido Blade to the precise beauty of Third Strike and VF3/4 at mastery to the controlled chaos of The King of Fighters and Guilty Gear XX, mmm, sexy.

Least liked: Online dominant and dependent games. Anything from Quake III type arena FPSes and Counterstrike to multiplayer online Blizzard games to MMORPGs, I absolutely cannot stand this stuff. Especially the Rainbow Six/SOCOM-type squad-based things which really get my noggin flippin'. Maybe one day, but sorry not today. More than the gameplay, its the feeling playing online gives me: like I'm becoming a crusty, dusty statue or eroding into sand. I can't quite place the feeling, but it feels odd and sickly to me. Currently, I must, must, must have a living, human being close by if I'm playing multiplayer. It doesn't help that there isn't an online mode that can do any fighter justice and probably won't be for a long time, due to technology limitations. Also, the people who populate so many of these are such monumental dicks I would think what's the point? You get real friends in real life real close by, so if you're just going to find some people online you already know, what's the real incentive? And when I look at other people playing it doesn't strike me as dynamic, as it does Borg-like, insect behavior with a bunch of beetles sitting in chairs congregating for mating season with some dull, silly dance (yes, while they sit down, you heard me correctly). And they aren't even nice! And sportsmanship, does it even exist here? Its going to take someone dragging me kicking and screaming into online games to get me to like them.

-Kitsune

[RepoMan]

Favorite: DAMMIT, I DON'T HAVE A SINGLE FAVORITE GENRE. In the last year I completed Kohan: IS, almost done with KOTOR, almost done with Max Payne 2... I like RTSes AND RPGs AND FPSes. AND Action-RPGs AND turn-based strategy. AND racing games once in a blue moon :-)

Least favorite: Why hasn't anyone mentioned SPORTS games??? NHL 2003, NFL 2004, NBA 1999, BLAH, YUCK. Don't watch the sports on TV, don't follow 'em, don't wanna play 'em. FORGET IT! I think that there must be quite a few others in this thread who like sports games so little that they forgot that "sports genre" even EXISTS.

Cheers!

[ydejin]

Favorite: Turn-Based Strategy (particularly grand strategy ala Civ, but tactical as in JA2 is good too). RPG's are probably a close second.

Least Favorite: FPS (they give me motion sickness), followed by 3rd person games with automatic following camera (which also make me naseous).

[Jon R.]

Least favorite: Why hasn't anyone mentioned SPORTS games??? NHL 2003, NFL 2004, NBA 1999, BLAH, YUCK. Don't watch the sports on TV, don't follow 'em, don't wanna play 'em. FORGET IT! I think that there must be quite a few others in this thread who like sports games so little that they forgot that "sports genre" even EXISTS.

Count me as one of them. With the exception of stuff like NBA Jam, i always thought that this kind of thing is why we have an "outside".

[Sean Tudor]

Most :
Flight Simulations - fallen in love with them since I played SubLogic FS1 on an Apple ][e all those years ago. Now I am part of an IL2 virtual combat squadron with full voice comms and we get online every week. Great stuff.

Least :
Sports Games - I played the original LeaderBoard and that was it. I have never seen the point in playing a Sports game and I can not understand the attraction. I have tried to play the odd one here and there but couldn't hold my interest for more than 30 seconds.

[Enidigm]

Most: RTS. They seem the most fun in multiplayer of all the genres, although team based shooters can come close. However after a while i inevitably hit the "keyboard monkey" boundry where i can't progress any further in skill at a particular RTS game without better keyboard management and faster clicker, at which point i move on to the next game. Only hit that point recently with War3. Generally good RTS imo is about 50/50 speed/strategy, which keeps it engaging but still interesting.

(My dirty little secret in RTS is that i absolutely -loathe- having to use any kind of hotkeys. When i actually tried to learn them i found it astonishingly difficult. I have no mental image of the keyboard at all. I can type "Around the world in 80 days" somewhat quickly but im a horribly inaccurate typist in general. I would have a much much harder time typing in the letters one at a time without knowing the sentence, like A-r-o-u-n-d t-h-e w-o-r-l-d...ect without looking at the keyboard. Now tell me i have to use obscure combinations like ... Ctrl-A Shitft-C B Space Shift-3 3 3 P N O O Space Shift-2 F1 ... and honest to god id rather shoot myself. Especially during a game its like pulling teeth; i just go "fuck it" throw the keyboard aside and go click-click-click with the mouse. Arr, a nice healthy rant there matey. Wanted to say that for sometime :). )

Least: MMORPG. Not spending 10$ a month to play a graphical version of Nethack. Priceless. Er...

[JD]

Favourite: split decision between strategy games in the tradition of Civ/Sim City and sports games such as ISS or NHL

Least favourite: I never found rhythm games very appealing. Still somewhat entertaining if there's a dance pad involved, but I find them downright boring when being played via joypad. (Vib Ribbon, for instance.)

[playingwithknives]

Fave : FPS/action packed games or RTS's

Least : Slow, menu based games with lots of stats (MOO Civ etc). Also, i dont play any sports games really, footy, tennis, hockey ... no interest. MMOGs, i dont want to have to play 8494894 man hours to get anywhere thank you.

[svenr]

Favourite: RPGs, I guess. Don't care whether it's hack & slash or not, American/European or Japanese, I'm just a sucker for the carrot-on-a-stick mechanics like gaining abilities, finding items, exploring the game world and watching stats grow.

Least favourite: The only genre I won't play is that of sports games (soccer, tennis, etc). Don't really see the attraction when the real life versions have better graphics and (A)I :)

[Silverlight]

Least favorite: Why hasn't anyone mentioned SPORTS games??? NHL 2003, NFL 2004, NBA 1999, BLAH, YUCK. Don't watch the sports on TV, don't follow 'em, don't wanna play 'em. FORGET IT! I think that there must be quite a few others in this thread who like sports games so little that they forgot that "sports genre" even EXISTS.

I had considered mentioning sports games. I can't remember the last time I played a sports game; my latest memory of it is somewhere on a Super Nintendo, some basketball game.

However, that's the problem. The whole premise behind sports games is silly to me, but they're not actually fundamentally bad; I don't see any reason why there can't be a good and fun sports game out there, I just haven't bothered or cared to look.

Meanwhile, with the RTS genre, for something like SEVEN YEARS there has been this ridiculous flood of RTSes for which the ability to click, scroll, and type fast is the primary skill. At least in something like Counterstrike the reflexes were more-or-less natural and it was fun. In the typical RTS, your reflexes must cause you to do something like this:

Click the radar so it centers on your base, quickly band-box or use a number key to select all your troops, send them running towards the attacking enemy, click on three different troop production buildings to add twelve or fifteen more troops to the queue - oh, and by the way, you'd better pick the right troops in this reflex-induced state of mania - and that had better be based on what you saw the attacker just SENDING to your base, not on what your previous carefully-gained scouting reports got you. You've got four seconds. GO!

I may dislike sports games, but I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE a game that requires me to constantly act twice as fast as any normal human being just to keep up.

[Qenan]

Most:
Tie: Turn-based 4x games, e.g., Civ, MoM
Single-player CRPGs

Least: Sim-anything.

[awdougherty]

Most: RPG's, co-op games (Flashpoint and NWN comes to mind)
Least: RTS, this type of game generally has been done to death. Not going to say they are all cliche, but a lot of the ones I read about seem too similar (maybe because I don't care for the formula to begin with).

[Tyjenks]

Wow...who is buying all these RTS titles then if we all seem to loathe them. While I agree the lot of them have been done to death and the last innovations were done ~123 RTS titles ago, there are enough decent ones I have purchased and played that it would be disingenuous of me to call them my least favo(u)rite so I did not. Maybe I should have said they were anyhow since that genre is today's whipping boy and it would make me cool.

Let's re-visit this topic after the Kohan sequel comes out and see if everyone answers the same way. My money is on a miraculous turn around in the voting.

[Brian Minsker]

Wow...who is buying all these RTS titles then if we all seem to loathe them.

The same folks who are rushing out to rent (or buy) "George of the Jungle 2" this week?

[Tyjenks]

Wow...who is buying all these RTS titles then if we all seem to loathe them.

The same folks who are rushing out to rent (or buy) "George of the Jungle 2" this week?

You mean those people can operate a computer?

[Mike Hussey]

Most - Wargames (with general TBS and RPGs in joint second).

Least - Action games that rely solely on twitch ability, but I enjoy 'action' games such of OPF where tactics and stealth play a part.

On the sports game subject, I like sports management sims like Championship Manager or OOTP Baseball, but again dislike the pure action ones, with the exception of racing games, which for some reason I quite like.

[Jupiter Jones]

I'm still waiting for a great "world conquering" game, that creates dynamic RTS battles depending on which territories you try to fight over. Have I missed it?

Yes, several times over. Medieval: Total War does this, as did Shogun (Medieval is a better game in every respect, though). Warlords Battlecry II was also this sort of animal.

Anything more modern?

[olaf]

Most:
CRPGs

Least:
Sports games on the PC

olaf

[Bub, Andrew]

Everyone who said "sports games" is their least favorite is a nerd. Silverlight is a double nerd for saying he thinks "the whole premise behind sports games is silly." What could be nerdier than thinking orcs, elves, and sci-fi monsters are less silly than sports?

Saying you hate racing games that don't let you shoot stuff is nerdiest of all.

My favorite genre: well designed games
My least favorite: poorly designed games

Sounds like a cop-out, but I like and play every genre. I can think of a fantastic game from every genre. I can think of a horrible game from every genre. But, really, I like every genre. Even hunting games. I especially like sports, all well-designed sports games, because the rules and game mechanics of a sports game have been refined, in the real world, for decades. The result is strategy and competition far better than anything a few nerds can come up with on their own. "Orc Tank beats Elf Flyer! Elf Flyer beats Goblin Jeep! Goblin Jeep beats Orc Tank! We have a game! Caloo Calay!"

Also because American Football is a turn-based strategy war simulation using the "we-go" system popularized by Combat Mission.

[Derek Meister]

The same folks who are rushing out to rent (or buy) "George of the Jungle 2" this week?

Thanks for reminding me why tonight's shift at the video store is going to suck.

Well, that and having to manage people younger than my car.

Anyway, I have a love/hate relationship with most RTSs. I like playing with the units and attempts at tactics and strategy, but absolutely hate the whole tank-rush phenomenon.

[Brian Minsker]

Wow...who is buying all these RTS titles then if we all seem to loathe them.

The same folks who are rushing out to rent (or buy) "George of the Jungle 2" this week?

You mean those people can operate a computer?

Well, judging by most online fora...

[shang]

Most: Strategy (both real-time and turn based)
Least: Sports games

[Warlord of Mars]

Like most: Online FPS (It used to be adventure, but nobody makes those anymore.)

Like least: Hand to hand combat games/fighting games. Last one I actually liked would be Capcom's Final Fight. Oh, and MMORPGs that require you to spend insane amounts of time to keep up with the curve along with boring repetitive work to level up.

[Drunkagain]

Most - Turn Based Strategy

Least - Real TIme Strategy

Edit - I thought I'd point out that just because RTS games are my least favorite doesen't mean I don't buy or play them. As a matter of fact I buy just about all of them, because like Bub, I pretty much just love games. But if I had one good game form every genre available to me to play, my first choice would be TBS and my last would be RTS.

[Qenan]

Everyone who said "sports games" is their least favorite is a nerd.

This is bad? Sports games are lame.

[Rod Humble]

Wow...who is buying all these RTS titles then if we all seem to loathe them.

The same folks who are rushing out to rent (or buy) "George of the Jungle 2" this week?

Its OUT!?????

Oh wait, I thought you meant Floyd of the Jungle 2 :)

[Peter Frazier]

Saying you hate racing games that don't let you shoot stuff is nerdiest of all.


Thank you for the ultimate accolade.

I prefer games where I attack opponents rather than run away as fast as I can. Each to their own personal style, Nancy.

[Tim Partlett]

Favourite: anything online, particularly FPS, RTS and MMPORPG.

Least favourite: anything that simulates something so well, it is no longer a game, like most flight sims. I want my games to be fun, with the boring stuff taken out.

I used to be an RTS junky, but I've got tired of them recently. However, I think all the people saying it's just a "cookie cutter" genre, need to take a look at what they like themselves. I fail to see the innovations in FPS games over the years which make them so much more distinct from their ancestors, that is so much grander than RTS games. I could easily describe them as "no more than run about and shoot things kinda crap", if I wanted to be disingenuous. And anyone who thinks yet *another* RPG with orcs and dragons in is "original" needs to think again.

Christ how I'd love a few more decent RPG's that have neither a dragon nor orc in them, or flight sims that catered for my love of fighter planes that fly like they did when I zoomed my airfix models around the room as a ten year old.

[Jon R.]

Everyone who said "sports games" is their least favorite is a nerd. Silverlight is a double nerd for saying he thinks "the whole premise behind sports games is silly." What could be nerdier than thinking orcs, elves, and sci-fi monsters are less silly than sports?

Your perspective sucks. What could be more retarded than playing football or basketball on a console when you could just haul your ass outside and do it for real?

[DennyA]

I was gonna pass on this, but given Bub's response, I guess I'll chime in:

Favorite: Flight sims (during six-month sim droughts, the crown is taken by 3D shooters with stories -- Deus Ex, Half-Life, Halo, etc.)

Least Favorite: Sports games :-)

As Jon said, sports are meant to be played for real.

[Mike Hussey]

Your perspective sucks. What could be more retarded than playing football or basketball on a console when you could just haul your ass outside and do it for real?

Yes, but I can't haul my ass outside and manage Manchester United :) .

[JD]

What could be more retarded than playing football or basketball on a console when you could just haul your ass outside and do it for real?I do play some soccer occasionally, but it's difficult to coordinate such an event with friends plus having the right location is another problem to be solved. Playing soccer games is fun to me (same for tennis, hockey games etc.), but I don't play it instead 'real' soccer, I play it instead of other games. 'Virtual' soccer isn't a substitute, it's just another form of entertainment. To think that people who play sports games are too fat, dumb or lazy to do the real thing is downright naive. It's just that they're a fan of that kind of sport (not in every case though) and also simply enjoy that type of videogames. It's another software, waiting to be mastered and also offering the joys of multiplayer entertainment.

[Ben]

Favorite- I have no idea. Good ones. The last game I beat was Max Payne 2, and before that Freedom Fighters. So I guess my favorite genre is 3rd person action.

Least Favorite- Gah, racing games and flight sims where realism is given any precendence over fun. I don't want to fiddle with my 8 different radar modes. I want to blow shit up. Racing games can be fun(I liked Burnout 2), but I hate the extremely hard type that is essentially a puzzle game. Oh, yeah, lemme change my answer to puzzle/adventure games. Each and every so-called "adventure" game sucked from it's stupid illogical beginning to it's "I wonder what two random items the developer thinks I should use to solve this problem" ending.

Oh, I also hate fighting games. Button mashing and willingness to memorize 2 moves per character do not poetry make.

Sports games, on the other hand, are great. They are the best 1 on 1 game, bar none. Nothing beats a good matchup of Madden, it's much less a test of twitch skills than of strategy and ability to respond to your opponent's tactics.

[Silverlight]

Everyone who said "sports games" is their least favorite is a nerd. Silverlight is a double nerd for saying he thinks "the whole premise behind sports games is silly." What could be nerdier than thinking orcs, elves, and sci-fi monsters are less silly than sports?

What a cheap shot. Games are made by mechanics, not flavor. If you understood the distinction, maybe you'd understand why orcs, elves, and sci-fi monsters don't enter my calculations at all. G-A-M-E-P-L-A-Y, have you heard of it?


I do play some soccer occasionally, but it's difficult to coordinate such an event with friends plus having the right location is another problem to be solved. Playing soccer games is fun to me (same for tennis, hockey games etc.), but I don't play it instead 'real' soccer, I play it instead of other games. 'Virtual' soccer isn't a substitute, it's just another form of entertainment. To think that people who play sports games are too fat, dumb or lazy to do the real thing is downright naive. It's just that they're a fan of that kind of sport (not in every case though) and also simply enjoy that type of videogames. It's another software, waiting to be mastered and also offering the joys of multiplayer entertainment.

Note the lack of ad-hominem attacks, the careful reasoning, the establishment of actual facts instead of ranting about orcs and elves like a true-blue nerd. This is actually a fairly convincing argument, and I must thank JD for showing me that RTSes without real-time pause really ARE the worst games in existence. :) (I should have known that based solely on their player base, but....)

Now excuse me while I go play Blood Bowl. (Just kidding! I wouldn't touch Warhammer with a thirty-foot pole.)

[XPav]

Favorite: FPSes. Turn-based Strategy games. RRT-like Tycoon games.

Least Favorite: Anything with elves. Lasso & swarm RTS games. Fighting games. Sport games.

[Silverlight]

I used to be an RTS junky, but I've got tired of them recently. However, I think all the people saying it's just a "cookie cutter" genre, need to take a look at what they like themselves. I fail to see the innovations in FPS games over the years which make them so much more distinct from their ancestors, that is so much grander than RTS games.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is stuff like squad-based semi-realistic combat. There's a reason that the only FPS I've played recently was Halo. I mean, the same basic conventions apply, the same structure, etc. And Halo to me was a letdown. It's too bad, because I like the genre, but nothing's happening there. And the problem with semi-realistic combat is that it can be frustrating if you have roughly an hour to find out you like a game before motion sickness hits you.

But taking, say, Warcraft 3 as an example, I don't see any serious innovations, except for the whole hero thing. I've heard things that suggest that becomes much more significant online, which would mean something if my impression of online RTSing wasn't so tainted. As it is, I'm primarily a single-player gamer, and I have no interest in twitch RTSing. And Warcraft 3 felt exactly like Warcraft 2 would have, if WC2 had the hero thing. It's a good innovation, but it doesn't make up for seven years of monotonous twitch gameplay, especially when you can see that the game is STILL founded on twitch gameplay. I tried C&C Generals and found exactly the same thing, only less fun (I gave up on Generals fairly quickly).

If you think I'm wrong, tell me what they've been doing new.

[Jobe]

Your perspective sucks. What could be more retarded than playing football or basketball on a console when you could just haul your ass outside and do it for real?

Ask the countless number of professional athletes that play sports video games. Dante Hall, what a fucking poser, play some real football ya douchebag! And no, they're not all just claiming to play them because they're being paid by the game companies.

[Tim Partlett]

I remember football focus going to visit the multi-million pound players Robbie Fowler and Steve McManaman when they were 20 year olds, playing for Liverpool. It was Saturday morning, before the big match, and they were sitting in their rooms playing FIFA, just like any guys there age would be. When I was at university some years back, I had half of the university hockey team in sharing my house with me, and guess what they did when they weren't playing hockey? Play video games like PGA Golf, FIFA, Sensible Soccer, etc.

Silverlight, what you may see as minor/major innovation, others may see differently. To me, most FPS seem very similar to Wolfenstein 3d, only with better graphics. There are some new tweaks, but that's basically what they are. I still love them, though.

[John Many Jars]

Most: Action/adventure, by which I mean a hybrid game featuring exploration, story, character, and fighting (e.g., Outcast, Deus Ex).

Least: RTS. There's nothing wrong with the formula a priori --- I played AoE and AoK into the ground --- but by now it needs a radical revision. I for one will never again order a peon to gather anything to build anything (except in real life).

To address the subthread: The true nerd is anyone who actually gets angry over someone else's taste in computer games.

I have little interest in sports other than lumberjacking, dwarf tossing, and competition lawn darts, but the older I get the less willing I am to write off an entire genre of anything. It's easy to imagine a good game based on just about any sport --- ever play California Games for the Atari 2600? The hacky sack game was fucking great, and I keep a wide berth of real-world hacky sack games, mostly because of the smell.

[Jon R.]

Nerd on nerd violence. And Hacky Sack, for the record, is fairly well removed from the category of sports.


To think that people who play sports games are too fat, dumb or lazy to do the real thing is downright naive. It's just that they're a fan of that kind of sport (not in every case though) and also simply enjoy that type of videogames. It's another software, waiting to be mastered and also offering the joys of multiplayer entertainment.

I still don't really get the sports game thing. I always thought that the big draw was for the athleticism needed to compete, which videogames noticibly lack. Basketball, football, and whatnot are still games without it, but something very big is lost. And beyond that, i can't really stand missing a pass or getting tackled because of my guy's stats, as opposed to it being reliant on the actual ability of myself and other human beings.

I wasn't trying to imply that people who play sports games are fat, dumb, and lazy. But really, if you've got the means to play the real thing, why bother playing a version of it that takes out most of the effort that makes it so exciting?


Ask the countless number of professional athletes that play sports video games.

Drag them over here and find out.

[Jobe]

Huh?

[Brian Rubin]

Favorite Genre(s) - Sims, conventional and sci-fi. I've lost more time to MSFS, Freespace 2, Tie Fighter, and Jumpgate, for example, than ANY other type of game.

Least Favorite Genre - Sports. I can't stand sports, so it's a given.

[JD]

But really, if you've got the means to play the real thing, why bother playing a version of it that takes out most of the effort that makes it so exciting? Well, you obviously did not understand it. Virtual sports isn't the 'real' thing transformed and pressed onto CD 'for your home pleasure'. It's a totally different thing. It's a videogame. Way back in school be played soccer almost every day. 1-2 hours after school. And still most of us also enjoyed Microprose Soccer, Manchester United, Kick Off, Sensible Soccer, Super Soccer et. al. at home. And playing those videogames wasn't the continuation of our afternoon matches. No, it was simply having fun with videogames. The one doesn't exclude the other.

By your logic soccer players also would never ever watch a single match on TV. Because according to you it's the same thing, with its most exciting experience taken out plus - unlike for videogames - no interaction with the screen action at all. And yet it happens. Videogames and real sports are totally different forms of entertainment. They're not equal. One can like both. And some only enjoy one of them and dislike or get bored by the other.


I always thought that the big draw was for the athleticism needed to compete, which videogames noticibly lack.
Hm? Last I checked you still have to score more or be faster than your opponent, which could be the CPU as well as some friend. If the CPU part bothers you, big deal, it's not like you're battling against real people in other genres other than in multiplayer modes.


But really, if you've got the means to play the real thing, why bother playing a version of it that takes out most of the effort that makes it so exciting? That's because you have a totally different perception of what sports games are and offer.

[Arioch]

Favorite: Party-based RPGs with (semi-)turn-based combat. Anachronox comes to mind.

Least Favorite: MMORPGs. A RPG without story, interesting missions, save possibility and hectic combat? Sign me up!

[Brian Koontz]

I argued with a group of people for about a year (we talked about other things as well) that a sports simulation is fundamentally different from the sport it is simulating. My litmus test was this...

A true simulation trains you for the "real thing". Therefore, a true sports simulation trains you for the real thing... whether it be a player, a manager, a general manager, a scout, an owner, etc. If you're haven't become ready to join the sport after enough training with the "simulator", it isn't a simulator at all and is a separate thing that merely imitates a sport.

[Bub, Andrew]

I argued with a group of people for about a year

I haven't read it in a while... Which circle of Dante's Hell is this one?

[Mike Hussey]

A true simulation trains you for the "real thing". Therefore, a true sports simulation trains you for the real thing... whether it be a player, a manager, a general manager, a scout, an owner, etc. If you're haven't become ready to join the sport after enough training with the "simulator", it isn't a simulator at all and is a separate thing that merely imitates a sport.

So after playing a flight simulator for a while I should be able to go out and jump into an F-18 or 747?

[Ben Sones]

A true simulation trains you for the "real thing".

So the only real sport simulation is either a 1. Star Trek-style holodeck; or 2. An actual sport training camp. Koontz, your definitions are, as always, bizarre.

I think everyone can agree that sports games are fundamentally different than the real thing--that's not much of a brainstorm. And I think everyone can agree that sports games do not simulate the physical aspect of their respective sports at all. Does that mean you can't call them simulations? I guess it depends on how pedantic you are.

[Warlord of Mars]

Your perspective sucks. What could be more retarded than playing football or basketball on a console when you could just haul your ass outside and do it for real?

That's not a nice thing to say to a person who could be crippled, paralyzed, isolated or otherwise disabled. Sports games have their niche in the marketplace and deservedly so. You're kinda hostile lately on this forum. Perhaps you should go outside yourself and blow off some steam.

[Bull]

So after playing a flight simulator for a while I should be able to go out and jump into an F-18 or 747?

There was just such a story in the papers not long ago. A naval aviator did much better in training than his colleagues because he frequently played flight simulator. I believe the navy now has incorporated the game into training for all flight school cadets.

[Aszurom]

I think you guys are arguing the wrong point of view on sports games. You're going at it from the muscular and dexterity skills that are required to participate in the real game. True, no matter how much I play madden, I'll never have a clue how to throw a pass.

However, that's not what sports games are about. They are an "interactive spectator" simulation. Instead of sitting on the couch wondering why the coach doesn't call a certain play, or swap out a player - well, now you have control of that. Take an NHL game... you have control of strategy there too, in choosing how to pass the puck around and advance up the ice for a shot. Soccer too.

So, we're not simulating the physical here, but the mental strategy of the games. You're to coach, and unlike a real coach you can grab the players and take responsibilty for their every action. It's the enjoyment of watching the game on TV, with the ability to reach in the screen and do things "your way", which is what every sports fan ultimately wishes they could do. Also, since a pure coaching sim would be pretty dull to most people, it's married to the action - but even in the midst of the action you're really playing a "realtime strategy" game of timing, placement, and quick reactions to a fluid battlefield.

Football, in particular, makes a great example as a wargame. Learn you unit (player) strengths, assign them to suited roles, line them up on the enemy's border and try to punch a hole in their defensive fortifications. The goal is to push the forward lines back through their territory and take the objective location. It's played in turns, and the general who maintains momentum stays on the offensive. Lose momentum, you have to go defensive and face a counterattack.

I mean, really, replace your offensive linemen with tanks, receivers with para-commandos, and the quarterback is support artillery - you've got Ardennes right there. It uses the "we go" system, just like Combat Mission. We set up our line, somebody signals the start of the turn by snapping the ball, and we pause and reset our unit orders in 10-20 seconds. Repeat.

So basically, I'm saying that sports games aren't about simulating playing the sport, but rather simulating having control over the team you're watching.

[DennyA]

I'm not saying there's no value in simulating sports on the computer. I think the management aspect is particularly interesting, much more so than seeing if your twitch reflexes can make a simulated athlete do the right thing.

I guess one of the reasons I find playing real neighborhood sports a lot more interesting than videogame sports is that videogames sports are a game that simulates... a game! With a few fantasy exceptions like Speedball and Ballistix, if I'm going to be playing a game that prenteds to be something, I'd just as soon that something not be another game. It's like playing a game where you see Spoofychop sitting in front of his PC eating a twinky and playing Counterstrike, and you try to use the gamepad to control his WASD hand. :-)

I'd rather either watch real pros play the game (although I still don't understand how the average sports fan somehow embraces the performance of a home team created from millionaires from out of town as something to get all worked up about), or play the real game myself.

[Aszurom]

Denny, does the SpooySim have a "punch yourself in the head" hotkey? I'm pre-ordering.

I golf, I bowl, and that's about it. I can't say I find any excitement in a bowling sim, and I get limited returns on PC golf. I'm learning from it, though, about shot placement and club selection and I get to learn the "you are there" layout of courses I'll never otherwise set foot on... but ok, it's not all that hot. In sim-speak, I can go right now and fly a Cessna, but I'll never get into an A-10, and that's why I like to sim it.

Now, take a sports game that has a lot going on. Team sports are the big one, since you're coordinating the actions of several units. I can't play sports games single player, they bore me to tears to play against AI. However, playing against another opponent makes it a fun game. If we wanted to throw a ball back and forth, we'd step outside and do that. However, we want a contest of management and reflexes involving a rules set that we're already highly familiar with and can relate to a direct "real world" knowledge.

I think that's why sports games do well. If you took the human looks and behavior out of the sim, and replace the players with robots or spaceships but leave the fundamental rules of the sport the same, nobody would buy it. Why? Because it's a game with a face that can be "related to" by 99% of the population. Change the face, lose the sale. This is precisely why EA can sell a new Madden game every year - the players change, so you have to update the faces in the game. That's all, simple as that, and people shell out another $50 every year -- because they want to control as realistic an approximation of "their team" as possible. Presentation is everything.

[steve]

Last time I checked, it's not easy for me to get together a good 9-on-9 baseball game, 11-on-11 tackle football game with full pads, or even a 5-5 basketball game (though it's easiest of the bunch if you have a gym nearby).

And playing catch isn't quite the same as playing a full game of baseball or football. And I don't get to role-play as Randy Johnson, since I'm not 6'10", left handed, nor do I throw 98MPH.

I do find it somewhat amusing that people that don't like sports games feel the need to dismiss them entirely. Where's Bruce Geryk to make fun of all the people that like to pretend they're an elf?

[Silverlight]

I do find it somewhat amusing that people that don't like sports games feel the need to dismiss them entirely. Where's Bruce Geryk to make fun of all the people that like to pretend they're an elf?
Well, for what it's worth, this thread is convincing me that my opinion needs a little revising, maybe based on actual experience instead of random platitudes mixed with natural anti-jock tendencies.

Hey, look at that! A message board convinced somebody, somewhere, of something! A miracle, I tell ya!

[Aszurom]

Well, I'll be the first in line to say that the ONLY way I like sports is in the context of a video game. First thing Monday morning, I walk into work and get asked by 10 people "Hey, did you see the Browns get their ass handed to 'em last night?" Nope, I don't watch sports. Zero interest. The olympics are second only to the OJ Simson trial as far as being annoying by disrupting my normal TV schedule.

However, I find the mechanics of the sports interesting. Boring as shit to watch someone else do, and I have no desire to actually participate - since it's uncomfotable, sweaty, and leads to painful mishaps. However, I'll sit and play Madden with anybody. I'll even sit and watch someone else play it, and enjoy that thoroughly. I will not, however, sit and watch a real game on TV.

[Jon R.]

That's not a nice thing to say to a person who could be crippled, paralyzed, isolated or otherwise disabled.

I was assuming that such people were clearly exempt from the "just go outside and play" thing.

Am i really coming off as being that agressive?

[Warlord of Mars]

Well, check out Scharmer's response in the GTA thread. But yeah, saying someone's 'perspective sucks' is a bit harsh for one. But I thought it should be made aware that not everyone is so privileged to enjoy activities that may seem "mundane" to you. No hard feelings, but it needed to be brought up so that stereotyping something isn't really a good way to go. I mentioned I don't like hand-to-hand combat games, but I did say that I liked Capcom's Final Fight, for instance. There's always a rule-breaker or an exception to everything.

[Sean Tudor]

A true simulation trains you for the "real thing". Therefore, a true sports simulation trains you for the real thing... whether it be a player, a manager, a general manager, a scout, an owner, etc. If you're haven't become ready to join the sport after enough training with the "simulator", it isn't a simulator at all and is a separate thing that merely imitates a sport.

So after playing a flight simulator for a while I should be able to go out and jump into an F-18 or 747?

Surprisingly - yes. You may not be able to fly it well but some of the 3rd party FS (eg. the PIC747) cockpits and models are ultra-realistic with full checklists, avionics, etc.

[Tim Partlett]

I don't know about everyone else, but while I can and do go outside and play sports, I plain suck. I love soccer, but I can't do scissor kicks, pin-point cross-field passes nor bend banana shots into the back of the net. As a child I would just dream of doing all this, while the reality would be trudging out on sodden pitches in muddy boots, trying to avoid getting my legs broken by ill-timed challenges from fat oafs. As an adult, I can play-out those childhood dreams on games like FIFA, where I can pretend to be at the World Cup, taking on the Zidanes and Beckhams in mazy dribbles, before cooly sliding the ball past the on-rushing keeper. I can also celebrate in all manner of ways that my talentless body could not imitate in real life.

[Jon R.]

Well, check out Scharmer's response in the GTA thread. But yeah, saying someone's 'perspective sucks' is a bit harsh for one. But I thought it should be made aware that not everyone is so privileged to enjoy activities that may seem "mundane" to you. No hard feelings, but it needed to be brought up so that stereotyping something isn't really a good way to go. I mentioned I don't like hand-to-hand combat games, but I did say that I liked Capcom's Final Fight, for instance. There's always a rule-breaker or an exception to everything.

Scharmers ended up giving another personal attack as evidence of how flawless GTA3 was. Didn't really tell me a whole lot.

Maybe mine isn't much better, but "Everyone who said 'sports games' is their least favorite is a nerd." seemed like a pretty sucky perspective to have, especially on an internet messageboard dedicated to game discussions. I didn't really take Bub's post to heart, and i wasn't expecting anyone to take my response to it that way either.

[Bub, Andrew]

"Everyone who said 'sports games' is their least favorite is a nerd."

Hating a genre yet never palying the games is an even suckier perspective. And judging things you've never tried is pretty nerdy.

Anyway, I thought it was obvious that I was half-trolling. (Pretty effectively it looks like.) By "Half" I mean I don't understand the rampant dislike for sports gaming (because sports games are among the best designed games in the business) and my calling all you non-jocks "nerds" makes me think of funny movies that have panty raids in them... and I knew it would make you guys think of wedgies and such... so you'd get all pissed off.

Truth is, trolling aside, I really do like well-designed games from every genre. So, to be honest, I find picking a favorite or least favorite genre a little nerdy.

I love FPS! No, wait, I hated Daikatana. FPS sucks! No I love Half-Life. I hate Adventure games! No wait, I loved Grim Fandango. I love adventure games! Myst? Yawn. RTS rules! No, it's derivative and lame... ok RTS sucks! Um... except for Rise of Nations... ok RTS rules! etc.,

[Nick Hyle]

Faves are wargames and TBS, followed by what ever the hell genre includes the Diablo and Fallout games ("accessible RPGs"?)

Bottom of the barrel are clickfest RTS (like everybody else, I notice - except the game buying public.)

[Silverlight]

Faves are wargames and TBS, followed by what ever the hell genre includes the Diablo and Fallout games ("accessible RPGs"?)

Bottom of the barrel are clickfest RTS (like everybody else, I notice - except the game buying public.)
This board is remarkably short on asshole teenagers who think that fun consists of backstabbing their allies in a 3-vs-6-AI Starcraft game. On the other hand, the world at large has entirely too many.

[Jon R.]

Hating a genre yet never palying the games is an even suckier perspective. And judging things you've never tried is pretty nerdy.


And the part where i said i never tried a sports game is where?



Anyway, I thought it was obvious that I was half-trolling. (Pretty effectively it looks like.) By "Half" I mean I don't understand the rampant dislike for sports gaming (because sports games are among the best designed games in the business) and my calling all you non-jocks "nerds" makes me think of funny movies that have panty raids in them... and I knew it would make you guys think of wedgies and such... so you'd get all pissed off.


It was about as funny and subtle as those movies usually are too. And hey, trolling hasn't ever been done before on the internet, so gold star of achievement for you. In one fell swoop you've become the Johnny Rotten of Qt3 with the nearly inaudible rumble of your efforts, and i think that deserves a golf clap.



Truth is, trolling aside, I really do like well-designed games from every genre. So, to be honest, I find picking a favorite or least favorite genre a little nerdy.

I love FPS! No, wait, I hated Daikatana. FPS sucks! No I love Half-Life. I hate Adventure games! No wait, I loved Grim Fandango. I love adventure games! Myst? Yawn. RTS rules! No, it's derivative and lame... ok RTS sucks! Um... except for Rise of Nations... ok RTS rules! etc.,

I guess putting all that concentration into trolling doesn't leave much energy for coming up with an actual point.

[Mark Asher]

By "Half" I mean I don't understand the rampant dislike for sports gaming (because sports games are among the best designed games in the business)

I don't know why I don't like them more, but I get tired of them after 10 minutes of play. Sports games don't compare well to watching sports on TV -- all the human drama is removed.

Anyway, if well-designed games that replicate the real activity are your thing, you must love computer versions of chess, poker, backgammon, etc.

[Luke M]

[ruth is, trolling aside, I really do like well-designed games from every genre. So, to be honest, I find picking a favorite or least favorite genre a little nerdy.

I love FPS! No, wait, I hated Daikatana. FPS sucks! No I love Half-Life. I hate Adventure games! No wait, I loved Grim Fandango. I love adventure games! Myst? Yawn. RTS rules! No, it's derivative and lame... ok RTS sucks! Um... except for Rise of Nations... ok RTS rules! etc.,

I think the whole point of a favorite genre is that you enjoy most of the games availabe in that genre, or, you like the best games in that genre more than you do the best games in other genres, and you dislike the worst games in that genre less than you do the worst games in other genres.

[dannimal]

Favorite: Adventure/RPGs (Diablos, FF<x>s, Ultima, D&D...)

Least: Anything that requires a ridiculous amount of time to be "good". I think this is why I dislike RTS over TBS. HoMM? Great. Warcraft? Not so much. I don't have the time (or desire) to put into a game to become a) fast enough to hurl units around or b) memorize the "scripts" to beating any particular scenario. By the same token, it's what got me to give up on MMORPGs. I don't particularly care to play 20+ hours a week and I've yet to find an MMORPG that allows you to play "pickup". You need groups (and that's fine) to be effective in most all of them, but if you don't play regularly, any group you find will out-advance you. It's hard to find small one-off pickup groups (or at least it was for me).

Not to say that those games aren't good, because many of them are. I enjoyed playing DAoC when I did, and I came pretty close to buying WarCraft III because I love the concept. I'm just far to anal-retentive (or does that not have a hyphen?) and low-grade OCD to be able to work at that pace. Hell, I still pull out the original WarCraft from time to time to "beat" it finally (the OCD kicks in and makes me want to beat WCI and WCII before I think about playing WC3). I get about 5 missions in and I'm just too "slow" (precise, think-laden) to win after that.

[Xaroc]

I agree mostly with Bub in that I like to play well designed games in a lot of genres. Still there are a few genres I just generally don't like where I might play only the absolute best of the best. Like RTSes I generally don't like but I liked RoN quite a bit because it brought something interesting to the table.

Least favorite: 3d platformers, games that are too much sim, RTSes

Favorite: Everything else

As for sports games I play them because even in my most in shape days I was never a great athlete and you can do things in there that you could never hope to do in real life. I used to play hockey about 8 years ago but there is no way in hell I could shoot even a crappy slap shot much less one that goes 90 mph. Also there is a great amount of strategy involved especially in football. On a basic level do I run or pass? Do I run a screen to beat a blitzing team? Do I run a draw to take advantage of a team sitting back in deep zone coverage? Do I run play action to fool the other team into thinking I am running the ball then go deep? If you don't like them that is fine but you can't set these things up in real life unless you are an NFL or college player.

-- Xaroc

[scharmers]

The Scharmers Koan:

Jon R. : "Scharmers ended up giving another personal attack as evidence of how flawless GTA3 was. Didn't really tell me a whole lot."

Scharmers said nothing.

Suddenly, Jon R. was enlightened.

--scharmers

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I dislike most shooters, mostly because it takes me too long to be any good at them. Any action games in fact.

I prefer historical strategy games - real time or turn based. I also have pretty high standards for this genre so I certainly don't like everything out there. But I buy as many as I can.

Sports management games are also very high on my list.

Troy

[Warlord of Mars]

Sports games don't compare well to watching sports on TV -- all the human drama is removed.

Hmm. Don't you play against any humans? I get plenty of drama!

[Luke M]

I dislike most shooters, mostly because it takes me too long to be any good at them. Any action games in fact.


The nice thing about FPSs, IMO, is that the skills sets required to play them are more transferable than any other genre. You're good at one mouselook FPS, then, chances are, you're good at all of them. Can't say the same for many other genres (though I'm mostly considering RTS and RPG since that is usually what I play).

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I dislike most shooters, mostly because it takes me too long to be any good at them. Any action games in fact.


The nice thing about FPSs, IMO, is that the skills sets required to play them are more transferable than any other genre. You're good at one mouselook FPS, then, chances are, you're good at all of them. Can't say the same for many other genres (though I'm mostly considering RTS and RPG since that is usually what I play).

And the reverse is also true. If you suck at one, you probably suck at most of them.

My thing with FPS is a little bit of cognitive dissonance I think, more than anything else. Their mood, setting and gameplay emphasize action all the way, but reward patience and planning - like a lot of good games. I can't make that leap from blazing gun barrels to advance planning.

Which yet another reason why I am not a Marine.

Troy

[Alan Au]

The nice thing about FPSs, IMO, is that the skills sets required to play them are more transferable than any other genre. You're good at one mouselook FPS, then, chances are, you're good at all of them. Can't say the same for many other genres (though I'm mostly considering RTS and RPG since that is usually what I play).
Yeah anyway, it still drives me crazy that every RTS game has a new set of hotkeys, even games by the same developer. Shooters also have unique hotkeys, but at least the basic "point->shoot" interface is pretty standard. Most of the time. It does, however, suck when you're trying to go prone and end up switching to zoomed-in binoculars by accident.

The games I play the fewest of are sports games, and that's partially due to weird interface issues; switching control between on-screen players is annoying at best.

The games I enjoy the most are Adventures and RPGs with a strong narrative. I also have a preference for turn-based strategy games, as I'd prefer to out-think an opponent than out-click him or memorize some build-order.

- Alan

[RepoMan]

Also because American Football is a turn-based strategy war simulation using the "we-go" system popularized by Combat Mission.
OK, now you're scaring me, because now you've got me wanting to go play a football game.....

"Quality knows no genre" is a pretty persuasive argument.

Cheers!

[Doug Erickson]

I pretty much loathe any game with an overriding emphasis on "realism".

[Desslock]

Favourite: Well, RPGs, particularly ones with detailed, "realistic" (take that, Erickson) gaming worlds, with a lot of depth. Love turn-based RPGs, love action-RPGs where twitch skill plays. I like space sims as much as RPGs.

Have pretty broad tastes (any wargame, action, shooter, turn-based strategy, simulation...have liked a lot of RTSs, athough I'm generally tired of the genre, same with MMORPGs), and would like to try some more fighting games after playing a few on console games

....but have no virtually no interest whatsoever in several other genres, and will never play games from any of the following genres:

Least Favourite: Adventure games, sports games (Bub's the nerd - everything I do is cool, by definition), puzzle games, any pure sandbox games that lack finite tangible goals (SimCity, the Sims)

[Bub, Andrew]

(Bub's the nerd - everything I do is cool, by definition)

Except for adding a "u" to a perfectly spelled word like "Favorite."

[christopher]

Favorite: FPS or FPS/RPG hybrids like System Shock 2

Least Favorite: Flight sims and racing sims. I just can't figure these games out. I can read the manual, read a faq about the game, and still not be able to fly the plane/win the race.

As for the sports game debate, maybe you have to play sports games as a kid to appreciate them. I think Tecmo Bowl and RBI Baseball were the games that really made me a sports game fan, since as far as I know they were the first ones to have the real players. About every other year since then I've purchased a baseball or football game just to see how they have improved. A good baseball game that actually realistically emulates the sport is sort of the Holy Grail of sports games to me.

[Shadarr]

I would like to see more strategy in RTS games. I think it would be really cool if you could set an ambush by giving orders to your guys to hide until the enemy is completely in the canyon, then seal off the ends and wipe them out. It would also be really cool to be able to coordinate an attack from three sides without having to hop all over the map madly clicking on things.

I used to love RTS's, but they haven't evolved at all since Herzog Zwei. The games are designed such that you're better off pumping tanks and sending them in waves than actually trying to attack from the high ground or flank the enemy.

[Desslock]

(Bub's the nerd - everything I do is cool, by definition)

Except for adding a "u" to a perfectly spelled word like "Favorite."

You can't tell the English how to speak English.

[Bull]

(Bub's the nerd - everything I do is cool, by definition)

Except for adding a "u" to a perfectly spelled word like "Favorite."

He's from Canada so it's impolite to point that out.

[Luke M]

I dislike most shooters, mostly because it takes me too long to be any good at them. Any action games in fact.


The nice thing about FPSs, IMO, is that the skills sets required to play them are more transferable than any other genre. You're good at one mouselook FPS, then, chances are, you're good at all of them. Can't say the same for many other genres (though I'm mostly considering RTS and RPG since that is usually what I play).

And the reverse is also true. If you suck at one, you probably suck at most of them.

That's very true. I'm just grateful for the general consistency of the genre.

[noun]

Most favorite: RPGs, especially those where alternate decisions lead you down a different path (Deus Ex, Fallout, Planescape Torment, etc.)

Least favorite: Pure point and click adventures. I used to love them but now I can't stand them. Either you fly through the game in a couple of hours, or you listen to the same variation of "I can't do that" dialogue again and again while you try to figure out how to get past a particular puzzle.

Stopped hating: Games that mix elements from different genres. Once upon a time I scoffed at the idea of first person shooter RPGs, or action adventures. Now I'm willing to try darn near anything if the design is right.

[RepoMan]

I used to love RTS's, but they haven't evolved at all since Herzog Zwei. The games are designed such that you're better off pumping tanks and sending them in waves than actually trying to attack from the high ground or flank the enemy.
Have you played Kohan? I've definitely found some flanking advantages in Kohan... no high ground, though. at least, not yet :-)

[Aszurom]

All those who don't like RTS games...

Q: what about the Myth style games?

Personally, I liked 'em. I'd call them "realtime tactical" because you've got a fixed group of units and must accomplish an objective with them. It's the building that burns me out in RTS games, so Myth was a nice change.

[Tim Partlett]

I used to love RTS's, but they haven't evolved at all since Herzog Zwei.

Have you actually played Herzog Zwei? If someone hadn't told me of Westwood's love of this game, I would be hard pressed to say how Age of Mythology and Herzog Zwei were even on the same branch of the evolutionary tree. If you were to compare Dune II with modern RTS games, you may have more of a point, at least on a superficial level. In reality, though, RTS games have moved on immensely since 1992, just as FPS games have developed to be vastly different beasts to Doom and Wolfenstein 3d.

I can tell you some very significant ways in which modern RTS games have evolved since Dune II (it would be impossible to describe the evolution since HZ as it isn't vaguely like modern RTS games). Here are some advancements:

1. Interface; you couldn't even lasso units in Dune II, that is a modern invention. Grouping units under hotkeys, even hotkeys themselves, were unheard of, let alone grouping whole blocks of buildings and setting garrison points (not invented) on the other side of the map. Double clicking didn't select all your units, and queuing units was impossible. Just a brief example.

2. Economy; the economy of Dune II was absolute bare bones stuff. There was just one resource, and the harvesters just went out collected and came back. There were no resources to balance, no economic technologies to research to improve your gathering (no technologies at all - that's a new invention) and no ability to "boom", which is one of a trio of popular RTS strategies.

3. Military; counter-systems didn't exist in Dune II. Units just blew each other up. They had an attack rating, and a hit point rating, and "hit-points" - "damage" was how many hit-points you had remaining after your unit was hit. Modern RTS games have extremely complex counter systems. Units take different kinds of damage at differing levels, like pierce, splash and melee. Units often have bonuses against other types of units, making them "counters" in a rock-paper-scissor system, or similar.

4. Technologies; Dune II had no technologies, only units. The introduction of technologies to research changed the way RTS games were played completely. As mentioned before you can have economic technologies, but also military technologies, which can give your units more armour, more attack, more speed, etc. Technology trees can now be vast, like Rise of Nations, and are a world away from Dune II.

That's just a few I can thing of, right off the top of my head, and doesn't even cover the innovations of other games, like the Commander unit of Total Annihilation, the God powers of Age of Mythology, the RPG elements of Warcraft III and the TBS style moving borders of Rise of Nations.

[Mike Hussey]

All those who don't like RTS games...

Q: what about the Myth style games?

Personally, I liked 'em. I'd call them "realtime tactical" because you've got a fixed group of units and must accomplish an objective with them. It's the building that burns me out in RTS games, so Myth was a nice change.

Well, in some circles, RTS has been become simply an acronym for any game that uses a real time system, some people would say that Close Combat or Railroad Tycoon are RTS simply because they're not turn based. I think, though, that when people here say they don't like RTS games they are talking about the DuneII/C&C/AoE type rather than disliking all real time games.