5 ms·
Regarding your last point: I really don't like that competitiveness. I don't get the fun in repeating the exact same schedule over and over again just to finish
by Avalaxy 11y ago
Regarding your last point: I really don't like that competitiveness. I don't get the fun in repeating the exact same schedule over and over again just to finish the game as quick as possible. I would rather prefer to build a nice city first and take it slow, but with strategy games that almost never works in multiplayer, which is why I never play them. I don't really get that feeling with FPS games, they seem to be different every single time (although for games such as counter strike that may not be true).
- rexerexer 11y agoI can totally see where you're coming from but I think it's a differing view on what it fundamentally means to 'build a nice city'. In this competitive arena, your current 'city' is the culmination of each game you've played under a certain set of meta-rules self-imposed in conjunction with the nuances of playing as a particular civilization. While an opponent may only see it for a fleeting moment, your actual, current city is how, given specific starting conditions, under the constraints above, your pre-game-plan and ruleset have been tweaked and optimized to the point where they are not actively in need of changing. The only resource that really matters is time. A nice city is one that cannot be defeated by an opposing 'city' in any arbitrary amount of time and frees you up to focus on the more reaction-dependent offensive strategy. edit: Experience is mostly from Empire Earth, YMMV