Vroeger waren veel spellen turn-based, denk maar aan X-com of Fallout. Tegenwoordig is het echter erg rustig op dit stuk van de markt en de oude kla iekers zijn tegenwoordig ook al real-time.

FiringSquad ging op onderzoek uit en heeft een erg lang artikel online gezet met de feiten. Waarom zijn er zo weinig spellen turn-based ? Wie zijn de grootste spellen uit dit genre en belangrijker, is er nog wel toekomst is voor turn-based games ?Sure, it's different - but that's what we want, right? Yeah, it's slow - but that's part of the difference. Oh and no, it probably won't have multiplayer (good multiplayer, at any rate), but then again we don't bother to play a lot of good multiplayer games. Heck, even the graphics won't be that good - but after all, graphics don't make the game, right?

The problem is that turn-based games take effort to learn and effort to play. Results aren't instant. The games aren't flashy, there are no immediate and satisfying actions. Troops don't pummel each other, and you can't pause in the middle of combat to change orders. But you know what - they're different that way. That's the whole point, right?

Maybe not. Maybe as gamers, we obviously don't know what we want. We say we want different things - but we really don't. After all, Torment was a slightly different kind of RPG... yet we didn't buy it. It was an excellent game, yet comments I heard at the store or got in email is that "it looks too weird, how could it ever get a good review?" I know it's impo ible to generalize everyone by a few bad apples, but the facts are that we really didn't buy the game. Neither did we buy Allegiance - a truly different and wild concept that was a remarkably succe ful idea... but it didn't sell. That's a real shame.

Voor de rest van het verhaal surf je naar FiringSquad.