Real-time vs turn-based

Time to think

I like thinking games that don’t rush the player. However, I think I’ve overreacted about that.

<aside> 💡 When I played Warcraft III online, it frustrated me how battles became less about inventing creative strategies and more about memorized contingencies. At their heart, RTS games are more tactics and logistics than strategy.

Contrast that with Magic the Gathering, which is a fertile ground for unique situations that would require adaptive invention, and provides time for players to do so.

</aside>

Muscle memory

Even in strategy and thinking games, there is still a place for routine, and for muscle memory.

There is nothing wrong with rote maneuvers. The problem is when that is all there is.

Ideally, the game can work on two layers, lower level busy work and higher level strategy.

<aside> 💡 I enjoy driving with a stick shift, but that is in part because I don’t have to think about it. In such cases, manual is automatic. My subconscious is automating the process.

</aside>

<aside> 💡 To some degree, RTS games do have those two levels, but the busy work layer is too thick for me (and most players these days).

</aside>

Waiting

Players generally don’t like to wait for things.

However, striving to remove all waiting can potentially hinder Fun features, especially for real-time games.

Parallel activity

To a large degree, I’ve shied away from parallel activity in game design, even though that used to be one of my favorite design features.

Why? Some reasons are:

1. It’s hard to control. Serial actions are easier to design around and ensure consistency.
2. I’ve focused on player-driven gameplay. (Which is another mechanic I used to avoid…)

This relates to Autonomous simulation.