By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

I won't disagree with you factually, because I said that you had a point in the start of your OP. I agree that RPG's should have a deeper separation between them, but because of that same separation, I don't agree with the choices you gave for most RPG's on your list.
In my field of expertise we separate proteins, molecules, enzymes, etc. for their function, complexity, nomenclature and specification.
One protein can be exactly identical as another one, and have the same functional group, yet they belong to an entire different group, because their actual functionality is different, even if in the surface they look the same.
This happens in a similar fashion on the gaming world. On the surface you've got games that have similar mechanics, but that in their core they are completely different, thus they don't fit in the same group. That's what i'm trying to say about CT as a strategy game. While it does have micromanagement mechanics and turn based actions similar to a strategy game, in it's core is much more than that, it doesn't fit in that group, as well as a Fire Emblem or a Shining Force does.



Current PC Build

CPU - i7 8700K 3.7 GHz (4.7 GHz turbo) 6 cores OC'd to 5.2 GHz with Watercooling (Hydro Series H110i) | MB - Gigabyte Z370 HD3P ATX | Gigabyte GTX 1080ti Gaming OC BLACK 11G (1657 MHz Boost Core / 11010 MHz Memory) | RAM - Corsair DIMM 32GB DDR4, 2400 MHz | PSU - Corsair CX650M (80+ Bronze) 650W | Audio - Asus Essence STX II 7.1 | Monitor - Samsung U28E590D 4K UHD, Freesync, 1 ms, 60 Hz, 28"