In an RTS, I think the most important quality is REAL strategy. Not micromanagement, more like macromanagement. Micromanagement, IMO, is the plague of most RTSs.
This is probably why I love Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander so much. :D
There's also World in Conflict, which does a great job of doing both things at the same time (not as much in the macromanagement department, because actual strategies have to be carried out by multiple members of the same team)

I was writing what I thought meant made a good RPG. I dislike slacker RPG. :-)

I agree; micromanagement can really bog down a good game. Strategy != operational details. Most RTS games put you at a level comparable to a general. Does a general specify when each fireteam deploys their assault weapons or tosses grenades? No, command directs deployment, general behavior and set goals and leave it to the troops to do the actual fighting. That is why training is so important!

I also don't like that most RTS games don't make use of concepts like fields of fire, entrenchment/elevation, flanking vulnerability, suppression and cover fire, etc. If you are going to have detailed combat management, it should be about more than just bringing the most guns to the area.

In my personal opinion, too many of the games on BYOND lack something to hold the player in. Such as a plot or as previously mentioned, replay value.
Now, most games I see, such as the most popular ones on BYOND(Anime/Series, etc.) almost completely lack a plot beyond the plot from the Anime or series the game is based on. And since this plot is previously made from another source, it's still unincluded from the BYOND game.
This is not to say that games that don't have an origin from an unoriginal source are good in that sense either.
What I'm saying is that, the best games I've played have a great storyline to them, with a complicated plot(almost as though you're watching a movie) and many twists to the story or just a good over-all story.
This is not to say that gameplay isn't important though, as it plays the highest role in how fun the game really is when it comes to playing it.
Most RPG games(on BYOND) I see require you to sit around repetitively doing the same thing over and over to achieve a goal. (Such as hitting a punching bag) This is really boring and doesn't have any original or fun gameplay elements.
What if, instead of hitting a punching bag or killing random monsters over and over for the most of your time, the main way to gain exp was through doing quests or, otherwise, living the story as you play the game.
This is what I find most intriguing, though I'll understand how many will disagree.
Now, in comparison to actual modern video games, BYOND games are mostly crap, graphics aside. ANY video game you can buy today for the modern systems has some sort of plot within it that relates to the gameplay. Only the really old classics(in ATARI days) didn't have a story and are fun and even then some of the games in those times had some sort of storyline. Now, this also somewhat contradicts me as this proves also that gameplay is very important even without a plot.
This opinion doesn't apply to every aspect of a game, so take it lightly...
EDIT: Also on the note of micromanagement, I think micromanagement can be good, when looked at as a whole in some cases. For example, if you took more time on the minor details, many bugs could have been avoided. I mean game creators are causing Admins to have to moderate people using bugs that the creator, themself had caused. Also, having too many rules that have to be enforced is bad; you should be able to code in something that enforces your rules for you.:/ Even some things that can't be avoided and have to be enforced, such as what people type into text boxes can be coded enforced if you try. Trying to rely on your GMs to enforce every rule every second the game runs is bad for them and for your game as they get tired of enforcing and your game loses its rules.
Also, I suppose the big details do really matter a lot as they are what you focus on when you play, but micromanagement can be good sometimes, so I agree big details are good.

Masterdan wrote:

detailed npc convo trees is sort of uhm, unrealistic when looking at the quality standard thusfar.

I had that in my last project. :P

What do "quality standards thusfar" have to do with anything?