With two exceptions my favourite games are of the thinking kind. The "non-thinking" games are DaggerFall and Thief (I and II). Sure you have to think a bit, but they're not strategic/tactical combat games. Such as "X-Com: Apocalypse", "Master of Orion", "MoO 2" and "Ascendancy". I occasionally play "Civilisation2:Test of time". I also got a game named "Malkari" recently.
When it comes to computer games I would like to mention the great game of "Thief, The Dark Project" (or "Thief, Gold" as in Gold edition). I'm normally not much for 1st-person view games, because they tend to be stupid shoot-'em-ups. Thief on the other hand is a 1st-person sneaker game. Unlike many other games it's not about how many you can kill, but how well you can stay hidden doing "your thing" (read: steal). There are no flaws in the game that I've encountered, save the predictability of guards.
As for "Thief 2, the Metal Age" everything is "the same" … at the first look. The missions become trickier at a quicker pace, there's less combat (which is a good thing), and there are a few new items/tricks that can be used. Otherwise it's the same top-game. Oh, I should also warn about the guards … They change their routes, turn on the light and stuff like that. Sometimes it's infuriating, but it's more realistic.
Another 1st-person game I have a liking for is "DaggerFall, The Elder Scrolls, Chapter 2". OK, it's a quite violent game, compared with Thief. The difference is that DaggerFall is a computer-RPG. And a quite well done such. OK, all games leave some things to wish for. I would have loved to go exploring with a few friends in DaggerFall, but it's a "one player game". And a slightly better manual, and clearer rules for how things work would also be welcome. Another thing with DaggerFall is not that its programming is flawed, but rather that the flaws shows, despite a handfull of patches. Once you are immune to magic, you're also immune to diseases, paralysis and poisons, even if you at the same time choose to have a critical weaknes to one or more of those things. But beside those points it's a nice game to use to go exploring in a fantasy-setting. My current character (and favourite) is a "WitchBlade" (custom class) which is a tough fighter with spell-casting abilities. Prime skills are Longblade, Critical Strike and Illusion.
Ascendancy came early in CD-rom era. Yes my youthful techie, there was a time before the Pentium processors and CD-R. A time when you had to learn how to handle text-based OSs to be able to do anything. Ascendancy is a game of stellar conflict. Some might say the game is crude. The tech-tree is a li'l bit screwed up, sure, but the game have a solid programing. WeDoze (from MacroStuffed) is more likely to crash within the hour than Ascendancy will crash from starting a campain until you complete it. The quickest I've been able to complete a campaign is with 3 hours. Smallest number of stars, fewest competitors.
Baldurs Gate and the sequel Baldurs gate 2 (Shadow of Amn) are computer version of a RPG called Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (second edition. or AD&D2 for short). The setting is known as "Forgotten Realms". In the game, you control a character of your own creation through the journeys across the continent (or is it the world?) called Faerun. The story of your character begin in the leaving the monastery fortress of "Candle Keep", located on the (in)famous Sword-coast. Baldurs Gate 2 continues the story (more or less) where Baldurs Gate ends.
The game "Civilization2, Test of Time" (hmm … why can't Americans ever spell right?) you are the (immortal?) leader of a tribe. Your duty is to assure this tribe survives from 4000 BCE to the modern age. This can be done in several ways. First, kill the competitors. Secondly, develop the tribe to an everlasting high-cultured superstate. The first option is not as easy as it might seem. The other tribes are numerous and far apart. Generally speaking this turn-based game is a good one, but there are a few things that seem … wrong. Like a bombing-raid. It takes at least 2 years to perform. One turn/year to fly and bomb the target, one turn/year to return to base. Writing a good AI for diplomacy isn't easy, but they have done an acceptable job in "Civ2, Test of time"
Malkari is a bit unusual. It's not that it's a strategy game where dominance is the goal. It's not that it's a sci-fi setting. It's the fact that you can't plan for the movement of the asteroids where you have your bases. In the game there are (always) five chapters fighting. Each chapter is divided into one to eight houses (and it's same number of houses in all chapters). The chapters are unique, while the houses (in a chapter) are basically the same.
In "Master of Orion" (and the sequel "Master of Orion 2 (Battle at Antares)") you blast off (at trans-light speeds) to take control over the "galaxy". That it is a strategic game is quite obvious when loading it. The first and the second game have two different strengths. The first game had it's strength in the tech-research. The sequel had it's strength in fleet management. What I've read on the MoO 3 website is that they will take the best from both previous versions, and improve the previously hideous (and almost unusable) diplomacy part (a lot?) in MoO3. I can't say for sure how that game (MoO 3) will be, as it's untill very recently still in the making.
MoO 3 will shortly be reviewed here as well. I just have to get the game.
In "UFO: Enemy Unknown" (or "X-Com: Enemy Unknown" as it was released as in the US (only?)) you are supposed to defend Earth from aliens through a organisation named "X-Com". "X-Com" (and not ExCom, hmm … any links?) means "eXtra-terrestrial COMbat". It was among the early games that utilised "iso-metric" view (and controll). The whole concept of the game, along with how it's done, is great. Such a pity no game producer copies games that are "out of date" and "refit" them to modern processor technology. The game was designed to run on a 386, with a VGA (I think, might be SVGA). Had they only written the code for the "GeoScape" a little bit different it would still have kicked some seriously major (extra-terrestrial?) ass. Now (having a Pentium II 450 MHz processor) it is no longer playable. This (once) excellent game was followed by "X-Com: Terror from the Deep". It uses the same mechanics as its predecessor. All they did was to change names of things (and their values), move the combat from land to the ocean-floor and re-structure the founding system. Then many many years later came the third game in the series. (I estimate it's over 10 years from UFO: Enemy Unknown to X-Com Apocalypse.)
In "X-Com: the Apocalypse" you are supposed to defend Earth (again! Will it never stop? *s*) from aliens trying to invide. It's the third game in the series. The most major change from the previous versions is that now you're only fighting in one city. The only city. The soldiers now have a few more things that they can do in combat, and the combat itself is "real time" or turn based. Your choice before any soldier-enemy combat. I think that game has been the best game money I've ever spent (with the possible exception of MoO 2). If there's any game I would recomend, it's this one. What? No, it's not made with flashy graphics, or enviromental sound effects. Who needs it?! *s*
We also have Vampire the Masquerade: Redemption. Basically a good game, but guess what. It's flawed. (What game isn't? *smile*) The roleplaying game "Vampire: the Masquerade" does not lean heavily on combat, while the computer game focuses almost only combat. Where's the intrigue? The scheming? The choices in (un)life (beside what weaponry to equip)? But OK, I still play it some times, though not often now that I've completed the game 3 times, and know what the "efficient" choices are. For instance, once I reach the later stages in the game I can generally equip the characters I control with whatever weapon and armour I choose, without having to care about the costs.