Game style of CHoice?

[Teddy]

Which do you like more?

 

[Jason]

RTS

AoE, SC, etc. I know I'm a D2 fan, but I like more RTS games than RPG's.

 

[TweaK]

FPS is pretty gawdly, i whore them.
RPG I only enjoy if it's ****ing good.

 

[Teddy]

Im currently addicted to FPS's. I just play them so often :/

 

[Guest]

FPS, RTS and some sport games...

 

[_CM]

sux, RPG owns all, d2 forever

 

[Krovvy]

Right now I'm currently stuck on FPS(Counter-Strike, and I own UT2003,UT2004,BF:1942,BF:V,COD), but when WOW comes out I may have to give up the FPS's for a few years ;O. Oh, and I'll definitely be killing the RPG TES IV: Oblivion which is coming out November/December 2005.

 

[jd-inflames]

Depends on what I'm doing really, but I chose FPS.

When I'm at a LAN party, I play FPS the majority of the time (or just leaching). I play CS, COD, DOD, UT2k3/4, UT99 (Oh Gawd ><), BF:1942, SW:BF, and if I want to go old school I will get in some MOH:AA (That game is so genious...)

When I'm on the internet, I like some RPG games. I have never really liked the battle system in MMORPG's, but I'm anticipating them changing it...cause I love a good RPG I've played Star Wars: Galaxies, and a few others..but I'm wanting to get into Final Fnatasy and see how that is online.

I play RTS when I'm bored and want to play single player...I play CC: Generals, WC3:ROC, AoE2, and AoM.

Gotta love gaming accronyms

 

[Zeroth]

Role Playing. more fun in my opinion, such as being good or evil, and combat is character skill based, not "can you move your mouse so the enemy head is your sights?"

 

[dP]

i like rpgs, better, MMORPGS, i like 3rd person too but it makes me dizzy when i play it alot.

 

[Aragorn7]

RTS because of the thinking involved. So far I haven't found any other genre of games that requires as much thought. Throw in competitive gameplay and a time system and you have a great genre.

Currently enjoying Warhammer40k: Dawn of War.

 

[Nicholas The Slide]

i play rpg's..becuz i have found that once you've played one FPS..there all practically the same..you walk around and shoot things..0 strategy involved...i prefer rpg's.

 

[Aragorn7]

i have found that once you've played one FPS..there all practically the same..you walk around and shoot things..0 strategy involved.

W00t, you are completely correct. FPS's can bore someone wanting a little more of a challange very quickly (unless it is Quake 3* or something).

*Perfection of its genre. Period.

 

[Taligaro]

Other... It depends on how bored I am.

I play RTS, FPS(some PC and some PS2), and Racing(PS2).

Mainly I play StarCraft, C&C Generals, StarTrek: Armada II, StarWars: Galactic Battlegrounds, or Rise of Nations. I've beatin each one at least a dozen times. When I get bored playing one, I move to the next. When I get bored with that one, I move to the next, etc... Always starting and ending with StarCraft!

When I get bored with RTS, I go FPS. True, every FPS I've played are the same, roam around and shot anything that moves. I currently play Red Faction, StarTrek Voyager: Elite Force, and StarWars: Jedi Knight II Jedi Outcast. (StarWars: Bounty Hunter for PS2) When I get bored killing anything that moves, I move on to racing.

Thats where I really have fun! Gran Turismo 3! I have yet to find a racing game with better graphics!

As I said, depending on how bored I am depends on what I play.

 

[Krovvy]

W00t, you are completely correct. FPS's can bore someone wanting a little more of a challange very quickly (unless it is Quake 3* or something).

*Perfection of its genre. Period.

W00t your are completely incorrect. FPS's are very competitive, and have lots of strategy. The only way you haven't experienced an FPS with an actual strategy, and teamwork is if you haven't played in any leagues(Like CAL). I think its a bit more of a challenge to actually be able to shoot someone in the head, while running in a league with 5vs5 strategy that has to be timed perfectly to work, and then you have to imprevise everytime a teamate dies. RTS= Memorize build orders, sit a bit to think on your own, FPS= Maintain a constant skill level in shooting/skills(like quickswitching) and believe me its very hard to play well after being away for two weeks playing a different FPS + memorizing plays and learning to to execute them right + sit for hours watching demos to help you think of a new strategy against a team your having a match against.

EDIT: Also, theres other things that contribute to strategy in FPS games, such as in CS where you have a money which you purchase guns for that game with.(The only way to get more money is to win the round or kill people, if you don't win you'll have to know who is going to buy what, who is going to save, who is going to buy nades(if any or all), and then we could get into which guns to choose... and how to use them; you actually have to learn each idividual gun, not easy...)

 

[Aragorn7]

W00t your are completely incorrect. FPS's are very competitive, and have lots of strategy. The only way you haven't experienced an FPS with an actual strategy, and teamwork is if you haven't played in any leagues(Like CAL). I think its a bit more of a challenge to actually be able to shoot someone in the head, while running in a league with 5vs5 strategy that has to be timed perfectly to work, and then you have to imprevise everytime a teamate dies. RTS= Memorize build orders, sit a bit to think on your own, FPS= Maintain a constant skill level in shooting/skills(like quickswitching) and believe me its very hard to play well after being away for two weeks playing a different FPS + memorizing plays and learning to to execute them right + sit for hours watching demos to help you think of a new strategy against a team your having a match against.

All games have strategy to a certain extent, however, FPS's must be given the "Lesser Strategy Award" because of their concept. It isn't all that hard to camp when you need to and throw a few grenades inbetween? I rarely see many FPS games that introduce the level of strategy that an RTS can offer.

It depends on the RTS, but if you find the right one, a build order is only as good as its user. Warcraft 3 would not be a very good example, but Starcraft might. A good build order can result in slightly better standings, but someone who cannot constantly adapt will lose anyways.

In FPS's you memorize your position on the field, and you draw upon previous experiences to react quickly. In a competitive match, everyone has their role, and all you really need to know is that role. The strategies involved are fairly minimal as the game is practically a 2D tactical map. You only have several possible ways to go on certain maps because you can't simply jump to the spot where you need to plant the bomb and place it. This negates the ability to change your strategies a whole lot, because you can only have a limited number due to the map.

So, play another map and you have more strategies right? True you do, but you still only have so many choices of strategies. Unless the map is a huge box and there are no corridors, the game cannot present an infinite number of strategies. In most RTS's there is air power, which eliminates the map from defining strategies. There might be dominant strategies, but there are a heck of a lot more than any FPS.

Hence Real Time Strategy and First Person Shooter. The one that matches wit against wit is obviously the one that has the word Strategy in it. Ever played chess? You can read 300 page books on the number of strategies in chess, whereas a simple shooter might only have five strategies per strategy-type*. Good shooters ELIMINATE this dependence on the map, and open up many the strategic possibilities the game truly has to offer.

So to an extent, you would be correct, but in most FPS's, the map defines the strategies. Unless those FPS's eliminate the dependence on the map to define the strategy, it cannot have true strategic value when compared to an RTS.

*Strategy-type being offense or defense, ie defend this corridor or attack it? There are two options...

BTW, money management isn't a strategy. It is just something you learn about the game. However, most CS games do end because of one team buying really powerful weapons. But this is merely an example of how much CS is a "Rock-Paper-Scissors" game.

 

[TrongaMonga]

Where's the RTS option in the poll?

 

[jd-inflames]

"other"

 

[Krovvy]

All games have strategy to a certain extent, however, FPS's must be given the "Lesser Strategy Award" because of their concept. It isn't all that hard to camp when you need to and throw a few grenades inbetween? I rarely see many FPS games that introduce the level of strategy that an RTS can offer.

Camp, switch spots, throw grenades correctly and strategicly, fill other peoples positions, watch every angle, cordinate strategy to actually get into the bombsite.

In FPS's you memorize your position on the field, and you draw upon previous experiences to react quickly. In a competitive match, everyone has their role, and all you really need to know is that role. The strategies involved are fairly minimal as the game is practically a 2D tactical map. You only have several possible ways to go on certain maps because you can't simply jump to the spot where you need to plant the bomb and place it. This negates the ability to change your strategies a whole lot, because you can only have a limited number due to the map.

Everything can't just be strategy, common I know you like it, but many don't like just watching/cordinating whats going on. Thats why I choose FPS over RTS. In FPS it is very skill based, and thats not a flaw.

So, play another map and you have more strategies right? True you do, but you still only have so many choices of strategies. Unless the map is a huge box and there are no corridors, the game cannot present an infinite number of strategies. In most RTS's there is air power, which eliminates the map from defining strategies. There might be dominant strategies, but there are a heck of a lot more than any FPS.

Again everything isn't suppose to be stratgy. Also, there are maps that are totally open, and guess what? It ends up being who can shoot the best.

So to an extent, you would be correct, but in most FPS's, the map defines the strategies. Unless those FPS's eliminate the dependence on the map to define the strategy, it cannot have true strategic value when compared to an RTS.

Never said that, but it is correct. Though don't think its the same strategy. Most top teams have to come up with new strategys all the time.

BTW, money management isn't a strategy. It is just something you learn about the game. However, most CS games do end because of one team buying really powerful weapons. But this is merely an example of how much CS is a "Rock-Paper-Scissors" game.[/SIZE]

Money managment is a very good strategy unless you don't play leagues. Its basicly like in WCIII where you have the resources. You can't deplete your money and you have to manage it well.(Meaning if you don't your going to loose)

As for "Rock-Paper-Scissors", you can apply this concept to any game. Anyone can win anyone can loose, but in CS its based on pure skills and time put into it more than this "Rock-Paper-Scissors" crap. Maybe its more like RTS then you think, I mean what If I spent the same amount of time in the each others games(starcraft/CS). We would more then likely be at the same skill level.

So to finaly end this, its about what you like, and I wouldn't put down another genre just because you do not like it. FPS seems to be for people who like games that relay on skill(As skill I mean something done physicaly), but it also has a good mix a strategy(everyone knows its not as strategic as a RTS, thats a duh, but why is that a bad thing?). RTS seems to be a more mentally based game with some physical skill.(It may be harder then you think to coordinate a small army with a cursor)

 

[jd-inflames]

Star Wars: BattleFront is better Strategy wise that is..