TwistedRat said:
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.