Arkillo
The best of both worlds
Ok, do you see how dense you're being? You're saying that SC2 is a strategy game because theres a little bit of strategy in it? Every single game has some form of strategy involved in it.
What kind of gamer are you?
- Thread starter _JaKE
- Start date
Emperor Pan I
Respected Member
I dont even think rock paper scissors is a strategy game anyways.
LeapOfFaith
J'Kar Fanboi
RPG geek o yeah
Revelade
BattleForums Member
Okay, if you guys really think you know what strategy is, then, obviously, tell me what it is!
Tell me exactly why Starcraft or Chess are considered strategy games.
I'm interested to see your explanations.
My explanation is simple:
You and your opponent must have an equal chance at winning, if both players have equal skill.
Look at Starcraft or chess, the games I mentioned. When you 1v1 someone, on a BALANCED map, are your 4 workers better than his 4? Or in chess, is white better than black? Of course not.
Now when you look at button mashing games like Dynasty Warriors, who is obviously better? You, or a random enemy who has 1/100 your hp and strength?
Likewise, in SC2, when you start a fight with someone, who has the advantage? Every player is equal in strength and that applies to all strategy games, from advance wars, warcraft 3 to age of empires. However, strength can come in other forms. Just because Protoss don't have the numbers of the Zerg, will they lose every game? Strength can come in different forms as long as they are equal.
My next point is that strategy games must have some sort of countering system and that countering should be based more on choice rather than timing.
In chess, when Billy Fisher moves his pawn, is it any different than from you or your mom moving that exact same pawn? Of course not. What seperates a great player from a poor one is not HOW you physically move the pieces but WHICH pieces you actually move and WHERE you place them.
Likewise, it's easy to mash horizontals in SC2 by mashing the A button. HOWEVER, I can counter that by mashing the Y button for verticals. Is it hard knowing how to counter? I'd say no as pressing a button is easy. Is it harder to know what the counter is? I'd say yes. Knowing what to do is more important than knowing HOW to do it, JUST like chess.
Now, what seperates strategy games from games like CS? I mean CS has equal players with equal chances of winning in addition to the importance of choice as in going close range with shotguns or long range with rifles. The difference is reflex.
In CS, aiming at the head is important, but doing it faster than the other guy is what seperates a good player from the bad one. Aiming is what you will be doing for the majority of the game, rather than positioning, defusing or planting. Aiming is not about what you are doing, but HOW you do it.
Choosing what to do? Aiming is what you do of course. That's the main goal, meaning other choices are less important. Hackers with aimbot or wallhack are the prime example. With perfect aim, you can win the game nearly every time. CS is about mastering ONE skill, which is aiming, to win. Strategy is about choosing the right choices to win.
This leads to the micro debate. Sure, SC and Cal2 have some emphasis on reflex. A person with better micro that uses the same units as another person will win. However, no matter how much micro a person has with 50 zealots, he will always lose to 1 wraith. The winner is determined who made the smarter choice in making units, not HOW he controls his units. There is an element of controlling units in SC, but choosing the RIGHT units to make is more important.
In Cal2, if the other player attacks slowly, of course they will lose, but if you mash the same attack, such as horizontals, choice is used to determine whos the winner. You are going to win if you use verticals, which again proves my point on choice.
Strategy is about having equal chances of winning and determining the victor through choice. An action game is about whether you attack or not. A reflex game is won, by a player that does a skill better than another person who does the SAME thing.
Some properties can blend into each other like how how SC players use micro, but a genre is determined on what the game ultimately focuses on.
Tell me exactly why Starcraft or Chess are considered strategy games.
I'm interested to see your explanations.
My explanation is simple:
You and your opponent must have an equal chance at winning, if both players have equal skill.
Look at Starcraft or chess, the games I mentioned. When you 1v1 someone, on a BALANCED map, are your 4 workers better than his 4? Or in chess, is white better than black? Of course not.
Now when you look at button mashing games like Dynasty Warriors, who is obviously better? You, or a random enemy who has 1/100 your hp and strength?
Likewise, in SC2, when you start a fight with someone, who has the advantage? Every player is equal in strength and that applies to all strategy games, from advance wars, warcraft 3 to age of empires. However, strength can come in other forms. Just because Protoss don't have the numbers of the Zerg, will they lose every game? Strength can come in different forms as long as they are equal.
My next point is that strategy games must have some sort of countering system and that countering should be based more on choice rather than timing.
In chess, when Billy Fisher moves his pawn, is it any different than from you or your mom moving that exact same pawn? Of course not. What seperates a great player from a poor one is not HOW you physically move the pieces but WHICH pieces you actually move and WHERE you place them.
Likewise, it's easy to mash horizontals in SC2 by mashing the A button. HOWEVER, I can counter that by mashing the Y button for verticals. Is it hard knowing how to counter? I'd say no as pressing a button is easy. Is it harder to know what the counter is? I'd say yes. Knowing what to do is more important than knowing HOW to do it, JUST like chess.
Now, what seperates strategy games from games like CS? I mean CS has equal players with equal chances of winning in addition to the importance of choice as in going close range with shotguns or long range with rifles. The difference is reflex.
In CS, aiming at the head is important, but doing it faster than the other guy is what seperates a good player from the bad one. Aiming is what you will be doing for the majority of the game, rather than positioning, defusing or planting. Aiming is not about what you are doing, but HOW you do it.
Choosing what to do? Aiming is what you do of course. That's the main goal, meaning other choices are less important. Hackers with aimbot or wallhack are the prime example. With perfect aim, you can win the game nearly every time. CS is about mastering ONE skill, which is aiming, to win. Strategy is about choosing the right choices to win.
This leads to the micro debate. Sure, SC and Cal2 have some emphasis on reflex. A person with better micro that uses the same units as another person will win. However, no matter how much micro a person has with 50 zealots, he will always lose to 1 wraith. The winner is determined who made the smarter choice in making units, not HOW he controls his units. There is an element of controlling units in SC, but choosing the RIGHT units to make is more important.
In Cal2, if the other player attacks slowly, of course they will lose, but if you mash the same attack, such as horizontals, choice is used to determine whos the winner. You are going to win if you use verticals, which again proves my point on choice.
Strategy is about having equal chances of winning and determining the victor through choice. An action game is about whether you attack or not. A reflex game is won, by a player that does a skill better than another person who does the SAME thing.
Some properties can blend into each other like how how SC players use micro, but a genre is determined on what the game ultimately focuses on.
Arkillo
The best of both worlds
His post was too long. But what I read of it, he got Bobby Fishers name wrong, and he was comparing Chess and Starcraft to Soul Calibur, then something about Advance wars and a few other games.
my favorite strategy game is pong.
it requires many complex calculations as to what your next move should be, if the little cube is hitting off the wall from top to bottom you have move your paddle up because it will probably bouce off the wall. the thought process' involed are just phenomenal.... man i'm getting a strategy induced boner..... i'm going to go play chess and beat it like it owes me money.
it requires many complex calculations as to what your next move should be, if the little cube is hitting off the wall from top to bottom you have move your paddle up because it will probably bouce off the wall. the thought process' involed are just phenomenal.... man i'm getting a strategy induced boner..... i'm going to go play chess and beat it like it owes me money.
Revelade
BattleForums Member
Guess that means I win.Kamikaze said:
Arkillo
The best of both worlds
No, that means that you're a moron.
Revelade
BattleForums Member
Ah, an insult. Interesting. What is your purpose in saying this? To make me feel bad? Words don't make me feel bad if I don't allow them to. If someone said AEAIFJASG, would you care?iMike said:
I can't change your beliefs, but that doesn't bother me.
jd-inflames
Melodic Murderer
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2003
- Messages
- 6,014
- Reaction score
- 6
- Location
- My Sanctuary
- Website
- www.cursedprophets.com
Wow...not only did you write a 12 paragraph post telling us all how wrong you are, but you lost concept of sarcasm too? I honestly don't want to make you feel bad about it beings we can't get enough opinionated people in here to post what they really think, especially in such detail, but goddamnit >.<
Revelade
BattleForums Member
My purpose in my paragraphs was to write what I believed.jd-inflames said:
Perhaps you agree with it or not, but using insults does not accomplish anything but make yourself look like a fool, in that you can't counter my arguments.
Try to make me feel bad. Really. I admire tenacity.
At least we stirred up more discussion in this dead forum, eh pan?
jd-inflames
Melodic Murderer
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2003
- Messages
- 6,014
- Reaction score
- 6
- Location
- My Sanctuary
- Website
- www.cursedprophets.com
You even miscomprehended what I said. Whatever. Can't fight those who take hostility in a non-hostile statement.
_JaKE
BattleForums Senior Member
In any game there can be found some sort of strategy. Like your Soul Calibur 2 and the fact that you have different moves to counter, or block, or stop, diffent combos, or attacks. The main part, the main aspect of Soul calibur IS the fighting, thus a fighting game. Labeled under the fighting catagory.
Like i said, in any game there can be found strategy.
Examples of this would be: Goldeneye: Rogue agent. When you see a ceiling mounted turret, ror wall mounted turret, you can destroy it or hack it and make it turn on you enemies. that is a form of stategy. BUT, there is nop way in hell anyone can claim that it is a stategy game beause there is a hint of stategy in it.
Another example. NBA street, you can choose to drive through and take a behind the back hook shot or pass to a wide teamate and let him go for a far shot. Stategy. But noone can claim it a strategy game, it is a sports game. Because the main aspect IS sports!
So, when you claim soul Calibur to be stategy and wonder why the hell we think its a fighting game, ya its got stategy, but fighting is the game. Its what is based on and thus Soul Calibur two is a FIGHTING game.:loopy
Like i said, in any game there can be found strategy.
Examples of this would be: Goldeneye: Rogue agent. When you see a ceiling mounted turret, ror wall mounted turret, you can destroy it or hack it and make it turn on you enemies. that is a form of stategy. BUT, there is nop way in hell anyone can claim that it is a stategy game beause there is a hint of stategy in it.
Another example. NBA street, you can choose to drive through and take a behind the back hook shot or pass to a wide teamate and let him go for a far shot. Stategy. But noone can claim it a strategy game, it is a sports game. Because the main aspect IS sports!
So, when you claim soul Calibur to be stategy and wonder why the hell we think its a fighting game, ya its got stategy, but fighting is the game. Its what is based on and thus Soul Calibur two is a FIGHTING game.:loopy
Revelade
BattleForums Member
Actually I understand you completely. You did not get what I wrote in my paragraphs. You believe what I said was wrong without pointing what about my post was actually false. Then you assumed I would feel bad about what you wrote, but again, I chose not to be hurt. So again, what's your point and how does it have to do with what I said earlier?
TrongaMonga
Grumpy Old Grandpa
Oh, I see. So, a war between a big army and a small army has no strategy at all. Even if the generals have equal skill, there's no equal chance of winning.Revelade said:
That definition blows, mate.