What kind of gamer are you?

[ChrisH36]

FPS Puzzles Adventure and Strategy, is that enough for you!

 

[Revelade]

Rock paper scissors does not mean something is a strategy game. RPS, is pure luck, where you have a 33.33~ chance of winning. In a fighting game, you have counters to a mov,e but the game moves far to fast to execute anything to the extent that you do in a strategy game. Strategy games entail a general battle plan, with not only units, but varying other factors. A fighting game is based on nothing more than combos, button mashing and button memorization. There is no set battle plan, you really can't have a battle plan. Characters really arn't diverse to any large extent.

Strategy offers something else. It offers you a before and/or after in which you can see exactly the fallacy in your army, in your overall perform.

And this is why I think you never play fighting games, particularly Soul Calibur 2.

When I challenge people, I make a mental note of what character he uses and from there, what moves might work best against him. Take a look at the character Yunsung from SC2. If someone were to choose him, I would not block lows as much. Why? Yunsung has only a handful of low attacks, therefore I can adapt to that.

Combos in SC2? You have a launcher and you can probably follow with at most two hits, but that is the max. Any more hits would not succeed because the enemy has air control, meaning, he can strafe in midair and that each consecutive hit does less damage.

Perhaps I notice a pattern in his attacks, which is common with my friends. My friend likes to do 66B with Nightmare, which is a powerful vertical attack. What do I do when I see this move coming? I can either block, OR I can strafe to the left and counter with my own vertical. It's far from this random mashing crap you seem to think.

So pan, stop making excuses about SC, when it's obvious you don't know what it is about. If you want to see how skilled players play, go download some replays at http://sc.relaxism.com/ They know what buttons do what instead of this button mashing nonsense that you use.

Just because you think fighting games are all mashing, does not mean it's a fact.

But I never said I disagreed. All I said is that I think your definition blows. It's too ambiguous.

Equal armies, with equal commanders, most times would end in a tie.

What is your point if you agree with what I say? And your equal army crap is pointless because I again, AGREED to that as well. Might I remind you, YOU brought the smaller army can beat larger army example, which I said would make sense, if every factor was not the same.

If my definition blows, explain why. Throw in a game that breaks my definition and let's see what happens. Better yet, since you obviously know what blows or not, let's hear your perfect definition.

 

[TrongaMonga]

Nope. In a perfect situation where all factors are the same except size, the larger army would win.

How's that saying that the smaller army had a chance has any sense? Your words.

And I already gave you my definition:

It's the managing of your resources, either natural, human, animal, etc. That's strategy. The manouvers in battle count as simple managing, with its proper rules.

And there's no better game than real life.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

And this is why I think you never play fighting games, particularly Soul Calibur 2.

Speculation, your words hold no value.

When I challenge people, I make a mental note of what character he uses and from there, what moves might work best against him. Take a look at the character Yunsung from SC2. If someone were to choose him, I would not block lows as much. Why? Yunsung has only a handful of low attacks, therefore I can adapt to that.

As in any fighting game, even super smash bros. Yet you have outlined no reason why it is a strategy game. It is a fighting game like any other, not a strategy game. You make a mental note? that isn's strategy, it's common sense. That is like saying it's strategy to jump in Mario when the enemy fires a fireball at you.

So pan, stop making excuses about SC,

Where is this coming from SC2? I never once mentioned SC2. I said fighting games. Even then, you still havent a strong arguement anyways, besides a weak ROck paper scissors, and throwing out some useless words no one really cares about. A launcher? who the **** cares.

Just because you think fighting games are all mashing, does not mean it's a fact.

The faster you hit the buttons, the faster you execute moves. You assume button mashing would entail random buttons. It is still a button mashing game even if you know what your hitting. You don't hit 3 buttons ever ten seconds, it's to slow, which means the faster you can do it, and this relates to all fighting games, the better your chances of winning.

 

[Revelade]

Speculation, your words hold no value.

I believe they do.

As in any fighting game, even super smash bros. Yet you have outlined no reason why it is a strategy game. It is a fighting game like any other, not a strategy game. You make a mental note? that isn's strategy, it's common sense. That is like saying it's strategy to jump in Mario when the enemy fires a fireball at you.

You are wrong because they are NOT the same games. Soul Calibur 2 has moves that do specific things, while moves in SSBM do not have undoable weaknesses. Example, you can strafe any vertical move, yet not so with a horizontal move in SC2. In SSBM, any move can be dodged or shielded. There's also a third dimension to SC2, unlike SSBM.

Where is this coming from SC2? I never once mentioned SC2. I said fighting games. Even then, you still havent a strong arguement anyways, besides a weak ROck paper scissors, and throwing out some useless words no one really cares about. A launcher? who the **** cares.

Soul Calibur 2. It's more like you don't have a strong argument. SSBM and SC2 are not the same thing. The moves of SSBM do not have the amount of properties the moves of SC2 do. Who the heck cares? You're the one that brought up the issue with combos, which obviously involve throwing people in the air for multiple hits. So what exactly is your point?

The faster you hit the buttons, the faster you execute moves. You assume button mashing would entail random buttons. It is still a button mashing game even if you know what your hitting. You don't hit 3 buttons ever ten seconds, it's to slow, which means the faster you can do it, and this relates to all fighting games, the better your chances of winning.

Sigh. Button mashing is available in all games. The difference is how effective it is. You can button mash in SC2, but that won't get you far. If you mash everything, I'll just mash verticals and I'll win. Why? Verticals are the fastest and strongest attacks, but are countered by sidestepping. Since you are mashing constantly, your character will stay in the same spot. Just as using lurkers versus marines, this counter beats that counter, or STRATEGY.

There is plenty of strategy in SC2, enough so that random mashing will always be beaten by somebody who knows the counters. Just as throwing 100 marines to a dark templar, counters will beat skill and that is strategy.

What are you trying to prove? Are you saying that games that have rockpaperscissors aren't strategy? Then are you saying there is no strategy in Starcraft? Are you saying every game that you press buttons for actions is a button masher? According to pan's logic, Counter Strike is a button masher, gee. Is your best defense "common sense"? Perhaps you can counter my specific examples?

 

[Emperor Pan I]

There is plenty of strategy in SC2, enough so that random mashing will always be beaten by somebody who knows the counters. Just as throwing 100 marines to a dark templar, counters will beat skill and that is strategy.

Skill>counters. Play warcraft III.
and 100 marines can easily beat a dark tmplar. It's called detectors.

What are you trying to prove? Are you saying that games that have rockpaperscissors aren't strategy?

Exactly true. For the most part, Rock Paper scissors is a random game of chance. Strategy games never have anything so clear cut as a simple rock paper scissors system.

Then are you saying there is no strategy in Starcraft?

Now your putting words in my mouth. Starcraft has much mroe than simple rock paper scissors, as do all strategy games, which make them strategy games. It isn't a game about sheer combat, it's an economic decisions. Sure a lurker beats a marine when it's burrowed, but a marine can kill a lucker when it's not.
It's like warcraft III. One Grunt cna beat Two footmen, but three footmen can beat one grunt. A wyvern can beat an grunt, but a grunt and a raider can beat a wyvern.
Plus, true skill allows for a player to even remove an enemies chance to counter with speed and skill. In Warcraft (I think i'll use warcraft now, since you seem to only use Starcraft, and it's discrimination) A meele unit beats a ranged unit, but with true skill, 3 ranges units can easily beat a meele unit. It isn't rock paper scissors that decide the outcome, it's your strategy and skill which involves your victory.

[quote} Are you saying every game that you press buttons for actions is a button masher?[/quote]
Repeatedly hitting alot of button in a short period of time o perform moves, etc. Tony Hawks could e a button masher. All fighting gmaes are button mashers. You just don't like to read my post.

According to pan's logic, Counter Strike is a button masher, gee.

Once again your taking leaps and bound in assumptions. Countrstrike like all games have fast action, but it isn't a button masher. Your not mashing the keyboard for combos and button actions. You use the mouse and aim and fire.

Is your best defense "common sense"? Perhaps you can counter my specific examples?

I have common sense, you obviously don't. You still fail to provide any real arguements, and most of my post you can't even read properly, simply taking out little words.

 

[Revelade]

Skill>counters. Play warcraft III.
and 100 marines can easily beat a dark tmplar. It's called detectors.

And did I say any detectors? Holy crap, you missed the point, AGAIN. Let me bring about another example: You have mutalisk, he has zealot. Do I have to repeat myself because you can't understand a simple example?

Exactly true. For the most part, Rock Paper scissors is a random game of chance. Strategy games never have anything so clear cut as a simple rock paper scissors system.

Which is why SC2 is a strategy game.

Now your putting words in my mouth. Starcraft has much mroe than simple rock paper scissors, as do all strategy games, which make them strategy games. It isn't a game about sheer combat, it's an economic decisions. Sure a lurker beats a marine when it's burrowed, but a marine can kill a lucker when it's not.
It's like warcraft III. One Grunt cna beat Two footmen, but three footmen can beat one grunt. A wyvern can beat an grunt, but a grunt and a raider can beat a wyvern.

Hmm... JUST like how sidestepping beats vertical attacks in SC2. Thanks for strengthening my point, pan.

Plus, true skill allows for a player to even remove an enemies chance to counter with speed and skill. In Warcraft (I think i'll use warcraft now, since you seem to only use Starcraft, and it's discrimination) A meele unit beats a ranged unit, but with true skill, 3 ranges units can easily beat a meele unit. It isn't rock paper scissors that decide the outcome, it's your strategy and skill which involves your victory.

Which I also said before that micro also plays a part in these games. Good thing you can repeat what I said.

Repeatedly hitting alot of button in a short period of time o perform moves, etc. Tony Hawks could e a button masher. All fighting gmaes are button mashers. You just don't like to read my post.

According to your logic, CS is a button masher. However, you can't fire automatics any faster than holding the button. Why? There's this thing called a cap. Pressing 8 attacks in a second is the same as pressing 9 because of this. Just as 4 SCVs get gas just as fast as 20, there's a limit. Perhaps you are missing the common sense.

Once again your taking leaps and bound in assumptions. Countrstrike like all games have fast action, but it isn't a button masher. Your not mashing the keyboard for combos and button actions. You use the mouse and aim and fire.

Again, you contradict yourself. According to your logic, a button masher is a game where you press buttons in a short period of time to perform moves. I guess tapping the fire button makes CS a button masher right? Your definitions are amazing.

I have common sense, you obviously don't. You still fail to provide any real arguements, and most of my post you can't even read properly, simply taking out little words.

Blah, blah, blah. You still haven't proved how fighting games are button mashers because you don't have any examples. Pan, you're going in circles. And it's funny how you say I don't have arguments when you fail to give any examples to prove fighting games don't use strategy. SC2 is a strategy game and I'd like you to prove me wrong.

 

[_JaKE]

SC2 is a strategy game and I'd like you to prove me wrong.

weve done that, weve said it time and time again, listen...SC2 DOES have some strategy in it, we agree on that, im not argueing that there is no strategy. there IS i dont care hpw much you argue, there IS more fighting than strategy in SC2. There IS more strategy than any other form on gameplay in SC2. Thus, classified under Fighting, thus not a "Strategy" based game. IT DOES have strategy, but not as much as fighting. Thus, the given by those with comon sence, the genre.... [glow=red]

FIGHTING​

[/glow]

gg stfu lol?

 

[Revelade]

weve done that, weve said it time and time again, listen...SC2 DOES have some strategy in it, we agree on that, im not argueing that there is no strategy. there IS i dont care hpw much you argue, there IS more fighting than strategy in SC2. There IS more strategy than any other form on gameplay in SC2. Thus, classified under Fighting, thus not a "Strategy" based game. IT DOES have strategy, but not as much as fighting. Thus, the given by those with comon sence, the genre.... [glow=red]

FIGHTING​

[/glow]

gg stfu lol?

SC2 is all about strategy. If you would even play the game, you'd see how every attack has a weakness which is exactly the case with Starcraft or Warcraft 3. Again, I classify it as a strategy game, but you can put it under your "fighting" label as you wish.

 

[bamthedoc]

Don't you think it's the Publisher who has the say in what genre a game falls under? If one were to just label a game based on what aspect is present, each and every single game would fall under every single category. I'll even help with the Soul Calibur II arguement.

Action
Interestingly, this is the first category GameFAQs labels Soul Calibur II under. There is action in every game. Characters do this or do that, and a story is present. Here is the exact breakdown of Soul Calibur II according to the developer. Action>Fighting>3D In otherwords, Namco labels it as a 3-D Fighting game.

Adventure
Adventure Mode. Duh. That was too easy In this, a quest is present before you. You go through with a central plan and end goal in mind.

Driving
Soul Calibur II is likely impossible to put into this category. There aren't any cars in the game =/

Puzzle
Okay >_< There might be two categories I can't fit Soul Calibur II under.

Role-Playing
Well... You do earn stuff, and story is central to RPGs. However, that's not the point of Role-Playing. You take on the role of a character and proceed through the game. All games are, therefore, role-playing.

Simulation
The game simulates something. It simulates life. It simulates war. It simulates fighting in an environment where no actual life is in any danger of getting hurt.

Sports
Boxing is considered a sport, isn't it?

Strategy
If you have to think about what to do, even if it's a split-second decison, it's a strategy. Every game has an aspect of strategy to it, but that's now how a game is labeled 'Strategy'.


The Bottom Line
The reason StarCraft is labeled as Strategy when Soul Calibur/II/III are not is because you control the characters of Soul Calibur to throw punches and kicks, in weak or strong, and throw off combos to wear down the health bar of the oponent. In StarCraft, you command one to over a hundred units to invade enemy territory and destroy everything located there.

If one were to simply label a game by what elements are present, nearly all games would have most/all genres attributed to them. Soul Calibur II cannot be labeled a Strategy game because StarCraft is not an Action game.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

And did I say any detectors? Holy crap, you missed the point, AGAIN. Let me bring about another example: You have mutalisk, he has zealot. Do I have to repeat myself because you can't understand a simple example?

Except you never make any sense. No one will ever jsut have a zealot, or just a mutalisk. This in no way relates to Soul Caliber. Stop going back to your obscure references.

Which is why SC2 is a strategy game.

I say RPS is not strategy, you harpe on about how SCII is rock paper scissors, and now say in response to me the reason SCII is a strategy is becuse RPS isn't about strategy.

Hmm... JUST like how sidestepping beats vertical attacks in SC2. Thanks for strengthening my point, pan.

That doesn't make any sense, jsut like you. Strengthing your point? in what world do you live in. There are no direct counters in WCIII like I said, nothing clear cut. In SCII Sidestepping beats verticals fine, if that were in WCIII then it would be more like sidesteps beat verticals, but verticals can be used in more numbers to beat sidesteps.

[/quote]Which I also said before that micro also plays a part in these games. Good thing you can repeat what I said.[/quote]
You never said what I said. and in doing what your doing, you make a quick little comment and completely sidestep what I'm saying to try and pretend it never has any weight. Instead what your doing is defeating yourself, by never making any sense in your arguements.

According to your logic, CS is a button masher. However, you can't fire automatics any faster than holding the button. Why? There's this thing called a cap. Pressing 8 attacks in a second is the same as pressing 9 because of this. Just as 4 SCVs get gas just as fast as 20, there's a limit. Perhaps you are missing the common sense.

Well, considering I have explained it in two posts what button mashing is, and you have failed to grasp the most basic concepts, I will not even bother to explain it now. but if you can pick up a dictionary, maybe you can go back and figure out what it actualy means. In other words, your wrong and probably retarded.

Again, you contradict yourself. According to your logic, a button masher is a game where you press buttons in a short period of time to perform moves. I guess tapping the fire button makes CS a button masher right? Your definitions are amazing.

My definitions? its the standard definition. Except you have it wrong, and try to twist it in a way to make me look stupid. Learn to read, go back and you might learn something.

Blah, blah, blah. You still haven't proved how fighting games are button mashers because you don't have any examples. Pan, you're going in circles. And it's funny how you say I don't have arguments when you fail to give any examples to prove fighting games don't use strategy. SC2 is a strategy game and I'd like you to prove me wrong.

I have various times. Read through my posts. Your best arguement is Rock paper scissors. Thats wrong and I shot that down fast. Then you go on about some other bullshit about SC yadda yadda. In SCII you dont do anyhting but punch and kick, thus it is a fighting game. Sorry, no amount of counters to anyhting makes it a strategy game. It makes it more of a fighting game, since you use fighting to defeat the opponent. Just as chess is a strategy game, but your pieces are only as good as the strategy, while in SCII your character is only as good as the moves performed, which can be in any way. when SCII allows you to build hundreds of units, gather recources, use military tactics ot even to use a few given pieces to outperform your opponent, then it may be considered a Strategy game.

 

[_JaKE]

SC2 is all about strategy. If you would even play the game, you'd see how every attack has a weakness which is exactly the case with Starcraft or Warcraft 3. Again, I classify it as a strategy game, but you can put it under your "fighting" label as you wish.

hmmmm lets see....

http://namco.com/games/soulcalibur2/

this is from namco.com...

A new era in the history of games has begun as the most highly anticipated fighting game ever finally arrives! The greatest 3D weapons–based fighter ever created provides non-stop action, excitement and surprises as you go one–on–one against your favorite fighters.

SOULCALIBUR®II is now available on the PlayStation®2 computer entertainment system, the Nintendo GameCube™ and the Xbox® video game system from Microsoft. The game features improved game play, upgraded graphics and a variety of game modes. SOULCALIBUR®II also received the “Best Fighting Game” award at the 2003 Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles. Along with additional game content unique to the U.S. version, SOULCALIBUR®II features 10 game modes, console-exclusive characters, a host of unlockable characters and arenas, and over 200 collectible weapons and items.

whoa... apparently namco agrees with me!

have anything stupid to add?

 

[Revelade]

Words.

Nice definitions. Here's mine.

Action: the player faces hordes of stupid enemies, yet his stats are usually higher than the others. Execution is fairly simple, whether it's choosing attack in turn based games or mashing the attack button in real time games. If you have better stats, you win. Games in this area would be: Gauntlet Legends, Dynasty Warriors, Final Fantasy X or Lunar.

Puzzle: the player is not in conflict, but rather has to solve a riddle through logic. Games in this area are: Zelda, Myst, Indigo Prophecy.

Reflex: the player is rewarded on how fast he executes a certain ability. If you do this ability better than the other player, you win. Games in this area are Counter Strike, F-Zero, DDR.

Strategy: the player is rewarded on what he decides to do, rather than how he does it. The opponents and him are equal in terms of stats and the game is decided through choice. The chances of winning should be close to equal for ALL players in the game. Games in this area are: Starcraft, Warcraft III, chess and SOUL CALIBUR 2.

RPG: Nope, not those games like FF7 or such. Role playing is what it is, playing a role. Common misconception is it has to be a combat game. Well GUESS WHAT. Not every person that exists fights. Role playing is LIVING the life of a person, not fighting enemies which has confused the average gamer. Games in this category are The Sims, Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing.

The bottom line: Soul Calibur II is a strategy game because it counters beat skill, both players are equal in terms of chances of winning and it's not dictated by luck.

Yawn.

Again, how hard is it to picture a marine fighting a dark templar or a mutalisk fighting a zealot? Perhaps you need to play SC some more, if this is too hard for you.

Pan, every strategy game has RPS... A spore colony will kill a mutalisk, a mutalisk will kill a zealot, a zealot kills a spore colony. I guess Starcraft's not a strategy game. Great definition.

Actually, there ARE direct counters in WC3. You know frost wyrms? Those big air things that cost 7 food and are the most powerful damage units in the game? You know what can easily beat them? Dryads. No matter how many wyrms you have, one dryad will beat them all. Again, you attempt to prove a point but end up wrong.

Using more verticals to beat sidesteps? What, you think the sidestepping guy CAN'T attack as well? I guess you haven't noticed theres an attack button.

If you aren't going to bother proving your point, then don't bother replying at all. I'm making perfect sense with my arguments, thank you, but every example you bring up is WRONG.

Oh, I need to learn to read? I guess writing 3 pages of arguments is possible being illiterate. Another fine example by pan.

In other words, your wrong and probably retarded.

Brilliance.

pan, you're the one that brought up RPS and you claim that any game that has it is not strategy yet countless games, whether it's to the recent Warcraft III to the ancient chess have it. Again, you're contradicting yourself.

Whine.

Yep, just because Bush said there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that means he's obviously right. Except he wasn't.

Listen up. Want to prove me wrong? Throw a game that blows my definitions away. Using insults only makes you look pathetic for trying to revert to them.

Again, Soul Calibur II is a strategy game because counters beat skill, each player has an equal chance at winning and the game is not centered on luck.

 

[B)ushid(o]

Reflex: the player is rewarded on how fast he executes a certain ability. If you do this ability better than the other player, you win. Games in this area are Counter Strike, F-Zero, DDR.

That's not a reflex. A reflex is a reaction to an action.

What I'm concerned about right now are human reflexes (ex: a ball thrown at a man and his reaction to it). Fighting games, whether it's SSBM or SC2, utilize reflexes. Your opponent does a move, you block, jump, guard, or whatever. If your reaction time's too slow, you get hit. Thus, reflexes. Fighting games utilize reflexes.

every strategy game has RPS... A spore colony will kill a mutalisk, a mutalisk will kill a zealot, a zealot kills a spore colony. I guess Starcraft's not a strategy game. Great definition.

A strategy game is just that, utilization of a strategy. A strategy is the method of attaining the goal (ex: defeat of an opponent in StarCraft through ling rush, defeat of an opponent in SC2 through defensive-play). A strategy game doesn't necessarily require an RPS system.

RPG: Nope, not those games like FF7 or such. Role playing is what it is, playing a role. Common misconception is it has to be a combat game. Well GUESS WHAT. Not every person that exists fights. Role playing is LIVING the life of a person, not fighting enemies which has confused the average gamer. Games in this category are The Sims, Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing.

Role-Playing Game. Not anywhere in there does it say the character has to be "living" the life of the person. The gamer just assumes the role of the character(s). Thus, playing a role - "role-playing".

 

[Revelade]

That's not a reflex. A reflex is a reaction to an action.

What I'm concerned about right now are human reflexes (ex: a ball thrown at a man and his reaction to it). Fighting games, whether it's SSBM or SC2, utilize reflexes. Your opponent does a move, you block, jump, guard, or whatever. If your reaction time's too slow, you get hit. Thus, reflexes. Fighting games utilize reflexes.

I never said that a game can't have more than one characteristic. A game like SC2 does have reflex usage in it such as guard impacting at a certain time. However, reflex games concentrate on a particular skill. Whether it's aiming with CS, steering with Gran Turismo or matching with DDR. You are REACTING to a situation. Want some examples? You spot an enemy in CS; you are REACTING and aiming at him, then firing. You see a turn coming in Gran Turismo; you are REACTING and steer to the side. You see a left arrow coming in DDR; you are REACTING and you time the left arrow.

Again, reflex games are about perfecting a particular skill. The learning curve of Soul Calibur II is not on HOW you do the move because the majority of the moves are very easy to do. I've had 2nd grade kids execute moves in SC2. Likewise, in chess, it's not about how you place your piece; it's about choosing where the piece goes. It's about KNOWING what combinations do what. That's the difference.

While you might be terrible at timing guard impacts in SC2, you can still win the game because mastering GIs don't guarantee wins. But in CS, the person with the better aim will nearly always win.

A strategy game is just that, utilization of a strategy. A strategy is the method of attaining the goal (ex: defeat of an opponent in StarCraft through ling rush, defeat of an opponent in SC2 through defensive-play). A strategy game doesn't necessarily require an RPS system.

Without an RPS system, you are saying that a player can have an ability no unit can counter. This is why zerglings come in pairs. This is why archons only have shields. Every unit has a COUNTER and that is the basis of the RPS system. Name a strategy game where an ability, unit, whatever can not be countered. Prove me wrong.

Anyway, strategy in SC2 is just that. You prepare what moves you will use, just like units and you use them. If they aren't working, such as sending marines against lurkers, you switch moves or units like using science vessels on lurkers. You are switching tactics to counter what he is doing, JUST LIKE STARCRAFT.

Role-Playing Game. Not anywhere in there does it say the character has to be "living" the life of the person. The gamer just assumes the role of the character(s). Thus, playing a role - "role-playing".

That's the same thing. Your definition works for when you are playing a role of a class such as a soldier, a farmer, aka a vage term. When you are playing the role of George, Vincent, etc., then it's specific to the point where you ARE that person.

My point is that when you role play something, let's say a dad, that doesn't mean you are going to be in combat, leveling up or any of the nonsense people seem to think role playing is. It's a general term that can apply to more than just combat.

 

[B)ushid(o]

SC2 has nothing to do with reflexes.

A game like SC2 does have reflex usage in it such as guard impacting at a certain time.

Eh? Which one is it?

I never said those games don't utilize reflexes. I was saying that SC2 utilizes reflexes, as well.

Name a strategy game where an ability, unit, whatever can not be countered. Prove me wrong.

Let's go back to chess - the quintessential strategy game. There's no RPS system in chess. More recently, I believe that many space-based 4x games also do not utilize a countering system (ie: Master of Orion, Ascendancy).

That's the same thing. Your definition works for when you are playing a role of a class such as a soldier, a farmer, aka a vage term. When you are playing the role of George, Vincent, etc., then it's specific to the point where you ARE that person.

My point is that when you role play something, let's say a dad, that doesn't mean you are going to be in combat, leveling up or any of the nonsense people seem to think role playing is. It's a general term that can apply to more than just combat.

Then how is FF7 not an RPG? Combat RPGs are still RPGs.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

Strategy: the player is rewarded on what he decides to do, rather than how he does it. The opponents and him are equal in terms of stats and the game is decided through choice. The chances of winning should be close to equal for ALL players in the game. Games in this area are: Starcraft, Warcraft III, chess and SOUL CALIBUR 2.

You still dont get it. SCII is not a strategy game. Your definition is flawed. The game is automaticly a strategy if two players have an equal chance of winning, and what the players actions in the game? Thats EVERY ****ING GAME WITH MULTIPLAYER. Quake 4 everyone is equal, and you choose what weapon,. and how to execute an attack in a large area. Is it strategy? no. Soul Caliber you use one man to punch kick and throw someone around till thier health reaches zero. Is it strategy? no.
Chess isn't about taking out your opponent completely, which is why it doesn'y matter how many pieces you ahve, a player can have half the number of pieces and still checkmate the king. I will cover your flawed perceptions later.

The Sims

That is a simulation game. Tehre is a difference. RPG revolves around one or more characters who are usualy explored in much depth with a rich story. The original designes of RPG were pen and paper etc. Modern RPG is computers with a level system. None of this correspondds to the Sims, which is a simulation game.

The bottom line: Soul Calibur II is a strategy game because it counters beat skill, both players are equal in terms of chances of winning and it's not dictated by luck.

Yet RPS is a game of luck.

Again, how hard is it to picture a marine fighting a dark templar or a mutalisk fighting a zealot? Perhaps you need to play SC some more, if this is too hard for you.

Becuase no one builds one zealot, and just one mutalisk. It doesn't work like that. Nothing is just counter a, counter b and counter c. Zealots can beat a marine, but a couple marines will beat a zealot. If that is rock paper scissors according to you, there is almost no point in argueing with you.

Pan, every strategy game has RPS... A spore colony will kill a mutalisk, a mutalisk will kill a zealot, a zealot kills a spore colony. I guess Starcraft's not a strategy game. Great definition.

Well, a photon cannon can beat a mutalisk and a zergling, while a mutalisk can kill a zergling too! It's a mind **** isn't it. It's not rock paper scissors. Stop taking out 0.1% of the gameplay to try and proove your arguement.

Actually, there ARE direct counters in WC3. You know frost wyrms? Those big air things that cost 7 food and are the most powerful damage units in the game? You know what can easily beat them? Dryads. No matter how many wyrms you have, one dryad will beat them all. Again, you attempt to prove a point but end up wrong.

I'm wrong now am I? Because you "proved me wrong" or you said I was.
What is funny, is I never said there were no counters in Warcraft. That would be dumb. The point I was making is it isn't rock paper scissors. Like a breaker can beat a Dryad, who can beat a frost wyrm, but a frost wyrm still can't beat a breaker. Everything has a purpose, one unit wasn't made to defeat one other unit, they were made for a player to use to whatever degree was possible. What you consider "counters", a skilled player will laugh at. Because a Drayad won't last long agaisnt a player who si able to get frost wyrms, as they will likely have meele units who fair well(under the right circumstances) agaisnt ranged units. That is why you never have an army of counters against the opponent. It isn't RPS, it is far advanced. RPS is a game of random chance. There is no chance in strategy games. Every mvoe is execute perfectly.

If you aren't going to bother proving your point, then don't bother replying at all. I'm making perfect sense with my arguments, thank you, but every example you bring up is WRONG.

Calling a cat a fish, won't make it swim.

Oh, I need to learn to read? I guess writing 3 pages of arguments is possible being illiterate. Another fine example by pan.

pan, you're the one that brought up RPS and you claim that any game that has it is not strategy yet countless games, whether it's to the recent Warcraft III to the ancient chess have it. Again, you're contradicting yourself.

You poor fool. Stop misreading me, and pretending I say something I don't. I say, quite simply, RPS does not dictate strategy. RPS in essence is a game of chance. WCIII is not RPS. WCIII is actualy an RPG-Strategy game. Chess is not RPS, every piece is equal, every piece can take another. It is the manner of movement which differentiates them. Even then a Queen is no mightier than a pawn, when the Queen fails to stop a pawn from performing a check mate.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Revelade]

Eh? Which one is it?

I never said those games don't utilize reflexes. I was saying that SC2 utilizes reflexes, as well.

Good observation. SC2 does in fact require reflexes, but not to the point where a person with better reflexes can beat someone who knows which move beats what, which is the case in CS, where the faster aimer will be victorious in confrontations, though there are chances where you have the guy facing the other way.

Let's go back to chess - the quintessential strategy game. There's no RPS system in chess. More recently, I believe that many space-based 4x games also do not utilize a countering system (ie: Master of Orion, Ascendancy).

Actually, there is, but it's based more on position. Position determines the power of the piece. While you can have a queen in a corner of the board, a queen in the middle of the board obviously has more power because it has more spaces it can attack. Therefore, a rook diagonal to a bishop would lose, even though it is considered one of the strongest pieces in the game. A bishop however, would lose to a rook in a vertical or horizontal file. It's not each individual piece themselves, but their position on the board as well as other pieces that determines their power.

The point of RPS is that every hand can be countered. However, what do you do when someone that aims faster than you plays against you in CS? What do you do when someone that steers better than you challenges you in Need for Speed? These are cases where skill can not be countered.

Then how is FF7 not an RPG? Combat RPGs are still RPGs.

Every RPG is not a combat game. That's my point. Not the other way around.

I refer FF7 as an action game because throughout the game, you are subject to combat with limited AI enemies. They do the same patterns of attacks and have an inherent weakness that the player can exploit. Just as if you are in Gauntlet Legends hacking at enemies that do the same patterns, just as in Dynasty Warriors where you obviously have the better stats to the point where 5 soldiers aren't a match for you. Once those stats becomes equal, it becomes more important CHOOSING what to do and/or HOW you do it. Which takes us to reflex or strategy games.

 

[Revelade]

Whine

Quake 4 is not a strategy game because it rewards the player who has the fastest reflexes on aiming, rather than the choices each player makes. This makes it a reflex game where execution is key.

When was playing a role always about combat? Again, if I am playing the role of a dad, will I fight a war?

The game RPS is about luck, but could probably be calculated, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm sticking to RPS because it proves that every thing can be countered. How can you counter someone better than you at aiming in CS? You are either better at aiming or you will lose. That is why that's a reflex game.

Again, I give you a sample situation, yet you can't seem to understand it. You have a mutalisk, you have a zealot. It is on ground. Can the zealot win? Answer me this instead of using some excuse. It's a yes or no question.

0.01% of the gameplay? My point was that RPS does in fact exist within Starcraft. Even if you think it's 0.01% or whatever, the fact is that it DOES exist. From there, we can deduce that every unit can be countered, which is also a trait of chess, which is also a trait of Soul Calibur 2, which is NOT a trait of CS.

Obviously RPS is a game about luck. You mistakenly think I am arguing that it isn't. I use the RPS example because it shows that every hand can be countered. Skill however, is something that can't be countered unless you are better than the other guy. This is something not everyone possesses. To beat someone at CS, you have to aim faster than him or you will lose. This is why it's a reflex game.

But naming a cat Fish, gives it a name.

How RPS plays is luck. Because you can't base your actions on it. We do see the system being used in Starcraft, Warcraft 3, chess AND Soul Calibur 2 however. And this is what seperates a strategy game from a reflex game.

 

[Arkillo]

Would you stop double posting? God damn.