This. So much this.Gazz wrote:Real Time Str....actical game. Usually.
Also this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and all these.
If it's real-time, it's not strategic; if it's strategic, it's not real-time, regardless of the oxymoron "real-time strategy game."
Again: I don't say this to annoy anyone, or to argue fiddly semantic shades of meaning; I have zero interest in those things. I speak up about using the word "strategy" correctly because calling a game (like StarCraft or other RTS) strategic when it really is not means we miss out on valuing and getting games that actually are strategic. That is not in any way a put-down of RTS games or those who enjoy them. I've replayed StarCraft more than once; it's a great game.
But it's not a strategy game. Like nearly all other games called RTS games, it's a fast-paced tactical game with some resource management -- there is no big-picture, big-pattern-perceiving, deep-planning game of acquiring, defending and exploiting civilizationally-important assets over a large area of space and time. That is "strategy," and a "strategic" game. I love those, and I wish I could get game developers to use the term "strategic" correctly so that more gamers could love those kinds of games with me.
Enough from me. This is a thread about what people enjoy about the RTS genre. Please continue.