Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IronyOwl]

the last time I saw anyone use strategy in an FPS was... well actually, I never have

If you think that, you probably wonder why you keep losing.

Isn't there a reasonably well-known quote about that? "Preparedness always looks like luck to the unprepared" or something?

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

   The problem with FPS strategy is its not something you can
easily describe because its more physical then RTS or 4X strategy.
It can be hard explaining how to properly duck and weave unless
the person is actually playing the game. A strategy for FPS is
more moment to moment than RTS and 4X strategy's where
you can plan out the basic idea of what you want to do right from
the start while FPS is really much more situational and based on
things like reflex.

[NewsMuffin]

the last time I saw anyone use strategy in an FPS was... well actually, I never have

If you think that, you probably wonder why you keep losing.

Isn't there a reasonably well-known quote about that? "Preparedness always looks like luck to the unprepared" or something?

More or less the truth.
Still running the same routes around the map and killing everyone in their spawn is the only way I get kills in any game.
Yes, that is a strategy, but the game kind of forces you to play like that.
Or camping. Camping almost always grants kills.

[Rakonas]

   The problem with FPS strategy is its not something you can
easily describe because its more physical then RTS or 4X strategy.
It can be hard explaining how to properly duck and weave unless
the person is actually playing the game. A strategy for FPS is
more moment to moment than RTS and 4X strategy's where
you can plan out the basic idea of what you want to do right from
the start while FPS is really much more situational and based on
things like reflex.

Difference between strategy and tactics. FPS's generally embody tactics, taking the environment into account and such. Take Planetside, awesome and fun utilization of tactics like airdrops and charges and so on. An RTS is more strategy, as in destroying their resource gathering or the like so that they can't even field troops.

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

   Thank you Rakonas, that is exactly what I was trying to
say. I just forgot the word tactics. It breaks down to be
that strategy is what you do in the planning room and
tactics are what a soldier does on the battle field. The
one is large scale the other more personal. RTS and 4X
use strategy and leaves the one on one bits to the computer
while an FPS you are the one on one so tactics are the
order of the day.

[de5me7]

I like 4x alot, i quite like some rts, why?

Two reasons, i enjoy strategic thinking, and I like the feeling of grandure or epicness that comes with them.

Epicness
Theres a great sense of satisfaction, and a feeling of epic awesomness when youve thrown an fleet of massive ships into a star system to cause destruction, or charged the light brigade etc. Its like what the col in the A team says, i love it when a plan comes together. DEFCON, star ruler, Dwarf Fortress, Total War etc, i find all these games immersive, i know when playing them that my decisions decide the lives of game entities. There is also, as there is in DF, a sense of satisfaction in building, a base, or an empire.

Strategy
Chess is a tbs. RTS and 4x in many ways are not that disimilar. IN chess you can choose how to deploy your forces, where to attack, and where to defend. Most RTS/4x games simply add resource collection and management, and infrastructure to go with it.
Coming up with strategies, and making difficult decisions is fun. Which resources do i priorities, where do i focus my defense, where do i attack the enemy, his resources, his military production? These are interesting questions to deal with.

IN many ways DF is the embodiement of what is great about RTS and 4x, but is its self not technically either (could be called RTS is suppose, but not in the same way as starcraft).

id recommend, RTS: Suprieme commander, Age of Empires 2, Homeworlds 1 & 2, total war series (Rome and shogun best imo) DEFCON. 4x: Star ruler, Alpha Centuri, Distant worlds, Galactic Civ 2 (gal civ 2 is probably the most accessable, but least good). Civilisation if popular too but i find it infuriating (i like alpha centuri though), anyone know any other good non scifi 4X?

[nenjin]

I like RTS's ultimately because they allow me to create mass combat situations that players generally never allow for.

Take Company of Heroes for instance. The bread and butter of that game is cover, heavy machine guns ect....the AI built for it.

Players will simply steam roll your defenses in a heart beat, or go around them, and make you regret ever creating fortified positions.

It's why I rarely play RTS's against people. So much multiplayer RTS gaming seems to revolve around grasping the rules, and then finding the quickest way to make them obsolete. That's what fucking killed Dawn of War 2 for me, on both a strategic and a tactical level. L0L DRE@DNAUGHTS!

On top of that, I've grown pretty jaded to the current RTS model. Games like Starcraft 2 and Supreme Commander hold no interest for me....it's just build orders, piddling around with masses of units and clicking off abilities.

In terms of 4x games, I like the breadth and the scope of the world as they're in play. When there's enough going on in a 4x game WITHOUT your input, it almost becomes a sim that allows for direct control. The closer a 4x game becomes to a sim, the more I like it. The farther away it gets, the less.

[Keita]

For me, building an army from the ground up give me a kick that other games don't.

About the core mechanic of RTS/4X, more to the point, why people like managing loads of things at once I ask another question. Why do people enjoy shooting other people? I mean I'm confused to the massive popularity of CoD:BO, I've played it single player as well as Multiplayer and I hate both. I guess to answer my own and your question it's a matter of what the player likes.

[Shades]

When there's enough going on in a 4x game WITHOUT your input

This.

4x games feel alive in a way other games often don't, which is why I tend to like them above others.

Slow RTS/TBS games I also enjoy because I get to think rather than react all the time, also they tend to be single player so I can play when I like.

RTS games I find boil down to who can rush the fastest without damaging growth, which is fun but I tend to find gets old pretty fast.

FPS games are more about personally skill, tactical thinking under pressure and reactions rather than anaylitical strategy. Great fun but I find they work best with a group of friends you know well and not so well with strangers or solo.

I realise those are sweeping statements and many games fall into multiple groups but that is my main views on the ones discussed so far.

[freeformschooler]

For me, building an army from the ground up give me a kick that other games don't.

About the core mechanic of RTS/4X, more to the point, why people like managing loads of things at once I ask another question. Why do people enjoy shooting other people? I mean I'm confused to the massive popularity of CoD:BO, I've played it single player as well as Multiplayer and I hate both. I guess to answer my own and your question it's a matter of what the player likes.

I gotta agree with this here. I guess it's just a matter of personal taste.

The FPS vs. RTS/4X game discussion going on here... it's hard to compare the two genres. FPS games are almost entirely community games. You play them when you have friends over, or online when you find people to play with. That's also what's jaded me about them: inevitably, every FPS will lose its fun for me once I play online because the community tends to be "winning oriented", in which winning gives them no actual personal gain.

RTS/4X games have many more single player options. I think that, after reading through the replies here (thanks guys) I have discovered what is truly fun about these games. The fun, even beyond exploration and discovery, comes from the emergent nature of the genres, especially 4X games. By definition, they generally allow for a wide variety of play scenarios and happenings that were never specifically scripted by the developer. That also ties in to the strategy part of the game: when very little is scripted, you have to formulate your own strategy, using/abusing the things that the game does give you to work with in new and interesting ways.

In terms of 4x games, I like the breadth and the scope of the world as they're in play. When there's enough going on in a 4x game WITHOUT your input, it almost becomes a sim that allows for direct control. The closer a 4x game becomes to a sim, the more I like it. The farther away it gets, the less.

Nenjin understands. Combine autonomy with emergent behavior and gameplay and you get a sim: something that's probably pretty fun to watch, as well as play. If DF had better autonomy, it would be hilarious to see the things your dwarves would do. The majority of 4X games I've played have had little to no autonomy except for NPC entities, but the ones that did were really fun.

id recommend, RTS: Suprieme commander, Age of Empires 2, Homeworlds 1 & 2, total war series (Rome and shogun best imo) DEFCON. 4x: Star ruler, Alpha Centuri, Distant worlds, Galactic Civ 2 (gal civ 2 is probably the most accessable, but least good). Civilisation if popular too but i find it infuriating (i like alpha centuri though), anyone know any other good non scifi 4X?

I am going to go play as many of these as is not necessary, one by one, right now. This thread has shown me that, despite college work and such things, I really need to get my godlike-perspective strategy on.