So if this is the case, why bother with Real Time Strategy?
You can play a hundred Counter-Strike games in a single night and then not remember a single one; but many RTS skirmishes evolve and mutate in surprising ways, and individual games can become memorable ripping yarns as players or teams establish shifting boundaries that can seem as solid as the maps they're played on. RTS satisfies both intellectually and viscerally. And it plays on a far more spectacular scale.
Put another way, RTSC's first basic premise is this: you put a lot more effort into an RTS game, but you'll get more out of it as a result. When you claim victory or defeat in RTS its almost entirely your own work - or fault. There's a greater sense of involvement, satisfaction and sense of achievement with RTS simply because there's more at stake, even if its only extra time. I've had to put far, far more effort (and stress!) into a typical one-on-one Dawn of War duel than a 64 player Battlefield game ever did. With the possible exception of Team Fortress 2, but that's an entirely different matter!
And there are other perks to RTS that a lot of other game genres seem to be offering less of these days. Unlike a roleplaying game, (and especially a massive multiplayer online roleplaying game) you can actually get to see everything in the game within the first hour or two of messing around with it. There aren't any "unlocks" or "grind" to reveal extra content.
|Intro 2 of 4|
|Intro 4 of 4|
Last modified Wed, 15 Oct 2008 by Lindsay Fleay