Aragorn7
Member!
Pretty much. What you like depends on what you are good at. Physical "twitch" movements as they would call them, are required for FPS's. So, whoever is faster and more accurate at pointing the cursor on the other player is the better player. The only bone I have to pick with FPS's is that most of the times it is kill on the spot. The strategy in say "CS" is all based on what you do BEFORE you confront the enemy. I like games that mix it around a bit (ie Tribes).TwistedRat said:So to finaly end this, its about what you like, and I wouldn't put down another genre just because you do not like it. FPS seems to be for people who like games that relay on skill(As skill I mean something done physicaly), but it also has a good mix a strategy(everyone knows its not as strategic as a RTS, thats a duh, but why is that a bad thing?). RTS seems to be a more mentally based game with some physical skill.(It may be harder then you think to coordinate a small army with a cursor)
Yep, I was GENERALIZING big time. I consider a lot of other FPS's very strategic, but I find games that are more realistic to be less strategic. RTS's will always be just a little bit more strategic. Unless you play an FPS that is based on RTS principles (C&C: Renegade).Niedar said:Seems like everything Aragorn posted in here is based off one game, CounterStrike. Probably one of the worst FPS to compare the strategy level to a RTS.
It all depends on what you are good at. If you suck at "wit" or strategy, you might want to play an FPS. If you suck at twitch movements, you might want to play an RTS where it is not as "twitchy". I enjoy both gametypes, but lately FPS's have really gone downhill. How many battlefield clones have popped up recently anyways? WW2 spinoffs? :frustrate