FPS vs RTS/Strategy

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Husar_15 (28 posts) -
For 20 years the gamer world divided in 2 large groups. Those who play FPS and consider strategy games boring and those who plat strategy and consider the FPS to violent and non-sense. I play only strategy and my brother only FPS. We started a fight yesterday. Pls tell me wich category is better.
#2 Posted by gigatrainer (2029 posts) -
For 20 years the gamer world divided in 2 large groups. Those who play FPS and consider strategy games boring and those who plat strategy and consider the FPS to violent and non-sense. I play only strategy and my brother only FPS. We started a fight yesterday. Pls tell me wich category is better.Husar_15
I play both and love both....they are just a matter of personal opinion.
#3 Posted by bangell99 (10568 posts) -

[QUOTE="Husar_15"]For 20 years the gamer world divided in 2 large groups. Those who play FPS and consider strategy games boring and those who plat strategy and consider the FPS to violent and non-sense. I play only strategy and my brother only FPS. We started a fight yesterday. Pls tell me wich category is better.gigatrainer
I play both and love both....they are just a matter of personal opinion.

My thoughts exactly. I love both genres; they're the only genres I play. Neither is "better", it's just whatever you prefer.

#4 Posted by aliblabla2007 (16756 posts) -

I prefer strategy. The FPS genre of today is heavily stagnated, repetitive and lacks variety.

The RTS genre is the opposite.

#5 Posted by The_MaiN_MeNu (68 posts) -

I'd have to say I love both as well. I'm a big fan of the total war RTS strategy games, along with Civilization 4 and such. But I also love playing Counter-Strike Source, I've almost beaten BioShock, and am also playing Fallout 3 so I dunno, I think both genres can be really fun if you approach the games with an open mind.

#6 Posted by arijit_2404 (1558 posts) -
[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"]

I prefer strategy. The FPS genre of today is heavily stagnated, repetitive and lacks variety.

The RTS genre is the opposite.

My thoughts exactly.
#7 Posted by swatsickle (627 posts) -
I've never liked playing first-person shooters. The only first-person shooters I like are Unreal Tournament and Half-Life 2. I've played RTS for a long time, starting on Age of Empires 2 and moving to Company of Heroes. Lot of fun, a lot to do, and I can see why people would think it's boring, it's not as 'in-your-face' as a first-person shooter is, it's not "kill kill kill" it takes hours usually to complete a match whereas an FPS match can happen in 20 minutes. RTSs have the potential to be deeper, whereas the action in an FPS is more 'instant.' I presume that those with shorter attention-spans may like FPSs more, and those with a longer attention-span may like the RTSs more, but then there are a whole range of people who like both, and some don't like either.
#8 Posted by V4LENT1NE (12895 posts) -
I play both, but something about shooting guns at people in a Video Game that kicks ass lol
#9 Posted by TheFragcat (2466 posts) -

I play both but i prefer the RTS genre.

#10 Posted by YoZbaNaToR (5022 posts) -
What's up with comparing two completely different genres'? They're both great fun and require no ring for them to duke out who's better. It's like comparing orange juice with butter toast. RTS games tests your strategy skills, patience, and your decision-making all from above. FPS puts you right into the action, tests your hand-eye coordination and reflexes. You can compare two different FPS' and two different RTS', not the other way around. Gamers have become so divided these days...
#11 Posted by stike22 (3401 posts) -
[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"]

I prefer strategy. The FPS genre of today is heavily stagnated, repetitive and lacks variety.

The RTS genre is the opposite.

100% Agreed. But frankly I play both and love both genres.
#12 Posted by Horvat12 (7 posts) -

I have been playing games for a long time, both FPS and RTS, until I found out about Battlezone (It got 9.4 on Gamespot). Now, that is the only game I play. I always liked strategy a bit more than just shooting, but the way Battlezone combined that 2 genres is amazing. Is hard to say what I like more now. Anyone interested in Battlezone can find the all the info here.

#13 Posted by rmfd341 (3808 posts) -
I play both, but I have to say I prefer FPS games...
#14 Posted by thusaha (14495 posts) -

I love both genre but I prefer RTS.

#15 Posted by naval (11109 posts) -
While I used to enjoy both FPS and Strategy games almost the same, seeing the current state of most of the FPS - stale and unimaginative, I now prefer strategy games much more
#16 Posted by Anthony01355 (1486 posts) -

I perfer FPS. Mainly anything from Valve.

I like RTS too but I only have a few like Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Ground Control 2, and Red Alert 3. I usually don't play RTS competitively, only co op or against AI. I'm too much of a noob to micro/resource manage. I do enjoy both genres though.

#17 Posted by Maddie_Larkin (6559 posts) -

Hard for me to say which of the two is better, depends on my mood I guess...

#18 Posted by Precyse (487 posts) -

both are fine.

#19 Posted by Delius (571 posts) -

Pfft, both are inferior to the almighty RPG. :P

On a serious note, I don't really consider one genre any better then another. If your so closed minded that you stick to one genre out of some warped sence of loyalty, your missing out. A good game is a good game, period.

#20 Posted by F1_2004 (8009 posts) -

That's kind of a stupid question. There's nothing better, only which genre you enjoy playing more.

#21 Posted by Yotamho (40 posts) -

Make a poll

FPS forever FTW!!

#22 Posted by RobMetalCheese (45 posts) -
There is no better. It's like trying to compare rock and heavy metal music. Both are really cool, but it all comes down to preference. I myself am more into FPS and RPGs - I guess I prefer to control 1 character over an army.
#23 Posted by TheGreatOutdoor (3234 posts) -

For 20 years the gamer world divided in 2 large groups. Those who play FPS and consider strategy games boring and those who plat strategy and consider the FPS to violent and non-sense. I play only strategy and my brother only FPS. We started a fight yesterday. Pls tell me wich category is better.Husar_15
First let me say that neither is better. It is all about personal preference. I fit into the FPS group, but I also like strategy games. I have never played a RTS though. I have been thinking about getting Red Alert 3 as my first RTS game.

#24 Posted by aaronmullan (33406 posts) -
It is an opinion. Mine would be to get the best of both, as I like both.
#25 Posted by DaRockWilder (5451 posts) -
[QUOTE="Husar_15"]For 20 years the gamer world divided in 2 large groups. Those who play FPS and consider strategy games boring and those who plat strategy and consider the FPS to violent and non-sense. I play only strategy and my brother only FPS. We started a fight yesterday. Pls tell me wich category is better.gigatrainer
I play both and love both....they are just a matter of personal opinion.

#26 Posted by XRED_0 (775 posts) -
FPS FTW!
#27 Posted by Husar_15 (28 posts) -
yeahhh.maybe you are all right. but is so great when you see great armies, great cities and great battles. In empire total war i masacrated almost 3.000 troops with only 200 cavalary and 600 infantry. that is something i can proud with. it is epic when you see the artillery shooting, when you see great peoples killing eachother only because of your clicks.Emperors and generals, greaat fleets and great armies commanded by only a few clicks. Borders of the nations are moving on the map only of your click. two days ago i almost cryed because one of my greatest armies falled under the walls of a small city. My fleets are making the see to tremble my armies make the world tremble and my cities are the greatest wonder of the entire world. Empire: Total war gives you some fellngs that not even a 100 GB FPS cannot ofer. STRATEGY RULZZ 4EVER
#28 Posted by DanielDust (15402 posts) -
[QUOTE="Husar_15"]Empire: Total war gives you some fellngs that not even a 100 GB FPS cannot ofer.

FPS games "offer" other things, it all comes down to personal taste/preference. I like both but I play RTS more. Another thing that is assigned to taste, E:TW isn't a good game imo, the demo was awkward, I expected a lot more from it. Google Dyson or go on moddb and download it, it's free, even that game I consider better than E:TW.
#29 Posted by Husar_15 (28 posts) -
E:Tw it is a great game for me. i played all total war game but ALL ALL ! this is one of the greates. with goverments and gun powder it is very good. and a FPS gives a lot of violence a lot of scare and a lot of ungood thinks. I already play it for 2 months and i am not bored.
#30 Posted by DanielDust (15402 posts) -

FPS gives a lot of violence a lot of scare and a lot of ungood thinks. Husar_15
Safe to assume that RTS games are just as violent sometimes even more (if the FPS is not FEAR or something with extreme amounts of gore).

#31 Posted by bigbeebis (705 posts) -

For 20 years the gamer world divided in 2 large groups. Those who play FPS and consider strategy games boring and those who plat strategy and consider the FPS to violent and non-sense. I play only strategy and my brother only FPS. We started a fight yesterday. Pls tell me wich category is better.Husar_15


And RPG?

#32 Posted by raptor1906 (611 posts) -

My very first game was FPS (Delta Force Land Warrior)

and after that was Starcraft which i got so addicted to

I guess i love both but now thinking about it i guess i only played a total of 4 strategy games. it was Warcraft that i played the longest, i still play.

Currently i buy all the new release FPS

Thats why i love PC so much, both games can only be done properly on PC. I'd say FPS if you ask me

#33 Posted by Kaelken (531 posts) -

For 20 years the gamer world divided in 2 large groups. Those who play FPS and consider strategy games boring and those who plat strategy and consider the FPS to violent and non-sense. I play only strategy and my brother only FPS. We started a fight yesterday. Pls tell me wich category is better.Husar_15

You ALMOST got it right.

Nah I am kidding, your not even close

Once there were 2D gameplay, then came Wolfenstein and put twitch gameplay into the 21st century by adding 3D.

Today there are still people playing 2D point and click games, the major reason being the desire to be rewarded for time investment in oppose to skill being the dominating factor

Now, you could argue people who play mmorpgs 2D point and click are looking for a different experience, but the thing is, people who play say WoW still use the skill related phrases like "pwned", even though the game is totally automated.

In conclusion, the people who aren't able to compete in twitch competition seek refuge in scripted, automated games.

Also adding to that, there are a lot of people who live, yes live, in games like Second Life, saving up Disney World money and eating themselves to death in front of their pc

That's why RTS'ers and RPG'er are often called dorks and nerds - of course it is unfair to generalize. There are 1 or 2 people playing WoW who aren't totally fubar


#34 Posted by polishkid99 (4139 posts) -
Well it's all personal opinion, but i prefer fps because i'm better at them, but i'm trying to get better at red alert 3 because extremely fun!
#35 Posted by Humorguy_basic (2338 posts) -

I like using my brain, so for me it'snot RTS/Strategy or FPS, it's retro PC playing! After all, there's isn't much strategy in real time stragey games based on action, like World in Conflict. And there isn't much strategy in quasi rpg's like Dawn of War II.

Same goes for FPS's. There's not much in Bioshock when you look at System Shock 2, there's not much rolplaying in Mass Effect when compared to Morrowind and there there is less brain work in Crysis than in Red faction or Terra Nova: Task Force Centauri.

So with strategy being taken out of RTS's and roleplaying taken out of RPG's, along with shooters becoming more shallow with each rendition (Far Cry 2 vs Far Cry 1, Alone in the Dark vs Alone in the Dark: A New Nightmare, Jericho vs Clive Barker's Undying), I would say this debate would only really work if we ignored both RTS's and FPS's from 2005 onwards!