Khuutra said:
I'm being intentionally ironic. I apologize if I came across as acidic. A slowed down RTS game would just introduce the possibility of having greater strategic elements added into it. And yes, I'd argue that TBS games (which is what "SRPGs" are, I don't know why people call them that) are considerably deeper than RTSes where your APM (actions per minute) often is directly proportional to your ability to win games. I can't help it! I just see them as being deeper. |
j/k
I disagree. APM is still secondary. A very fast gamer with terrible strategy will lose any well done and balanced RTS. However, between two players of equivalent strategic ability, yes reflexes matter. Yes, RTS games sometimes have less options than TBS, but there are so many more involved games that I really think have the same or even less depth than an RTS. Options do not equate to depth. In a RTS, you must be able to shift your production and priorities based on your opponent. How fast you click is far less important than how fast you think.
In all, I'd say they arent' deeper, just different. I love strategy games, and I can generally outthink my opponents, but I'm also impatient. So I like games like speed chess better than chess, RTS over TBS, and games that limit stalling. And stalling is not an option in a real-time game.
