Back in April, Thresh and Kenn opened the “apples and oranges” debate about which is better between FPS or RTS on Firing Squad. D16-Makaveli and Soso re-opened that argument, and although it’s fairly obvious that no solution can ever come about, it never hurts to try.
RESTORED ARTICLE
FPS vs. RTS
Thresh
I can already tell this is going to be one hell of a discussion. When Kenn approached me and asked about doing a “genre” Face-Off, I first thought “No way am I gonna open that can of worms!” Then I got around to thinking about some of the topics proposed, and after coming up with a few of my own, I began to think that although it would sure to heat up our servers with flames, but there most definitely valid points on either side. So what the hell. I figure “I’m game.”
Well, I figured that you’ve played enough FPS games to give it a fair argument, and contrary to popular belief, you’ve actually got enough RTS hours under your belt to keep from seeming like a complete fool. 🙂 I on the other hand will be arguing from the point of a mere “enthusiast” so the repercussions will be slight. Sound good to you?
Thresh
You’re actually a really slimy bastard, you know that?
Thank you, thank you.
Thresh
Well, let’s get on with it. I hereby state that first person games are much better than real-time strategy games yadda yadda yadda.
That was weak, man. Put some heart into it!
Why FPS Rocks
Thresh
Fine, fine. All right. The First Person Shooter (FPS) and Real-Time Strategy (RTS) genres are both relatively new in the gaming industry. The technology to portray convincing first-person worlds in 3D started with id Software’s take on Castle Wolfenstein, appropriately labeled Wolfenstein 3D. The genre really took off with their follow-up game Doom, and now FPS games are what push the limits in computing power, 3d acceleration, and visual splendor.
Real-time strategy games started with Westwood Studios’ Dune II, which featured 3 races in mission-based battle over Frank Hurbert’s epic world of Dune. This genre ballooned with success, as it was more mass-market than FPS, and today the culmination of RTS development can be seen in games such as Cavedog’s Total Annihilation and Blizzard’s Starcraft, with sure-fire hits Command and Conquer 2 and TA: Kingdoms just around the corner.
While it’d be hopeless to try and argue about which genre is more fun, I thought we might be able to take a stab at what takes more SKILL. So without further ado, let the flame war begin!
Power Play: Hardware
Thresh
I think it’s pretty obvious that FPS games require a whole lot more computing power than your average RTS. This genre has always pushed the limits of technology, and nowadays it’s virtually impossible to stay competitive without some serious hardware. This is probably the biggest drawback to FPS games – the need to stay ahead of the performance curve is crucial.
On the flipside, new technologies and products are constantly being developed for the FPS crowd (although not necessarily successful). Quake basically ushered in 3D acceleration, spawning an entirely new (and huge) market based on now-recognized names like 3dfx, Nvidia, and S3. The current push for 3D sound is also based heavily towards benefits in first-person games. The push towards more realism requires more and more PC firepower, and that demand will continue to push graphics processing and programming to the next level.
RTS games are generally simpler, and don’t require the breakneck speeds afforded by today’s high-end systems. While this isn’t saying anything about how fun they may be, real-time strategy games are hardly industry-leading.
All right, back up a bit here. I’ll be the first person to say that 3D action gaming has made an indelible mark on the PC (and console) industry, but you’re really giving RTS games short shrift here. It’s a great thing that we can all play a game of CNC2 or Starcraft on a P166, while Unreal would realistically require a powerful 3d accelerator and twice the MHz. But look at the overall picture. One of the biggest real-time games out there is Total Annihilation, and that game’s got full 3D rendering.Its sequel, TA: Kingdoms will have even more complex models, 16-bit source art, and a host of other features. Bungie’s Myth series has been pushing 3D acceleration for some time now, and titles like Dark Reign 2 and BattleZone 2 are becoming just as graphically complex as today’s first person games. One of the most-anticipated games of 1999 (if it’s ever released, that is) is Command and Conquer 2: Tiberium Sun, which makes use of 3D terrain, dynamic lighting, voxel technology, and more. And of course, you can’t forget the also highly anticipated Homeworld, just a precursor to the many truly 3D RTS next generation games.Control IssuesThresh’s comments in BLACK
Thresh
I for one am a little hesitant to believe the direction you’re trying to take this. I’m sure tomorrow’s RTS games will bring the genre to a new watermark in terms of visual quality and complexity, but I don’t think the time is yet upon us when they can begin to push the forefront of technology, or make much of an impact on it.
Sampling and Control
Thresh
Another key hardware issue is precision. Take mouse sensitivity for instance. When USB, and then PS2rate hit the fps community, the issue of sampling rate suddenly jumped to the tech forefront. Precision of movement is so important in FPS games that the sudden discovery of higher sampling rate caused an overnight sensation, especially for aim-intensive games like Quake II.
Yeah, sampling rate is a big deal in FPS, especially since the mouse moves your entire screen around. It’s important for RTS as well – you can tell just by moving the cursor around in the Windows UI or Photoshop, or basically any application that requires precise cursor control. While you may have to aim for that exact pixel in Quake II, in RTS games you’re constantly thrust into situations where you have to make multiple high-precision clicks to keep your army alive.I realize this is really getting into the whole micromanagement vs. macromanagement issue, but the point is that precision in unit control is vitally important to RTS play. The very fact that you have so many more things to control in real-time makes having the increased sensory feedback a huge aid. In fact, one of the big selling points of Logitech’s new Gaming mouse is “Increased report rate,” which is essentially a new term for “sample rate,” and this thing is being endorsed by Gadianton, the PGL RTS champion.
Thresh
Well, PS2rate certainly isn’t quite as prevalent in the RTS community. I’m not sure whether or not it’s because word is slow to spread or what, but the possibility exists that the impact is smaller. After all, in RTS games you’re moving a cursor most of the time, while screen scrolling generally remains a constant speed. A slight flick in a FPS however, moves the entire screen, certainly a more pronounced (and disorienting) effect – if it’s not smooth, you’re not just dealing with a half-inch high cursor; your entire screen chunks up.
Those meddling kids
Moving on past the hard stuff, let’s talk about the skills involved and required in playing the actual games. You might think it’s obvious that FPS games are more action-oriented, and that quick reflexes matter a great deal more. I think that’s definitely a misconception. At the highest levels of play, most RTS games require an enormous level of quick thinking, quick movements, and even those coveted “mouse flicks,” and speed is certainly key.Being a few seconds slower on your build can conceivably cost you the game (and that’s not under extraordinary circumstances either). Just look at the best players for games like Total Annihilation and Starcraft – almost all are under 25 years old, although the target demographic for these games spans well past that age. It’s no coincidence that younger kids have quicker reflexes and thinking.
Thresh
Now that’s a crock of bull if I’ve ever heard one. Sure you’re going to have young players dominating the top spots, they’re the ones with the time and energy to devote to mastering the game. If you look at Ensemble’s Age Of Empires, you’ll see that there are plenty of top-caliber players over the dreaded age of 25.
The fact is that almost all “real-time” games, both action and strategy are heavily-dependant on accuracy and split-second reflexes. Don’t forget how important brains are, however. While I’m sure a faster player has a huge advantage, one that can play smart, regardless of genre, can easily be a match for any “young’n.”
I can’t disagree more. Watching the top RTS players in-game, it’s clear that they’re just as fast and intense as FPS superstars, even more so on many occasions. Just take a look at Quake II for an example of a slowed-down, reflex-de-emphasized ride.Watching some of the top RTS players at high-level events such as LAN parties and competitions on the other hand, you can see how the top players react – their hands are always in a flurry of motion as their eyes dart from one end of the map to another. When victory is dependant on making more units faster, being fast enough to out-resource your opponents is huge.
Stamina
I personally feel that at the highest level, RTS games require a lot more endurance than FPS. Against a good player, you have to constantly be playing as fast as possible in order to win, all the while keeping a clear mind and remaining observant. It’s not uncommon for games to last an hour, and at worst several hours. While an FPS can be fast and furious, you commonly know where your enemy is and how to avoid them, and at the very least, matches run for only 20 minutes long. If there’s anything RTS players can hold over FPS, this is it.
Thresh
While I certainly wouldn’t want to be on any side of a 4-hour long Quake deathmatch, I know you used to take FPS games pretty seriously, so don’t even deny that you’re full of crap on this one! 🙂 How many times have you played “just one game?” Most matches usually end up being played in series, and so they cumulatively add up to several hours easily. Also, I’d wager that the tension in a well-balanced 20 minute deathmatch can easily rival that of any RTS game. You simply can’t get the same feeling of seeing your opponent pop out of nowhere, smacking you in the face. In RTS, you think “Goddamn it I should have been watching my back,” where in FPS, you jump out of your seat, thinking “Where the flying #&*$ did he come from?!”
Intensity
Timing is everything in FPS, and throughout the entire game, you’re trying to beat your opponent to this location, or reach a certain area before an item respawns. Sure you have your blowouts where one player completely outskills another, and then you can afford to slack off and not worry about losing the game, but the same is basically true of RTS games as well. Unless you’re very evenly matched (or outmatched), I’d say there’s no overall difference in intensity.
I happen to feel that there’s a BIG difference in the level of intensity. In a FPS game, it’s fairly rare to have a complete blowout, where your opponent is completely unable to kill you. Once you die, he has control and can proceed to dominate the map. However, it’s just one frag. In this, the better player (at least on that map) can grab a weapon and immediately jump back into the mix. His skill will eventually turn the tide of the battle, and in the course of a game, the better player can be determined (at least on that level). It’s uncommon for games to flip-flop between the same two players with widely differential scores.In RTS, it’s a completely different story. If you make even a small mistake, it can easily cost you the win, even against someone who is at a lower level of play. Failing to scout, misdirecting your forces, choosing the wrong strategy or units, it can all end the game, no matter how long you drag it out.
Strategy
Here’s the big one. Strategy, tactics, and “military acumen.” There’s always a lot of talk about it in FPS, even straight deathmatch, but does it really compare to the strategy inherent in a strategy-based game? Let’s be honest here. In a FPS, you can certainly cut off your opponent or sneak up on them, but there’s nothing that comes close to the variety of different tactics and options available in a Real-time game.There are dozens of variables to consider when you play RTS – you not only have to watch your forces, but you also have to manage your economy, decide how to advance tech, and watch for surprise attacks and ambushes. In an FPS, you’re focused solely on your enemy, and most of the time you’ll have a good idea where he might be.
Thresh
Variety of tactics, huh? I guess there are so many alternatives to lusted ogres in Warcraft or tank rushes in C&C:RA. What I’m trying to get at here is that it’s unfair to judge the “lack of strategy” of an FPS game simply because it’s classified as “action.” Strategy is at the very heart of FPS competition. It’s about controlling weapons and armor, forcing your opponent to take the least favorable approach, and simply outsmarting them. I think that’s the key word here. Superior strategy is 50% the fight, even in FPS.
Let’s not forget that FPS isn’t just about 1 on 1 deathmatch, either. The controversy over strategy has been fought to great extent over many modifications of Quake. CTF has sometimes been called “the smart man’s deathmatch,” and supports have long-clashed with the “brainless aimfest” that is traditional deathmatch. The TeamFortress mod for Quake (and TF Classicand TF2) also emphasize teamwork and strategy. New games which branch out from the genre, such as Rainbow Six, further exemplify the need for superior tactics and strategy.
EDITOR’S NOTE >> NO CONCLUSION