Computer games have only really been around for 25 years, not counting the half dozen before then. Can anyone think of any motion pictures from 25 years after their invention that could count as a work of art?
There aren't many for sure. The fact that they have now had going on for a century to develop means that this medium is properly mature and can produce proper works of art.
The early examples may have hinted at their potential, and in a few cases may have even delivered what they promised. But those were few and far between, as they will remain in video gaming for some time to come.
The fundamental difference between Chess and Real Time Strategy game is that timing is involved in an RTS game, as Gurgeh says in Iain Banks' Player of Games.
This element of timing is clearly going to be an important part of the game, although it is one that all top players have almost equal skill and knowledge of. This is what makes the games exciting, accessible and unique.
If a good player plays a new one, he can win by building simple basic units because he has mastered the element of timing - ie, he can build faster and knows when is best to attack.
Therefore the new players try to imitate the better ones because they have already lost to such a tactic. But because they do not yet understand timing as well as the best players, they will not be able to walk over their peers.
They try to continue of course, and that is why you see so many people making a few zealots/little red tanks/skirmishers & archers and try to win early on. If there is a large differential between players, they will succeed.
If both players are good, then they will not win, and will probably lose the game because of dedicating too many resources to an attack that can't succeed.
Strategy comes after mastering timing, which plenty of people have done. Alternatively, strategy takes place when both players have the same mastery of timing.
Complaining that a game is flawed or lacking in one aspect isn't a particularly valid argument when you do not understnad that one aspect. If you know Starcraft or any other good RTS game, you will know that timing is simply part of the game that has to be learnt before you know how to play it.
Complaining that Chess is a bad game because you consistently lose to a better player who has played the game more than a dozen times more than you doesn't hold any water, and so in the same vein I discount the view that there is no strategy in Starcraft as the view is held by someone who does not know the game properly.
In short, to see strategy in Starcraft you need to have played the game to a relatively decent level, or only play people with the same grasp of timing as yourself.
As an aside, I'd like to think I'm quite qualified to talk on the subject, having played Chess to quite a high level a few years ago. More recently, I've been to Korea to play in a Starcraft tournament, won several Red Alert tournaments, and won a fair bit of Age of Empires and Age of Kings. Infact, I've won around $7500 playing these games, and I am working in the same general area as a result - no, not writing games.
If you want a good game of chess, you look for players of the same skill as you. If they attempt the same opening gambitts that they lost to from a good player, they will keep on doing it until they realise they can't just rely on a certain start to the game to win. Starcraft and other good strategy games are the same, you can't rely on an early 'rush' to win a game, and the good players are the ones who realise that.
Slashdot Mirror
Computer games have only really been around for 25 years, not counting the half dozen before then. Can anyone think of any motion pictures from 25 years after their invention that could count as a work of art?
There aren't many for sure. The fact that they have now had going on for a century to develop means that this medium is properly mature and can produce proper works of art.
The early examples may have hinted at their potential, and in a few cases may have even delivered what they promised. But those were few and far between, as they will remain in video gaming for some time to come.
This element of timing is clearly going to be an important part of the game, although it is one that all top players have almost equal skill and knowledge of. This is what makes the games exciting, accessible and unique.
If a good player plays a new one, he can win by building simple basic units because he has mastered the element of timing - ie, he can build faster and knows when is best to attack.
Therefore the new players try to imitate the better ones because they have already lost to such a tactic. But because they do not yet understand timing as well as the best players, they will not be able to walk over their peers.
They try to continue of course, and that is why you see so many people making a few zealots/little red tanks/skirmishers & archers and try to win early on. If there is a large differential between players, they will succeed.
If both players are good, then they will not win, and will probably lose the game because of dedicating too many resources to an attack that can't succeed.
Strategy comes after mastering timing, which plenty of people have done. Alternatively, strategy takes place when both players have the same mastery of timing.
Complaining that a game is flawed or lacking in one aspect isn't a particularly valid argument when you do not understnad that one aspect. If you know Starcraft or any other good RTS game, you will know that timing is simply part of the game that has to be learnt before you know how to play it.
Complaining that Chess is a bad game because you consistently lose to a better player who has played the game more than a dozen times more than you doesn't hold any water, and so in the same vein I discount the view that there is no strategy in Starcraft as the view is held by someone who does not know the game properly.
In short, to see strategy in Starcraft you need to have played the game to a relatively decent level, or only play people with the same grasp of timing as yourself.
As an aside, I'd like to think I'm quite qualified to talk on the subject, having played Chess to quite a high level a few years ago. More recently, I've been to Korea to play in a Starcraft tournament, won several Red Alert tournaments, and won a fair bit of Age of Empires and Age of Kings. Infact, I've won around $7500 playing these games, and I am working in the same general area as a result - no, not writing games.
If you want a good game of chess, you look for players of the same skill as you. If they attempt the same opening gambitts that they lost to from a good player, they will keep on doing it until they realise they can't just rely on a certain start to the game to win. Starcraft and other good strategy games are the same, you can't rely on an early 'rush' to win a game, and the good players are the ones who realise that.