Guys, can we get back on topic please? This thread is not supposed to be a Starcraft bashing/apologist argument.

It is on topic. Both Starcraft and (especially) Warcraft3 are prime examples of games heavily influenced by what the OP calls 'active' abilities. The "apologists"' intent is to show that these games are not fundamentally flawed as strategy games due to their dependence on the use of active abilities.

Quote:

Original post by Argus2 It is on topic. Both Starcraft and (especially) Warcraft3 are prime examples of games heavily influenced by what the OP calls 'active' abilities. The "apologists"' intent is to show that these games are not fundamentally flawed as strategy games due to their dependence on the use of active abilities.

They may or may not be fundamentally flawed, depending on what people are looking for in an RTS game. The words 'Real Time Strategy' can be interpreted in a lot of ways - starcraft is only one interpretation.

The idea that an RTS MUST be twitch in order to be fun - which was the claim that started this argument - strikes me as a very limiting notion and one which can only lead to hundreds of unimaginative *craft clones. It's also clearly false, because many people prefer slower paced RTS games.

Can we stop derailing the thread now?