Editing Real-time strategy (section)

===Criticism of gameplay===
====Turn-based vs. real-time====
{{Main|Time-keeping systems in games}}
A debate has emerged between fans of real-time strategy (RTS) and [[Turn-based strategy|turn-based strategy (TBS)]] (and related genres) based on the merits of the real-time and turn-based systems. Because of their generally faster-paced nature (and in some cases a smaller learning curve), real-time strategy games have surpassed the popularity of [[turn-based strategy]] computer games.<ref name=gspytbsrts>{{cite web | last =Walker | first =Mark | title =Strategy Gaming: Part V – Real-Time vs. Turn-Based | publisher =GameSpy | url =http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/strategygames05/ | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20081221074049/http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/strategygames05/ | archive-date =December 21, 2008 | access-date=October 28, 2007 | url-status=dead}}</ref> In the past, a common criticism was to regard real-time strategy games as "cheap imitations" of turn-based strategy games, arguing that real-time strategy games had a tendency to devolve into "click-fests"<ref name=armchair>{{cite web |title=Theatre of War by 1C and Battlefront – Interview |publisher=Armchair General Magazine |url=http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?cat=59&p=2806&page=1 | access-date=June 2, 2007}}</ref><ref name=pcp>{{cite web | title =Point – CounterPoint: Turn Based vs. Real Time Strategy | publisher =[[Strategy Planet]] | date =June 27, 2001 | url =http://www.strategyplanet.com/features/articles/pcp-turnvsreal/ | access-date =April 5, 2007 | url-status =dead | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20070226185919/http://www.strategyplanet.com/features/articles/pcp-turnvsreal/ | archive-date =February 26, 2007 | df =mdy-all }}</ref><ref name=gspystrategy2>{{cite web | last =Walker | first =Mark | title =Strategy Gaming: Part II | publisher =GameSpy | url =http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/strategy02/ | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20100105182651/http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/strategy02/ | archive-date =January 5, 2010 | access-date=October 28, 2007}}</ref> in which the player who was faster with the [[computer mouse|mouse]] generally won, because they could give orders to their units at a faster rate.

The common retort is that success involves not just fast clicking, but also the ability to make sound decisions under time pressure.<ref name=pcp/> The "clickfest" argument is also often voiced alongside a "button babysitting" criticism, which pointed out that a great deal of game time is spent either waiting and watching for the next time a production button could be clicked, or rapidly alternating between different units and buildings, clicking their respective button.<ref name="babysitting">This mostly a concern with older RTS games that did not feature building queues, meaning that players would have to click the button to build a unit soon after it was completed. However, in some games where units have timed abilities that must be explicitly activated, for instance heroes in the real-time tactics game ''[[Mark of Chaos]]'' this is still a concern.</ref>

Some titles attempt to merge the two systems: for example, the role-playing game ''[[Fallout (video game)|Fallout]]'' uses turn-based combat and real-time gameplay, while the real-time strategy games ''Homeworld'', ''[[Rise of Nations]]'', and the games of the ''[[Total War (video game series)|Total War]]'' and ''[[Hegemony (video game series)|Hegemony]]'' series allow the player to pause the game and issue orders. Additionally, the ''Total War'' series has a combination of a turn-based strategy map with a real-time battle map. Another example of a game combining both turn-based game and real-time-strategy is ''[[The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-Earth II]]'' which allows players, in a 'War of the Ring' game, to play a turn-based strategy game, but also battle each other in real time.

====Tactics vs. strategy====
{{See also|Real-time tactics#Genre classification}}
A second criticism of the RTS genre is the importance of skill over strategy. The manual dexterity and ability to multitask and divide one's attention is often considered the most important aspect to succeeding at the RTS genre. According to Troy Dunniway, former Westwood developer who has also worked on ''[[Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars]]'': "A player controls hundreds of units, dozens of buildings and many different events that are all happening simultaneously. There is only one player, and he can only pay attention to one thing at a time. Expert players can quickly flip between many different tasks, while casual gamers have more problems with this."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dunniwaydesign.com/rts_design.htm |title=RTS Design |work=Aspects of real-time strategy |date=September 2007 |access-date=September 13, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927142342/http://www.dunniwaydesign.com/rts_design.htm |archive-date=September 27, 2007 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

Real-time strategy games have been criticized for an overabundance of tactical considerations when compared to the amount of strategic gameplay found in such games. According to [[Chris Taylor (game designer)|Chris Taylor]], lead designer of ''[[Supreme Commander (game)|Supreme Commander]]'': "[My first attempt at visualizing RTSs in a fresh and interesting new way] was my realizing that although we call this genre 'Real-Time Strategy,' it should have been called 'Real-Time Tactics' with a dash of strategy thrown in."<ref name=christaylor>{{cite web | last =Keefer | first =John | title =Supreme Commander Interview (PC) | publisher =GameSpy | date =July 8, 2005 | url =http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/supreme-commander/631678p1.html | access-date=November 4, 2007}}</ref> (Taylor then posits his own game as having surpassed this mold by including additional elements of broader strategic scope.)<ref name=christaylor/>

In general terms, [[military strategy]] refers to the use of a broad arsenal of weapons including diplomatic, informational, military, and economic resources, whereas [[military tactics]] is more concerned with short-term goals such as winning an individual battle.<ref name=gspytbsrts/> In the context of strategy video games, however, the difference is often reduced to the more limited criteria of either a presence or absence of base building and unit production.

In an article for ''[[Gamasutra]]'', Nathan Toronto criticizes real-time strategy games for too often having only one valid means of victory — [[attrition warfare|attrition]] — comparing them unfavorably to real-time tactics games. Players' awareness that the only way for them to win or lose is militarily makes them unlikely to respond to gestures of diplomacy. The result is that the winner of a real-time strategy game is too often the best tactician rather than the best strategist.<ref name="gama_toronto">{{cite web | last = Toronto | first = Nathan | title = The Future Of The Real-Time Strategy Game  | website = [[Gamasutra]]  | date = January 24, 2008  | url = https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/the-future-of-the-real-time-strategy-game  | access-date = February 2, 2010}}</ref> Troy Goodfellow counters this by saying that the problem is not that real-time strategy games are lacking in strategy (he says attrition is a form of strategy), rather it is that they too often have the same strategy: produce faster than you consume. He also states that building and managing armies is the conventional definition of real-time strategy, and that it is unfair to make comparisons with other genres.<ref name="gama_goodfellow">{{cite web | last = Goodfellow | first = Troy | title = The Future Of The RTS – A Counter-Opinion  | website = Gamasutra  | date = January 28, 2008  | url = http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17098  | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080130023216/http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17098  | url-status = dead  | archive-date = January 30, 2008  | access-date = February 2, 2010}}</ref>

In an article for ''[[GameSpy]]'', Mark Walker criticizes real-time strategy games for their lack of combat tactics, suggesting real-time tactics games as a more suitable substitute.<ref name=gspytbsrts/> He also says that developers need to begin looking outside the genre for new ideas in order for strategy games to continue to be successful in the future.<ref name=gspytbsrts_pvi>{{cite web | last =Walker | first =Mark | title =Strategy Gaming: Part VI – Where the Genre is Headed | publisher =GameSpy | url =http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/stratfinal/ | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20071030014041/http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/stratfinal/ | archive-date =October 30, 2007 |date = February 2002| access-date=February 13, 2010}}</ref>

This criticism has ushered into a couple of hybrid designs that try to resolve the issues. The games of the ''[[Total War (video game series)|Total War]]'' series have a combination of a (turn-based) strategy map with a (real-time) battle map, allowing the player to concentrate on one or the other. The games of the ''[[Hegemony (video game series)|Hegemony]]'' series also combine a strategy map and a battle map (in full real-time) and the player can at any point in time seamlessly zoom in and out in between both.

====Rushing vs. planning====
A third common criticism is that real-time gameplay often degenerates into "[[rush (video gaming)|rushes]]" where the players try to gain the advantage and subsequently defeat the opponent as quickly in the game as possible, preferably before the opposition is capable of successfully reacting.<ref name=ign_scvsdow>{{cite web | title =StarCraft vs Dawn of War | website =IGN | date =August 6, 2004 | url =http://pc.ign.com/articles/533/533146p1.html | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20090414092309/http://pc.ign.com/articles/533/533146p1.html | archive-date =April 14, 2009 | url-status =dead | access-date =December 1, 2007  }}</ref> For example, the original ''[[Command & Conquer]]'' gave birth to the now-common "tank rush" tactic, where the game outcome is often decided very early on by one player gaining an initial advantage in resources and producing large amounts of a relatively powerful but still quite cheap unit—which is thrown at the opposition before they have had time to establish defenses or production. Although this strategy has been criticized for encouraging overwhelming force over strategy and tactics, defenders of the strategy argue that they're simply taking advantage of the strategies utilized, and some argue that it is a realistic representation of warfare. One of the most infamous versions of a rush is the "Zergling rush" from the real-time strategy game ''[[StarCraft]]'', where the Zerg player would morph one of their starting workers (or the first one produced) into a spawning pool immediately and use all of their resources to produce Zerglings, attacking once they have enough to overwhelm any early defense; in fact, the term "zerging" has become synonymous with rushing.<ref name=bgeryk_gspot/>

Some games have since introduced designs that do not easily lend themselves to rushes. For example, the [[Hegemony (video game series)|''Hegemony'']] series made supply and (seasonal) resource management an integral part of its gameplay, thus limiting rapid expansion.