Why is no one here correcting me? These are terrible definitions I've come up with! Soccer is a system of clear rules and many objects. (I am referring to soccer simulation videogames, not the real sport. Real soccer wouldn't qualify because you're not controlling enough objects.) I don't think it's a strategy game. And what about most card games? Just because you don't see all the objects (as you don't in, say, Stratego) doesn't mean it's not a system of clear rules and many objects.
And the RPG definition's got an omission: action-RPGs where the battles don't have strategy. I'm not talking about action games like Castlevania or Diablo, which clearly aren't RPGs. I'm talking about games which follow all the RPG conventions except having any form of strategy in their battles.
On second thought, that's not much of a problem. Can I say that those games aren't really RPGs?
But there's still the definition of strategy. Pesky, pesky.
I can't say that it's a game that requires strategy, because you can play any strategy game without strategy. You just won't be good at it. And if you say that it "requires strategy to excel", then so many other types of games have to be brought up (like action games), in which advanced strategies can be useful.
I can't say that it's a game that allows strategy, because almost everything allows you to plan ahead, whether or not it has any impact on gameplay.
Come to think of it, are team sports games just really fast-paced strategy games? I've never played any for a significant amount of time, so I wouldn't know exactly how it works. But aren't you moving all your players around the map? How is it not Real-Time Strategy?
|
