Current Events > Which genre takes more skill: Fighting games or Real-time strategy?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Fighting games:

Frame-precision accuracy
Pattern recognition
Extensive match-up knowledge

Real-time strategy:

Micro-management
Long-term set plays
Wide spatial awareness

Fighting games

Even my dumbass was able to eventually grasp Red Alert 3

---

They require different skill sets to be above average at.

Fighting games are more about twitch muscle reactions.

RTS games are more about grasping the logic and understanding the longer term impact of unit placement.

---

Fighting games. I can play various RTSes and beat them, yet it's been almost three decades and I haven't mastered most types of fighting games.
---

Anyone can eventually get good at RTS, not everyone has the dexterity to get good at fighting games.

---

Hop103 posted...

Fighting games. I can play various RTSes and beat them, yet it's been almost three decades and I haven't mastered most types of fighting games.

That makes no fucking sense.

So because you can "beat" RTS games that means they're easier than fighting games because you haven't "mastered" one of those?

There are different skillsets needed for both games, so the comparison isn't fair.

---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

Anyone can eventually get good at RTS, not everyone has the dexterity to get good at fighting games.

You can eventually get good at fighting games as well. In fact, it's even easier, because the patterns will stay the same so practice will make perfection... The thing is HOW LONG will it take.

There are a million things that can go differently in certain RTS games. Different strategies with different units that you need to adapt to mid-game.

Like I said, it's impossible to compare.

---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

Anyone can eventually get good at RTS, not everyone has the dexterity to get good at fighting games.

Different skillsets, but anyone can gain competence in either; at the highest levels, though, Starcraft 2 takes more APM than fighting games.

---

HagenEx posted...

You can eventually get good at fighting games as well. In fact, it's even easier, because the patterns will stay the same so practice will make perfection... The thing is HOW LONG will it take.

There are a million things that can go differently in certain RTS games. Different strategies with different units that you need to adapt to mid-game.

Like I said, it's impossible to compare.

Execution is just a fragment of what makes fighting games difficult, there's much more than that.

RTS.

one thing people don't really think much about is there's an early, mid and lategame for RTS whereas fighters are fought in rounds. screw up in round 1 and 2 and you still have pretty much the same exact chance of winning the match like you did at the beginning when the opponent wasn't up 2 rounds.

screw up early game in RTS and that'll carry itself into lategame and might even be the deciding factor on your loss.

also, a recent trend that adds to the "casualness" of fighters is the desperation skill or rage or whatever it's called(v-trigger in SF5).
basically dominate your opponent and they're rewarded with a much more powerful skill/attack than the regular stuff you both start out with which can turn the tide of battle.. SF5 has tons of comeback videos.

sure, it makes for more exciting matches especially to viewers but it's basically the fighting game equivalent of rubber band in driving games. it'll be like if a player in RTS suddenly got a cap imposed on his units if they did too well or the opponent gains access to a new, stronger unit if their base becomes too damaged etc.

of course, that's not a knock on fighters since the most skill-based genre isn't necessarily the most popular... traditional RTS isn't exactly a popular genre nowadays compared to the much more casual-friendly moba.

---

I love fighting games more than RTS games. And I'd say RTS.

Match up knowledge is even deeper and more varied and changing in rts than fighting games.

Also trying and failing a 1 frame link in fighting games is a gamble. The potentially steep losses to this randomness is not really what I would consider skill. (not even getting into the the grey areas of input/output methods: stick, pad, keyboard, hitbox, monitor lag, etc, which further make inputs potentially unreliable)
---

Notti posted...

Also trying and failing a 1 frame link in fighting games is a gamble. The potentially steep losses to this randomness is not really what I would consider skill. (not even getting into the the grey areas of input/output methods: stick, pad, keyboard, hitbox, monitor lag, etc, which further make inputs potentially unreliable)

What? Failing a 1 frame link is never a "gamble". If you missed it it's because you were not good enough, if you enter the input correctly you will always get it and it's never random.

I find RTS boring so its hard to say.

---

Skill ceiling is high as fuck on both, but RTS takes more time to get there, as well as any decision can end your game in the long run if made poorly
---

Oh, great. 800 Zergs all attacking my base at once. That's brilliant. That's what 6000 hours of gameplay has taught you? You should be proud. Great game.

---

Rigama posted...

What? Failing a 1 frame link is never a "gamble". If you missed it it's because you were not good enough, if you enter the input correctly you will always get it and it's never random.

Humans are not robots.

If I try to input a link and the frames have 0 frames to mess up (could be more than 0, but anyway) let's say I personally only have a 90% success rate of doing it. That's random. And crucial.
---

Fighting games are the epitome of competitive gaming

---

I find RTS to be far more demanding skill wise. A single game can last 30 minutes or longer, and one bad mistake on minute 4 can cause you to lose outright 30 minutes later.

Not only that, but RTS has a similar demand on inputs and enemy knowledge. Those are not specific to fighting games. Oftentimes the player that is faster at hotkeying buildings up and ordering units to attack/retreat/move around are the ones that will win. It's a very demanding skillset to play at the top levels just like fighting games, with a major difference being you're not just micromanaging one character with a single set of combat skills on screen for a minute, but rather dozens of units, all doing a variety of tasks, over 30 minutes.

The knowledge and skill required to build and maintain bases and order troops around is far more intensive, to me, then anything a fighting game has offered.

---

i want to say fighters, but my rts knowledge is limited as fuck...

---

I'd say fighting games. When you do bad in a fighting game you only have yourself to blame and most people aren't willing to do that. I think that is a skill by itself.

---

Notti posted...

Humans are not robots.

If I try to input a link and the frames have 0 frames to mess up (could be more than 0, but anyway) let's say I personally only have a 90% success rate of doing it. That's random. And crucial.

-90% isn't random. Random odds have no weight, all options are equal.
-Human error is intrinsic to most games. There are mislicks in RTS games.

---

Notti posted...

Humans are not robots.

If I try to input a link and the frames have 0 frames to mess up (could be more than 0, but anyway) let's say I personally only have a 90% success rate of doing it. That's random. And crucial.

No, you are in complete control of your character, it's not random, period. Of course it's difficult but practice makes perfect.

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

Anyone can eventually get good at RTS, not everyone has the dexterity to get good at fighting games.

RTS takes more dexterity imo

not that that makes it harder or anything but I feel like a lot of people overlook the "real-time" part of RTS

---

buddhamonster posted...

I find RTS to be far more demanding skill wise. A single game can last 30 minutes or longer, and one bad mistake on minute 4 can cause you to lose outright 30 minutes later.

Not only that, but RTS has a similar demand on inputs and enemy knowledge. Those are not specific to fighting games. Oftentimes the player that is faster at hotkeying buildings up and ordering units to attack/retreat/move around are the ones that will win. It's a very demanding skillset to play at the top levels just like fighting games, with a major difference being you're not just micromanaging one character with a single set of combat skills on screen for a minute, but rather dozens of units, all doing a variety of tasks, over 30 minutes.

The knowledge and skill required to build and maintain bases and order troops around is far more intensive, to me, then anything a fighting game has offered.

In a way, this can be interpreted an argument against RTS. It's been a while since I've followed SC2 pro leagues, but there are situations where properly executing starting strats are the sole factor in who wins and who loses, effectively a strenuous, dexterous, but rote single round of RPS.

---

They're both tough, but I'd say fighters take more skill because its less forgiving. You can make a mistake in an RTS and you have time to recover. Whiff an attack in some fighters and you're losing half to all of your health. There's no margin for error.

---

s0nicfan posted...

They're both tough, but I'd say fighters take more skill because its less forgiving. You can make a mistake in an RTS and you have time to recover. Whiff an attack in some fighters and you're losing half to all of your health. There's no margin for error.

I'd say just the opposite. You're free to come back from a knockdown, free to lose a round and win the set, or come back from the very last pixel of health. At the higher tiers in SC2, you don't really come back from a losing start.

---

I'd like to watch one of you starcraft nerds to have a 100% reliable spinning piledriver

*flexes*
---

s0nicfan posted...

They're both tough, but I'd say fighters take more skill because its less forgiving. You can make a mistake in an RTS and you have time to recover. Whiff an attack in some fighters and you're losing half to all of your health. There's no margin for error.

I mostly disagree. If I build the wrong buildings or upgrade the wrong units or whatever, that's resources I lose, resources which take time to gather and which I really need further down the line. It takes time to gather the resources, build the thing, demolish it, then I need to get another unit over there to build the thing I meant to build, further draining my resources and eating more of my precious time, and while this is going on, my opponent is building and preparing to attack me. If he comes in with twice the military units because I fucked up and built the wrong things in the opening moves, I will lose. Period.

Making a mistake in a RTS will kill you just as dead. Just because the pain comes 10 minutes after the mistake was made does not mean the mistake did not kill me.

---

I get what you're saying, but I was talking simpler things like misclicks or being slightly delayed in building a supply depot. Fundamentally screwing up your build order or building the wrong units against your opponent is a much bigger mistake. In terms of fighters, I'd compare that to picking a character that is fundamentally a bad match up against your opponent's character.

---

Meh. We're just going to get into a debate on the definition of randomness and determinism.

As far as I care, randomness and error are similar enough.

IMO, the 1 frame links are random(even pros drop links and combos) and much more crucial (comboing into a special move with terrible recovery, and you screwed up the link) and much more common than in RTS.

Many fighting games are almost built to have difficult inputs for the better attacks/combos. RTSs do not build in difficult inputs as a general rule. (which doesn't mean high level play doesn't have precise mouse use and keyboard actions, but it's much more an intentional design choice in many fighters. See SNK pretzel inputs)

In other words, I'm okay with calling 1 frame links gambles. (you can improve your odds, but even pros mess up their frame links)
---

fohstick posted...

Long-term set plays

fighting games kinda have this. For example, you can chose not to wake-up ex.DP for the entire game until the final round in order to condition your opponent to press buttons on your wake-up. The longer you don't ex.DP, the more likely your ex.DP will actually work.

---

Notti posted...

Meh. We're just going to get into a debate on the definition of randomness and determinism.

As far as I care, randomness and error are similar enough.

IMO, the 1 frame links are random(even pros drop links and combos) and much more crucial (comboing into a special move with terrible recovery, and you screwed up the link) and much more common than in RTS.

Many fighting games are almost built to have difficult inputs for the better attacks/combos. RTSs do not build in difficult inputs as a general rule. (which doesn't mean high level play doesn't have precise mouse use and keyboard actions, but it's much more an intentional design choice in many fighters. See SNK pretzel inputs)

No one in the NBA has a 100% free throw percentage, are free throws random?

Rigama posted...

No one in the NBA has a 100% free throw percentage, are free throws random?

In other words, I'm okay with calling 1 frame links gambles. (you can improve your odds, but even pros mess up their frame links)

So yes.
---

Notti posted...

Meh. We're just going to get into a debate on the definition of randomness and determinism.

As far as I care, randomness and error are similar enough.

IMO, the 1 frame links are random(even pros drop links and combos) and much more crucial (comboing into a special move with terrible recovery, and you screwed up the link) and much more common than in RTS.

Many fighting games are almost built to have difficult inputs for the better attacks/combos. RTSs do not build in difficult inputs as a general rule. (which doesn't mean high level play doesn't have precise mouse use and keyboard actions, but it's much more an intentional design choice in many fighters. See SNK pretzel inputs)

The single actions in an RTS are simple, but you have to do them at a higher frequency than any other genre. That's where the screwups of human error lie. By your definition, there's a gamble.

Also, while SNK's pretzel is plainly and intentionally difficult for the sake of difficulty, most of the inputs are designed just so they don't accidentally overlap with something else.

---

Notti posted...

In other words, I'm okay with calling 1 frame links gambles. (you can improve your odds, but even pros mess up their frame links)

So yes.

lmfao I'm done

As someone who has play a lot of fighting games and a lot of rts, and happens to suck horribly at both genres, I think rts is the harder one. Fighting is like sports. It takes skill yes. But rts is like something you have to learn and study like science or math. Fighting is like a blue collar game. Rts would be like a doctor or a scientist. It takes brains

Just cause you beat an rts single player campaign means nothing. Try going up against a pro gamer and you will get crushed. Pro rts gamers are very smart

Guide posted...

The single actions in an RTS are simple, but you have to do them at a higher frequency than any other genre. That's where the screwups of human error lie. By your definition, there's a gamble.

Everything is technically a gamble in how I view things. Theoretically a muscle spasm, a sneeze, or mechanical error in your keyboard could occur at that point, or internet lag, or some other distraction say a phone or doorbell.

This is true for all things.

The difference for me is the mis inputs in an RTS are not designed to be error prone though. And the mis inputs in a fighting game are often, and often designed to be catastrophic on failure.

1 frame link to a slow recovery special move as a combo or punish...
Success = great
Miss = you're screwed.

There's a skill component, but there is always a random element too. We're not robots. My original point is fighting games generally make input errors a higher chance on purpose, with catastrophic results. RTS games don't try to build that in. Even if there are more inputs per second. I don't feel this is a controversial view.

Like a missed Zangief spinning pile driver input might have you jump weirdly and do a non-strategic jumping punch. Or a SRK input instead gets a fireball. Or a missed SRK in a combo has terrible recovery.

Guide posted...

Also, while SNK's pretzel is plainly and intentionally difficult for the sake of difficulty, most of the inputs are designed just so they don't accidentally overlap with something else.

A lot of combos/links in modern fighting games are intentionally designed by the developers to be 1 frame links on purpose. (and the devs sometimes even alter things on purpose to make the links 2 or 3 frames at certain points in updates or sequels)
---

oh... probably neither.

---

Guide posted...

I'd say just the opposite. You're free to come back from a knockdown, free to lose a round and win the set, or come back from the very last pixel of health. At the higher tiers in SC2, you don't really come back from a losing start.

Those comebacks take an immense amount of focus.

---

AsucaHayashi posted...

RTS.

one thing people don't really think much about is there's an early, mid and lategame for RTS whereas fighters are fought in rounds. screw up in round 1 and 2 and you still have pretty much the same exact chance of winning the match like you did at the beginning when the opponent wasn't up 2 rounds.

screw up early game in RTS and that'll carry itself into lategame and might even be the deciding factor on your loss.

also, a recent trend that adds to the "casualness" of fighters is the desperation skill or rage or whatever it's called(v-trigger in SF5).
basically dominate your opponent and they're rewarded with a much more powerful skill/attack than the regular stuff you both start out with which can turn the tide of battle.. SF5 has tons of comeback videos.

sure, it makes for more exciting matches especially to viewers but it's basically the fighting game equivalent of rubber band in driving games. it'll be like if a player in RTS suddenly got a cap imposed on his units if they did too well or the opponent gains access to a new, stronger unit if their base becomes too damaged etc.

of course, that's not a knock on fighters since the most skill-based genre isn't necessarily the most popular... traditional RTS isn't exactly a popular genre nowadays compared to the much more casual-friendly moba.

I had forgotten about the comeback mechanics. CMs are exactly like that, the rubber banding for AI in racers. It does tend to obscure who should have won the match by making things much closer than it should have been.
---