ID:154131
 
What do you think is more exciting? Action games or Strategy games?

I was just wondering what everyone thinks
WildBlood wrote:
What do you think is more exciting? Action games or Strategy games?

I was just wondering what everyone thinks

Hmm, thats a stupid question.

Gah...I accidently hit post.

What that meant was, there is no superior game genre...
In response to Sariat
Thats un true it is a good quest because some people find games others find fun boring. What my question was was WHAT DO people find more exciting Action games or stategy, i didnt ask what is superior.
WildBlood wrote:
What do you think is more exciting? Action games or Strategy games?

I was just wondering what everyone thinks

Excitement is visceral reaction, usually things that would pump adrenaline. Thus an action game is by definition more exciting--but not necessarily more stimulating. If you're asking which kind of game makes people more enthusiastic about playing it, then I don't know; it probably depends a lot on the player.

Lummox JR
In response to WildBlood
WildBlood wrote:
Thats un true it is a good quest because some people find games others find fun boring. What my question was was WHAT DO people find more exciting Action games or stategy, i didnt ask what is superior.

what sarit said is very true "there is no superior game genre". Everyone has there own ideals in a game some think stategy is more exciting other will think action is.
In response to Xzar
If anyone actually Read my message they would notice the "what do YOU think" within it, appearntly everyon is reading it as "What is better" which is not what i asked
In response to WildBlood
WildBlood wrote:
If anyone actually Read my message they would notice the "what do YOU think" within it, appearntly everyon is reading it as "What is better" which is not what i asked

As I posted, the question of which is more exciting isn't a matter of opinion because action games are more exciting by definition. However, as to which game type captures the interest of the player or generates enthusiasm, I don't know--those will vary by opinion.

Lummox JR
In response to Lummox JR
Action games do not mean more exciting by definiton. All action refers to is is movement, usually fast, doesnt mean the game will be exciting.
In response to WildBlood
WildBlood wrote:
Action games do not mean more exciting by definiton. All action refers to is is movement, usually fast, doesnt mean the game will be exciting.

Yes it does, because excitement refers to visceral reaction; a strategy game may be scintillating, even fascinating, but not really exciting as such. A good game of chess won't get your blood pumping anywhere near what volleyball would, for example.

I think what you really mean to ask about isn't excitement, but something related.

Lummox JR
In response to Lummox JR
So what your stating is a game has to be ACTION in order to be exciting? So a shoot'em'up game, which isnt classed as action. Is not an exciting game? niether is a stategy game with battles that require fast thinking and quick movement? i dont think so. Action just refers to how the game is and not how exciting it is.
In response to WildBlood
WildBlood wrote:
So what your stating is a game has to be ACTION in order to be exciting? So a shoot'em'up game, which isnt classed as action. Is not an exciting game?

Of course a shoot-'em-up is an action game. How could it not be?

niether is a stategy game with battles that require fast thinking and quick movement?

That would skip into the crossover realm of action-strategy, that has elements of both genres. Your question was geared toward considering one genre or the other.

i dont think so. Action just refers to how the game is and not how exciting it is.

Action is essentially the speed of gameplay. There have been unexciting action games to be sure, but for a game to be exciting it has to have the kind of fast pace of an action game.

Lummox JR
In response to Lummox JR
Action is essentially the speed of gameplay. There have been unexciting action games to be sure, but for a game to be exciting it has to have the kind of fast pace of an action game.

Once again i dis-agree, a game does not have to be Action or FAST to be exciting, TBS type games can be exciting cause of the wait to see what happens next. And shooting games are thier own genre now since there is so many of them.

(Wow this is a fun yet pointless debate, *waits for next*)
In response to WildBlood
WildBlood wrote:
Once again i dis-agree, a game does not have to be Action or FAST to be exciting, TBS type games can be exciting cause of the wait to see what happens next. And shooting games are thier own genre now since there is so many of them.

Turn-based strategy games may be fun, but the excitement isn't there unless they manage to be face-paced enough to keep it going. The experience of a strategy game is a different kind of enjoyment.

And shooting games may well be their own genre (actually, I'd argue there are several genres), but it's a sub-genre of action games, so my point on that still stands.

Lummox JR
In response to Lummox JR
"the question of which is more exciting isn't a matter of opinion because action games are more exciting by definition. "

That was your opinion in your earlier message yet..

"Action is essentially the speed of gameplay. There have been unexciting action games to be sure, but for a game to be exciting it has to have the kind of fast pace of an action game."

First you said Action is just defined as exciting, then you said Action is speed of the game. Now it seems to me you have to different definitions for the same word. Also in your second quote you stated that "there have been unexciting action games" yet if "action games are more exciting by definition." arent you just contradicting yourself

~WildBlood~
In response to WildBlood
WildBlood wrote:
"the question of which is more exciting isn't a matter of opinion because action games are more exciting by definition. "

That was your opinion in your earlier message yet..

I didn't state that as an opinion. That's an argument to establish a factual point.

"Action is essentially the speed of gameplay. There have been unexciting action games to be sure, but for a game to be exciting it has to have the kind of fast pace of an action game."

First you said Action is just defined as exciting, then you said Action is speed of the game. Now it seems to me you have to different definitions for the same word.

You've misread what I said. I never said action games are defined as exciting; I said that the excitement level derives from the pace of the game, and since action games are faster, then by the definition of both terms action games are more exciting than strategy. Generally speaking, anyway.

Also in your second quote you stated that "there have been unexciting action games" yet if "action games are more exciting by definition." arent you just contradicting yourself

Again, no, because I wasn't defining action games the way you misread it. I was, however, defining them by the "second" definition you quoted. I just didn't make that definition explicitly in my earlier posts.

Note the key word "more" in the quote:

"...action games are more exciting [than strategy games] by definition."

That doesn't say all action games are exciting or that it's a defining characteristic; the definition I refer to in the quote is the definition of excitement. (Where I did define action games was later on, in saying that by comparing the two genres, most action games are faster paced and thus generally more exciting.) My contention all along has been that you're a bit off with the definition of excitement: That is, I think you meant something that means close to the same thing in terms of how a game picks up player interest, but you didn't specifically mean excitement as such--it was just the word that came most readily to mind.

Lummox JR
In response to Lummox JR
No im not off on what im trying to say my question was simple what do you find more exciting, action or strategy games. I didnt ask what is more fun or addictive, or anything else. Simply what was more exciting. And yes any game genre can be exciting, even mind/puzzle games can be. All that excitiment is, is a emotional reponse from something.
In response to WildBlood
WildBlood wrote:
No im not off on what im trying to say my question was simple what do you find more exciting, action or strategy games. I didnt ask what is more fun or addictive, or anything else. Simply what was more exciting. And yes any game genre can be exciting, even mind/puzzle games can be. All that excitiment is, is a emotional reponse from something.

Excitement is a specific emotional response, similar to an adrenaline rush (and sometimes accompanied by just that), which is elicited primarily by fast-paced play. A mind/puzzle game can therefore only be exciting if it's fast-paced.

Once again, I submit that you're not defining excitement correctly; another word would better fit what you're trying to say. You're not looking at fun, I know, but at some kind of overall stimulation--excitement is a component of that, but not the whole. So the answer to your intended question is open to considerable differences in opinion, but as phrased, there can only be one answer.

Lummox JR
*reads off of some of his game packaging*

Action/Strategy
Action Strategy
Roleplaying
Action/Strategy

Uh, you tell me. I like my games to allow me to be a thiefy/sneaky character, as well as many other things. The Fallout series lets me do this, and it holds a sense of tacticalness to the battles. "Hmm, should I rush in the front, sneak through the back, or pick them off from a distance?" Commandos 2 allows me to be stealthy and use tactics as well, seeing that is the point of the game. I love it. Baldur's Gate 2 isn't much of a strategy game, but I just love to make different characters, with different personalities and other cool stuff.

Summary: It depends on the player. I like 3 things in games: Customization, strategy, action.
Heh, I just love how these debates start over something as trivial as the definition of "exciting". In any case, I do agree with Lummox (however unnecessary the debate was =P) that "exciting" isn't the best word to use. =)

A better question might have been "Which genre do you find more stimulating?" -- stimulation can occur on both mental and physical levels; mental for strategy, physical for action. Other good words might have been "interesting" or "engaging". But enough pointless literary banter.


To answer that revised question myself:

Nothing like a good think now and then, but even so, a good ol' adrenaline rush from time to time is oh-so-worth-it.

In my case, I prefer strategy games over action games online, because I'm not one who likes competition with other people on a reflex level, even if I win some of the time. I also don't like strategy games that have a little "scale" of balance that, once it is tipped in one direction, it keeps going that way and takes monumental (or even impossible) effort to tip it back. In other words, I like games that let the people that are getting their butts kicked to get little bonuses to tip the scales back in their direction. Not surprisingly, I like games that have no real end to them -- perpetual decision making, in a sense.

However, I have nothing against playing competitive games, in which there can only be one winner (or one winning side), if they're impersonal; that is, I have no idea who is shooting at me, and who I'm shooting at -- all I know is that they're the enemy. I suspect the same "nothing-wrong-with-it-if-it's-impersonal" is true for people in real-life military combat, too, though there's the additional aspect of morality they have to think about, whereas in computer games it's just simulated so there's no moral dilemma.

In single-player, however, I like both action and strategy equally. I like outthinking the computer, even though it's definitely in my favour. And when thinking fails and it comes down to a firefight, the kid gloves come off and the AI had better run. =)
Here's a more relevant question: If pizza is your favorite food, followed by pancakes, would you rather have a really good pancake or a really bad pizza?
Page: 1 2