This posting is both a follow up to a rant I posted on Dailyrush.dk (sorry it is in Danish) and a question Mike asked of me on his blog.
The easy answer is of course: whatever you think is fun playing. But that answer is just too easy. I won't go into details about many different type of games, because I think it is obvious that some games are story driven and you pick them up to play for a while and that is it. But other games are games you pick up to play for years. I am not into first person shooters myself and I am also confused by the enthusiasm for the grind offered by MMORPGs today. So this is about strategy games.
When I was a small child no one had computers at home and I played board games. I even played chess in a club during my high school years (and no, you don't pick up girls there). For me strategy games with no real time part of it, was the start. Over the years I've played and liked Dune2, Warcraft 1,2 & 3, Dark Reign 1 & 2, Total Annihilation, Total Annihilation: Kingdoms, Age of Empires, Command and Conquer (In different versions, Tiberian Sun stank), Dawn of War, Red Alert and of course Starcraft.
I must admit that there are newer strategy games out that I probably should have tried, but some of them require quite modern hardware and I don't update my rig as often as I used too. Finally I realized that Blizzard knew how to do good strategy games and that mastering one game was more interesting, than sucking at a new one.
So what makes a good real time strategy game? A fine balance between arcade style action, economy and map control. And most importantly a community of enthusiastic players around your own skill level.
Starcraft has all the first aspects and only due to its age is lacking the last. The game it self has big bright units that are easily identifiable and reasonably easy to click on. Realism is sacrificed in favor of units of clearly defined roles. The game has a timeline, that changes the game as you tech up from basic units to more advanced ones and so on. Other games has of course had a similar system, but few others have had quite the board game like simplicity that Starcraft have, combined with the endless possibilities that the different special skills and upgrades that Starcraft offers.
You can study game openings like in chess and have to balance your time between different aspects of the game at the same time. If you suck, like I do, this might be a bit too much and maybe the game would benefit some if it was slower, but over all Starcraft balances these aspects better than any games in the above list.
But games are hard to learn, and if you are older than 15, your reflexes might not quite be up to the level required to play. There are techniques to help you improve, but maybe you don't want to invest your time in that? I can understand that and then maybe it is better for you to play one of the newer games where - at least the first 3 months after release - everyone sucks and you can get the thrill of winning. I don't deny the attraction of that, but I don't think it offers the same level of satisfaction as learning something at a deeper level.
I look forward to Starcraft II because it will give me that cheap satisfaction and hopefully an infusion of newer players. I actually like Blizzard's plan to release 2 sequels as I think it will keep the casual gamers online for a longer stretch of time and bring innovation to the game after it is released. But at the same time I hope my Starcraft: Brood War skills will carry over and that I can get to that next level of understanding in Starcraft II.