How about a REAL game: StarCraft

[EarthBound]

As natural strategists, INTJ's like a dash of complexity to everything, even their entertainment.
So-
Who likes to play complicated strategy-oriented games such as StarCraft?
If not, what other sorts of games do you prefer?
Do they tend to be single player, or multiplayer?
Are you a competitive sort of person, or do you like co-op play more?

For example,
I happen to like skill-based strategy-involving games such as StarCraft, Super Smash Brothers, Advance Wars, Fire Emblem, Tetris, etc. Single player games make up most of my library, but the ones I keep coming back to are all competitive multiplayer games.

[Latro]

SC and SSBB amount to pretty much all I play anymore; the last thing I've played other than that (not counting Wii Sports and SSBM while some family was over) was Star Ocean: The Second Story, which I played over the summer; before that I think it was Tales of Vesperia, which I played last December. Unfortunately I'm not very good at SC; when, recently, I won on bnet in a random 1v1, I was thrilled, that is how infrequently I win*. (I admittedly have only recently shifted to 1v1, after playing mostly 2v2 with an RL friend of mine for ages, who is about the same skill level as me).

On the other hand, two of my friends play SSBB; I'm statistically considerably better than one, and about even with the other. I don't play in tournaments or anything; just with those two, and fairly recently with some cousins (who weren't very good at all; poor at dodging and nowhere near aggressive enough).

Other than games like these, I like turn-based strategy (I'd like to play some games of multiplayer Fall from Heaven 2, which is a Civilization IV mod) and RPGs, in particular JRPGs (though I think I'm starting to grow out of the exceedingly formulaic and non-interactive JRPG genre). If I could find the "right" MMO (I could write down the feature list needed, but would fail to come up with the proper ideas to implement it probably, if asked) I'd play the hell out of it. EVE Online is probably the closest relatively well-known game to what I'm thinking of, but EVE would still need quite a bit of modification to get to what I'm describing. In particular, it would need a combat overhaul that would probably force it to change to a non-scifi setting to be feasible with current computers.

*The following is an explanation of the match in question; not interesting at all to non-Starcraft players, and really not that interesting at all (it wasn't an especially atypical match, other than the fact that I won) unless you're interested in assessing my skill level. It's also kind of long.
Note that this should've been a thrashing; it was PvZ, the other guy 4 pooled (this is coming from the replay; I didn't know this at first due to crappy scouting) and failed miserably at his ling micro. The 4 pool should've ended it, frankly; I had no lots up yet when the lings first arrived, and my first lot popped just as he reached my probes. It didn't, though. I managed to fend off the ling rush. My lack of pressure then gave him a chance to attempt to build his econ, and he went muta. His first few muta attempts went pretty well; he cleaned out most of my main's probes, and later cleaned out most of my expansion's probes, and kept the harass up pretty well.

I split my goons between my bases and for the most part held off the mutas, though probes died each time (I had 2 probes pumping all the time after this). At one point I concluded "this isn't gonna work" and sent 6 or so otherwise-worthless lots at his expo....and essentially waltzed right in without issue, as well as seeing that his main was almost completely undefended (2 sunkens and a couple mutas). So I kept waves going while keeping goons at my base, sprinkled in some high templars, and knocked him down. In the end his fault was, looking at the replay, a failure to build hatcheries; he had only two hatcheries with two bases mining, and as such had like 3k mins near the end of the game. If those 3k mins had comprised a corresponding muta/ling army (say 15-20 mutas and 40-60 lings), I would've been toast.

[EarthBound]

You seem around my skill level in StarCraft, though I might be a bit better since I play fairly often. No claims though, since I probably haven't played you before.
(I win more than I lose.)

I used to play professional Melee, but I moved on to competitive Brawl+ because it makes things more balanced and challenging. I play a very aggressive Ness. I was actually the winner of the local GameStop tournament on Brawl release night.

Turn based strategy is very fun for me, and in that vein, I recommend the Final Fantasy Tactics series. I just cannot get into MMO's because social interaction is social interaction and If I wanted it badly enough to buy it, I'd go to a club. I like being able to accomplish something when I play, so being able to finish what I started is the main reason I stick to games that you can play in sessions rather than spend forever and an hour to toil through leveling up and dealing with annoying people who WOULD pay for a social game.

[Latro]

You seem around my skill level in StarCraft, though I might be a bit better since I play fairly often. No claims though, since I probably haven't played you before.
(I win more than I lose.)
I lose more than I win, on battle.net at least. So you're probably a lot better. My current account (I've had several due to even worse records in the past) is about 60-250 on battle.net.

I used to play professional Melee, but I moved on to competitive Brawl+ because it makes things more balanced and challenging. I play a very aggressive Ness. I was actually the winner of the local GameStop tournament on Brawl release night.
You're probably quite a bit better than me, then. I primarily play Meta Knight by the way, though I play a variety of characters (among friends after a while we tend to wind up just playing "random duels").
Turn based strategy is very fun for me, and in that vein, I recommend the Final Fantasy Tactics series.
I played FFTA and FFTA2 both pretty heavily. I didn't actually finish either.
I just cannot get into MMO's because social interaction is social interaction and If I wanted it badly enough to buy it, I'd go to a club. I like being able to accomplish something when I play, so being able to finish what I started is the main reason I stick to games that you can play in sessions rather than spend forever and an hour to toil through leveling up and dealing with annoying people who WOULD pay for a social game.
The MMO that I'm talking about would allow you to jump in, fight in a multi-player battle for maybe a couple hours, then log off, and over the span of several weeks or more this would culminate in one side or the other "winning" whatever objective (say a city conquest). This is just one of many such features.

[XFire35]

Yay Brawl. Don't laugh, but my favourite character is Zelda/Shiek, the combination of the two proves to be quite lethal.

[nowt]

I play 3-D Go with three players-- the 19x19x19 game takes a year-- either of the other two player's stones may be used -with- your own, to surround the other's.

Just kidding.

... but I dream.

[Latro]

Yay Brawl. Don't laugh, but my favourite character is Zelda/Shiek, the combination of the two proves to be quite lethal.
I use them fairly often. Nothing to laugh about; Din's Fire (I think that's what it's called) is amazing. Sheik is nowhere near as ridiculous as (s)he was in Melee, though.

[Kisai]

StarCraft is fun, but it's not a particularly complex game in the strategy department. I like to play humans though, their durability and nukes make it fun.

Try X-Com: UFO Defense if you would like an excellent strategy games. You will learn squad tactics or die trying. You'll also learn how to take out foes who can easily outpower you with puny humans.

[Latro]

StarCraft is fun, but it's not a particularly complex game in the strategy department. I like to play humans though, their durability and nukes make it fun.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A bit more complicated than you might think...though you're partially right, as a poor to decent player, most of what you wind up learning to do is like 2 build orders, one that you do normally, and one that you use when it looks like your opponent is going to counter your current one. (My current build order as Protoss for instance mostly consists of making zealots and dragoons, with a little bit of high templars added in. Occasionally against zerg I'll try a corsair build, and if that is especially successful I'll move into a sair+dt build. I don't do a whole lot else, though I ought to use reavers more often.)

As an advanced player though, you wind up needing to understand pretty much everything in that link.

[Synchronicity]

I agree that Starcraft lacks strategic depth. It's not a criticism, mind you; most games of its kind (RTS) aren't really that strategic, despite the name of the genre. They focus more on tactics. I don't enjoy them as much as true strategy games because too much relies on reflex, but the genre itself is sound.

I do like Starcraft, though. Newer RTSs really turn me off because of the recent interface reforms that have affected most of them, but the old style games like SC and C&C are still great fun.

[Necrosis]

I think the reason SC is so popular is because it isn't overkilled on the strategy side. It allows new players to enjoy their basic games while the advanced players come up with some unique strategies. I would get destroyed against anyone else but with friends we have a good time.

I can't wait for SC2!!

[Extremophile]

As natural strategists, INTJ's like a dash of complexity to everything, even their entertainment.

Hmm it's funny you should say this. Personally I haven't found that to be true. Probably because my job IS like a strategy game and takes all my brainpower during the day. So when I play games to relax they are usually something fun, adventure games: World of Warcraft, Fable, Pirates, etc. I rarely play strategy games because they make me very frustrated when I am already tired.
When it comes to watching TV, which I barely do, I DO need something science based, though.

[LoneReaction]

Same as Extremeophile, I prefer games that are, games. The latest Batman game is awesome XD

[EarthBound]

StarCraft is fun, but it's not a particularly complex game in the strategy department. I like to play humans though, their durability and nukes make it fun.

Try X-Com: UFO Defense if you would like an excellent strategy games. You will learn squad tactics or die trying. You'll also learn how to take out foes who can easily overpower you with puny humans.


I don't like the amount or micromanagement the humans have to deal with. (Burning buildings and repairing them drives me insane since I'm such a perfectionist and even 1 pt of damage in disrepair is unacceptable.) I tend to stick with the Zerg so I can focus less on the base management, and more on clever use of units. I haven't been able to use nukes very much against skilled players because they're very high on the tech tree, and easy to thwart. They're a cleanup or "area of denial" weapons at best... Which is sad... I can't wait to see what role they serve in SC2!

I'll check it out, I do love strategy games!
("Tactics" too, whatever challenges me.)

Yay Brawl. Don't laugh, but my favorite character is Zelda/Shiek, the combination of the two proves to be quite lethal.

That's fine, my main character is a young boy who beats up spiteful crows and steals their cookies. PK THUNDER mindgames FTW (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Hmm it's funny you should say this. Personally I haven't found that to be true. Probably because my job IS like a strategy game and takes all my brainpower during the day. So when I play games to relax they are usually something fun, adventure games: World of Warcraft, Fable, Pirates, etc. I rarely play strategy games because they make me very frustrated when I am already tired.
When it comes to watching TV, which I barely do, I DO need something science based, though.

It is interesting that you go for the simpler ones, I do wonder though-
Do they have you coming back for more, or do you play them and move on?

I play all sorts of games, but it's only the ones that challenge me to get better that I find myself coming back to years after I first played them.

(Granted I also love coming back to simple racing games now and then, so I see where you're coming from.)

StarCraft does have quite a bit more strategic elements as you get better, though turn based strategy games and their ilk are definitely very strategic. I completely agree there.

Same as Extremeophile, I prefer games that are, games. The latest Batman game is awesome XD

I take it you mean the Batman Arkham Asylum game?
I haven't had a chance to play it, but I love Batman and think it looks incredibly fun.
The somewhat predatory aspect of picking off enemies and weaving panic amongst them greatly appeals to me.

[DewFuel]

Here here to the greatest strategy game created.

StarCraft is fun, but it's not a particularly complex game in the strategy department. I like to play humans though, their durability and nukes make it fun.

Try X-Com: UFO Defense if you would like an excellent strategy games. You will learn squad tactics or die trying. You'll also learn how to take out foes who can easily outpower you with puny humans.

I would disagree with that. I used to play competitively in 2005-2008 (tournaments, WCG, league and team play) and the initial depth of starcraft is not realized by even mediocre players. It is a shame to dismiss the complexity of the game, because its really deep.

Yes, it does have rock paper scissors game mechanics, but that is only one aspect. There is a huge amount of psychological strategy. "Do I let my enemy scout me and then trick him?" "Do I not let him scout me and keep him in the dark?" is one of the more common themes in higher levels of play. Some games can be extremely decisive (especially early game) just by tricking your opponent into a false sense of security.

When one gets even more experienced, building placement, monitoring the opponents mineral and gas output, unit placement, frequency of their scouting, your scouting, etc... all factor into how the game is approached.

The game also encourages split second decision making to take advantage of a situation.

Here's an example of misdirection leading to a win in mere minutes. Most beginners / mediocre players will not even think twice about the situation, and yet at higher levels of play, its a red flag that one can exploit:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

the terran "fake" fast expands. this gives the zerg a false sense of security and thinks the terran blew 400 minerals on a command center. so naturally, the zerg would halt unit production (why make units when you don't need them and can focus on other aspects of the game), and gets caught with his pants down.


here's another example of misdirection that just makes me all warm and tingly inside:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

i haven't seen this kind of ingenuity being rewarded in ANY RTS game. everything is so dry compared to these last two videos. and the fact that this happens so often in higher levels of play keeps the game very interesting. assuming your opponent is as clever as you, there are so many things to keep track that the amount of understanding and strategy involves easily dwarfs any RTS game made since.

[EarthBound]

DewFuel is very right.
True strategy is created, not spoon-fed to you via game mechanics.
It takes cunning to master the game, and it is this wit that makes it entertaining enough for huge crowds of people to watch the game as if it were a sport.

[LoneReaction]

I take it you mean the Batman Arkham Asylum game?
I haven't had a chance to play it, but I love Batman and think it looks incredibly fun.
The somewhat predatory aspect of picking off enemies and weaving panic amongst them greatly appeals to me.

Yup. It's awesome, I think I'll start a thread on it! =X

[admittedheretic]

I totally respect StarCraft, but a RTS isn't the most competitive/testerone driven game.

First person shooters like Counter Strike and the Quake series make StarCraft seem like chess compared to fighter jet dog fights in my opinion.

[Latro]

I totally respect StarCraft, but a RTS isn't the most competitive/testerone driven game.

First person shooters like Counter Strike and the Quake series make StarCraft seem like chess compared to fighter jet dog fights in my opinion.
...I'm sorry, you failed here. There are videos that swarm around YouTube where thousands of South Koreans come to see the pro StarCraft players play. Seriously, StarCraft is to South Korea as football is to America, basically. You can't really call it tremendously less competitive. Less competitive, perhaps. Tremendously so, hell no.

Also, testosterone-driven? Why exactly should anyone care about a video game being or not being testosterone-driven?

[Kisai]

Here here to the greatest strategy game created.



I would disagree with that. I used to play competitively in 2005-2008 (tournaments, WCG, league and team play) and the initial depth of starcraft is not realized by even mediocre players. It is a shame to dismiss the complexity of the game, because its really deep.



The same argument can be made for poker, which a kajillion books, movies, and games have been written, analyzed and discussed. But poker, too, is not a terribly strategic game.

Really, any game (except for exceptionally stupid ones like Candyland) can be cherished and made terrifically complex and psychologically intense by the players, because human beings are behind the game, and human beings are the greatest game there is.

I like to play StarCraft and other RTS'es but after a while, a prime strategy is reached and all that's left is refining micromanagement and optimizing damage per second.

[Latro]

I like to play StarCraft and other RTS'es but after a while, a prime strategy is reached and all that's left is refining micromanagement and optimizing damage per second.
And metagame, which is constantly evolving. That is what has kept SC alive, imo.

[admittedheretic]

...I'm sorry, you failed here. There are videos that swarm around YouTube where thousands of South Koreans come to see the pro StarCraft players play. Seriously, StarCraft is to South Korea as football is to America, basically. You can't really call it tremendously less competitive. Less competitive, perhaps. Tremendously so, hell no.

Also, testosterone-driven? Why exactly should anyone care about a video game being or not being testosterone-driven?

You aren't telling me anything I don't know about how popular it is. I have some friends who are religious about it. What do you know about Counter Strike or Quake?

Competitive really isn't the right word for what we are talking about. I'm not sure what the right one is, but maybe a more accurate way to explain it is StarCraft is like Indy Car racing while CS/Quake is like Fighter Jet Dog fights, but that still is just my opinion.

Competition has everything to do with testosterone.

[Nameless]

I only play Guild Wars. It's not the best by far, but I like it's simplicity and fact you don't have to pay to play online. I would try GvG but I am not the best at keyboards and reaction times. Why I play Mesmer. Fast casting.

[Latro]

You aren't telling me anything I don't know about how popular it is. I have some friends who are religious about it. What do you know about Counter Strike or Quake?

Competitive really isn't the right word for what we are talking about. I'm not sure what the right one is, but maybe a more accurate way to explain it is StarCraft is like Indy Car racing while CS/Quake is like Fighter Jet Dog fights, but that still is just my opinion.

Competition has everything to do with testosterone.
I'm really, really not seeing your point.

[Amphorian]

I agree with one or two other posters; RTS games aren't that 'strategic' because they lack real world inconsistencies. RTS is tactics and can get quite boring so to speak. I myself prefer RPGs or RPGMMOs because they have more elements, variables, endings and surprises. They keep you on your toes and constantly thinking while in a real time environment. RTS might have some of these attributes but not enough. I can actually see INTPs prefering RTS more so then INTJs. More so and nothing is true for everyone of course, but yeah.

I do of course play RTS and dungeon games and so did my father (ENTJ) but the preference is stronger towards RPGs or at times more linear games that have secrets to them.

[EarthBound]

I actually know two INTP's who like StarCraft and consider it to be one of the greatest PC games ever made, so I'd see where you're coming from Amphorian. My neighbor is an ENTJ (Kind of a Captain Awesome personality) and he loves the game, but prefers RPG's and MMORPG's. So I've seen what you're saying firsthand.

I think my love for StarCraft comes from the fact that I WONT win every time and it is a challenge for me to out-think the other person, and play a bit of mind games. I'm a long term thinker so when the game challenges me to make snap decisions I get some practice doing that, and I like that element of self-improvement.

Sure, more often than not, 1 zealot can kill 2 zerglings, but the part that appeals to me is the aspect of, my opponent sees I have 2 zerglings, he is focused on this and thinks he has me beat early on, so he moves to attack, feeling pretty confident...while I go around behind his base with 2 lurkers and destroy his economy.

Also, to the guy who said StarCraft is like car racing, I'd disagree, because racing is all about the machine, not the driver. StarCraft is a bit more like playing modified chess with remote-controlled Legos. You're fairly right about FPS's and dogfights though. They're both essentially running around in circles (If Halo, include hopping) shooting at each other and victory goes to whoever can hold their crosshairs on the opponent best.

[eagleseven]

I am quite tired of the entire RTS genre, honestly. There are too few possibilities in too short a time span...you never get beyond short-term planning.

What surprises me is that you have failed to mention both grand-strategy and wargaming. In particular, the Hearts of Iron series makes Starcraft seem anemic, in terms of strategic planning.

Although daunting, a single HoI game can take you upwards of a month to complete, and decisions made in Week 1 will dramatically affect your game by Week 4.

To give you an idea of scale, the average Nazi army will consist of 400+ divisions. Each division is made up of 5 brigades, with a selection of about 30 different brigade types. Each brigade has a total of about 20 statistics, affected by 4-8 types of equipment (rifle, gun bore, engine quality, torpedo type, etc.) and 3-5 doctrinal types (blitzkrieg vs. elastic defense vs. people's war, etc.).

Each brigade requires industrial capacity and manpower to build, officers to mobilize, and a constant supply of fuel and supplies in order to function.

Add to that complex diplomacy, espionage, research, political, and economic models, and you have a hardcore strategy game. A game truly worthy of the INTJ mind.

I suggest you give it a try...arguably the most complex strategy game ever designed. Just learning how to play the game is an accomplishment in itself.

Hearts Of Iron 3 Release Teaser Trailer (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





eagleseven added to this post, 14 minutes and 13 seconds later...

If that's a bit too hardcore for your tastes, a happy medium would be Civilization IV. I don't think that game needs much of an introduction ;) (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Yeah, I've lost weeks to that game...

[Cygnus]

I actually know two INTP's who like StarCraft and consider it to be one of the greatest PC games ever made, so I'd see where you're coming from Amphorian. My neighbor is an ENTJ (Kind of a Captain Awesome personality) and he loves the game, but prefers RPG's and MMORPG's. So I've seen what you're saying firsthand.

I think my love for StarCraft comes from the fact that I WONT win every time and it is a challenge for me to out-think the other person, and play a bit of mind games. I'm a long term thinker so when the game challenges me to make snap decisions I get some practice doing that, and I like that element of self-improvement.

Sure, more often than not, 1 zealot can kill 2 zerglings, but the part that appeals to me is the aspect of, my opponent sees I have 2 zerglings, he is focused on this and thinks he has me beat early on, so he moves to attack, feeling pretty confident...while I go around behind his base with 2 lurkers and destroy his economy.

Also, to the guy who said StarCraft is like car racing, I'd disagree, because racing is all about the machine, not the driver. StarCraft is a bit more like playing modified chess with remote-controlled Legos. You're fairly right about FPS's and dogfights though. They're both essentially running around in circles (If Halo, include hopping) shooting at each other and victory goes to whoever can hold their crosshairs on the opponent best.

As a gamer myself, I see no real need to elevate a game I enjoy and try to sell as something superior to anything else people enjoy. As several have pointed out, Starcraft is more tactical, not so much strategic. Speed of implentation is key. Not everyone can react and control things as quickly as others, so you might have a superior plan, you just cannot properly control everything to make it successful. I would say INTJ as a whole dislike having to micromanage things...Starcraft has tons of micromanaging....Starcraft is a fine game, but it is not the apex of everyone's gaming experience. I suppose I will continue to enjoy games that are not REAL games...

[DewFuel]

I like to play StarCraft and other RTS'es but after a while, a prime strategy is reached and all that's left is refining micromanagement and optimizing damage per second.

Not really.

dps is almost a non-factor in most strategies. It's more about "when" and "where" an attack occurs, rather than how much damage it does.

It all really depends on your play style, and how you want to approach the game. There are multiple viable strategies in the beginning game that open up to different strategies in the mid to end game.

[d3molitionMayne]

Starcraft and the Smash Bros are pretty big-time games, imo. If you want to get into the biggest competitive console game at the moment though, it's without a doubt Halo 3.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Latro]

I am quite tired of the entire RTS genre, honestly. There are too few possibilities in too short a time span...you never get beyond short-term planning.

What surprises me is that you have failed to mention both grand-strategy and wargaming. In particular, the Hearts of Iron series makes Starcraft seem anemic, in terms of strategic planning.

Although daunting, a single HoI game can take you upwards of a month to complete, and decisions made in Week 1 will dramatically affect your game by Week 4.

To give you an idea of scale, the average Nazi army will consist of 400+ divisions. Each division is made up of 5 brigades, with a selection of about 30 different brigade types. Each brigade has a total of about 20 statistics, affected by 4-8 types of equipment (rifle, gun bore, engine quality, torpedo type, etc.) and 3-5 doctrinal types (blitzkrieg vs. elastic defense vs. people's war, etc.).

Each brigade requires industrial capacity and manpower to build, officers to mobilize, and a constant supply of fuel and supplies in order to function.

Add to that complex diplomacy, espionage, research, political, and economic models, and you have a hardcore strategy game. A game truly worthy of the INTJ mind.

I suggest you give it a try...arguably the most complex strategy game ever designed. Just learning how to play the game is an accomplishment in itself.

Hearts Of Iron 3 Release Teaser Trailer (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





eagleseven added to this post, 14 minutes and 13 seconds later...

If that's a bit too hardcore for your tastes, a happy medium would be Civilization IV. I don't think that game needs much of an introduction ;) (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Yeah, I've lost weeks to that game...
The downside of what you just described is that a game like that is effectively unplayable in multiplayer. Civ IV is playable in multiplayer, though it's a little daunting to organize it can be done.

[EarthBound]

I suppose I will continue to enjoy games that are not REAL games...
You misunderstood me, I mean that this is thread is about real games rather than just a "game" thread. In particular, I wanted to mention StarCraft. I can see where this could be confused.

I'm actually most interested in getting to know what genres of games people prefer to play.

[Travis]

To me, Starcraft is too much multitasking and too little strategy. it comes down to how many actions you can do per minute.

I prefer Multiplayer games (actually exclusively multiplayer). Unless its a chess game. I like the unpredictability and limitless options multiplayer has to offer.

My favorite game to play so far has been World of Warcraft... it has such a huge player base (11 million i think?) and I play with my friends which makes it even better. There are rewards for placing the the top 0.5% of the teams (since there are about 20000 per realm group, its about the top 100) With Warcraft, there are so many possibilities, arrangements of teams, and not to mention that there are no bots makes for the most competitive gameplay i've ever witnessed. I'm able to look past some of its shortcomings, like sometime unbalanced gameplay, because if you are good enough you can beat any different team.

Also, I play Halo 3... The only problem I have with it is the lack of a true ranking system or and rewards beyond armor styles for doing well. There is no customization, which makes the game balance, but sometimes boring (especially if you play it a lot)

Rainbow Six Vegas is also a great game... very balanced but the progression system takes too long and there is no real competitive player base. So for now I'm sticking with WoW.

I guess I kind of strayed from your original topic, sorry.

[Latro]

To me, Starcraft is too much multitasking and too little strategy. it comes down to how many actions you can do per minute.
Eh, not quite. There's a reason why the Koreans whose apm are around 300 have periods where they win or lose. That reason involves the strategy. The annoying thing is how much it depends on apm at lower levels, and that's something that is unpleasant to train. Really, though, with 70 or so apm, you can be mediocre if you know what you're doing. You can also suck if you don't. It's not all apm (though if you're below 50-60 apm you're just screwed).