Fictional War vs. Historical War in RTS Games: A Tactical Showdown

[Battlemind]

When you play RTS games based on war mechanics, you can either dive into epic conflicts based on historical periods (either loosely based or historically accurate) or purely imaginative wars. Historical war games, like Company of Heroes, deliver gritty realism, showcasing real-world strategies and battles. Where as fictional wars, like StarCraft II, explore boundless creativity with futuristic units and alien factions. By the way what do you like most?

 

[IronFist]

I prefer the historical wars because they are real and they take us down the history lane. Most wars I read about in books, I can imagine how they went when I play related games.

 

[Blitz]

Yeah, the historical and fictional war RTS games are quite different from each other in a lot of ways and this constributes to their unqieness. The Games Company of Heroes is an example and I tell you that it feels much more realistic, as opposed to fictional games like the StarCraft II. So, what I am saying is that they are different and the choice depends on the preferences of the individual.

 

[MX75]

That's a good comparison between real historical war and fictional war RTS games. Each type provides us with different types of experience. Games like Company of Heroes are as historical as it gets while those like StarCraft II are completely fictional. Personally, I have no issue with either of the two because, well, it means that there is always something for everyone.