All my life in America, I've had access to video games. Many, many types. I've had one of those old cartridge-system Nintendos. I have a Gamecube. I have a Wii. I've played on a PS, PS2, and Xbox 360. And I own a PC. As a result, the games I have encountered vary widely.
Most of my young life, I've played strategy games. By 'strategy', I mean game where you control your separate economy, build your army, and are like the commander-in-chief of everything. It's a very removed style of gaming, and it gives you a big overview.
I have, however, played my fair share of 'shooters' as well. By that term I'm talking about third or first-person video games where you are down there and in the thick of it, battling your way out. It's a get-your-hands-dirty and slugfest type of game. And it's fun.
Which, some people ask, is better?
That is a very difficult thing to answer. What do you mean by 'better'? Do you mean more productive, or more fun? Or just more awesome in general?
Each type of game has its ups and downs. Strategy teaches you resource management more so than shooters. It gives you a 'big picture' experience where you can manage what happens and learn more about why our leaders make the choices they do. It teaches you tactical skill and military tactics.
Of course, shooters do this too-to a degree. Not as much as strategy. Shooters' main strength lie in developing hand-eye coordination and reflexes. They teach you a lot about what the guys on the front lines experience - admittedly, there's nothing like the real thing, but it gives you a vague feel. It develops your reactions to different things and your sense of everything around you.
Personally? I can't decide.
Yeah...sorry. I just like both of them. When I'm tired of being a mini god in strategy, I turn to a kick-butt career in shooter. They're both great, and I love 'em both.
No comments:
Post a Comment