Starcraft 2 is a strategy-intensive computer game

Thanks to Z-Dog for presenting his case and the readers for staying with us. This round is reserved for our cases, so I will rebut my opponent’s arguments next round. However, Con started off with a housekeeping issue, so I will address that now. In short, I reject Con’s new suggestion that Total War be our benchmark for “strategy-intensive” gameplay. If he wanted to have me use a specific comparative analysis in affirming the resolution, he needed to present that parameter in Round 1. As it stands, my only burden here is to prove StarCraft 2 involves “a lot of strategical thinking.”If, instead, Pro wanted to discuss certain strategic failings in StarCraft 2 when compared to Total War, he needed to explain these points in detail. Simply posting a link to a Total War website and expecting the audience and I to assume, explore, and judge differences independently is abusive and will not be entertained. What Makes A Game “Strategic?”A strategy refers to an overarching set of actions and plots meant to achieve some goal. Strategy games, then, are identified by their increased emphasis on player decision making and the implimentation of various tactics toward victory. Certain elements within such decision making help determine the extent to which strategy plays a role in a game. One relevant aspect is the number of options available to a player; the more possible choices one has per turn (e.g. what action to take, when, or where), the greater number of potential gameplay paths. The second aspect is the presence of planning opportunities; outcomes must be wholly or significantly impacted by player direction rather than luck or randomness. The final element involves demands on a player's attention; increasing the amount of items a player must attend to in order to understand the big picture of the game increases strategic complexity.From here it is easy to place games on a spectrum from low strategic intensity (e.g. tic tac toe - few options, little planning, low demand) to high intensity (e.g. chess - many options, extensive planning, high demand). Note that these classifications are based on the inherent rules and mechanics of the games themselves, not the skill of the players. Thus, I intend to demonstrate that regardless of what tactics a player uses in-game, StarCraft 2 is crafted such that it is necessarily strategy intensive. Player OptionsIn chess, players can start with 1 of 20 possible moves, with this number increasing dramatically as the game progresses and other pieces become freed. Similarly, in StarCraft 2, players begin with 5 workers and have the potential, through harvesting resources and traveling along a tech tree, to create an army 200 units strong [1]. With 3 diverse races to choose from [2][3][4], 13-15 unique unit types and 14-16 buildings per race available to construct [5][6], and dozens of special abilities and upgrades to unlock, the possible army and infrastructure combinations for players are innumerable. The existence of such a dynamic and complex framework alone constitutes a strategically intensive game, as navigating it to any extent requires specific and constant player choices. StarCraft 2 is not a static system, where decisions are made for you or options dwindle as pieces are taken or board spaces become occupied. Instead, it is a fluid, interactive battlefield where choices beget more choices and every available option is a subset of a potential strategy. Planning OpportunitiesAll decisions impacting a player in a game are either dictated by the game itself or by the player. In StarCraft 2, other than laying the framework for play, the game does not interfere in decision making whatsoever. Indeed, every action and event occurring in-game is player-directed, thus eliminating elements like luck, randomness, handicap, and bias. The result is a pure system, where only a player’s strategy and skill in implementing that strategy decide the outcome. This makes the game strategy intensive by definition; it cannot be played any other way. Attention DemandsIn StarCraft 2, players are literally on their own to control every element of their activity. This includes gathering resources, building workers, constructing factories, defending your base(s), creating an army, engaging in skirmishes, and constantly adapting to your opponent’s attempts to do all the same. As this is a real-time game, all combat, economic, and infrastructure decisions are made during active gameplay; only you are responsible for what does and does not get done at any given moment in your army.When a player has such total control over their own game dynamics, every decision they make, for better or worse, is a strategic one. That is because strategy does not refer to individual moves or tactics, but rather to the whole set of acts and ideas one utilizes in their effort to move forward. In a lesser game, that set may only involve a handful of game pieces. However, managing StarCraft’s huge amount of available options and possible plans while simultaneously controlling economic and production demands requires forethought, knowledge, and strategy that is...dare I say...intensive. No Such Thing As Low-Strategy StarCraftIf you suck at chess, does that mean the game of chess is not strategic? What about if you checkmate your opponent in two moves? Does that diminish the strategic intensity of chess in general? Obviously not, as the game and its mechanics exist independently of the player. In this way, no matter how someone plays StarCraft 2, they are working within a system where every action taken is included in a combined means through which they will either win or lose, also known as a strategy. When strategy is a necessary part of every aspect of a game, it is, by default, strategy-intensive.References1. http://us.battle.net...2. http://us.battle.net...3. http://us.battle.net...4. http://us.battle.net...5. http://us.battle.net...6. http://us.battle.net...