Which requires more skill FPS or RTS?

I heard some people discussing different kinds of games. :) This is what I heard;

The argument is as follows, One feels that First Person Shooters require more skill from a player.

The second argues that Real Time Strategy Games require just the same amount of skills from a player.

So, which side you feel is right? Please have experience in both FPS and RTS when answering. Also justify your answer.

RTS's have insane learning-curves, but in the end user speed dominates matches.

FPS's will always require more skill, because the human element is more unpredictable than knowledge of units and tactics.

RTS for sure. I hate them. I hate them because the computer can micro manage and move every individual unit at the same time as building their base. Computer ignores fog of war and always has infinite resources.

People who like RTS have bad B.O.

It's hard for me to answer this as my experience with RTSs is limited, but I believe FPS is to basketball as RTS is to chess. FPSs requiring insane skill in both coordination and and reaction speed, as well as a bit of strategy depending on which FPS your'e playing and which gametype. Objective will require more strategy, group coordination, and planning than a straight up deathmatch.

RTS would require a bit more strategy, tactics, and planning, although not being quite as intensive on your coordination and reaction speed.

I suppose in that regard, FPSs would be looked at as more of a sport requiring physical skill(basketball, soccer), and RTSs would be looked at as more of a game requiring mental skill (chess, stratego).

Well to be good at an RTS you need to be able to switch between multiple (and osmetimes different) tasks at the drop of a hat while fps require quicker reflexives and faster thinking. Overall, i thinks its harder to be good at an RTS because its more difficult to develop the skills required.

But i love both and i reckon there should be more FPRTS type games.

FPS is to basketball as RTS is to chess.Mash_Affect

Turn-based strategy games are emulations of chess, not RTS games. RTS games require speed much more than any kind of intelligence or strategy. Most RTS games are mindless clickfests. Then there's stuff like World in Conflict that's just an action game masquerading as a strategy game.

Hold left mouse, slide over a load of troops. CTRL-1 squad number 1!. Build more tanks and rocket troopers. Attack ground over there, hope they engage everything they pass on the way. Build more tanks and one of them weird spy like units you can never normaly be bothered with.

'Damn whats taking squad 1 so long?' Right click on map, 'are there they are! trying to get past that brige in single file. O wait half the tanks are trying to take an alternative route and have split from the rest of the group, better fix that. Damn, they found the enemy base and have triggered the computer A.I into all out war mode. But it's too early in the map and I not had time to gather enough resourses yet, And, neither neither should computer for that matter! I mean what the hell, he's built the Armory? What, I just about had time for the barraks and weapons factory, what's he doing with an armory? WTF turrets? but you need a tech centre for that, huh? he has one already! WTF!'

'Ok, ok, Squad 1 will buy me time. Let's build up defences. Ok, a gun turret here. Yep, cool. Ok, another one 2 spaces next to it "Insufficient funds". O great. Wait how is squad 2 coming along. Ok I got 2 tanks and a rocket trooper. Computer has somehow managed to spread through half the map already, and seems to be trying to build a 5th base on top of my resource outpost to the east.'

'Ok, time to even the score.' Presses ¬ to bring up the command console let's see. /givemoney_99999999

'Ok computer, two can play this game!'

Anybody can learn how to play a RTS easily, but it's harder to teach someone to have better reaction time and aim in a FPS.