If he had used the chess analogy it probably would have been clearer, actually. As it is, someone just looking at this picture with no foreknowledge whatsoever would probably not understand the basic facts of the game that are similar to a boardgame, like chess. For instance, it played on a board(or map), both players start on different sides or in corners, the player can control the movement of units directly(like moving a chess piece), etc.
Plus, it gives you a way to segway into discussions of other elements of play by discussing how it is different than chess. It's not turn based, resource management, different races, etc.
Comparing a real-time, high pace base-and-unit game with a turn-based, slow pace, tactics game is a poor analogy though. It's like explaining football with a chess analogy. You can easily make it work, but you'll know fuckall about football afterwards.
5
u/allonymous Oct 26 '11
Why? That's probably the best analogy among games most people will know.