Better gameplay: Starcraft II or EUIV?

[lucaluca]

I recently finished the Heart of the Swarm campaign and started playing skirmishes. I love the Starcraft campaigns and they are worth the high price of the game, but after that the actual gameplay is a bit dry compared to EUIV. It's very fun of course but it's not very deep. What do you think?

 

[LiberiusX]

Eh I played HotS back while 1.2 was the current version of EUIV. I got a discount on it so I guess it was worth what I paid for it. I liked Wings of Liberty's story more tbh.

Multiplayer gameplay wise, I lost interest in twitch 'strategy' games years ago. I find the custom maps way more fun.

I really just played it for the story, as every level was easily beaten with basic zerg tactics.

 

[Lakedaimon]

The whole reason I like playing EU4 and other PI games is because it is actually a strategy game. Despite the name of the genre of games like Starcraft they are more concerned with the tactical level of combat. For example the skills that units get are purely tactical in nature. Sure there are some variations but it just doesn't have the true strategic depth that EU4 (and CK2 and Viccy2 etc etc.) does.

Games like Starcraft are more about thinking quickly and on your feet and rapidly responding to tactical developments, that is why the profesional games do everything so dam quick, while EU4 is actually about more long term strategic planning.

 

[Tritone]

Well IMO you're comparing apples and oranges here.

It's funny, though, I love Starcraft II but for different reasons than you. I never even finished the Wings of Liberty campaign, and didn't even bother starting the Heart of the Swarm campaign. I found the story to be pretty ridiculous and the characters pretty boring. I love StarCraft II for the online multiplayer--i.e. I play it as an e-sport.

You say Starcraft isn't deep, and to be fair "deep" is a pretty nebulous term, but I'm not sure why you think that. The metagame has evolved a lot over the years as players find new strategies and then find counters to those strategies. If you watch a video like this one you can see how much some of these grand masters players have to know to play at that level. You need a ton of experience and knowledge of the game and meta-game to be able to read opponents successfully, let alone to be able to react successfully. But to be fair, until you get to masters league, that kind of stuff isn't as important as basic macro, which is less about strategy and more about training your hands and brain to multitask well.

 

[AdmRepublic]

The comparison is mostly nonsensical. For the single player aspect of the game, EU IV is worth the money several times over, while Starcraft HotS is not. In fact, their campaign offers no immersion or interesting story writing at all. However, the greatness of Starcraft II is not in the single player aspect.

 

[TheBloke]

Never played StarCraft, but I used to love RTS'. Age of Empires was OK, but Cossacks 2 was far better (far more depth and things to do.) I liked Empire Earth 2 as well. I also played and enjoyed Dune 2, Command and Conquer, various Settlers right back to Settlers 1 on the Amiga, and more.

On the other hand, I never really got into turn-based games. I bought Civ 4, but just couldn't get into it. I played Empire Total War for a little while, but not as much as I played the RTS'

Now that I've properly got into EU4, I cannot fathom ever playing any of those RTS or turn-based games again.

The "pausable real time" system is absolutely perfect for me, combining, I feel, the best of both styles of gameplay. The depth of EU4 is a different planet compared to what those other games provided.

To quote the Pulp, "[they are] not the same ballpark, not the same league, not even the same f'ing sport!"

(I should add that I'm referring exclusively to Single Player. I did enjoy some of those RTS' multi player, and am yet to MP EU4. I strongly expect I'll prefer EU4 MP as much over RTS MP as I do SP over them.)

 

[lucaluca]

Well IMO you're comparing apples and oranges here.

It's funny, though, I love Starcraft II but for different reasons than you. I never even finished the Wings of Liberty campaign, and didn't even bother starting the Heart of the Swarm campaign. I found the story to be pretty ridiculous and the characters pretty boring. I love StarCraft II for the online multiplayer--i.e. I play it as an e-sport.

You say Starcraft isn't deep, and to be fair "deep" is a pretty nebulous term, but I'm not sure why you think that. The metagame has evolved a lot over the years as players find new strategies and then find counters to those strategies. If you watch a video like this one you can see how much some of these grand masters players have to know to play at that level. You need a ton of experience and knowledge of the game and meta-game to be able to read opponents successfully, let alone to be able to react successfully. But to be fair, until you get to masters league, that kind of stuff isn't as important as basic macro, which is less about strategy and more about training your hands and brain to multitask well.

The campaigns are a work of art tbh, it's in between a movie and a game, and have a very diverse gameplay. The map game is on the other hand basic, it's always "build more/better troops faster", and some micromanagement is awful, like why even have to clic on every queen to spawn larvae every 10 seconds. It's hellish.

 

[LiberiusX]

The whole reason I like playing EU4 and other PI games is because it is actually a strategy game. Despite the name of the genre of games like Starcraft they are more concerned with the tactical level of combat. For example the skills that units get are purely tactical in nature. Sure there are some variations but it just doesn't have the true strategic depth that EU4 (and CK2 and Viccy2 etc etc.) does.

Games like Starcraft are more about thinking quickly and on your feet and rapidly responding to tactical developments, that is why the profesional games do everything so dam quick, while EU4 is actually about more long term strategic planning.

I think they can tepidly claim the strategy genre title in the sense that the player has to make an educated guess as to what units they will need before each little skirmish on the map, while managing a extremely simplified economy. The strategy level of Starcraft definitely isn't as deep as EU or TW, but there are still hints of it.

I find the Wargame series to be far superior to Starcraft in terms Strategic AND Tactical depth. No twitchy movements of units required. Well thought out pre-planning, coordinated movements of formations and combined arms tactics win the day. Very satisfying to see a plan come together.

The campaigns are a work of art tbh, it's in between a movie and a game, and have a very diverse gameplay. The map game is on the other hand basic, it's always "build more/better troops faster", and some micromanagement is awful, like why even have to clic on every queen to spawn larvae every 10 seconds. It's hellish.

I wouldn't go so far as to call them a work of art. Command and Conquer was doing the movie/game hybrid thing well before Starcraft. Buying Starcraft 2 installments for the single player, is just a matter of nostalgia for me. The story was never finished in the first series. I just want to see how it ends. Plus, even though B.net's custom map community was in its golden age during Warcraft III, there are still some really neat custom maps for HotS.

 

[TheBloke]

You need a ton of experience and knowledge of the game and meta-game to be able to read opponents successfully, let alone to be able to react successfully. But to be fair, until you get to masters league, that kind of stuff isn't as important as basic macro, which is less about strategy and more about training your hands and brain to multitask well.

This is exactly why I never even considered playing competitive multi-player for any RTS. It was OK amongst friends of the same level. But I see no fun at all - and it's feels almost the opposite of the purpose of a strategy game - in having skill be primarily determined by how quickly you can hit the buttons. And I say this as someone who types at 120+ WPM and always learns and practices every hotkey in any app/game. I love being nimble with controls, but don't want that to be a key factor in a strategy game. I play EU4 at speed 2 most of the time, and still pause a lot even then.

 

[Xara]

Played the original a ton but I stopped enjoying RTS games ages ago. In fact I find pretty much any player vs. player game to be excrutiating these days. Games like DOTA make me weep for humanity. I stick to single-player or co-op now. Plus, I leave the keyboard or tab too often to want to play things I can't pause at the drop of a hat.

That said, I've logged more time in EU4 than I have in most mmos and most of my other games combined.

 

[Lakedaimon]

Games like DOTA make me weep for humanity. I stick to single-player or co-op now. Plus, I leave the keyboard or tab too often to want to play things I can't pause at the drop of a hat.

^this, a thousand times this

 

[TheBloke]

That said, I've logged more time in EU4 than I have in most mmos and most of my other games combined.

This. I exceeded Skyrim a couple of weeks ago, and my Skyrim hours came from three or four different 'periods', over the course of two years. EU4 I've been involved with exactly two months, today.

I wish we'd had Steam back in the 90s and I could see my hours on Ultima 7. That's the only other single game that might be rivalling EU4. But even if it is, it won't be for much longer.

Nothing can compete with EU4; it's not even just the playing any more, half the time I'm just testing and working out mechanics and posting about them and trying to mod them. Which is a whole different kind of fun

 

[KvMetternich]

Talking about Starcraft 2 well, the main plot is pure trash. A childish and pathetic story full of holes and nonsenses expecially compared to the epicness of the originals sc1/brood war. Regarding the multiplayer side Hots failed to bring a renovation of the gameplay with a poor designed set of new units.Anyways the core of the game is the 1v1 and is still funny as hell if you can manage the ladder anxiety.

Anyways it's impossible to compare Eu IV with sc2

 

[TheBloke]

Nothing can compete with EU4; it's not even just the playing any more, half the time I'm just testing and working out mechanics and posting about them and trying to mod them. Which is a whole different kind of fun

Well except maybe CK2 but I'm not going to try getting into that again, not until km exhausted of EU 4. Which could take a while.

 

[RockoW]

They don't even compare, two very different kind of games. SCII is basically a MP game. If you bough it for the campaign I understand you're sorry. EUIV is great both in MP and SP, but the pace is completely different and build orders don't really matter.

 

[Grubnessul]

StarCraft II singleplayer is an insult to it's predecessor's. No interesting plot twists, lame characters, lame alien artefacts. SCII's multiplayer would have been good if not for the boring maps which are always exactly mirrored.

 

[Kinghillard]

Yeah lets compare the most hectic RTS in the World with the slowest (?) GS game in the world

 

[lucaluca]

StarCraft II singleplayer is an insult to it's predecessor's. No interesting plot twists, lame characters, lame alien artefacts. SCII's multiplayer would have been good if not for the boring maps which are always exactly mirrored.

mmhh the Zerg characters were great compared to SC I, and they say funny things like Zagara "Don't toy with me my Queen" LOL

 

[Incompetent]

These games are too different to compare them sensibly.

However, it would be kind of interesting to see a Clausewitz game with a futuristic setting (probably still confined to a single planet, though).

 

[Novacat]

Apples and Oranges.

However, it would be kind of interesting to see a Clausewitz game with a futuristic setting (probably still confined to a single planet, though).

Interesting indeed.