This topic is locked from further discussion.

Posted by mracoon (4978 posts) 1 year, 1 month ago

Poll: GotG Round 1: Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty vs. Sid Meier's Civilization V (634 votes)

Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty 35%
Sid Meier's Civilization V 65%

Main thread

Full bracket

Two titles from different ends of the strategy game spectrum.

Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty (2010)

What the community has to say:

The end product is a giant of a game, with more content than I've ever seen in an RTS. You can spend hours with Starcraft II and enjoy each and every one. Then you could come back again and spend all those hours all over again, and again.

From user review by @thatfrood

Sid Meier's Civilization V (2010)

What the community has to say:

This game is eating my life and is haunting my dreams. This should bother me I suppose but it's very exciting and I can't remember another reason to exist other than to play Civ 5.

From user review by @rick9109

Voting closes at 12pm GMT / 4am PST Monday.

#1 Posted by Bollard (5851 posts) -

I full expect Civ5 to wreck this round, judging by the amount of community members in here that love it.

Any reason WOL was chosen over HOTS?

#2 Posted by TheHT (11786 posts) -

StarCraft II had a great campaign, and I hear that multplayer's pretty good too.

Whenever I start up a new Civ V game it can go completely different from my last game. It usually ends up with me blowing everyone up, but still, it could be different! Whichever way it goes, it keeps going and going, until the night's turned to afternoon and my sleep schedule is fucked for at least another few days.

That sort of power's gotta be respected.

#3 Posted by ShadowConqueror (3085 posts) -

Starcraft 2 is great, but I've always been more partial to turn-based RTS games because they allow me to strategize at my leisure and not feel constantly stressed. Plus, Civ V is just so damn cool.

#4 Posted by McLargepants (395 posts) -

I love Civ and can't wrap my head around RTS games, so Civ V is the winner here! I love that game.

#5 Posted by Abendlaender (2889 posts) -

Just one....more......turn....

I love Civ 5 so damn much even though I'm aweful and stil play against weak AI after 50 hours or so after fucking Ghandi nuked me once.

#6 Posted by csl316 (9445 posts) -

Man, I watched so much GSL a couple years ago. Starcraft for the esports.

#7 Edited by FlipperDesert (2106 posts) -

There are two constants in Civ V: Ghandi is a warmonger, and Montezuma will try and sneak attack you early in the game. Other than that, I've gone back to that game so many times and had totally different experiences.

#8 Edited by AndrewB (7689 posts) -

No words needed, except to point out that you're comparing a brilliant RTS to a brilliant turn-based strategy game. My preferred genre is turn-based, but even beyond that, Civ is just too expertly-crafted and deep to not lay my allegiance down.

These polls are weird. A single thread asking people to name their own personal games of the generation makes more sense. Pitting a game against another which has only a vague similarity in common makes little sense. In a Game of the Generation discussion, I might include both Civ V and Starcraft II, based on different merits.

#9 Posted by Atlas (2457 posts) -

Honestly, I'm surprised that Civ V is so far running away with it. I thought that StarCraft II was still popular in the community, and it was definitely more popular with the staff members. Also, there's been a bit of negativity regarding Civ V post-release, from people who thought it was a step back after IV.

Anyway, I think the forums are making the correct choice here, but it's a weird poll. Almost none of the skills that go into playing SCII well are transferable to Civ 5, and vice versa. That said, they are both strategy games, and turn-based strategy has always been my preferred genre; the only RTS games I ever loved were the Age of Empires games.

Civ V is the game on Steam that I have played the most, with 848 hours played - all of them single player. It's the best game to play while listening to music or watching YouTube or a Giant Bomb stream. I think that Civ V really lines up with my organisational and macro-managing skills; I was able to beat the A.I. on the harder difficulty settings, but wasn't able to beat the legendary difficulty due to how cheap it is. Civ V is certainly flawed, but they've corrected a lot of the flaws in the two major expansions, both of which successfully breathed new life into the game. But even without the expansions, Civ V was a simply excellent experience, with seemingly endless replayability.

Culture victory FTW - Egypt, Inca, and Maya yo! I'm gonna build four huge cities in strategic areas and then culture you to death, boi!

#10 Posted by MildMolasses (3229 posts) -

Sorry, Cid. I love your game, and CivRev even more so, but I was actually able to finish a campaign in SC

#11 Posted by PulledaBrad (612 posts) -

@andrewb said:

No words needed, except to point out that you're comparing a brilliant RTS to a brilliant turn-based strategy game. My preferred genre is turn-based, but even beyond that, Civ is just too expertly-crafted and deep to not lay my allegiance down.

These polls are weird. A single thread asking people to name their own personal games of the generation makes more sense. Pitting a game against another which has only a vague similarity in common makes little sense. In a Game of the Generation discussion, I might include both Civ V and Starcraft II, based on different merits.

@mracoon Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks to me to be random seedings for the brackets and not a deliberate attempt to pair up obvious winners.

#12 Posted by AndrewB (7689 posts) -
#13 Posted by Kain55 (135 posts) -

Well up until about 6 months ago this would have been an easy vote for Civ V for me. However, I finally managed to make it through to the interesting parts of Wings of Liberty, and dammit if that game isn't incredible. It's still close for me, but I'm going to vote SC2.

#14 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

Civilization V. I never could get into RTS games.

#15 Posted by ChoboBot (157 posts) -

Civilization V. This was my first turn-based strategy game I played and it was surprisingly good.

#16 Posted by Ravenlight (8011 posts) -

I chose Starcraft simply because it's an exciting spectator sport. And Civ V's multiplayer is still busted as hell.

#17 Edited by charlie_victor_bravo (1045 posts) -

@andrewb said:

Holy cow! That is lots of Civ 5 there! I think my combined Civ 3, 4 and 5 wont reach that and I have played LOTS of Civ 3 and 4.

#18 Posted by mracoon (4978 posts) -

@pulledabrad: For the first round I tried to pair up similar kinds of games but yeah there were no real seedings.

#19 Edited by Milkman (17317 posts) -

I don't care about multiplayer so this is easy for me. Civ V all the way.

#20 Edited by AndrewB (7689 posts) -

@pulledabrad GiantBomb seems to have lost my comment, and at this point I can't be bothered to replicate it.

@charlie_victor_bravo The only higher numbers I've seen have been from a friend who plays DOTA to a level of obsession that makes me simultaneously irked and afraid for them. Though to be fair, Steam hour counts include idle time, which there is a fair amount of in a turn-based game. But to put it in perspective, the only game length I play single player is marathon, and I've played multiple sessions with almost every civ. Not including many other multiplayer sessions.

Eff, the comment system appears to be broken on multiple levels right now. Maybe it's just been so long since I've commented regularly that I'm new to this level of broken.

#21 Posted by noizy (716 posts) -

I'm not into StarCraft, and much prefer Civ V, but I still voted for StarCraft. There's no denying StarCraft is a big deal.

#22 Posted by theanticitizen (274 posts) -

Civ dropped off so hard for me after about 13 hours. Whereas I can't stop playing Starcraft II and I've put hundreds of hours in ha ha

#23 Posted by Wuddel (2100 posts) -

@andrewb said:

No words needed, except to point out that you're comparing a brilliant RTS to a brilliant turn-based strategy game. My preferred genre is turn-based, but even beyond that, Civ is just too expertly-crafted and deep to not lay my allegiance down.

These polls are weird. A single thread asking people to name their own personal games of the generation makes more sense. Pitting a game against another which has only a vague similarity in common makes little sense. In a Game of the Generation discussion, I might include both Civ V and Starcraft II, based on different merits.

THERSE IS NO LIVE BEYOND CIV!

I would never put TRUE PC games (and at this time, strategy are the only real/exclusive PC games left) into "generations" which are a console thing. But if you do Civ is probably my game of every generation.

#24 Posted by ArbitraryWater (12115 posts) -

If this poll was made in 2010, I think the numbers would have been reversed. But Civ V, because I'm terrible at RTS stuff.

#25 Posted by Mezmero (2065 posts) -

I haven't played Civ V but I have a feeling I would like it more. I abstain.

#26 Posted by Bicycle_Repairman (223 posts) -

More than 1000h put into civ V, and i have yet to play any Game of thrones or Elder Scrolls mods. This game can be played for countless hours. The easy to use mods make it possible to finetune the game just to your liking, but even without mods the game is still amazing and a work of art.

#27 Edited by BisonHero (7039 posts) -

@atlas said:

Honestly, I'm surprised that Civ V is so far running away with it. I thought that StarCraft II was still popular in the community, and it was definitely more popular with the staff members. Also, there's been a bit of negativity regarding Civ V post-release, from people who thought it was a step back after IV.

I feel like I'm not surprised at all?

Starcraft II seems popular, but RTS is nearly a dead genre outside of series that started many, many years ago. No one is making new RTS games, and the only surviving RTS series are Starcraft, kinda Total War, Company of Heroes, maybe Command & Conquer (but probably not), maybe Dawn of War (but that series is probably done). Occasionally you get a new RTS like Achron, but as much as that made for a confusing Quick Look, I bet that sold terribly because it isn't trading off of any nostalgia or established branding. Starcraft II seemed like a big deal and sold a bunch and made everybody go "Oh hey, you guys, eSports I guess", until MOBAs came along and absolutely crushed it in terms of viewer interest because MOBAs are actually playable by your average Joe. Managing the tactics of moving one guy is way easier than managing the tactics and production of dozens of guys, and for that reason I doubt we'll ever see RTS games return to the popularity they had in the late 90s.

Among the overall gaming populace, I'm pretty sure that "people interested in a traditional RTS" is a rapidly shrinking demographic. I think people respected Starcraft II from a distance as a well made game, but the player numbers dropped off after a while, and I think less people personally enjoyed it the way they do MOBA games. Everybody bought it, though, because c'mon, there hadn't been a Starcraft game in like a bazillion years. But I bet you that sales of upcoming Legacy of the Void will not be amazing (though still in the millions, obviously), because anecdotally, everyone I know who bought Heart of the Swarm was pretty much done playing it (single- or multiplayer) by about June, and some people who were super into Starcraft II never even bought HotS at all.

As for Civ, for every one PC old guard neckbeard who reads Rock, Paper, Shotgun who didn't like the changes in Civ V, there were 10 people for whom Civ V was the first Civ they had played since like Civ I or II, or for whom Civ V was their first Civ ever, because they made vast improvements in the UI and its ability to bring your attention to what needs attention. And like you said, the expansions have added a lot.

#28 Edited by Fredchuckdave (6151 posts) -

Starcraft 2 has a great singleplayer and the opposite of a revolutionary multiplayer (being virtually identical to the predecessor), however the game itself can't be blamed for the lack of creativity in the community so it is probably one of the best RTS's due to scarcity. Civ 5 is worse than most other Civ games.

#29 Posted by jakob187 (21759 posts) -

Civilization 5, hands down. While it may not be as in-depth as Civ 2 or Civ 3, it's miles better than Civ 4 IMO. StarCraft 2 is just more StarCraft, and while that's not a bad thing, it becomes old real fast. Moreover, it's a MUCH higher barrier to entry if you want to honestly take part in the multiplayer portion without ripping your goddamn hair out in frustration.

#30 Edited by TooWalrus (13256 posts) -

I've only played Starcraft. I didn't realize Civ V was so popular.

#31 Posted by ThatFrood (3395 posts) -

@atlas said:

Honestly, I'm surprised that Civ V is so far running away with it. I thought that StarCraft II was still popular in the community, and it was definitely more popular with the staff members. Also, there's been a bit of negativity regarding Civ V post-release, from people who thought it was a step back after IV.

As for Civ, for every one PC old guard neckbeard who reads Rock, Paper, Shotgun who didn't like the changes in Civ V

Thanks?

I didn't like the changes made in Civ V, and I have legitimate reasons for it.

You're right though, for most Civ V was their first introduction to the Civilization series, and that series is phenomenal enough to easily stand above Starcraft II, regardless of the game that introduces you to it.

#32 Posted by Sparky_Buzzsaw (6396 posts) -

I think my reason for picking Civ V is this - even just reading its name makes me wan tto play another game of it. It's addictive and thoroughly fun at every stage of the game, especially once you've picked up the expansions.

Moderator
#33 Posted by Chop (1998 posts) -

I saw this topic and proceeded to spend all morning playing Civ. 6 hours straight.

Civ 5, hands down.

#34 Posted by BisonHero (7039 posts) -

@thatfrood said:

@bisonhero said:

@atlas said:

Honestly, I'm surprised that Civ V is so far running away with it. I thought that StarCraft II was still popular in the community, and it was definitely more popular with the staff members. Also, there's been a bit of negativity regarding Civ V post-release, from people who thought it was a step back after IV.

As for Civ, for every one PC old guard neckbeard who reads Rock, Paper, Shotgun who didn't like the changes in Civ V

Thanks?

I didn't like the changes made in Civ V, and I have legitimate reasons for it.

You're right though, for most Civ V was their first introduction to the Civilization series, and that series is phenomenal enough to easily stand above Starcraft II, regardless of the game that introduces you to it.

The people I'm talking about just seem very difficult to please. It's not like Firaxis turned Civ into Angry Birds. They replaced one set of mechanics with a different set of mechanics, and didn't necessarily preserve every mechanic just so. Same with XCOM. Civ V and XCOM are both very good strategy games, regardless of whether they preserved all of the details from their forebears.

#35 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

This and the MK vs SFIV poll are pretty laughable.

What's more influential and important, yet another Civ game or StarCraft II? It's obviously StarCraft II and I love Civ V.

For games of the GENERATION, influence should be extremely import. Sighs.

#36 Posted by BisonHero (7039 posts) -

@fredchuckdave said:

Starcraft 2 has a great singleplayer and the opposite of a revolutionary multiplayer (being virtually identical to the predecessor), however the game itself can't be blamed for the lack of creativity in the community so it is probably one of the best RTS's due to scarcity. Civ 5 is worse than most other Civ games.

I'll agree that the multiplayer is somewhat the same because the fundamentals of the early game are still so similar (stim marines, fast zerglings, Protoss having a shit early game and having to rely on Photon cannons until their economy is good enough that they can afford to buy their expensive-ass units).

Still, they significantly overhauled the air game. Remember how fucking stupid Starcraft 1 was about air units? They were afraid of flying units breaking the game or something, so everything's air-to-ground damage was HORRIBLE except for Zerg Guardians which were monstrously expensive. Mutas were the only things that were both fast and had reasonable DPS, and then all of the new air units in Brood War were basically designed around fighting Mutas because that was the only air unit in use.

Starcraft 1 should be lauded for how well it did asymmetrical factions at the time, but parts of that game are just fucking stupid in how badly designed they are. Terran buildings are actually modular now in SC2, instead of having the stupid building-specific add-ons from SC1 that there was never any reason to unattach from. The people out there that still think Starcraft 1 is a better game than 2 are fucking delusional.

#37 Edited by davidwitten22 (1708 posts) -

I've gotten to the point where I fucking HATE Starcraft 2 with a fiery passion, but being honest here, I played about 500 hours of that game with friends in college. It did everything in its power to kill Brood War on a professional level, it's worse than Brood War in almost every way, and it molested the lore from the original and retconned way too much shit. Hey guys remember in Starcraft Brood War when Raynor said he would do whatever it takes to kill Kerrigan for what she did to all his Protoss friends? Yeah, in Starcraft 2 he remembers "Hey, just kissing. I love you. Baby."

Civ 5 is fucking awesome though.

And to @bisonhero above me who states that anyone who thinks Starcraft 1 is a better game is fucking delusional, well...

I respectfully beg to differ good sir :).

#38 Posted by laserbolts (5365 posts) -

StarCraft 2 because it is amazing.

#39 Edited by LackingSaint (1856 posts) -

@sooty said:

For games of the GENERATION, influence should be extremely import. Sighs.

Oooor they could just be games people think are really good? Your interpretation of what "Game of the Generation" means doesn't have to line up with everyone elses. Avatar was one of the most influential films of the last decade but I would punch myself in the face over and over and over before I would vote for it in a Film of the Decade poll.

#40 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7184 posts) -

Civilization V for sure. Starcraft 2 never really grabbed me in and I kind of got tired of it quickly, but Civ V is just so addictive, fun, and.... Well, now I want to go play some more Civ V and I think that says it all.

#41 Posted by Silver-Streak (1382 posts) -

I came in expecting no one to like CivV more than SC2 other than me. I am surprised and glad to see I'm wrong. (They're both great.)

#42 Edited by Captain_Insano (1563 posts) -

Watch out for Gandhi if Civ V doesn't win this.

#43 Edited by GnomeonFire (778 posts) -

Only one of these games has a Game of Thrones mod as far as I know, and that one gets my vote (Civ 5). Also because its a great fucking game. If SC2 wins I wouldn't be mad though.

#44 Posted by Hunter5024 (5964 posts) -

The next time someone bitches about these game of the generation polls just being mirrors of the staffs opinion, they should just come to this thread.

#45 Posted by mracoon (4978 posts) -

Huh, I thought SCII would win this easily but the community is proving me wrong. From the little I've played of Civ V it was great but unfortunately it ran like crap on my laptop and got progressively worse the further I got into a game.

#46 Edited by Trilogy (2688 posts) -

Easy win for SC2 here for me (even though CIV is going to take it). Between the super satisfying campaign that I played through 4-5 times, to the incredible multiplayer with one of the highest skill caps ever, to the life altering pro scene...SC2 is a phenomenon in video games for me. I may never be as deep into a game's culture (outside of WoW) than I was with SC2.

As far as Civ5 goes, I thought it was a great game objectively speaking, but turn based games tend to bore me in the long run. Put in 7 hours and like what I played but it doesn't hold a candle to SC2 in my eyes. Like I said, SC2 is a stand out experience for me when I consider how deep I got into it as a player AND as a spectator.

Overall, two fantastic strategy games.

#47 Posted by BigJeffrey (5178 posts) -

man, another game i have sitting on steam untouched.

#48 Edited by BisonHero (7039 posts) -

@davidwitten22 said:

I've gotten to the point where I fucking HATE Starcraft 2 with a fiery passion, but being honest here, I played about 500 hours of that game with friends in college. It did everything in its power to kill Brood War on a professional level, it's worse than Brood War in almost every way, and it molested the lore from the original and retconned way too much shit. Hey guys remember in Starcraft Brood War when Raynor said he would do whatever it takes to kill Kerrigan for what she did to all his Protoss friends? Yeah, in Starcraft 2 he remembers "Hey, just kissing. I love you. Baby."

Civ 5 is fucking awesome though.

And to @bisonhero above me who states that anyone who thinks Starcraft 1 is a better game is fucking delusional, well...

I respectfully beg to differ good sir :).

By all means, explain it to me. As someone who has played both (though never super seriously), and watch pro games of both, I've just never really gotten what people thought was way worse about SC2.

Come at it from either way. Which parts about SC2 are worse? Or why is Brood War so good?

At this point, the issues that I feel plague Brood War when compared to SC2 are:

  • The pathfinding seems terrible and/or units bunch up too easily and block pathways, so I always felt like I had to baby units constantly
  • Like I said, the air units are largely a joke aside from flying transports and mutas
  • The Terran add-ons are poorly designed and there's basically no reason you would ever unattach from one, compared to the add-ons in SC2 which are designed in a much more flexible way
  • Certain AoE spells in Brood War, even after all the patches, still seem too good. Psi Storm is insane, Irradiate and EMP are nuts, and Dark Swarm is crazy. Sure, every race has them so it's not like it ruins the balance, but I feel like caster abilities were way more reasonable in SC2
  • Also general usability stuff like only being able to select 12 units at once and all of the other UI/control stuff that seems improved in SC2

I agree that the story in SC2 is terrible and largely rewrites characters, turning Raynor from kinda interested in the fate of the galaxy to a drunk still pining for Kerrigan, and taking away all of Kerrigan's swagger and cockiness so that she's just kind of boring in Wings of Liberty. Also it's lame that it focuses down so narrowly on the actions of an individual character, instead of showing more broadly what that faction is up to.

#49 Posted by davidwitten22 (1708 posts) -

Improved pathfinding in Sc2 is of course a positive thing, but the addition of features such as "auto-surround" make controlling zerglings incredibly easy. Units in BW bunch way way less than units in Sc2, which is one of the things that I think makes BW superior. Battles don't end up just being deathball v. deathball 200/200 engagements that decide the game in seconds.

Air units are mostly used in BW for harass, save for Battlecruisers in TvT and Carriers in PvT. Carriers have retarded DPS, Battlecruisers are tremendous in TvP, and Guardian tech switches in ZvT can be absolutely deadly. Arbiters are arguably the most important unit in PvT. Air units in BW aren't about damage, they are about utility. I find that much more interesting than all the air units we see in Sc2 which are... which ones again? Mutas sometimes. You see Battlecruisers and other Terran air units almost only in TvP (aside from Medivacs). You don't see any Protoss air units (I don't watch or play HotS so I don't know shit about Tempests and all that new stuff) except occasionally Phoenixes. Broodlords are just better versions of Guardians, and I'd argue all the flying Zerg units in both games are pretty darn boring.

Yeah the add-on changes in Sc2 are an improvement. They aren't a huge issue though imo.

AoE spells are supposed to be good. Originally in the Sc2 beta they kept a lot of those spells at their old strength and they were way too good in the new engine because all units in Sc2 clump together in neat little balls. Units in BW are more spread out (both because of how clumping works and because of the unit selection limit) and are thus less susceptible to AoE. Caster abilities are much more difficult to use in BW which is part of the trade off, as selecting 12 high templars and casting a psi-storm from that unit group means all the high templars are going to cast one at that spot.

12 units at once is a small limit, but being able to select 150 or whatever zerglings at once is too much. A lot of the things that make Sc2 easier and more user-friendly hurt the skill ceiling in the game and make professional play less impressive.

It's personal preference, but watching Sc2 (which I loved until I watched some more Brood War) is boring. Macro is too easy and early game builds are too safe. Because of how the control groups and unit dynamics work you don't see nearly as many small skirmishes in SC2. In Brood War if there was a 200/200 battle it would take three screens and be impossible to follow. In Sc2 a 200/200 battle ends in 10 seconds under smart-casted psi-storms and fungal growths. Micro tricks that existed in BW, such as patrol micro for Vultures and Muta stacking add some nice depth and some fun to the game. Blizzard actively patched those out in Sc2 (such as the lovely Viking flower). Colossi are boring compared to the ganky excitement of a Reaver. Carriers are useless now. Who builds hydras anymore? Ever? In any matchup? (remember, im coming from WoL). I just can't get into Sc2 anymore, but 12 years later and I still get psyched every time I hear or see something related to Brood War.

But that's just my opinion. it's a technically inferior game, but its a ton more fun.

#50 Posted by mracoon (4978 posts) -

Coming back from behind Civilization V achieves a cultural victory with 65% of the vote and 611 votes cast.