View Single Post

Default 

July 15th, 2013, 10:15
Originally Posted by Nerevarine View Post
I want to avoid talking about whether one series is "better" than the other or not - I enjoy both series for different reasons, and playing Civ way back when introduced me to PC gaming, ensuring that it will always have a soft spot in my heart - but I will point out what I personally see as major differences between the two series.
Fair enough. To me, I simply enjoy Civ more - and as such, it's better. Obviously, that will depend on the person playing the games.

If you enjoy both to the exact same degree, I understand why you wouldn't want to call one better than the other.

In terms of "historical flavor," The Civ series has always felt more like "fantasy" for me. For starters, having immortal, god-like leaders that never age or have successors, the technology "race" throughout time that never allows a player to get immersed in a particular era, basic diplomacy, resource-collection driven economy, random factions like the Indian Nations acquiring advanced technologies that aren't aligned with their culture, etc.
Oh, it's definitely less "real history" - but there's still a very significant historical flavor to Civ.

I would never want a strategy game to adhere to "real" history too much - the fun in these games is the idea of alternate, dynamic events taking place within "realistic" contexts - but EU is much more "grounded" in comparison. Neither approach is necessarily better, they are just different.
I'd agree with that. In terms of "feel" and "flavor" - I actually prefer EU because it's much more grounded. But the gameplay is way too abstract for me to really enjoy it.

I wouldn't consider EU to be a "4x" game like Civ, as it's missing some "X" elements - such as exploration. You don't need to scour the land for resources, build new cities (one element of "expand") wherever you feel like, manage worker units, etc. Part of how EU differs from 4x gameplay is that it is extremely diplomacy-driven, and failing to navigate this gameplay aspect gracefully will lead to consequences. In Civ, it doesn't really matter how poorly one handles diplomacy in most cases, so long as the player has the military to run roughshod over every faction. Declaring war is often trivial, alliances and trade do not have a big impact on gameplay, and the focus of Civ lies mostly in building cities, exploring unknown regions of the map, researching technology, and exterminating the enemy with military pursuits.
It sounds like you haven't been keeping up to date with the latest Civ and expansions - as there are many plausible ways to win the game that have nothing to do with exterminating the enemy. There are very serious consequences to declaring war - though obviously, it's still a matter of the AI trying to emulate a real human response.

IIRC - the original EU had America as an undiscovered land - and exploring it was a relatively big deal. Frankly, I haven't played any EU seriously since the second one - so I don't really know if they removed that aspect of the game.

In any case, I consider EU "close enough" to justify the 4X label - though I concede it might not be strictly true.

While you call EU diplomacy driven - I consider it slider-driven. You conquer lands, you build up your cities, you research - and you do all of those things. You just don't get a tangible sense of doing it.

EU is focused much more heavily on diplomacy and economy; military engagements cannot run properly without these two elements running smoothly. In comparison, Civ possesses a very simple approach, almost "arcade-y" for a strategy game. This isn't necessarily a bad thing however; being able to jump right into the game with little learning curve establishes a nice, fluid rhythm, and is quite nice depending on the player's mood.
Again, it sounds like you're not up to date. Military engagement in Civ 5 BNW is not trivial anymore - and you really need to have a solid economy and especially in the later stages of the game, diplomacy is a HUGE part of warfare.

I think you should consider looking into Civ again.

So those are some of the major differences that I see between the two games, and it reveals vastly different experiences in my mind. While Civ is focused on traditional 4x elements and is relatively simple in an almost "arcade" way, EU is heavily focused on diplomacy and economy. They are both great series, but for different reasons. Civ is there for an addictive, "just one more turn" style that relies on rhythm and constant forward progression in the classic 4x style. EU is more of a slow-burn, requiring the player to always think several steps ahead when planning the next move.
While I severely disagree that Civ 5 BNW is "arcade" in any way whatsoever - I do think I understand where you're coming from.

As for myself - I think the two games are largely dealing with the same concepts and they both try to fill the same needs - but in very different ways.

I simply prefer the tangible and more hands-on approach of Civ - and I find the EU slider/abstraction approach profoundly unsatisfying.

I don't think EU is more complex at all - but we just see these things differently.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#28

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,827