Command and Conquer 4 vs SC2

[Jabber Wookie]

Originally Posted by Xyvik
Generals' story may have been crap but the gameplay was spot-on. In many way I prefer it to SC because SC is all about Micro, which is TACTICS, not Strategy. If any game has a right to not be called an RTS it's WC3 and to a certain extent, SC, for their over-emphasis on the handling of units as opposed to the handling of a war.

Wow. Please explain to me how the handling of UNITS is unrelated to the handling of a war? I'm glad to see that you are so dedicated to the cause of war that the UNITS mean nothing? I'm confused?!? Are they not the backbone of every war, or should we just accept cynicism and assume they're all pointless pawns we're killing off to lower the overpopulation rate?

[Xyvik]

Wow. Please explain to me how the handling of UNITS is unrelated to the handling of a war? I'm glad to see that you are so dedicated to the cause of war that the UNITS mean nothing? I'm confused?!? Are they not the backbone of every war, or should we just accept cynicism and assume they're all pointless pawns we're killing off to lower the overpopulation rate?

The handling of UNITS is done by the unit commanders in a war, not by the generals or the supreme staff, you know, the people actually running the war? Oh yeah, you forgot about those people didn't you?

As much as you'd love to think otherwise, as much as the propaganda of whatever country you hail from has said otherwise, in war units are nothing more than pawns. It's simple, cold hard reality. Supreme staff order the generals, generals order the Colonels, and from then on downward. To a general, a sergeant is a pawn. To a sergeant a private is a pawn. They are things to be used to get the job done. It's that simple.

WAR is the grand scale, the huge strategy, the MACRO mechanics. War is about logistics and economics as much as it is about the actual battles. When a game forces you to focus more on the units and their maneuvers than on anything else it has ceased being a strategy game and has instead become a tactics game. Yes yes, strategy cannot exist without tactics, but the emphasis is quite different.

To illustrate: attack-move. In Generals you can attack-move easily, send off your tanks and infatry to grab an area and then immediately return your attention to your base, fixing things up, researching things, buildings more things.

If you do that in StarCraft, and completely ignore your micro, you are going to lose. Very badly. That means the primary focus of SC can be said to be micro, not macro, which means it is more tactically oriented than Generals.

Regardless of which one is focused more on which, Generals can stand alongside StarCraft any day of the week with its balance. What it can't stand up is story, far-reaching support, etc. etc. So SC still comes out the better game, but the more tactically oriented one.

-edit- also, please remember this is a game and has nothing to do with cynical attempts to lower overpopulation....even if it seems most wars these days are based on that fact.

[rise]

"StarCraft vs." threads are not allowed because they frequently become flame wars. If you're interested in discussing this game, please do it without the direct connections to SC2 in the SC2 forum.