I don't understand some views.
For me if SC2 was SC1 in 3D it would suck. I would have waited 12 years to play the same game, with same strategies, same metagame, same style, same everything. But its not, its not even SC 1.5. If it was SC 1.5 it would still suck for me.
Heck I find Bioshock 2 to be really boring and stupid, while i liked Bioshock 1 very much, but Bio2 just didn't click with me, maybe no new stuff in it, maybe it had weak story or whatever but I just didn't complete it. Played 1 hour the first day, got bored left it to play tomorrow. Played 2 hours tomorrow and it was very boring and i left it.
So innovation and new stuff means a lot to me.
That said I feel SC2 has enough new and innovative stuff, as well as old and iconic stuff to really represent SC1, but at the same time feel different, have new strategies and way to go about the game.
I mean why don't I follow C&C? I have played all C&C and Red alert games, but I'm not following them. Its because while they are okay, they are not great, they are not too interesting and get old very quick. That's why whether C&C or Supreme commander are full of innovation or none at all, I don't care. I will play it, if i like it great, if not I don't go on forums and stuff talking and whining about no innovation or too much innovation or whatever.
I feel some people here are really forcing themselves to like SC1 and thus SC2, when they in fact are not geared towards this kind of game and would be better off searching for other games that suit their style more.




Reply With Quote

