What's all the fuss about?

Why must it have to push the envelope to be considered a good game worth talking about?

As long as SC2 is fun to play using multiplayer, I dont care how advanced the graphics are or what the unit abilities are.

But the reason we might see things differently is because you only play single player, whereas I only play multiplayer now. I only did the single player campaign once.

 

How do you figure? Those questions are from your first post in this thread, you didn't have any opposition in the threat yet , lol.

I disproved all of your biased oppinions, that's all. You made really ignorant and reckless accusations about Starcraft II and I brought up the real facts. Plus, you came into a Starcraft II forum and started downputting the game, how is that a good move? You had no finesse or even understanding in your arguement; majority of people don't even know if you're real or just trolling, lol.

 

Whether or not TW will be better after SC2 comes out will not be a fact, it will be an opinion. Of the gameplay mechanics you mentioned, yes, many are included in SC2. The ones that aren't included don't make TW better, they just make it different.

Does TW have warp-in? seige mode? dark pylons? No? Obviously SC2 is better. (see how that doesn't work?)

SC is, and SC2 is bound to be a competitive e-sport - mostly because it employs a little thing called micromanagement that can determine the outcome of the matchup. TW is a casual game where massing beats tactics.

1UP: "For all its subtleties, C&C3 might as well be subtitled "speed trumps tactics," something that's especially obvious if you've seen the videos of C&C3's BattleCast feature (see our sidebar for details on this). You can have your base laid down and upgraded in minutes, and in battles -- save for long-range weaponry -- positioning means little. Winning's all about swiftly countering one unit type with another, or simply overwhelming the enemy with superior numbers of just about anything."

SC2 is going for balance foremost, but still keeping the complexity (and adding some). SC2 is bound to have a much better story than any C&C game has ever had.

Graphics. If you are only watching the old SC2 videos, you are not getting the scope for the changes that are happening. Take, for example, the terran building animated portrait. The robot-chick looks ugly in the old vids, right? In the new vids that have surfaced from GC, it looks nothing short of spectacular (given the quality of the vids are low) Alpha = constant change. Units are being put in, checked for balance, taken out, re-tooled, etc. If your experience is that games don't change much from alpha, then those devs are lazy ****s compared to Blizzard.

 

man i love both franshise BUT you are compairing the uncompaired!

for 1 and only reason your post is WRONG!

why?

because you compaire a released games that has 1 year been out and 9 patches and that is INSTALLED on your system and you are actually able to PLAY!!! with 1GB of Starcraft 2 VIDEOS and most of them are from Cammeras!!!!

you compaire Actuall Game Play with Videos???????????

if you had StarCraft II retailed then you should Better Compaire it With Red Alert 3!

sorry but you are totally miss-quided!