That sounds like poor attempt at trolling and trying to piss-off SC fans, but i'll go along with it and tear it down bit by bit (even if the original poster isn't the OP as he says).
But let's begin with the OP.
PurpleSky said:
Not my own words, but I agree entirely,you?
Totally and entirely disagree in every way possible XD
PurpleSky said:
*Yes,I am really set on becoming "that guy" that hates one particular game,it shall be SC2 for me, don't know why, maybe I hate Blizzard for asking monthly subscriptions*
You are being sarcastic .. right !!! .. cause if you ain't you have just made a very bad joke of your post, first Blizz only asks sub for WoW which is an MMORPG like hundreds of other MMORPGs that does the exact same thing, 2nd .. you say you just hate Blizz and don't know the reason .. then mention an excuse that doesn't make any sense .. you expect to be taken seriously after that !!? .. gah.
Now to that "other guy"
It really bothers me that people consider games like Starcraft 1/2 to be superior to a next generation RTS such as World In Conflict/Company of Heroes. Starcraft 1 was a great game when it came out in 1998, but when people keep saying shit like "Starcraft is the best RTS" I facepalm.
Actually SC won several awards from gaming critics and sites in the past 10 years, and was nominated several times for not only the best RTS of all time but also one of the best games in history ... and one of the very few if not the only to attain the status of national sport for a country .. innovation is overrated and almost always ends up being gimmicks in most games.
"Facepalm" all you want mister .. it won't prove or change anything .. you will only be hurting your face .. and calling other people's opinions "shit" doesn't even help it.
Really? A game with basic RTS mechanics (though it lacked que-build back in the day) is superior to 3d graphics, complex combat, and tactical depth? I really like Age of Empires 2, classic RTS, but do you know what? It isn't as good as Homeworld 2 (I have heard the first one is better) or Opposing Fronts, I know difference between nostalgia and game that is still good.
That shows just how ignorant you are about the depth of SC (no offense whoever you are) or why it is still famous and paying played till very recently, the unique art style supported the 2d graphics so well it actually looked way better than a ton of other new 3D RTS that came after it, and complexity isn't something good .. depth is .. and that's what SC was all about .. simple on the outside but very deep once you get the hang of the basics (think Chess, but with three different sets of units and visceral tactical combat) .. seeing pro players matches can leave your jaw on the floor from all the crazy tactics and stuff they excavated from SC depths.
And don't expect anyone to take your opinion with a grain of salt if you don't even know that SC had a queue for building units .. queue not "que" by the way.
On the other end of the spectrum we have games like Stronghold: Crusader and Battlezone, games that perfected a niche (and would eventually have inferior sequels) and have yet to be de-throned. The difference between these games is that the former no longer can claim originality in their gameplay, while the latter can. Battlezone has a completely functional and easy-to-use system that combines RTS and TPS gameplay, with Stronghold having a castle sim and RTS hybrid that keeps it from bogging down and becoming stale.
None of those game are extremely balanced or competitive like SC and SC2 are, neither had interesting single player campaigns or iconic characters, i have played my fair share of RTS (like 70% of well known RTS games) and i never found one of them that matches the perfectness of SC (which only got better with SC2 .. the legacy lives on as they say).
You need to do new shit if you want to stay fresh, and you need to perfect something to stay superior in the future; or else it becomes a game that lives on nostalgia.
There is a ton of freshness in SC2, the single player campaign is simply mind blowing and excellent in every aspect (and that's only one third of trilogy) and the new mechanics and units add tons of new strategies and tactics, as for perfection .. SC core/formula already was perfect .. and SC2 does what a "sequel" should do .. it builds upon that perfectness and polishes it up to modern day standards .. non of the other RTS games ever got close to that .. they all mostly dwell in oblivion now (i know many of them are fun/interesting/innovative and worth playing .. but .. it's a long way if they want to match the beast that SC/SC2 is)
