I have nothing against such approachNalgas D. Lemur said:Now you're catching on. It's not a terrible game on its own, but it is kind of a mediocre game. When compared to StarCon2 though, it's a joke. The quality of the writing, which was one of the strong points in 2, took a significant step backward, and the story was a mess. The pseudo-3D combat was unplayable and had to be disabled just so you could aim properly, and the ships weren't as varied and interesting and well-balanced as before either. I did like what they did with the some of the puppets for the alien races, and a couple of the new ones were fun. The audio quality may also have been better in 3, but 2 had more memorable music.
Really what the problem was was that the first two were made by Toys for Bob (who recently have made the Skylanders games and are too busy now to make a true sequel, even though they've said repeatedly that they were interested in doing it), and then the publisher got someone else to make the third one without their involvement at all. It completely ignored a lot of things previously established by the series as a result, both gameplay and lore, and kind of pissed off existing fans. It wasn't a bad game so much as it was just an average game being sold as a sequel to what was at the time (and sometimes still more recently) considered one of the best PC games ever made. It's ended up in a weird place where people who played it on its own seem to like it, but people who played the previous games first and Toys for Bob themselves have disowned it and consider it non-canon. Heh.
SC3 had good gameplay mechanic and story was fairly funny
Now I need to play SC2 (NOT StarCraft!!!)