If StarCraft 2 is a "short, padded piece of shit," then what the hell does it make SC1? SC2 was longer with a mission design structure that beats the pants off of any other RTS mission design we've ever seen.Hammeroj said:On the front of story, Starcraft 2 is a short, padded piece of shit compared to their earlier endeavours. And it's disjointed to top it off thanks to the wonderful(-ly unnecessary) mission structure. I've gone over the exact points of it dozens of times, and I'm kind of tired of regurgitating the same points over and over. Do you want me to?lacktheknack said:Why not? They've never put out anything short of excellent before.
Yes, the story and writing were "meh," but Blizzard has *never* had good story and writing. FFS, they've had this problem since Warcraft 2 - I don't see why people are all of a sudden complaining now Their credo is "gameplay first," and it shows. The games are fantastic, the stories are mediocre and always have been.
People complaining about the trilogy being a ripoff have absolutely no leg to stand on after SC2 came out and the campaign was easily as fleshed-out and long as SC1 and WC3 were. So it's getting two expansion packs, so what? Are we going to complain about Brood War and Frozen Throne, now? Are we going to yell at Peter Jackson for making THREE LotR movies when he could have just made the one?
There are few baseless complaints that get my goat as much as the "Wahhhh the game has two expansion packs, such a ripoff" one.