By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
zarx said:
vlad321 said:

7.5

Battle.net 2.0 was a disaster (I haven't bothered logging in since last september). No LAN. 1/3rd of the actual game in single-player. Astoundingly disappointed in it overall.

 

Granted compared to the ones at the top this should be a 10. So if you are gonna rank it against those give it a 9.5, but really it's worth a 7.5 (should be telling what the other ones are worth).


Battle.net has improved a lot since then (it still has several flaws tho but they are minor) but the most important aspect of battle.net the matchmaking is unmatched in any game, No KLAN is a serius fking mistake, The singleplayer actually has more content than SC1 BTW and is much more varied this complaint is petty.

Yeah the single-player has more content. It is also worthless content. They could have completely removed the entire colonials and specter mission chains and not have had any reprecussions. Remove the Protoss one, and they could have had a perfectly fine single-player sappning all 3 races. They didn't.

Also $60, now game is worth $60.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835