vlad321 said:
zarx said:
vlad321 said:
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.
|
SC1 had it's share of copy and past pointless content...
I got my copy at a hefty discount so the price doesn't really bother me that much
Plus this way they can make the Protoss campaign the most epic thing ever... In 2016...
|
Yes SC1 did. However SC1 is 12 years old amd was awesoome for the games for its time. Compare newer RTS to SC2. Compare Frozen Throne to SC2. It managed to get all races in there, one way or another.
|
What new RTS's? Every other recent RTS game are more real time tactics or in Dawn of War 2's case a RTT multiplayer with a bad real time SRPG campaign. SC2 is the only competent traditional RTS in years and I would say it's the best RTS since TFT which had it's own flaws.
@TheVoxelman on twitter
