[Marty4]

Originally Posted by uk_john Firstly, what makes it poor is the fact I can compare it against the original when that original game came out, as I was around then, and the 20 years I have played computer games never having owned a console.

I can compare it to the original, too. SC1 was one of the very first video games I ever played.

For there to be a 12 year gap for just this, and then to have Blizzard rip-off it PC gaming fans by releasing each race campaign as a separate full price game, and on top of that, not offering network play is overall totally disgusting. If you think getting the equivalent of the first Starcraft, that cost $50, for $150 is reasonable then more fool you!

The first Starcraft, with its expansion, was about $100 total. I haven't found any pricing information regarding the total cost of SC2, but I have found assurances that the Zerg and Protoss portions are considered expansion packs, leading me to believe they will cost less than Wings of Liberty. WoL provides 26 campaign missions, an intricate between-mission setup, a mini arcade game, and an extensive challenge mode compared to SC1's 30 total campaign missions with no additional bells and whistles. Seems fair to me.

Gamers have become their own worse enemies too. Go to Metacritic and check any PC game that is 5+ years old and look at the use reviews. Assuming it's a good game, you'll see scores between 7 and 9 with very very few 10's and hardly anything below 7. Now look at a game like SC2 on Metacritic, you have a load of people saying they like it, and a bunch of people that have complaints and feel they have to score 0 to make the average more reasonable! This shows you the 'dumbing down' and 'fanboyism' we now have in this multiformat market.

Like I said, I'm not into this sort of thing. You're probably right, but this isn't so much a SC2 grievance as it is a modern gaming grievance, no?

By stating what you do about SC2, you are in effecting dissing what SC1 had. because many see SC1 as so brilliant, SC2 could only ever be just a graphic upgrade and a different story, but could never be 'better'. SC1 on Metacritic has 700+ user reviews and yet has an average of 8.8. This is honest. SC2 has, on around 100 user reviews, a score of 9.8. SC2 is not worth 1.0 point more than SC1, it just that we had honest gamers all those years ago, that had a brain in their head that games forced you to use instead of today's gamers that only like games where there hand is held the whole way through!

I see SC1 as brilliant. I see SC2 as brilliant. How is that damaging to SC1's legacy? Sure, the numbers are skewed, because that kind of thing can happen. I could care less; I never heed arbitrary numerical rating systems, and instead rely on my personal instinct and the reviews of my friends that get the games before me. I didn't buy SC2 because fanboys inflated the rating, I bought it because it looked damn good and my friends told me it was damn good. I played it, and decided that it was damn good.