[QUOTE="Carbon_Romance"][QUOTE="yellosnolvr"][QUOTE="TheCSPeaceMaker"]:lol: you dont like it because its not "teh next-gen" graphical quality as of games nowadays...i laugh in pity for such peopleI was trying to see what all the hype about so I decided to go and search for the previous star craft. I came across this video..and this...THIS!! is what you guys were hoping and praying for a sequel to..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=k5Fd6fHNdsE
Is this a joke or is it a play to beleive it game ?
jeffwulf
In-case you didn't know better graphical quality is becoming more and more a standard these days... maybe you were too busy playing Starcraft to know this. Besides that i've played games like this before... they're long and boring after a while. I couldn't play a game like this myself due to the craptastic graphics... This game could have pulled it off with me as great like in 2000-01 but those years have come and gone. Time to get over 64 bit quality... it sounds superficial in the gaming world but ya know.... gameplay isn't the only thing wanted these days.
So you are dissing a 10 year old game for having 10 year old graphics? That game being one of the pillars upon which gaming is built? Either you are the pinacle of fanboy, or you have never played a quality game in your entire life.
I'm mainly saying all this based on that part 2's gfx aren't all that great.... I only play quality games for your info... if a game can't keep my attention for more than 30mins at a time it's not worth playing at all.
It's clearly obvious who the fanboys are in here since they take criticism towards a game as a personal attack and make derogetory comments towards that person. Maybe it's never suppose to have flashy graphics... but where something lacks it's suppose to be made up at sooner or later... as you said the first one is a 9 year old game... they had a while to get to work on this. I'm just stating my opinion, don't take it so seriously.
Log in to comment