So, unless you have been living under a rock for the last few days, you probably know by now that Starcrft 2 has just been released. Since I totally got owned by the dudes I preordered from (I get the game on 28 July) I followed GS reviews and scores all day long.

I noticed that a lot of people gave SC2 the "prime score", so I guess that game is actually good. Which brings me to the people that gave it a bad score...

Before i get into this, that let me tell you that I actually visited around 80 profiles of people that didn't like Starcraft and notice that most of them had not played the game or where just angry on others things, that really didn't have nothing to do with the actual game.

Let's start with the fact that a vast majority have been giving bad scores because SC2 took to long to make. What is wrong with this people? It so happen that most of the games released until now that got at least decent scores (includin from the people that pwnd SC2) had issues because they were rushed. These games lost a lot in terms of campaign length, sound effects, voice acting, various bugs and glitches or some lack of functionality just because they were rushed! Yet, they got decent scores. What is missing in SC2?

The second thing most angry people say is that SC2 feels like SC1 with better graphics. It comes natural for me to ask: "What does this mean? What was Blizzard supposed to do?". Since SC2 is a sequel isn't it normal for it to feel like part one, only better ? Isn't it normal to keep the multiplayer that won the 11 mil. fans the way it was. Isn't it normal to keep a continuity in terms of game mechanics and units? What is wrong with people saying this things? Does C&C change radically from one installment to the other? Wasn't theirs last installment (Tiberian Twilight) criticized because they changed to much and should have just stuck with the winning formula they already had ?

-- End of Part 1