yea...

[@@] Look at the natural way of progression of technology and gameplay.

(1) StarCraft 1 was the best RTS in 1998; also SC1 was most fun to play.

(2) So many people stopped playing StarCraft 1 since 2002 because of WarCraft 3.

(3) Because WC3 was so well made, SC1 suddenly became a game which is relatively so boring to play (no tactics, only massing units), relatively too simple to play, and relatively too easy to play (you only need 2 weeks to become SC1 expert, on the other hand, you need at least 3 months to be WC3 expert).

(4) Currently only few people play StarCraft 1 (Three quarter (3/4) of world’s all StarCraft 1 copies (game CDs) are sold just in Korea). Just ignore this ret+rded gaming country which are full of immatured ret+rds; therefore, only very few people in America or European countries play SC1 right now.

(5) StarCraft 1 became so boring, simple, and easy to play because gamers’ expectation (standard) have been dramatically raised (upped) after playing WarCraft 3.

(6) Blizzard thought about so many things to make a better RTS than SC1. Adding various heroes definitely enhanced the difficulty (the opposite of simpleness) and fun-factor. Adding items obviously upped complexity. Adding two more races which are totally distinctive certainly increased diversity (each race gives you totally different tactics, gameplay, and fun). Adding creeps totally revolutionized the RTS genre (the reason is explained in #8 below).

(7) WC3’s complexity and difficult level have been upped dramatically compared to SC1. For example, SC1 is relatively a very easy game to play for noobs. One instance is that in SC1, beginners don’t even have to learn good micro-management skills (such as fast unit controlling) because there’s no penalty for losing units. However, in WC3, if beginners lose many units because of their poor micro skills, these noobs will be greatly penalized because opponents’ heroes become much stronger.

(8) WC3 is so much more tactical than SC1. In SC1, the whole game is f+cking boring because your enemy can station all his units inside his base all the time (campers rule); however, in WC3, because there’re creeps, you must explore the map frequently; therefore, a skilled WC3 gamer can attack the enemy’s base at the right moment then retreat (hit and run strategy) in order for the enemy to waste away a teleport (resource).

(9) As a result, WC3 was the natural way of evolution and revolution from SC1 in RTS genre. SC1 is the simpleness, boredom, and bare-bone itself.







[@@] Now the only option for Blizzard to choose is to cancel (scrap) the whole StarCraft 2 project. Why?

(1) StarCraft 2 is an absolute retrogression (a step backward, degeneration, deterioration) from WarCraft 3.

(2) SC2’s graphics is slightly better than that of WC3. Spore, Halo Wars, Tom Clancy’s EndWar, Company of Heroes-OF, The Settlers-NextGen, Command & Conquer 3, Star Wars, and World in Conflict all have better graphics and technologies (remember, these games are released prior to SC2).

(3) StarCraft 2 is a totally last-gen game, no destructible maps, etc; almost no improvements from the 10 year old SC1.

(4) SC2 is like 90% same as SC1 in terms of gameplay, too. SC2 has 3 races. SC2 has three more units per race. That’s all the differences. For example, in SC2, there is a new unit called immortal; the promotional homepage says immortal is exactly same as dragoon. Blizzard just changed the unit’s name then added shield ability to it.

(5) Blizzard said we will change all the properties of units such as hit points, attack damage, armor points, moving speed, attacking rate, and so on. That’s why playing SC2 will give you totally different feel to SC1.

(6) Gamers just have to wait until 2012 or so to play WarCraft 4, since StarCraft 2 is a total disaster and garbage. That’s the bottom line.

DAAAYYYMMM



This girl is HOTTTTTT, sexy sexy, i'd do her anyday



YUMMMMMY



Huge boobies, Woo!



Phwoar!!