Originally posted by Unkown Target
I agree. However, I think the rest of the games is pure ****, also. I mean, come on, wow, amnazing plotline; Zerg=bad, Zerg attack Us, we make mistake and attack Protoss, now Protoss=bad, too. And in almost every cutscene the Protoss perform some sort of sacrifice, or they die, whether it be their beam sword isn't working, they have to blow themselves up, or they have to forgo a chance to blow Jessica Simpson(
), it's just plane stupid. And on top of that, the game includes bland, boring graphics that were going out-of-date the time it was released, and a non-inventive game model.
Bleh. I hat that game, HW is much, much better. Even Star Trek: Armada 1 is better!
Much as I have a distaste for SC, I think I need to rectify a few points here:
1. Actually, the Terrans were hardly sympathetic characters. It's telling when the main hero of the Terran missions has only the one eyebrow, but they were kinda... neutral, between the cheesy evil and the cheesy good, which made the Terran missions actually interesting for a time. I will, however, agree on the Protoss. Cliches in the Stone Age, and they ain't getting better.
2. Eh? The graphics were actually quite good for the time. Compared to the other stuff out at the time, the units moved smoothly and freely, the background blended nicely with the action, and the effects were purty enough to keep it interesting. Gimmicky and outdated now, but they're still quite well put together, for graphics that have passed their time. And the cutscenes were fantastic. If you really noticed that everything looked plasticky, or that the Protoss special effects resembled something that could have appeared in Tron, you still had to give it that they had fantastic dialogue, ship detailing, and subplot.
3. Graphics and plot do not a game make. Some of the best strats had neither- Master of Orion, anyone?
