The speed has nothing to do with the consternation. The issues are the smaller scale, busted resource system, and diminished focus on long-term tactics.
I would have thought the speed was linked to those three issues. No?
Not the part where engineers can't assist in construction, as that's due to an as-yet ineradicable bug which made assistance free.
That hasn't stopped you from making sweeping generalisations about it. FA is only slow in singleplayer. But even then I liked the slow-burn nature, thanks.
Well, fair enough on the first, but I'm not seeing the strategic depth in singleplayer. Build a bunch of T2 pd and T3 SAMs and shields and your stuff doesn't die. Build a bunch of experimentals and maybe some T3s if you feel like it and all of their stuff does die--although the commander builds fast enough to alleviate some of my problems with the pacing. Maybe some of the later missions will throw something different at me.
For the second, well. I have enough multiplayer games on my plate that I'm unlikely to ever get around to FA multi, at least until I get bored of L4D2, which will be never. Unless one of you kids wants to show a douchetastic noob the ropes, but even then.
Improvement isn't really the word - that's like saying the console Baldur's Gate games were improvements on the PC series. They appeal to different audiences. That's clear enough considering most everyone who likes SupCom 2 didn't play the original.
True. I was shocked when my first game of DoWII took, like, eight minutes. And then, after it started pitting me against people of roughly equivalent skill, I realized I really liked
the fact that I could play three to six games in an hour. I totally switched teams at that point, and so the different pacings of SC2 and 1? Yeah, the latter appeals to me a lot more these days.
I wonder how I'd feel if I fired up CivIV again. hmm.