Okay, judging from the gist of what you said: A game can not be good unless it does "new" things. Please, argue that sentence alone, but you can not edit the posts you have already made. And please, when you read this, realize I am not insulting you, nor do I try to, or aim to, or even wish to: I am simply hoping to correct what I see as a horrendously illogical and wrong argument.
I ask you, what has Sins done that is "new?"
Space battle? Oh wait, Homeworld did it better.
Planet management? Go play Masters of Orion 2, 3 was okay, but 2 is the best.
3D battle? Oh wait, they took out the 3rd axis, so Homeworld strikes again.
Diplomacy? Laugh.
Single player? Non existant.
AI/UI features? In the works.
Resource tracking? A little website called www.Ogame.com. Surprisingly similar in, oh wait, most aspects.
However, so as to not pull this thread too far off topic: I love Sins. Obviously, you do not, because it did nothing "new." Frankly, I am sorry your taste in video games is so skewed and prejudiced.
You mentioned that my phrase of Warcraft 3 blending "Role playing" elements was a lame phrase? I'm sorry? I really, truly, do not see where you are coming from there, since the game itself is rated by Blizzard as being such a genre. By the way, the "RP " in "RPG" stands for - guess what, "Role playing." Thus, the BLENDING of these ROLE PLAYING elements with the STRATEGY elements of an "RTS", again, different genres, blended together, in a game that didn't quite work, that can NOT be used to judge whether or not a game that has not been released will be successful, especially if they are different genres and franchises.
Back to Starcraft: I ask you, and this has nothing to do with the validity of your statements or the maturity of the poster, but how old are you? Were you around back when Starcraft came out? All I can say with any sure-ity is that I was. Starcraft succeeded because of EVERYTHING that it was, not just because of the release of Battle.net. In the beginning of Starcraft, you would be lucky to find five different custom maps, 3 of which not released by Blizzard themselves. No, the fan base, the audience, the adoration of instantly MILLIONS of gamers was for the game itself. Sure, inevitably the creative juices got rolling, and more custom maps started coming out than you could care to mention: I know, I was there, I beta'd many, but that is inconsequential. We all played melee. We all loved the different tactics and strategies - and, oh wait, you complain about the "supply depots being used as walls even though they aren't specifically called "wall"?" Guess what, every strategy game has done this, or has a similar quirk. Quirks and strategies and the like are present in EVERY GAME YOU CAN MENTION. Please, mention one, and I can tell you a strategy used by players not intended by developers. LRM spam, what?
World of Warcraft, for what it is, is inconsequential to this thread, however, I will shed some light: When the game came out, it was not because of it being an MMORPG, or a Blizzard game, or any one factor that you liked to tout being the "main" reason for its popularity; but a combination of all of that and the fact that it was a sequel to the "Warcraft franchise." Again, I was there. It proved to be a game that was fun for Blizzard fans to play, easier and more user friendly for MMOers to play, and most importantly of all, it killed Everquest. How could a "bad" game sell TEN MILLION subscriptions of MONTHLY FEES to people and retain such a large fan base as it has?
Back to Starcraft: Please, try massing those 400 "Heavy assault bots" against a medium/moderate level player. When you lose, don't just add that to the list of "Why SC Sucks." Starcraft was very much about a combination of tactics and strategy, and was very much well received by all who reviewed the game. Yes, there was hype existant (Operation CWOL, look it up.) due to a delayed release date, but what game doesn't have that. You mentioned that Starcraft 2 will be successful on Hype alone: I did not realize we had a fortune teller in our midst. Tell me, does Hillary really win, and does the world really die? Or is your ability to foretell future events - which, by the way, that guy called Einstein, as much as a hoax and a crack as he was, being smarter than you or I, said is impossible - only pertain to Blizzard's upcoming titles. You mentioned the "unique sides" not being new to Starcraft, and I can only assume you are talking about Age of Empires or the like, who featured not two, not three, but very many factions in their game play - however, this is different from Starcraft in that Age of Empires changed units and buildings and graphics of each faction to designate which ones were different, while Starcraft's factions were entirely new to each other. Maybe my mind is failing me and I am forgetting about which game you are talking about that had 3 unique factions with their own styles of gameplay, their own strategies, and their own units before Starcraft.
I agree that Starcraft had the new and unique StarEdit and Custom map settings, where no other game had done before - however, are you recognizing that Starcraft did something "new," and therefor can be considered a "good" game under your qualifications? However, again, if this were the case, your entire argument might just fall apart.
As for the campaign of Starcraft being "Mind numbing shit"...actually, no, I cannot see where you are coming from there. An epic story line that has far survived the original game, spawning many side stories and the like - mind numbing shit? Really? Granted, deus ex machina was used once or twice: who doesn't use it though. You can't find a game these days without it rearing its ugly head. Does this detract from the game, thus forcing the campaign story and gameplay in to such a title? I do not think so, or else where does Sins sit, a game that doesn't even have a story?
You say how Homeworld completely destroyed any credibility Starcraft might have had as a game, even though history and the facts have proven you wrong: if I recall correctly, Homeworld's story had a people exiled to a desert planet from their home by evil brethren similar to their old empire in every way, they found technology, they tried returning home, the enemy burnt their new home, they make their way across the galaxy (running in to an alien race of traders and a nebula housing crazed cultists who were once also part of their ancestor race) and beat their enemy, reclaiming their "homeworld." Great story, but, simply judging from the volume of both stories, Starcraft's wins.
What has Blizzard done that is New? Well, okay... lets see, the "Role Playing Strategy" genre that you just refuse to believe exists (hey, people don't believe in God and Evolution and stuff, it's okay), although if it doesn't exist, it isn't new. World of Warcraft is a huge improvement over the accepted MMO of the years before its release, that is, Everquest, thus allowing the game and the genre to be accessed by all of those little "idiot gamers" that just shouldn't be allowed to come in out of the fields, apparently, and boosting the game to popularity only dreamed of by, well, every other game that doesn't have the Lambda on its box.
I do not see how you can give a review of a game not yet released. I really don't. We can happily resume this conversation once the game is out, has been out for a few months, has been given the necessary chance to work out any kinks found by those players who, I believe, you termed "average idiot gamers," who just love to find those crazy little strategies like making "walls" out of something not called a "wall" that could potentially hurt the game. Once this happens, we will talk again.
Now, for an end note, again, I respect your opinion and your feelings, and do not think that this argument should extend past this thread (proper forum etiquette anywhere). Any hostility and strong emotion present in my post stemmed from disbelief at certain notions, or untruths/half truths that I felt strongly about righting.
