Uranium - 235

Get a sound card that isn't made by Creative ;)

It doesn't show income from Embargo either.

Well then make the upkeep slowly 'tick down' instead of instantly plummeting to whatever it should be.

Siege frigates are fine.

[quote]Uranium 238 - PLEASE STOP SWEARING !!!! Its offensive[/quote] Strange, it doesn't offend me. Yes, the characters were so great in Starcraft, like the GENERAL who is your 'enemy' for about two missions before he surrenders his entire command to you at the drop of a hat. Get real.

[quote]I somewhat like this idea, but it has to carefully studied, as it can lead to games being decided simply by whom can make ships the fastest.[/quote] That's worse than 'whoever loses the first fleet loses the game' how? The current method encourages snowballing. You lose a little, which hurts your ability to win more, which makes your loss easier and easier. If you lose a few ships, or even a whole fleet, it will be far harder to replace that fleet. Which is shitty, stupi

If the core gameplay is going to be the same, what the hell does it matter if it's based on a crappy show or not? Does a game instantly get better if it's using unoriginal, stolen art or something?

How about keep the upkeep costs how they are, but the upkeep only charges you for the level your supply is currently being used at? So for example, if I 'unlock' up to level 4 supply (550-820), but I'm only using 500 supply at the time, I won't be charged the 38% until I cross over 550 supply. When my fleet supply drops under 550, I'll drop to 28%, the next lowest threshold.

Your mom's the size of a planet, but we've all conquered her.

Ironically, the PC developers who get closed down historically were the most highly successful. I mean, sheesh, Black Isle? Who the hell saw THAT coming?

What I enjoyed the most about Starcraft was that you had groups of 12, but could only queue up 5 in a factory. So instead of two barracks producing 12 marines, you had two barracks producing 10 marines, and you had to go back and remind them to build two more. That was some phenomenal design, let me tell you. Also, stop saying that Starcraft had 'great reviews'. I already pointed out on like, page 2 that Total Annihilation had similar or better reviews, and that most people wer

The United States stole the concept for the SR-71 and the B2 from the technology we nabbed when we invaded the moon. True story.

[quote]Seems hate blizzard bandwagon is full swing on these forums already. Will no internet forum be free of the mindless anti conformity zombies?[/quote] Behold - the exact point where everyone realized what a complete fucking tool you are. "Anyone who doesn't think Starcraft was the BEST RTS GAME EVER because it INVENTED RTS and it was the FIRST GAME TO HAVE COLORS and it was the FIRST PROGRAM EVER MADE TO UTILIZE A MOUSE clearly is a retard, who hates Blizzard, and they act

I think it's because everyone got bored of Africa's petty stupid problems thirty years ago.

[quote]a) is well designed game, this is reinforced by the positive critical reviews on major sites.[/quote] Oblivion? I already mentioned Halo or I'd use that.

[quote]Maybe you're right, but for the last 10 years, they're not playing so much Red Alert 2, Dawn of War, C&C3, Supreme Commander, Company of Heroes or whatever is on your mind...[/quote] Memento didn't make as much money as Spiderman 3, so I guess Spiderman 3 is the better movie. Popularity does not, has not, and never will equate quality. Popularity is a TREND, and Starcraft's success in Korea is exactly that. Everyone has different tastes, so why would one rather small cou

[link="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ZbnKnzzhE"]South Park explains Evolution[/link]

This edit being broken is really pissing me off. Starcraft didn't sell 10 million units in 1998. Or 1999. Or 2000. Initial sales were quite average, thank you very much. Yes, 'I was there' to quote Sir Ad Hominem Attacks up there.

How the fuck was Warcraft 3 an RPG? Because you had gear that'd give you +strength? Is that your definition? Do you have an extra chromosome? If that is your definition, you must be a fucking console gamer, or some other equally retarded slime. Have you ever played Fallout, Baldur's Gate, or even a single game of Dungeons and Dragons in your life? Shadowrun? Rifts? Warcraft 3 as an RPG - jesus christ. Not even BLIZZARD called DIABLO a role-playing game, because it WASN'T, you stupid twa

[quote]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

Also, despite what your teachers said, there's both such thing as a dumb question, but also dumb statements, and simply dumb people.

(Bah, edit is broken again) Another issue with organics is that, every creature, no matter how big or small, needs energy to survive, nutrients, proteins, and so far, water. As it's unlikely that any of these things are going to change (I should mention a water-based organic creature in space is all manner of bad news in a vacuum), it comes down to feeding your army. A massive capital-ship sized creature, which, assuming it can rapidly heal itself after a fight, would require a

[quote]Nerve poisons/Viral infection? Perfect to take out the crew on a space ship.[/quote] The matter comes down to getting it INSIDE - space ships don't exactly have screen doors ;) Such vessels are, like warships, segmented and can be sealed off in case of a hull breach. Simply close off the infected area, and if it comes down to it, jettison the atmosphere into hard vacuum. [quote]Radiation? Same goes here, plus an atomic explosion near a space ship would inevitably destroy

[quote]Shut the hell up.Why, cause YOU said so?[/quote] I can make Kryo or Frogboy say so if you'd like.

[quote]Everyone keeps trying to copy Blizzard's success in the RTS and MMORPG market[/quote] They do? The only 'big name' MMO that I think came out after WoW would be Dungeons and Dragons Online, which while it was a refreshing take on the whole MMO thing, it was just both a poor concept in a pay-per-month format, and riddled with bad gameplay design. I don't think anyone's released an MMO yet that was designed to combat WOW. As for Starcraft, I stand by what I said. T