Timskorn Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 You're right, games like that and even Command HQ are "true" B&P. For a casual gamer SC2 would not be a B&P, there is too much involved to be considered that. For those of us who are used to a lot more info and complexity, I can consider this a B&P game. To me a game like Risk is a water and crackers game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Agree Rolend, my assessment exactly, but everyone has their own perspectives, and aesopo's is different than ours. So..... what? I'm definitely not disappointed in SC2 and I would venture to say that most of us(I beat the editor drum bigtime) got exactly, well maybe not exactly, but close to what we asked for in the old SC1 forums, aesopo not withstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Water and crackers LOL better yet rum and coke, you can have some strange Risk games drunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt Hudson Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Originally posted by aesopo: SC2 still comes across as a beer and pretzel game with regards to complexity and game mechanics - yes still a big improvement from SC1 but still lacking depth. Anyone checked out computer world war 2 in europe by decision games? No AI though. But Hubert still did a good leap from SC1. But for SC3, I think he needs a grognards/military person perspective for it for playtesting (well that is four years away? hehe). I dont think he wanted a Grognard game. Which is what I like about it And as for Computer War in Europe...thats great and all but i want to play against the computer as well as human Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts