With that I mean the fact that, since the last time I played this game (exactly twenty friggin' years ago...it sucks to get older), I have not changed my idea that this RTS is surely enjoyable and charming and the universe presented is an interesting one but it's not GreatUzt thing evUr some people make it out to be, not just when compared to other RTS games of the time but also compared to other outings of this same company (Warcraft III anyone?). Also, I'm pretty baffled at the fact that, apparently, people online seem to have particular problems with the second iteration of this game (Starcraft II) that I still have never played since its debut in 2010 because of its story etc. Etc. Etc. Well, apparently, in this one not only there isn't a particularly developed story - more an excuse to patch together scenarios with different terrains and enemies than anything else - but neither there are exceptionally developed characters excluding the clear-as-day romantic liason between Jim Raynor and Sarah Kerrigan, meaning this game has the same things people accuse Starcraft II of having except for the as of now dated gameplay, the easy exploits (without using cheats I mean) available in several missions, the super repetitious terrains etc. Etc. Etc. But hey, the OST surely is great, no questions attached. This is not Warcraft III, sorry. We'll see if the so-much-overrated Brood War campaign available in the remastered version I played is better or not, even I have my sincere doubts in this regard.
Review of StarCraft
