What makes Star Control...Star Control?

...which says nothing at all about the game; this argument is 100% superficial.

No it says everything, Animation, Exciting graphics is absolutely Essential to the creation of an immersive experience, which is part of what make Star Control great, disregarding this fact is like saying you enjoy the game because of the music and don't need the graphics.

When i fired up Star Control vs firing up MoO2, i stopped playing a few hours within MoO2 when it was released. With Star Control i kept coming back, playing it for years and years, and still do.

Quoting BionicDance,

And I still play the living crap out of both.

Awesome, enjoy.

If the devs are bringing the topic to light, like mentioned Star Control should not be changed into something different, or it will not be that great anymore

Quoting BionicDance,

But adding a few elements from MoO2--like having a more living star map, one that can have evolving politics, being able to take possession of and fortify planets and stars, rather than the almost completely static map from the original--wouldn't be making it all that different...but you wouldn't know that because you apparently gave up on Master of Orion when it didn't look the way you wanted.

Not quite sure how it will play out, changing the focus of the game might take down the perfectly balanced fun aspect.

I would need to know exactly how it will influence the game overall, the playability, and the reward factor, Star Control have all these elements balanced extremely well already.

Quoting BionicDance,

Hell, even SC2 had elements of this; remember when the Spathi decided to pack up shop and go seal themselves away under a bubble? The galactic map changed, and there is no reason why the player shouldn't have some direct control--Star Control--over that aspect of the game's plot.

Besides...maybe you don't remember, but the original Star Control had all of this; it actually played remarkably similarly to Master of Orion, with a foritifiable star map and all of that...or have you not played every game in the series...? *raised eyebrow*

That's why Star Control evolved into Star Control 2, which was a total different and revolutionary experience than SC1.

Sure small elements of the game as you mentioned i can't see it hurting the game, as long as the focus and the balance of the game is not shifted.

they can make a MoO on it's own if there's a fan base for that, but i cannot possibly see how it can better whatsoever an already Brilliant working Star Control game

Well, your inability to see it doesn't mean it's not there.
[/quote]

... I love Star Control, i've tried other genre's and types of variation's of top down platformers, the only one's that totally grabs my attention are RTS games specifically the Dune franchise and the Command and Conquer franchise, and of course Star Control being invented long before RTS games evolved into what they did after Star Control. But don't misunderstand, i'm not saying RTS games like Dune CNC etc are superior, they have just evolved into their own unique Genre.

Star Control's own unique Genre is Just as good as the ones i mentioned, if not better than many existing RTS titles

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting UrQuanian,

reply 54

No it says everything, Animation, Exciting graphics is absolutely Essential to the creation of an immersive experience

First of all, that's not everything.

Second, that's completely wrong...I don't know how old you are, but I was around for the age of text adventure games like Zork and Planetfall, which had no graphics at all, and they were perfectly lovely gaming experiences. It's the game that matters most; the prettiest graphics in the world cannot save a game that's no fun to play.

which is part of what make Star Control great, disregarding this fact is like saying you enjoy the game because of the music and don't need the graphics.

I enjoy the game because of the gameplay; the great graphics are a bonus. A wonderful bonus. But I could play the game even if it was in the age of monochrome graphics and no sound cards.

Y'ever see the old DOS game called "Spacewar"...? Same premise as fleet battles, still lots of fun to play...but, as I said, B&W graphics:

Are you saying you wouldn't play this game just because it's not pretty enough for you?

Not quite sure how it will play out, changing the focus of the game might take down the perfectly balanced fun aspect.

This is part of the problem, though: it wouldn't be changing anything. It would just be adding another layer of complexity.

And maybe if you'd played a bit more MoO2, you'd understand the premise I'm putting forward; you're not arguing from an informed position.

Sure small elements of the game as you mentioned i can't see it hurting the game, as long as the focus and the balance of the game is not shifted.

And I never said they would or should be.

they can make a MoO on it's own if there's a fan base for that, but i cannot possibly see how it can better whatsoever an already Brilliant working Star Control game

And, again, the problem there is yours.

I don't think you've even taken the time to consider what added elements resembling Master of Orion would do to Star Control. I think you cannot hear what I'm saying over the sound of your knee jerking.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Graphics is essential to a game such as Star Control, however, where i agree with you is that the core derived from games prior to it's existence that did not have good graphics. Yes the core is vital.

So there i agree that not all good games require good graphics, however Star Control consists of both elements, Star Control won't be as great if any single of these elements was missing including it's masterful music and sound effects, it's everything combined that makes it stand out.

Then the problem with extra complexity is that it could change the balance of what makes the game enjoyable.It doesn not need to be influenced. It's the old "if it ain't broke fix it saying." No need to fix it, it's already perfect.

It's a fine balance to let a good game be a really really good game vs one that is just good, that balance was perfected with Star Control 2, no need to tamper with that, complexity might tamper with that, the game is already perfect.

i have taken it into consideration, and what i see is a situation similar to games where too much crafting creates more of a frustration to the point where the excitement of exploration does not make it worth it anymore. I don't want to be stuck doing chores, there's a universe out there i need to explore, the usual tech trees and upgrades RTS style is just the right amount of complexity.

Star Control 2 is perfect as is. A little change or fine tuning here or there is welcome if it complements the experience, but the game has everything in it already and practically works perfectly well that's why so many enjoys the game.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting UrQuanian,

reply 56

Graphics is essential to a game such as Star Control, however, where i agree with you is that the core derived from games prior to it's existence that did not have good graphics.

But that only illustrates the point that graphics aren't necessary for a game to be good.

Think of it like this: can you enjoy a sci-fi movie from decades ago, when we didn't have ILM making CGI? When the FX were all stop-motion or models? Cuz...I can. I do.

Look at the original "War of the Worlds" or "Fantastic Voyage"...looking at them now, the FX are crap by comparison to today's standards...but they're still good stories and fun to watch.

And Star Control is the same: if the game has a good plot, good controls, good gameplay, it wouldn't matter if it was old-school DOS monochrome.

...or shouldn't. Insisting that, without graphics, the game wouldn't be worth playing is, frankly, quite shallow.

So there i agree that not all good games require good graphics, however Star Control consists of both elements, Star Control won't be as great if any single of these elements was missing.

Are you saying you wouldn't play Star Control if its graphics weren't up to your standards?

Then the problem with extra complexity is that it could change the balance of what makes the game enjoyable.It doesn not need to be influenced. It's the old "if it ain't broke fix it saying." No need to fix it, it's already perfect.

And yet, I still think that adding a political/conquest system to the game would add a layer of complexity that could make the game a lot of fun on top of the entertainment it already provides.

It's a fine balance to let a good game be a really really good game vs one that is just good, that balance was perfected with Star Control 2, no need to tamper with that, complexity might tamper with that, the game is already perfect.

Frankly, I don't think it was perfected.

It was done quite well, but that doesn't mean it was perfect. There was definitely room to grow.

i have taken it into consideration, and what i see is a situation similar to games where too much crafting creates more of a frustration to the point where the excitement of exploration does not make it worth it anymore.

If that's what you think will happen with what I'm proposing, then you clearly don't understand it.

I don't want to be stuck doing chores

And, again, that only shows you don't understand. You're picturing changes that simply are not being proposed.

Star Control 2 is perfect as is.

No, actually...it's not.

I always wanted more control over the story; I felt it would have been more fun to be able to shape alliances between one alien species and another. It'd be like playing Babylon 5.

I could still explore, and when I'd meet aliens, I'd have to find a way to ally with them, to show them the way that aligning themselves with my side of the conflict is in their interest...and, if I did it right, they'd join me...and the plot would change as a result.

THAT would be an amazing game.

A little change or fine tuning here or there is welcome if it complements the experience, but the game has everything in it already

Obviously, I don't agree. It doesn't have everything.

And, if what I'm hearing from the developers of SCO is accurate, it sounds as if they're adding some of what I always felt was missing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Again i did not say graphics is what makes a game, it is not, there is thousands of old school arcade games i think is absolutely brilliant with bad graphics, moon patrol, most fun, kung fu master, and my favorites kid nicky, ghosts and goblins, ghosts and ghouls 2, Golden AXE, legend of kage (the music and freedom in this games is legendary), double dragon, i can go on, all these were brilliant games with low res graphics, if SCO was like Star Control 2 graphics, it would be awesome.

The graphics at the time of SC2 was good, the visual effects combined with the sound was great, so yes indeed i will play it, the core, gameplay was great without the graphics, adding the graphics as they did, added the cream on top of the ice cream, so yes not needed to be there for the game to be good, i have agreed on this fact all along and am not disputing it, but it takes the visual experience to the next level, enhancing the experience even further, that's why it's nice to have good graphics on top of an already good game, good graphics without a good base/core is useless. i'd take a well built game with bad graphics anytime as one over only the graphics that is good.

Talking about movies, do you remember this one and Only classic. Krull, what a brilliant movie, you would laugh at the special effects back then, i don't the movie is my favourite classic ! a true gem that not many know of.

Look i see you are passionate about adding more complexity, perhaps it could be demonstrated then i might or might not consider it personally (or implement it in a way so it can be used if wanted but not required) most everyone was happy with SC2 as is when they played it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting UrQuanian,

reply 58

Again i did not say graphics is what makes a game, it is not

Sure sounded like it, but okay.

Talking about movies, do you remember this one and Only classic. Krull, what a brilliant movie, you would laugh at the special effects back then, i don't the movie is my favourite classic ! a true gem that not many know of.

Funny, I just watched it a few days ago.

Thing is, I actually don't think it's brilliant at all. The characters are okay, and the basic plot is pretty cool, but the specifics of the writing... it watches like they stole a bunch of scenes from other movies--maybe scripts that had been written but never produced--and then very loosely stitched them together. There is no real cohesion; you could lift almost any scene right out of it and the movie wouldn't change at all.

Now, if you want to talk about a good movie in a similar vein that still good despite crap FX, watch "Erik the Viking".

Look i see you are passionate about adding more complexity, perhaps it could be demonstrated then i might or might not consider it personally (or implement it in a way so it can be used if wanted but not required) most everyone was happy with SC2 as is when they played it.

And I loved it, too...but that doesn't mean that there isn't room for that extra complexity without making the game worse.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting BionicDance,

And I loved it, too...but that doesn't mean that there isn't room for that extra complexity without making the game worse.

Like mentioned it would have to be tested, it might or might not work.

Quoting BionicDance,

Sure sounded like it, but okay.

Sorry you misinterpret then, it is essential to have all elements including graphics, well balanced to take a game to the next level, but the core gameplay always takes priority. That's why i Said it's part of what makes a game great.

Quoting BionicDance,

Funny, I just watched it a few days ago.

Thing is, I actually don't think it's brilliant at all. The characters are okay, and the basic plot is pretty cool, but the specifics of the writing... it watches like they stole a bunch of scenes from other movies--maybe scripts that had been written but never produced--and then very loosely stitched them together. There is no real cohesion; you could lift almost any scene right out of it and the movie wouldn't change at all.

I see it differently,

Krull was a broad, brilliantly entertaining fantasy, and among the most visually creative and downright fun movies of the enchanted 80s.

Krull was epic at it's day and age. A planet-wide adventure with galactic consequences in the vein of Dune.

It left you wanting more, but for some reason, no one ever made a sequel. It was also an epic production itself.

Many would claim that Krull is, was in fact, the greatest sci-fi movie ever.

And speaking of Dune, Freddie Jones, who played Ynyr and Francis Annis, who was the Widow of the Web, played Thufr Hawat and Lady Jessica, respectively in the classic 1984 David Lynch movie.

Quoting BionicDance,

Now, if you want to talk about a good movie in a similar vein that still good despite crap FX, watch "Erik the Viking"

Erik the viking was okay, far from brilliant though, it did not measure up to the best of the Python films.

The sets and effects are a mixed bag. Sometimes I was impressed, sometimes not. The story was loosely based on a children's book Jones wrote called The Saga of Erik the Viking.

If you get the chance you should read the book as it's much better than the film.

In the film, there are constant bursts of rapid fire dialogue to be found, but honestly, lacked any real inspiration or inventiveness to be genuinely humorous, even if there may be the odd chuckle, one just sort of take it in loose strides.

And after the death of Graham Chapman, the remaining Pythons. Gilliam, Palin and Idle, did not appear.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting UrQuanian,

reply 60

Sorry you misinterpret then, it is essential to have all elements including graphics, well balanced to take a game to the next level, but the core gameplay always takes priority. That's why i Said it's part of what makes a game great.

Well, given that you said this: Sure i made no point of knowing MoO2 at all, i insisted i don't. But there is a reason why i don't.

Everything is pretty much stationary, the only thing that put a mild smile on my face were those churning like black holes on the map, and the technology, Nothing else moved.

...and it was like yanking teeth to get you to discuss the actual gameplay of Master of Orion II, can you understand where I might have gotten that impression...? *raised eyebrow*

I see it differently,

Of course you do.

Krull was a broad, brilliantly entertaining fantasy, and among the most visually creative and downright fun movies of the enchanted 80s.

The 80s were awesome, but Krull was still disjointed and disconnected. Like I said, you could yank just about any scene from the movie and the plot wouldn't be affected at all. It was just going from one fight scene to the next, really; it was like watching someone's Dungeons & Dragons campaign in movie form.

It's similar to Time Bandits in that way, actually.

Now, Dragonslayer was a better movie. The Dark Crystal was a better movie. Heck, The Princess Bride was a better movie (though maybe not a fair comparison, being a comedy). And I could name tons more movies from the 80s that were better...and probably quite a few that were much worse (Legend comes immediately to mind); not all of them would be in the Fantasy genre, but still...

The 80s was my favorite decade--you should see my movie shelves--and, yeah, Krull is on it...but it's not a very well-written movie.

Krull was epic at it's day and age.

And, as I said, I can name a lot of epic movies from its day and age that are better quality, writing-wise.

A planet-wide adventure with galactic consequences in the vein of Dune.

Well, I don't much care for Dune.

That one's weird, though...because it seems like the sort of thing I would love. I want to like it. I don't know why I don't. And I've tried; I've read the book, watched the movie, watched the miniseries, and it just doesn't connect.

It left you wanting more

No, it didn't.

Many would claim that Krull is, was in fact, the greatest sci-fi movie ever.

Oh, bulldrek.

First of all, it's Fantasy, not Sci-Fi. Second, I doubt you'll find many who would claim that. They'll tell you that it's good, but "the greatest"...? Bah!

Erik the viking was okay, far from brilliant though, it did not measure up to the best of the Python films.

And despite having members of Python in it, it's not actually a Python film.

The sets and effects are a mixed bag. Sometimes I was impressed, sometimes not.

There's you going on about visuals again. Mentioning them first, as if it's the main thing that matters.

I can--and have--liked movies with horrid FX but amazing writing and acting. I'd mention the visuals second, and probably in passing.

...and this is coming from someone with a background in CGI; wanna see my IMDb page...?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting BionicDance,

Quoting UrQuanian,

reply 60

Sorry you misinterpret then, it is essential to have all elements including graphics, well balanced to take a game to the next level, but the core gameplay always takes priority. That's why i Said it's part of what makes a game great.

Well, given that you said this: Sure i made no point of knowing MoO2 at all, i insisted i don't. But there is a reason why i don't.

Everything is pretty much stationary, the only thing that put a mild smile on my face were those churning like black holes on the map, and the technology, Nothing else moved.

...and it was like yanking teeth to get you to discuss the actual gameplay of Master of Orion II, can you understand where I might have gotten that impression...? *raised eyebrow*

Yes , and that is so and what you quoted from myself stands true still, the game felt lifeless, i did explain more than once that Graphics without a good core is not good. That it seems you missed twice.

Quoting BionicDance,

Many would claim that Krull is, was in fact, the greatest sci-fi movie ever.

Oh, bulldrek.

First of all, it's Fantasy, not Sci-Fi. Second, I doubt you'll find many who would claim that. They'll tell you that it's good, but "the greatest"...? Bah!

Nope, Krull is a full-blown sci-fi movie, with a few fantasy elements thrown in.

1. It’s on another planet.

That’s actually talked about quite a bit. And in such a way that you are led to believe they know about other planets with other people on them. In fact, the opening and closing narration, it says: “A girl of ancient name shall become queen. And she shall choose a king. Together they will rule the world. And their son will rule the galaxy.” That not only gives away the fact that both Colwin and Lyssa live through the movie, but it also says there is a known galaxy to be ruled.

2. The Black Fortress is a space ship.

In the opening scenes, you see it come into orbit around the planet and land. It might look like a mountain, but it’s a space ship – a spaceship that has to descend through the atmosphere and land, but then apparently can teleport anywhere it wants to on the planet. And one that the inside looks kind of like what you might get if Salvador Dali designed the inside of the Tardis while dropping acid.

3. The Slayers are slugs in robot bodies.

Simple enough. When you see a Slayer die, you often see a slug crawl out of its head and burrow into the ground. The robot bodies are apparently supposed to be armor as well as a device which make it easier for the slugs to both get around and to be a bit more imposing that, say, a slug, but, judging from just how easy it is to kill a space slug wearing robot armor, the suits must be made by the same people who make the armor for the storm troopers in Star Wars.

4. The Slayers use lasers.

Did you hear the one about the guy who brought a sword to a laser gun fight? Yup. It’s swords and magic against lasers and space armor. Guess which one wins.

Quoting BionicDance,

And despite having members of Python in it, it's not actually a Python film.

Probably why it wasn't great.

Quoting BionicDance,

There's you going on about visuals again. Mentioning them first, as if it's the main thing that matters.

Except that it's not just the visuals, however it's all you quoted to make it want to seem so.

Quoting BionicDance,

...and this is coming from someone with a background in CGI; wanna see my IMDb page...?

Good for you.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sorry you misinterpret then, it is essential to have all elements including graphics, well balanced to take a game to the next level, but the core gameplay always takes priority. That's why i Said it's part of what makes a game great.

And yet you still haven't said what it was about MoO2 that you didn't like in terms of gameplay. You can claim it ain't all graphics as much as you like, but I don't really believe it, and won't until you actually engage.

Yes , and that i do and what you quoted from myself stands true still, i did explain more than once that Graphics without a good core is not good. That it seems you missed twice.

Not at all. It's just that your position is meaningless without saying what a "good core" is, and when all you've discussed it graphics.

Nope, Krull is a full-blown sci-fi movie, with a few fantasy elements thrown in.

You've got it exactly backward. Krull is a Fantasy movie with some Sci-Fi elements thrown in.

It’s on another planet.

Big deal. Most Fantasy stories don't take place on Earth.

That’s actually talked about quite a bit. And in such a way that you are led to believe they know about other planets with other people on them. In fact, the opening and closing narration, it says: “A girl of ancient name shall become queen. And she shall choose a king. Together they will rule the world. And their son will rule the galaxy.” That not only gives away the fact that both Colwin and Lyssa live through the movie, but it also says there is a known galaxy to be ruled.

And how exactly will that happen? Do you see any spaceships? Technology of any kind?

No. You don't. If anything, they'll probably do it via magic gates or something.

The Black Fortress is a space ship.

Purely superficial; it could be said that it's just magical and it would change nothing.

The Slayers are slugs in robot bodies.

"Robot"...? Really?

Again, this is superficial; they could easily be magical.

The Slayers use lasers.

Magical firebolts.

Your arguments are all superficial...which shouldn't surprise me, given your focus on graphics in video games.

If a movie is so easily changed from one genre to another--and I do mean easily; many other movies could be completely re-worked to be another genre, but you'd have to change far more than you would with Krull, more than just saying that one thing is something else--then going with the more obvious genre classification is the logical choice.

Krull is a Fantasy movie with some superficially Sci-Fi-esque elements.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting BionicDance,

Sorry you misinterpret then, it is essential to have all elements including graphics, well balanced to take a game to the next level, but the core gameplay always takes priority. That's why i Said it's part of what makes a game great.And yet you still haven't said what it was about MoO2 that you didn't like in terms of gameplay. You can claim it ain't all graphics as much as you like, but I don't really believe it, and won't until you actually engage.

I did but like most of my points, you just did not understand and Clearly you missed my point, The game was static. It did not feel alive. A good game have balanced elements, what moo2 missed was actual movement, a living universe, sense of exploring and travelling, and life like interaction, i have seen very little of that in the game. Most all the elements lacking that Star Control 2 had.

Quoting BionicDance,

Not at all. It's just that your position is meaningless without saying what a "good core" is, and when all you've discussed it graphics.

No i have mentioned twice it's not JUST graphics. Core is the physics and living flow of the game, and the basic graphics attached to it and how it all interacts with one another, colouring it in and making it pretty is enhancing it, but without the core, colours/graphics don't mean much.

Quoting BionicDance,

You've got it exactly backward. Krull is a Fantasy movie with some Sci-Fi elements thrown in.

Simply your point of view, many might share yours, just as many will share mine.

Quoting BionicDance,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krull_(film)

Your arguments are all superficial...which shouldn't surprise me, given your focus on graphics in video games.

Really, you barely understand them and am now trying to make a conclusion based on your ignorance. By yet again cherry picking to try and twist my point of view.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting UrQuanian,

reply 64

I did but like most of my points, you just did not understand and Clearly you missed my point

Oh, please. That's the last refuge of someone who has been disputed, the you-didn't-understand defense.

I understood...and found your position wanting.

The game was static. It did not feel alive.

A point which you made using the visual design of the map, citing the black holes as the only part you liked.

...yet you wonder why I tell you that the impression you gave was that graphics were your only criterion for enjoying a game.

A good game have balanced elements, what moo2 missed was actual movement, a living universe, sense of exploring and travelling

MoO2 has tons of that. It's like you weren't even playing the same game I was.

and life like interaction, i have seen very little of that in the game.

...which you admit you didn't play for very long. Perhaps you missed it.

Most all the elements lacking that Star Control 2 had.

Ah. So it wasn't a completely different game, which was the standard you used to judge.

Gotcha.

No i have mentioned twice it's not JUST graphics.

Without actually going into anything with any depth.

How about you do more than just give a Cliffs Notes version of what you liked or didn't...that might help a smidge.

Core is the physics and living flow of the game

Which MoO2 had in spades...but apparently it didn't have it in the style of Star Control, which was the standard by which you were judging.

The difference is that MoO2 dealt with empires and politics in ways Star Control never did. It was more Babylon 5 than Star Trek, if you see the analogy.

Simply your point of view, many might share yours, just as many will share mine.

Oh? Shall we put that to the test...?

By doing a simple word-search, the term "Fantasy" comes up 15 times; by contrast, "Sci-Fi" comes up 3. One of those is a reviewer, one is describing the musical score (contrasting it with the theme songs of the 70s and 80s), and one is from another reviewer who couples it with Fantasy, calling it a "sci-fi/fantasy" film.

"Science Fiction" comes up four times; one of those is the annotation note to a film encyclopedia and the other three are links to other Wikipedia articles.

So, right away, we can see that Science Fiction gets not even half as many mentions as Fantasy on Wikipedia.

And you can do a similar search on Google; again, pretty much every reference to Sci-Fi will come coupled with Fantasy.

Really, you barely understand them and am now trying to make a conclusion based on your ignorance. By yet again cherry picking to try and twist my point of view.

Or you might not be expressing your point of view as well as you think you are.

Perhaps you might actually address some of the issues I've been raising, give more detail on some of them, instead of giving superficial nods and then moving on as if they don't matter.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have no idea why it keeps screwing up the quotes like that. The code/formatting is correct...it just doesn't seem to like it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting BionicDance,

Quoting UrQuanian,

reply 64

I did but like most of my points, you just did not understand and Clearly you missed my point

Oh, please. That's the last refuge of someone who has been disputed, the you-didn't-understand defense.

I understood...and found your position wanting.

Disputed by going with your own ignorance... ? sure

Quoting BionicDance,

A point which you made using the visual design of the map, citing the black holes as the only part you liked.
...yet you wonder why I tell you that the impression you gave was that graphics were your only criterion for enjoying a game.

Yet you still ignore the fact i multiple times said it's not just the graphics, but now that you go back to it, the twirling black holes was the only thing seemingly alive in that game.

Quoting BionicDance,

MoO2 has tons of that. It's like you weren't even playing the same game I was.

Then it must play like SC2, if so I have missed a world of awesomeness, yet it did not and did not feel the same as SC2 at all, then the micromanagement bored me stiff.

Quoting BionicDance,

and life like interaction, i have seen very little of that in the game....which you admit you didn't play for very long. Perhaps you missed it.

Perhaps i did

Quoting BionicDance,

Ah. So it wasn't a completely different game, which was the standard you used to judge.Gotcha.

You got nothing

it felt completely different. Most all means most all. The core of a game can cause it to feel entirely different, moO2 physics mechanics was nowhere the same as SC2. merely a few similarities does not merit it to be similar by a long shot.

Quoting BionicDance,

Which MoO2 had in spades...but apparently it didn't have it in the style of Star Control, which was the standard by which you were judging.

Sure that's probably why the experience is not the same.

Quoting BionicDance,