People who come from Forged Alliance wanted the same game with better graphics but got triggered when what they got was something outside their comfort zone. I won't deny this game could have been much better if GPG didn't run into financial issues and let Square Enix in on the process - that then forced them to make the game work on xbox, but this game is not as bad as it's reputation. Even with all those problems Chris Taylor still managed to release a very good game and the ONLY 2 valid arguments against the game are worse graphics and a really REALLY bad campaign/plot. 1) Hurr durr graphics bad Since when do we judge games based on graphics over gameplay? If graphics are what you think is the most important part of a strategy game, you have plenty of games with graphics way better than Forged Alliance. 2) But t-the campaign is badd!!!!!1! 90% of the players keep replaying FA (FAF) and SC2 for the multiplayer anyway. The singleplayer campaign in any RTS game is usually just the hook, but players stay for multiplayer. I've had tons of fun playing the co-op campaign (which is a mod from FAF), but that wasn't something that came with the base game and was something added later by modders, which SC2 unfortunately has a short supply of after most people from FA condemned SC2 without ever really trying it out. I have 2800+ hours on this game (on steam) and I can tell you the competitive gameplay is definitely there unlike what most FA people with 26 minutes on the game tell you. Saying SC2 is nothing but artillery spam and mass convertor rush is exactly the same as saying FAF is nothing but Mavor rush and gunship spam (which is something equally stupid someone who never really played a lot of Forged Alliance would say). And if you're playing the game casually and just want to see big things explode than none of this matters and I'm sure you'll have plenty of fun messing around with the research tree and fun unique experimentals this game has. [/rant]
