Strato84

Actually, unless I'm just tired and misinterpreted, but the tech tree does say what will be researched later on. Maybe not exact specifications (like how much damage and space those phasors III will take up) but needless to say, the info is there, just have to click on the box. Well, I'm not trying to convince anyone this game is good, I hate the attitude that is rampant these days whereby a product must meet all expectations or otherwise heralded as rubbish. I do remember when I first

Civ II was different to Civ I due to a few things: 1. Battle, technically slightly more different with hitpoints and firepower. 2. Isometric grid (ie: squares are essentially diamonds to give a pseudo 3D appearance to the units). 3. Rivers not considered a separate tile, but overlaid as a "bonus" Civ III then changed a few things compared to Civ II, like armies, strategic resources. Civ IV brought in unit promotions and a whole different world layout

Perception is a wonderful thing. Perception means variation in point of view. Starcraft isn't over-rated, its just that it got "old" for some people faster than others. For instance, I still play X-Com: UFO Defence / Terror from the Deep on occasions, how many others would? Some games, like Jagged Alliance 2 I'll happily play over and over, despite the lack of multiplay, and generic storyline. The fact that it is still played suggests that it wasn't over-rated. An over-rated game to me