Warcraft III: 4.5 million pre-orders....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SearchManX


Wow... statements like these are the perfect example of the effects of mainstream gaming and people who are WAY too biased. You obviously have not played more than 2 minutes of Starcraft to be able to make a ridiculous statment like that. Go play some games and then talk.

---

Well, I would agree with you.

But . . . I own and have played more than I should have: Warcraft 2, Diablo 1 and 2, Starcraft and the expansion pack.

I also regularly play PC games. Some of my favorties include: Age of Empires 1 & 2, Civilization 3, Quake 3, GTA3, and various MUDs. I probably play PC games more than I do console games, but I like them an equal amount.

I guess I could say that Blizzard sticks to what they know best.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Ampersand
I guess I could say that Blizzard sticks to what they know best.

:rolleyes:

---

So does Sid Maier, ID Soft, and Rockstar:

Quote:

---

...Civilization 3, Quake 3, GTA3...

---

:rolleyes:

Ok. Let me explain:

There's a few types of games that I consider good (or worth my time).

1. A game that is innovative and fun. Enough said about that.

2. A game that is innovative but not quite as good as it could be. I commend developers for trying something new, even if it doesn't turn out to be a good game. There's always hope for an improved sequel.

3. A game that is not innovative, but does what it tries to do very well. As you said, ID, Rockstar, and Fireaxis fall under this category. The Street Fighter series is an excellent example. The series doesn't have many major jumps in gameplay, but rather focuses on many smaller changes.

I do not consider Diablo, Diablo 2, Warcraft, Warcraft 2, or Starcraft to fall under any of these categories. Therefore, I do not like Blizzard as a company. I cannot comment on their one SNES game, as I have never played it. Who knows, it may be good.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Ampersand
Ok. Let me explain:

There's a few types of games that I consider good (or worth my time).

1. A game that is innovative and fun. Enough said about that.

2. A game that is innovative but not quite as good as it could be. I commend developers for trying something new, even if it doesn't turn out to be a good game. There's always hope for an improved sequel.

3. A game that is not innovative, but does what it tries to do very well. As you said, ID, Rockstar, and Fireaxis fall under this category. The Street Fighter series is an excellent example. The series doesn't have many major jumps in gameplay, but rather focuses on many smaller changes.

I do not consider Diablo, Diablo 2, Warcraft, Warcraft 2, or Starcraft to fall under any of these categories. Therefore, I do not like Blizzard as a company. I cannot comment on their one SNES game, as I have never played it. Who knows, it may be good.

---

All you have to say is that you don't like them. Not that they don't fall into your categories, or that you "don't like them as a company."

Them as a company has nothing to do with whether or not you like their games.

So, just say it already! You don't like their games. And for God's sake! Please stop skirting around that statement. It isn't anyone's fault. You just don't like them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable


All you have to say is that you don't like them. Not that they don't fall into your categories, or that you "don't like them as a company."

Them as a company has nothing to do with whether or not you like their games.

So, just say it already! You don't like their games. And for God's sake! Please stop skirting around that statement. It isn't anyone's fault. You just don't like them.

---

:lol:

I . . don't . .

prefer their games.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Ampersand


:lol:

I . . don't . .

prefer their games.

---

:p