By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Slimebeast on 04 September 2010
Edit Thread
Crazymann said:
Slimebeast said:

But I'm only happy that Sony doesn't have any mega franchises.

I don't like mega franchises because they always tend to dominate everything else and overshadow other great games (at least in the eyes of casuals they do).

I always hated GTA for being so huge. In this generation that game is Call of Duty. All other shooters are compared to Call of Duty and they even have to adjust release dates in fear of CoD.

I love Assassin's Creed but I'm starting to feel it's getting too big (I mean AC II is on track to sell 10 million. 10 million!)

I hate Mario because everyone buys Mario instead of other platformers which I think are far more interesting.

I love Xbox but I don't like the extreme hype for Halo as if it's the only game on earth. Same with Gears of War.

And most of all I hate World of Warcraft and Starcraft because I don't like the style of Blizzard and it pisses me off that everyone is playing WoW and ignoring better MMOs. I will get Diablo but I think it's extremely overrated and it pisses me off.

And Age of Empires slays Starcraft.

Well,

I am glad that you have your opinion, and no issues with sharing it, but many of us DO like how Blizzard does things.  Blizzard has a committment to polish, and furthermore, it seems rather hypocritical to laude the virtues of Sony and then trash Blizzard in the same post.  Both companies are very good at taking pre-existing ideas to new levels of refinement.  Blizzard's style is fine, Sony's style is fine.

I don't like WoW either, but I don't like MMO's in general.  Still, the fact is that (while long in the tooth) WoW is still the most recognizible MMO and it was the best of its kind at release (unless you seriously believe that EQ and its ilk were good).  All pre-WoW MMO's sucked, and neither WoW or any MMO since has changed the formula enough for me to give it a second thought.  Note, I don't lump Guild Wars into that mess because of its use of instancing.

Finally, I own Age 1, Age 2 Conquerers and Age 3

Age 3 sucks, Age 2 was the pinnacle of the series.  Starcraft, while lagging behind Age 2 in some respects was the MOST fun I had in a single player campain EVER.  So, how exactly does Age "slay" starcraft???

Reviews:  NOPE

Popularity:  NOPE

Sales:  NOPE

Cultural Impact:  NOPE

Single Player:  NOPE

Graphics:  NOPE

Production Values:  NOPE

AI/Pathing:  YEP

Multiplayer:  PERHAPS*

*  And that is only if you are still burned about LAN and other features removed from BNet2 (which I don't like, but still.)

Good post.

Dark Age of Camelot due to it's fantastic faction PvP (or rather, Realm vs Realm) was a better game than WoW and was released already in 2001. That's not the point though. Even if the standard game would be the best, WoW is the best, I don't like how people flock to it and ignore everything else. Excellent MMOs like Age of Conan and Warhommer Online are ignored. And so will Kotor be because WoW is so dominant.

My Age of Empires comment was mostly a joke but the spirit is the same. Everyone is saying Starcraft when they think best RTS, but Age of Empires is an amazing franchise and needs its well deserved attention too.

Starcraft is far more popular and has bigger sales etc but Age of Empires II had fantastic multiplayer and the best setting you can imagine - the history of mankind. You really had nothing to complain about as an RTS fan. And actually Age of Empires II has a 92% Meta while Starcraft only has 88%.

Starcraft while extremely polished like all other Blizzard games looks childish, has cutesy monsters and has an artificial setting, mythos and game world.*

* that last line is again meant as a joke because obviously it only reflects my personal tastes.