Crazymann said:
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.)
|