naznatips said:
Starcraft and Warcraft aren't reven remotely similar past the standards of the genre (producing and controlling units). The games themselves are hardly mediocre. Starcraft didn't become the most competitive game in the world by being mediocre. It's an extremely well-balanced strategy game with a strong resource and advancement focus. Warcraft 3 was a very unique combination of RPG stat and inventory systems with RTS gameplay, and has one of the best plots in a video game. Unlike Starcraft, it's unit focused. You clearly know nothing about these games, and I highly recommend you don't continue talking about them lest you go the way of Griffin. |
Yes, I clearly know nothing about them despite owning them and playing them for a couple years around the 1999-2001 time period (War3 was around 04 maybe?). I own most of Blizzard's games even as far back to Justice League Task Force (which I have for the Genesis) so if you think I don't know what I'm talking about take a step back and re-evaluate your position.
Back in the 90s there were a lot of games that had either unreliable internet connection capabilities (and hosting capabilities) or extremely complex daunting ones. Battle.Net was a huge success because not only did it work phenominally well but it was simple enough that just about anyone with two eyes and a heartbeat could figure it out. Do you really think it would have become so competitively played had that not been true.
And also, those games have been severely patched as time has gone by. If you think those games were as balanced as they were the moment they hit store shelves as they are now, I think you're the one who doesn't understand the subject. (Blizzard LOVES to patch its stuff, a fact that made me hate playing Diablo 2 because you never knew what would be patched away next. When they patched away the Piercing/Guided Arrow trick in D2, I stopped playing it on Battle.Net.)
