|
Please be advised:
We will be closing this General thread in 24 hours. It will remain searchable.
After that we will require new threads to discuss topics.
Questions should go in the stickied Q&A thread, screenshots and PotG will go in the PotG sticky, QQ/Rage/Complaints should go in the QQ/Rage thread. If you want to talk about maps or strategies open a new thread.
Any comments or concerns will be logged please forward them to ZeromuS. This new forum is still fluid so we will try this out. General TL rules will still apply to new threads. |
On November 17 2014 07:29 radscorpion9 wrote:
I definitely think the level of quality in Blizzard games slipped with the release of D3 and SC2, it seems to me they've moved toward making "hollywood" style games, that focus on "epic" moments like all the other big companies. In the process you lose quality, thought provoking dialogue (and more tactically diverse combat) like you used to have in SC1 (also I remember the amazing cinematics of D2, it just doesn't compare). I think its unambiguous that the gameplay in older games like WC3 was better in the past.
But ironically it is exactly these changes which are arguably making them an even more popular company now; the masses *love* epic fights, simple dialogue and combat, hollywood-style cinematics. This is why call of duty and similar games sell so well; what they lose in depth they make up for in terms of broad appeal. So you can say Blizzard has become hugely successful over time, though subjectively you might say for the wrong reasons (no one can claim anything objective here).
I have to say hearthstone is a good exception though. I think they are trying to make a quality game but overall the main focus is on simplified dialogues, interfaces, and gameplay. I'm sure that its nowhere near as involved or interesting as the "Magic" card game is, for example.
You have really hit the nail on the head for me with your post here. I agree completely. That is exactly what I feel is wrong with entertainment today. I'm baffled how the overdone CGI abominations of movies and video games see such a following. SC2 and D3 were such insults to our intelligence regarding the dialogues and the plot.... bah... How do people not see this?
Also regarding CGI:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/ImperialstarDestroyer480ppx.png) compared to: ![[image loading]](http://www.timeslive.co.za/incoming/2013/05/16/jar-jar-binks-star-wars/ALTERNATES/crop_630x400/Jar+Jar+Binks+Star+Wars)
|
On November 17 2014 04:12 Diavlo wrote:I guess someone at Blizzard played a game of infinity and thought: "yeah we could make that into a video game". Probably the same guy who thought of starcraft and warcraft after stumbling in a Games Workshop store  You can find a miniature that looks almost identical for every character in the trailer and on the banner. Well except for the gorilla in power suit that looks like a karman from at-43: ![[image loading]](http://i2.cdscdn.com/pdt2/3/9/3/1/700x700/rac3661116096393/rw/rackham-kare02-at43-f.jpg)
There are actually a ton of FPS games with the melee character/team and it's usually some lumbering beast that leaps around.
Also the scientist beast is an ancient trope. Hulk, The Beast, etc. etc.
|
On November 17 2014 19:54 Laserist wrote:
Diablo3 sold 12M because people are retarded and blind fanboys of the game.
That game nowhere near deserved that amount.
Actually not true, we were lied to and mislead. The initial advertisement hype of the game showed these PVP battle arenas similar to wow, but for 2v2 and 3v3.
That never happened, and then they had all this controversy with bots and auction house and dumb shit, and then they released the sorriest PVP that was worse than diablo 2 and no one even plays. Whilst saying that it's not gonna happen because too hard to balance or whatever bullshit. Basically no funding and lazy. Implying that they don't give a fuck about D fans because they don't profit.
|
On November 17 2014 22:08 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2014 19:54 Laserist wrote:
Diablo3 sold 12M because people are retarded and blind fanboys of the game.
That game nowhere near deserved that amount. Actually not true, we were lied to and mislead. The initial advertisement hype of the game showed these PVP battle arenas similar to wow, but for 2v2 and 3v3. That never happened, and then they had all this controversy with bots and auction house and dumb shit, and then they released the sorriest PVP that was worse than diablo 2 and no one even plays. Whilst saying that it's not gonna happen because too hard to balance or whatever bullshit. Basically no funding and lazy. Implying that they don't give a fuck about D fans because they don't profit.
Personally I purchased Diablo 3 because of PvP, so yeah that sucked a bit but i'm sure the majority weren't too worried about it. They showcased arenas and arena ratings, which I was pretty hyped for thinking it would be similar to BLC. 
|
On November 17 2014 11:13 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2014 06:16 Yacobs wrote:On November 17 2014 05:38 [SXG]Phantom wrote:
Well, you could say what you want about D3, sc2, wow and whatever, but the fact is that those 3 are the most succesful games of their genre. Depends on how you define successful. WoW is obviously the most successful MMORPG but I'd argue D2 and SC1 were far, far more successful than their sequels. Best selling PC games of all time. Number at left is rank. Number at right is millions of copies sold. 1. Minecraft.....................17 2. World of Warcraft.....14
3. Diablo 3.....................124. Half Life 2...................12 5. Starcraft....................11... 10-14. Starcraft 2...........6... 16-20. Diablo 2...............4... 24-31. Warcraft 3...........3Starcraft is the only Blizzard game where the most recent iteration is not the most successful, commercially.
These figures are completely meaningless. You have to look at other quantitative things like how much money did Blizzard spend to develop those games versus the older games, is Blizzard growing as a company, as well as qualitative things like the impact of SC1/D2 on the industry versus the impact that SC2/D3 had (quantitative evidence for the qualitative: SC2/D3 had no impact -- do you see any SC2/D3 clones in the pipeline?) and changes in Blizzard's reputation.
|
You also should take into account General numbers of PC's and "Gamers" as a whole.
Oh, and in all fariness, you should probably take out South Korea when judging SC1... That was just a very special case that no one could expect Blizzard to recreate.
|
Oh wow, this is from Blizzard! I saw the trailer but didn't know who to expect was behind it. o_O
|
On November 17 2014 20:02 ahswtini wrote:
Yeah, will be interesting to see the figures for Diablo 4
probably way higher since people often judge the game after its expansion. Like BW is the most epic multiplayer game of all time, while Sc1 was well not that fun in multiplayer.
Especially console people love D3 as it was already patched up quite nicely when released there. But some people were surprised by the minecraft approach D3 took I guess. As in improve the game with community feedback.
|
On November 17 2014 22:36 Yacobs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2014 11:13 Yoav wrote:On November 17 2014 06:16 Yacobs wrote:On November 17 2014 05:38 [SXG]Phantom wrote:
Well, you could say what you want about D3, sc2, wow and whatever, but the fact is that those 3 are the most succesful games of their genre. Depends on how you define successful. WoW is obviously the most successful MMORPG but I'd argue D2 and SC1 were far, far more successful than their sequels. Best selling PC games of all time. Number at left is rank. Number at right is millions of copies sold. 1. Minecraft.....................17 2. World of Warcraft.....14
3. Diablo 3.....................124. Half Life 2...................12 5. Starcraft....................11... 10-14. Starcraft 2...........6... 16-20. Diablo 2...............4... 24-31. Warcraft 3...........3Starcraft is the only Blizzard game where the most recent iteration is not the most successful, commercially. These figures are completely meaningless. You have to look at other quantitative things like how much money did Blizzard spend to develop those games versus the older games, is Blizzard growing as a company, as well as qualitative things like the impact of SC1/D2 on the industry versus the impact that SC2/D3 had (quantitative evidence for the qualitative: SC2/D3 had no impact -- do you see any SC2/D3 clones in the pipeline?) and changes in Blizzard's reputation.
Check out Lost Ark
|
On November 17 2014 23:21 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2014 22:36 Yacobs wrote:On November 17 2014 11:13 Yoav wrote:On November 17 2014 06:16 Yacobs wrote:On November 17 2014 05:38 [SXG]Phantom wrote:
Well, you could say what you want about D3, sc2, wow and whatever, but the fact is that those 3 are the most succesful games of their genre. Depends on how you define successful. WoW is obviously the most successful MMORPG but I'd argue D2 and SC1 were far, far more successful than their sequels. Best selling PC games of all time. Number at left is rank. Number at right is millions of copies sold. 1. Minecraft.....................17 2. World of Warcraft.....14
3. Diablo 3.....................124. Half Life 2...................12 5. Starcraft....................11... 10-14. Starcraft 2...........6... 16-20. Diablo 2...............4... 24-31. Warcraft 3...........3Starcraft is the only Blizzard game where the most recent iteration is not the most successful, commercially. These figures are completely meaningless. You have to look at other quantitative things like how much money did Blizzard spend to develop those games versus the older games, is Blizzard growing as a company, as well as qualitative things like the impact of SC1/D2 on the industry versus the impact that SC2/D3 had (quantitative evidence for the qualitative: SC2/D3 had no impact -- do you see any SC2/D3 clones in the pipeline?) and changes in Blizzard's reputation. Check out Lost Ark
Looks pretty good visually. I guess the game mechanics will be pretty bland and boring.
|
On November 17 2014 03:37 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2014 03:18 MarlieChurphy wrote:
People in this thread are ridiculous. Blizzard has their hands in MMO, RTS, ARPG, MOBA, and now FPS. (not to mention all there dope ass oldschool console games) They are just making games of each genre, who even gives a shit if the game is good or not, they are just expanding their market value.
Arguably, blizzard has the best games of each genre, or at least had at one point, so the argument about them sucking is plain retarded.
Look at other game companies who try to do that and fail. EA, for example.
All they really have to do after this is make sequels and expansions and possibly start making Free/app games and puzzle shit.
And you all will play the fuck out of those too, because blizzard makes at worst, better than average games. I don't think any of their latest games are better than average (depending on the definition of average of course). The only thing that is above average in them is controls and polish.
When you are making a game with the attention to attract the largest % of gamers/ lowest denominator you won't be having, say, the plot of Bioshock or the customization of Skyrim because those aspects generally only cater to a small % of people. Look like LoL and how popular it is, and look at how nonsensical their champion lores are, and their sub-par "3d" graphics (barely passable for 3d) but despite that they have tens of millions of active players everyday.
If you want a truly immersive gaming experience, go play Dragon Age Inquisition, it got some very good reviews.
|
On November 17 2014 22:36 Yacobs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2014 11:13 Yoav wrote:On November 17 2014 06:16 Yacobs wrote:On November 17 2014 05:38 [SXG]Phantom wrote:
Well, you could say what you want about D3, sc2, wow and whatever, but the fact is that those 3 are the most succesful games of their genre. Depends on how you define successful. WoW is obviously the most successful MMORPG but I'd argue D2 and SC1 were far, far more successful than their sequels. Best selling PC games of all time. Number at left is rank. Number at right is millions of copies sold. 1. Minecraft.....................17 2. World of Warcraft.....14
3. Diablo 3.....................124. Half Life 2...................12 5. Starcraft....................11... 10-14. Starcraft 2...........6... 16-20. Diablo 2...............4... 24-31. Warcraft 3...........3Starcraft is the only Blizzard game where the most recent iteration is not the most successful, commercially. These figures are completely meaningless. You have to look at other quantitative things like how much money did Blizzard spend to develop those games versus the older games, is Blizzard growing as a company, as well as qualitative things like the impact of SC1/D2 on the industry versus the impact that SC2/D3 had (quantitative evidence for the qualitative: SC2/D3 had no impact -- do you see any SC2/D3 clones in the pipeline?) and changes in Blizzard's reputation.
And comparing games from different eras is completely pointless. 10 years ago everything in this industry was different. Will D2/SC1 do well today ? Would SC2/D3 sell as much 10 years ago ? We don't know and we can't know. You can make speculation all day long, that doesn't change the fact. All of Blizzard's games are the best of their genres for their time.
And by the way Blizzard is growing as a company. They just announced their brand new franchise. Which looks awesome...
|
Some of you are really overdoing it with the anti-Blizzard elitism. I'll readily admit that Diablo 3 failed to fulfill expectations, but it was still a somewhat ok game at release and even a pretty good one nowadays. And how can SC2 be called a failure? It was a big commercial success especially by RTS standards, has a large esports scene and I'd even argue it's the second best RTS of all time, eclipsed only by its predecessor. Hearthstone and Heroes are just small side projects with a low development cost, not big Triple A productions. They're neat little games and noone had any expectations anyway. They're probably more successful than Blizzard themselves expected, which makes them very much worth it financially.
|
On November 17 2014 23:54 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2014 23:21 -Archangel- wrote:On November 17 2014 22:36 Yacobs wrote:On November 17 2014 11:13 Yoav wrote:On November 17 2014 06:16 Yacobs wrote:On November 17 2014 05:38 [SXG]Phantom wrote:
Well, you could say what you want about D3, sc2, wow and whatever, but the fact is that those 3 are the most succesful games of their genre. Depends on how you define successful. WoW is obviously the most successful MMORPG but I'd argue D2 and SC1 were far, far more successful than their sequels. Best selling PC games of all time. Number at left is rank. Number at right is millions of copies sold. 1. Minecraft.....................17 2. World of Warcraft.....14
3. Diablo 3.....................124. Half Life 2...................12 5. Starcraft....................11... 10-14. Starcraft 2...........6... 16-20. Diablo 2...............4... 24-31. Warcraft 3...........3Starcraft is the only Blizzard game where the most recent iteration is not the most successful, commercially. These figures are completely meaningless. You have to look at other quantitative things like how much money did Blizzard spend to develop those games versus the older games, is Blizzard growing as a company, as well as qualitative things like the impact of SC1/D2 on the industry versus the impact that SC2/D3 had (quantitative evidence for the qualitative: SC2/D3 had no impact -- do you see any SC2/D3 clones in the pipeline?) and changes in Blizzard's reputation. Check out Lost Ark Looks pretty good visually. I guess the game mechanics will be pretty bland and boring.
He did ask if anyone is inspired by D3 :D Some game levels almost copy D3 and many of the special attacks are obviously inspired by D3 
|
On November 18 2014 00:08 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2014 03:37 Miragee wrote:On November 17 2014 03:18 MarlieChurphy wrote:
People in this thread are ridiculous. Blizzard has their hands in MMO, RTS, ARPG, MOBA, and now FPS. (not to mention all there dope ass oldschool console games) They are just making games of each genre, who even gives a shit if the game is good or not, they are just expanding their market value.
Arguably, blizzard has the best games of each genre, or at least had at one point, so the argument about them sucking is plain retarded.
Look at other game companies who try to do that and fail. EA, for example.
All they really have to do after this is make sequels and expansions and possibly start making Free/app games and puzzle shit.
And you all will play the fuck out of those too, because blizzard makes at worst, better than average games. I don't think any of their latest games are better than average (depending on the definition of average of course). The only thing that is above average in them is controls and polish. When you are making a game with the attention to attract the largest % of gamers/ lowest denominator you won't be having, say, the plot of Bioshock or the customization of Skyrim because those aspects generally only cater to a small % of people. Look like LoL and how popular it is, and look at how nonsensical their champion lores are, and their sub-par "3d" graphics (barely passable for 3d) but despite that they have tens of millions of active players everyday. If you want a truly immersive gaming experience, go play Dragon Age Inquisition, it got some very good reviews.
who the fuck cares about lore in a moba game, i played lol for like 3 years and still have no idea about majority of champions back story
|
On November 18 2014 00:20 kongoline wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 00:08 ref4 wrote:On November 17 2014 03:37 Miragee wrote:On November 17 2014 03:18 MarlieChurphy wrote:
People in this thread are ridiculous. Blizzard has their hands in MMO, RTS, ARPG, MOBA, and now FPS. (not to mention all there dope ass oldschool console games) They are just making games of each genre, who even gives a shit if the game is good or not, they are just expanding their market value.
Arguably, blizzard has the best games of each genre, or at least had at one point, so the argument about them sucking is plain retarded.
Look at other game companies who try to do that and fail. EA, for example.
All they really have to do after this is make sequels and expansions and possibly start making Free/app games and puzzle shit.
And you all will play the fuck out of those too, because blizzard makes at worst, better than average games. I don't think any of their latest games are better than average (depending on the definition of average of course). The only thing that is above average in them is controls and polish. When you are making a game with the attention to attract the largest % of gamers/ lowest denominator you won't be having, say, the plot of Bioshock or the customization of Skyrim because those aspects generally only cater to a small % of people. Look like LoL and how popular it is, and look at how nonsensical their champion lores are, and their sub-par "3d" graphics (barely passable for 3d) but despite that they have tens of millions of active players everyday. If you want a truly immersive gaming experience, go play Dragon Age Inquisition, it got some very good reviews. who the fuck cares about lore in a moba game, i played lol for like 3 years and still have no idea about majority of champions back story
Actually in League the lore makes the game worse.
|
On November 18 2014 00:08 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2014 03:37 Miragee wrote:On November 17 2014 03:18 MarlieChurphy wrote:
People in this thread are ridiculous. Blizzard has their hands in MMO, RTS, ARPG, MOBA, and now FPS. (not to mention all there dope ass oldschool console games) They are just making games of each genre, who even gives a shit if the game is good or not, they are just expanding their market value.
Arguably, blizzard has the best games of each genre, or at least had at one point, so the argument about them sucking is plain retarded.
Look at other game companies who try to do that and fail. EA, for example.
All they really have to do after this is make sequels and expansions and possibly start making Free/app games and puzzle shit.
And you all will play the fuck out of those too, because blizzard makes at worst, better than average games. I don't think any of their latest games are better than average (depending on the definition of average of course). The only thing that is above average in them is controls and polish. When you are making a game with the attention to attract the largest % of gamers/ lowest denominator you won't be having, say, the plot of Bioshock or the customization of Skyrim because those aspects generally only cater to a small % of people. Look like LoL and how popular it is, and look at how nonsensical their champion lores are, and their sub-par "3d" graphics (barely passable for 3d) but despite that they have tens of millions of active players everyday. If you want a truly immersive gaming experience, go play Dragon Age Inquisition, it got some very good reviews.
If I want to play an immersive game I will obviously play a single player game. Sure thing. Don't know about DA: I, I havn't even played Origins yet. I will look into the reviews though because it surprises me that Inquisition got good reviews.
For multiplayer games I like to play for challenge. The challenge can be different but it is mostly a match of mechanical challenge and thinking challenge. Like planing and executing a strategy in starcraft and how deep the possibilies are. I know that games that want to attract the largest crowd/lowest common denominator have to be simplified. But I find that rather sad than anything else. And pointing towards single player games for "immersion" isn't going to help if you are looking for a multi player challenge that is stimulating your brain cells, right?
On November 18 2014 00:17 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2014 23:54 Miragee wrote:On November 17 2014 23:21 -Archangel- wrote:On November 17 2014 22:36 Yacobs wrote:On November 17 2014 11:13 Yoav wrote:On November 17 2014 06:16 Yacobs wrote:On November 17 2014 05:38 [SXG]Phantom wrote:
Well, you could say what you want about D3, sc2, wow and whatever, but the fact is that those 3 are the most succesful games of their genre. Depends on how you define successful. WoW is obviously the most successful MMORPG but I'd argue D2 and SC1 were far, far more successful than their sequels. Best selling PC games of all time. Number at left is rank. Number at right is millions of copies sold. 1. Minecraft.....................17 2. World of Warcraft.....14
3. Diablo 3.....................124. Half Life 2...................12 5. Starcraft....................11... 10-14. Starcraft 2...........6... 16-20. Diablo 2...............4... 24-31. Warcraft 3...........3Starcraft is the only Blizzard game where the most recent iteration is not the most successful, commercially. These figures are completely meaningless. You have to look at other quantitative things like how much money did Blizzard spend to develop those games versus the older games, is Blizzard growing as a company, as well as qualitative things like the impact of SC1/D2 on the industry versus the impact that SC2/D3 had (quantitative evidence for the qualitative: SC2/D3 had no impact -- do you see any SC2/D3 clones in the pipeline?) and changes in Blizzard's reputation. Check out Lost Ark Looks pretty good visually. I guess the game mechanics will be pretty bland and boring. He did ask if anyone is inspired by D3 :D Some game levels almost copy D3 and many of the special attacks are obviously inspired by D3
hehe, I know. I just wanted to comment on that game.^^
|
On November 17 2014 22:34 JD. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2014 22:08 MarlieChurphy wrote:On November 17 2014 19:54 Laserist wrote:
Diablo3 sold 12M because people are retarded and blind fanboys of the game.
That game nowhere near deserved that amount. Actually not true, we were lied to and mislead. The initial advertisement hype of the game showed these PVP battle arenas similar to wow, but for 2v2 and 3v3. That never happened, and then they had all this controversy with bots and auction house and dumb shit, and then they released the sorriest PVP that was worse than diablo 2 and no one even plays. Whilst saying that it's not gonna happen because too hard to balance or whatever bullshit. Basically no funding and lazy. Implying that they don't give a fuck about D fans because they don't profit. Personally I purchased Diablo 3 because of PvP, so yeah that sucked a bit but i'm sure the majority weren't too worried about it. They showcased arenas and arena ratings, which I was pretty hyped for thinking it would be similar to BLC.
BLC, now there is a game niche that really needs to be remade. BLC remains one of my favorite arena style games of all time.
|
On November 18 2014 00:15 Scorch wrote:
Some of you are really overdoing it with the anti-Blizzard elitism. I'll readily admit that Diablo 3 failed to fulfill expectations, but it was still a somewhat ok game at release and even a pretty good one nowadays. And how can SC2 be called a failure? It was a big commercial success especially by RTS standards, has a large esports scene and I'd even argue it's the second best RTS of all time, eclipsed only by its predecessor. Hearthstone and Heroes are just small side projects with a low development cost, not big Triple A productions. They're neat little games and noone had any expectations anyway. They're probably more successful than Blizzard themselves expected, which makes them very much worth it financially.
Hey now.
The best game of all time is Warcraft III. Still by Blizzard though!
|
On November 17 2014 22:36 Yacobs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2014 11:13 Yoav wrote:On November 17 2014 06:16 Yacobs wrote:On November 17 2014 05:38 [SXG]Phantom wrote:
Well, you could say what you want about D3, sc2, wow and whatever, but the fact is that those 3 are the most succesful games of their genre. Depends on how you define successful. WoW is obviously the most successful MMORPG but I'd argue D2 and SC1 were far, far more successful than their sequels. Best selling PC games of all time. Number at left is rank. Number at right is millions of copies sold. 1. Minecraft.....................17 2. World of Warcraft.....14
3. Diablo 3.....................124. Half Life 2...................12 5. Starcraft....................11... 10-14. Starcraft 2...........6... 16-20. Diablo 2...............4... 24-31. Warcraft 3...........3Starcraft is the only Blizzard game where the most recent iteration is not the most successful, commercially. These figures are completely meaningless. You have to look at other quantitative things like how much money did Blizzard spend to develop those games versus the older games, is Blizzard growing as a company, as well as qualitative things like the impact of SC1/D2 on the industry versus the impact that SC2/D3 had (quantitative evidence for the qualitative: SC2/D3 had no impact -- do you see any SC2/D3 clones in the pipeline?) and changes in Blizzard's reputation.
You can read Blizzard quarterly report if you like and they are growing every quarter as far as I recall. So ya, they're definitely succeeding financially. Do you have numbers where they're hemorrhaging money to show otherwise?
As for the rest, I don't think you really mean 'qualitative'. I don't think I would trust anyone giving me a 'qualitative' reputation or impact score.
Besides, RTS was a dead genre before SC2 how much are you gonna rip on Blizzard for RTS staying a dead genre? Age of Empire Online shut down after a year and C&C's latest RTS was so successful they followed up by turning C&C a Clash of Clans clone.
There was Company of Heroes though, not sure how that ended up doing.
On November 17 2014 23:14 FeyFey wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2014 20:02 ahswtini wrote:
Yeah, will be interesting to see the figures for Diablo 4 probably way higher since people often judge the game after its expansion. Like BW is the most epic multiplayer game of all time, while Sc1 was well not that fun in multiplayer. Especially console people love D3 as it was already patched up quite nicely when released there. But some people were surprised by the minecraft approach D3 took I guess. As in improve the game with community feedback.
Definitely true, D2 wasn't really that perfect of a game, the expansion really cleaned it up and gave it longevity (plus some very serious patching to put in Ubers, respeccing, ect). Same thing RoS did with D3 sorta. Also, knowing Blizzard by the time D4 is ready the nostalgia factor will have kicked in and people will be praising D3 as amazing.
Further offtopic
+ Show Spoiler +Having played Blizzard games since the beginning, it amazed me that people love WC3 so much when it was so reviled on release as not being an RTS and gender swapping Kerrigan and Raynor's story. I'm also amazed that people say LK was the best WoW expansion. When it came out, all people bitched about was how the casuals were taking over and class homogenization, ect, ect (DK's were broken though =p).
For the record I liked WC3 and LK a lot. I'm just remember reading so much hate when they came out and now all I hear is people praising them as the greatest things ever. Actually, when D3 came out I saw some clever posters copy-pasting D2 release hate threads for fun, and there were a lot. Maybe haters just give up and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy things and make good memories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
