Anyone else think Blizzard is overrated?

[Ack]

Oh man, Justice League Task Force was awesome, right up there with Death and Return of Superman.

[thelolotov]

Anyone else think Blizzard is overrated?

Yep.

[Jonesy47]

I havent read the whole thread but, Short Answer:

No, i dont think they are overrated. They really havent made anything less than good games since Diablo.

If anything, they are overworshipped. Kinda like Call of Duty. The games themselves are good games but do they deserve the overbearing praise they garner? HELLS no.

[ZeroAX]

If anything, they are overworshipped. Kinda like Call of Duty. The games themselves are good games but do they deserve the overbearing praise they garner? HELLS no.

hm, I guess this is more like what I truly feel. I just never got why all the love for this developer and not so many other more original and more artsy developers.

I see so many WoW fans starting to love everything blizzard makes, even though they didn't like their games before playing WoW.



Plus I will always be sad that Westwood didn't make it, that Red Alert didn't become a huge franchise, and Blizzard and Starcraft did.

[Xionraserei1]

Loved Starcraft I and Brood wars
Loved Diablo, Diablo II, Lord of Destruction
Loved Warcraft II

HATE Starcraft II
HATE World of Warcraft
HATE Warcraft III
PRE-HATE for Diablo III

I am very curious to see why you dislike Starcraft II. WC3 and WoW I can understand if you didn't like the hero mechanic or MMOs. But SCII was basically SC but prettier. Sure, it's not as balanced yet, but SC at launch wasn't exactly balanced either.

Because they spit at their original player base for more cash.

Starcraft grew up on LAN and the fact that you could Spawn clones of discs (with their own software) to play with friends who didn't have the game at lans. I have extremely fond memories of play SC on lan with a room full of friends. Not only that SC was a main game with 1 expansion at half the price. SC2 offers NO lan (unless your a lan center then you pay much more money for a lan edition), you need to be online or activate the game every 3 months to use it offline, and hey, they are charging your $60 for starters for a game - when did games become 60? (Since activision came around!!! They are telling you to pay more!). Not only is it $60 (I'm paying 60 for reduced features and an updated look?), its going to be 60 for each expansion. They purposefully broke the game up into 3 installments when they could have done a polished game with expansions. It just a big money suck now. It will be a cold day in hell before I spend $180 on a game series to finish a story. Why does everything need to be a trilogy these days?

[Ack]

Plus I will always be sad that Westwood didn't make it, that Red Alert didn't become a huge franchise, and Blizzard and Starcraft did.

Shoot, at least people have heard of the Command & Conquer series. When was the last time you heard someone talking about the awesomeness that was Total Annihilation?

Anyway, I used to be a big fan of Blizzard. Warcraft was an immensely popular game in my home, and while I didn't immediately take to Warcraft 2, I warmed to it eventually after discovering the joys of troll axechuckers. Starcraft was ok, though I never understood why it became so popular. Warcraft 3 I've hardly played, but not being a fan of the hero system and not really being a fan of RTS, I suppose it's probably not for me. Diablo was a personal favorite, and I actually prefer it to Diablo II.

World of Warcraft though...I played it for several months, but never felt like it really catered to what I wanted. It did have its moments, but for every person I met who liked what I liked (world PvP), I'd meet dozens who wanted to do nothing but raiding, and I really don't like raiding.

I've avoided Starcraft 2 for the time being. If it's just an updated Starcraft then I may pick it up after some heavy discounting...though considering that I've seen the original going for $20 ten years after its release, I don't know if I'll ever buy the sequel. I'm interested in Diablo III, but if Blizzard sticks to its typical release schedule, I won't expect it until sometime around 2015.

[Xionraserei1]

If anything, they are overworshipped. Kinda like Call of Duty. The games themselves are good games but do they deserve the overbearing praise they garner? HELLS no.

hm, I guess this is more like what I truly feel. I just never got why all the love for this developer and not so many other more original and more artsy developers.

I see so many WoW fans starting to love everything blizzard makes, even though they didn't like their games before playing WoW.



Plus I will always be sad that Westwood didn't make it, that Red Alert didn't become a huge franchise, and Blizzard and Starcraft did.

i havn't liked a command and conquer since red alert. all the new ones kind of stink. I am a little sad too. and yes, call of duty games are VASTLY overrated and are mass produced with reduced features each time. They don't care about their PC based players, I left them after the first modern warfare.

[Xionraserei1]

Plus I will always be sad that Westwood didn't make it, that Red Alert didn't become a huge franchise, and Blizzard and Starcraft did.

Shoot, at least people have heard of the Command & Conquer series. When was the last time you heard someone talking about the awesomeness that was Total Annihilation?

Anyway, I used to be a big fan of Blizzard. Warcraft was an immensely popular game in my home, and while I didn't immediately take to Warcraft 2, I warmed to it eventually after discovering the joys of troll axechuckers. Starcraft was ok, though I never understood why it became so popular. Warcraft 3 I've hardly played, but not being a fan of the hero system and not really being a fan of RTS, I suppose it's probably not for me. Diablo was a personal favorite, and I actually prefer it to Diablo II.

World of Warcraft though...I played it for several months, but never felt like it really catered to what I wanted. It did have its moments, but for every person I met who liked what I liked (world PvP), I'd meet dozens who wanted to do nothing but raiding, and I really don't like raiding.

I've avoided Starcraft 2 for the time being. If it's just an updated Starcraft then I may pick it up after some heavy discounting...though considering that I've seen the original going for $20 ten years after its release, I don't know if I'll ever buy the sequel. I'm interested in Diablo III, but if Blizzard sticks to its typical release schedule, I won't expect it until sometime around 2015.

and after activision gets their way with it then you wont want it anymore, nor will I. I am excited for diablo III but I know they are going to screw something up just like with SC2.

[MrPopo]

Loved Starcraft I and Brood wars
Loved Diablo, Diablo II, Lord of Destruction
Loved Warcraft II

HATE Starcraft II
HATE World of Warcraft
HATE Warcraft III
PRE-HATE for Diablo III

I am very curious to see why you dislike Starcraft II. WC3 and WoW I can understand if you didn't like the hero mechanic or MMOs. But SCII was basically SC but prettier. Sure, it's not as balanced yet, but SC at launch wasn't exactly balanced either.

Because they spit at their original player base for more cash.

Starcraft grew up on LAN and the fact that you could Spawn clones of discs (with their own software) to play with friends who didn't have the game at lans. I have extremely fond memories of play SC on lan with a room full of friends. Not only that SC was a main game with 1 expansion at half the price. SC2 offers NO lan (unless your a lan center then you pay much more money for a lan edition), you need to be online or activate the game every 3 months to use it offline, and hey, they are charging your $60 for starters for a game - when did games become 60? (Since activision came around!!! They are telling you to pay more!). Not only is it $60 (I'm paying 60 for reduced features and an updated look?), its going to be 60 for each expansion. They purposefully broke the game up into 3 installments when they could have done a polished game with expansions. It just a big money suck now. It will be a cold day in hell before I spend $180 on a game series to finish a story. Why does everything need to be a trilogy these days?

So the two complaints you have is you can no longer leech off your buddies (or have your buddies leech off you) and that they're releasing two expansions instead of one (and the two are at an unknown price point). SCII's campaign is as long as SC1's campaign but only has one race. The reason it's a trilogy is that there's three races (seems like simple math to me).

[Xionraserei1]

So the two complaints you have is you can no longer leech off your buddies (or have your buddies leech off you) and that they're releasing two expansions instead of one (and the two are at an unknown price point). SCII's campaign is as long as SC1's campaign but only has one race. The reason it's a trilogy is that there's three races (seems like simple math to me).

In case your not familiar, SC1 had all 3 race campaigns on one disc with a beautiful ending which was enhanced by Broodwars. You get an incomplete game forcing you to buy the 2 other games when they come out which will be just as long as the first installment calling for $60 each. There is no possibility of them being sold at 30 a piece. The disc clone isn't a huge thing but the lan is and the offline play is. There is no reason other than greed that they made it a trilogy. The other thing i remember too is that you buy premium maps on Battlenet now. Which is completely retarded. people put heart in soul into their SC1 maps and people promoted the crap out of them for free. If it was a good map, everyone knew about it. So now to play with people who have this map you need to fork over 2-3 dollars a map? What is that crap. Why do I need to pay more to enjoy the game? Since when did billyjoe in alabama become part of the dev team and I need to pay him for his time? its a community not a marketplace. This isn't Itunes.