Sure, but statements like "All games of that company are good" are also very opinionated, and, for me, ridiculous to hear.
And decrease your sig size, you've been warned like 5 times now.
Actually, considering how much each of there games sell, its not really all that opinionated.
As for the sig warnings, thats the first warning I heard. Perhaps in the future when you have an issue, you could send a private message, so that I can actually know about it instead of getting these warnings that I have no idea about. Thanks.
Actually, considering how much each of there games sell, its not really all that opinionated.
Sales of games has nothing to do with their quality.
Quote from "LinkX" »
As for the sig warnings, thats the first warning I heard.
That just means you hardly read anyone elses posts because people were complaining. I would send you a PM eventually I just prefer not to if I can avoid it.
Sales of games has nothing to do with their quality.
That just means you hardly read anyone elses posts because people were complaining. I would send you a PM eventually I just prefer not to if I can avoid it.
So people go out and look for crappy games?
As for not reading other people's posts, yea, if you want to say that then go ahead. Doesn't make it true, but you can say it.
Guess there complaints were invisible like your warnings, eh?
From what I have been observing, yes. Most games with the highest sales are casual. E.g., simplified so that the mass can understand them and be happy.
If you take a game like Gothic 1 half the people just left it because they couldn't figure the controls out... lol...
Perimeter - the game is so complicated people just drop it. Same goes for the heXen games, people found the puzzles "too hard for an FPS".
Then we have all these games that start slow and then become interesting later. Diablo, on the other hand, starts fast because it has no active background whatsoever. E.g., games with active backgrounds lose to Diablo in sales because people don't care about active background. >>
From what I have been observing, yes. Most games with the highest sales are casual. E.g., simplified so that the mass can understand them and be happy.
If you take a game like Gothic 1 half the people just left it because they couldn't figure the controls out... lol...
Perimeter - the game is so complicated people just drop it. Same goes for the heXen games, people found the puzzles "too hard for an FPS".
Then we have all these games that start slow and then become interesting later. Diablo, on the other hand, starts fast because it has no active background whatsoever. E.g., games with active backgrounds lose to Diablo in sales because people don't care about active background. >>
I really don't think you are giving the average gamer enough credit.
Key word is gamer, someone who plays games for more then one hour a week. Even if you are correct, it would only be correct about non-gamers, like people who like games like that Warrio mini-game thing (Cant remember the name...) for Nintendo.
Most gamers don't want to waste there money and will look into a game before ever picking it up. Only the stupidest of gamers would do otherwise.
As for Blizzard sales, x.x still looking for them.
Quote from name="The Shadow 2007" »
The sales do not have much to do with the quality. It is how much the game is played. And Warcraft 3 being one of the most played E-Sports game speaks for itself.
I dont like WC 3 it gets boring for me because other than SC, WC never got me to play that much on b.net. I dont like the heroe idea and the low supply. But WC 3 had a great campaign a great design and a great story behind it. So its a good game, either i like it or not...
I'm going to go on a limb and ask, on SC did you play Fastest Map Possible?...
Even if you are correct, it would only be correct about non-gamers, like people who like games like that Warrio mini-game thing (Cant remember the name...) for Nintendo.
Those are still games, tho. And, Wii sold the best.
Quote from "LinkX" »
Most gamers don't want to waste there money and will look into a game before ever picking it up. Only the stupidest of gamers would do otherwise.
Most gamers have no idea what they are buying. I have people in my school who talk about Halo all day long and know nothing else. They know NOTHING. They only know the very-very-very recent releases and the very heavily advertised ones. You mention Diablo to them they don't know what it is. That is the average casual gamer right there.
I know why you ask. I did the whole package, mainly Lost Temple (im really warm with that map) but i also played fast maps and i often played custom maps which are even better in WC 3. The package was better. I could if i wanted mass in singleplayer or when i played noobs the high limit allowed me to overrun/fly them what was pretty fun. The campaign also made use of the "large armies against large armies"-credo and that was plain fun. Also the races distinguish more from another than they do in WC 3. Those are things i care for in an RTS. As i said i still think WC 3 is great, im just not one of those who like to play it.
Large armies in SC single campaign? There may have been a few, but on average you had to play like most low money maps, which means small units of men.
Quote from "Equinox" »
Those are still games, tho. And, Wii sold the best.
Most gamers have no idea what they are buying. I have people in my school who talk about Halo all day long and know nothing else. They know NOTHING. They only know the very-very-very recent releases and the very heavily advertised ones. You mention Diablo to them they don't know what it is. That is the average casual gamer right there.
As I said, there are the idiots. I don't dispute that. But they are idiots. Reminds me of the CS:S guy in Ctrl+Alt+Del...
But most people I talk to (that have a brain) usually look for good games.
I dont get what you want from me? Is it some problem for you that i like SC better than WC 3? Why are you trying to find invalid things in my posts. SC limit = 200 WC 3 limit = 90, plus wc-units take nearly the double amount of supply and you need one hero (takes 5) PLUS there is high and low upkeep. Get what i wanted to say? that bugs me i want to run over my enemy with 50 zerglings not with 3 footies and a Paladin. If you like that fine but leave me alone now...
I'm not saying that one is better then another. If one was better then the other then everyone would be playing one or the other, and by the looks of Bnet, thats not the case.
I'm just saying that SC was originally designed as a low money game. The supply limit was offset by the small amount of money available and the need to expand to aquire more minerals or gas spots.
They are both RTS games but both are designed very differently.
That is pretty much what I was saying, I just don't like the whole idea of worshipping Blizzard... their games are well-made and complete, but that doesn't make them all masterpieces (I would say the only masterpieces Blizzard ever produces would be Diablo 1 and WarCraft II, personally)...
WC3 - I wouldn't mind it at all if it wasn't called WarCraft.
Yea SC, probably, too, except not for races... but playing that game online for such a long time it kinda ceases to be a masterpiece for me. But SP wise, it is.
I felt the same about WC3. The undead ground was called Blight, btw. I also was disapointed in a lot of things I expected since WC2. For instance - sound effects on units. I really loved the way the old knights/paladins sounded. In WC3 we have these old guys... Same goes for, like, 90% of the humans in WC2 compared to humans in WC3... and also the death knights. I just loved the sound in WC2, despite how old and glowy looking it was, it never made me feel it was ridiculous.
Thats exactly my point. I think the soundwork in blizzard games got worse since diablo 2. If someone here is german and knows the german versions of the game knows that these are even a lot crappier than the original ones. I think though that WoW has both an excellent soundtrack and excellent voicework, but it still lacks atmosphere because 99% of the humans have the same voice for example. same goes for the other races plus its all text base. Works for Baldurs Gate and such games but not for a game of this type.
Diablo 2 has by far the best sounds of any game and I stand by that indefinitly.:cool:
Dude better is a matter of oppinion. When you focus on Korea, SC would be exorbitant better than WC 3. You cant say if a games better its played more often, thats something i would expect from a 3 years old but not someone who is able to use a forum properly.
I know a bunch of people btw that only switched to WC 3 because of the graphics. They didnt like the look of starcraft.
Also to say one game is better than the other has to imply that more people would play the game is also bs in this case because the games are to different from each other. Some people like counterstrike better then starcraft, for me the opposite is the case. Thats what you call "self-awareness". i dont need other peops to tell me what i like.
I say it again: WC 3 is a great game it just so happens to not appeal to me and your try to get some mathematical explanation for someones taste (x = scPlayers, y = wcPlayers, when x is larger than y sc has to be better) wont change it. Deal with it that some people dont like the same thing you like. If your most favored meal is makkaroni and pizza is better selling you wont say you like pizza better than makkaroni do you? If you do thats somewhat retarded, sorry...
Thats...what I said...
As for the other posts...I think we are splitting hairs at this point... *Coughs.*
Can you tell me then WHAT you said? Judging by the posting i quoted it reads like "If one game is better than the other, all people would play the better one", and that was your answer to me saying: "WC 3 is a great game but i like the other one better". Either you say there is no such thing as personal taste ("No game is better than another") or you say personal taste depends on mathematical rules like, if one game is played more often than its better.
...
Do what?
Ok, I'll assume this was a miscommunication and explain. Different people like different things. If people didn't then there would be one game. There wouldnt be different RTS's, MMO's, FPS's, RPG's, etc. But there are.
The thing is, people do have different preferences. But, some preferences are more common than others, that is why some games are more popular than others. And after that we add in hype and sequelism and etc.
That is all there is to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thats a matter of opinion...
And decrease your sig size, you've been warned like 5 times now.
Actually, considering how much each of there games sell, its not really all that opinionated.
As for the sig warnings, thats the first warning I heard. Perhaps in the future when you have an issue, you could send a private message, so that I can actually know about it instead of getting these warnings that I have no idea about. Thanks.
That just means you hardly read anyone elses posts because people were complaining. I would send you a PM eventually I just prefer not to if I can avoid it.
So people go out and look for crappy games?
As for not reading other people's posts, yea, if you want to say that then go ahead. Doesn't make it true, but you can say it.
Guess there complaints were invisible like your warnings, eh?
It doesn't have nothing to do with the quality, but really there is a relation in between sales and quality.
I think the biggest factor on sales is how good the first game was if it's a sequel.
If you take a game like Gothic 1 half the people just left it because they couldn't figure the controls out... lol...
Perimeter - the game is so complicated people just drop it. Same goes for the heXen games, people found the puzzles "too hard for an FPS".
Then we have all these games that start slow and then become interesting later. Diablo, on the other hand, starts fast because it has no active background whatsoever. E.g., games with active backgrounds lose to Diablo in sales because people don't care about active background. >>
I really don't think you are giving the average gamer enough credit.
Key word is gamer, someone who plays games for more then one hour a week. Even if you are correct, it would only be correct about non-gamers, like people who like games like that Warrio mini-game thing (Cant remember the name...) for Nintendo.
Most gamers don't want to waste there money and will look into a game before ever picking it up. Only the stupidest of gamers would do otherwise.
As for Blizzard sales, x.x still looking for them.
I'm going to go on a limb and ask, on SC did you play Fastest Map Possible?...
Most gamers have no idea what they are buying. I have people in my school who talk about Halo all day long and know nothing else. They know NOTHING. They only know the very-very-very recent releases and the very heavily advertised ones. You mention Diablo to them they don't know what it is. That is the average casual gamer right there.
Large armies in SC single campaign? There may have been a few, but on average you had to play like most low money maps, which means small units of men.
As I said, there are the idiots. I don't dispute that. But they are idiots. Reminds me of the CS:S guy in Ctrl+Alt+Del...
But most people I talk to (that have a brain) usually look for good games.
Signals that most people who play games are a bit hit in the head nowdays.
So do most people I talk to. We wouldn't want to talk to idiots. But it doesn't meant they don't exist just because we don't talk to them.
That may be true, considering the Halo fanbase...and considering the "quality" of the Halo games...
I'm not saying that one is better then another. If one was better then the other then everyone would be playing one or the other, and by the looks of Bnet, thats not the case.
I'm just saying that SC was originally designed as a low money game. The supply limit was offset by the small amount of money available and the need to expand to aquire more minerals or gas spots.
They are both RTS games but both are designed very differently.
WC3 - I wouldn't mind it at all if it wasn't called WarCraft.
I felt the same about WC3. The undead ground was called Blight, btw. I also was disapointed in a lot of things I expected since WC2. For instance - sound effects on units. I really loved the way the old knights/paladins sounded. In WC3 we have these old guys... Same goes for, like, 90% of the humans in WC2 compared to humans in WC3... and also the death knights. I just loved the sound in WC2, despite how old and glowy looking it was, it never made me feel it was ridiculous.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Thats...what I said...
As for the other posts...I think we are splitting hairs at this point... *Coughs.*
Granted I didn't say it exactly the same way you said it word for word, yes, it was generally what I said.
...
Do what?
Ok, I'll assume this was a miscommunication and explain. Different people like different things. If people didn't then there would be one game. There wouldnt be different RTS's, MMO's, FPS's, RPG's, etc. But there are.
...I think I confused myself...
The thing is, people do have different preferences. But, some preferences are more common than others, that is why some games are more popular than others. And after that we add in hype and sequelism and etc.
That is all there is to it.