More_Badass
Member
What makes you think it's not genuine?I feel like this is not a genuine list, rather just being controversial for the sake of it. Hey look at me type list. It will work!
What makes you think it's not genuine?I feel like this is not a genuine list, rather just being controversial for the sake of it. Hey look at me type list. It will work!
I thought Civ VI was very well received? Or is this the case for SP being alright but MO sucking?Civ VI is decent if you use mods but you can't really grade a game based on the community fixing the game.
This is for multiplayer, the ai is useless in this game except for barbarians. They don't care about losing units unlike the civs. This makes them not useless.
I thought Civ VI was very well received? Or is this the case for SP being alright but MO sucking?
T
Maybe it only extends to games they developed, since Offworld Trading Company was published by Stardock.
I thought Civ VI was very well received? Or is this the case for SP being alright but MO sucking?
They didnt invent RTS but became the kings of it
out of curiosity, when did that happen?
was considered a very good rts at the time, and nothing more. Do keep in mind that myth II: soulblighter came out in that very same year.
fwiw, you'd have a better argument with brood war. And even then, compared to what bungie was putting out... blizz was simply not up to the task.
Now, if the argument were "which made the most dosh"? sure. blizz. no question about it.
Youre damn well right Blizzard does things better than anyone else.
They didnt invent RTS but became the kings of it
They didnt invent ARPGs but became the kings of it (with Diablo 2 that is)
They didnt invent MMOs but became the kings of it
They didnt invent card games but became the kings of it
They didnt invent hero shooters but became the kings of it
Blizzard stays slaying.
was considered a very good rts at the time, and nothing more. Do keep in mind that myth II: soulblighter came out in that very same year.
fwiw, you'd have a better argument with brood war. And even then, compared to what bungie was putting out... blizz was simply not up to the task.
Now, if the argument were "which made the most dosh"? sure. blizz. no question about it.
i mean, i feel that when people say that blizz did great at RTS's, it is with that image that "oh, it was mad popular in korea, so it mustve been big here too" and.. it wasn't. Partially because, back then, the RTS scene was absurdly competitive Like, seriously.. You have Total Annihilation the year before, AoEII the year after. Homeworld shortly after that. Dune 2000, Tiberian Sun, Battlezone, all around that same period. There was never a period where one could point to blizzard's game and say "that there is the best god damn rts out there". Starcraft's boom was quite delayed.
Heck, i'd readily say that wc3 is a better product.
Homefront the revolution on most surprising LMAO
Edit:
Also that Overwatch and CIV VI Burn
Out of those games the only one that maintain its popularity as well is AoE II.
was considered a very good rts at the time, and nothing more. Do keep in mind that myth II: soulblighter came out in that very same year.
fwiw, you'd have a better argument with brood war. And even then, compared to what bungie was putting out... blizz was simply not up to the task.
Now, if the argument were "which made the most dosh"? sure. blizz. no question about it.
i mean, i feel that when people say that blizz did great at RTS's, it is with that image that "oh, it was mad popular in korea, so it mustve been big here too" and.. it wasn't. Partially because, back then, the RTS scene was absurdly competitive Like, seriously.. You have Total Annihilation the year before, AoEII the year after. Homeworld shortly after that. Dune 2000, Tiberian Sun, Battlezone, all around that same period. There was never a period where one could point to blizzard's game and say "that there is the best god damn rts out there". Certainly not in the same way one could with D2. Starcraft's boom was quite delayed.
Heck, i'd readily say that wc3 is a better product.
1. Command and Conquer, Dune IIYeah, sorry but no.
Starcraft was, from release, the strongest RTS there was. Sure, other games had their fans, but starcraft was so clearly ahead of the curve in so many, many ways.
1) It had an honest to go decent storyline, with varied missions and a cast people cared about.
2) Three totally asymmetrical races. Can't understate how big a thing that was at the time.
3) Easily the best online framework for games with battlenet.
Starcraft, and then Brood War, were undeniably the best RTs games made during the RTS heyday. I know that pisses a lot of people off, but the games durability, insane fanbase, massive steps forward for the genre and the fact it basically gave birth to modern esports are all huge things other games never offered.
If Civ 6 and stellaris are "casual", then what games aren't?
To speed up the argument: if your argument is that starcraft is king because it is popular, that would be a logical fallacy.
wtf is jammo?
Why would that be a logical fallacy? This entire argument started with the claim that Blizzard didn't invent the RTS genre but became the king of it anyway. It's about Blizzard as refiners who made the games that reached the heights of popularity rather than about innovation.
Homefront the revolution on most surprising LMAO
Edit:
Also that Overwatch and CIV VI Burn
*seeing Stellaris at first place*
"hey,this guy knows what he his talking about"
*noticing it's a list of the most diappointing games*
ok...
And Civ6 is under fire too? Lol,he should have just said he doesn't like strategy games
My thing with Tom Chick is that (to be frank) he has a huge conflict of interest which makes a lot of his commentary suspicious at best for strategy games, He is employed by Stardock, was credited in the GalCiv 2 manual and involved in Galciv3's development. He has a huge tendency (as you can see by these lists) to heavily, heavily criticise strategy games that compete with Stardock titles, whilst at the same time hugely underplaying the unmitigated piles of *crap* that Stardock has released over the last few years.
I mean, I fully get the criticism of Stellaris - look at the thread, you can see my own complaints there. But Galciv 3 was equally broken on release, with several non-working systems and an AI my cat could beat - and yet no mention in 2015. Equally, in 2015 he lists a bunch of "middling" minor RTS games in his "most disappointing games " list of the year, yet in 2016 the outright embarrassment that is Ashes of the Singularity doesn't get a mention.
When it comes to Stardock games, or games in competition with Stardock games, he seems to have a different set of standards.
So where is his full opinion on FF15? I need to know the exact reasons why he didn't like it.
4. XCOM 2 - "Its XCOM, but with everything better. And I mean everything. Seriously, name one thing about XCOM and I can explain how its better in XCOM 2."
Like most comedy this was about 30% funny to me, so, some laughs to be had in there. Not bad Tom!
Think some of these zingers just needed a little less text and a little more subtlety and the jokes would have landed better, just comes off across a little "my first funny list" in places; in others he sticks the landing real good. Maybe just bit off more than he could chew though? One less list and he could've polished up this set better I think.
Putting OTC maybe a bit of a no-no, being that he is close with the developer of that game, but I suppose this is like comedians getting away with racism?
Pretty bold making fun of that cancer game!
I love reading his lists, even if I don't always agree.
Is this the Armond White of Video Games?
Is this the Armond White of Video Games?
You can see why he feels the way he does about the game and even if your opinion is at odds with his, his likes/dislikes are consistent and well reasoned. His full length reviews go into much more than this quick forum post, though.Tom Chick said:What's left after the story and the combat? The character development? There really isn't much and it certainly can't hold a candle to, say, the Obsidian stuff or even Bethesda games. The exploration? Hardly. This is a godawful example of an open world.Scott L said:the story doesn't sound like it's worth playing for, and I already don't like the look of combat, not for 30-50 hours at least. But it does seem like it will have enough enjoyable qualities I'm still planning on grabbing it 20% off with Prime
Given that story and combat are pretty much the two fundamental "verbs" an a computer RPG, I can't imagine why you'd pick one up if you were convinced those elements wouldn't appeal to you.
-Tom
Is this the Armond White of Video Games?
Totally agree with him on Overwatch and Rise of the Tomb Raider.
Nice to know there is someone else out there who shares my unpopular opinion on those titles.