Forum Posts Following Followers
674 48 29

admiral_picard Blog

Blizzard is the most overrated game company around

For some inane and unknown reason people hold Blizzard in some special place. Instead of just treating them like any other game developer who makes good and bad games - they are the holiness that makes no wrong. According to some people, if their name is on it - it must be good. I suppose it shouldn't come as much of a surprise then that these pretentious a-holes at Blizzard think SO highly of themselves to ACTUALLY have the GALL to have a convention based solely on themselves. No, E3 isn't enough for these guys - "Lets have a Blizz-Con - where losers can dress up like their favourte moron from one of our mediocre games!" Shame on you Gamespot for giving ANY coverage to them, let those nerds have their nerdgasm all by themselves.

I don't inherently have a problem with conventions as a general...but then again EA and Valve and other game companies don't go around having EA-Con or Valve-Con...and seriously both companies have more good titles than Blizzard. Blizzard lovers are an angry little bunch, like a kid getting PO'ed at "Your Mama" jokes - they'll tear up and start throwing a tantrum and making idle threats if you make fun of their mommy...grow up Blizzard fans. I will cease coming to this website until the Blizzard propaganda trash is off the main page - since EVERY news story has something to do with them. WHO CARES? Blizzard doesn't make any games I want - give us REAL game news, if I wanted to see a stream of nothing but Blizzard news I'd go to their stupid website.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out the people that go are brainless corporate zombies. The entry price to this stupid event was apparently originally $100...then it went to $125, and now $150. And guess who is behind that? ACTIVISION...YEP! Good ol' Bobby Kotick. With 27,000 supposed attendees that is over $4 million dollars. WOW, and what to they do at this worthless Blizzcon? Give you stupid little toys most companies gives you for free (But you gotta buy admission - $150 a pop for $5 worth of stupid little gadgets, marketing genius right there at least). They announce games that most companies just publicly announce without making you PAY money to come to a convention to hear them tell you. There is nothing so special that these idiots give you to be worth all that money and worth any of the gaming media coverage they get. Only an idiot would want to go to it - why don't people take offense at the fact that money hungry Blizzard charges high prices for stuff that's free from literally about every other company?

Really wasn't kidding earlier though, I don't like any Blizzard game - I tried Warcraft III, didn't like it. WoW - overrated, it's just another MMO and doesn't do anything special to make it worthy of all the people who play it and pay them all the money to keep playing it. I played Starcraft - meh, I was never as impressed as other people were (I prefer the original C&C which came before Starcraft).Starcraft II...well you can look below this post and see what I think there. Never was big into Diablo or games like it. And when you talk Blizzard it is either Warcraft (Mainly WoW, I guess they aren't making a Warcraft IV until people are sick of WoW), Starcraft, or Diablo. Wooow, and two of them are strategy games - neither of which I care for the style of. I wouldn't go to Blizzcon if I lived where it was happening and it was free - there is nothing of interest for me. God forbid someone apparently not like Blizzard though...I mean EA would at least have a reason for an "EA-Con" they make tons of games...not just three. EA has made plenty of games I like, so I'd at least be interested somewhat in such an event. I cannot get why somepeople just chose Blizzard as a company that they all love so much when they haven't done hardly anything to deserve it. I have strong devotion to ONE game company - Valve. But gee, at least they did something worthy - they made Half Life which changed FPS games quite a bit. Half Life 2 - awesome continuation of the series unlike stuff like SCII whichhas been said to be a SC 1.5 by many people who like the series (Check some reviews on - SCII only has a 3 out of 5 on there, which means only die-hard Blizzard fans really like that game anyway).Counter Stirke - lord, SO many people play this, fun to play once in awhile but somepeople eat, sleep and breathe this.Team Fortress 2 - tons of people love that game, I like it too. Left 4 Dead - great game, finally a well made co-op game that worked and a great zombie game too. Portal - nothing really like this before, lots of outside the box thinking and lots of fun.

Admittedly Valve mostly makes FPS games - but they make high quality games. They really don't have enough to have a Valve-con or anything like that though. How is E3 not enough for most game companies? I mean EA is the only company I can think of that could have a reason for a convention just for their games. Whatever though, I'm just sick of hearing about this ignorant Blizzcon. I mean look on YouTube, a trending video is a video showing the LOG ON SCREEN for the next WoW. OH. MY. GOD. "GUYS YOU GOTTA SEE THIS LOOK LOOK LOOK, IT'S THE NEW LOGIN SCREEN!!" "OOOOOHHHHHH LOOK AT IT"*NERDGASM* Some people are just pathetic, I'd never go so far even for Valve. They'll release the games when they're done and they'll be good.

Starcraft II is overrated

It seems in the gaming community Starcraft is held in some special light, like some great thing that is so good and wonderful that it's so worthwhile when it's really overrated. I've had beta access for some time now and I'm definitely not buying this game. Games like SCII don't deserve the right to call themselves strategy games because it's so minimal in the game. It's more about who's such a no life loser that plays this game too much that can insta click everything and knows every hotkey and moves like a robot spawning units. There's no real strategy involved. After playing a game as Zerg I had tons of units, the other player was turtling badly so I expanded halfway across the map. He had to have been totally out of resources by the time I had over half the map.

Out of no where, here come about 20 ships and a few mechs. My hordes of Zerg were useless, nevermind I had more units than him. If weaker units in greater number can't be expected to beat them, why bother? It's like sending a Spec Ops team to kill a tribal village still following ancient tribal ways and not using any technology in Africa - they have spears, you have fully automatic submachine guns...gee, that's what SCII feels like. If all my base defenses, all my masses of cheap and easy to make units, and my uber units all perish without even killing so much as a handful of them - how is that balanced? Protoss and Terran are VASTLY overpowered and Zerg is seriously underpowered. But Blizzard being the stupid uninsightful company they are they won't fix it and people will buy the game and whine about it...I hate RTS games that cannot balance at all.

There have been others too that did it, but SCII is such a fresh and current subject that it amazes me we still have degenerate idiotic balancing issues after so many better games have come out that overcame this amateur problem. Nothing is worse than wasting 30 minutes of time making a base and building up units for a massive assault with no early rushes and then getting uberscrewed and losing all your units - but I love rage quitting afterward, I won't give the other player the satisfaction of defeating me since they wasted my time - although Blizzard wastes the most of my time with their worthless games. I'd be amazed if they could ever make any good games, about the last time I had respect for Blizzard was when they made Blackthorne - so it's been a LOOOONG time since they've had my respect and will probably never get it again. Warcraft was always a boring game universe IMO and the Warcraft RTS games where always so blah and boring, nothing can match the fun of good old C&C - the RTS King of all time. If you're not in the SCII Beta - you're not missing anything if you ask me...I'm definitely not buying this game - much better RTSes are around than this overrated overhyped thing.

Need For Speed World - Big disappointment in the making

Given the nature of it being beta I won't say much, but lots of people who liked the old NFS games are going to be disappointed in this game. They've made some changes far for the worse, and EA is so terrible at planning that the servers run badly and now you can't even enter the game because the servers are so overloaded that the game just crashes. I'll render my verdict now - this game will suck, just like every version of NFS has pretty much since Most Wanted/Carbon. One of the worst betas I've been in, almost as bad as APB...

A Clarification on my Scoring Method

Many users interested enough to see this page are curious about what other games I have reviewed or possibly why I rated a game "so low". I would like to provide clarification on how I treat the scoring system and why you should all stop overreacting to my "poor" reviews.

People seem to think if a game didn't get at least a 7.0 or more it's a bad review. Not true. I don't do game scores on a grade school scale - like 90-100 is an A, 80-89 is a B, 70-79 is a C, 60-69 is a D, and 59 and below is an F. I rate on a similar basis to the five star rating system. So here's the break down for how my scores translate:

10-9 = 5 stars
8-7 = 4 stars
6-5 = 3 stars
4-3 = 2 stars
2-1 = 1 star

Most of my game ratings are in the 3 star area, and most games I play are not much more than average. Games that are close to the cutoff are similar to a +/- system - an 8.5 is close to being a 9 but not quite, whereas a 6.0 would have been a 5.5 but I knocked it up to the next level because it is pretty much average.Perhaps this will provide clarification for some who seem to think I hate all games...far from it. I just don't rate and value the ratings on a scale that Gamespot themselves do. They work on that school grading scale - I don't. Please don't confuse the two, you'll interpret my reviews differently than I intend them to be taken.

Halo - Love it or be outcast

It's really quite sad, but in society anymore it has come to this basic point: Love Halo or you're an outcast and there is something wrong with you. Ever since the invention of Halo on the original Xbox (Which by the way, was NOT the reason I bought an Xbox like many folks - I bought my Xbox for Splinter Cell) I have found it so boring. The first Halo I lost interest when the Flood came in. The second one I foolishly rented again, became bored with, and returned. The third Halo I rented, and yet again became bored with it and just sent it back. But people will sell their soul for access to the next Halo games early. Hell, some will do it just to get the game when it launches. For...this? And trust me, it's not because I'm bad at Halo games. I could keep playing, it just got so old and repetitious that going on just seemed pointlessly boring. Since the point of playing games is to, erm - have fun, why would I keep playing something that isn't fun?

But you're not allowed to disagree with the masses. And it's only the masses because it's so dumbed down and simpleton. It doesn't get anymore basic. There aren't even any puzzle sequences that require any thought. Just run and gun. Perfect for that casual gamer who hates having to use the brain for anything...the only people with even less brain processing would be those sports game players (Ironically the overlap between this group and the Halo group is pretty big). Why is it so hard to believe that people would dislike Halo? I find something like Half Life 2 to be far more intuitive and interesting to play than any Halo game I've ever played. The stories in games like Call of Duty 4 are even vastly superior.

If you disagree and say Halo is boring and lame, then people assume there's just something wrong with you. If having higher standards and demands from a game means something is wrong with you then yes, there is. People seem perfectly content to keep playing the same boring game from Bungie over and over again with some new lame reason why you're there this time. Even as of late they ran out of ideas to keep using erm-Master Chef? Whatever his name is - (couldn't be arsed to care) so now they're just trying to see how they can use the other characters in the game to keep making the same game with tweaks and getting idiots to buy it. It reminds me of all the spin-offs that the original Half Life inspired like Opposing Force, Blue Shift, etc where you played as someone else encountered by the main character in the game. If they kept going, soon it would have been the game from the perspective of a janitor or something. Much the same with Halo: We have it from the main guys perspective, now here's the common soldier, next we'll have the special forces, and how about the AI's point of view next? I mean really, it gets old and then it's time to make a new one.

And what needs be done is what Valve changed between Half Life and Half Life 2. Halo is stuck on that infinite expansion of boringness that the original Half Life was doing and it needs a game to make it "2.0" so to say. New and different than the other ones all together. But given how generic Halo is that is hardly possible. Bungie should really just release some totally new games instead of making every version of Halo they can think of from every possible viewpoint. Soon we'll get lame crap like Halo Tetris or Halo Bejeweled...

But idiots will be idiots. Just keep feeding them their generic boring games...a little bit of Halo here, little bit of Gears of War there, until we have a nice evenly stirred stew of BORING...

Burnout - the most overrated and poorly made arcade racer that every idiot loves

I've seen this from lots of people. Mention Burnout and the creaming of the pants commences. Why? I haven't the vaguest clue. Burnout has always been such a yawntastic series to me. The only aspect that was any interest were the planned crashes. The latest Burnout (Can't be bothered to look it up, I don't care they use generic names anyway) was so crappy. Ooh look it's a free roam - so if we make it boring people won't care cause they can drive teh everywherez!11!. Not.

The controls of the latest Burnout game were terrible, the cars were so similar in performance (In that in each category it's not as if one vehicle made for speed feels much different than another made for speed), the way the game setup the tracks to tell you how to get somewhere and telling you like 5 feet before an intersection at 100 mph "Turn here" only for you to scream past it. So as a racer, it's trash. Always has and will. Stunts - no, leave this to games like Stuntman and the like. Again, wasted effort. So the gold - crashes. Wait, what's that you say? Oh, no crash mode in the latest Burnout. Hmm, better throw that out - it was fun and original. Now you can only do that when you hit stuff. BORING.

And the most recent terrible news - the idiot devs of that blahtastic borefest Burnout now have control of NFS! The travesty! Take your terribly made arcade racers suitable for exactly that - arcades - and keep them away from NFS. I have such little faith that the latest NFS installation will be any good now. Such a shame. After one terrible game (Pro-Street) and a grandly mediocre one (Undercover), NFS Shift will be the first NFS game I have no interest in playing. I'd rather wait for Forza 3 (Admittedly a racing SIM but I like sim more than arcade) and PGR5. I don't even care for the latest GT5 Prologue but I'd rather play that then NFS now. Such a shame they ruined a great series of game. They have been great ever since the original R&T Need For Speed. Ahh, the classics. Even with the surprising new direction Underground took NFS was greatly interesting. If EA couldn't figure out how to return NFS to success, those dopes at Criterion won't help at all.

R.I.P. Need For Speed
1994 - 2005
Ye shant be forgotten for what you used to be

Gears Of War

Ok, what is the deal with this? The single player is pretty good, but what is it that makes people (Including GS) just totally flip and act like total fanbois and go 0MG TH1S GAM3 1S TH3 B3ST GAM3 EVAR ITS BETTAR THAN EV3RY OTEHR 0N3 EVAR!!!!11!1!1 If it weren't so overhyped it wouldn't be so bad, but every idiot who plays this game just swears its better than everything before, which I believe to be near impossible. People say that about one game every year and almost every time the game is not THAT good. It's a refreshing game that's different but it IS NOT anything super special and groundbreaking like GS thinks it is. I mean what, have you never played any other games before or are you just stupid? PC games certainly look way better than this game so it's not like the graphics mean squat either.

The multiplayer however, sucks. It's constantly lagging and makes playing very difficult. The modes are really lame too since there is no straight out deathmatch or anything like UT2k4 (which is what made it prettyfun). It takes a CS approach, except it fails to provide as much fun as that does. And yes, I do know what I'm doing, I've played games online for a long time and I'm nigh undefeatable on some of my games. Gah it's a hopeless cause, people are ignorant and they'd rather stay that way than to speak out against the majority and risk being weird or different.

Far Cry

For the longest time, people were saying "Far cry is an awesome game!" So, I figured why not check it out. I download the demo, get it all set up and start playing it, and the gameplay quality is horrible! It feels like a Budget game or something, and the graphics, while good, don't make up for its $50 price. I remember running along, and some helicopter shooting me, and boom in 4 hits you are dead, and to top it off, the guns are extremely boring. Why today's gaming community is filled with such stupor amazes me, but need it not matter, I will not be sucked into terrible games such as this one, ever.

Battlefield 2

I love the original BF1942, mainly because of the mods. I had high hopes for BF Vietnam, but when it was released, it was a huge disappointment. They hardly updated the graphics, and they still had the arcadey physics of BF1942. I was beginning to think BF2 would be the same as Vietnam, except in Desert Storm, but as I watched some videos of BF2, it appears to be a very entertaining game. Destructible environments, lock on missiles, and rag doll physics, along with a long overdue, new graphic engine. It sounds to be a hit game of 2005, when it comes out. I look forward to its release.


Ahhh this looks like a very interesting new idea. A game where you play a freelance soldier, who can steal anything and use it against your enemies. Sounds a bit like a mix of Freelancer and GTA. If it is as good as the preview videos I've seen, this game should be a lot of fun whenever it's released.
  • 11 results
  • 1
  • 2