I don't get how these games are chosen either.
Games were chosen based on:
- my, JTex's and Guat's personal experience with games
- research that I did coming up with a good list of games that I either didn't play or didn't personally care for, but recognized as relevant
- research that I did into reputable review sources' "games of the year" and "top games lists"
- a respect for nostalgia
Believe it or not, as much as I loved games, I didn't play every game ever made, and I probably don't completely agree with every one of you about which games are the best. (GASP!) But considering that this isn't my job, and I put together a list with the help of some friends over a few of my spare-time hours last week, I think you might want to give me a break.
I don't play strategy games. Warcraft, Starcraft, Command and Conquer...I've played them for 10 minutes combined, maybe. ...but I realized they're important, and looked up reviews and read, and to me, it sounded like Starcraft was essentially Warcraft in Space. Warcraft 2 was made out to be the best combination of trendsetting and quality, so I chose it. I could be wrong, but that's what you have to work with.
...and in the end, it will all work out. ...because the kind of people that liked Warcraft liked Starcraft. If Warcraft 2 goes up against Zelda and loses, then Starcraft would've lost as well....the end result will most likely be the same.
I don't see how Blizzard ends up in quadrants made up of the companies chosen.
The quadrants are name only...that is described in my original post that is stickied.