Sev72 said:
There was an "original" Runescape, as well as the modern one everyone is more familiar with.
Which was just an extensive patch to begin with. A title update if you will. The engine is different, and there were many different things added, but the maps, monster strength, and all were pretty much identical. Maybe a few new quests here and there.
Only real
significant change was the addition of a "PvP triangle," which meant being a caster was actually worth something. I never liked how you could spend so much time in the original engine working on your spellcasting, gathering up runes, only to be completely blasted by someone who did nothing but pump in STR points, which took far less effort.
Of course, the PvP triangle didn't do anything significant either, as it still took less effort to build up a pure STR character and you still had to spend hours just gathering runes as a caster.
Anyway, back to the list. I don't really pay attention to lists because they're constantly biased, and some lists (like ScrewAttack's) aren't even proper lists, but there's one thing that caught my attention.
Runescape (#17)
Final Fantasy (#20)
These two spots alone should clue anyone in on the credibility of this list. Runescape, a singular game that had one title update, better than a run of 14 games that is still going strong, even though it dates way back to the NES? When deciding top 50 FRANCHISES? Runescape's not even a damn franchise.
