" @HitmanAgent47: I though you would reply Master-Troll. P.S. Nobody gives a shit about what you say. "I second that. Oh well, at least they saved the puppies and found that wanabe psycho!
JackPack's forum posts
" Blizzard games have been $60 for many many years now. They pump a shitload of time and money into each one of their games. They have every right to charge you whatever they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it. This isn't EA or some Activision yearly game. The last time Blizzard released a full retail game was six years ago. "A lot of other great companies invest time, effort and money in the games they make, and they don't need six years to produce them, nor do they charge more than the asking price of similar games. Not to mention that those games actually feel like sequels with substantial improvements, and they sometimes go beyond that and try to inovate. So, I should understand that Blizzard are a hard working bunch, the greatest company around, with the best and most innovative games, and the likes of Nintendo, Capcom, Firaxis, etc don't even compare. I guess those guys are just slakers. I mean, who does substantial changes in they're games? Resident Evil 4 and Civilization IV are wrong to be substantially different from the other games in the series. Also, when Nintendo lauched LoZ: Twilight Princess back in 2006, everybody got pretty vocal about the gameplay, saying it's more of the same. What a bunch of slakers! Only Blizzard is allowed to make more of the same gameplay, and getr critical acclamim. Go Blizzard! :))
" @JackPack said:I don't deny that Starcraft II is a AAA title for a second. I'm just saying Blizzard shouldn't get so coky, for a game that seems to have a little less features than the original (a breaktrough title for it's time and still one of the finest RTS games ever, if not the best). After they dissapointed us by cutting the campaing in three (it's a long campaing, and you can use protoss and zerg units in conjuncton with your own units, but it would have been nice to see the story from multipl perspectives from the get-go, and not through add-ons) and limiting competition to local players, plus the above faults I mentioned, they selll the game like it's on Xbox 360 or PS3, and people aren't even a bit bothered. I'm sure the game is worth it, and it will give players a bang for they're buck, but still that's no reason to think your special in an industry that has a lot of other talented people designing games. Blizzard is a great company, but it's not the only one. A little humlity might help!" I hope Blizzard is at least gratefull to all you fanboys, who are going to defend their games no matter what. Look at some newly released games or even some upcoming games. Notice anything strange? Yep, they're 50$. What exactly makes Starcraft II so deserving of a 60$ price tag? No LAN? Same 3 races? Lack of any real innovations? New BattleNet (yeah, I guess Blizzard finally realized that voice chat should be part of their games). The only thing sofakingcool did was lament a bit about the price, but all the fanboys took it very personal. Chill people, and face the facts: there isn't any serios reason why this is 60$. This price tag is just another negative in a very long list. Next up, maybe you'll have to pay to play on BattleNet. ;) "Are you serious? Whether you can figure it out or not, SC2 is a triple A title. A game doesn't earn a huge following and continue to be played a decade+ after it's release by being a giant steaming pile. What is your master plan on what SC2 should be? I think it's brilliant the way it is. I do however agree that digital copies should be cheaper than retail boxes. They save money on packaging/shipping/ etc. If they pass part of that along then the market has a higher saturation point. More copies sold. More $$$. "
Unreal Tournament, Quake III, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Halo, Battlefield 1942, UT 2004, Battlefield 2, Gears of War, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, just to name a few!