Ok well then please point out were he is wrong and show some proof, just yelling that he isnt right doesn't make it so.JerrytheBullfrog said:It's not a well put-together argument at all. He's blatantly wrong at points, he quotes a horribly written WAHHH BLIZZARD SUCKS BOBBY KOTICK IS THE EVILIST EVIL EVER blog that gets approximately no readers, and it's just paranoia.Cody211282 said:Holy crap man you did some serious homework here, kudos on the best put together argument on ether side so far, that's going to take me a bit to read all the links
How can you say that you dislike Blizzard for "splitting a game into 3" but then say you liked Mass Effect 2? It's the same goddamn thing BioWare is doing: It's one large story, told from three different points of view in a trilogy. Each game is three times as long as the original campaigns in SC1.
If you're going to bash Blizzard for it then you better not be planning on buying ME3, or that's just blatant hypocrisy on your part. Because unlike the SC2 expansions, ME2 (and ME3) WERE full price. So you paid $150 for the full game. Where's the "BioWare is evil!!!" talk there?
Also I do love Mass Effect(though I don't remember saying on here and that makes how you found out a bit weird, I might be wrong though) and I can see were you would think they have split the game in 3, but the problem there is they are 3 different games, developed at separate times, with improving graphics and new gameplay they also are coming out in about 2 1/2 to 3 year intervals, not just all made roughly at the same time then split and sold as different games. Yes the big picture is spread over 3 games, then again so was Halo's.