Mar 26th 2012 10:24AM Personally, I hope he's redeemed and not just cut aside as yet another enemy players end up slaughtering.
I may be an Alliance player but I thought there was great potential with Garrosh's character (as with Varian's). When I heard the news that we would be fighting Garrosh I wasn't surprised but I was still largely disappointed as I find it a lazy way to "fix" the "Garrosh Problem".
In regards to how the World of Warcraft story works, I will find it incredibly cliché it Garrosh is killed. He will simply be another footnote on a long line of enemies who had somewhat decent intentions but were ultimately corrupted by power or by something "evil" (every major antagonist is like this - from Sargeras to Deathwing).
It'll be very different if he is given the chance to redeem himself, however.
Mar 26th 2012 8:39AM I can't play female characters simply because I like to imagine myself as my character, and I don't think I'd play a good female. I'm quite fond of being a male. :P
I don't mind the "beefcakes" simply because it's a contrast to my own physical structure, which is anything but a beefcake. Another reason is because when I think "melee dps" I think "huge weapons wielded by buff peeps".
However, in saying all this, my main character on World of Warcraft, a melee damage dealer, is a dwarf, which aren't as beefcake-y as some of the other races but who cares? They're freakin' DWARVES.
Mar 25th 2012 8:02PM @A Sandwich
Self: A person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, esp. considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action.
Entitled: Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.
Self-entitled: When a person thinks they have the just claim to receive or do something.
A Sandwich, I've listed a brief description of what self-entitled really means. In the future, you may want to read this, because currently, you look like an douchebag and a tool.
Yes, there are plenty of gamers who are self-entitled asshats, but there's also the people who bitch about them, calling them self-entitled. You argue your point but fail to understand the reasoning behind why we hate ME3's ending, just like most people who argue how you do.
Your posts reek of arrogance and the stench of bigotry. These are the two main keys to self-entitlement, so why don't you sit down, take a deep breath, and question why you're displaying your oxymoron behaviour.
You can't complain about people complaining without looking like a tool. Hypocrisy is the only thing you gain from complaining about complainers.
Mar 25th 2012 7:56PM @UNCCShannon
I used to blame EA all the time but frankly, it's not just their fault. It's too easy to blame them and it undermines the authority BioWare actually has within the gaming industry.
BioWare didn't -need- EA, EA -wanted- BioWare. BioWare could've published it's own games quite successfully but chose to use EA as a medium instead.
If BioWare are being manipulated by EA then really, it's their own damn fault. If they were a smaller, less known company, then it might be warranted to blame EA, but they're not.
Mar 25th 2012 7:54PM Two things:
1. I'm of the group who don't give a rats ass about Child's Play and don't think it actually "saves the children!". I have nothing against the charity itself, I just think the money would be better off on the R&D of proper cures and help for the children themselves. Giving them games puts their mind off things but it doesn't help their problems, and it doesn't help save lives.
2. Whilst I agree that many gamers are being whiny little shits, the only people truly self-entitled are the people saying people like me are "self-entitled".
I've already posted my opinions on my blog, I won't repeat them in full here:
But in short: Why is it that gamers aren't allowed the right to complain about a product -we paid for- but everyone else is? Why is it that people can complain about movies, books, music or the crappy couch they paid good money for, but not about video games?
Anyone complaining about people complaining is a tool. You can't complain about people complaining -without- looking like a tool, the entire concept is a complete oxymoron.
Mar 20th 2012 1:02AM @Mcsniper: Warhammer Online would be the first game that comes to mind as a PvP-oriented game that squarely focuses on PvP content. It has minor PvE content but from day one it has always been advertised as a PvP-based game. I'm not saying it's a good game though, just that it meets the criteria of a game that doesn't concern itself trying to please two different types of people.
Your implications are correct, but doesn't do anything to discredit my argument. I think Blizzard trying to focus on both PvE and PvP is what makes the class balancing in WoW so f-ed up. I also think any other game that tries to balance around both PvE and PvP will invariably have issues that probably won't ever be completely fixed, unless the two game modes are individualized from each other entirely.
This article however, is about Blizzard. My comment concerns Blizzard and Project Titan in relation to their other hit MMO, "World of Warcraft". I don't need to specify any other MMO, as that would be irrelevant.
Mar 19th 2012 5:39PM Blizzard are still making very basic mistakes in World of Warcraft. If they haven't learned how to deal with things like class balance, offering challenging content and actually seperating PvP and PvE (instead of trying to please everyone and fail) then I don't see Project Titan being any better than WoW, sorry to say.
The main thing that would improve the overall quality of the game, I think, would be to either have it as purely PvP or purely PvE. Not both. I've always believed it's the two of these things in a game that can screw it over.
Balancing one side is hard enough, but balancing both sides and then balancing both of those sides to each other is nigh impossible and Blizzard, after over 7 years, has still not done it yet (either deliberately or not, who knows).
If you want both of these gametypes in your game then at least separate the content. PvP changes only affect PvP servers, PvE changes only affect PvE, etc. Separating the damage and effects could go wonders to doing this, as complex as the game might become because of it (worth it, imo).
Mar 18th 2012 6:06PM @JEDlSCUM: Hey look, it's a Mass Effect fanboy who can't stand the idea of any other game having a better ending than ME3!
I love the Mass Effect series, but I'm not going to sit here and delude myself into thinking the ending doesn't actually suck, because it does. KOA's ending was actually pretty damn satisfying after all you do in the game. Mass Effect 3's was not.
In any case, depending on how "large" this new landmass is and how much content we'll actually be getting on it, I might consider buying it.
Or to put it simply: If it's not a half-assed piece of crap excuse for an "expansion" that costs roughly the same amount as one then yeah, I'd consider buying it.
Mar 18th 2012 6:03PM @TwEE: Be sarcastic all you like, the point is valid.
Once upon a time Nintendo were a pretty cool company. Now playing Nintendo games is like watching repeats of "Friends" on TV.
Mar 18th 2012 5:55PM So my choices are to either accept relations with a talking robot or not have any of the necessary features that should've been in Borderlands?
...I'm gonna need to think about this one.