Read this before reading anything else:

http://www.starcraftwire.net/n/1231/150-to-play-full-starcraft-ii

One would think that having ten million subscribers for one game and people who still buy their older games (Diablo 2 and Starcraft) they would be happy with what they have. They have to know that StarCraft 2 is going to sell like hotcakes when it gets released and they're going to be literally rolling in money. So why do they feel the need to take advantage of their fanbase like this?

Now I can see both sides of this argument. Some will say that this means that we can get the base package out ASAP and then they can pick up the later ones, if they want, at a later point. The other side of it will be that this means that you're going to have to spend between 100 - 150 dollars to experience the entirety of the starcraft trilogy that they're calling it (which makes no sense, there WAS a first game people).

Thier response to the situation is that it's just like two expansions and they're sure that people will just play the first game as that's how it is with Warcraft 3. This has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard a company say and yes that includes all the crap that Sony was spouting for awhile there.

I know plenty of people who purchased the Warcraft 3 expansion and were annoyed that they did so since it added little to the game. It expanded upon the characters in WC3 but the storyline push it gave wasn't really anything all too impressive. I would definitely agree with this as it spends more time showing you more crap about Illidian than it does the alliance between the Orcs and Humans failing. The Frozen Throne always felt like a segueway into another game not an expansion to another game. Then lo and behold we learn that it was the case, they needed to split up the alliance so that they could have World of Warcraft.

Wonderful. We paid 30 bucks for an expansion that was actually a prequel to their new game. That's a bit backwards.

Looking at what StarCraft is this is NOT the same situation. This would be like them splitting Warcraft 3 itself into three different releases. Not only do you not get to play all three species from one box you don't even get the entire story. This is a problem for me.

Something like this might fly in South Korea where they've got more interest in the game itself than they do the story but it feels like a slap in the face to anyone who isn't part of the professional gaming league. Want the story? Do ya? Well then you have to buy all three of our games. Look how that works! You're not paying 30 bucks for an epilogue to a game or the final chapter (like Diablo 2 Throne of Destruction) you're literally paying for the next chapter.

Are you kidding me? This is like an author selling you not an actual trilogy but selling you parts of the same book in three parts.

Starcraft 1 and its expansion were not complete stories in each campaign and neither were the Warcraft games. To really experience the entire story and understand entirely what was going on you needed to play all three chapters. If you only played the Terran campaign in SC1 then all you'd think is that the entirety of the game was just a rebellion against the stagnant governing body with the Zerg and Protoss in the background. You would have no clue as to all the things that went on with the rest of the species and the story itself wouldn't be what we recognize as the Starcraft storyline.

The can call it a trilogy all they like, they can call it a matter of time and not money. Anyone who knows how their games work will likely know what exactly is going on here, it's calling nickeling your fans to death. Unless they're going to be selling these games at a reduced price then I can definitely say that I will not be buying this game (One game in three pieces) off of eBay or Amazon at a very reduced price a few years down the line. It's up to us as fans to let developers know how we feel about these things by hitting them where it hurts, their pockets.

This is a slippery slope, akin to the Horse Armor fiasco from Oblivion, and I'm not going to be suckered into this.

Edit: As an aside 30 missions per campaign? I seriously have to wonder about that. Most of the time I'm pretty bored with typical RTS crap (build base, complete objective, build base, completed objective, repeat ad nauseum) and want to move on to the next race after about 7 missions. Putting that aside I wonder how much the story is going ot move between each mission. I have a feeling this is going to be like playing 9 or 10 missions broken up into individual missions. So if you've just taken an enemy stronghold and now have to defend it these will be two seperate missions instead of just the one. Sounds like a lot of campaign stretching at play.

Got a review for Guitar Hero Aerosmith and a preview for SOCOM Confrontation up on Gaming Excellence now:

GH:A - http://www.gamingexcellence.com/ps3/games/1129/review.shtml

SOCOM - http://www.gamingexcellence.com/ps3/games/1322/p20081006.shtml

Really not impressed by the glorified expansion pack that was Guitar Hero Aerosmith even if it is a solid game itself. Bleh. SOCOM was fun but there were so many freaking issues with the Beta that I never actually completed a game to its end. I'd get disconnected, not be able to tell what was going on and quit or any other of a number of problems. I'm sure those won't be in the release (like not showing names on the scoreboard) but there were some peculiar problems cropping up like it directing me to the wrong base to set a bomb...

So yeah, I know I haven't been around a huge lot lately but there's a good reason for that. About sometime in June/July I took a job interview for GameSpot as a game guide writer to replace Matthew Rorie. I was intensely nervous at the prospect of picking up after someone whose guides I not only used but rather enjoyed reading. But I figured it couldn't hurt to take the interview and I really want to move out of Connecticut, I really don't like it here.

Months pass and pass with no real contact from the guy I took my interview with and I rapidly realized that they were likely busy over there so I would, instead of worrying about the interview, focus on getting better at writing FAQs and game guides. This is why I haven't been around much, I've been working on a number of these to try and get better at what I love doing.

So now we're almost in October and I finally get a response back from them. Apparently I was almost picked but the other guy managed to hedge in "by the barest of margins". I'm not angry at GS for not picking me, I don't have anything from college and I've only been writing FAQs for going on two years. So I don't have a grudge about this.

However waiting so many months and hoping to all that's holy that I get the job and then to not... it's left me rather apathetic. Pair that up with the fact that I nobody is hiring freelancers anymore due to budget problems and I'm just feeling so bleh lately. I'm definitely not really feeling that drive I felt before towards writing FAQs and reviews. I just don't really see the point until in pushing myself when I don't stand a chance of getting hired in this lineof work for another year or two at least and have my BA in something.

This isn't me whining or looking for pats on the back. I just want to let people know why I'm not going to be online much. If anyone PMs or e-mails me then I will definitely respond but don't expect to see a lot of new blog posts or anything. Other than work I do for Gaming Excellence and some stuff I agreed to do for IGN, I likely won't be doing too much online.