Comments on: One Game For The Price Of Three http://stroppsworld.com/2008/10/17/one-game-for-the-price-of-three/ Spank That Orc, He Likes It Fri, 18 May 2012 05:02:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Aaron http://stroppsworld.com/2008/10/17/one-game-for-the-price-of-three/#comment-40802 Aaron Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:30:10 +0000 http://stroppsworld.com/2008/10/17/one-game-for-the-price-of-three/#comment-40802 If particular units are only possible by purchasing the expansions (which is basically what they are), then I would guess that they're talking about something similar to the extra units provided in the expansion for LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2. The RotWK expansion added semi-hero units to all factions, as well as some others. In other words, I think all factions will be available in the first game, but they'll make you buy the expansions to have the fully balanced collection of units. I say it's not fully balanced without the expansions because to balance every possible combination or lack thereof would take too much work for them and not be cost-effective. That's a minimum of three possible unit collections that has to be balanced ( 1 - the original game, 2 - the original plus the sequel, 3- the original plus the second sequel / third game), and there's likely to be more possibility than that. I didn't realize the multiplayer would be affected. That makes me very skeptical of 3-part idea. If particular units are only possible by purchasing the expansions (which is basically what they are), then I would guess that they’re talking about something similar to the extra units provided in the expansion for LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2. The RotWK expansion added semi-hero units to all factions, as well as some others.

In other words, I think all factions will be available in the first game, but they’ll make you buy the expansions to have the fully balanced collection of units.

I say it’s not fully balanced without the expansions because to balance every possible combination or lack thereof would take too much work for them and not be cost-effective. That’s a minimum of three possible unit collections that has to be balanced ( 1 – the original game, 2 – the original plus the sequel, 3- the original plus the second sequel / third game), and there’s likely to be more possibility than that.

I didn’t realize the multiplayer would be affected. That makes me very skeptical of 3-part idea.

]]> By: arbitrary http://stroppsworld.com/2008/10/17/one-game-for-the-price-of-three/#comment-40794 arbitrary Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:16:05 +0000 http://stroppsworld.com/2008/10/17/one-game-for-the-price-of-three/#comment-40794 I owuldn't mind if I thought they needed the money ;p Actually, what Hudson says is close to the truth - I'm not interested in Starcraft as I never played it. If Diablo 3 goes this way, then I'm done with Blizzard. I owuldn’t mind if I thought they needed the money ;p Actually, what Hudson says is close to the truth – I’m not interested in Starcraft as I never played it. If Diablo 3 goes this way, then I’m done with Blizzard.

]]> By: Hudson http://stroppsworld.com/2008/10/17/one-game-for-the-price-of-three/#comment-40792 Hudson Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:45:21 +0000 http://stroppsworld.com/2008/10/17/one-game-for-the-price-of-three/#comment-40792 Lame. I wasn't going to get Starcraft 2 anyway, but they better not pull this crap with Diablo 3 Lame. I wasn’t going to get Starcraft 2 anyway, but they better not pull this crap with Diablo 3

]]>