Wait, what? Maybe you should wait until it's out.

I'm sure the game will be every bit as good as Starcraft but I'm already unhappy with it.  I won't buy a single game three times just to get the experience I should be getting by paying for it just once.

What are you looking for in the game that you won't be getting in one package? I'm actually excited for Starcraft 2's different SKUs after hearing Blizzard's reasoning.

And I guess my biggest is Too Human. I was following that game for almost ten years.

TEN

YEARS

If Activision wasn't involved, I might believe Blizzard but you know Activision and you know Bobby "le douche" Kotick.  Do you really think Kotick, the man you went on record he only wants to make games he can exploit year after year, has some sort of altruistic motive behind splitting one game into three or do you think he just wants more money?

They said to the public, "We are making each campaign a huge thing, easily as big as the original game's entire campaign combined, and doing things wiht hte single player that are in no way balanced for multiplayer. Single player is not a multiplayer training ground anymore."

Given that, I just don't care. Activision isn't going to touch this game with its tremendous gnarled fingers if it knows where its money comes from (hint: it is in the second half of the company name).

We'll see about that when the game is released.  I bet the game will be longer but I rarely believe PR hype, especially when they're in uber defense mode like they were.  If it does by some miracle, then I would be willing to be that the game is extended by the RTS equivalent of fetch quests.

And if you don't believe Kotick isn't meddling with Blizzard, then you're crazy.

I admit I am unfamiliar with who Kotick is. Is he a bad man?

@ ameratsu - I shall be buying the game when they release all 3 campaigns in a box set for the same price as normal PC games, an I hope I can change my mind, but as of this moment I am not impressed

@ twesterm - Part of my dissapointment stems from the fact that I hoped it would be better than Starcraft 1. To have 10 years between releases, but no notable improvements doesn't seem like much of an achievement.

@ Khuutra - I agree with Twesterm here, Activision have shown time and time again that their only concern is money, and that artistic integrity is not considered at all.

Well, the following weren't bad, but they could have been better:

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. The concept was brilliant, the story was excellent, some of the force powers were a joy to use. But there were bugs everywhere, the graphics were pathetic (although the environments were varied), there's no strategy in most of the boss fights, some parts just are not fun.

Assassin's Creed. Very enjoyable, to be sure. But I don't want my experience ruined by some old man who I just killed rambling on for 20 minutes about how he is right, and how I will burn in hell for my foolishness etc. etc. They should have either let me skip those things or made them MUCH shorter.

Then there were the pointless menial tasks that were fun the first couple of times and got annoying the tenth time you have to pick somebody's pocket. The combat was...interesting, and fun when there are a few enemies, perhaps up to ten, but being swarmed by guards EVERY TIME you kill this important tyrant is extremely annoying, and gets boring after a while.

The final (and only) two boss fights were a joke. But jumping from building to building, the assassinations themselves, leaping off a viewpoint were sheer brilliance.

Ninja Gaiden Sigma: I'm sure a lot of people enjoyed this game. I loved it, for a couple of hours. Then liked it, for four hours or so. Then disliked it, and by the time I finally quit, I positively hated it. The game hates you. It despises you. The difficulty curve goes something like this:



It starts off as a really enjoyable hack and slash. Then you begin to see its weaknesses: it's not very varied or particularly gory, the graphics look like a PS2 launch game, the story is pathetic, and the bosses aren't very intuitive. But it's still fun.

As if in response to these thoughts, the game says "screw you", ramps up the difficulty, and makes you destroy a helicopter with a bunch of shurikens. Again, pathetic story. You are a ninja whose tribe is under attack by some crazy super-futuristic gang, with motorcycles, assault rifles, tanks, and as I said, helicopters. It's now that you realise how awful a hack and slash can be, and thank Santa Monica for creating God of War.

Kantor said: Ninja Gaiden Sigma: I'm sure a lot of people enjoyed this game. I loved it, for a couple of hours. Then liked it, for four hours or so. Then disliked it, and by the time I finally quit, I positively hated it. The game hates you. It despises you. The difficulty curve goes something like this: It starts off as a really enjoyable hack and slash. Then you begin to see its weaknesses: it's not very varied or particularly gory, the graphics look like a PS2 launch game, the story is pathetic, and the bosses aren't very intuitive. But it's still fun. As if in response to these thoughts, the game says "screw you", ramps up the difficulty, and makes you destroy a helicopter with a bunch of shurikens. Again, pathetic story. You are a ninja whose tribe is under attack by some crazy super-futuristic gang, with motorcycles, assault rifles, tanks, and as I said, helicopters. It's now that you realise how awful a hack and slash can be, and thank Santa Monica for creating God of War.

You really think that Ninja Gaiden Sigma, a PS3 port based off one of the best looking Xbox titles, looks like a PS2 launch game? It sounds as though you're just bitter because you weren't very good at the game.