Talk:Blizzard

Butthurt much? -No just seeing how retarded the GW fanbase can get.

I did envision it to cause varrying amounts of butthurt to blizztards. Serious dog 08:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

>Implying Falcon's Eye and Vulture's Eye are any good

FUCKING BLIZZFAGS! GO FUCK A SHEEP AND JACK OFF TO YOUR EPICS OR SOMETHING...

And you can suck an ork's dick.

LOL BUTTHURT BLIZZTARD. Go eat out the spic asshole of Metzen.

>implying Blizzard games are good. LOL BUT ITS COMPETITIVE, EVEN KOREANS PLAY IT

But Koreans play EVERYTHING Blizzard shoves down their throats, no matter how retarded or bland it is. Just look at Starcraft II, it's basically Starcraft 1 with updated graphics, nothing in the actual gameplay or tactics needed have changed much since it's always concentrated with spamming a single type of infantry or overpowered cheese machine and sending it your opponent's way. Ohh yeah, did I mention the fucking Void Rays?
Serious dog 23:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, I can't find any primary source that validates this story. Kotaku had an article, but they present it as Blizzard approaching GW for a license. And there's no record of any legal activity between the companies. I can't imagine GW not suing Blizz if they had the right to do so.

Content removal

As much as I'm mostly now indifferent to Blizzard and their games because of how overrated they are (Srsly, I never understood why SC is such a big deal.), is it really right that we agree to delete an entire section of satirical material, which granted isn't made to be the most intelligently composed argument ever, on the grounds that 1 person doesn't agree with it? The first section on how Blizzard creates games, that's about all I can agree on. Others below, I just take as a joke, except the bit about Activision.
Tactical Mehren (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree we shouldn't run around deleting 3/4s of a page simply because one person doesn't like it, they can always start a new subsection with a few positive points. Drasanil04:32, 24 April 2013 (EST)

Oh yes, lets have a whole page filled with disinformation and frustration. Wait, isn't that this page purpose? Throwing shit at Blizzard does not make it look bad - in fact it would make /tg/ look bad. And speaking about Blizzard games, they aren't about fluff - it was always shitty and no one cared about it except raging WHfags. It's highly balanced, entertaining and addictive gameplay what make their games so popular. I suggest start with facts and more polite position and then add all that "lulzy" theories about plagiary. if you wand them that bad. The Fuy Who Started It 24 April 2013

I'd be lying if I said I didn't understand where you're coming from, but the ham-fisted and (no offense) frankly low-quality way in which you're doing it is doing injury to your point. Surely we can try to come to some sort of agreement here. Some Guy 11:52 24 April 2013

No offense taken, i know my English is terrible. So what about removing offencive content or at least clearly stating it's a joke? You may check my last variant in history. The Fuy Who Started It 24 April 2013

This is a straightforward case of butthurt. It is clear that the article is just the humourous rage of the community.--68.205.143.175 18:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that the article is the rage of community, but it's nowhere near clear about it's being "humurous" in terms of "we really aren't that dumb to believe in this bullshit". The Fuy Who Started It 24 April 2013

I added your views back. Now the article presents both sides.--68.205.143.175 21:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

One of these days, I'm going to have to make it look like this thing isn't made like a butthurt blog from both sides.
Tactical Mehren (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It was never funny to begin with and only got worse over time. Just delete it completely and be done with it.--108.28.191.204 23:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pertinent to 1d4chan, and if you want to contribute, try actually writing it up to be a good work instead of being a whining bitch.--Boss Ballkrusha (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Related to the to-and-fro that seems to be going on right now, I disagree that the page needs deleted, based off of its sheer influence on pretty much anything sci-fi or fantasy related these days and whether you figure things rip off blizzard or the other way around. It certainly needs a cleanup, but its no-where near the tremendously lengthy barrel of laughs that make up Games Workshop's own page. Despite being primarily a video game company there are quite a number of official blizzard properties out there entirely relevant to /tg, such as the Warcraft RPGs, the diablo mods for D&D 3rd Ed and the variety of board games. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree there, but I have to wonder why they were never mentioned in the article to begin with. Isn't the whole point of the article to link it to traditional games?--Newerfag (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The worst thing this company has ever done has just happened

This article should mention that Warcraf III: Reforged catastrophe. It is proof that Blizzard is basically dead now. --2601:203:480:4C60:68D8:8DFA:545:DFE0 08:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)