Just google his name:
Not like I knew any of those guys as people, but that is just so god damn sad. Reminds me of the Q&A they did a while ago, the answers to problems tended to range from "that's intentional" to "we don't know what you're talking about", except this is way more crass and idiotic. Honestly, it's not like I'm expecting much of Blizzard to string a coherent argument together, or to admit their mistakes before everybody and their granny yells those mistakes out at them. Am I expecting much?
Players who don't reach endgame shouldn't be complaining about endgame content. If it doesn't seem fun to you, fine. That's cool.
But let's actually endevour to be honest. Let's try this honesty thing.
If instead of the harder modes... they called them 'New Game+', 'NG++', etc, and had character advancement and ratcheting difficulty of encounters, with ever increasing progression of loot, you'd be all upons that like you are with any RPG with NG+ modes.
Oh wait, Diablo has that. It has NG+, NG++, and NG+++. What's the difference between this and, say, Chrono Trigger? Oh yes, ratcheting difficulties.
Some people simply don't want to stop using overpowered abilities against overpowered monsters. Some people don't want to constrain themselves to the singular playthrough and some actually enjoy trying to put together a build that allows them to attack the highest difficulties the most efficiently.
This thread comes across as a bunch of 'Stop Having Fun Guys' who don't seem to realize a lot of people really enjoy that, and those people are the ones that give the game longevity, and by longevity I mean 'Is still a cash cow a decade down the road.'
Like Diablo 2.
Who exactly is this post directed at, and what are you trying to say?
I don't know what exactly Chrono Trigger is, but simply relabeling the difficulties to NG+ would do nothing to alleviate the problems of the game. I'm especially dubious as to your comparison to Chrono Trigger because I'm 90% sure it isn't an ARPG of the sort that D2 created an entire genre of, which, if true, would make the comparison a false equivalence right off the bat with no need to put further thought into it.