Enough $$ for Randal Wallace but not for good MP?

[Twisted13]

I'm sure Randal Wallace's paycheck must have been a big one, how come they cannot affor to have a MP where chars are stored at a TQ server? There is very little replay value in a stroy line, but there are exceptions. I don't want the storyline lacking either, but if i had the choice it would be a solid Mp experience.

I hope if the sales are strong enough they will decided to add a different MP.

[Karmeck]

"There is very little replay value in a stroy line"

No, ther is a lot of it, think of all the loot.

[ToiMoi]

well not all the ppl see loot as the reason to play a story over and over again. like me for instance. lol
if some nice items is all what they can think of as a reward for spending a LOT of time campaigning then there's something going wrong.

[Karmeck]

What other reason more then loot do you need to play a game all over again? Loot is the only thing that is not the same thing all over again. But now TQ has bosses that you only can get to on the harder difficulties so there will be one more reason to do it all over again.

and we are getting kinda off topic here, but then i dont think we should talk about how much $$$ ppl get from working on this

[Earl Of Bronze]

Ugh... spell checker is a pain isn't it. =P

[DaveyJJ]

Please, the game wasn't meant to be a game with a MP focus. The developers wanted to do what they did, and do it well. And from what we've been allowed to glimpse so far it has suceeded.

Complaining that the developers paid a well-known writer for a good storyline and leaving out what you specifically want from this game, is like complaining that I would have wanted Sims 2 to have a robust multiplayer aspect. The game is what the game is meant to be.

Sure, there are things I might want in it as well, or might do different, and maybe Iron Lore have ideas up their sleeve for future games/expansions, but can we please stop complaining about feature A or lack of feature B (at least until we get our hands on the game and play it)?

Playing devil's advocate, btw.

[Twisted13]

Please, the game wasn't meant to be a game with a MP focus. The developers wanted to do what they did, and do it well. And from what we've been allowed to glimpse so far it has suceeded.

Complaining that the developers paid a well-known writer for a good storyline and leaving out what you specifically want from this game, is like complaining that I would have wanted Sims 2 to have a robust multiplayer aspect. The game is what the game is meant to be.

Sure, there are things I might want in it as well, or might do different, and maybe Iron Lore have ideas up their sleeve for future games/expansions, but can we please stop complaining about feature A or lack of feature B (at least until we get our hands on the game and play it)?

Playing devil's advocate, btw.

Yes, but when they make comparisons to a specific game in interviews (D2 I'm talking about), and then you take the most essential part of the game out what do you expect?

Your analogy makes no sense as Sims is in its own class of games and was the creators of that genre so speculations on that game is a different matter. Kinda hard to compare apples to oranges even though they are both fruits.

It's not what I want, but what is expected these days. You don't make a cola and leave out the carbonated water do you?

[DaveyJJ]

Yes, but when they make comparisons to a specific game in interviews (D2 I'm talking about), and then you take the most essential part of the game out what do you expect?

I understand. But hundreds of thousands of us played Diablo II and LoD over and over and over again in single player mode or with our spouses/friends on a home LAN, never, ever bothering with the part you considered "essential" (MP via Battlenet) Like many, I bought D2 and LoD the second they came out and they are the only games that have consistently remained on my hard drive(s) over the years but found that the online experience wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with all the "different sorts of folks" you run into online. It's a personal thing ... I dislike multiplayer (generally) and you like it.

And most stats I've read state that multiplayer is an unimportant aspect in computer games to the majority of computer gamers (majority meaning all gamers including small kids, casual shareware type gamers etc ... not just hard core players with 25 hours/week to play games and who are able to frag my behind in an online first-person shooter in three seconds flat :) )

I'm only suggesting that massive MP (i.e., Battlenet) is an essential part of a game only for some gamers and for some games.

The key point is this: TQ wasn't ever billed as a multiplayer game with a Battlenet type functionality over the last three years of public note, how can we be upset that that isn't in it?

In no interview did any of the development team state that they would have a Battlenet-like multiplayer aspect to Titan Quest. And in the beginning, they didn't even say there would be any multiplayer at all.

All I'm saying (as I try to wait patiently for the demo) is that we need to acknowledge that multiplayer (specifically in the vein of Battlenet) wasn't the goal and isn't the focus of Titan Quest (at this stage, anyway).

[Twisted13]

I understand. But hundreds of thousands of us played Diablo II and LoD over and over and over again in single player mode or with our spouses/friends on a home LAN, never, ever bothering with the part you considered "essential" (MP via Battlenet) Like many, I bought D2 and LoD the second they came out and they are the only games that have consistently remained on my hard drive(s) over the years but found that the online experience wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with all the "different sorts of folks" you run into online. It's a personal thing ... I dislike multiplayer (generally) and you like it.

And most stats I've read state that multiplayer is an unimportant aspect in computer games to the majority of computer gamers (majority meaning all gamers including small kids, casual shareware type gamers etc ... not just hard core players with 25 hours/week to play games and who are able to frag my behind in an online first-person shooter in three seconds flat :) )

I'm only suggesting that massive MP (i.e., Battlenet) is an essential part of a game only for some gamers and for some games.

The key point is this: TQ wasn't ever billed as a multiplayer game with a Battlenet type functionality over the last three years of public note, how can we be upset that that isn't in it?

In no interview did any of the development team state that they would have a Battlenet-like multiplayer aspect to Titan Quest. And in the beginning, they didn't even say there would be any multiplayer at all.

All I'm saying (as I try to wait patiently for the demo) is that we need to acknowledge that multiplayer (specifically in the vein of Battlenet) wasn't the goal and isn't the focus of Titan Quest (at this stage, anyway).


It sure seems like MP is a big part as why else do they like pushing the fact that they have an editor which you can play with your friends online? I don't know where you got your stats from, but if you really look stats up you would see the massive in surge of MMORPG's out there making tremendous money. Maybe stats from 5 years ago show multiplayer as inessential AKA 56k era

(http://www.theesa.com/files/2005EssentialFacts.pdf) This study shows 42% of gamers plays online games.
(http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php) while this one says 43%

Also what would be the point of playing single player Diablo/Lod when there are certain online aspect that are not included in SP. AKA ladder only items, rune words, trading, and ubers. I'm sure if Diablo/Lod was released and had no MP we would not even be mentioning its name at this moment. If you want to play by yourself make private games, but now you get all the bonuses.

I can see your point, but that doesn't stop me from being able to make my own point of view. I for one will still buy this game (assuming its not on DVD because i don't have a DVD drive yet), but it seems that if this game wants to be recognized like Diablo/Lod which any game would (from its sheer sales) they would have included a solid MP format.

[Alkaidia]

I have t o admit I never played Diablo II online. And I don't really like playing games multiplayer unless it is with someone I know. Though I know a lot of people do even though it is a very small part of the players compared to single player in most games. The thing is that muliplayer does play a larger part in RPG's and it is normally what keeps games alive.

[SteelPoet]

This thread confuses me.

It's already been stated that there will be Co-Op...so...not sure what the complaining is about?

[SiCk4]

This thread confuses me.

It's already been stated that there will be Co-Op...so...not sure what the complaining is about?

He complains about a PERSISTENT Multiplayer Network System, like BATTLE.NET from Blizzard. And PVP capabilities.

Such systems are much more safer on the 'cheat' aspect. So people tend to play more.

I always play legit with closed friends or guys that i trust, so this will not affect me.

Cheating depends more of the person who plays than the system who host the game. (ops, I heard someone saying: "let's paypal that ladder only item").


[]'s
SiCk4

[medierra]

Unfortunately Randal Wallace's paycheck is a small fraction of the cost to build a secure multiplayer hosting system. This is a feature we would have very much liked to provide.

We hope to do this for TQ2 but it will be dependant on the amount of money we get for the project and the sales of TQ1. Believe me, I'm a competitive online player and if secure multiplayer for TQ were an option there's no way I'd overlook it. However, I still find the game very enjoyable without it and when I look back to all the D2 I played - most of it was single player or coop with friends where a secure server wasn't really necessary.

[kruskev]

I understand. But hundreds of thousands of us played Diablo II and LoD over and over and over again in single player mode or with our spouses/friends on a home LAN, never, ever bothering with the part you considered "essential" (MP via Battlenet) Like many, I bought D2 and LoD the second they came out and they are the only games that have consistently remained on my hard drive(s) over the years but found that the online experience wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with all the "different sorts of folks" you run into online. It's a personal thing ... I dislike multiplayer (generally) and you like it.

And most stats I've read state that multiplayer is an unimportant aspect in computer games to the majority of computer gamers (majority meaning all gamers including small kids, casual shareware type gamers etc ... not just hard core players with 25 hours/week to play games and who are able to frag my behind in an online first-person shooter in three seconds flat :) )

I'm only suggesting that massive MP (i.e., Battlenet) is an essential part of a game only for some gamers and for some games.

The key point is this: TQ wasn't ever billed as a multiplayer game with a Battlenet type functionality over the last three years of public note, how can we be upset that that isn't in it?

In no interview did any of the development team state that they would have a Battlenet-like multiplayer aspect to Titan Quest. And in the beginning, they didn't even say there would be any multiplayer at all.

All I'm saying (as I try to wait patiently for the demo) is that we need to acknowledge that multiplayer (specifically in the vein of Battlenet) wasn't the goal and isn't the focus of Titan Quest (at this stage, anyway).

I dont know where you got that number from but most people playing diabloII played it for the multiplayer. The original diablo was revolutionary in a way that it was the first action rpg that was playable online, and this hooked alot of people. However the method they used was just like what titan quest is doing. The characters were saved on the client side so the players can choose to modify their players and pretty much ruin the experience of everyone else (The only thing good about it was the fact that since everyone hacked, the pvp was pretty much even ground) But Titan quest does not even have pvp... And after LISTENING to their customers beg for a server side saved characters in the sequel blizzard responded with a great multiplayer for people to play in a nearly safe environment. Of course there was duping of items and other problems that ruined the economy of the game but things did not turn out like the first game where there was no point in playing. The developers state that acquiring loot is essential part of this game, afterall it is why we replay the game. But how could this be fun and why would you feel the need to play for loot when you can download a item maker or a trainer? Where would the bragging rights be? So what the developers at Iron lore is suggesting is to play with the people you know. Well, I personally don't see the point I like meeting up with complete strangers online and partying to go on a quest but if that means I have to worry about whether the person has modified items or trainer used character I would rather not play the game. Iron Lore is making some serious mistakes with this game, I do not know what they are hoping to achieve in terms of sells but when they refuse to listen to their future customers and just think whatever decision they make is going to be a good one it is very foolish.

[Ankhes]

I understand that making servers like Battle.net is very expensive but I still believe that you will make an expansion set with this addition as well as with PvP and another game types. You may believe me or not but I'm sure that it will increase the sell of both TQ and expansion set roughly. I observed game market and I must say that games with great multiplayer always sell very well even if they in fact sux(Primitive Wars was very badly marked in press though it was very popular especially in Asia and overall it was kinda successful). Your games have a potential to be the best H&S ever but this title would be yours only with great MP. Age of Empires 3 which was probably the best RTS game in the last year which was released about 6 months ago now have much less fans than Starcraft and Warcraft. In addition both Starcraft and Warcraft are selling very well even in these days. The same situation is with D1,D2 and Guild Wars too(not old game though :P).

I really believe that you will earn a lot of money on TQ so you can open private server with some another types of playing(PvP, several players vs several players (for clan wars, friendly matches) etc. Ascaron and firm which is making Blood Magic is able to do that so I hope that after TQ realease you could that too ^^.
Sry for my English if it is badly used in some places :(

[shizzledizzle]

Unfortunately Randal Wallace's paycheck is a small fraction of the cost to build a secure multiplayer hosting system. This is a feature we would have very much liked to provide.

We hope to do this for TQ2 but it will be dependant on the amount of money we get for the project and the sales of TQ1. Believe me, I'm a competitive online player and if secure multiplayer for TQ were an option there's no way I'd overlook it. However, I still find the game very enjoyable without it and when I look back to all the D2 I played - most of it was single player or coop with friends where a secure server wasn't really necessary.

Dude, get some investors in, get a venture capitalist! Charge a dollar a month per saved multiplayer character on a secure network, there are ways of doing this, one of my 2 hopes for a long-term game to play cannot end up like this!

Without any sort of server side protection or even saved characters with a logic-check, the multiplayer is going to be an utter joke. 10 minutes after the game is launched, I and people like me will join the first multiplayer games with:

- infinite gold
- invulnerable
- infinite energy
- infinite xp
- max level (in 1 hit)
- infinite skill points
- infinite attribute points

http://www.savefile.com/files/9607901 - download, unrar to C:\Documents and Settings\YOUR USERNAME\My Documents\My Games\Titan Quest Demo\SaveData - load character "cheater"

The invulnerability and infinite energy take about 3 minutes to set up every time you load the character. I am not even showing off, my game hacking skills are basic. I changed the values in-game not in the saved game which i presume will be even easier. This game has absolutely no hacking protection whatsoever.

What is the point in releasing a diablo 2 clone which is not even as well endowed? Diablo 2 is SIX years old we have games like Oblivion now in the rpg genre. You are releasing a game called "Titan Quest" (which sounds kinda like Space Rangers) with uninspiring graphics, a mixed up plot concucting some random timelines and its sole purpouse is a single player gathering of items in a repetative way. This game will end up in the bargain basket within a month.

An action rpg for items only has a point if you can show off your items to others and strive for better items. This is where cheat-free environments come in. What's the point of geniuine players showing off their one godly item when I'll have every single one multiple times inside of a week? At least you haven't enabled PVP, that would be quite silly of you. Closed coop is nice with friends but i doubt anybody will actually want to play this game for longer than a week or two, co-op or not.

BTW, thanks for the demo, nice to see a game before the release like this again.

[Lestai]

My biggest point i have to make is make that titan.net for the xpak, you need to strive for this in order to be great, if i new it was a fact it would happen i would most likly buy the game on blind faith.

But sadly as it stands now im looking at MMO titals as my yearly budget of $200 covers that or apporx 4 non-MMO titals and so far its not looking very good for the non-MMO games as one of the other selections i want is mage knight and there forums are a ghost town so this leads me to belive the devs dont talk they wont support either, and if they come out and say played over gamespy its pretty much over the fat lady will have sung, but TQ, MK, And hellgate is the lineup i would like to get this year or i will go archlord, sun or shineonline, something like that.

Big hugs,
Lestai

[Blackjack]

If they open a battle.net equivalent, they'll also need staff and programmers to fight and constantly patch the system against hackers (something Blizzard had to do constantly after D2's release), and a lot of money to throw into server maintenance and upkeep. I think at some point Blizzard had to hire a specific team to patch hacker attacks, and it seemed like a sad use of manpower, that they had to do all that.

I played DII for quite a while, and constant frustrations with battle.net (Blizzard always seems to underestimate their sales and spend all their time trying to grow their servers to meet the demand after release, which happened with WoW's non battle.net servers as well) meant I almost never played on battle.net. My friends and I got tired of disconnects and drops, so we stuck with "open battle.net" or non b.net games altogether. Plenty of people had better experiences, those are just mine. :)

This is Iron Lore's First game. I would cut them some slack before demanding they offer something a behemoth like Blizzard offers. :) Blizzard at least had great Warcraft II sales under their belt before they undertook battle.net for Diablo way back when (1996). Here's hoping TQ sells well enough to make TQ.net a reality (or whatever it would be called). :)

[Maji]

sigh certainly not buying it now lol and daveyjj is a major lier, abit obvious in his post you should check how many still play blizzards online games on bnet even now before you comment like that, I tell you now people did not play that for single player it was fun in the groups and doing harder difficultys with other people I hardly seen cheats the public was pretty good I also played that game multiable times sometimes breaking and startng again later yrs down the track even now it still is the best online rpg i have ever played thou I will admit nox had a kewl idea with the ctf rpg online and dm that pretty kewl dont know why westwood didnt make a nox two with same idea, but that different game all together it was kewl thou...

My point is alot aspects which make a good game are being taking out for some vision and this is making customers think there opinions dont mater, simply for this reason me and my bro gonna wait till can download the game of the net since it not worth my money to get it sooner since it focused on single player "we only buy games we believe will be major hit and laterly TQ looks like another dier", it hard to go back to single player when multiplayer is way more appealing single player is dead and that guys figures are totally wrong...

To many other good multiplayer games coming out so TQ is last on list now and demo was not impressive and is another reason why we will not be buying it, gonna buy homm5 now since the creators listened to customers complaints and removed starforce and delayed release to fix the bugs and clean up some of the animations and replace some the unit to make game a better online play this is pleasing to people and in that it will sell. Biggest mistake IronCore has done is state "it wasnt in Brian Sulvians vision for the game, this is like saying he is making the game for himself and customers opinions dont mater" telling whats in game is nice but when people cant assist in what they want it is really a game killer, I am not buying this game on hopes they make enough money to release a sequel with good multiplayer support and gore etc a game like this should of included them originally there is always a way but again it wasnt in the vision :(.

[MaximusMarillious]

I understand. But hundreds of thousands of us played Diablo II and LoD over and over and over again in single player mode or with our spouses/friends on a home LAN, never, ever bothering with the part you considered "essential" (MP via Battlenet) Like many, I bought D2 and LoD the second they came out and they are the only games that have consistently remained on my hard drive(s) over the years but found that the online experience wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with all the "different sorts of folks" you run into online. It's a personal thing ... I dislike multiplayer (generally) and you like it.

And most stats I've read state that multiplayer is an unimportant aspect in computer games to the majority of computer gamers (majority meaning all gamers including small kids, casual shareware type gamers etc ... not just hard core players with 25 hours/week to play games and who are able to frag my behind in an online first-person shooter in three seconds flat :) )

I'm only suggesting that massive MP (i.e., Battlenet) is an essential part of a game only for some gamers and for some games.

The key point is this: TQ wasn't ever billed as a multiplayer game with a Battlenet type functionality over the last three years of public note, how can we be upset that that isn't in it?

In no interview did any of the development team state that they would have a Battlenet-like multiplayer aspect to Titan Quest. And in the beginning, they didn't even say there would be any multiplayer at all.

All I'm saying (as I try to wait patiently for the demo) is that we need to acknowledge that multiplayer (specifically in the vein of Battlenet) wasn't the goal and isn't the focus of Titan Quest (at this stage, anyway).


LOL mate you go out and say that in public forums with say 4000 members 3999 out of thoughs members will laugh in your face, every successful game these days is multiplayer, other game developers focus on multiplayer play mainly because everyone that owns a computer want s agame they can play online with there friends from different countries and even there own, they dont want some boring lan where u play with the same 5 people or more each time and having to wait for a day where you are all free is also stupid.

To say games can do without multiplayer (wtf world are you in), diablo 2 had the biggest population ever online and how would you know if the people where arseholes or not, i never ran into an arsehole even the guys who player killed me ended up being good blokes/ chicks trying to have a fun time, all of my mates from that game now play world of warcraft with me and thats like 50+ people from that 1 game and many others that they know we are all in the same guild so dont come off with that crap a game doesnt need multiplayer.

These iron lore guys will learn a very important lession here if this games released without its own mp server like diablo2, and that lesson will be that there games gonna flop and become unpopular and boring because it has no proper mp, you can only play a game on lan and single player for so long, i dont even play games single player at all i buy them and play multiplayer straight away best way to learn about the game and become good at it is to play with/ against others.

and also to your comment blackjack, without thoughs patches the game would of been totaly unplayable and hacked to the shit like open battlenet was so dont say you had fun on open unless you and your friends had hacked up items and health yourselves.

ironlore deserve no slack at all they have been comparing there game to diablo2 and even some of there features are from diablo2 and they should of came up with the same mp experiance as diablo2, so they deserve no slack if they are gonna compare there 2nd rated game to the idol of diablo2.

Sorry for my harsh comments but this is how i feel over this crap im hearing about them having no mp servers like d2, and there pathetic ideas for multiplayer that will get hacked up in a month.

[Alkaidia]

How the hell did DaveyJJ lie? It's true hundreds of thousands played D2 single player only, (probably millions), including me as I said earlier. A huge amount of people played it online too, but that doesn't mean that DaveyJJ is a lyer.

Also you both say that games can't succed without multiplayer. That is completely untrue. Look at Oblivion, (and prequels), Civilization 1-3, Fable, all tycoons, (railroad, rollercoaster, excetera). and many more. And how would you expect to open up a full secure multiplayer server with no money? It's not possible. By the way, IronLore has never said they were not going to make patches. Actually they have said they will.

Maji you say that IronLore doesn't listen to the fans. They have been listening extremely well. You have just been asking for outrageously huge changes less then two months from the release date. It can't be done! And you need to realize that.

Thanks
Alkaidia

P.S. Maji just leave the forums. According to you you hate the game, won't buy it, are going to get it illegally, and your annoying everbody saying not to buy the game. Not including the horribly written posts, (please use punctuation if your going to stay). By the way you need to learn the name of the company developing the game. It's IronLore not IronCore.

[MaximusMarillious]

i dont remember anyone saying davey was lieing just that single player gets boring after a months play or more, Oblivion is good yes but i have many friends who own that game and already are bored of it due to it not having any type of multiplayer or lan, as for civs they where good yes but what did they realise when making civ 4 that having multiplayer included would make there game even better which it has i am one of thoughs who plays it online.

And also to this developer listening to fans on what to put into the game he may well of done that in some small options but as hes stated and others hes making the game in the way he sees it and what he thinks is good, and if they had no money then how are they able to finish the game without that cash???, no ones telling them to make quick multiplayer servers in 2 months just sugesting that we/ and maybe other fans would not mind waiting another month or how ever long it will take to include this option to make the game more fun and enjoyable.

Oh and also Alkaidia everyone makes mistakes in spelling online and never bothers fixing it why? cause its not school its online forum chat and everyone normally knows what you are talking about, and before you criticise someone on spelling check your own before so, so that you dont make yourself sound stupid, you may of only got 1 word incorrect but still dont criticise others who take short cuts in there sentances.


Even i make mistakes and shortcuts.

[Maji]

if it was so illegal to download games then it wouldnt be so easy to get them, companys know they cant stop it cause most servers are in countrys which permit the exchange not mention price we are charged is ridiculus over 90$ now on games, some other countrys get them alot cheaper but it ridiculus here... I dont hate the game what I do hate is some the comments by the people making the game as it seemed as thou it more for them than the customers it more like they just talking to us now to tell us what they been doing not actually asking wat is important aspects to include etc, these types of games are for online play without it specially since no gore or elemental realism effects it would get boring fast maybe you like being alone but the majority like the experience of partying, diablo2 was a multiplayer game most people didnt even bother with singleplayer as it had the whole thing online to experience with others "mates and things" and it was pretty secure, his statement saying that hundreds of thousands played the single player rather than multiplayer is a lie and you know it, you are like 5% of the majority even figures in online game vs offline it shows more are online that isnt even specific games I am certain diablo2 was mostly played for its online experience not its offline, only so much can do offline doing runs what is point in offline? single player games are dieing for pc if want to make single player games go to console...

[DaveyJJ]

Not to open this can of worms again but to clarify only ... What I meant was that the majority of all games sold today and the majority of gamers play single player only. All of the world's most suceessful games have been single player only ... Sims, Myst, SimCity, and I'm also including the 1.3 billion/year shareware games industry in my statement.

I'll try to find the game industry article where I found this info but as I recalll something like 90% of all people who play computer games (of all types mind you) have mever played a multiplayer game of any type. Reference when I can find it.

[Maji]

dude you cant compare them games to this gene it a different thing all together they are designed totally different too and still they did not out sell blizzard and other sucessful companys who did supplie good multiplayer support, so really using that as example isnt useful it different genes all together..

anyway guess gonna have see how it sells I may buy it if it sells well but wont buy it in first few months...is sacred 2 good i not even played any of the series

[mrtuck73]

I have been kicking back just reading this thread for the past couple of days, but I decided to chime in with my perspective.

I played Diablo 1 with firends online in PW protected games, but I only played D2 online 2 or 3 times and just didn't like it online. I continued to play D2 for years afterward as single-player only (took multiple characters into the 80's levels +). I think the main reason is I got all of the drops and I wasn't worried about what any other player was going to do. I just had myself to think about.

Now, I have been part of a Call of Duty UO and a COD2 clan for the past year and a half and I have to say that that game is only fun as multiplayer.

I guess my point is that there are many other people like me out there, who do not care to play an RPG as multiplayer. Yes, I will play some TQ as online multi with my friends, but I think most of my time will be spent as single player as I enjoy that more. I guess I only really enjoy FPS games online and do not see that changing.

Somewhat as a voice in the wilderness....

[Crash]

Oh and also Alkaidia everyone makes mistakes in spelling online and never bothers fixing it why? cause its not school its online forum chat and everyone normally knows what you are talking about, and before you criticise someone on spelling check your own before so, so that you dont make yourself sound stupid, you may of only got 1 word incorrect but still dont criticise others who take short cuts in there sentances.
I have to second Alkaida here. Although you may not value correct spelling in forum posts this does not necessarily hold true for others. And it's not about being able to understand what has been written. For example I can perfectly well understand what Maji is stating in his posts, but nevertheless the spelling is critical. To me such an extremely bad spelling degenerates the post's content.

There's nothing wrong with a typo, because as you said it happens to everyone every once in a while. But when a post is so crammed with errors I personally don't bother dealing with it at all. While you may think that what you have to say is more important than how you say it you should still remember that this may not hold true for the other end of the line.

So if you want your comments to not be taken serious, filling your posts up with horrible grammar mistakes and spelling errors sounds like a winner for sure. :rolleyes:

[Ankhes]

In my opinion MP is essential in games like TQ. Both Sacred and D2 were very successful mainly due to that. Most of Blizzard games became legendary because of Battle.net. Since 1997 many of RTS were released. Many of them were great. But only 2 are being played these days by thousands of people. They are Starcraft(1997 if im correct) and Warcraft 3(2001). Half year after AoE 3 realease and now Spellforce 2. Both of them will be "forgotten" soon. MP community can make wonders. For example in my country we have a lot of leagues with clans etc in Warcraft and one league even placed OWN server where they made for this game additional game types which are not consisted in original version and there is no possibility to hack(all chatlogs are saved and special programmes which scan,compare etc.).

I am sure that TQ will be somehow successful but i think that so good HnS with so great feature(Editor would be so GREAT with good MP system) will be very underestimated.

[Starwind]

A secure environment for saving character files is very important in this kind of game. If it was not, the devs would not be giving answers as to why they did not implement it. The main reason was the lack of money.

I am an old gamer and i can recall some of my experience here. I used to love singleplayer games and that was even in a time when it was the only option available. I still play some, but not a lot. I really began playing online with Diablo and Mechwarrior 4. I played those at first in singleplayer mode, but when i went online, those games became extremely immersive. For some like me playing with others is not an option, it is fun. You can join clans, help others, show off :shifty: ,..the list could go on and on.

As to say that most people play singleplayer, hmmm. Just look at WoW's community and earnings. Or better, go grab an e3 article that shows games listings and look at how many MMORPG'S are in development, it says it all. One record breaking game was the Sims, and look what road they took with their latest installment.

[AshenShugar]

I understand. But hundreds of thousands of us played Diablo II and LoD over and over and over again in single player mode or with our spouses/friends on a home LAN, never, ever bothering with the part you considered "essential" (MP via Battlenet) Like many, I bought D2 and LoD the second they came out and they are the only games that have consistently remained on my hard drive(s) over the years but found that the online experience wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with all the "different sorts of folks" you run into online. It's a personal thing ... I dislike multiplayer (generally) and you like it.

And most stats I've read state that multiplayer is an unimportant aspect in computer games to the majority of computer gamers (majority meaning all gamers including small kids, casual shareware type gamers etc ... not just hard core players with 25 hours/week to play games and who are able to frag my behind in an online first-person shooter in three seconds flat :) )

I'm only suggesting that massive MP (i.e., Battlenet) is an essential part of a game only for some gamers and for some games.

The key point is this: TQ wasn't ever billed as a multiplayer game with a Battlenet type functionality over the last three years of public note, how can we be upset that that isn't in it?

In no interview did any of the development team state that they would have a Battlenet-like multiplayer aspect to Titan Quest. And in the beginning, they didn't even say there would be any multiplayer at all.

All I'm saying (as I try to wait patiently for the demo) is that we need to acknowledge that multiplayer (specifically in the vein of Battlenet) wasn't the goal and isn't the focus of Titan Quest (at this stage, anyway).

The sad thing is, that is exactly what will keep this game from being as successful as Diablo II. How long can you play single player or co-op till it gets boring as hell and there is nothing left to do....?

There are people who STILL play DII to this day... It's because of the loot system and the incredible MP and PVP etc... They shot themselves in the foot with this one.

[Icarus]

My point is alot aspects which make a good game are being taking out for some vision and this is making customers think there opinions dont mater...

Biggest mistake IronCore has done is state "it wasnt in Brian Sulvians vision for the game, this is like saying he is making the game for himself and customers opinions dont mater" telling whats in game is nice but when people cant assist in what they want it is really a game killer, I am not buying this game on hopes they make enough money to release a sequel with good multiplayer support and gore etc a game like this should of included them originally there is always a way but again it wasnt in the vision :(.


This is a feature we would have very much liked to provide.... Believe me, I'm a competitive online player and if secure multiplayer for TQ were an option there's no way I'd overlook it.

Also, you really should consider trying to be more legible. Nobody cares about typos or even correct grammar, but given that you're literate (and you are! You can't fool us...) you should at least make a token effort at presentability. =)

[DaveyJJ]

The sad thing is, that is exactly what will keep this game from being as successful as Diablo II. How long can you play single player or co-op till it gets boring as hell and there is nothing left to do....?


Or to change a word or two ...

The great thing is, that is exactly what will make this game as successful as Neverwinter Nights. How long can you play single player or co-op till it gets boring as hell and there is nothing left to do....?

Oh yeah, you download any of the thousands of great fan-created modules and play those, either solo or online via GameSpy.

All NWN, also an extremely successful game, had going for it was single player and co-op multiplayer. Sound familiar?

Let's wait and see for a year or so and see what happens then. Will TQ be successful or lack success due to gore or camera angle or lack of BNet style MP? Time will tell. Will it be as successful as DII? Or Sims? Or Spore? Or NWN? Or Baldurs Gate? I'll reserve judgement for a while.

But don't you think it's a very, very good game though; one of the very best of it's genre? Even lacking BNet style MP?

[frankenparrot]

The loot system of D2 was destroyed by dupes. MP is great in D2. PVP is a joke in D2 because it is easy to get the gear you need. As much as I played D2, there was no reason to PVP if you were trying to find gear. And of course the converse of that is true as well. About the editor worlds...that is a sweet selling point for people that fly through games. I am truely looking forward to all those worlds that will be rolling in.

[Ruler of Hell]

Look people, IronLore and THQ are trying their best. If people say that Randal Wallace's paycheque must have been big, alright.. He made an effort and should get paid. They can't just ask him to do something for free. Don't complaint that they're paying money to Randal Wallace and not bothering for secure servers alright. They're trying. If you were in their shoes you could probably realize how difficult it is. Hell, TQ is such an awesome game. Plus, I've never seen devs of any game participating so actively. Plus if you can't stop complaining go to hell. Certain flaws etc alright but jeez! The camera rotation thing was discussed quite a lot and I think that was a valid topic because most players are from D2. I know it would be nice to have servers like Bnet but they can't okay? It isn't possible for them. And they're hoping for TQ to go a hit so that they can implement better stuff and probably even make TQ2

[Crash]

Plus if you can't stop complaining go to hell.
Now that's kinda biased considering you run that place :p

But I fully agree. The topic is dead (even officially in the developer post made by Eyejinx).. might be time to close this thread.

[DaveyJJ]

But I fully agree. The topic is dead (even officially in the developer post made by Eyejinx).. might be time to close this thread.

Hold onto your magical hats, kids, because I think I agree. And we're locked.