A few days ago, I mentioned that an expansion for Titan Quest is scheduled for next year. It’s unlikely that I’ll be playing it.
Not because of the game itself, but because THQ’s most recent update for Titan Quest is one of those infamous “balancing patches”.
The balancing patch is nothing new. Blizzard has been doing this for some time with Diablo 2. And it’s been quite awhile since I got any patches for that game.
Of course, both Diablo 2 and Titan Quest are meant as multiplayer games, though they can be played solo. So after the first few patches that fix the most severe problems, along comes the balancing patch in answer to player complaints.
These complaints are almost always about one class or another being “too powerful”. So, in the parlance of online gaming, this or that class is “nerfed”, tweaked to be less potent.
Eventually - at least in the eyes of the online players - everyone is more or less equal. But what are they actually doing? Going by the boards, mostly they farm for drops.
“Farming” is repeatedly going through particular areas or killing certain bosses for the treasure obtained. “Drops”, naturally, are the items left behind when an enemy dies.
To me, this is boring. I like Neat Items as much as anyone, but I wouldn’t spend hours killing Telkines to get them.
In any case, balancing patches are a disservice to solo gamers. Playing alone, you need all the help you can get. And that’s just in normal mode. If you move on to the higher difficulties, you’re at a big disadvantage.
Since the TQ expansion will no doubt require the latest patch (whatever it is by then), and that patch will incorporate the “balancing”, I expect to skip it. Especially considering what else they may do between now and then.
Which is a bit sad. Then again, I didn’t think much of the Lord of Darkness expansion for Diablo 2, and even the two for Neverwinter Nights were nothing to write home about (at least not in glowing terms).
And we are talking about a fantasy shooter (ahem, “action RPG ;), so that the expansion is likely to be more of the same. I think I can manage without that.
Ya, over balancing always bugged me too. Where is it written that the classes should be equal. Playable yes, but being a wizard IMHO should take more effort than say being a fighter.
As to the expansion, take heart - whatever new classes they might introduce will surly be plenty unbalanced.
I can understand why you won’t buy the TQ expansion.
But, have you tried the Dungeon Siege II expansion?
Or how about the Oblivion Expansion?
The Oblivion expansion rs suppose to add a lot to that game.
By the way, Dark Messiah is a great game in my opinion. The graphics are great. And I really love the puzzles that this game gives you. But, this is an action RPG and thus not your cup of tea, Scorpia. I would recommend that you do skip it.
I would like to make a suggestion.
Remember the good old days of CGW where you had a hall of fame?
Why don’t you do something similar on this site?
Like an article (or series of articles) called:
Scorpia Hall of Fame
Then the articles for games you don’t recommend can be called:
Scorpia Hall of Shame
And the really bad games articles can be called:
Scorpia Stings
Well, Scorpia, what do you think?
I agree about the “balancing” thing. It is clearly a disservice to solo players, in that a great deal of developer resources are spent monitoring the community, sifting through the whiners and the legitimate complaints, then spending programming time trying tune the multiplayer balance, rather than making a solid solo game. I rather enjoy games that aren’t so ruthlessly balanced because it forces me into different playstyles and strategies.
The Internet serves as a magnifying glass for the multiplayer community; these are the people who tend to hang around forums and demand more games that suit their styles. In short, the squeaky wheel gets the grease and developer forums tend to be huge squeaking wheels. I feel the majority of players are solo, but they don’t tend to hang around forums because of their personalities or real-world commitments. As a result, they don’t squeak quite so loudly, so game developers don’t pay as much attention to their desires. This is all unproveable, however. Perhaps I’m just an old man lamenting the dying solo game.
And of course, the monstrous profits made by games such as World of Warcraft will also give publishers the notion that every gamer has the time or desire to gather with a bunch of strangers online. I’m not averse to multiplayer games, but I prefer a solid, well-told story within the solo game.
Presto, hmmm. There’s a thought, a Hall of Fame. Not so sure I’d do a Hall of Shame, though. The bad ones are best forgotten as quickly as possible. Why enshrine them, even in such a category? But HoF is a possibility. Thanks for the suggestion.
As to Dungeon Siege, haven’t payed either of them and likely won’t. I may check out the Oblivion expansion, though. The game is still on my drive.
Jack, yeah, how true about the squeaky wheels. I suspect there are indeed plenty of us who play solo offline. It would be interesting to compare the numbers: units sold vs. online players. That could give a clearer picture.
I agree, overbalancing is boring. Why should every class be exactly the same? Where’s the fun in that? In “action RPGs” I generally play tanks (and yes, strictly solo except occasionally over a LAN with my family). I don’t want my killing power to suddenly take a nosedive because some online gamers who just want to collect sets decide Nature Mages stink. If Nature Mages stink, then combine them with some other type of magic. Or play some other class. Maybe Nature Mage just isn’t the way to go for your particular play style.
I did get the expansions for Diablo II and didn’t find that to be too bad. I liked the new characters it added, though I almost always go with Necromancer (I know, he’s not meant to be a tank, but you know what? If you play him right he can be!)
I haven’t yet finished Dungeon Siege so though I bought DS II, I haven’t played it yet. I don’t want to spoil the DS I story any more than I have to.
I will no doubt get the Oblivion expansion when it comes out! I’m eager to see what they’ve done with it.
And last but not least, I didn’t like TQ nearly enough to bother getting the expansion. The game was fun in parts, and I liked the setting, but it was just blah to play.
Oh, and I DID like the NWN expansions :) Much more than the OC, although I didn’t like that in Shadows of Undrentide you had to start ALL OVER again! GAH!
It’s a balancing act when designing a game for both solo and multiplayer. The only way to avoid it is to design exclusively for either one or the other, the approaches Oblivion has taken on the one hand and World of Warcraft on the other.
You want a level field when playing online, and if one race or profession is perceived to have an advantage, there will be an outcry. In solo games I want the opposite, I want each character type to be very different in playing strategy and abilities. For example, in Diablo 2 solo play, I found the Amazon much easier to play than the
It’s a balancing act when designing a game for both solo and multiplayer. The only way to avoid it is to design exclusively for either one or the other, the approaches Oblivion has taken on the one hand and World of Warcraft on the other.
You want a level field when playing online, and if one race or profession is perceived to have an advantage, there will be an outcry. In solo games I want the opposite, I want each character type to be very different in playing strategy and abilities, which also makes for replayability. For example, in Diablo 2 solo play, I found the Amazon much easier to play than the Fighter. In Act III, he kept getting shot at from across the rivers and had no way to counterattack other than to find a bridge to get up close. The Amazon could just shoot arrows or toss spears at the attackers.
Strange, previous post got cut off for some reason. Sorry for the double post.
the entire “level the playing field” mindset is at the heart of the problem in my mind. We’ve gone so far in favor of the “let me play MY game MY way” that we’ve homogenized much of the game play. I think it started with the removal of gender differences. It always kills me that thieves are “combat” classes. In my PnP days, thieves got one or two good backstabs then let the tanks come in. Once in a while they hit a 4x damage and one hit kill it, but they never would go toe to toe round after round like they do in games now. Same with mages, three four rounds, behind the tanks but never in your face, just didn’t happen. Now the Mages have armor just as though, but called a sash or something. And the fighter have spells, just called bezerk rage or something. That’s the issue, every class plays the same. (Sword 1-10 dam, Backstab 1-10, zaphands 1-10) Just the description changes.
Oh and Xian, that was a triple post :P
I just can’t bring myself to buy Titan’s Quest. My brain shuts down and sings 70’s TV commercials to itself when ever I try to pick up the box for it at Wal-Mart.
Scorpia,
My idea about a Hall of Shame is as a service to your readers to warn them away from BAD games.
Also, I thought of new names as well:
Scorpia Sings (for good games)
Scorpia Dings (for bad Games)
and
Scorpia Stings (for the beta games or coasters as CGW would put it).
“Scorpia Sings”? Hey, I want people to live for awhile ;)
Seriously, though, I figure a review would be enough for people to know a game is bad.
The HoF would be for those games I thought especially meritorious.
Xian, yeah, the Jungle was a nasty place if you didn’t have some form of distance attack. Kept things interesting with the different classes.
Scorpia,
I have to admit that since you disappeared from CGW, I have missed your wit.
But, the problem with being witty is that some people will see you as being witty while others will see you as being only half way there (ie halfwit).
Scorpia,
I would like to make a point about the Hall of Shame.
Namely, how would anyone know if a game is bad if there is not a list for them?
Afterall, a list is easier to consult to determine the merits of a game than to read through a dozen or so reviews to determine if a game is good or not.
Let’s face it, Scorpia, would you prefer people to buy a game like Oblivion or Mage Knight? Or Morrowind or Kanung 2? Or Dungeon Seige 2 or the very incomplete Dungeon
Lords (although I would recommend the DL collector’s edition)?
You see my point? A list is a lot easier to check than 12+ reviews.
Also, Scorpia, I would recommend Dungeon Siege 2 as the next game for you to play and review. There is a new collector’s edition available with the expansion included as well.
Well, there I don’t agree, Presto. A list is just a list (a smile is just a smile…umm, never mind ;). Someone sees a title on a list of “Bad Games”, but nothing more.
A review gives the reasons why a game is bad. So if I review Game X and decide it’s a turkey, someone could just consult the review to learn about it.
Of course, the same could be said about the HoF. Maybe a HoF isn’t such a great idea after all. Hmmm.
I wouldn’t mind seeing some sort of “Scorpia Recommends” list. I was browsing game boxes in the adventure section of Frys the other week (I had an itch for one) and had no clue which ones might be good or bad. So I left without buying.
Or maybe it’s not a great idea. If I don’t know *why* it’s recommended I still won’t necessarily know that it’s a game that I’ll have a chance of enjoying. That only works if my tastes happened to be identical to yours. They aren’t.
Also, a list might prevent me from trying a game that’s not mentioned for fear you did try it and it was broken and/or bad beyond differences of taste. But it might not be on the list simply because you never played it and I’d miss out on a great game (and the game maker would unfairly miss out on a sale).
I guess I’m against the idea. ;)
It’s not uncommon for me to read a review and learn about a game, but arrive at a different conclusion that the reviewer. You cannot do that with a list or a numbered system. If someone describes a game as hack and slash it’s far more descriptive then saying it’s a six. And a feature that the reviewer doesn’t like might just be what I’m looking for. I values Scorp’s opinion, but I don’t always agree with her. What I like about her reviews is that they are well reasoned and well written, when I’m done I know something about the game. Never mind if I might enjoy different things, that’s fine I can sort that out myself. Ultimately I’m the one that has to decide for myself anyway.
Barg, that’s exactly it. The review should tell you enough so you can decide for yourself whether to buy the game. That was one of the points in my post “On Reviewing”.
Opinion is opinion, but facts are vital.
Actually a list could be helpful in deciding which reviews a person wants to read. If you were thinking of trying Dungeon Lords but it was on the “bad” list you could then go see WHY it was considered bad. If you noticed NWN on the “good” list, you could seek out the review to see why it was considered good.
That’s how I’d use a list anyway, just as a base to start the quest for info.