Titan Quest vs D3

Uller · Post by **Uller** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:50 pm

By the sounds of it Blizzard has taken a leaf out of Iron Lore's book with the inclusion of be able to chose man or woman characters (from what I can tell).

It will be very interesting if Titan Quest can still hold a following of players even when D3 comes out.

I just hope that Blizzard continues to take ideas from Iron Lore's work because to me Titan Quest with its expansion is a far superior game to D2 so i hope Blizzard has learnt from what is currently around and bolster up the Diablo system and game concept (so to speak).

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:17 pm

By the sounds of it Blizzard has taken a leaf out of Iron Lore's book with the inclusion of be able to chose man or woman characters (from what I can tell).

Umm...what? Since when is gender selection exclusive to Iron Lore?

I just hope that Blizzard continues to take ideas from Iron Lore's work because to me Titan Quest with its expansion is a far superior game to D2 so i hope Blizzard has learnt from what is currently around and bolster up the Diablo system and game concept (so to speak).

Two things. Titan quest is good, but Diablo 2 is an original. TQ took from diablo, not the other way around. Secondly, I sincerely hope they don't take anything from TQ. TQ is a rather colorful and mythological based game, Diablo is a gritty, demonic and gothic game, no part should be combined into that game.

No, I'm hoping and expecting diablo 3 to be vastly different from titan quest in both story and gameplay.

cessLche · Post by **cessLche** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:36 pm

lol Ironlore is no more. right? too bad...
But i think blizzard will rule over RPG game of the year when D3 comes out.
well who knows...

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:39 pm

cessLche wrote:lol Ironlore is no more. right? too bad...
But i think blizzard will rule over RPG game of the year when D3 comes out.
well who knows...

Nah, it won't win that. See, Games made from blizzard are purely awesome games that usually define in essence the entire genre associated with it, whereas the games that do win GOTY are terrible, ridiculous and laughable games that are a disgrace to humanity.

cessLche · Post by **cessLche** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:49 pm

ahahaha...

But still D3 vs TQ... D3 will win (for me). both games are good, but choosing between the two... I'll pick D3. AS you have said: diablo is the original!

Uller · Post by **Uller** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:08 pm

I agree and disagree Siberys,

Yes you are right in saying cross gender games have been around a while. But like I said in the title I am comparing TQ with D3.

TQ did get ideas from D2 and then made TQ a superior game because of it. And from the looks of it so is D3 (taking from D2) but I just hope it also re-invents itself again too. A prettier version of the exact same game mechanics as D2 = annoying...but from what I have seen of it so far looks like they are introducing some new stuff, which is COOL.

Diablo is not an "original" concept. I don't know why people get these ideas but there were existing rpg's around before Diablo that were very similar. The only slight difference was that Blizzard simplified the mechanics a wee bit. This does not equal "original" ground breaking idea....however it does equal "original" tweak on an existing genre of game.

I agree D3 should be very different from TQ look and feel wise but don't forget all things Gothic and Fantasy pretty much derived from Mythology anyways so really no matter what you name it, it pretty much draws from the same source anyways....

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:47 pm

Yes you are right in saying cross gender games have been around a while. But like I said in the title I am comparing TQ with D3.

Right, I know, that's totally fine. I was just saying, it's very unlikely they got it from TQ.

Diablo is not an "original" concept. I don't know why people get these ideas but there were existing rpg's around before Diablo that were very similar.

There have been RPG's around, but none like Diablo. Granted, Angband, Moria, and Rogue are similar to diablo, but Diablo essentially defined the action RPG genre to it's truest sense, and was literally the first game of the 90's to do that.

One thing I would like them to do that they did in TQ is something akin to Rebirth fountains. Something in addition to waypoints, where you can start again after saving/exiting. I would assume they're gonna make this game pretty expansive in it's world this time, much more so than Diablo 2, so I'd hope they'd include something like that.

Rizmage · Post by **Rizmage** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:37 am

Looking at the graphics on the Diablo 3 website I must say it looks very similar to TQ graphically. However, I think Blizzard will provide the better game because of Battlenet hosting the games. This adds things like chat rooms, easy friends list with no need for extra software, easier to set up trading rooms etc. I would rather games were hosted on Battlenet than a players PC. For example when a few friends are playing and the rooms creator has to log off - the room poofs. With Blizzard games this is not the case.

So for me I think D3 will prove the more popular of the two games, not because of game content, but because of the ease of use of Battlenet.

Rizmage

drazac · Post by **drazac** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:54 pm

Siberys wrote:TQ is a rather colorful and mythological based game, Diablo is a gritty, demonic and gothic game, no part should be combined into that game.

Totally agree here

Uller wrote:A prettier version of the exact same game mechanics as D2 = annoying...

Fue days after Blizzard officially announced SC2 and they showcased 30 min gameplay video, i spoke with two friends of mine... and i was saying like, (in bad way) they didn't changed much, its still the same sc game with improved graphics... both of them answered me in the same time with the same sentence.. they don't need to change the game.. they can little improve the graphics, but as for everything else, they can leave it as it were, as it is... cause the game is just THAT GOOD... same thing goes for D2 and hopefully Diablo 3... if they implement every game mechanic from D2 to D3 without any new features it will still outrank all other rpg games.

With additional features implemented the game will only prove its awesomeness!

However, as much as a like Blizzard and its games, its only a matter of time before they release something... not as good as expected... i only hope that it wont be D3

Salidin54 · Post by **Salidin54** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:01 pm

For once I think I agree with Siberys on all counts. D2 was a game that essentially defined the amazingness that is the RPG genre. Blizzard has always made great games, and even though even though they don't get great coverage from video game related shows, like X-play of G4, they are still widely popular and people love them. And I would also agree with drazac, the reason Blizzard isn't making many gameplay changes is because the game is already amazing enough to be a great game, StarCraft and Diablo both.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 4:11 am

Salidin54 wrote:For once I think I agree with Siberys on all counts. D2 was a game that essentially defined the amazingness that is the RPG genre. Blizzard has always made great games, and even though even though they don't get great coverage from video game related shows, like X-play of G4, they are still widely popular and people love them. And I would also agree with drazac, the reason Blizzard isn't making many gameplay changes is because the game is already amazing enough to be a great game, StarCraft and Diablo both.

Minor issue: It defined the Action-RPG. It's bordering on the insulting to call D2 an RPG.

One advantage TQ offered, for me, was the broad selection of classes and the fact that some of them could be played in at least two ways. (Bow or Spear, Magic or Melee, etc.)

V3Z0W · Post by **V3Z0W** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:53 am

Siberys wrote:Umm...what? Since when is gender selection exclusive to Iron Lore?

Two things. Titan quest is good, but Diablo 2 is an original. TQ took from diablo, not the other way around. Secondly, I sincerely hope they don't take anything from TQ. TQ is a rather colorful and mythological based game, Diablo is a gritty, demonic and gothic game, no part should be combined into that game.

No, I'm hoping and expecting diablo 3 to be vastly different from titan quest in both story and gameplay.

That should answear this thread. I think we all agree.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:21 am

V3Z0W wrote:That should answear this thread. I think we all agree.

Not really as some people have posted their disagreements.

In any case, I do love titan quest but I still stand by my statement that if any part of Diablo 3 comes from Titan Quest I'll probably never respect Blizzard again. Although, I doubt this will happen considering Blizzard is too high up their in quality games to consider doing that.

Claudius · Post by **Claudius** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:56 am

Except the auto inventory jigsaw! They should have that in D3.. And the mystic to buy back skills... Gotta hate games where you can play for ages and screw up your character.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:35 am

The autosorter for inventories, I agree. Though, that's not mutually exclusive to TQ.

Buying back skills however, no. I go to games to be entertained but to some degree, I do want a bit of realism, and simply wiping out the knowledge of how to cast a fireball seems kind of lame to me. Just my opinion though.

Claudius · Post by **Claudius** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:51 pm

hmm.. but its unrealistic to cast fireballs in the first place! I just find it really annoying to invest so much time in the character and then you find you have to replay 50 hours of the game in order to finish the last 100 hours of the game. And that probably means you have to play a cookie cutter build written by someone else rather than experiment with your own character..

I guess it depends what type of game I am playing and for what reason. In NWN2 I have more fun pre-designing characters (which I never play) than I do playing the actual game. But imho Diablo is fun because it is very intuitive fighting system and pretty simple but you actually need to execute as the game gets harder. In NWN2 the game was so easy that you would really have to make a silly character such as start fighter 1 with intelligence 8 and then become mage who cannot cast spells! If you play any class with primary attribute getting to 20 at least you can probably still beat the game.

At the very least you should get some bonus if you have to get rid of a high level character because they are obsolete. Like in DnD when the certain character classes ended between versions they gave you bonuses to your new character for having a retired char.

Salidin54 · Post by **Salidin54** » Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:50 pm

Claudius wrote:hmm.. but its unrealistic to cast fireballs in the first place!

I would agree here. Sorry Siberys, but you can't put realism and fireballs even remotely close to each other, and for some of us (who still go to school) video games are an escape from realism, which tends to involve homework.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 4:30 am

Oy vey, that argument doesn't work. When you mention realism, you have to think of realism for THEIR world, not ours.

Yes, according to our physics and sciences, fireballs coming out of your hand is impossible. But not their world. However, it is unrealistic to their world to completely destroy the life experiences of obtaining that ultra powerful fireball and then applying a money cost to it.

Furthermore, playing a build that is quite underpowered actually adds to the fun of the game, it adds to the challenge. So yes, you can delete that character and get a cookie cutter build version from a website, or you can keep playing until the very end even though it's ten times harder to play it because of your build. To me, that is fun. If you have to be cautious about how you defeat your enemies (AKA Hit and run) just because you aren't strong enough to just waltz in and stand between all of them, that's part of the entertainment value I expect from a game.

And lastly, back to the argument of realism versus fantasy. I DID say "To some degree I want a bit of realism." That doesn't say I want real world physics, it says I want plausibility. Please understand the context of a statement in full before throwing out the age old argument "Well fireballs aren't realistic so realism in a game is just stupid."

Claudius · Post by **Claudius** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:54 am

Can't you just say relearning skills is realistic in their world? Call it a soul patcher or a mystic...

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:18 am

Claudius wrote:Can't you just say relearning skills is realistic in their world? Call it a soul patcher or a mystic...

No, it's not realistic. Using magic to define everything that's possible is unrealistic, and titan quest DOESN'T do this, otherwise there would be no limitations on skills or how many points you could put in them. And while having some person erase certain parts of your brain is fine, but being able to replace it with immediate training elsewhere is not.

I think that the concept of retraining in skills is stupid, unrealistic and a bane to a good video game. While certain characters have a fireball, that fireball is not always going to be powerful, the ability to permanently change how you fight to get an advantage over the enemy by use of a magic spellcaster is a lot closer to the All powerful realm, especially when the only cost is coin.