Has anyone tried this?
It looks like it might be good, but some comments are worrying (old graphics, stuttering graphics like old TQ).
And the same issues as GD - possibly no real end-game?
Yes, if no end-game is an issue don’t play it. End game for TQ is the same as GD pretty much, aka farm all the items for your character to beat the final boss on the final difficulty. Nothing else. There’s no reason for it to go beyond that.
If you like how GD plays, TQ is the same but simpler (due to it being 10 years old). Clunkier, slower, but more soulful than GD. Characters have voices, lots of variety in the areas and imo the graphics are great, not sure what the fuck ‘old graphics’ means… I mean people to this day still play megaman and diablo, I don’t think they stay for the graphics.
Honestly if you let things like end game and graphics dictate your choice, stay far away.
Thanks for the reply. The main issue I have with GD is that most builds that are posted in the build forum have to be levelled using some other skills / items.
So the supposed character/build diversity ends up being ‘level your spellbreaker as dual wield with ABB’ same as all the other spellbreakers, then switch to the skills and equipment for the build in question near the end.
That’s not real variety… unless you have an end game in which to use the finished build.
Other things GD is missing:
- A genuine multiplayer - not one where you play with people you know via IP address.
- PvP / Arena stuff.
- Less grind from level 50 on.
And that would lead to all aspects of a build being able to be reset. I hate having to start a new toon because the final build has only 32 points in one mastery and the toon I want to use has 50 (can’t undo mastery points).
EDIT: You may not have been aware that the Anniversary Edition I was talking about was released last year. It’s supposedly re-vamped a lot of the game play.
Apparently the graphics issue I referred to is one that was always in the old TQ but hasn’t been fixed in this one - the game freezes momentarily from time to time.
A genuine multiplayer - not one where you play with people you know via IP address.
It’s a single player game with MP tacked on, be glad it’s there at all. Indie dev company cannot afford servers like Blizzard can.
PvP / Arena stuff.
There is PVP mode, and there is mod support. If you want a real arena mode? Make one. The tools are there. There will never be true pvp support because … again, as I said above for all the same reasons.
Less grind from level 50 on.
shrug I’ve seen worse.
I’m well aware of what TQAE is, gameplay is exactly the same as always, except now it has a fast forward button and minor fixes that had already been included in a fanpatch over 7 years ago after the game was abandoned.
This “graphics issue” is hardly related to graphics at all… That’s an engine issue, even GD does it from time to time, best solution is to install on an SSD.
As a consumer I don’t have to care how much money the developer has or any other reasons why desirable features are absent - I only have to decide if I will enjoy the game’s features and gameplay as-is before I buy it.
The graphics issue I called a graphics issue because it manifests itself as a graphics disturbance to the user - the underlying cause is irrelevant and probably unknown (if it were known, they would probably have fixed it).
Interesting that it was all done in a fanpatch.
All in all, probably too similar to GD, I think I’ll look for something else. Thanks for thoughts.
that is nonsense, you can level most builds without switching skills, no idea where you got that impression
Other things GD is missing:
[ul]
[li]A genuine multiplayer - not one where you play with people you know via IP address.[/li]> [li]PvP / Arena stuff.[/li]> [li]Less grind from level 50 on.[/li]> [/ul]
servers are expensive and few people really care for them, so not offering them is most likely the smarter choice, I for one do not miss them
PvP exists, probably does not get much use though
Grind is not that bad, it is worse in most other ARPGs
People experienced stuttering in TQ? Really? I saw no such issue during old days of 1.17 and I definitely don’t see it now, with Anniversary Edition.
This is wrong, though. The method of leveling up you see posted in the build section is a preferrable uploader’s way of leveling up. However, there are a number of ways to level up yourself without relying on what build uploader believes.
A smalll studio like Crate isn’t able to afford multiplayer on such a large scale. Also, there is no need for it in a primarily singleplayer game.
What grind? If you are talking about farming for items, then Crusible is your friend. If you are talking about leveling, then simply doing quests will get you to 85 in no time and all. Most hit it in the middle of Ultimate. I see no grind there.
Can’t comment on PvP, don’t care about that stuff at all.
You have a point here, though. Right now the only way to reset masteries is through the third party software.
Again, didn’t experience this at all, even during old days. Strange. Also about the slow game - this is wrong too, since Nordic added speed up option, the game now plays much faster than before.
Also there’s definitely more fixes than just what was in Fanpatch 1.17 or even my additional patchfix. There have been various improvements to the stuttering/rubberbanding, so that in >90% of cases it shouldn’t happen anymore. Unfortunately there are still some unlucky people who experience it.
I had a nice time playing TQAE when it was released, and had played TQIM quite a lot before too.
TQ’s endgame is very similar to GD, but level cap is almost unattainable, so you won’t end up with multiple max level cap builds.
I think I’ll try it once 1.5 is released.
OK, firstly this refutes those saying that there’s no such issue.
- Please go and have a read of the builds stickied in the builds forum. They even have a code in the title (l) for levelling guide and the levelling guide usually says “Start as dual wield using ABB/OFF until level 50” or something like that.
Those that don’t have a levelling guide usually have someone saying mid-thread “I tried this build but it’s too squishy and doesn’t have enough damage I’m level 20”. Then the OP replies “Ah well, you shouldn’t switch to this until at least level 50, best to level a <insert class> by <standard class levelling method A> or <standard class levelling method B>”.
And ofc most are heavily item-dependant as well.
- Re servers/multiplayer. I dispute that. Multiplayer is a very sought-after feature. B.Net on D2 was the go-to place for most people - certainly after broadband non-metered internet became common here in the UK. Not just social issues and trading, but game play was very different with different skills supporting each other.
Servers are not that expensive tbh. However, game balance and securing the servers is a technical challenge - but then B.Net was hopeless when it came out, duped items were rife in D2. It’s still pretty bad tbh, the so-called fixes just make life painful there (e.g. go in and out of a game too often and you get frozen out - naff fix). People get their accounts banned for ‘suspicious activity’ even when they’re doing nothing wrong - and Blizzard should be preventing the activity, not banning people after they’ve put duped items into the economy and ruined the game!
What I’m saying is - it doesn’t have to be perfect to be really, really good / worthwhile. So it doesn’t have to be expensive.
And someone said “there is no need for multiplayer in a primarily single player game”. Er… sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s too expensive (it isn’t) or it’s by design (it probably isn’t).
I’m sure any dev these days would include a multiplayer aspect if they could, my expectation is that they don’t have the developer resource and/or the network security know-how to do this in the early releases (or the designer bandwidth to deal with the ensuing balance issues) but may be planning to include this in a future expansion.
A small developer needs to see some return on their investment asap, so releasing a game without multiplayer can make sense to get it to market sooner. In saying that multiplayer is important to me, part of the thinking/hope is to move that feature up the development queue. It adds a lot to the game play and gives the game much more replayability.
I’d rather see multiplayer than new masteries in the upcoming expansion, for example, I think they made the wrong choice there.
But please don’t tell me that the game is SP as a design preference, that would be silly.
“But please don’t tell me that the game is SP as a design preference, that would be silly.”
It actually is a design preference. The developers themselves said so and i’m glad they did.
I’m honestly getting sick and tired of every ARPG these days having to focus on multiplayer. What happened to just playing single player and be done with? Now everything needs multiplayer or it sucks (Can this mentality just die?).
I get the impression that maybe you don’t know what you are talking about.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
Well servers are fairly cheap. 
The expense is really related to everything needed to support the servers and their function.
TBH, I’m pretty sure you know/meant this, not so sure about LoveD2. 
I’m certain that you don’t. I know the cost of servers for certain from what I do for a living.
I already mentioned the ancillary costs, security and game balance issues. Unlike you, I’m not convinced that he meant that. Many games just get it up and running and address issues of balance etc as they come up. There’s a fair bit of gaming know-how around now so it’s not as expensive as it used to be to get MP running, especially with the cloud services available now.
Even a pure fan-base D2 mod like MXL Ultimative can run their own servers (The Sin War). That should tell you all you need to know - those guys do it for fun in their spare time.
It seems that daring to critique the great GD game doesn’t go down well here (not surprising). I only wanted a simple answer about alternatives, TQAE in particular. Since it’s now off-topic I’ll just say thanks to those who responded with suggestions and move on.
There won’t be servers for GD no matter which way you slice it and it would have still been a nice chunk of change to initially setup, nevermind the cost of retrofitting the engine to handle this form of mp, maintenance/employee costs, monthly bandwidth fees, expanding the infrastructure if the game goes crazy viral etc.
Go do a search on what Blizzard spends on monthly server costs to keep WoW running. While GD would never approach that level nor is it an MMO anyway, it kinda spells “mf’n expensive” to me.
They began work on the game in 2010, Kickstarter 2012, Steam EA 2013.
The time has long passed for them to jump on that train.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
just did, there are 10 Spellbreakers (focused on those as your OP referrred to them), one of them mentions something like this, the other 9 don’t…
Even so, this is purely optional, I never did level differently in order to later respec into something entirely different…
And ofc most are heavily item-dependant as well.
that they are, because they are optimal builds, so what do you expect 
Most builds are not ‘this is how I managed to beat Log with self-found gear’, but ‘this is the best gear for this build after extensive farming’
- Re servers/multiplayer. I dispute that. Multiplayer is a very sought-after feature.
very sought-after by a small percentage of players…
Servers are not that expensive tbh.
I was not very precise here, I was not just referring to server maintenance but to having code for a server based game. Crate estimated it to cost about as much as GD itself… and since only about 10% of people really care, that is not feasible
And someone said “there is no need for multiplayer in a primarily single player game”. Er… sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s too expensive (it isn’t) or it’s by design (it probably isn’t).
it is, and given that it is a predominantly SP game it also is not an important feature on which to spend a lot of money
I’m sure any dev these days would include a multiplayer aspect if they could
I am sure that this is a waste of money for the majority of games, maybe that also is why most games do not actually do so…
Of the recent ARPGs, neither Torchlight 2, nor Van Helsing nor Victor Vran offered closed servers, only D3 and PoE did…
A small developer needs to see some return on their investment asap, so releasing a game without multiplayer can make sense to get it to market sooner.
Actually I question whether including closed servers would ever break even for them, personally I do not think so
It adds a lot to the game play and gives the game much more replayability.
maybe to you, for me it is a waste of resources, I would never use it
I’d rather see multiplayer than new masteries in the upcoming expansion, for example, I think they made the wrong choice there.
just goes to show that you have no idea what is important for the majority of players and what is not. You cannot simply extrapolate from what you want
But please don’t tell me that the game is SP as a design preference, that would be silly.
why ? many games are SP by design, your bias towards MP shows
You didn’t read very well then - those are very long threads so I guess it’s difficult to read, but I’ve read many threads very recently and most of them say “respec at level 50+” SOMEWHERE in the thread. Not just spellbreakers, others too.
I’m sure as hell not going to re-read them all then write a massive post just to prove you wrong, but I know that you are wrong.
Other poster - what Blizzard spends on WoW is not remotely comparable to a small game. If it gets that popular they’d be happy to have that problem.
And to be honest - Blizzard’s MP is still recovering from a very bad start.
The real cost of MP is developing a messaging system and securing it. As I said before, this knowledge is now much more ubiquitous than it used to be in the gaming world.
Multiplayer adds to every game. Period. If you want to argue that, I’ll leave you to argue among yourselves. Bye.
Here are some thoughts on it (servers) by Zantai:
http://darkmatters.org/forums/index.php?/topic/21165-grim-dawn-q-a-developer-responds/ <-- Q & A from 2013. Not quite so relevant now as he has essentially said in more recent posts that no, closed servers will not be happening.
(Q) 4) Do you ever see dedicated open/closed servers for the game?
(A) We would love to be able to support closed servers and it may be possible in time. We know this is a very important feature for the online hardcore audience. It would require reworking of the engine and setting up and maintaining servers, which is costly and beyond the means of our fledgling studio at this time. If Grim Dawn is enough of a financial success, we might be able to hire the additional people we would need and cover the expenses of setting up dedicated servers.
Those threads SUGGEST for you to use a certain skill and then respec to the main skill. They never once say that is mandatory for you to use a skill for leveling.
Out of 17 builds i made so far, i only leveled one with a skill i didn’t used at the end.
Also no, multiplayer doesn’t always add to every game. I can name several games that neutered the single player in favor of multiplayer and all it did in the end was harm the series. It seems you are trying to pass it off as a fact, but it isn’t.
bye then
I was arguing that the cost is frequently not justified, but quite frankly MP adds next to nothing for me at all times. At best I consider it a neutral feature, when it does not negatively affect SP - which it does in D3 and PoR (drop rate) - and is optional. I always consider mandatory closed servers a negative