0 Min of PoE since 15th May

"

miljan wrote:

"

RodHull wrote:

I can also claim TQ wasn't very good because it failed... end of story. Great games dont fail, and even if I give it the benefit of the doubt, when the expansion was released, that also failed. It took the D2 formula, added very little, made most systems slightly worse and put that together with a bloated and resource hungry client = fail!

Failed? End of story? LOLOOLOL. After 7 years the game is still played, this moment there are more than 100 host games. They earned a lot of money so started to work on TQ2 before THQ closed them. There is a huge community that is active. The game didn't failed at all, if you didn't like the game, it doesn't mean it failed. Do little search next time before saying something funny like this.

Wow, 100 games? That's like, what, maybe 800 people playing right now, at most?

I'd say that's a failure.

"

AgentDave wrote:

"

miljan wrote:

"

RodHull wrote:

I can also claim TQ wasn't very good because it failed... end of story. Great games dont fail, and even if I give it the benefit of the doubt, when the expansion was released, that also failed. It took the D2 formula, added very little, made most systems slightly worse and put that together with a bloated and resource hungry client = fail!

Failed? End of story? LOLOOLOL. After 7 years the game is still played, this moment there are more than 100 host games. They earned a lot of money so started to work on TQ2 before THQ closed them. There is a huge community that is active. The game didn't failed at all, if you didn't like the game, it doesn't mean it failed. Do little search next time before saying something funny like this.

Wow, 100 games? That's like, what, maybe 800 people playing right now, at most?

I'd say that's a failure.

Kind of critical there... any amount of players playing a game regularly 7 years down the road is a major success.

Most video games don't last 7 days or weeks... let alone months or years.

"

zeto wrote:

"

AgentDave wrote:

"

miljan wrote:

Failed? End of story? LOLOOLOL. After 7 years the game is still played, this moment there are more than 100 host games. They earned a lot of money so started to work on TQ2 before THQ closed them. There is a huge community that is active. The game didn't failed at all, if you didn't like the game, it doesn't mean it failed. Do little search next time before saying something funny like this.

Wow, 100 games? That's like, what, maybe 800 people playing right now, at most?

I'd say that's a failure.

Kind of critical there... any amount of players playing a game regularly 7 years down the road is a major success.

Most video games don't last 7 days or weeks... let alone months or years.

Agreed, a game that has managed to stay not only alive, but active over 7 years is a great sign. Once it goes open beta I'm sure the number of active plays will grow hugely.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Dear Rod,

Next time you plan to play the apathy card, please do so before asking a 'total stranger' to explain himself when making a negative claim about your behaviour. That way, I'll know where you stand, where I stand, and that neither stance is worth any interaction. The apathy card *after* asking someone to explain why they've possibly insulted you and how is, in my opinion, the epitome of weakness. But since you don't care, I'm mostly saying this for my own benefit...and entertainment.


Regards

A stranger on the internet.

Ill have fun ripping the inaccurate and laughable other posts apart later, dont have time atm, but will quickly reply to this cause its priceless.

Id love for you to show me where I expressed any concern for what you called me?? I just said I didnt think I had 'acted like a prick' and for you to point out why you think I did. You obliged, I wasn't concerned that was it.

Seriously if you think anything anyone says to me on the internet is somehow important you are extremely foolish. I dont much care what people in real life think of me, let alone total strangers on the internet trying to appear superior to someone who doesn't give two hoots. Do your condescending little ego stroking posts if you like, your still totally wrong. End of story. Its not an 'apathy card' its just fact, I dont know you, never will, your opinion matters not a jot to me. I just enjoy discussion, doesn't matter who with. Difficult though it might be for you to grasp your opinion is not important to other peoples lives... shocking I know

Will reply to others later, if you can all wait that long.

"

zeto wrote:

"

AgentDave wrote:

Wow, 100 games? That's like, what, maybe 800 people playing right now, at most?

I'd say that's a failure.

Kind of critical there... any amount of players playing a game regularly 7 years down the road is a major success.

Most video games don't last 7 days or weeks... let alone months or years.

Most video games don't have peer to peer lobbymaking, so you couldn't tell. I bet that there are still thousands of people a year who play Day of the Tenticle or Kings Quest.

I've played terrible games (Warlords 2) comes to mind as well as very old games (Neverwinter Nights, years after NWN2 was released.) that have had in the thousands of concurrent players up at all times, even 3 am. I've played card games (7th Sea and Doomtown, for example.) that have had more people pulling decks out at GenCon than Titan Quest had concurrent players.

100 games, *maybe* 800 players? That's a failure. That's not critical, that's judging it against it's peers.

"

AgentDave wrote:

Most video games don't have peer to peer lobbymaking, so you couldn't tell. I bet that there are still thousands of people a year who play Day of the Tenticle or Kings Quest.

I've played terrible games (Warlords 2) comes to mind as well as very old games (Neverwinter Nights, years after NWN2 was released.) that have had in the thousands of concurrent players up at all times, even 3 am. I've played card games (7th Sea and Doomtown, for example.) that have had more people pulling decks out at GenCon than Titan Quest had concurrent players.

100 games, *maybe* 800 players? That's a failure. That's not critical, that's judging it against it's peers.

100 games only on there server. Lan, slingplayer you can't tell. Also there are over 200 player playing on tunngle + every day 30 host on gameranger. There are ton of people playing the game.
By your standards d2 was also a failure because of 200 host 2 years ago. Now there are less because of d3.

Neverwinter Nights? I played it a lot, when did you ever see thousands of players after 5 years?

Card games? Lol, card games are not same as video games. You can play card games for your whole life because you play with real people and friends, and the point is to play against each other.

"

miljan wrote:

"

AgentDave wrote:

Most video games don't have peer to peer lobbymaking, so you couldn't tell. I bet that there are still thousands of people a year who play Day of the Tenticle or Kings Quest.

I've played terrible games (Warlords 2) comes to mind as well as very old games (Neverwinter Nights, years after NWN2 was released.) that have had in the thousands of concurrent players up at all times, even 3 am. I've played card games (7th Sea and Doomtown, for example.) that have had more people pulling decks out at GenCon than Titan Quest had concurrent players.

100 games, *maybe* 800 players? That's a failure. That's not critical, that's judging it against it's peers.

100 games only on there server. Lan, slingplayer you can't tell. Also there are over 200 player playing on tunngle + every day 30 host on gameranger. There are ton of people playing the game.
By your standards d2 was also a failure because of 200 host 2 years ago. Now there are less because of d3.

Neverwinter Nights? I played it a lot, when did you ever see thousands of players after 5 years?

Card games? Lol, card games are not same as video games. You can play card games for your whole life because you play with real people and friends, and the point is to play against each other.

And the point of playing a multiplayer game open to the public is not to play with other people?

Your rationalization is amazing. "Medocre" games have thousands of concurrent players years after release, a game with 100 games open is therefore not even up to the label of "medocre". It's pretty much that simple.

I've *never* seen NWN or D2 under 500 players, and usually (even during off hours) over 1000.

"

AgentDave wrote:

And the point of playing a multiplayer game open to the public is not to play with other people?

Umm, what?

"

AgentDave wrote:

Your rationalization is amazing. "Medocre" games have thousands of concurrent players years after release, a game with 100 games open is therefore not even up to the label of "medocre". It's pretty much that simple.

I've *never* seen NWN or D2 under 500 players, and usually (even during off hours) over 1000.

If game sold over 1 million copies, if it is after 7 years played every day by more than 1000 people, if the community is big and still active, it is a successful game. You dont even know what a "medocre" game is.

...And now this thread looks like just another happy cow trudging into the Off-Topic abbatoir.

Just because I can...

"

RodHull wrote:

Ill have fun ripping the inaccurate and laughable other posts apart later, dont have time atm, but will quickly reply to this cause its priceless.

I'll* don't*; because* or 'cause*; it's*

And "atm" is questionable too.

"

Id love for you to show me where I expressed any concern for what you called me?? I just said I didnt think I had 'acted like a prick' and for you to point out why you think I did. You obliged, I wasn't concerned that was it.

I'd*; didn't*

"I wasn't concerned that was it" should be two sentences.

Also, either your sentence with the words "I didn't think I had 'acted like a prick' and for you to point out why" is a seriously wonky phrasing, or else you admit to asking him why he felt you had come off like a prick.

"

Seriously if you think anything anyone says to me on the internet is somehow important you are extremely foolish. I dont much care what people in real life think of me, let alone total strangers on the internet trying to appear superior to someone who doesn't give two hoots.

More punctuation errors, but I don't need to list them all; you get the point or you don't.

"...is somehow important you are extremely foolish" needs punctuation, and also, the word foolish does not apply in this case. Not only that, it is actually impossible to not care about these things at all. You might care very little, or channel most of that energy into other places, but it is impossible to not care at all what other people say or do to us; we just act like we don't care as a self-protection mechanism. Not only that, you cared enough to write the response.

And for a final point, you seem to admit here not caring if you come off like a dick. At least if you recognize that, maybe it's a good first step. However, his point was that it's rude to ask somebody to explain, if you really don't give a fuck either way.

"

Do your condescending little ego stroking posts if you like, your still totally wrong. End of story.

You *really* enjoy stating an opinion, based in nothing but your inclination at the time, as scientific fact and then saying "end of story," don't you?

Also, you're* ;)

And I should mention how defensive you sound here. You may say that you don't care, but either way, it has generated LOLZ in your particular direction.

"

Its not an 'apathy card' its just fact, I dont know you, never will, your opinion matters not a jot to me.

Again, psychologically impossible. Also, you're using the apathy card very, very obviously in this very post.

"

I just enjoy discussion, doesn't matter who with.

I thought you didn't care? See, even attention whores care at *some level*. And self-destructive emo types. And even rapists. And everybody in between. Maybe if you'd be mature enough to look at it from the outside for a second, you'd stop being such an ass.

True, when you put two or more opinionated people in a room, you're bound to find some heated disagreements. The problem is, you're a dick about it, and seem to think you have absolute authority on what others should be allowed to believe. Is it really too hard to just go "Fuck, I didn't mean it like that"? Well, the problem I'm seeing, though, is that I think you did.

"

Difficult though it might be for you to grasp your opinion is not important to other peoples lives... shocking I know

Sure it is. And believe it or not, yours is as well. Just not *nearly* as much as you'd like to think it is.

"

Will reply to others later, if you can all wait that long.

It's okay, man. There's really no need. Unless you care just too much, and feel that you absolutely have to.

I should let you know that I'm aware that you're likely to try to tear this post of mine apart as well, with all your might, with whatever effectiveness you can muster. Unless something particularly interesting is stated, though, I'll probably pass on responding because it's fairly obvious what you're doing.

But, just for the record, "your still wrong end of story." ;)