Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leatra]

After 12 years (and other diablo-like games) any game would fail to deliver.

I started Diablo with D2 and to me, D2 was like a whole another genre. Same thing goes for The Elder Scrolls too. I never played Oblivion and Skyrim like I played Morrowind.

[Neonivek]

After 12 years (and other diablo-like games) any game would fail to deliver.

I've had games follow up with greater and greater sequels (Heck didn't Final Fantasy hit a continuous stride until 8 and not hit REALLY rocky grounds until 10?). It is hardly impossible.

The issue I guess with Diablo 3 is that they hit a point where it was too expensive to be anything else. It had to be popular and they just can't take risks anymore with anything but popular games.

As well Blizzard is notoriously incapable of keeping a narrative between games. Just look at the transition between Warcraft 2, 3, and WoW. 2-3 was pretty bad and the terrible things they do on some of the long standing characters is heart breaking... but 3-WoW is like they threw away the story (which they sort of had to I guess).

Diablo 1 - 2 had its problems but it was within my tollerance.

[Darkmere]

After 12 years (and other diablo-like games) any game would fail to deliver.

Agreed, nothing measures up to nostalgia.

I'm not sure the intent was really there to make D2 a gothic horror thing, as it much more closely resembles low fantasy with some lesser horror subtexts. D3 seems to go in the same direction.

I think the difference is the plots, and what is/isn't shown. D1 was "Evil things in the church Killed people! Kill em back!" 2 was mostly the same, with a good/evil backplot thrown in. 3 tries to build a driving narrative with sweeping stories, but it's done clumsily. If the plot had been done at a "lower resolution" leaving some or most of the details out (and removing every MUWAHAHAHAHA moment by a villain, from Leoric to Diablo) the game would have been much better.

This works for all of their games, though. They've directly stated WoW to be non-canon (I didn't like WC3 either), and the changes for SC2 were pretty glaring.

I also don't buy these games for plots, as none of their genres lend themselves to worthwhile plots.

[Leatra]

I don't even read the dialogues while playing Diablo. I didn't play D3 much, just tried it at my friend's place for a few minutes and I was like "Dude, it's a Diablo game. You really are gonna read the story?" Plot sucks but who cares?

[Neonivek]

I don't even read the dialogues while playing Diablo. I didn't play D3 much, just tried it at my friend's place for a few minutes and I was like "Dude, it's a Diablo game. You really are gonna read the story?" Plot sucks but who cares?

Look just because you ignore the plot doesn't mean EVERYONE ignores the plot.

It wasn't a small part of the game they actually tried to make a story for Diablo 3 thus it is fair to judge the game on story.

If it was a nonsense plot included just to give you an excuse to do cool things but otherwise didn't try... then sure you can't really judge the story because it would be like giving Tetris a story critique.

But this game certainly attempted to have a story.

[Leatra]

Calm down, man. Yeah, game tries to give the player reasons to do badass things. I mean, they can't just go "get out and kill the baddies." They have to come up with a plot but gameplay is what makes Diablo what it is. Story isn't important, at least for me. This isn't Heavy Rain.

[nenjin]

D2 had a decent plot, told in broad strokes. I enjoyed the lore and it helped me give a shit about all the monster bashing.

D3 has an inane, over-written plot delivered in the style of a shitty fantasy novel. It actually managed to detract from my appreciation of the rest of the game. When characters are blah-blahing in a way that makes you not care, it reduces all the monsters and loot down to even more of a gimmick.

They have to come up with a plot but gameplay is what makes Diablo what it is.

I disagree. Diablo doesn't hold an exclusive right to monster fightin', random level generation or random loot anymore. So you have to look at something else beyond just gameplay. D3's gameplay is fine, it's even tight (difficulty withstanding.) But it's no longer this magical unicorn beast that is rare and unique.

I found the setting and aesthetic in D2 compelling. And those are two things D3 took a giant wet shit on, IMO. Setting slightly less than aesthetic, but they're both weaker than D3 by far. Which just makes me look at the (barely evolved gameplay from D2) even less favorably.

[Leatra]

Oh well, that's just my opinion. Sure you can find dozens of games where there are loots and level generation. Maybe it's nostalgia but I had the most fun with collecting loot and monster kicking with D2. I don't even remember what was the story about.

[Darkmere]

I never understood the big art crisis in D3. D2's monochromatic blob schemes were boring as hell (I'm looking at you, Act IV. And III. And most areas in V.). I've noticed less burnout so far in 3 because a single act is at least visually interesting and varied from place to place, as opposed to random green/yellow/gray square areas placed in random, larger square areas.

I know it's impossible, but I'd really be curious how D2 would stand up if you could mind-wipe someone of all the good ole days and have them compare it to modern games without the nostalgic context.

[Neonivek]

I never understood the big art crisis in D3.

Theme and concept. Not very hard to understand.

Imagine Batman in Unicorn land as the next movie. Where Batman's costume is replaced with a bright Blue, Yellow, and Green costume.

I've noticed less burnout so far in 3 because a single act is at least visually interesting and varied from place to place, as opposed to random green/yellow/gray square areas placed in random, larger square areas

Yes, it went for a more universal appeal instead of maintaining its concepts, feel, or aestetics.

In otherwords they went for a more popular game.

[Carrion]

I know it's impossible, but I'd really be curious how D2 would stand up if you could mind-wipe someone of all the good ole days and have them compare it to modern games without the nostalgic context.

What sense would that make?  It's a thing of its time and removing it from that to compare it to Dark Souls or something just doesn't make sense to me.  Obviously a more modern game is going to have more modern attributes and a decade old game is going to stand out from that and show it's age.

[Darkmere]

If a theme and aesthetic look like shit... well... then they look like shit, and should be changed. There was an excuse with older monitors of the time, but now there isn't. Sorry, everything being repetitive blocks built in black and gray and red just makes a game look emo and provide eyestrain/boredom.

As before, D2 was setup as low fantasy and already abandoned the gothic schtick.

What sense would that make?  It's a thing of its time and removing it from that to compare it to Dark Souls or something just doesn't make sense to me.  Obviously a more modern game is going to have more modern attributes and a decade old game is going to stand out from that and show it's age.

I'd agree with you if "D2 is one of the best games ever" wasn't a fairly oft-repeated argument. It hasn't been brought up here that much, I'll give you that. I meant something like: if people could see the lack of endgame, broken skills, LCS issues and shallow world generation of D2 without years of feelgood to back it up, would it still be the go-to comparsion it is now? I'd guess not.

[Ultimuh]

So far I see most complaints against D3 are people who have somewhat high standards of how a Diablo game should be.
It's a bit silly really..
I find D3 a decent time waster as any other game.
Altough there is one thing wich annoys me, and that's some plot-important NPC following me around.
(Granted, it's not all the time, but still..)
And is it just me, or are the maps a bit smaller than in D2?
Other than that? Most complaints are a bit silly in my opinions.

And a big spoiler, don't click unless you really want a certain plot point revealed.

Spoiler: Don't tell me I didn't warn you. (click to show/hide)

Ben Kenobi! Deckard Cain! NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! D:

[alexandertnt]

When they charge 80 or 90 dollars or whatever, people do tend to have their expectations rather high, yes. This is justified by the cost. I dont think a "decent time waster" should cost that much. It is competing with alot of other, cheaper games.

I dont know why people frequently ignore price when it comes to judging a game (this applies not only to diablo). When I judge a game, its always

Code: [Select]

quality = (price > 1 ? entertainment/price : entertainment)


[Ultimuh]

Ah, the cost.. I forgot all about it.
I agree, it is a hefty price.
Another of the things I find annoying about this game.
At least there is not a recurring subscription cost.