Who else craves for Diablo 3?

[Heroic]

I can't avoid to be overhyped about this cool game that is coming out this year.
I've pretty much viewed every single trailer about gamplay, classes, etc.
So, anyone else shares my view? :smallbiggrin:

[Optimystik]

This year? You don't know Blizzard very well. :smalltongue:

Yes I am stoked for it, but don't hold your breath. Hell, they haven't even released the newest patch for Diablo 2 yet.

[shadowxknight]

Man, I can't wait for all three of Blizzard's new releases...

[Player_Zero]

This year? You don't know Blizzard very well. :smalltongue:


My best guess is next year second quarter. I've got it at 2:3 odds. Any takers?

[Arcanoi]

Bet on November 2011 for D3, any earlier than that is betting against the Eventuality Clause in Blizzard release dates. When you feel that a Blizzard product will be released Soon© 1 then you can expect it sometime between Now and The End of Time.


1.Copyright 2004-2009 Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.

[factotum]

Yes, I agree that expecting it to be out this year is somewhere beyond "hopelessly optimistic" on the anticipation scale... :smallwink:

Anyway, yes, I'm looking forward to both Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2, provided they both have a decent single-player experience like their predecessors did. "Crave" is a bit of a strong term, though!

[Philistine]

@Heroic: When you say "this year," do you mean "during calendar 2009" or "within a twelve-month period starting more-or-less now"? Calendar 2009 certainly isn't going to happen, and was never seriously on the menu; Blizzard announced several months ago that SC2 was the only new title they were releasing in 2009, while D3 was slated for an unspecified point during 2010. Now SC2 has slipped back into 2010, which is only going to push D3 even further away - yes the two games are being developed by different teams, but not all resources are duplicated (particularly in testing/QA), and the delay to SC2 means it will be eating up those shared resources until much closer to D3's originally "scheduled" launch date. So "within the next twelve months" is looking rather iffy as well at this point, with "sometime in 2011" moving into the favorite position.

[Artanis]

D3 out this year? Hehehehehehe.

I needed a good laugh :smallbiggrin:

[Myatar_Panwar]

I shared your hope. Then I heard about a specific quote in which Blizzard stated that Diablo 3 would not be released in 2010. You can take that as it coming out this year, but I fear that is wrong. :(

[Dhavaer]

I'm very much looking forward to D3, but I'd neither expected nor heard about it being released this year. I'm expecting late 10, early 11.

[Vic_Sage]

Finally got a chance to play Diablo 2 after seeing all the hype for 3. To say that I was unimpressed would be an understatement. Heres to hoping 3 is a massive overhaul.

[Ashtagon]

Finally got a chance to play Diablo 2 after seeing all the hype for 3. To say that I was unimpressed would be an understatement. Heres to hoping 3 is a massive overhaul.

Seeing as how D2 is almost ten years old now (released June 2000), it's not too shabby.

[Setra]

Considering I'm a massive Blizzard whore? I am definitely looking forward to it, however...

I'm not expecting it til Summer 2010 at the earliest.

[Aidan305]

What we know about what Blizzard is doing is that at the moment all their work is going towards Cataclysm, the next expansion for WoW. That's due out next summer.

I'm not expecting D3 until probably autumn of 2011, maybe early 2012.

[Ikialev]

I do not, I still have my Diablo 2.

[JabberwockySupafly]

Diablo 3 will not be released until at least 2011. One of the bigwigs announced at a recent gaming event that the only Blizzard titles to hit shelves in 2010 will be Starcraft II & WoW: Cataclysm. .

I love the Diablo series, and i mean that in a very literal sense. I wouldn't have met my wife or three of my closest friends if it wasn't for my addiction to Diablo 1 waaaay back in the summer of '97 (I got into it a bit later than most), and yes I really want D3, but I am not holding my breath in the least as Blizzard never releases a game on time... unless it's a WoW expansion, because god forbid the money tree should stop growing.

[Narudude360]

From what I saw on X Play, Diablo III isn't coming until sometime after July 2010. If we're lucky, we'll see it on an April 2010 release date, which is so unlikely I might as well buy a new copy of WoW: Co. Ed.

[Miss Nobody]

I'm definitely looking forward to D3, but I don't expect it to be released any sooner than 2011 or late 2010.

[warty goblin]

Finally got a chance to play Diablo 2 after seeing all the hype for 3. To say that I was unimpressed would be an understatement. Heres to hoping 3 is a massive overhaul.

That's about where I am, with the exception that I really don't care if D3 is a massive overhaul or not. I suspect my (limited) need for randomized loot drops is going to be completely satisfied by Borderlands for the forseeable future...

[Vic_Sage]

Seeing as how D2 is almost ten years old now (released June 2000), it's not too shabby.
It is shabbby, its a POS compared to other action games.

[The Glyphstone]

It is shabbby, its a POS compared to other action games.

Other action games from now, or from 10 years ago? It's certainly inferior to current-era action games, but I'll bet that nothing else released around the same time D2 was released can even deserve to be compared to modern-day action games. D2 at least warrants being judged against them.

[Rutskarn]

It is shabbby, its a POS compared to other action games.

One thing Diablo has that few other action games can manage is a supremely addictive range and drop rate of items, balanced so that there's always something just a little nicer over the horizon. Plus the powers are nice and the battles are entertaining.

[Poison_Fish]

It is shabbby, its a POS compared to other action games.

Hi, your new to gaming, aren't you?

[Vic_Sage]

Hi, your new to gaming, aren't you?
Nope, been gaming since like 93 son. Just found Diablo boring as hell. The item drops were interesting but the core gameplay bored the crap outta me and I couldn't get into the story at all.

[ZeroNumerous]

It is shabbby, its a POS compared to other action games.

Like Deus Ex, Half-Life Counterstrike..? Or do you mean Rune, Gunman Chronicles or Soldier of Fortune?

[Destro_Yersul]

Mmm. Diablo 3...

Yeah, I'm looking forward to it, and hoping it comes out before the apocalypse hits.

On the subject of Diablo 2: The gameplay was repetitive, the graphics were decent, the bosses were click-fests, and the death mechanic was frustrating. That didn't stop me from playing it for hours on end, having a ton of fun whilst doing so. That game is seriously addictive. Especially trying to get better loot.

[Setra]

Nope, been gaming since like 93 son. Just found Diablo boring as hell. The item drops were interesting but the core gameplay bored the crap outta me and I couldn't get into the story at all.
I will admit, it's boring as hell.. repetitive.. and easy... however despite all that I still find it fun. Weird, eh?

[Vic_Sage]

Like Deus Ex, Half-Life Counterstrike..? Or do you mean Rune, Gunman Chronicles or Soldier of Fortune?
Nah I meant compared to beat em ups and stuff like Final Fight and other action games like Devil May Cry. Seriously, my friends were like "Dude you love DMC, you'll love Diablo 2".

[Setra]

Nah I meant compared to beat em ups and stuff like Final Fight and other action games like Devil May Cry. Seriously, my friends were like "Dude you love DMC, you'll love Diablo 2".
I wouldn't consider Diablo 2 an Action game, honestly...

Given how you play (grind grind, item find item find) it's practically an MMO :smalltongue:

[The Glyphstone]

More like a MSPO, considering multiplayer games not with close personal friends 99% of the time end up screwing you in one way or another.

[Myatar_Panwar]

I will admit, it's boring as hell.. repetitive.. and easy... however despite all that I still find it fun. Weird, eh?

Its obviously not boring if you are having fun.

[Xanedan]

Nope, been gaming since like 93 son. Just found Diablo boring as hell. The item drops were interesting but the core gameplay bored the crap outta me and I couldn't get into the story at all.

Either you mistyped your DoB on the profile page or you were gaming at the ripe old age of 4.

Actually, come to think of it I sort of remember really loving the hell out of Super Mario Bros. 2 when it was released putting me at around that age. That and some G.I. Joe NES game.

Anyway, as much as older Blizzard fans malign WoW for delaying their games and messing with lore, WoW sates my "I need a new weapon *grind, grind grind*" needs. I'm not that excited for Diablo 3.

Too much time has passed for this game to have anything but a passing resemblance to Diablo 2.

Starcraft 2 on the other hand...that's exciting.

[Winterwind]

Judging by the gameplay trailers, it actually seems to be shaping up to something quite similar to D2, albeit more dynamic.

Anyhow, yes, looking forward to it, but no way in hell (no pun intended) is it being released this year.

[nooblade]

Actually the dungeons remind me a bit of Diablo. D2 had some odd wide-open spaces but it looks a little like that's trimmed down. It looks more like a dungeon crawl. Here's hoping that the "randomness" won't just be for directions but some actual content and situational type things (that makes sense in my head but maybe not on paper).


But it's certainly not a "craving". I didn't buy Overlord because my PC doesn't fit the specs and that might just kill D3 or SC2 as well.

[dentrag2]

I want Diablo 3, but i'm having a nerdrage over them replacing the Necromancer with the Witchdoctor, and, of all things, bringing back the Barbarian.

[Heroic]

I think I expressed myself a bit unclearly.
The "this year" phrase was an optimistic speculation for the next 12-month period. I'm not THAT optmistic to hope Blizzard will release it this year.

[Philistine]

Heh. I wondered about that.

But in any case, like I said, 2011 is the odds-on favorite at this point; so it's more like "a year and a half to two years." And IMO it's more likely to slip farther out, to 2012, than it is to actually ship anytime in 2010.

[Heroic]

I want Diablo 3, but i'm having a nerdrage over them replacing the Necromancer with the Witchdoctor, and, of all things, bringing back the Barbarian.

I would prefer the Paladin or another tank-like class over the barbarian. But it's Diablo 3 so I'll get it anyway :smallbiggrin:

Anyone knows what where the other announced classes?

[nosignal]

The Archivist (http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/characters/archivist.xml)
Stay a while, and listen.

It's the most overpowered class yet.

[Heroic]

The Archivist (http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/characters/archivist.xml)
Stay a while, and listen.

It's the most overpowered class yet.

I meant real classes :smalltongue:.
I've heard that that class was an April Fool's joke on behalf of the designers of the game.

[nosignal]

In order-
Barbarian, Witch Doctor, Wizard(like D&D), Monk(nothing like D&D) and one unannounced, which should be a bow user of some kind.

edit: Monk looks the most intriguing to me right now, because I thoroughly enjoyed playing Phoenix Strikers from D2.

Button mashing + furious clicking = wheeeeee

It's also why I'm not too upset that the Necromancer, effective though he was, is no longer around.

[Devixer]

I'm very excited for Diablo 3. I've been waiting to do some real grinding.

Honestly though, I don't expect this game to be coming out any time before 2012.

[Heroic]

Oooohh I hope that yet undefined class will be a paladin of some sort.

[Poison_Fish]

Nope, been gaming since like 93 son. Just found Diablo boring as hell. The item drops were interesting but the core gameplay bored the crap outta me and I couldn't get into the story at all.

I find it peculiar in that you are calling me "son". Laughably so.

However, I find for it's time that your comparison is lack luster. Most other action games of the time didn't necessarily compare. I can understand a modern complaint of Diablo, as it is often viewed through nostalgia glasses. I don't think it's shabby however. It still stands very strongly today, even if it is outdated.

[Setra]

Its obviously not boring if you are having fun.
It's boring about... 99% of the time.

The 1% is whenever a Unique item drops. That used to be enough because I always got this little sense of happiness whenever they dropped.. then I made an Item Find Sorc who could farm Hell Andy/Mephy and got Unique item drops routinely and it kinda ruined the fun.

[Vic_Sage]

I find it peculiar in that you are calling me "son". Laughably so.

Get caught on your slang cuz.

[Poison_Fish]

Get caught on your slang cuz.

No, no that's still really old almost "bro" like slang. It's not getting caught up on it.

[Xanedan]

Near as I can tell, from my travels, "son" is sort of a southern thing. I've had it used, face to face, by someone who was quite obviously a lot younger than me.

For what it's worth I'd also like to throw my hat in with the "Bring back the necromancer" crowd. That and I want the assassin.

[Gamerlord]

I want Diablo 3, but i'm having a nerdrage over them replacing the Necromancer with the Witchdoctor, and, of all things, bringing back the Barbarian.


You take that back! The barbarian is the best class of them all!

[nooblade]

Well I, for one (for two?), am glad the Necromancer isn't getting as much attention. It had the least interesting background, IMHO, closely followed by the Sorceress. And if you're looking for more Necromancer-like game mechanics (exploding corpses, spamming curses, some one-point wonders, etc), you know they'd just butcher it like the Barbarian into something that fits into the game about as much as the Witch Doctor does now.

I can't tell yet if the new Barb will be at least as fun as the old one (the way I played it), it depends on too much in the rest of the game. I think I will miss Grim Ward either way.

[Setra]

The class I'm looking forward to most is Sorceress, because her spells look really fun. I admit, I'm easy to please.

[warty goblin]

It's boring about... 99% of the time.

The 1% is whenever a Unique item drops. That used to be enough because I always got this little sense of happiness whenever they dropped.. then I made an Item Find Sorc who could farm Hell Andy/Mephy and got Unique item drops routinely and it kinda ruined the fun.

This is why I could never get into Diablo I think. I don't have a particularly obsessive personality, and a fun/boredom of 1:100 simply fails miserably next to other games, some of which can actually push 1:5 or even 1:1.

[Myatar_Panwar]

Maybe its because I played a sorceress in my time with Diablo 2, but I wasn't only finding fun in the item drops. I enjoyed clicking on dudes and watching them explode in various ways. Lightning was exceptionally pretty.

Diablo 3 is taking this to new places. I tried playing the Barbarian in 2 for a short time, but wasn't enjoying myself. The stuff I've seen the Barb do in the D3 videos is just awesome.

[Setra]

Maybe its because I played a sorceress in my time with Diablo 2, but I wasn't only finding fun in the item drops. I enjoyed clicking on dudes and watching them explode in various ways. Lightning was exceptionally pretty.
Around the time I first beat Hell mode is about the point I stopped enjoying the killing.

Luckily, as mentioned before, the shiny spells of the new sorceress should help rekindle it :smalltongue:

This is why I could never get into Diablo I think. I don't have a particularly obsessive personality, and a fun/boredom of 1:100 simply fails miserably next to other games, some of which can actually push 1:5 or even 1:1.
When I first started playing it the fun was 1:1 for me, I loved the killing, I loved trying to figure out the best builds (I refuse to ever look at builds online, that way I can't be accused of using cookie cutter builds (Though my friends still insist I do since they suck at building.. builds)) and I LOVED the item drops, even the normal magical items were a blast to find.

The killing stopped being fun first, followed by the builds, then finally the drops.

Edit: The fact I have an EXTREMELY obsessive personality also helps, of course.

[Indon]

Oooohh I hope that yet undefined class will be a paladin of some sort.

I wouldn't count on it.

The Monk is 50% martial artist awesomeness, and 50% Holy Warrior, which kinda horns in on the Paladin gig.

So far we have a pet-using debuffer, a pew-pew ranged character, an up-front meleer, and a light and fast meleer.

My bet for the fifth class is Rogue, or similar.

[Myatar_Panwar]

My bet for the fifth class is Rogue, or similar.

That sounds about right. Maybe with the ability to use both ranged (bow) and melee (dual swords) together well (or maybe you customize in one or the other), with a stock set of stealth-esque skills.

[Aricandor]

I certainly do crave for the game (not in any unnatural way or anything *cough*), and my money is, along with that of others it seems, on an archer of some kind for the fifth. Something I'd love to see is the return of the Rogue from the first game, since it to me feels somehow proper for a crowning third game to feature a goodie from the each of the olden games and three newcomers.

Not that I think it matters that much since it's more than likely I'll get stuck with the Wizard until the end of time. :smallbiggrin:

[Dallas-Dakota]

Indeed, something where you could choose between dual-wielding and ranged with a subset of stealth and traps. Obviously the traps would be more environment-interactive. Hopefully not the d2-LoD trap-asin which could just spam traps, do cloak of shadows and everything would be dead.

[Optimystik]

@ those getting needlessly trolled: Vic's posting history speaks for itself.

Diablo 2 is still strong today, and will be even stronger when patch 1.13 is released (which Blizzard will no doubt do in order to a) boost direct download sales and b) drum up interest in D3 prior to release.

But where overhauls are concerned: the runeword system is massively, MASSIVELY broken, to the point that it took hackers and dupers to save the game. Runes above Ist are nigh impossible to find through normal play, and only duping and cubing en masse allowed anyone but the luckiest or most dedicated grinders a chance to even experience the better runewords.

One poster on a forum calculated how many El runes it would take to make a Zod. Over 1 *trillion*. (http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=930659&topic=45983767) I **** you not. The system is utterly cluster****ed.

[Indon]

One poster on a forum calculated how many El runes it would take to make a Zod. Over 1 *trillion*. (http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=930659&topic=45983767) I **** you not. The system is utterly cluster****ed.

But every middle-tier rune that drops counts for thousands or tens of thousands of El's.

Of course, the stash isn't remotely that big (unless you play offline and use PlugY).

Blizzard's attitude towards modders for D3 is something I hold a great deal of trepidation about. D2 near the end of its' product cycle was made very, very moddable, but will they maintain this for D3?

D2 mods ended up having me playing the game for years after I would have otherwise put it down, to include playing mod games in multiplayer with others. I hope D3 offers similar.

[Vic_Sage]

@ those getting needlessly trolled: Vic's posting history speaks for itself.
The **** is that supposed to mean? You got a problem come out and say it.

[Optimystik]

But every middle-tier rune that drops counts for thousands or tens of thousands of El's.

Even middle-tier runes have a very low chance of dropping. The highest rune that drops fairly regularly is Shael (Dol and Hel+ are where runes start getting trade value, because they're at a premium) - even at that point, it will take millions to cube up to a Zod or Cham.

Also, remember that every rune above Thul needs gems of varying types and qualities to be successfully cubed. So cubing up to a Jah will still require thousands to hundreds of thousands of gems, all across the spectrum and quality. The system is hopelessly broken. If runes/runewords are in D3 at all, this needs to be fixed.

[Setra]

Honestly I think if they have runewords, make them weaker and make the runes more common. Or remove runewords and make the individual runes stronger (and still make runes more common).

[nooblade]

I thought they were going to go the other way with runes and let players combine them with skills instead. That wasn't a recent thing but I bet there's still the video talking about it somewhere out there.

[Heroic]

That sounds about right. Maybe with the ability to use both ranged (bow) and melee (dual swords) together well (or maybe you customize in one or the other), with a stock set of stealth-esque skills.

Awww crap... I'm gonna miss tanking the hell (no pun intended) out of those minions. :smallbiggrin:

[warty goblin]

When I first started playing it the fun was 1:1 for me, I loved the killing, I loved trying to figure out the best builds (I refuse to ever look at builds online, that way I can't be accused of using cookie cutter builds (Though my friends still insist I do since they suck at building.. builds)) and I LOVED the item drops, even the normal magical items were a blast to find.

Yeah, that point definitely occured with me as well. Well, not so much the builds. For some reason I simply don't enjoy building characters in most cRPGS all that much.


The killing stopped being fun first, followed by the builds, then finally the drops.
Again, this was my experience, except it simply didn't take very long for these to occur. The problem I think came down to the repedative nature of the combat. At first it was awesome, because I just totally WTFPWNed all those dudes. But then I'd totally WTFPWN another bunch of exactly the same dudes exactly the same way. Nor was it all that challenging to do. I mean sure in most FPSs I'm killing basically the same enemies basically the same way- I point at them and shoot them in the head. But the different weapons are used substantially differently, and it still takes reflexes and significant concentration to pull off. I don't find this to be the case with hack'n'slash RPGs ala Diablo- and this extends to other exemplars of the genre I've found. Combat thus became uninteresting very quickly.

Once that occured, it was all over. I mean sure I might find some sort of rare and awesome item. But the only thing it let me do was kill things faster/better/whateverer, an activity I already found deeply dull. It wasn't actually going to change how I went about doing it, which was the bit that bored me. As I said, reaping hordes of enemies definitely has some appeal, but it gets old.



Edit: The fact I have an EXTREMELY obsessive personality also helps, of course.
That would help. I unfortunately lack the gene that equates fun with making numbers go up. I've got nothing against those who do, or games that feature this as a key mechanic, but they tend not to interest me.

[Vic_Sage]

So I've been replaying 2 with one of my boys for the past few days. I was actually having fun with Werewolf Druid, then I ran into something just pisses me off and that happens alot to me.

1. Run into Elite Monster.

2. Melee Elite Monster with claws to the face three times

3. DOn't notice its Enchantment thingy

4. Like 12 lightning Bolts shoot out of its body each time I hit it so 36 bolts total

5. Each bolt does like 50-125 damage

6. One dead Druid

[tyckspoon]

So I've been replaying 2 with one of my boys for the past few days. I was actually having fun with Werewolf Druid, then I ran into something just pisses me off and that happens alot to me.

1. Run into Elite Monster.

2. Melee Elite Monster with claws to the face three times

3. DOn't notice its Enchantment thingy

4. Like 12 lightning Bolts shoot out of its body each time I hit it so 36 bolts total

5. Each bolt does like 50-125 damage

6. One dead Druid

Yeah.. this is *exactly* why Lightning Resistance is important (the other reason is Gloams. And Diablo's Red Lightning. And.. well, having poor or god save you negative Lightning Resist is a really good way to die.) It's also why the more cautious hardcore players will not engage a unique monster before they can ID its mods.

[Vic_Sage]

I wish I had known that before I decided to rip & tear. After playing the game a bit more I have to bump it up from a 4 to a 7. Bull**** enemies like above still piss me off and I don't see how you can win Hell difficulty alone unless your a Twinked Paladin or Sorceress.

[nosignal]

...or a Wind Druid, or a FC bear, or a Trapsin, or a Necromancer, or LF zon, or a Strafer...

[tyckspoon]

Hell requires 2 things- the ability to deal decent amounts of at least two damage types (or being a Hammerdin, because that spell cheats like hell) and a tolerance for grinding Nightmare/whatever bits of Hell you can manage for better gear. If you are just playing straight through the Acts you will almost certainly not have good enough stuff to handle Hell (unless you're playing one of the really safe/overpowered builds, like a Summoner necromancer. They can do Hell naked if the player is careful enough.)

[Heroic]

I've never even attempted to take on Hell difficulty yet. Maybe it's time to take on that challenge.

Any tips on starting out as a paladin?

[Optimystik]

A note on Hell difficulty: it's purpose is primarily there for the challenge, and for gaining levels past 70. Playing in Hell for any other reason (including MF) is a dicey proposition even for highly-geared characters, and given it's high-degree of danger for hardcore characters specifically is not a good idea if the thrill doesn't appeal to you.

If you're playing in Hell primarily to find trade-worthy items; don't. Plenty of extremely valuable items drop in Nightmare difficulty, and finding quality items is primarily a function of the amount of runs you're able to do. In the time it takes the average player to kill Hell Mephisto, that same player could have killed NM Andy, NM Meph, AND the NM council. Hell Diablo and Hell Baal are impossible to solo for many characters due to the minions, and extremely difficult even for the ones that are, but their Nightmare equivalents are fairly simple to slip into a high-level character's rotation. Doing so is still profitable, because the NM council for instance can drop any of the valuable class-specific uniques (such as The Oculus, Arreat's Face or the Homunculus), plus any grand charm they drop has a high enough ilvl to be rerolled into a +skills charm.

Another point is that some valuable items are EASIER to find in Nightmare than in Hell, because of the lower number of options available. NM Andariel is a prime example; she has a high chance to drop jewelry when killed, and if a unique ring falls, it has a 1/31 chance of being a priceless Stone of Jordan. Hell Andariel actually has a lower drop rate for SoJs, because she is able to drop higher rings (like Raven Frosts and Dwarf Stars) in addition to the Nagelrings and Manalds of Nightmare.

Bottom line: don't get twisted into knots worrying about Hell unless dual-element builds and stacking resistance gear appeals to you. It's more than possible to have a character stay in Nightmare and still earn enough loot to make its transition to Hell a much smoother one.


I thought they were going to go the other way with runes and let players combine them with skills instead. That wasn't a recent thing but I bet there's still the video talking about it somewhere out there.

I heard that too, but can't find a source for the quote. I haven't been digging very in-depth, but an official line would be nice if a playgrounder wouldn't mind obliging.


I've never even attempted to take on Hell difficulty yet. Maybe it's time to take on that challenge.

Any tips on starting out as a paladin?

Paladins are the broadest class in the game, even moreso than druids. They can be Casters, Melee, Offensive, Defensive, gregarious, solitary, PvM focused, PvP focused... all that limits you is your own preferences and the gear you have available/are willing to acquire. Further, their only "dead" skills are Prayer and Conversion: everything else is either the core of some build or a synergy.

In other words, I have to answer your question with a question: What kind of paladin do you want to play?

[Dallas-Dakota]

Not to mention that they're pretty much always party-friendly.(though sometimes not with the necromancer, make sure to have a clear agreement on the usement of Redemption)

Especially Avengers. sorcs and other elemental-damage dealing(read: pretty much most things in hell) love him.

[tyckspoon]

I heard that too, but can't find a source for the quote. I haven't been digging very in-depth, but an official line would be nice if a playgrounder wouldn't mind obliging.


I know it was in one of the gameplay demo videos somewhere- they showed a skill with the 'spread' rune attached that gave it more targets/greater area of effect, and I think Teleport with a 'power' rune that made it knockback and/or damage enemies on arrival?

[Winterwind]

I wish I had known that before I decided to rip & tear. After playing the game a bit more I have to bump it up from a 4 to a 7. Bull**** enemies like above still piss me off and I don't see how you can win Hell difficulty alone unless your a Twinked Paladin or Sorceress.It's pretty easy with any character actually, as long as you put all of your skill and ability points where they are useful and only where they are useful. So no points in skills you won't be using later anymore (apart from 1 point if it is a prerequisite for something you need), unless they are synergies to your main skills. No points in Energy, ever, because you get enough mana from level and items later on (except for a few Sorceress builds). One has to note though that not every skill is viable - some are too weak to make it in Hell. Still, every class has a wide selection of perfectly Hell-viable builds.

Oh, and if you struggle when alone you would struggle far more when not alone, because the monsters' power increases with player number.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Avenger is a good Pally build, all the way through Hell, because the aura will bust even Immunes (although they still have hella-resists), making them invaluable to builds which depend on elemental damage (Sorceress and both flavors of Amazon, I'm talkin' ta you).

Fanatic Zealadins are fun, but when you start running into Physical Immune critters, he becomes less useful. However, this plus a Barbarian with Battle Orders makes for some insanely sick melee damage output.

Conviction is also a good aura to throw up if your group is being eaten alive by elemental damage.

Pally/Necro can be an absolutely godly combo, depending on the auras used. Avenger build is good, so is the Fanatic Zealadin, as it further boosts all of the necro's pets up as well. Avenger is better in Hell, due to PI mobs.

Can someone link me to the D3 Monk? I've seen the barb, witch doc, and wizard, but haven't seen this yet...

[Indon]

Oh, and if you struggle when alone you would struggle far more when not alone, because the monsters' power increases with player number.

Unless, again, you're a summoner Necro, since summons (and hirelings) increase in health and damage as if they were monsters.

[Artanis]

Can someone link me to the D3 Monk? I've seen the barb, witch doc, and wizard, but haven't seen this yet...

Ask, and ye shall receive. (http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/characters/monk.xml)

[Winterwind]

To clarify, when my fellow posters say 'Avenger', they mean a paladin using Vengeance as attack skill, Conviction as aura and put most of the other skill points into the Resist Fire/Cold/Lightning auras for synergy1. It never has to care about immunities or resistances in the slightest and has a powerful single target attack, is a bit lacking in crowd control though and works much better with good equipment. Nonetheless, my favourite build in the entire game by far.

The single most powerful paladin build (and quite possibly the most powerful build period) is, with no doubt, the Hammerdin - Blessed Hammer, Concentration aura (the only damage boosting aura that works with the hammer), and synergies to Blessed Hammer. It has very little problems with immune monsters because Blessed Hammer deals half physical, half magical damage (a combo that is practically never found as immunities on monsters), and the damage output is insane.

As for another melee paladin, there's also the Shock Zealot - using Zeal, but Holy Shock instead of Fanaticism. It has no problem with physical immunes; lightning immunes can be a problem, but at least you still have a decent physical damage base.

1 Synergies being something that was introduced in a patch, like... five or six years ago? Either way, if you have never logged onto BattleNet or downloaded a patch otherwise, those will not exist for you. Builds pre-synergies look completely differently than post-synergies.

[Heroic]

Can someone link me to the D3 Monk? I've seen the barb, witch doc, and wizard, but haven't seen this yet...

Monk here (http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/characters/monk.xml)
Sepaking of the pally build. I've yet to check which build I refer, cause its been a while I've played.
Oh and the reason to play Hell difficulty is just for the challenge. Not about items and stuff.

[Indon]

My favorite Paladin build is a frost aura archer.

Frozenstein is always _very_ hard, though.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

To clarify, when my fellow posters say 'Avenger', they mean a paladin using Vengeance as attack skill, Conviction as aura and put most of the other skill points into the Resist Fire/Cold/Lightning auras for synergy1. It never has to care about immunities or resistances in the slightest and has a powerful single target attack, is a bit lacking in crowd control though and works much better with good equipment. Nonetheless, my favourite build in the entire game by far. The biggest thing is to find a weapon with a high base damage, because Vengeance doesn't use the modified weapon damage in it's calculations. So people build one, thinking of the insane damage output they are going to have, only to be disappointed when they see that most of the multipliers (other than the ones on the weapon itself) don't count.


The single most powerful paladin build (and quite possibly the most powerful build period) is, with no doubt, the Hammerdin - Blessed Hammer, Concentration aura (the only damage boosting aura that works with the hammer), and synergies to Blessed Hammer. It has very little problems with immune monsters because Blessed Hammer deals half physical, half magical damage (a combo that is practically never found as immunities on monsters), and the damage output is insane. Hammerdains make catgirls cry.


As for another melee paladin, there's also the Shock Zealot - using Zeal, but Holy Shock instead of Fanaticism. It has no problem with physical immunes; lightning immunes can be a problem, but at least you still have a decent physical damage base.The difference being that Fanaticism works with other allies, wheras Shock Zealot is a better solo build which doesn't give as much to your allies. I'd almost rather go with Holy Freeze/Zeal than Holy Shock. Less damage output, but it's the only way to chill monsters otherwise immune to freezing, and still has decent damage output.


1 Synergies being something that was introduced in a patch, like... five or six years ago? Either way, if you have never logged onto BattleNet or downloaded a patch otherwise, those will not exist for you. Builds pre-synergies look completely differently than post-synergies.If you don't have synergy bonuses, then I strongly encourage you to at least get the patch. It makes otherwise worthless skills actually useful.

[Winterwind]

The difference being that Fanaticism works with other allies, wheras Shock Zealot is a better solo build which doesn't give as much to your allies. I'd almost rather go with Holy Freeze/Zeal than Holy Shock. Less damage output, but it's the only way to chill monsters otherwise immune to freezing, and still has decent damage output.Except you can get Holy Frost from a Nightmare Act 2 merc, too. So you can easily have that slow effect around without giving up Shock's/Fanaticism's damage.

[Optimystik]

Oh, and if you struggle when alone you would struggle far more when not alone, because the monsters' power increases with player number.

The caveat to this of course, is that the synergy between some builds and classes more than offsets solo weakness in some cases. An Avenger is a challenging build to solo Hell with, but pair him with any kind of sorceress or trapsin and they tear through it like so much tissue. Bowazons are much weaker in Hell than they have ever been... except when paired with a Necromancer. (In fact, this synergy can go both ways - a summoner necro paired with a bowazon wielding Faith is a nearly unbeatable combo.)

[tyckspoon]

The single most powerful paladin build (and quite possibly the most powerful build period) is, with no doubt, the Hammerdin - Blessed Hammer, Concentration aura (the only damage boosting aura that works with the hammer), and synergies to Blessed Hammer. It has very little problems with immune monsters because Blessed Hammer deals half physical, half magical damage (a combo that is practically never found as immunities on monsters), and the damage output is insane.


Plus, in the rare event that you do meet a phys/magic immune enemy? Blizzard, in their infinite wisdom, decided to do a weird world logic/game mechanics cross and make the holy hammers *ignore immunities* on Undead and Demons. Which are.. you know, about 90% of enemies that matter. IIRC there's only a couple of subzones in the game that will have Magic Immune Beast-type monsters on a regular basis, and you have absolutely no reason to ever go there; they aren't quest targets or anything, just a couple of those optional dungeon areas.

[nosignal]

I hate to bring it up, but shouldn't this discussion be brought to the actual D2 thread?

That said, the only hell-viable avenger I made was one using Griswold's set that was socketed almost entirely with +% damage jewels in the weapon and +min,max damage ones in the other slots.

Damage was pretty sick, and could solo hell easily, but vengeance still had the problem of being a single target attack, and a slow one at that, which not many players can tolerate, especially in single-player.

Regarding D3 runes:

Yes, they are now meant to be "socketed" to skills and not items. They have different effects like striking multiple targets.

Blurry youtube vid with developer commentary and fanboy squeals. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouYP1zGfd0s)

Socketed items are still in the game, so who knows what kind of system they'll implement for that.

[tyckspoon]

I suspect they'll do something kind of like the way they have WoW set up; gems go in your items and give direct stat bonuses, runes go in your skills and do weirder and more interesting things. At least, that's how I'd do it if I had to patch such a system into D2 as it exists. I have no idea what Blizzard might be thinking of if they want to keep something similar to Runewords for gear.

[factotum]

IIRC there's only a couple of subzones in the game that will have Magic Immune Beast-type monsters on a regular basis, and you have absolutely no reason to ever go there; they aren't quest targets or anything, just a couple of those optional dungeon areas.

Actually, pretty sure you'll find Physical/Magic Immune beasts in the temples in Kurast where you have to go to find the book for Alkor in Act 3. OK, not a quest you need to do to finish the game, but handy all the same.

I could be wrong of course...never played a Hammerdin because I hated having to try and aim the darned hammers. Summoner Necro was more my scene, back in the days I played the game.

[Optimystik]

Socketed items are still in the game, so who knows what kind of system they'll implement for that.

I liked the WoW system a lot; socket any gems you like, but socketing specific colors unlocks a bonus, and some colors count as multiple types (e.g. an orange gem counting as both a red and a yellow.) That would allow them to keep the whole "finish the sequence" game that made runewords fun, but make keep gem value fairly constant. Right now, diamonds and topazes obliterate amethysts and emeralds on the secondary market, and with good reason.


Actually, pretty sure you'll find Physical/Magic Immune beasts in the temples in Kurast where you have to go to find the book for Alkor in Act 3. OK, not a quest you need to do to finish the game, but handy all the same.

Even when you find those, a simple Wand of Amplify Damage on weapon switch will strip their physical immunity, and any resistance they have left will typically have no hope of withstanding an 8-10k hammer. I'm happy that D2 paladins are so strong, but the spell is slightly ridiculous.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Except you can get Holy Frost from a Nightmare Act 2 merc, too. So you can easily have that slow effect around without giving up Shock's/Fanaticism's damage.

Act 1 Prayer Merc + Insight >>> Holy Frost merc. Prayer Merc gets synergy bonuses from Insight (or rather, the other way around), so you're effectively healing twice as fast plus having an insanely fast mana regen rate.

This goes triple and quadruple when paired with any class with heavy mana costs (Sorc, I'm lookin' at YOU)

And Insight is stupidly easy to build, you just need the four-slot polearm.

Of course, if you are going Zealadin of any flavor, mana regen is generally not an issue, but double effect from Prayer + Meditation is some very nice regeneration so your rest stops are shorter.

[Morty]

I'm looking forwards to Diablo3, though without being overly excited. The Wizard class looks quite fun.

[Optimystik]

Act 1 Prayer Merc + Insight >>> Holy Frost merc. Prayer Merc gets synergy bonuses from Insight (or rather, the other way around), so you're effectively healing twice as fast plus having an insanely fast mana regen rate.

This goes triple and quadruple when paired with any class with heavy mana costs (Sorc, I'm lookin' at YOU)

And Insight is stupidly easy to build, you just need the four-slot polearm.

Freeze is generally better than Prayer - slower enemies means less damage to both you and your merc, which means less need for healing. Freezers can hold Insight as well.

Also, most sorcs prefer Infinity (Conviction aura) to Insight, but good luck building one; Insight at least won't cost you an arm and a leg to build.


Of course, if you are going Zealadin of any flavor, mana regen is generally not an issue, but double effect from Prayer + Meditation is some very nice regeneration so your rest stops are shorter.

If you're going Zeal, the choice is simple. Might Merc with Pride (Concentration Aura) and you using Fanaticism. All three auras stack, sending your damage into the stratosphere. Alternatively, try a Barb merc with Lawbringer: this little-known runeword grants both a Sanctuary Aura and a Decrepify proc, both of which give you a powerful weapon against physical immunes.

[Karoht]

The thing I hope they bring in for D3 is...

Being able to respec.
Seriously, this was my biggest beef with D2. If you put a point into something and it wasn't working out, tough. Roll a new character. It made for some serious alt-itous among my friends, while I moved on with my high level characters, and they never caught up.

Also, did you know you can play the game as though there are 8 people in the game with you, even though there aren't? You get better loot, vastly more experience. But it is signifigantly harder. I think the command was /players 8 or whichever number you wanted. It sure made you stay on your toes in Hell Act 5 or Hell Cow Level.

[tyckspoon]

Also, did you know you can play the game as though there are 8 people in the game with you, even though there aren't? You get better loot, vastly more experience. But it is signifigantly harder. I think the command was /players 8 or whichever number you wanted. It sure made you stay on your toes in Hell Act 5 or Hell Cow Level.

Only works in Single Player and, I think, non-ladder Softcore (or maybe just Open games instead of Realm, which are infested with all kinds of hackery anyway.) Wonderful tool for Single Player players, tho; when I'm doing that I usually go through Act 1 on /players 8 and dial it down to four or so after that. Gets you those first twenty levels or so in almost as many minutes.

I think respeccing is planned for D2 patch 1.13, but gods only know when they'll actually release that.

[Artanis]

I think respeccing is planned for D2 patch 1.13, but gods only know when they'll actually release that.

When it's ready :smallwink:

[Heroic]

When it's ready :smallwink:

And when will that be? :smallbiggrin:

[tyckspoon]

Why, Soon(tm), of course. :smallbiggrin:

[Heroic]

Why, Soon(tm), of course. :smallbiggrin:

Oh right thanks for the info.
You're sounding just like Blizzard there. :smalltongue:

[Narudude360]

I wouldn't consider Diablo 2 an Action game, honestly...

Given how you play (grind grind, item find item find) it's practically an MMO :smalltongue:

No, it's like Fallout, minus the turn-based combat.

[factotum]

Only works in Single Player and, I think, non-ladder Softcore (or maybe just Open games instead of Realm, which are infested with all kinds of hackery anyway.) Wonderful tool for Single Player players, tho; when I'm doing that I usually go through Act 1 on /players 8 and dial it down to four or so after that.

I play through the whole of Normal and Nightmare on /players 8--don't even turn it down for the bosses. Hell, though, is extremely hard even on /players 1, so I usually leave it at that for that difficulty.

[Lord of Rapture]

That would help. I unfortunately lack the gene that equates fun with making numbers go up. I've got nothing against those who do, or games that feature this as a key mechanic, but they tend not to interest me.

But you said you like statistics! :smallamused:

[nosignal]

I play through the whole of Normal and Nightmare on /players 8--don't even turn it down for the bosses. Hell, though, is extremely hard even on /players 1, so I usually leave it at that for that difficulty.

It's worth noting that Hell Baal on p3 gives the same quality of drops as p8, so there's no point killing Baal on anything higher unless it's for exp.

The usual Hell Baal run goes: p1 tele to throne, p8 for minions, p3 Baal.

[Avilan the Grey]

I would prefer the Paladin or another tank-like class over the barbarian. But it's Diablo 3 so I'll get it anyway :smallbiggrin:

Anyone knows what where the other announced classes?

I am a barbarian-o-holic. It's the only class I play in D2. The paladin was the most boring class in D2 IMHO, and never really a tank. He was the equivalent of a D&D cleric, really.

Basically I am a Tank-a-holic in most games, period; I keep experimenting with fun stuff but it always burn down to my urge to bash things over the head while grunting.

[Winterwind]

I am a barbarian-o-holic. It's the only class I play in D2. The paladin was the most boring class in D2 IMHO, and never really a tank. He was the equivalent of a D&D cleric, really.Can we burn the heretic? Just a little? Pretty please?



:smalltongue:

[Tequila Sunrise]

Can't wait for D3! I just hope they balance it better than D2.

In the meantime, must boost my nightmare sorc's negative resists. *sigh*

[Heroic]

Can we burn the heretic? Just a little? Pretty please?



:smalltongue:

Oh no no, not a little; we shall BURN HIM A LOT :smallfurious:

[warty goblin]

must boost my nightmare sorc's negative resists. *sigh*

Do you ever read a sentence that you are aware has a very precise meaning, where every word is intelligable, and yet have no idea what it means?

'Cause that just happened to me.

[Avilan the Grey]

Oh no no, not a little; we shall BURN HIM A LOT :smallfurious:

Yeah. And when I ram your scepter thingy right (because, you know, a knight with an actual sword would be, I don't know, logical?) up there... You will burn too! :smallbiggrin::smallwink:

Seriously:
My favourite classes in D2 is:

Barbarian
Assassin
Druid
Amazon
Sorceress
Necromancer
Paladin

In D1 they were:
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard

Edit: Looking at the videos I must say the Witch Doctor looks genuinely awesome though.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Do you ever read a sentence that you are aware has a very precise meaning, where every word is intelligable, and yet have no idea what it means?

'Cause that just happened to me.
*Ahem* Sorry. What I mean is: My 50th level sorceress has negative fire and poison resistance, which I want to raise but haven't had much luck with yet. I'm collecting all the resist boosters I can, but it's not much. I could try to trade for some booster items but I've found online D2ers to be...I'm trying to think of a polite word here...hairbrained?

[littlebottom]

im not much liking what the character skin looks like as it upgrades its armour, theres not much change from starting character to top level from what ive seen, but this is only going of the limited info on the site at the moment.

i liked the necromancer, shame they took him out, looks like i might end up being the witchdoctor then, but to be honest, in each of the diablo games, i play each character class to death... apart from amazon actually... dont know why.

[nosignal]

*Ahem* Sorry. What I mean is: My 50th level sorceress has negative fire and poison resistance, which I want to raise but haven't had much luck with yet. I'm collecting all the resist boosters I can, but it's not much. I could try to trade for some booster items but I've found online D2ers to be...I'm trying to think of a polite word here...hairbrained?

Moser's with 2 P.Diamonds or Rhyme would be the easiest way to go I think, or Aldur's boots for massive fire resists. Rockstopper is pretty good too.

Poison resist is pretty low priority for me, just pick up antidotes here and there.

D3:
I'm just wondering if the fifth class would be the traditional sword and board or ranged weapon user, or a hybrid.

[Artanis]

D3:
I'm just wondering if the fifth class would be the traditional sword and board or ranged weapon user, or a hybrid.

I'm expecting a ranged weapon user, since they don't have anything even close to that yet. It probably won't be exclusively ranged weapons, but I seriously doubt they'd leave out a bow/xbow class altogether.

[Heroic]

I'm expecting a ranged weapon user, since they don't have anything even close to that yet. It probably won't be exclusively ranged weapons, but I seriously doubt they'd leave out a bow/xbow class altogether.

I bet the fifth class will be a hybrid of melee and ranged.
Or at least I hope :smallbiggrin:

[Willis888]

I'm ready for it and have been for years.

IMO, in both games 1 and 2, Teleport > All.

IIRC, in D2 the Paladin could get the highest defensive rating, but was low on vitals (health/mana), and the only attack that deals decent damage later on is janky to aim (Blessed Hammer) - but I still found this class to be the second most effective due to outrageous damage output and the rarity of "Magic" immune mobs. The Barb had boatloads of Health, but still folded in Act 4 Chaos Sanctuary (Nightmare) every time. Necros stomp through Normal and Nightmare but mine have had problems generating enough corpses in Hell difficulty - the same is true with Assassins. Druids have enough offense to blast a Hell-level Minion of Destruction, but they need to get in close to apply it and have low defense, low health once their Spirit dies, and no teleport.

A sorceress with maxed Energy Shield and Telekinesis, with plenty of "(Magic) Damage Reduced by 'x'", and a large pool of mana makes the best tank. With the right gear, you'd need to get hit for ~1,000 before you actually take 1 point of health damage. Mana-burn creatures are scary, but you teleport away from and then around those. You can actually play with amazing lack of regard for personal safety - but a Hammerdin kills them all (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoreDakka) faster.

[Optimystik]

I am a barbarian-o-holic. It's the only class I play in D2. The paladin was the most boring class in D2 IMHO, and never really a tank. He was the equivalent of a D&D cleric, really.

In that he can perform every role in the game (Melee DPS, Ranged Physical, Caster, and Party Support) by himself, yes he is like a D&D cleric. The rest of your statement is simply wrong though; Paladins are by far the best "tanks" in D2, with an Exile Smiter able to completely crush a Concentrator Barb in both defense and offense at the same time.


D3:
I'm just wondering if the fifth class would be the traditional sword and board or ranged weapon user, or a hybrid.

Given their habit of using generic fantasy archetypes to name their classes, I'd say it would probably be a Ranger or Hunter. My vote goes for Hunter, since that's the profession referenced in al-Hazir's Dune Thresher (http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/world/bestiary/dunethresher.xml) entry. In fact, the Hunter would be an interesting choice, as it would allow Blizzard to combine the ranged effectiveness of the 'zons with the trap-setting capabilities of the Assassin, if the story is any indication.


A sorceress with maxed Energy Shield and Telekinesis, with plenty of "(Magic) Damage Reduced by 'x'", and a large pool of mana makes the best tank. With the right gear, you'd need to get hit for ~1,000 before you actually take 1 point of health damage. Mana-burn creatures are scary, but you teleport away from and then around those. You can actually play with amazing lack of regard for personal safety - but a Hammerdin kills them all (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoreDakka) faster.

The trouble with that build is that maxing TK and Energy Shield gimps the sorceress' damage immensely, even in a focused lightning build. In Diablo, the best defense is a good offense - dead enemies can't hurt you, so leaving them alive to keep attacking by having weak attacks is counterintuitive to survivability.

Having said that, another useful stat for a ForceSorc is "% damage taken goes to mana" as seen on Tal Rasha's belt and Nightsmoke. With enough of it stacked, your energy shield can almost become self-sustaining. Generally, it's worth it more to kill faster instead of trying to tank, especially since Sorcs typically have low FHR, making getting hit a bad idea.

[Dallas-Dakota]

Easiest way to take out D(on all three difficulties):
1. (re)summon Stone Gollem as much as needed.
2. Spam Decrepify as much as needed.

Diablo will be immensely slowed(especially if you add something which deals cold damage) and his attention will be focused on the Stone Gollem.

Do whatever takes your fancy, though I do recommend dealing damage and just quickly killing D.

[tyckspoon]

The Barb had boatloads of Health, but still folded in Act 4 Chaos Sanctuary (Nightmare) every time.


For melee characters the Chaos Sanctuary is all about managing the Iron Maiden curse. In particular, you have to understand the AI of the mobs that cast it- it's a mid-range curse for them. They won't cast it if you're right up in their faces smashing them, and they won't cast it if you're on the other end of the screen shooting them. But if you let one of the melee mob packs stop you while you're halfway to the casters, they'll Iron Maiden you, and then you'll die.

[Willis888]

The trouble with that build is that maxing TK and Energy Shield gimps the sorceress' damage immensely...

It's true :smallfrown:

This won't work on the Realms past Nightmare (except as a small-damage-dealing tank with a friend dps'ing ), but can rush through Hell difficulty singleplayer.


Having said that, another useful stat for a ForceSorc is "% damage taken goes to mana"

I remember seeing a chart one time that indicated you would want less than maximum Energy Shield (~50% iirc) to get the most benefit from the above mod, and the result would be a ~75% reduction to damage taken using fewer items and skill points than a full-on Energy Sorc.

[Optimystik]

For melee characters the Chaos Sanctuary is all about managing the Iron Maiden curse. In particular, you have to understand the AI of the mobs that cast it- it's a mid-range curse for them. They won't cast it if you're right up in their faces smashing them, and they won't cast it if you're on the other end of the screen shooting them. But if you let one of the melee mob packs stop you while you're halfway to the casters, they'll Iron Maiden you, and then you'll die.

That's another huge advantage to Smiters over Barbarians - if they accidentally get tagged with IM, Cleansing (which they'll have anyway) can remove it in moments. And the standard response to Oblivion Knights besides getting in their face is attacking from range with weapons like Gimmershred and Windforce. Smiters have the advantage there as well, because Fanaticism makes them decent throwers. Barbarians simply can't hold a candle to Paladins in D2, though they are still a strong class.

[Avilan the Grey]

In that he can perform every role in the game (Melee DPS, Ranged Physical, Caster, and Party Support) by himself, yes he is like a D&D cleric. The rest of your statement is simply wrong though; Paladins are by far the best "tanks" in D2, with an Exile Smiter able to completely crush a Concentrator Barb in both defense and offense at the same time.

Since I would never consider to play PvP, I don't consider the fact that a good Paladin build can kick my behind a relevant argument. I am sure it is true, though.

[factotum]

I didn't read that as having anything to do with PvP. I think he meant that an Exile Smiter can have higher defence and do more damage than a Concentrate Barb, which is still relevant for PvM.

[Avilan the Grey]

I didn't read that as having anything to do with PvP. I think he meant that an Exile Smiter can have higher defence and do more damage than a Concentrate Barb, which is still relevant for PvM.

That is probably true.

Of course I don't optimize for Hell difficulty; I don't ever play my D2 characters past normal, I get hit by a led slab of boredom if I try; I don't see the point (I am all dressed in the coolest gear aviable, and a demon hedgehog thingy drops a leather armor with higher DR rating??? WTF?)
This means that I never got the Whirlwind Backlash, since I have always preferred Leap-based barbs. Far less damage output perhaps, but Oh so much more practical and easy to play.

[Myrmex]

I have conflicting feelings for D3. My first love was D1. I loved the dark atmosphere, creepy music, unforgiving game play, and baroque style. The obvious grid for moving around on, the obtuse item system, plumbing dank catacombs for tomes of forgotten lore, praying at weird shrines to dark entities. The story was engrossing, the enemies novel (no orcs or dragons). Cursed items were as frequent as beneficial ones; even the legendary items came with drawbacks.

Then 2 came out, was horrible addictive, but felt a bit more "gamist" to me. Now everything was on skill systems, stats meant far less than they did, there were no tomes to be had, game play was linear, there was no reason to explore 90% of the zones. Magic items has no draw backs, or if they did, were totally minor. But I still really like it. Not for the same reasons I liked D1, as D2 is pretty much a totally different game (for me, anyway). The only similarity is mindlessly wading through hordes looking for drops; just now there are bigger hordes and more drops.

D2 also felt like my characters had a little less immersion. I guess it's because there's nothing in the environment that can really change them- no elixirs, tomes, shrines, Black Death zombies. WoW has this "problem" to a much greater degree- I feel like my character is a little pixel bundle running around a beautiful picture he has absolutely no effect on, and which has no effect on him.

D3 looks like a further step towards the de-baroquefying of the franchise. Not that it's a bad thing; I'd just like D1 back, but with more classes, fewer bugs, prettier graphics, smoother action, and more dungeons.

I'd get D3, but in 2 years, every machine I own will be horribly outdated.

[edit]
I predict each class will be able to fill multiple roles, just like right now there is a caster build for almost every D2 class.

[nosignal]

From the front page of diii.net (http://diii.net/)

Bashiok: We don’t really like the idea of a class having access to other class’ abilities and have no plans to implement it.

Sounds pretty definitive. I wonder if that includes stuff with "chance to cast" mods or charged items, or just the +oskills nightmare that was Enigma, CtA etc.

Then again, CtC items are useless and only select charged items(Curses on wands) were any good, so it's not a big miss.

[Optimystik]

I didn't read that as having anything to do with PvP. I think he meant that an Exile Smiter can have higher defence and do more damage than a Concentrate Barb, which is still relevant for PvM.

Yes, that's what I meant.


That is probably true.

Of course I don't optimize for Hell difficulty; I don't ever play my D2 characters past normal,

With all due respect then, you really shouldn't be commenting on which classes can "tank" and which can't if you're just sticking to Normal. Even characters with no spent skill points can clear it, and they frequently do.


Then again, CtC items are useless and only select charged items(Curses on wands) were any good, so it's not a big miss.

oSkills were indeed a nightmare but charged items should not be removed. If they're going to make monsters immune to two elements again in Hell, they either need to let characters cast untalented spells (similar to WoW, where a frost mage can cast fireballs if he needs to) or give us charged items.

[Avilan the Grey]

With all due respect then, you really shouldn't be commenting on which classes can "tank" and which can't if you're just sticking to Normal. Even characters with no spent skill points can clear it, and they frequently do.

Probably, again. But what's the fun in that? Yes I know, optimizing the build for Hell difficulty, I guess.

I am not a good gamer. I play a lot, but I have never been a twitcher. I can't clear a standard FPS without God mode, I react too slow. This is why I prefer Stealth or Tank instead of DPS characters. This is also why I play VATS optimized characters in FO3. I would die way too often even on Normal in D2 if I wasn't spending my skill points.

Plus, as I said, I just find repeating the process 3 times with the same character beyond boring. There is a word for that these days: "Grinding". Which to me is a very dirty word.

[Willis888]

Plus, as I said, I just find repeating the process 3 times with the same character beyond boring. There is a word for that these days: "Grinding". Which to me is a very dirty word.

I must have played through D2 over 100 times, yet still make a new char every so often. For me, Nightmare is different enough (harder mobs, new bosses in different places, better drops) to keep me playing. If can't get through a quest without grinding for levels or gear, I'll use a character editor to make the "grinding" fairly quick. Likewise in FO3, after playing through one time with a VATS oriented char, I installed a mod to gain 60k of every ammunition and 100 skill with Small Guns early in the game and played through again without touching VATS.

[Winterwind]

Personally, I consider Nightmare to be the most fun difficulty.

Unlike Normal, one actually has access to the full abilities of the class. One can find really good equipment, of the sort where one is glad to have found it because one is going to keep it, not because it provides a good temporary solution. And, thanks to being able to use the full powers of the build, one is a hundred times more badass than in Normal - in the time a character kills two monsters in Normal, a Nightmare character kills twenty. And yet, one does not yet run into the horror of Hell, with its abundant immunities and terrifying damage outputs.

[Avilan the Grey]

Personally, I consider Nightmare to be the most fun difficulty. (snip interesting stuff)

Hmmm Might try that then :smallsmile:

[Optimystik]

Personally, I consider Nightmare to be the most fun difficulty.

I definitely agree; in my opinion, Nightmare is where the game is actually intended to be, where you have seasoned but not godlike adventurers saving the monastery and what have you, and where a number of builds can be effective instead of just the dual-element ones. In fact, as I pointed out in a previous post, there is no really pressing reason to go to Hell; you can find quality gear in Nightmare that can be traded for Hell gear if you really want it. A SoJ or a set of +skill charms can get you just about any elite unique you could want for your build, and enough of them can even score you HRs.

Hell is there for the challenge, and because it is the only truly challenging difficulty, the most logical baseline for comparing character build strength, equipment and playstyle effectiveness, etc.


Plus, as I said, I just find repeating the process 3 times with the same character beyond boring. There is a word for that these days: "Grinding". Which to me is a very dirty word.

Calling it "repeating the process" is quite inaccurate. Winterwind put it best; the play difference on the three difficulties is completely different. In Normal, enemies are easy but you have next to no defining skills or spells until very late, typically Act V. Nightmare, enemies are more challenging, but you have all your defining skills at your disposal and are typically fine-tuning your technique. You will also for the first time have a skill bound to each mouse button rather than right-clicking for every special attack (for non-paladins.) In Hell, gear matters far, far more than skills and even with top-notch equipment there will be encounters you have to avoid or take on with caution unless you're a hammerdin.

[hamishspence]

does anyone have anything to say about Diablo 3?

I'm wondering how the monk will play out.

[Heroic]

does anyone have anything to say about Diablo 3?

I'm wondering how the monk will play out.

Judging by the Martial artist aspect of the monk, guess it will have something to do with the Assassin (fighting aspects not traps) and the Amazon (I guess without the bow part, but more of a Javazon) in D2.

The traps aspect of Assassins and bow skills of the Amazon is what I believe will conform D3's fifth class, a ranger of some sort.

[Optimystik]

does anyone have anything to say about Diablo 3?

I'm wondering how the monk will play out.

*shakes 8-ball*

Too early to tell.

(Given Diablo's focus - your character standing atop a pile of corpses - and the newfound balancing talents of blizzard, all characters will be playable. The only question will be what builds work from patch to patch.)


Judging by the Martial artist aspect of the monk, guess it will have something to do with the Assassin (fighting aspects not traps) and the Amazon (I guess without the bow part, but more of a Javazon) in D2.

Monk I think will be either Assassin/Zon (for evasive kung fu) or Assassin/Pally (for piety/purity type magic), or even both. Wizard is so far Sorc/Zon (ranged damage and control), while Witch Doctor is Necro/Druid (summons and nature spells.) Barbarian seems unchanged, and so he'll be at the bottom of my playlist yet again.


The traps aspect of Assassins and bow skills of the Amazon is what I believe will conform D3's fifth class, a ranger of some sort.

This is my theory as well, though I'm leaning towards the name Hunter, as that is the title Al-Hazir used in his journal (see the Dune Thresher entry.)

[Karoht]

Monk and Wizard honestly look the most fun right now. Witchdoctor looks like it could be cool, but it is unfortunately last on my list right now.

With regards to speculation about the 5th class, currently there is no secondary tanking option. Theres Barbarian, but thats all. Also there is no party buffer yet. I would expect a plate wearing party buffer (*cough*Paladin ripoff*cough*) to be a possibility.

If they skip the second tank option, but go right to party buffs, Bard/Enchanter becomes a possibility. Blizzard has said they've wanted to do a Bard class for ages, there just never seems to be a good vehicle for it, or the mechanics of the class don't work, etc. They said the same thing about Monk though, and it looks like they've sorted those issues out. So Bard could be on the horizon.

Ranged physical attack is lacking however. And they have two ranged elemental/magic casters, so ranged physical is next on the list. I agree that an archer of some sort is most likely. However, odd question for you. Do you think that this incarnation of the Diablo series might incorporate guns? I personally hope not, but it is possible.

As for expansion pack fodder, I hope they add lots of classes. I'd like to see this Diablo go for more than one expansion, or for there to be the option for more player built content.

Lastly, some inside info. Not only do I know someone who works for Blizzard (free Blizzcon tickets for me next year), but I also have stock in ActivisionBlizzard, as well as Vivendi who is the parent company that owns them both. Anyway, following the news just from a stock/news collector bot I have, the new Battle.net is what has really been holding up development for both SC2 and D3. The issue is, Activision had a hand in designing it, and the contracts involved have issues because Activision wants to use battle.net as a platform for some of it's software, and Blizzard wants only Blizzard content on Battle.net. Vivendi on the other hand, wants Battle.net to be the new Steam. I'm not sure what was decided upon, but this is what held things up big time, because neither SC2 nor D3 can roll out without the new Battle.net.

[Indon]

does anyone have anything to say about Diablo 3?

I'm wondering how the monk will play out.

At Blizzcon, they mentioned two things they wanted the Monk to be, playstyle-wise.

-A fast, powerful, but squishy frontline fighter.
-PEW PEW HOLY MAGIC!

The only tree they had well-defined was the martial arts tree, which had a couple staple attacks which cost 1 or 2 mana and had reliable effects, and one which was vastly more powerful but drained your entire mana bulb after three of them.

Mind, each of the martial arts 'skills' were in fact 'combos' similar to the assassin combos, only self-contained. The first time you did the skill, you executed the first-stage ability. The second time, you used the second-stage ability. The third time, you did the third-stage ability, which was generally a finisher.

One of the stock-attack styles made two normal but slightly augmented attacks, then the finisher was a potent bleed that, if it killed something, caused the enemy to explode in an AoE.

The big draining style did a teleport with the first attack, the second a sustained AoE which made you invincible as far as I can tell, and the third was... okay, don't remember the third very well, I think it was another big AoE.

[Heroic]

With regards to speculation about the 5th class, currently there is no secondary tanking option. Theres Barbarian, but thats all. Also there is no party buffer yet. I would expect a plate wearing party buffer (*cough*Paladin ripoff*cough*) to be a possibility.

I'm currently praying deeply to the Gaming Gods for that to happen. :smallbiggrin:

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Personally, I think the Monk incorporates the Passive skillset from the 'Zon, the Martial Arts from the Assassin, and then adds in some holy attacks, similar in concept to some of the Paladin's combat skills.

It's true there really isn't a good 'party buffer' yet, although that may well be simply not implemented yet, where every class has some buffing ability. I know the Slow Missiles from the Wizard looks like it could be handy not just for the Wizard, but for everyone in the group nearby. Likewise, I wonder if the Witch Doctor can augment another (grouped) player's attacks with his plague like he does his pets.

No one really has any decent ranged physical damage yet, although the Barbarian can leap into combat so it's not ranged anymore, so it would make sense that the next class is going to be an archer type.

How about this: Give you the Hunter class. Has Archery from the 'Zon, Traps from the Assassin, and... hmm... pets from the Druid? We only have one pet class right now, it would make sense. Be pretty powerful too, summon up your pets, then shoot everything while they're busy with your pets. They don't even need to do much damage, just keep them occupied while you pincushion them.

Failing that, it could be more of a stealth class, going back to the Rogue of D1 in heart

[CrazySopher]

I can agree that we're missing a few things that need to really get filled in the Diablo class role slot.

Second Tank: Karoht said it right down there, we only have one real toughie as far as melee goes right now, and it seems to have a much more offensive twist to it as opposed to a shielding tank. A second tank would be appreciative. Instead of a Paladin ripoff though, why not simply bring back Paladin? A second Melee class would be useful, and at least give the variety of melee weapons the Barbarian would otherwise be handling by himself somewhere to go. Much more defensive, healing capabilities, all that jazz.

Physical Long-Range Striker: Some sort of archer wouldn't be remiss, but... I'm not sure how much we need it. We've already got two magical ranged classes on the field, and another ranged striker might be... a little ehh. But the Wizard's powers don't move very quickly, and the Witch Doctor has very limited range for a "ranged striker", and I think has much more of a short range support/control aspect to it, so one may very well fit. Perhaps a rebuffed up Amazon-like character that can handle ranged and melee with different trees, to fill up the alt-tank status as well.

Groupwide Buffer: Gotta be able to do more than just buff. If we have a buffer on the field, (and they could sorta work Pally that way, thought not as devoted to the task), it needs to be tough enough to stand up on its own if you're running through single player. I like the idea of introducing some sort of Bard to the mix, like Karoht said, if only stylistically, and apparently Blizz likes the idea as well... but it'd need a sword or a bow as well as whatever buffs it can apply if it's gonna be popular enough to get by.

Sheenky, I like the idea of the Hunter, honestly. Pets might help offtank if they do anything, traps would help area control... I dunno. I think we need someone who can swing a heavy, blunt thing at stuff, or at least someone who can take a few hits without getting knocked out, but I'd like there to be multiple expansion packs too, so there's no reason we should rule it out.

[DranWork]

Personaly I cant see a better idea then another tank/support character. My idea would be a ranger option with skill trees in Melee combat Ranged combat and buffs/party buffs. Give the player the option to have either another good tanking character or a great support character. Perhaps in the buff section the option for concealment and or natury powers like the druid had, melee section focused on hitting numerous foes at once or drawing attension to the character perhaps even some "soak" abilitys to make him/her more defencive. And in the ranged a simular skillset to the Amazon plus perhaps something to force/distract their foes?

[Lodlampa]

I used to watch my friends play Diablo 2, but I never joined in. I think I'll try the new one out when it's released. I wish the released date wasn't TBA! :smallannoyed:

[CrazySopher]

Personaly I cant see a better idea then another tank/support character. My idea would be a ranger option with skill trees in Melee combat Ranged combat and buffs/party buffs. Give the player the option to have either another good tanking character or a great support character. Perhaps in the buff section the option for concealment and or natury powers like the druid had, melee section focused on hitting numerous foes at once or drawing attension to the character perhaps even some "soak" abilitys to make him/her more defencive. And in the ranged a simular skillset to the Amazon plus perhaps something to force/distract their foes?

I like what you're saying, but it seems like the sort of class you're describing has sort of... well, everything. In a party of four adventurers, why would anybody choose something other than this one class you're describing? The class needs to have major deficiencies. If you mean a class that, depending on tech tree, can take over one specific role out of a few that work stylistically differently (Druid from World of Warcraft being the best example), then I might actually greatly enjoy this idea. A sort of Druid-like wouldn't be a bad idea, but Witch Doctor already brings the more Primal ideology into the game, with Barbarian sorta-kinda doing that as well.

That's why Pally, or Pally-like, makes the most sense, I think, for the last of the 5 core classes. We're missing the sort of Order/Civilization/Holy ideology here. While I'm not going to say that every fantasy genre has a quota to fill, a second Tank would be the most needed, and it is a flavor we're missing here.

[tyckspoon]

I like what you're saying, but it seems like the sort of class you're describing has sort of... well, everything. In a party of four adventurers, why would anybody choose something other than this one class you're describing? The class needs to have major deficiencies. If you mean a class that, depending on tech tree, can take over one specific role out of a few that work stylistically differently (Druid from World of Warcraft being the best example), then I might actually greatly enjoy this idea. A sort of Druid-like wouldn't be a bad idea, but Witch Doctor already brings the more Primal ideology into the game, with Barbarian sorta-kinda doing that as well.


I don't really see what you're talking about as a problem, considering the rough description you're replying to could apply to most of D2's classes; Paladins had melee + ranged + buff options, Druids had it, Barbarians had it, Amazons had it (mostly self-only buffs, but everybody benefits from having a Decoy out.) That's already more than half the classes, but none of those became the only class anybody ever used (ok, Paladins maybe got close.) Assuming there is still some talent/skillpoint like structure in D3, the answer to your 'problem' is opportunity cost of specializing; if this hypothetical 'does anything' class has to invest its resources in actually being good at a particular anything, then it won't be particularly effective at the other anythings.

[Optimystik]

I hope D3 separates talent/skill points from actual spells/abilities. WoW has proven that this is by far the superior system - allowing you to logically include elemental-immune monsters without making the game nigh-impossible to play at high difficulties. A "fire sorc" should be good at casting fire spells, not one that can ONLY cast fire spells.

[Morty]

I think it's possible that characters using only one element will be rarer in Diablo 3, a skim of Wizard's skill tree so far shows that one of his trees provides him with both frost and lightning and the two others with generic "arcane" damage as well as some other types.

[Optimystik]

I think it's possible that characters using only one element will be rarer in Diablo 3, a skim of Wizard's skill tree so far shows that one of his trees provides him with both frost and lightning and the two others with generic "arcane" damage as well as some other types.

Thanks for the heads up, I wasn't aware of the talent trees being leaked. Assuming they're accurate, it seems Wizards will have the "Conjure" tree, which provides physical, fire and poison damage and defensive spells; the "Storm" tree, which is frost and lightning as you said, and the "Arcane" tree, which is purely arcane but also contains resistance-lowering and utility magic. Interesting...

[Artanis]

That's why Pally, or Pally-like, makes the most sense, I think, for the last of the 5 core classes. We're missing the sort of Order/Civilization/Holy ideology here. While I'm not going to say that every fantasy genre has a quota to fill, a second Tank would be the most needed, and it is a flavor we're missing here.

I can describe in one word why something Pally-like does not make the most sense for the fifth class:

Bows.

Nothing has been shown that even pretends to use a bow, and "Pally-like" is mutually exclusive with bows.

[Karoht]

I think it's possible that characters using only one element will be rarer in Diablo 3, a skim of Wizard's skill tree so far shows that one of his trees provides him with both frost and lightning and the two others with generic "arcane" damage as well as some other types.

I always felt the one tree sorcs were sort of... lacking and lame. I mean, even just pop one point in everything, and let the + skills stuff do the work. I had +12 to all skills and a smattering of everything, with a few core amped up attacks. It was a great build. I was a serious fan of charged bolts, but you needed lots of points in it to see returns. I never liked chain lightning, it never seemed to want to chain for some reason. Glacial spike + fire wall was pretty lethal from low level to endgame, and I got really good at aiming firewall as a line attack towards enemies by clicking next to myself on either side. Frozen orb was a fantastic ability, and when you started to mix all of these things together in a pot full of enemies, you came out the better.

I dunno, I just never saw a need to pump one ability into the stratosphere. It didn't seem to really have any serious benefits.

[Winterwind]

I dunno, I just never saw a need to pump one ability into the stratosphere. It didn't seem to really have any serious benefits.Before we proceed, let's clarify we're on the same grounds here - did you play on BattleNet, or singleplayer? Lower difficulties only, or Hell-difficulty as well? Pre-1.10-patch, or post-1.10-patch (put differently, before or after synergies were put into the game)?

BattleNet, post-1.10, Hell-difficulty play, only a sorceress intended for very specific runs is likely to go with one element only, as there will be too many immunes for comfortable play otherwise. On the other hand, scattering points all over the place rather than focusing them on the few abilities one intends to use, as well as their synergies, will leave you with too little damage output to do much of anything - in particular in post-1.10 play, where Hell monsters were buffed immensely.

[CrazySopher]

I don't really see what you're talking about as a problem, considering the rough description you're replying to could apply to most of D2's classes; Paladins had melee + ranged + buff options, Druids had it, Barbarians had it, Amazons had it (mostly self-only buffs, but everybody benefits from having a Decoy out.) That's already more than half the classes, but none of those became the only class anybody ever used (ok, Paladins maybe got close.) Assuming there is still some talent/skillpoint like structure in D3, the answer to your 'problem' is opportunity cost of specializing; if this hypothetical 'does anything' class has to invest its resources in actually being good at a particular anything, then it won't be particularly effective at the other anythings.

O_o you're... actually quite right there. Well, that's what I get for trying to remember Diablo 2 that early in the morning. :smalltongue:

[Heroic]

O_o you're... actually quite right there. Well, that's what I get for trying to remember Diablo 2 that early in the morning. :smalltongue:

Jack of all trades master of none :smallbiggrin:

[DranWork]

With the class I described I ment it more that the player has the options to be semi-decent at everything but as we all know from d2 thoes class's really didnt stand up late game compaired to people who focused on 2 trees

Donno in the end maybe blizzard will have a brain fart and not include any "Archer" class in the first release of the game haha

[ShneekeyTheLost]

It seems to me that the Monk is doing a pretty good job of being the replacement for the Paladin. Holy-based smack-down deliverer. Seems like they can 'tank' fairly effectively, since they have several abilities which can help negate or mitigate damage. So I doubt we're going to see another melee fighter type, since we already have two.

Also, both the Monk and the Barbarian have abilities which brings the Melee damage output to ranged opponents, or at least close the distance very quickly, so the requirement for a ranged physical damage dealer may not be all that good. Maybe they want to go away from archery and want everyone to wade into combat, caked in blood and gore.

[AgentPaper]

I'm betting on an Amazon, or at least someone from the Amazon tribe. Bonus points if it's a close range weapon-master style, something like a mix of D2 Amazon and Assassin. We've got two close-in fighters and two ranged-types, so the last class has to either be a melee type or a melee/ranged hybrid, either both at once or one or the other, depending on your build. Trees would be something like melee weapon mastery with different martial moves, ranged weapon mastery with different types of charged shots and trick shots, and then some type of magic tree, with buffs, (mostly self) summons, and maybe some magical attacks.

I doubt blizz would completely go without a bow-using class, but of course Diablo is, in the end, all about getting in the thick of things and slaughtering your enemies, so having the ranged classes out-number the melee classes would also be a bit odd.

Although, now that I think about it, since they're letting each class be either gender now (instead of a specific person) I don't know if they could really use the amazons, although I don't know if it's ever said specifically in D2 whether the amazon tribe is actually an all-female warrior society, or if it's just the one we see that is.

[Optimystik]

I doubt blizz would completely go without a bow-using class, but of course Diablo is, in the end, all about getting in the thick of things and slaughtering your enemies, so having the ranged classes out-number the melee classes would also be a bit odd.

Where'd you get that idea? Not only have the ranged classes outnumbered the melee since the inception of Diablo, in the first game even Warriors had to eventually get some kind of ranged ability (apoc staffs, a windforce, anything) to be able to effectively kill teleporters and runners.

At least Diablo 2 fixed that by letting melee characters run and have other ways of closing the distance (leaping, charging, dragon flight etc.) But even with that, ranged builds still far outnumber melee builds.


Although, now that I think about it, since they're letting each class be either gender now (instead of a specific person) I don't know if they could really use the amazons, although I don't know if it's ever said specifically in D2 whether the amazon tribe is actually an all-female warrior society, or if it's just the one we see that is.

Well the barbarians were single-gender also (in Act V, Anya complains about not being allowed to fight, I believe) so if their culture could change, I don't see why the Amazons had to stay the same. But I think if they add Amazons or any other D2 class, those would be a great addition to an expansion pack later rather than being present for the initial release.

[AgentPaper]

Where'd you get that idea? Not only have the ranged classes outnumbered the melee since the inception of Diablo, in the first game even Warriors had to eventually get some kind of ranged ability (apoc staffs, a windforce, anything) to be able to effectively kill teleporters and runners.

At least Diablo 2 fixed that by letting melee characters run and have other ways of closing the distance (leaping, charging, dragon flight etc.) But even with that, ranged builds still far outnumber melee builds.

Ah, hm, you know, now that I think about it, you're right. Though it does seem strange. :smallconfused:


Well the barbarians were single-gender also (in Act V, Anya complains about not being allowed to fight, I believe) so if their culture could change, I don't see why the Amazons had to stay the same. But I think if they add Amazons or any other D2 class, those would be a great addition to an expansion pack later rather than being present for the initial release.

Well, the barbarians had pretty much the entire reason for their culture in the first place destroyed, as well as a large portion of their population, so the fact that they're more willing to break tradition and use every able-bodied person they have makes sense. Nothing like that has happened to the Amazon tribe, as far as we know, so it seems less likely. But of course, I don't think we even know if their culture is actually that restrictive on gender in the first place, so it's entirely possible that male warriors are just as common as female. Heck, it could be that they're a male-dominated culture as well, and the amazon we saw in D2 was a special case. (Though, I'm not exactly an expert on Diablo lore, so maybe it was said somewhere that the Amazons were a female-dominated culture)

[Avilan the Grey]

I'm betting on an Amazon, or at least someone from the Amazon tribe.

Sheer logic says No. An Amazon, by definition, cannot be male, and since we now can pick our preferred gender of every class...

[Winterwind]

As far as I remember the lore from D2, males were restricted to civilian tasks in the Amazon society.

Also, the option to choose between male and female would also exclude the Rogue from the list of possible candidats (as long as Rogue stands for a member of the Sisterhood of the Hidden Eye, anyway).

That Hunter mentioned before seems indeed like the best bet.

[Winthur]

Where'd you get that idea? Not only have the ranged classes outnumbered the melee since the inception of Diablo, in the first game even Warriors had to eventually get some kind of ranged ability (apoc staffs, a windforce, anything) to be able to effectively kill teleporters and runners.

Bah! Back in MY days, we weren't packing a rare Windforce just to kill some cowardly wussies, or some staff of apoc that required way too copious amounts of pesky Magic to bother with. We just spent our time studying HARD on that Teleport, while possibly bullying the team Sorcerer for his Amulets of Sorcery so that this whole knowledge fit in our brains, and that was only used in emergency. A true warrior could footwork his way even out of the Fireballs Crossfire(TM) on level 16 with no mana loss at all. Of course, you kids today who can't play a character if it doesn't use Enigma and BoTD, have no idea how it was back in the GOOD OLD TIMES. :smalltongue: My Rogue that recently 3-dotted is still using the armor she bought from Griswold at the beginnings of Nightmare and she LIKES IT! :smallcool:

Speaking of which, I hope Diablo 3 will be a bit more like the original Diablo. If there's a hack'n'slash fan who didn't have the joy to solo Hell/Hell on your own while fullclearing every passage, where at every corner you were scared witless if it turned out it was full of Vipers, Witches, Balrogs or Knights (or worse yet, CKM-style unique Lava Maw with his pals), you don't deserve to wear that uniform. :smalltongue:

[Winterwind]

My preferred solution to teleporting enemies was Stone Curse. Much easier to learn than Teleport, and more reliable too.


Speaking of which, I hope Diablo 3 will be a bit more like the original Diablo. If there's a hack'n'slash fan who didn't have the joy to solo Hell/Hell on your own while fullclearing every passage, where at every corner you were scared witless if it turned out it was full of Vipers, Witches, Balrogs or Knights (or worse yet, CKM-style unique Lava Maw with his pals), you don't deserve to wear that uniform. :smalltongue:I concur. Heck, I'll be more than happy if they just try to capture more of the scary atmosphere that permeated Diablo 1 and was so woefully absent in Diablo 2.

[Winthur]

My preferred solution to teleporting enemies was Stone Curse. Much easier to learn than Teleport, and more reliable too.

OBJECTION!
A warrior has a reaaaally small mana bank. Stone Curse is a solution, but not for everything; I'd use Stone Curse in small battles like at Lazarus' chamber. With well aimed Teleport and preferably a weapon of Haste, you can teleport into the group of adversaries and kill a few of your enemies, while the rest are running away and - ergo - aren't shooting you. Meanwhile, my Rogue has her mana reserves used for Mana Shield. She does use Stone Curse, but not to an overwhelming extent. The biggest thing I love about Warrior/Rogue spell repetoire is Fire Wall, it has such a huge number of uses...

I believe that if I was to Stone Curse every enemy, and in hellholes like level 16 there are a ton of Advocates that keep spamming Fireballs all over the place, I'd run out of mana pretty fast and I would have to keep rebuying it.

Then again, since I also dueled in D1 a lot, I possibly have gotten a bit more experience with Teleport than Stone Curse, so maybe I'm not right. :smalltongue:

[nosignal]

As far as I remember the lore from D2, males were restricted to civilian tasks in the Amazon society.

Also, the option to choose between male and female would also exclude the Rogue from the list of possible candidats (as long as Rogue stands for a member of the Sisterhood of the Hidden Eye, anyway).

That Hunter mentioned before seems indeed like the best bet.

The hunter mentioned in the official website would be more interesting as an NPC I think. There simply isn't enough information on the hunter for it to be the "best bet".

If anything, the image I have in mind as an ideal "hunter" would be that guy with the all the guns in Tremors, or, in WoW terms, a gun-using hunter with (goblin?) engineering, marksmanship specced, or something. It's been a while since I played.

Someone over-the-top enough to survive in Sanctuary.

[Vetreon]

My preferred solution to teleporting enemies was Stone Curse. Much easier to learn than Teleport, and more reliable too.

I concur. Heck, I'll be more than happy if they just try to capture more of the scary atmosphere that permeated Diablo 1 and was so woefully absent in Diablo 2.

Bah, stone curse? With a good sword you could stun lock them anyway.

And about d3 being more like the original, that would be cool, but judging by the videos it is far from it. :smallmad:

[Winterwind]

I believe that if I was to Stone Curse every enemy, and in hellholes like level 16 there are a ton of Advocates that keep spamming Fireballs all over the place, I'd run out of mana pretty fast and I would have to keep rebuying it.Hence why I usually take something like 20 mana potions when I go down there. :smalltongue:
But yes, with a weapon of Haste one can get up to them and stunlock them into not teleporting away... most of the time, anyhow. Stone Curse still helps with preventing all the others from shooting at you while you hack at one though.


If anything, the image I have in mind as an ideal "hunter" would be that guy with the all the guns in Tremors, or, in WoW terms, a gun-using hunter with (goblin?) engineering, marksmanship specced, or something. It's been a while since I played.Okay, you know that feeling warty goblin mentioned before, where you see lots of words, understand every single one of them, but the way they are arranged makes no sense at all, though you feel it has a very precise meaning? That's how I am feeling right now.

Okay, once more, for somebody who hasn't ever played WoW?

Also, I'm pretty sure guns and gunpowder have not been invented in Sanctuary yet.


Someone over-the-top enough to survive in Sanctuary.Hmmm... even with all the magical powers of the characters in the previous parts, so far Blizzard tried to keep Diablo at least moderately dark and serious. I wouldn't want them to change that, it wouldn't do the setting justice.


Bah, stone curse? With a good sword you could stun lock them anyway.Yes, if you had one, sure. :smallwink:


And about d3 being more like the original, that would be cool, but judging by the videos it is far from it. :smallmad:Hmm, I dunno... for example, the very first gameplay video, where they showed off the barbarian - a pleasingly dark dungeon, where monsters appear all around the player with little to no forewarning, and with something horrible stalking somewhere beyond the walls... seemed to be a lot more focused on building up mood than anything I've ever seen in D2.

[factotum]

Okay, once more, for somebody who hasn't ever played WoW?


I don't think having played WoW is an issue--he just basically wants a hunter with a gun rather than one using bow and arrow. And you're right, such a thing would fit in Sanctuary about as well as a 747 with missile launchers on the wings...

[Optimystik]

There's that blind devotion to nostalgia cropping up again. Yahtzee was right.

I'm sorry, but I can't think of a single thing Diablo did better than Diablo 2. Not one. The combat is far better, you don't have to rely on spells outside your class to beat enemies, and as for "atmosphere"... Diablo 2 drips with it. The problem is that most players don't actually play through the areas that have it. That claustrophobia and dread people are saying is so lacking, I can easily experience just playing through Nihlathak's area, or City of the Damned, and any of the underground areas in Acts 1-3, especially on Hell.

Are Diablos 2 and 3 more focused on action than their originator? Yes. But if feeling helpless and terrified is how you want to feel, you're better off playing Silent Hill or something.

[Dallas-Dakota]

I remember being ****ing scared every time I went through act 3 in hardcore because of those hordes of agro little buggers. Which was not so much in act 2 because you could basically always run away.

[Winterwind]

There's that blind devotion to nostalgia cropping up again. Yahtzee was right....Yes, calling other people blind devotees incapable of judging why they like something or what they enjoy is a really mature way of conducting a conversation, thanks. :smallannoyed:

Seriously, this tone was totally uncalled for.

As it would happen, I played both D1 and D2 rather recently, and no, I can most definitely come up with several things I think Diablo 1 did better, that are in no way based on nostalgia.


I'm sorry, but I can't think of a single thing Diablo did better than Diablo 2. Not one. The combat is far better, you don't have to rely on spells outside your class to beat enemies, and as for "atmosphere"... Diablo 2 drips with it. The problem is that most players don't actually play through the areas that have it. That claustrophobia and dread people are saying is so lacking, I can easily experience just playing through Nihlathak's area, or City of the Damned, and any of the underground areas in Acts 1-3, especially on Hell. As it would happen, I pretty much always do play through these areas, and no, I do not think they have even nearly as much atmosphere as Diablo 1 does.

For starters, the music in Diablo 2 is worse. That's subjective, obviously, but I like Diablo 1's music far more - not because of nostalgia, but because I find it far more memorable and noteworthy. When playing Diablo 1, I get captivated by the music, and the screams, moans and laughter in the background truly enhance the mood. In Diablo 2, those are far rarer, and there are but a few areas where I noticed the music at all (one noteworthy exception being the Harem/Palace Cellar, which is my most favourite area in D2 for this very reason, and one of the very few - quite possibly the only one - that I consider to be actually capable of conjuring up some sort of mood).

I liked Diablo 1's conversations far better. In Diablo 1, even though I know pretty much all of them by heart now, I still tend to walk around in town and ask people for gossip, because I find their dialogues truly enhance the immersion and convey the tragedy and terror these people are going through. Diablo 2's dialogues never managed that. And let's not even begin with the tomes telling the tales of the Horadrim or Lazarus' insane scriptures found inside the labyrinth in D1 - there is no equivalent to them in D2 at all!

Next, I found a lot of the sprites and their animations superior in D1. Compare, for instance, a goatmen from D1 with one from D2. The ones in D1 twirl around making their attacks, hack at you wildly, vary their combat style. The ones in D2 are far more boring than that.

Then, the surroundings. Even the darkest catacombs in D2 are still bright in comparison to the dungeons from D1. Also, I found the Hell from D1, with its bony thorns, boiling seas of blood and much more visibly tormented sinners a lot more impressive than the one from D2.

Of course, the very fact that in Diablo 1 a too big group of enemies can pose a serious danger, whereas in Diablo 2 one can take on incredible numbers at once and the most likely reaction to seeing a really big group is "sweet, more targets to hit with a single spell at once!" doesn't exactly help with a scary mood, either (which is why I play Diablo 2 in Hardcore only these days. It helps to restore at least a bit of that mood again).

Gameplay-wise, Diablo 2 is superior, yes, with its completely varied classes, more varied abilities and much more diverse areas. But as for mood, it doesn't even begin to compare, in my eyes.

All of the above are things I noted right upon playing through D2 for the first time, by the way, not at some point long long after I stopped playing D1, by the way.


Are Diablos 2 and 3 more focused on action than their originator? Yes. But if feeling helpless and terrified is how you want to feel, you're better off playing Silent Hill or something.I'm not sure how the possible existence of another game facilitating scariness or helplessness enters into the equation here.

[hamishspence]

well, nothing that wasn't tied closely to a quest.

D2's were all more like The Book of Blood for the Warlord in D1.

I must admit the townspeople in D1 did feel more like people, somehow. Maybe it was the voice acting and the style of phrase.

And the Hell levels did have a good style as well.

[Winthur]

I'm using both my hands, both my legs, and both my heads to sign myself under Winterwind's post! :smallbiggrin:


There's that blind devotion to nostalgia cropping up again. Yahtzee was right.
What ails you, my friend? :smallconfused: :smalltongue:
Since I sense a soul in search of answers, let me start with this:
Can't a fella joke in peace? My post about "you kids these days playing D2" was largely tongue-in-cheek, as I love both games and I'd definitely like to play D3.
So, what can I do for ya? Winterwind, I think, got it right, but I will allow myself to elaborate.

Of course, the very fact that in Diablo 1 a too big group of enemies can pose a serious danger, whereas in Diablo 2 one can take on incredible numbers at once and the most likely reaction to seeing a really big group is "sweet, more targets to hit with a single spell at once!" doesn't exactly help with a scary mood, either (which is why I play Diablo 2 in Hardcore only these days. It helps to restore at least a bit of that mood again).

That is my most favourite part of the game. If I was to say what's the most thrilling and fun moment in a game of Diablo I've ever had, it would have to be those countless times where I (sometimes with other MP folk) was forced to really use my wits and correct tactic to clear a room. That really added to scariness of the game. Playing at night, taking REALLY slow steps and waiting for monsters to come out from the side of the screen. Then, you take a turn, and suddenly a TON of monsters go your way. Sometimes I ran into such a clump in the very early game, forcing me to use whatever window of opportunity I could without waking up more monsters. Those are the times when your blood pumps 100% adrenaline. And it's scary; I always feel bad when my squishy (she has only 150 AC!) rogue going by the name Lina_Seyrunn gets caught in a stunlock and dies during her Hell/Hell runs. That death scream by Glynnis Talken Campbell always feels like a scolding. It's like what the nameless Azure soldier said to Vaarsuvius in hir dream, only paraphrased: "Curse you, noob... I hope you choke on your useless mouse skills". :smallfrown:

And in D2... It just doesn't feel the same. Granted, the theme of the game is different, and it's a different kind of fun to pummel through hordes of enemies, but I just prefer the old style.


For starters, the music in Diablo 2 is worse. That's subjective, obviously, but I like Diablo 1's music far more - not because of nostalgia, but because I find it far more memorable and noteworthy. When playing Diablo 1, I get captivated by the music, and the screams, moans and laughter in the background truly enhance the mood. In Diablo 2, those are far rarer, and there are but a few areas where I noticed the music at all (one noteworthy exception being the Harem/Palace Cellar, which is my most favourite area in D2 for this very reason, and one of the very few - quite possibly the only one - that I consider to be actually capable of conjuring up some sort of mood).

I'd also like to add that while they did restore the Tristram music in the ruins of the city, it just feels... bland. It's like Cornered in Phoenix Wright games - the original is kickass, then they have to remake it in PW2 and PW3 and it loses A LOT on it. In D2, the Tristram music just doesn't sound right. Sure, it's there, so what? While in D1, everytime I started a new game, I felt like I was going through a recital during my usual Griswold->Repair->Pepin->Health->Adria->Mana->Hell. It's just that. And I heard it A LOT. While in the dungeons, I really "feel" the music. I love the Caves one the most, with all the crying babies, and... *shivers at the sore thought*. In D2, I sometimes don't even notice the music.


Next, I found a lot of the sprites and their animations superior in D1. Compare, for instance, a goatmen from D1 with one from D2. The ones in D1 twirl around making their attacks, hack at you wildly, vary their combat style. The ones in D2 are far more boring than that.

Don't forget all the softcore porn delight of fightning the Soul Burners... :smallredface:


The combat is far better, you don't have to rely on spells outside your class to beat enemies,

I beg to differ. Like I said, the combat style in both games is vastly different, but my cup of tea was always within the art of proper footwork and tactics. The "spells outside of your class" argument hardly holds water - if you're a masochist (or a variant scum), you can play without them, but why? Every class can learn them, so they are NOT "outside your class"! But a Warrior will never be as good at throwing Fireballs around as a Sorceror; however, those Fire Walls, Stone Curses, Healings, Mana Shields, etc. are VERY helpful. Compare Civilization IV: every civ can build Wonders, but the Industrious civs with their bonus to production can build them faster and easier, making a wonder-oriented strategy much more viable. In D1, if you want to play a Fireball throwing Rogue, then knock yourself out. There are even melee mages.
I see this problem more within D2 than D1. How many times did I hear that my build is doomed for failure because it didn't have Enigma (and thus Teleport)? Quite a lot of times.

[nooblade]

Don't forget all the softcore porn delight of fightning the Soul Burners... :smallredface

I think Diablo was actually the first time I saw a naked female chest. Which is just probably why most IRL people think I'm on the creepy side..

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Just wondering something. I'm hearing rumors that all the protagonists of the previous game turned evil after killing Baal and that Deckard Cain was evil the whole time. Is this true? I really don't like the idea of my favorite character abandoning every principle he ever held dear (three guesses who and the first two don't count). :smallfrown:

[tyckspoon]

Just wondering something. I'm hearing rumors that all the protagonists of the previous game turned evil after killing Baal and that Deckard Cain was evil the whole time. Is this true? I really don't like the idea of my favorite character abandoning every principle he ever held dear (three guesses who and the first two don't count). :smallfrown:

I can't see any reason why it would be true. At the end of D1, your character picks up a shard of Prime Evil soul and jabs it in his head. This has.. predictable mind-twisting results. D2's story doesn't have you doing anything like that. And I'm pretty sure D3's male barbarian has already been explicitly confirmed to be D2's barbarian.

[hamishspence]

I think there were some references to the whole thing being due to effects of a very sneaky Diablo warping the protagonist's mind and making them think it was the right thing to do.

In the original game, the manual suggests that Albrecht's mind is responsible for a lot of the weird landscape and monsters.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I can't see any reason why it would be true. At the end of D1, your character picks up a shard of Prime Evil soul and jabs it in his head. This has.. predictable mind-twisting results. D2's story doesn't have you doing anything like that. And I'm pretty sure D3's male barbarian has already been explicitly confirmed to be D2's barbarian.

This is what it says in the TV Tropes Article:

It's only a little better as of the third game, since almost everybody save the Barbarian has gone Ax Crazy or some other form of loopy. Yes, the Paladin included.
That's why I'm concerned.:smallfrown:

[Katana_Geldar]

I think there were some references to the whole thing being due to effects of a very sneaky Diablo warping the protagonist's mind and making them think it was the right thing to do.

In the original game, the manual suggests that Albrecht's mind is responsible for a lot of the weird landscape and monsters.

Yes, this was Deckard Cain's story in the manual. Though of course, back then there were no means to destroy the soulstone once you had got it from Albrecht.

FTR, succubi et al are my favourite mook deaths in ANY game. There is nothing better than conjuring up a firewall to they can all scream and twist and die at once. I was disappointed in this, as well as other things, in the second game.

And fire walls were very, very handy in the Chamber of Bone.

[ondonaflash]

Point of order: As far as atmosphere is concerned, it certainly helped that it was always night time in Tristram in the first Diablo. Nothing is scary when seen in the stark light of day.

I don't know about the Diablo 2 heroes, but I do know that all the Diablo 1 heroes went wacky, and became Blood Raven, the Summoner, and Diablo respectively. It seems plausible that the same could happen to the second generation of heroes, it just seems like the events of Diablo II were a little bit less... traumatic than the events of Diablo.

[nosignal]

This is what it says in the TV Tropes Article:

That's why I'm concerned.:smallfrown:

Why quote from TV Tropes when the official website says

What is the story of Diablo III?

The game takes place on Sanctuary, a world of dark fantasy. Unbeknownst to most of its inhabitants, Sanctuary was saved some twenty years ago from the demonic forces of the underworld by a few brave and powerful heroes. Most of those warriors who directly faced Hell’s armies -- and were fortunate enough to survive -- went mad from their experiences. And most of the others have buried their haunted memories and pushed the horrors from their thoughts. In Diablo III, players will return to Sanctuary to confront evil in its many forms once again.

We also saw Cain in the very first gameplay trailer to be released, he like his usual self there. That said, I'd like to face a demonic Hammerdin boss, then proceed to pound him into the ground, then loot his Enigma.

What happened to Tyrael is anyone's guess though.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

That's my thoughts exactly. I mean, I could see Tyreal getting corrupted or something, but you're safely in Harrogath before he smashes the Worldstone. Unless they're talking about some kind of PTSD or something, I don't see how this could happen. Obviously the Barbarian's okay, but surely the others could have dealt with what happened just as well. :smallconfused:

[nosignal]

That's my thoughts exactly. I mean, I could see Tyreal getting corrupted or something, but you're safely in Harrogath before he smashes the Worldstone. Unless they're talking about some kind of PTSD or something, I don't see how this could happen. Obviously the Barbarian's okay, but surely the others could have dealt with what happened just as well. :smallconfused:

You know, I would have thought that the Barbarian would be the most likely to go mad, given the duty of protecting the Worldstone fell to his people.

"You call him a "survivor?" He's not. A man comes up against that kind of will, only way to deal with it, I suspect... is to become it. He's following the only course that's left to him."

and all that jazz.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Pardon? :smallconfused:

[DranWork]

my understand of what he posted is that hes basicaly saying that even tho our characters "survived" the conflict they didnt really survive it mentaly. After all having waded through hell itsself fought fallen angels ext ext your faith in the higher powers would be rather diminished. Wouldnt be suprised if the paladin went off on a holy quest to clense himself, the amazon went and found some weak man to impregnate her and she settled down as the seer of the village, the assassin went nuts and offed herself in some elaborate trap, the sorc had her powers striped from herself to keep from going mad with power, the necromancer realised that zombies and the like arnt needed anymore and turned to pottery *shrugs* that kinda thing.

The barb is a warrior, he no doubt went "home" and trained the men of the village that where left ext.

[Optimystik]

Seriously, this tone was totally uncalled for.

If my manner seemed overly dismissive, I apologize... but this isn't the first time I've seen that seemingly kneejerk "I hope Diablo 3 is more like the original than Diablo 2" statement. To which I respond, in what way? Removing the run button? Learning spells via books? Only one town? It confuses me to no end what people mean when they say that.

Everything you mentioned is subjective; the music (a point you raise and then immediately contradict by pointing out Diablo 2's greater variety); the lighting (adjust your monitor settings to taste - no, really); the conversation (I definitely preferred all the varied accents and townsfolk in D2 to Tristram's static offering); the animation (Diablo 3 has already surpassed both titles in that regard, by using polygons). Are those attributes really what people mean when they want D3 to be more like D1?

Again, I'm not trying to be confrontational, but to me it's a nonsensical statement.


I see this problem more within D2 than D1. How many times did I hear that my build is doomed for failure because it didn't have Enigma (and thus Teleport)? Quite a lot of times.

There isn't a single build in D2 that NEEDS Enigma to function. I'm pretty sure people have been clearing Hell just fine without being able to teleport past half the content. All the voices recommending the runeword to you do so because it's a damn good addition to almost all caster builds, not because it's mandatory.

[oyhr]

Diablo 3 has already surpassed both titles in that regard, by using polygons

I'm a bit curious why you consider polygons inherently better than sprites.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Pardon? :smallconfused:

Google for the TV series "Firefly". Then watch it. You won't regret it.

[Avilan the Grey]

I'm sorry, but I can't think of a single thing Diablo did better than Diablo 2.

The atmosphere was slightly scarier. I don't know what made it so, but it was.

[AgentPaper]

The atmosphere was slightly scarier. I don't know what made it so, but it was.

Perhaps because A) you were younger when you played it, and B) you hadn't experienced as much video-game violence, so it was a bigger deal? I played the original Diablo a bit after playing D2, and everything was just plain worse as far as I can tell. The story was non-existant, (Evil dungeon! Go into it!) the textures were muddy and made it hard to know what was going on, and the controls were even worse than D2. The characters you could play were painfully cliche and had no personality. The combat was pure-hack and slash, even more than D2, which is pretty much a pure hack-and-slash.

Of course, this is all judging the game from the present, which isn't fair because, for it's time, it was a great game. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was a terrible game by today's standards, so trying to "be more like" them doesn't really make sense. Learning what worked and what didn't is another matter, of course, but blindly trying to emulate it is just ridiculous.

Sorry if it seems like I'm trying to bite your head off, but most of this is directed more at the general idea some people seem to have that current games have somehow "lost their way" and that old games are better because they're old, or some such. This seems to have especially affected Diablo 3, what with stuff like the petition to make the game all dark and muddy and gloomy, instead of having many varied landscapes.

[Katana_Geldar]

Tyrael was way cool, he was by far my favourite character. The cutscene before Act III I have watched again and again, particularly with that sword.

But ever since I beat it the first time, I have been wondering what the hell happened when he destroyed the Worldstone. Baal had already corrupted it, but Tyrael said that it was the source of all magic in the world.

So, there's no more magic? :smallconfused:

[factotum]

There isn't a single build in D2 that NEEDS Enigma to function. I'm pretty sure people have been clearing Hell just fine without being able to teleport past half the content. All the voices recommending the runeword to you do so because it's a damn good addition to almost all caster builds, not because it's mandatory.

QFT. I don't think I've *ever* had an Enigma (quite hard to get when you only play single player) but I've completed Hell difficulty with several different characters since the 1.10 patch jacked up the difficulty there so much.

[Avilan the Grey]

Perhaps because A) you were younger when you played it, and B) you hadn't experienced as much video-game violence, so it was a bigger deal? I played the original Diablo a bit after playing D2, and everything was just plain worse as far as I can tell. The story was non-existant, (Evil dungeon! Go into it!) the textures were muddy and made it hard to know what was going on, and the controls were even worse than D2. The characters you could play were painfully cliche and had no personality. The combat was pure-hack and slash, even more than D2, which is pretty much a pure hack-and-slash.

Are you sure you are not describing D2? With the difference of Evil Dungeons, go into them!
And no, it was simply slightly spookier. A big part was that the monster design was slightly less corny, I think.

[Optimystik]

I'm a bit curious why you consider polygons inherently better than sprites.

Are you asking why 3d is better than 2d? You know, besides pixellation, sprite mirroring, bump mapping, shading...


Perhaps because A) you were younger when you played it, and B) you hadn't experienced as much video-game violence, so it was a bigger deal? I played the original Diablo a bit after playing D2, and everything was just plain worse as far as I can tell. The story was non-existant, (Evil dungeon! Go into it!) the textures were muddy and made it hard to know what was going on, and the controls were even worse than D2. The characters you could play were painfully cliche and had no personality. The combat was pure-hack and slash, even more than D2, which is pretty much a pure hack-and-slash.

Of course, this is all judging the game from the present, which isn't fair because, for it's time, it was a great game. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was a terrible game by today's standards, so trying to "be more like" them doesn't really make sense. Learning what worked and what didn't is another matter, of course, but blindly trying to emulate it is just ridiculous.

Q
F
T

Careful though, you might have to "watch your tone" :smallsigh:


But ever since I beat it the first time, I have been wondering what the hell happened when he destroyed the Worldstone. Baal had already corrupted it, but Tyrael said that it was the source of all magic in the world.

So, there's no more magic? :smallconfused:

According to the wiki (http://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Worldstone), the only known function for the Worldstone was keeping Heaven and Hell out of Sanctuary. Judging by its effectiveness, maybe destroying it was a good thing :smallwink:


Are you sure you are not describing D2? With the difference of Evil Dungeons, go into them!
And no, it was simply slightly spookier. A big part was that the monster design was slightly less corny, I think.

Actually, D2 was more like "Catch that demon!" They didn't do too well at capturinig the "race against time" feel since your character was perpetually late for just about every momentous occasion in Diablo's rebirth, however.

[Avilan the Grey]

Actually, D2 was more like "Catch that demon!" They didn't do too well at capturinig the "race against time" feel since your character was perpetually late for just about every momentous occasion in Diablo's rebirth, however.

Well you still catched the demon by going into the Evil Dungeons.
The monster design in D2 is slightly less serious I think, plus a part of it is the lack of development between D1 and D2. Yes there is a huge difference, but the original 640x480 resolution was a huge disappointment already when it came out. I think a lot of us had expected the feel of "Wow look how cool it looks now!" and instead we got almost as blocky graphics, at a resolution that was pathetic already when it came out, and an odd mix of really creepy monsters and really stupid ones.

The GAME is excellent, but that was a huge disappointment.

[Comet]

I always thought that Diablo 1 had one neat thing going for it.
The world was compact, simple and exciting. There was the town and underneath it a massive labyrinth of caverns and catacombs leading straight into hell itself. You start at the town and start digging down. Simple, fun and pretty heroic if you ask me.

I wouldn't mind if Diablo 3 went for a similar design. Of course it won't, and it's none the worse for it, but it could be fun to have that same feeling of an epic dungeon crawl as Diablo 1.

[Indon]

Wow, am I seriously the only person out there who pulled ranged enemies back to a door/corner to hit them with my warrior?

And Diablo had a stronger horror element, precisely because Diablo 2 had a stronger action-grind element. The pacing is a major facet of that: Diablo 2 isn't particularly scary so long as you can run, since you can just outrun almost anything (that said, a couple mods upped the game's lethality and monster speed enough to restore that atmosphere - looking at you, acts 1 and 2 of Nezeramontias).

The game was also more tense for the Warrior than the Rogue (who moved faster and thus could more effectively run away) and the Sorceror (who had Mana Shield and thus could be extremely durable against just about anything and didn't necessarily ever need to run away), so it was rather unbalanced in that aspect.

This doesn't make either game better than the other. They simply provide different experiences.

There's no chance D3 will be like the original in this regard. Diablo 3 is a solid successor to Diablo 2, and so far seems to have a bunch of new nifty features coming in, and it'll probably be better balanced. But it's going to be an action RPG with a nod to atmosphere, not a game with any kind of horror or suspense element. The gameplay at present is that of D2 but more refined.

[Winthur]

Wow, am I seriously the only person out there who pulled ranged enemies back to a door/corner to hit them with my warrior?

Are you kidding? It's a staple tactic even for my bow-using Rogue! If you are swarmed, Firewall helps there as well, because it buys you A LOT of time even against fire immunes. And it's the most efficient tactic against the Witch kind. (mages are too stubborn. They're like Siege Tanks in their Arc Lite mode.) (EDIT: Apparently, the Siege Tank's "cannon" attack is censored on those forums. :smallbiggrin: )


The game was also more tense for the Warrior than the Rogue (who moved faster and thus could more effectively run away)

:smallconfused: Really?
Rogue runs away effectively because she can cast Teleport faster and has more mana for Teleport->shoot->Teleport in really dire situations. But I thought every class moves with the same speed.

I have different experiences. My best Warrior had (because he doesn't exist anymore) AC so good that he could fight even when swarmed by Blood Knights. Meanwhile my Rogue has to sacrifice her AC so much for other abilities that although she fares well in Hell, she's pretty much dead if anything gets nearby.

Then again, Rogues have an edge against projectile firing squads.

This doesn't make either game better than the other. They simply provide different experiences.

Which was my point exactly... :smalltongue:

[oyhr]

Are you asking why 3d is better than 2d? You know, besides pixellation, sprite mirroring, bump mapping, shading...


You end up seeing the polygons, so it's not any different from pixellation. And bump mapping? Your argument is that you can do textures in 3D? Are you serious? Not to mention uncanny valley is practically unheard of with a sprite, but it's pretty common in 3D.

[Willis888]

The sounds of Diablo 1 were spookier. The upbeat marching-tune music that fades into melancholy and madness is powerful mojo - its like the evil mirror-world version of the 1812 overture that instills hopelessness rather than passion.

I still get chills when I kill Diablo in his Chaos Sanctuary and hear those chords from D1 Tristram. I found it to be evocative of a sense of wonder and mystery.

The music in D2 is uninspiring and overall the game feels more like a Super-Action-Hero comic book than a horror story.

The story was more personal - you are not tying to save the world, you are just trying to figure out wtf is going on in the church and why did Lazarus take that baby in there? The sound of a nearby baby crying while you are surrounded by demons and undead is chilling.

[Winthur]

The story was more personal - you are not tying to save the world, you are just trying to figure out wtf is going on in the church and why did Lazarus take that baby in there?

Not quite, but pretty close.
The warriors of Khanduras were there to get some gold (but it was just electroplated) and become famous. The rogues of the Sightless Eye were there to investigate and check what's the danger. And the Vizjerei sorcerers were there just to find spellbooks and go beyond the impossible (while kicking reason to the curb! You've got to be out of your mind to be a good Sorc vs Sorc player.).

Only when you get to the deepest denizens of Hell, you are told that you need to kill Diablo, otherwise Diablo is going to doom the world. (Originally, there was a concept of a "time trial" - you had to beat Diablo before the stars aligned to give him REAL ULTIMATE POWER (http://realultimatepower.net), and an item known as Map of the Stars was supposed to be your "clock", but it wasn't implemented. Of course, should the stars align... well... it would be something akin to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfyqlMBeQFU).)

...Yeah, I'm quite a bit too nerdy when it comes to an ancient game my grandpa used to play. :smallbiggrin:

[Winterwind]

If my manner seemed overly dismissive, I apologize... but this isn't the first time I've seen that seemingly kneejerk "I hope Diablo 3 is more like the original than Diablo 2" statement. To which I respond, in what way? Removing the run button? Learning spells via books? Only one town? It confuses me to no end what people mean when they say that.Well, I think I explained exactly in which ways I would prefer Diablo 3 to be more like Diablo 1 (and it included none of the above). I obviously cannot speak for others who say that, and I, too, am annoyed by people who just call out for the older stuff without providing proper justification.

To summarize once more, the ways in which I would like Diablo 3 to be more like Diablo 1:
- more notable, less generic music. This means it being either more fast-paced, include more mood-creating audio effects or (appropriate) singing, less of a purely repetitive instrumental track with not enough energy to get into my perception.
- challenges that force people to be more careful. If you run in too fast, you will be swarmed from all sides, and being swarmed from all sides is bad for you, not something you just ignore. Even more focus on that - we've seen monsters that suddenly climb up bridges behind the hero or drop from the walls - make those dangerous, so the player is scared when that happens, and I'll be happy.
- make the conversations more emotional and serious. The characters in D1 all had very serious sorrows and problems, and the voices of the speakers conveyed those, much unlike in D2. And for the High Heavens' sake, don't have people on the street speak about Prime Evils in a casual tone!
- more grim graphics. If you have to have bright-lit areas meant to be dangerous nonetheless, make them menacing in some other regard. And less censorship - the much more terrifying landscape in D1's hell, the more tormented sinners, the completely naked succubi, and things like that, all contributed to the mood.


Everything you mentioned is subjective; the music (a point you raise and then immediately contradict by pointing out Diablo 2's greater variety); the lighting (adjust your monitor settings to taste - no, really); the conversation (I definitely preferred all the varied accents and townsfolk in D2 to Tristram's static offering); the animation (Diablo 3 has already surpassed both titles in that regard, by using polygons).Firstly, yes, a lot of it is subjective. So what? I was detailing what I liked better about Diablo 1, of course the reasons were going to be subjective! I don't see how this makes them somehow invalid reasons for preferring Diablo 1 though.
Also, music: Where did I state Diablo 2 had a greater variety? I just re-read my post, there is nothing whatsoever stating that there. :smallconfused:
Lighting: That's not going to work so well in a bright-lit desert. Now, mind, I'm not saying they should not have put in a desert - by all means, diversity in landscapes is great - but why couldn't they have made it look more menacing?
Conversation: Which would have enhanced the dialogues so much more if they were not delivered completely without emotion. Where is something even remotely comparable to Farnham's sobbing? They all keep a steady, monotonous voice, even when they speak about Diablo (another thing that annoyed me - in Diablo 1, Cain is scared to even speak his name aloud, in Diablo 2, everyone and their dog speaks about him freely). Okay, granted, this could be just bad dubbing, I wouldn't know.
Animation: Which doesn't change anything about Diablo 1 being superior to Diablo 2 in this regard, in my opinion. Also, polygons are not necessarily better - just compare the graphics of WarCraft 3 and StarCraft. WarCraft 3's graphics are undeniably prettier... but they are also a lot more cartoony (which is a matter of taste) and a lot less clear, making it easier to lose the overview (which is purely bad in a micro-focused strategy game). Personally, I like WC3's graphics... but there were a lot of people upon its release that hated it.

Also, you notably omitted the one absolutely non-subjective point - the gameplay forcing one to be more cautious, as anything but small groups of enemies proved a major danger (whether this is a good or a bad thing is subjective, the fact that it is that way is not though. And it is one way in which I would like D3 to be more like D1, even though this one will most certainly not be fulfilled).


Are those attributes really what people mean when they want D3 to be more like D1? How would I know? But they are what I mean when I say that.


Again, I'm not trying to be confrontational, but to me it's a nonsensical statement.Why? What's nonsensical about it?


Q
F
T

Careful though, you might have to "watch your tone" :smallsigh:...yeah, so much for that apology you issued before.

Okay, let's see - you first call everyone expressing a different opinion than you on the comparison of D1 and D2 a blinded fanatic who sees nothing but nostalgia. I ask you to refrain from that tone - and now you pretend that I am being somehow unreasonable here? For wanting a debate where we respect the other party, rather than dismissing them as morons right at the start? :smallconfused:

Seriously, what is your major malfunction?

And no, I won't tell him to "watch his tone", as he was perfectly respectful and mature towards the other person when presenting his point.

[Winthur]

make the conversations more emotional and serious. The characters in D1 all had very serious sorrows and problems, and the voices of the speakers conveyed those, much unlike in D2. And for the High Heavens' sake, don't have people on the street speak about Prime Evils in a casual tone!

Farnham is the best prime example of this. I know this by heart: "BIG! BIG CLEAVER, KILLING ALL MY FRIENDS! COULDN'T STOP HIM, HAD TO RUN AWAY! Couldn't save them, trapped in a room with so many bodies, so many friends! NOOOOO! *breaks into tears*". All because you gave him mention about a lowly mini-boss. (well, not quite lowly, but once you learn some underhanded ways to beat him, he isn't that hard...) I really felt bad just pressing "The Butcher" gossip choice. :smallfrown:

In fact, you can't even talk about Diablo in D1 to anyone else than Deckard Cain. I figure that if you were talking about it around, the citizens would be trying their best to get the hell out of the city. :smalleek:

In D2 it's more like: "Oh, Diablo? That's too bad. But let's get to business! Potions? You want them? They're yooours, my friend, as long as you have enough rupees!". I don't think even G.S.P. Dibbler would be able to resort to this.


as anything but small groups of enemies proved a major danger

Sure thing, smarty. :smallannoyed: Try going after a "small group" of Spitting Terrors with a boss, I dare you. I double dare you! Plaguewrath gives me nightmares. :smalltongue:

[tyckspoon]

In D2 it's more like: "Oh, Diablo? That's too bad. But let's get to business! Potions? You want them? They're yooours, my friend, as long as you have enough rupees!". I don't think even G.S.P. Dibbler would be able to resort to this.

What? Of course he would! He'd be the one selling anti-demon charms (relabeled tiger-warding stones) to the crowd of refugees. And maybe souvenir pictures of the hero with authentic 'autographs', maybe collectable devil figures, "I killed an MSLE boss and all I got was this lousy shirt" tees..

[Optimystik]

oyhr: It's obvious we're not going to agree. I like the look of 3d more than 2d ("uncanny valley" and all). What we like or dislike is pretty irrelevant at this point though, since D3 is definitely using polygons.


This doesn't make either game better than the other. They simply provide different experiences.

I'm fine with this sentiment; it's the statement that D1 is somehow better than D2 because you had... Less power? More to fear? Narrower environs?... that I find incongruous.


To summarize once more, the ways in which I would like Diablo 3 to be more like Diablo 1:
- more notable, less generic music. This means it being either more fast-paced, include more mood-creating audio effects or (appropriate) singing, less of a purely repetitive instrumental track with not enough energy to get into my perception.

I too hope D3 music will be superior to D2, but my point is that I'm indifferent as to whether that means it will be more like D1 or something completely new. As long as it's good, I don't care what it's similar to. Maybe you feel the same way, I can't tell from your post.


- challenges that force people to be more careful. If you run in too fast, you will be swarmed from all sides, and being swarmed from all sides is bad for you, not something you just ignore. Even more focus on that - we've seen monsters that suddenly climb up bridges behind the hero or drop from the walls - make those dangerous, so the player is scared when that happens, and I'll be happy.

...But that was present in D2, and is one of the main reasons Enigma is so popular. Running through Hell Worldstone absolutely mandates caution, even from uber-geared characters. Get surrounded by Undead Soul Flayers? The wrong move WILL kill you. Same for Claw Vipers, Balrogs, Black Souls,

The only difference I see is that you have a better chance of escaping a bad turn in D2 due to being able to run (and the various item-based ways of increasing your speed.)


- make the conversations more emotional and serious. The characters in D1 all had very serious sorrows and problems, and the voices of the speakers conveyed those, much unlike in D2. And for the High Heavens' sake, don't have people on the street speak about Prime Evils in a casual tone!

What? D2 conversations had plenty of emotion and seriousness. Atma's sorrow at losing her family came across perfectly in her quavering speech, as though she was holding back either tears, a scream of rage, or both. Gheed's every syllable dripped with avarice. Ormus and Asheara both spoke in suitable tones of awe after you beat Mephisto. The Act 4 NPCs needed a lot of work, I agree, but I think they rushed that one anyway.

Now, I'll agree there were misses - Natalya in particular comes to mind, you always got the impression she could have beat all the Primes with one hand tied behind her back if she didn't have to wait for her nebulous "orders" - but examples like hers are the minority.


- more grim graphics. If you have to have bright-lit areas meant to be dangerous nonetheless, make them menacing in some other regard. And less censorship - the much more terrifying landscape in D1's hell, the more tormented sinners, the completely naked succubi, and things like that, all contributed to the mood.

You call War3 graphics more "cartoony" than SC, and I disagree completely.


Firstly, yes, a lot of it is subjective. So what? I was detailing what I liked better about Diablo 1, of course the reasons were going to be subjective! I don't see how this makes them somehow invalid reasons for preferring Diablo 1 though.

They're not invalid, they're just fair game to be discounted by those whose preferences differ.


Also, music: Where did I state Diablo 2 had a greater variety? I just re-read my post, there is nothing whatsoever stating that there. :smallconfused:

I was mistaken on this point, I see now that you'd only mentioned the Harem/Palace as standing out. But for myself, I also noticed the sinister ambience in Durance, the rousing drums in Bloody Foothills, and the sorrowful strain in the demon-infested Monastery. So yeah. Again, my hope is simply that D3 is better, not that it is more or less like any specific influence.


...yeah, so much for that apology you issued before.

I apologized for my post seeming dismissive, but that doesn't make my conviction any less. By that, I mean I could have elaborated better (as AgentPaper did) on what I meant by the trap of nostalgia. I don't recall apologizing for my tone.


Okay, let's see - you first call everyone expressing a different opinion than you on the comparison of D1 and D2 a blinded fanatic who sees nothing but nostalgia. I ask you to refrain from that tone - and now you pretend that I am being somehow unreasonable here? For wanting a debate where we respect the other party, rather than dismissing them as morons right at the start? :smallconfused:

I neither called anyone "fanatics" nor "morons." Part of respecting other parties is not putting words in their mouths, wouldn't you agree?

[Winterwind]

I too hope D3 music will be superior to D2, but my point is that I'm indifferent as to whether that means it will be more like D1 or something completely new. As long as it's good, I don't care what it's similar to. Maybe you feel the same way, I can't tell from your post.Essentially. My chain of logic is
1. Diablo 1 had better music than Diablo 2.
2. I want Diablo 3 to have better music than Diablo 2.
3. Ergo, I want Diablo 3 to be more like Diablo 1 with regards to music (not in that the music is similar, necessarily, but in that it is better).


...But that was present in D2, and is one of the main reasons Enigma is so popular. Running through Hell Worldstone absolutely mandates caution, even from uber-geared characters. Get surrounded by Undead Soul Flayers? The wrong move WILL kill you. Same for Claw Vipers, Balrogs, Black Souls,

The only difference I see is that you have a better chance of escaping a bad turn in D2 due to being able to run (and the various item-based ways of increasing your speed.) Yes, there are a few monsters that are moderately dangerous in D2, in the later levels. And stronger builds won't be particularly impressed by them, either - a sorceress just teleports out of the way as soon as she sees them coming, fires a few frozen orbs to slow their advance, and picks them off at her leasure, for instance.
In D1, once one reached the Catacombs (partially even before that), just about every monster was dangerous as soon as there were more than just a few of them.


What? D2 conversations had plenty of emotion and seriousness. Atma's sorrow at losing her family came across perfectly in her quavering speech, as though she was holding back either tears, a scream of rage, or both. Gheed's every syllable dripped with avarice. Ormus and Asheara both spoke in suitable tones of awe after you beat Mephisto. The Act 4 NPCs needed a lot of work, I agree, but I think they rushed that one anyway.

Now, I'll agree there were misses - Natalya in particular comes to mind, you always got the impression she could have beat all the Primes with one hand tied behind her back if she didn't have to wait for her nebulous "orders" - but examples like hers are the minority.Debating the tone in which they speak makes little sense, as we are not (presumably) referring to the same version; I am only familiar with the German dub in D2, and I can say with certainty that I do not think it conveys emotion particularly well. Maybe the English version is better, I wouldn't know.
What they say, on the other hand - as mentioned before, people on the street speaking casually about Diablo - knowing about Diablo in the first place, for crying out loud - is totally disruptive to the mood for me.


You call War3 graphics more "cartoony" than SC, and I disagree completely.I'm... not sure how that works. I mean, have you looked at the portraits?
I'm not saying it's generally inferior, I like WC3's graphics, but SC's graphics are really going for a lot more realistic look.


They're not invalid, they're just fair game to be discounted by those whose preferences differ.Discounted in the sense of "you have those preferences, I have different preferences, so the reasons you mention for D1 being better D2 do not apply to me; I see how somebody with your preferences would like D1 better though. So let's agree D1 has merits suiting one kind of people and D2 merits suiting another kind of people, and no game is objectively better.", sure. That's perfectly valid.
Discounted in the sense of "you have those preferences, but I have the only right preferences, and all other preferences make no sense, meaning D2 is clearly objectively the better game!" is just impolite and narrow-minded, and in no way valid.


I was mistaken on this point, I see now that you'd only mentioned the Harem/Palace as standing out. But for myself, I also noticed the sinister ambience in Durance, the rousing drums in Bloody Foothills, and the sorrowful strain in the demon-infested Monastery. So yeah. Again, my hope is simply that D3 is better, not that it is more or less like any specific influence.Sadly, my perception of D2's music was less fond. I still cannot think of any other standing out beside the Harem/Palace. I'm glad for you that you were more lucky there, though. :smallsmile:


I apologized for my post seeming dismissive, but that doesn't make my conviction any less. By that, I mean I could have elaborated better (as AgentPaper did) on what I meant by the trap of nostalgia. I don't recall apologizing for my tone.I see no difference between a post being dismissive and the tone of a post being dismissive. :smallconfused:


I neither called anyone "fanatics" nor "morons." Part of respecting other parties is not putting words in their mouths, wouldn't you agree?Fanatics, devotees. Same difference. And the 'morons' part was implied when you stated anyone with different convictions than you was illogical and not making sense.

Secondly, even while I retained respect for you even after you called everyone with a different opinion than you a blinded devotee, you then proceeding to act as if it was me who was in the wrong for wanting a discussion based on mutual respect went a long way to removing any respect I had for you, at least for as long as the feeling of irritation I felt when writing that last post lasted. Alas.

But, yes, you are right. For the sake of discussion I should uphold the ideal of mutual respect, no matter if you are willing to do the same or not. And I may have been wrong about what I thought you were implying with your words or intending to say. So, yes, maybe my tone was uncalled for there, in which case, I apologize. I will pay more attention to treating you with the sort of respect that is expected in the Playground henceforth. :smallsmile:

[Avilan the Grey]

Willis & Winthur found what I was looking for! The music in D1 was better, and the smaller setting allowed for more believable characters and a story with a larger focus on Horror instead of Heroics.

[AgentPaper]

ANYWAYS there seems to be two things people want from D1 that they think D2 didn't do as well, and these are:

A) More menacing/evocative environments, music, art, monsters, etc.

For this, it's largely a matter of preference. Honestly, when I went to Diablo 1 from Diablo 2, I couldn't really take anything seriously because it was just too hard to tell what was going on. If it takes you two seconds to realize that orange-ish blob is a demon, it makes it a lot harder to be scared of it.

Music is also up to preference, but I can't claim to really remember any of the music from Diablo 2 except for the main menu theme, so perhaps that speaks for itself. :smalltongue: (Of course, I can't remember anything from Diablo 1 either, but I didn't play it as long) Blizzard seems to have some awesome resources for music, though, based on what we've seen in WoW, so I doubt that this will be a major failing point in D3.

As for environments, first I will say that a place doesn't have to be dark to be menacing. A dank cave of dungeon is fine and all, but a blisteringly cold mountain or blazing hot desert is if anything more dangerous, and plenty fearful. Granted, they would be more menacing if the environment actually affected your character somehow, but I can't think of a good way to implement that.

Also, I'd like to say that peaceful environments have their place. If you're always just in dungeons and caves and mountaintops and swamps and all those types of dangerous places nobody wants to go into, then it's easy to assume that the demons and monsters are ONLY in those places. There's probably a bunch of nicer places that most people live in, which are mostly unaffected by the troubles of these places that nobody really cares about anyways.

As soon as you have monsters attacking an otherwise peaceful area, however, it really helps to drive home that these monsters are EVERYWHERE, and everyone is getting their lives turned upside down, not just the brave adventurous types that choose to live in a swamp.

B) Stronger enemies.

This I can't really completely agree with. This is really something up to the player. If you really want to be afraid of every encounter you go into, then fine, play on a harder difficulty. However, I don't play a game so that I can die every ten seconds, and I know there are a lot of other people who don't want to spend hours trying to find the best character build so that they can stand a chance at killing Diablo.

Of course, I'm not sure why people are bringing this up, because Diablo 2 already had multiple difficulties. Normal was mostly easy, and anybody could get through. Nightmare required you to think about what you were doing, but could still be handled by anyone if they were careful. Hell was suicide for all but the most determined, well-equipped players, with the best builds possible.

[Winterwind]

As for environments, first I will say that a place doesn't have to be dark to be menacing. A dank cave of dungeon is fine and all, but a blisteringly cold mountain or blazing hot desert is if anything more dangerous, and plenty fearful. Granted, they would be more menacing if the environment actually affected your character somehow, but I can't think of a good way to implement that.I could think of a few ways:
- (in both) limitations of sight. Drifting clouds of sand or snow, making it difficult to see what exactly the things they obscure are.
- more menacing colours. A desert is not just golden sand - it's also rock (of, say, some blood-red shade, or a bony white). Ice can get pretty dark when it is deep (and there can be things frozen within, just barely visible). Etc.
- more realistic formations of rocks, buildings, fortifications etc. - okay, this might be pushing the engine's and the random map generator's limitations, but distributing more large rocks that really fill out a big area and do not always fit in cute little square formations would go a long way to making the area seem more realistic. Less straight lines in general - don't make the border of the map a nigh perfectly straight line with just the occasional tiny corridor that may or may not end in a dead end, make it more varied. It will look more realistic and thus conjure up more mood.
- if it is so hot, make it visible. Have the air fluctuate. Maybe show fata morganas. Etc.


B) Stronger enemies.

This I can't really completely agree with. This is really something up to the player. If you really want to be afraid of every encounter you go into, then fine, play on a harder difficulty. However, I don't play a game so that I can die every ten seconds, and I know there are a lot of other people who don't want to spend hours trying to find the best character build so that they can stand a chance at killing Diablo.It's not even so much a higher difficulty that I would like, as more cautious play. The game could be just as easy to finish, as long as one would play accordingly - i.e., proceeding carefully, as the individual monster would provide more of a challenge.


Of course, I'm not sure why people are bringing this up, because Diablo 2 already had multiple difficulties. Normal was mostly easy, and anybody could get through. Nightmare required you to think about what you were doing, but could still be handled by anyone if they were careful. Hell was suicide for all but the most determined, well-equipped players, with the best builds possible.You couldn't play right away on a difficulty though. You couldn't play a high-level character in an easy setting, or a low-level character in a difficult setting - while the different difficulties provided a different degree of challenge, they were mostly about providing game content for different ranges of levels. Also, Nightmare was for the most part easier than Normal, due to having the most powerful abilities of the character available and putting the skill points into the abilities one was actually using, rather than having to save them up for later.

What Diablo did not have (unless you want to count Hardcore as such) was a setting where you said you wanted the game to be more difficult, while playing through Normal (i.e., starting a new character at level 1 and playing onward). That would have been a real difficulty setting, rather than just a game for higher powered characters.

[Optimystik]

Essentially. My chain of logic is
1. Diablo 1 had better music than Diablo 2.
2. I want Diablo 3 to have better music than Diablo 2.
3. Ergo, I want Diablo 3 to be more like Diablo 1 with regards to music (not in that the music is similar, necessarily, but in that it is better).

The problem with that logic as written; if all that matters to you is the quality of the music and not the similarity, comparing D2 to D1 is unnecessary. Say I thought Final Fantasy VII's music was superior to Diablo 2's. Your chain becomes:

1. FF7 had better music than Diablo 2.
2. I want Diablo 3 to have better music than Diablo 2.
3. Ergo, I want D3 to be more like FF7 with regards to music (not that it is similar, necessarily, but in that it is better.)

If all you want is better music, why mention D1 at all? That's what confused me. Just say "I want D3 to have better music" and you avoid all possible claims of nostalgia.


Yes, there are a few monsters that are moderately dangerous in D2, in the later levels. And stronger builds won't be particularly impressed by them, either - a sorceress just teleports out of the way as soon as she sees them coming, fires a few frozen orbs to slow their advance, and picks them off at her leasure, for instance.

Barring Enigma, which other class can do that? And even the Sorc needs substantial equipment to pull off that maneuver. Surrounded by Flayers without any FHR, and she's dead, Orb or no Orb.

Besides which, problem enemies vary by class. A sorc has little problem with flayers, but far more with Black Souls. Wind druids are exactly reversed, because their cyclone armor blocks black lightning with ease but their hurricane can cause 8 USFs to pop in melee range at once, ripping him and his merc to tattered shreds.


In D1, once one reached the Catacombs (partially even before that), just about every monster was dangerous as soon as there were more than just a few of them.

To me, that's nothing more than Artifical Difficulty. Packs of monsters are more difficult in D1 because they are far better able to use hit and run tactics than you are. Maybe that appeals to you, but me? I like having options.


Debating the tone in which they speak makes little sense, as we are not (presumably) referring to the same version; I am only familiar with the German dub in D2, and I can say with certainty that I do not think it conveys emotion particularly well. Maybe the English version is better, I wouldn't know.
What they say, on the other hand - as mentioned before, people on the street speaking casually about Diablo - knowing about Diablo in the first place, for crying out loud - is totally disruptive to the mood for me.

Ah, that explains it. Well, for all I know, the german version could have the worst voice actors in creation or even blow the english version out of the water. I can only comment on what I've heard, which is the english versions of both D1 and D2, and I found the voice acting top-notch in both. Certainly D2 is not deserving of such criticism as you and others have leveled, in my opinion.


I'm... not sure how that works. I mean, have you looked at the portraits?
I'm not saying it's generally inferior, I like WC3's graphics, but SC's graphics are really going for a lot more realistic look.

Well, to be fair there's only so realistic you can make a race of green-skinned axe-wielding . But to me, the SC units looked almost like claymation.


Discounted in the sense of "you have those preferences, I have different preferences, so the reasons you mention for D1 being better D2 do not apply to me; I see how somebody with your preferences would like D1 better though. So let's agree D1 has merits suiting one kind of people and D2 merits suiting another kind of people, and no game is objectively better.", sure. That's perfectly valid.
Discounted in the sense of "you have those preferences, but I have the only right preferences, and all other preferences make no sense, meaning D2 is clearly objectively the better game!" is just impolite and narrow-minded, and in no way valid.

I've never said I have the only correct preferences... just that I can't understand yours. I do respect your right to have them. But even on the one objective issue (difficulty) we disagree.


I see no difference between a post being dismissive and the tone of a post being dismissive. :smallconfused:

I elaborated on the difference, at least as it seemed to me.


Fanatics, devotees. Same difference. And the 'morons' part was implied when you stated anyone with different convictions than you was illogical and not making sense.

No, I implied that their argument was illogical. Never did I attack the person behind that argument. It's both pointless to do so and against the rules to boot.


Secondly, even while I retained respect for you even after you called everyone with a different opinion than you a blinded devotee,

Which I did not.
(rather, I aimed my statement at those who professed that D1 "did things better" with no concrete support; for what it's worth, you're the only one who has attempted to back up that statement, however rooted in subjectivity your rationale was),


you then proceeding to act as if it was me who was in the wrong for wanting a discussion based on mutual respect went a long way to removing any respect I had for you, at least for as long as the feeling of irritation I felt when writing that last post lasted. Alas.

That was an expression of incongruity on my part, that someone (namely, AgentPaper) could say the exact same thing as me but get a much milder response. To me, there is no difference between his tone and mine, and I still believe that.


But, yes, you are right. For the sake of discussion I should uphold the ideal of mutual respect, no matter if you are willing to do the same or not. And I may have been wrong about what I thought you were implying with your words or intending to say. So, yes, maybe my tone was uncalled for there, in which case, I apologize. I will pay more attention to treating you with the sort of respect that is expected in the Playground henceforth. :smallsmile:

Fair enough... I stress that I didn't mean to get on your bad side :smallsmile: though we may never agree where the game is concerned. But I fully intend on enjoying D3, no matter how little they carry forward from D1.

[AgentPaper]

I could think of a few ways:
- (in both) limitations of sight. Drifting clouds of sand or snow, making it difficult to see what exactly the things they obscure are.
- more menacing colours. A desert is not just golden sand - it's also rock (of, say, some blood-red shade, or a bony white). Ice can get pretty dark when it is deep (and there can be things frozen within, just barely visible). Etc.
- more realistic formations of rocks, buildings, fortifications etc. - okay, this might be pushing the engine's and the random map generator's limitations, but distributing more large rocks that really fill out a big area and do not always fit in cute little square formations would go a long way to making the area seem more realistic. Less straight lines in general - don't make the border of the map a nigh perfectly straight line with just the occasional tiny corridor that may or may not end in a dead end, make it more varied. It will look more realistic and thus conjure up more mood.
- if it is so hot, make it visible. Have the air fluctuate. Maybe show fata morganas. Etc.

This all comes down to engine limitations. Visual distortions due to heat wasn't really an option when D2 was being developed, and the random map generator worked well for it's purposes, but again there was only so much they could have done with it. They seem to have been getting better at this though, for example act 5 was still random, but there was less straight lines.

As for limiting vision, that can work, and they did use this in D2, in a few places, but again with the technology they had, it was impossible for things like being able to see movement in the dark, but not know what it is. They do seem to be using tools like this, though, for example the first dungeon they showed had a mysterious, but obviously powerful monster in the background, moving around and affecting the terrain, but you only ever get a brief glimpse if it, and can never really figure out what it is until later on.


It's not even so much a higher difficulty that I would like, as more cautious play. The game could be just as easy to finish, as long as one would play accordingly - i.e., proceeding carefully, as the individual monster would provide more of a challenge.

If you have to be cautious, that's because the enemies are too dangerous for you to charge in blindly. And charging in blindly is much easier (and for some much more fun) than having to be cautious and think about what you're doing all the time, so the game is harder if you have to be wary.

Again, these are just two different play styles, and you should have the option to do either. You should be rewarded for being cautious, and you are, but if you force everyone to be cautious all the time, a lot of people (myself included) are just going to get annoyed and frustrated, and go play something else where they don't have to think so much. And it's not like each player will fall into these categories. Each person is somewhere in between, and very few are at the extremes. I know I flop back and forth all the time on whether I want to be playing a really challenging game that makes me think, and a really easy one that I can just have fun playing through mindlessly.


You couldn't play right away on a difficulty though. You couldn't play a high-level character in an easy setting, or a low-level character in a difficult setting - while the different difficulties provided a different degree of challenge, they were mostly about providing game content for different ranges of levels. Also, Nightmare was for the most part easier than Normal, due to having the most powerful abilities of the character available and putting the skill points into the abilities one was actually using, rather than having to save them up for later.

What Diablo did not have (unless you want to count Hardcore as such) was a setting where you said you wanted the game to be more difficult, while playing through Normal (i.e., starting a new character at level 1 and playing onward). That would have been a real difficulty setting, rather than just a game for higher powered characters.

This is somewhat true, but unless you spent a LOT of time grinding, nightmare and hell are going to be very difficult by the time you unlock them. Being able to select the difficulty right off would be fine, though.

[Winterwind]

The problem with that logic as written; if all that matters to you is the quality of the music and not the similarity, comparing D2 to D1 is unnecessary. Say I thought Final Fantasy VII's music was superior to Diablo 2's. Your chain becomes:

1. FF7 had better music than Diablo 2.
2. I want Diablo 3 to have better music than Diablo 2.
3. Ergo, I want D3 to be more like FF7 with regards to music (not that it is similar, necessarily, but in that it is better.)

If all you want is better music, why mention D1 at all? That's what confused me. Just say "I want D3 to have better music" and you avoid all possible claims of nostalgia.That's true, I guess. :smallbiggrin:

Though I could add that I find Diablo 1's music superior for a very specific reason (namely, that I find it conjures up a spooky atmosphere better), so I could say "I want D3 to have music that is, to me, as moody as D1's".


Barring Enigma, which other class can do that? And even the Sorc needs substantial equipment to pull off that maneuver. Surrounded by Flayers without any FHR, and she's dead, Orb or no Orb.

Besides which, problem enemies vary by class. A sorc has little problem with flayers, but far more with Black Souls. Wind druids are exactly reversed, because their cyclone armor blocks black lightning with ease but their hurricane can cause 8 USFs to pop in melee range at once, ripping him and his merc to tattered shreds.True, but on the other hand...
Any class with summons will have those block the USFs and divert the fire from the Black Souls (and even for classes without summons, the merc is still going to do that to some degree). Ranged classes, especially those with area effects, will shoot the USFs before they close and be sufficiently far away from the Black Souls to evade their attacks (I remember what happened when I played my first lightning fury javazon and was lucky enough to get Titan's Revenge from Normal Baal... for the first acts of Nightmare, I hardly ever even saw enemies, because my attack killed not only those on screen but also those one screen ahead :smallbiggrin:).


To me, that's nothing more than Artifical Difficulty. Packs of monsters are more difficult in D1 because they are far better able to use hit and run tactics than you are. Maybe that appeals to you, but me? I like having options.It's not just hit and run tactics. It's also the fact that more than as soon as there were just a few attackers, one immediately ended up in stun/block-lock. And that, when hit by a ranged attack while moving from one square to the other, one was shifted back to the centre of the square, so that escaping was much more difficult (sure, it was a failing of the engine, but it did make groups of ranged opponents pleasingly dangerous).

It was particularly notable when looking at Knocks Enemy Back effects. In D1, those were awesome, and Griswold's Edge was an excellent weapon for having that mod, because it allowed one to fight a big group of melee monsters while not having to face all of them at once. In D2, I actively avoided weapons with that mod, because all they did was slow down my killing speed against melee and helping ranged opponents to get more shots at me.


Ah, that explains it. Well, for all I know, the german version could have the worst voice actors in creation or even blow the english version out of the water. I can only comment on what I've heard, which is the english versions of both D1 and D2, and I found the voice acting top-notch in both. Certainly D2 is not deserving of such criticism as you and others have leveled, in my opinion.As I said, I have no way to judge that. :smallwink:


Well, to be fair there's only so realistic you can make a race of green-skinned axe-wielding . But to me, the SC units looked almost like claymation. Fair enough. I don't share that sentiment, but I can see how one could arrive at that conclusion. That would be the point where we choose to agree to disagree, I believe. :smallbiggrin:


I've never said I have the only correct preferences... just that I can't understand yours. I do respect your right to have them. But even on the one objective issue (difficulty) we disagree.Agreeing on preferences and understanding them are two completely different things. If somebody tells me his favourite game genre are FPSs, I completely understand that (I mean, it's a simple enough statement - s/he likes the adrenaline rush, the first-person immersion, the challenge to the reflexes, the group tactics or some other aspect of the genre and puts enough emphasis on it to choose it as her/his favourite genre then), even though I completely disagree (as my own preferences are totally different).


No, I implied that their argument was illogical. Never did I attack the person behind that argument. It's both pointless to do so and against the rules to boot."blind devotion"? That's not attacking an argument, that's a straight forward attack on the people expressing that sentiment. It's saying that the other side is not thinking straight, just choosing to stupidly shout out their opinion that is set in stone, without any reflection or reason.


Which I did not.
(rather, I aimed my statement at those who professed that D1 "did things better" with no concrete support; for what it's worth, you're the only one who has attempted to back up that statement, however rooted in subjectivity your rationale was),As mentioned before, I dislike it immensely when people make such claims without providing reasons themselves... though I don't think anybody here has been doing that. In fact, everyone else in here has made clear statements of what they liked about D1 in comparison to D2, too.


That was an expression of incongruity on my part, that someone (namely, AgentPaper) could say the exact same thing as me but get a much milder response. To me, there is no difference between his tone and mine, and I still believe that.He only questioned the validity of the other side's arguments, rather than attacking the people themselves.


Fair enough... I stress that I didn't mean to get on your bad side :smallsmile: though we may never agree where the game is concerned. But I fully intend on enjoying D3, no matter how little they carry forward from D1.Sounds good to me. :smallsmile:

EDIT:
This all comes down to engine limitations. Visual distortions due to heat wasn't really an option when D2 was being developed, and the random map generator worked well for it's purposes, but again there was only so much they could have done with it. They seem to have been getting better at this though, for example act 5 was still random, but there was less straight lines.Well, they did have all those effects from spells flying around, so I think they could have added at least some of the visual effects I mentioned if they had wanted to; I could rather imagine they didn't want to as it would have made the game unplayable on low-end machine (and Blizzard always pays a lot of attention to keeping their games' requirements low). Which is perfectly valid, of course, but unfortunate for those who had sufficiently good computers at the time.


As for limiting vision, that can work, and they did use this in D2, in a few places, but again with the technology they had, it was impossible for things like being able to see movement in the dark, but not know what it is. They do seem to be using tools like this, though, for example the first dungeon they showed had a mysterious, but obviously powerful monster in the background, moving around and affecting the terrain, but you only ever get a brief glimpse if it, and can never really figure out what it is until later on.Indeed, which is why I am rather optimistic with regards to Diablo 3 and its capacities for inducing mood. :smallsmile:


If you have to be cautious, that's because the enemies are too dangerous for you to charge in blindly. And charging in blindly is much easier (and for some much more fun) than having to be cautious and think about what you're doing all the time, so the game is harder if you have to be wary.

Again, these are just two different play styles, and you should have the option to do either. You should be rewarded for being cautious, and you are, but if you force everyone to be cautious all the time, a lot of people (myself included) are just going to get annoyed and frustrated, and go play something else where they don't have to think so much. And it's not like each player will fall into these categories. Each person is somewhere in between, and very few are at the extremes. I know I flop back and forth all the time on whether I want to be playing a really challenging game that makes me think, and a really easy one that I can just have fun playing through mindlessly.Absolutely true, no doubt about it. The thing is, when I say what I would like D3 to be like, I am saying what I would like it to be like to suit my own preferences. I'm not saying a higher difficulty and enforcing caution would make the game objectively better for everyone - it would make it subjectively better for me.

Mind, if it means more people are going to have fun this way, I'm perfectly okay with it not being that difficult. Heck, I'll even vote for it not being that difficult, in that situation. But as far as my own preferences are concerned, I would like it to be more difficult, because as you said those are two different playstyles, and I know which one I prefer. :smallwink:


This is somewhat true, but unless you spent a LOT of time grinding, nightmare and hell are going to be very difficult by the time you unlock them. Being able to select the difficulty right off would be fine, though.Just so. :smallsmile:

[Winthur]

To me, that's nothing more than Artifical Difficulty. Packs of monsters are more difficult in D1 because they are far better able to use hit and run tactics than you are. Maybe that appeals to you, but me? I like having options.

...Hit & run tactics?
In my D1? :smallconfused:
Unless I don't understand the meaning properly.

The monsters in D1 have a rather set pattern of fightning. Usually the archers (with the exception of Hell's magicians) follow you while walkers... well, walk towards you. Some unique things happen like Viper zigzagging. But usually you meet them in such mixes that ensues in what I consider my bread & butter - the whole footwork business, where separating enemies and picking them off one to one is a staple of every good player. Sure, you do run a lot and tend to pick fights one on one, because that's most effective. You CAN have an AC/HP tank that will be able to be surrounded and go out with it, but you will still have to use a lot of bottles. So that might be kinda repetitive.

But since every class has a certain access to various tools, you can invent a lot of ways to kill your enemies. See the whole thing about Stone Curse vs Teleport against masses of projectile firing jerks. My favourite is Firewall that I've found TONS of uses for for every class, because it's so low maintenance and effective even on low levels.


If all you want is better music, why mention D1 at all? That's what confused me. Just say "I want D3 to have better music" and you avoid all possible claims of nostalgia.

But it emphasises the point. That the music in D2, at least according to me and WW, is really lackluster compared to the original.


Besides which, problem enemies vary by class. A sorc has little problem with flayers, but far more with Black Souls. Wind druids are exactly reversed, because their cyclone armor blocks black lightning with ease but their hurricane can cause 8 USFs to pop in melee range at once, ripping him and his merc to tattered shreds.

Which isn't exactly different from D1. I remember being too much of a sissy to fight the max-immune enemies in Hell as a Sorcerer, preferring to do something I called affectionally "Lazarus Slingshot" - essentially a rush. A rogue is squishy, but she doesn't have those problems with other shooting enemies. A warrior has a ton of problems with casters that he often has to supplement with spells and a really smart play, but he survives a lot more and usually has a lot better AC.


Well, for all I know, the german version could have the worst voice actors in creation or even blow the english version out of the water. I can only comment on what I've heard, which is the english versions of both D1 and D2, and I found the voice acting top-notch in both.

Lucky you. In Polish version, Gheed is gay and Cain jizzes in his pants every other sentence. And everyone sounds bored. Atma, for example, is devoid of her sorrow. But that's just as an afterthought - don't reply to it. :smalltongue:


you're the only one who has attempted to back up that statement

Now you make me feel bad. :smallfrown:

Well, to be fair there's only so realistic you can make a race of green-skinned axe-wielding . But to me, the SC units looked almost like claymation.

Well, true, the graphics are fitting to their times. But I'm with Winterwind on this one. Something entirely subjective, but I just find SC more appealing to the eye. WC3 does seem cartoony, and while SC doesn't go for a lot of detail (for a LONG time I thought that Hydralisk is spitting his projectiles...), I'm kinda distracted by all the shiny colours and the huge eyes in WC3. Does it look like something a grade schooler could do in his Art class? Maybe, but considering the game's age... Oh, screw it, I just like it better. :smalltongue: You don't have to agree with that.

Let me just wrap this up:
While I consider both Diablo games great, I just have more fond memories with the original. It's aged, but it's still action packed enough to satisfy me. Adding the great atmosphere and better music for my tastes.
While D2 didn't do that bad on this, it's justified by sidetracking from the feeling of the original game, but as a result just can't find anything special within it. In D1, I am still really moved by all the details like music and atmosphere. But I guess that because of the "cautious" gamestyle, it really grew on you, when you were forced to play slowly and therefore had a lot of time to listen to music:

I have no problem with that. I always play normally when I'm forced to take baby steps and scout around with arrows, while I can no longer distinguish the music from the beating of my heart. I always play normally when a dead guy on a pole reminds me about what's going to happen to me if I slip up and awake too many monsters. I also **** normally! RIGHT IN MY PANTS!

When I'm running around in D2 throwing special abilities around (AND ALSO HAVING FUN), it's just "there" - it plays, it's fine, but it could as well not exist. But I also appreciate the kind of fun D2 gives. It certainly gives some more variety with skills, allowing you to have some enormous fun if you don't get caught up in the mindless MF running. It does have a lot of conveniences like running, which I would deeply appreciate during my routes like Pepin -> Adria -> Cow chat :smallwink: -> Wirt -> Hell entrance.

On the other hand, just running is kinda boring at the beginning. I always cringe when I have to repeat Normal difficulty with every new character. In D1, the slow pacing and less power just makes the game more fun during this time, which helps. Of course, now I always rush my characters past Normal.

So, in my and only my humble opinion, while I enjoy both games, I just have some better memories with D1 overall, but that doesn't tarnish D2 in any way. If D3 combines the best of the two - and it shapes up like it's going to do so - it will be great.


Fair enough... I stress that I didn't mean to get on your bad side

OK, let's have some milk and cookies! :smallbiggrin:

[AgentPaper]

@Winterwind:

I was just pointing out how, when you said, "I don't want the game to be harder, I just want the player to need to be more cautious." you were contradicting yourself, because if you need to be more cautious, it's because the game is harder, so you want the game to be harder.

Which is fine, as long as there's room for the type that wants to run in blindly as well. This could happen in choosing which difficulty to play on, or even just in what class you play. The barbarian is perfectly suited to running in and smashing faces, (and actually does best when surrounded, because of all his PBAoE type attacks) but the Wizard has to use her abilities to stay away from enemies and avoid their attacks, while aiming her offensive spells carefully to take out as many enemies as possible.

[Winterwind]

@Winterwind:

I was just pointing out how, when you said, "I don't want the game to be harder, I just want the player to need to be more cautious." you were contradicting yourself, because if you need to be more cautious, it's because the game is harder, so you want the game to be harder....yes, you are right.


Which is fine, as long as there's room for the type that wants to run in blindly as well. This could happen in choosing which difficulty to play on, or even just in what class you play. The barbarian is perfectly suited to running in and smashing faces, (and actually does best when surrounded, because of all his PBAoE type attacks) but the Wizard has to use her abilities to stay away from enemies and avoid their attacks, while aiming her offensive spells carefully to take out as many enemies as possible.Hmmm... differences in classes would work well enough in single-player, might be rather problematic in multi-player though (as the class which could just run in, rather than proceeding cautiously, would be quite obviously more powerful, and players who prefer to play a more difficult game do not necessarily also prefer to be overshadowed).

[Optimystik]

That's true, I guess. :smallbiggrin:

Though I could add that I find Diablo 1's music superior for a very specific reason (namely, that I find it conjures up a spooky atmosphere better), so I could say "I want D3 to have music that is, to me, as moody as D1's".

Mood depends on a lot of things. In Diablo 1, you were venturing into the dank and not entirely sure of what awaited you down there (besides unimaginable peril, anyway.)

In Diablo 2, you're on a manhunt. You're not just joe schmoe adventurer either; you are a member of an elite demon-hunting society out to prove to the three losers from D1 just why they suck. For your Priest of Rathma/Zann Esu/Viz'Jaqtaar/Zakarumite/etc. to feel any trepidation at that task just wasn't fitting for the game.

The music in D2 fits that mood like a glove. Bits of fear perhaps, but over everything, sheer determination. Your character is fully expecting to mow down demons by the score. Just listen to the line they blurt out when they walk outside town in Act 1.

You're free to dislike D2's mood, but the music goes hand in hand with it.


True, but on the other hand...
Any class with summons will have those block the USFs and divert the fire from the Black Souls (and even for classes without summons, the merc is still going to do that to some degree).

You must have hellacious reflexes to be able to consistently shoot fetishes before they get near you :smalltongue: Black souls can and will fire from just offscreen though, and their attacks will go right through your merc or pet, so avoiding them entirely isn't always an option.


It's not just hit and run tactics. It's also the fact that more than as soon as there were just a few attackers, one immediately ended up in stun/block-lock. And that, when hit by a ranged attack while moving from one square to the other, one was shifted back to the centre of the square, so that escaping was much more difficult (sure, it was a failing of the engine, but it did make groups of ranged opponents pleasingly dangerous).

That right there is where you and I will never see eye to eye. I just can't juxtapose the terms "failing of the engine" and "pleasingly dangerous." If difficulty arises from a broken system, that's one of the first things I hope gets fixed in a sequel or patch.


As I said, I have no way to judge that. :smallwink:

Then it is my hope that your hopes are reserved for the German version. :smalltongue:


Agreeing on preferences and understanding them are two completely different things. If somebody tells me his favourite game genre are FPSs, I completely understand that (I mean, it's a simple enough statement - s/he likes the adrenaline rush, the first-person immersion, the challenge to the reflexes, the group tactics or some other aspect of the genre and puts enough emphasis on it to choose it as her/his favourite genre then), even though I completely disagree (as my own preferences are totally different).

I know the difference. As I've shown above (for example, with your opinion of knockback in D1) there are some preferences you have that I simply can't flat out understand.


"blind devotion"? That's not attacking an argument, that's a straight forward attack on the people expressing that sentiment. It's saying that the other side is not thinking straight, just choosing to stupidly shout out their opinion that is set in stone, without any reflection or reason.

On the topic of nostalgia, this is a frequent enough failing that I'm not wrong in presuming it. I still don't consider it an attack, any more than the trope page on it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NostalgiaFilter) would be an attack. Especially since I, you know, didn't actually single anyone out in my post. :smallconfused:


As mentioned before, I dislike it immensely when people make such claims without providing reasons themselves... though I don't think anybody here has been doing that. In fact, everyone else in here has made clear statements of what they liked about D1 in comparison to D2, too.

Those "clear statements" aren't all that clear to me. Most of them boil down to the music being somehow more immersive and evocative of fear, and inferior gameplay making the game artificially harder. Well if I can play a game that lets me run at the same speed as the monsters and don't have to get my warrior boning up on his literature to make it past certain foes, I think I'd rather have that system.


He only questioned the validity of the other side's arguments, rather than attacking the people themselves.

Again I ask, who did I attack?

[Winterwind]

Mood depends on a lot of things. In Diablo 1, you were venturing into the dank and not entirely sure of what awaited you down there (besides unimaginable peril, anyway.)

In Diablo 2, you're on a manhunt. You're not just joe schmoe adventurer either; you are a member of an elite demon-hunting society out to prove to the three losers from D1 just why they suck. For your Priest of Rathma/Zann Esu/Viz'Jaqtaar/Zakarumite/etc. to feel any trepidation at that task just wasn't fitting for the game.

The music in D2 fits that mood like a glove. Bits of fear perhaps, but over everything, sheer determination. Your character is fully expecting to mow down demons by the score. Just listen to the line they blurt out when they walk outside town in Act 1.

You're free to dislike D2's mood, but the music goes hand in hand with it.Well, it not being noteworthy enough for me to create any sort of mood at all most of the time doesn't help exactly, but other than that, yeah, I guess that's right. :smalltongue:

Seeing how I vastly prefer the mood of D1 though, the point still stands.


You must have hellacious reflexes to be able to consistently shoot fetishes before they get near you :smalltongue: Black souls can and will fire from just offscreen though, and their attacks will go right through your merc or pet, so avoiding them entirely isn't always an option.Yes, but what little gets through doesn't pose a real danger anymore.


That right there is where you and I will never see eye to eye. I just can't juxtapose the terms "failing of the engine" and "pleasingly dangerous." If difficulty arises from a broken system, that's one of the first things I hope gets fixed in a sequel or patch.I don't know if it's a broken system - it's the way the game was designed, period. Whether it was deliberate or whether these are just side-effects, how would I know? But if it makes the game more fun, all the better. :smallcool:

You seem to see some difference between natural and artificial difficulty, or something that is a deliberate part of the game and something that is a broken system, and (so far) I haven't got a clue how you differentiate those; it's most certainly some distinction I do not see at all.


Then it is my hope that your hopes are reserved for the German version. :smalltongue::smalltongue:


I know the difference. As I've shown above (for example, with your opinion of knockback in D1) there are some preferences you have that I simply can't flat out understand.Umm... you have not actually said anything in response to the part about knockback. :smallconfused:

Other than that, which part do you not understand? I will gladly elaborate.
Though I'd think considering the music is superior and the mood of the game better are perfectly straight-forward points about which there is little to not understand, no matter if one agrees or not...


On the topic of nostalgia, this is a frequent enough failing that I'm not wrong in presuming it. I still don't consider it an attack, any more than the trope page on it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NostalgiaFilter) would be an attack. Especially since I, you know, didn't actually single anyone out in my post. :smallconfused: You did not single anybody out, but you posted it in response to Winthur, Vetreon and me expressing how we would like D3 to be more like D1, so it was directed at us.


Those "clear statements" aren't all that clear to me. Most of them boil down to the music being somehow more immersive and evocative of fear, and inferior gameplay making the game artificially harder. And what isn't clear about those?


Well if I can play a game that lets me run at the same speed as the monsters and don't have to get my warrior boning up on his literature to make it past certain foes, I think I'd rather have that system.Suit yourself. I see nothing inherently superior in the latter point and consider the first one actively bad (why should there be no faster monsters? That's purely immersion-breaking and limiting diversity. I'd much rather have a wide variety of slow and fast monsters).


Again I ask, who did I attack?Winthur, Vetreon and me. As well as anybody else who might be of the opinion there are traits in D1 that are desirable for D3 to follow.

[Karoht]

Before we proceed, let's clarify we're on the same grounds here - did you play on BattleNet, or singleplayer? Lower difficulties only, or Hell-difficulty as well? Pre-1.10-patch, or post-1.10-patch (put differently, before or after synergies were put into the game)?

BattleNet, post-1.10, Hell-difficulty play, only a sorceress intended for very specific runs is likely to go with one element only, as there will be too many immunes for comfortable play otherwise. On the other hand, scattering points all over the place rather than focusing them on the few abilities one intends to use, as well as their synergies, will leave you with too little damage output to do much of anything - in particular in post-1.10 play, where Hell monsters were buffed immensely.

Since you asked...

I played on all 3 difficulty levels with all character classes. So my point applies to more than just sorc. I played from launch, I think I stopped playing shortly after 1.10 because at that point boredom had finally set in.
I wasn't on battle.net much. It was a lot of solo play. But I played with /players 8 at all times, once I discovered that I could. After a while, that level of challenge was all that kept me interested.

Seeing as we are focusing on sorc for the moment, my build went something like this.
1 point in everything, because I would at some point or another eventually use everything. That's just how I played. I maxed out warmth for the regen, I'd placed enough points into energy shield to make it worth while (probably 8 or 10), the rest of my points were roughly evenly distributed between fire wall, charged bolt (because I HATED chain lightning), frozen orb (my three main attacks), all three masteries, and then a smattering of points in glacial spike (enough that I got 2 whole seconds of freeze in hell difficulty), the one that left the fire trail behind you (blaze I think it was called), and I think static field just for the range increment. I would static field about every 2 seconds just in case something was in range that I couldn't see. On top of all that, I stacked as much +skill and + resistance gear as possible, along with damage = %mana return items. I am pretty sure I had +12 to all skills working for me (which did boost synergies at one point, not sure if they changed that), possibly more like +15.

I solo'd everything with that build. I farmed with that build. I grouped with that build. Heck I tele-tanked and cc'd with that build. Even if I could have respec'd I wouldn't have. I did plenty enough damage. I would never give up that much utility. As for damage, once I static field'd baal, I would only need 1 minute of constant firewall plus all kinds of other attacks at the same time to kill him, usually less. Note that this character never hit 90. I didn't have the crazy awesomest gear in the game, but I'd say what I had was respectable.

I pvp'd from time to time. Typically won against people higher level than myself. At 64 I beat an 83 Amazon and a 75 Assassin at the same time. Good times that.

[Optimystik]

Seeing how I vastly prefer the mood of D1 though, the point still stands.

I'm not sure what the story of D3 will be. You may get that mood again depending on what our characters are trying to do. Too early to tell.


Yes, but what little gets through doesn't pose a real danger anymore.

If you and your merc are geared to the point that souls aren't a problem, then you had little danger to begin with. But don't gear your character to the nines and then complain that the game isn't challenging. Take something off.


You seem to see some difference between natural and artificial difficulty, or something that is a deliberate part of the game and something that is a broken system, and (so far) I haven't got a clue how you differentiate those; it's most certainly some distinction I do not
see at all.
...
Umm... you have not actually said anything in response to the part about knockback. :smallconfused:


These are part of the same point, so I'll put them together. You said that one of the harder parts of D1 was staying away from monsters when their ranged attacks would pull you back into the square you were trying to escape from.

Unless their arrows all have ropes attached hooks on the end, that can't be an intentional game decision, and therefore it can't be natural difficulty. It's a "failing of the engine" to use your own words - and thus, artifical difficulty.


Other than that, which part do you not understand? I will gladly elaborate.
Though I'd think considering the music is superior and the mood of the game better are perfectly straight-forward points about which there is little to not understand, no matter if one agrees or not...

I already said what I didn't understand. Your dislike of the music, though it fit D2's "manhunt" mood far better than D1's "sinister oppression" music would have; Your dislike of the power of the characters, when I already explained the D2 ensemble were meant to be elite; and the knockback bit was just an example of many engine failings in D1, with the major one for me being the need for warriors to grab spellbooks or face mediocrity in Hell.


And what isn't clear about those?

Nothing, I just don't see why they'd matter a hill of beans to a game designer. They probably know that no matter what they do they'll be pleasing some fans and alienating others, so I guess we're just along for the ride.


You did not single anybody out, but you posted it in response to Winthur, Vetreon and me expressing how we would like D3 to be more like D1, so it was directed at us.
...
Winthur, Vetreon and me. As well as anybody else who might be of the opinion there are traits in D1 that are desirable for D3 to follow.

If you want to trump my observation up into a personal attack then be my guest. I was citing a common phenomenon, one that both Yahtzee and TvTropes have identified, and yes I did post it after some of you made that assertion, but that still doesn't make it an attack. Maybe I should have just linked to the trope page and left it at that, but I felt the need to post why I thought such a line of thought is an intellectual trap. And I still see no difference between AP's post and mine. *shrug*

And there's a world of difference between "D1 has traits that D3 should follow" and "D3 should be more like D1 than D2." The first statement is inclusive, the second is not. Guess which one I was replying to?


Suit yourself. I see nothing inherently superior in the latter point and consider the first one actively bad (why should there be no faster monsters? That's purely immersion-breaking and limiting diversity. I'd much rather have a wide variety of slow and fast monsters).

I never said there should be no faster monsters. I said that the player should have the option of becoming speedy if they so choose. In D2, every class has that option (through faster R/W items) and the good melee classes either have ways of closing the distance, or decent backup ranged attacks that fit them thematically.

[Morty]

Myself, I enjoyed D1 even though I played it much later than D2. But I'd be torn if I had to decide between them. D1's gloom atmosphere appealed to me, but D2 was much better technically. And of course, my favorite part of D2 is Act One.
I also have to add that I've never played on BattleNet or went far into Nightmare not to mention Hell, so I'm really not a hardcore D2 player.

[Winterwind]

Since you asked...[...]Hmmm...
I haven't played a character as scattered as that myself, so I cannot say it with certainty, it looks much to me as if you played pre-1.10 though. Because 1.10, while introducing synergies, also made monsters stronger. By a lot. Synergized builds have enough trouble fighting in Hell; a character so completely neglecting synergies as yours should have all the more trouble. Doubly so if you actually wasted points in a skill like Warmth.

Oh, and I'm quite sure +skill items never counted for synergies.


I'm not sure what the story of D3 will be. You may get that mood again depending on what our characters are trying to do. Too early to tell.I see it the exact other way. Mood does not arise from the story; the story is written to suit a certain mood. I hope they pick the right mood to write a story for.


If you and your merc are geared to the point that souls aren't a problem, then you had little danger to begin with. But don't gear your character to the nines and then complain that the game isn't challenging. Take something off.If you remember our discussions from the D2 thread, you might recall I use self-found equipment only. The highest rune I ever saw in my life is a Gul, the most expensive runewords I ever used are Spirit and Rhyme. My resistances in Hell often end up around the 20ies, far from maxed, and I consider anything more than +5 to all skills a lot.

So... yeah. High level equipment is seriously not needed, not even against these most dangerous monsters in the game.


These are part of the same point, so I'll put them together. You said that one of the harder parts of D1 was staying away from monsters when their ranged attacks would pull you back into the square you were trying to escape from.

Unless their arrows all have ropes attached hooks on the end, that can't be an intentional game decision, and therefore it can't be natural difficulty. It's a "failing of the engine" to use your own words - and thus, artifical difficulty.It is a failing of the engine to be unable to simulate characters in between squares. However, at some point, Blizzard's developers must have noticed that, and they decided to keep it in. Their arrows not having ropes attached means nothing - it has no analogon in reality, but what does it matter, it's the way the game was made. It does not make the game more inconvenient to play for me, it has the benefitial effect of providing me with a challenge, so I'm perfectly fine with it.

And you still haven't said anything about Knock Back effects (note, the Knock Back part referred to the 'knocks enemy back' power on weapons with the Of The Bear suffix).


I already said what I didn't understand. Your dislike of the music, though it fit D2's "manhunt" mood far better than D1's "sinister oppression" music would have;I don't see any basis for the claim D2 was supposed to have such different mood than D1. Nor that the music suits this purpose better.

Plus, as I have mentioned in just about every of my posts, the music not providing the mood I want is just one of the drawbacks I see in it. The second one is that I just do not think the music is very good, independently of the mood.


Your dislike of the power of the characters, when I already explained the D2 ensemble were meant to be elite;Not any more than the D1 characters. And you draw up a logical connection where there is none - why should my preference for a higher difficulty shift just because the characters are supposedly elite? :smallconfused:


and the knockback bit was just an example of many engine failings in D1, So? I still see only the end result, how something came to be - whether as limitation of the system they could not get rid of or deliberate choice matters nil to me.


with the major one for me being the need for warriors to grab spellbooks or face mediocrity in Hell.I see nothing bad about that whatsoever. Why shouldn't they enhance their choice of options by magic? Weapons still remain their main mode of operations. Demanding more from players than just running up to enemies and clicking them repeatedly, giving them a lot of ways to operate and forcing them to use them strikes me as a good thing.


Nothing, I just don't see why they'd matter a hill of beans to a game designer. They probably know that no matter what they do they'll be pleasing some fans and alienating others, so I guess we're just along for the ride.How does a game designer enter into here? Everyone has been stating their own preferences; nobody expects a Blizzard employee to be reading this thread... :smallconfused:


If you want to trump my observation up into a personal attack then be my guest. I was citing a common phenomenon, one that both Yahtzee and TvTropes have identified, and yes I did post it after some of you made that assertion, but that still doesn't make it an attack. Maybe I should have just linked to the trope page and left it at that, but I felt the need to post why I thought such a line of thought is an intellectual trap. And I still see no difference between AP's post and mine. *shrug*"There's that blind devotion to nostalgia cropping up again."
'There'? If that's not in reference to the people posting before you, what is this 'there' supposed to refer to then, hm?
Oh, and linking to the TVTropes page would have been just as much of an attack. Rather than providing a sensible argument why D3 being more like D1 was not desirable, or questioning what the people saying it should meant precisely by that, you instead chose to insult them as blinded devotees. If you see nothing insulting about 'blind devotion', I really cannot help you anymore.


And there's a world of difference between "D1 has traits that D3 should follow" and "D3 should be more like D1 than D2." The first statement is inclusive, the second is not. Guess which one I was replying to?Where you say there is a world of difference, I see none whatsoever. The statements are synonym. If D3 follows traits of D1, it becomes more like it; if it becomes more like D1, it does so by following some of its traits.


I never said there should be no faster monsters. I said that the player should have the option of becoming speedy if they so choose. In D2, every class has that option (through faster R/W items) and the good melee classes either have ways of closing the distance, or decent backup ranged attacks that fit them thematically.What's your point, then? In both D1 and D2 there are monsters that are slower and monsters that are faster than the player. That D2 characters can cross more distance in a shorter time is undeniable, but then, nobody ever claimed anything else, or that this was not a most desirable thing.

[Gullara]

Must have Diablo III

[The Glyphstone]

Where you say there is a world of difference, I see none whatsoever. The statements are synonym. If D3 follows traits of D1, it becomes more like it; if it becomes more like D1, it does so by following some of its traits.



I think I can see the difference he's talking about - it's a case of Rectangles are Squares, but Squares are not Rectangles. If D3 features some things from D1 (say, the ability of melee characters to learn a small amount of magic) but is still closer in feel/spirit to the monster-hunting hack and slash of D2 than D1's creepiness, then they have succeeded in 'having D3 follow traits of D1', but not 'being more like D1 than D2'.

[Winterwind]

I think I can see the difference he's talking about - it's a case of Rectangles are Squares, but Squares are not Rectangles. If D3 features some things from D1 (say, the ability of melee characters to learn a small amount of magic) but is still closer in feel/spirit to the monster-hunting hack and slash of D2 than D1's creepiness, then they have succeeded in 'having D3 follow traits of D1', but not 'being more like D1 than D2'....you know, I totally missed the "than D2" part in "D3 should be more like D1 than D2". With it, it makes sense, sure.

In which case I'm simply going to point out I never said anything like that though. I always said I want it to "be more like D1", never "be more like D1 than D2".

[hamishspence]

One of the more irritating things in D2 was that you had to pick everything up before saving, if you wanted to keep it, and that saving caused nearly everything to respawn, as well as making you start back in town.

The waypoints partially made up for it, but it did seem to me, that the save game system in Diablo 1 actually suited me more.

[Optimystik]

So... yeah. High level equipment is seriously not needed, not even against these most dangerous monsters in the game.

I never said it was "needed," just that wearing great gear and complaining that the game is too easy is incongruous.

You're right, Spirit and Rhyme are far from high end, but they beat a lot of uniques. Want more challenge? Don't wear them. Simple.


It is a failing of the engine to be unable to simulate characters in between squares. However, at some point, Blizzard's developers must have noticed that, and they decided to keep it in. Their arrows not having ropes attached means nothing - it has no analogon in reality, but what does it matter, it's the way the game was made. It does not make the game more inconvenient to play for me, it has the benefitial effect of providing me with a challenge, so I'm perfectly fine with it.

You're assuming a level of attention to detail from Blizzard developers that has very little basis in reality. They let all kinds of bugs slip through the cracks, especially in D1 (you can STILL use the belt item-dupe method for instance, over a decade after release) and I'm positive that wasn't an intended feature, so saying a feature must be intended just because it's possible is silly.


And you still haven't said anything about Knock Back effects (note, the Knock Back part referred to the 'knocks enemy back' power on weapons with the Of The Bear suffix).

I was referring to your comment about enemy attacks knocking YOU back to your square. Not the "Knockback" property on PC weapons.


I don't see any basis for the claim D2 was supposed to have such different mood than D1. Nor that the music suits this purpose better.

This is subjective territory. You see no basis for my interpretation, just as I see no basis for yours. We've already agreed to disagree on D1 and D2 mood, I was merely explaining my side.


Plus, as I have mentioned in just about every of my posts, the music not providing the mood I want is just one of the drawbacks I see in it. The second one is that I just do not think the music is very good, independently of the mood.

And as I have mentioned in every one of mine, I disagree with you on this and will continue to do so. You even mentioned that I may have noticed more of the music than you did at one point; it's not a mark against you, it just means we have no common ground where the music is concerned.


Not any more than the D1 characters. And you draw up a logical connection where there is none - why should my preference for a higher difficulty shift just because the characters are supposedly elite? :smallconfused:

The fact that they are elite should justify their greater capacity for slaughter than their D1 versions. Hell, the D1 characters are reduced to mere mercenaries in D2 - if that doesn't indicate the power level shift, what will?


So? I still see only the end result, how something came to be - whether as limitation of the system they could not get rid of or deliberate choice matters nil to me.

Again, why would they consciously choose to leave an unrealistic bug in the game just to make it harder? A far more likely hypothesis is that they simply didn't notice.

If I'm walking away from you and you shoot me in the back, how would that pull me back toward you? It makes no sense, but that's what happens in D1. It's a bug, not a feature.


I see nothing bad about that whatsoever. Why shouldn't they enhance their choice of options by magic? Weapons still remain their main mode of operations. Demanding more from players than just running up to enemies and clicking them repeatedly, giving them a lot of ways to operate and forcing them to use them strikes me as a good thing.

Of course it's a good thing, but D2 did it far better - give the player options, but keep them thematic. A D1 Warrior has to learn magic to be effective later on, but a D2 Barbarian can be effective without doing anything un-barbarianlike. Logically, if a player picks a sorceress, they want to cast spells, just like if they pick a barbarian, they want to swing a weapon.


How does a game designer enter into here? Everyone has been stating their own preferences; nobody expects a Blizzard employee to be reading this thread... :smallconfused:

Must you read my posts so literally...

We're talking about a game that's still in development, so I used the game developer as a personification of how anyone's assertions about the game's mood would be would be utterly meaningless in the long run.

In other words, Blizzard knows, or should know, that no matter what they do with D3's mood, whether making it darker and more oppressive (like you want) or maintaining the sense of power and mastery that D2 had (like I want) they will end up alienating one of us. No matter what they do, someone will be disappointed. That's what I was getting at.

Is it possible to have both? Perhaps, but I don't see it.


"There's that blind devotion to nostalgia cropping up again."
'There'? If that's not in reference to the people posting before you, what is this 'there' supposed to refer to then, hm?

For the umpteenth time: It was a reference to that line of thinking.


Oh, and linking to the TVTropes page would have been just as much of an attack. Rather than providing a sensible argument why D3 being more like D1 was not desirable, or questioning what the people saying it should meant precisely by that, you instead chose to insult them as blinded devotees. If you see nothing insulting about 'blind devotion', I really cannot help you anymore.

With all due respect WW, I don't recall asking for your help.


What's your point, then? In both D1 and D2 there are monsters that are slower and monsters that are faster than the player. That D2 characters can cross more distance in a shorter time is undeniable, but then, nobody ever claimed anything else, or that this was not a most desirable thing.

The difference is simple. D1 has no way (other than teleport and stone curse) of reliably closing distance with monsters that want to stay at range. So for PCs that want to melee, they have to either learn some magic (and if you don't want to learn magic, tough!) or... well actually, that's the only option. Diablo 2 fixed that by giving players more options, and I will always consider more options superior in games.


...you know, I totally missed the "than D2" part in "D3 should be more like D1 than D2". With it, it makes sense, sure.

In which case I'm simply going to point out I never said anything like that though. I always said I want it to "be more like D1", never "be more like D1 than D2".

I'm glad Glyph read my post as closely as he did, it saved me quite a bit of exasperated typing.

My whole "blind nostalgia" comment that sparked this nonsense was directed at people that DID say "be more like D1 than D2." If you weren't one of them, why on earth were you defending a position you don't hold yourself?

[Winthur]

My whole "blind nostalgia" comment that sparked this nonsense was directed at people that DID say "be more like D1 than D2." If you weren't one of them, why on earth were you defending a position you don't hold yourself?
HOLD IT!
Your snark was apparently in retailation to posts of mine and Winterwind. I've went back in panic to see what did I do? Maybe it's another screw-up? Maybe I've just started another flamewar that I will be forever ashamed to bear? I'm really sensitive lately about stuff, so I quickly rushed to the topic, spamming CTRL+F->Winthur. My heart was beating like that time on the StarCraft 1v1 camp where I put my 12 hatch into my expa---... I will spare you the details. And here's what I saw.


Speaking of which, I hope Diablo 3 will be a bit more like the original Diablo.
I've written only that. No mention about being more D1 than D2.
Didn't you just contradict yourself? :smallconfused: Why on Earth are you attacking a position that was never set up in the first place? :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

Skipping over game mechanics....


Diablo 1 just felt a bit more like Horror than D2 did.

The guy at the entrance.

The Butcher and his lair.

Upside-down burning crosses.

The shrines morphing into monstrous faces when you clicked on them.

The journals- especially those by Lazarus.

The townsfolk dialogue.

The terrain of the Hell levels.

Etc.

[Winterwind]

I never said it was "needed," just that wearing great gear and complaining that the game is too easy is incongruous.

You're right, Spirit and Rhyme are far from high end, but they beat a lot of uniques. Want more challenge? Don't wear them. Simple.That would sort of defeat the point of a game I play mostly for the sake of building up a character that is as powerful and as wealthy as possible, wouldn't it? :smalltongue:


You're assuming a level of attention to detail from Blizzard developers that has very little basis in reality. They let all kinds of bugs slip through the cracks, especially in D1 (you can STILL use the belt item-dupe method for instance, over a decade after release) and I'm positive that wasn't an intended feature, so saying a feature must be intended just because it's possible is silly.The belt-item-dupe method is something that can accidentally happen once in a while. Being pulled back after being hit while moving happens all the time. I could see them missing the former, I cannot imagine they were unaware of the latter.
I'm not saying it was an intended feature though. Rather, I believe it was something they were well aware of and decided to keep it in the game because they deemed it not worthy of their time (or maybe even not possible with their engine at the time) to remove it. If they had thought it totally broke the game, I'm sure they would have done something to amend it though.
In the end result, it's something that is just a part of the experience when playing the game to me.


I was referring to your comment about enemy attacks knocking YOU back to your square. Not the "Knockback" property on PC weapons.Yes, I know. Which is a pity, as I thought that other line of thought exemplified my thinking much better.


This is subjective territory. You see no basis for my interpretation, just as I see no basis for yours. We've already agreed to disagree on D1 and D2 mood, I was merely explaining my side.Well, then explain the basis for your interpretation to me. I'll gladly do the same with mine.
The lore for the characters in the respective manuals gives the impression of a fairly similar power level. The Sorceress in D2 is described as a member of a powerful clan of Magi that chose to focus on one type of magic; the Sorceror (to keep the original spelling) in D1 is described as member of another, more generalist and bigger clan, and his capabilities are described with just as much awe. The D1 characters are the absolute elite of the adventurers coming to Tristram; not only that, they are even explicitly mentioned in ancient prophecies ("Beyond the Gateway of Blood and past the Hall of Fire, Valor waits for the Hero of Light to awaken!"). In D2, adventurers set out to investigate the source of evil that befell the western lands and the Hidden Eye monastery, and then choose to chase after the evil once they identify it, just as adventurers in D1 set out to investigate the trouble that befell Tristram and go after it.
Where in this equation does anything enter that indicates D2 heroes are supposed to be an order of magnitude more mythical people than the D1 heroes?


And as I have mentioned in every one of mine, I disagree with you on this and will continue to do so. You even mentioned that I may have noticed more of the music than you did at one point; it's not a mark against you, it just means we have no common ground where the music is concerned.As you are free to do. I'm just irritated by your claim you cannot understand my point of view here; I understand the fact your taste for music and perception thereof is different from mine just fine, and as such, if you said you liked D2 better because it has better music, I'd not consider it in any way illogical or not understandable - it'd be a perfectly sensible and logical argument.


The fact that they are elite should justify their greater capacity for slaughter than their D1 versions. Hell, the D1 characters are reduced to mere mercenaries in D2 - if that doesn't indicate the power level shift, what will?All that indicates is that these individual Rogues and Warriors do not happen to be mythical heroes. By your logic, the D2 Barbarian is not a D2 hero because Barbarians can also be hired as mercenaries. I believe that the Warrior in D1 is a far-above-standard Warrior, the Rogue the most powerful of the Rogues, etc. (and the D2 manual states that this is correct). Likewise, the D2 Barbarian is evidently a far-above-standard Barbarian, and I would extrapolate the same applies to the other classes as well.

And you are still missing my point. You keep repeating their greater potential for slaughter is justified - as if it being justified or not had any impact whatsoever on my preference whether I find it more fun to play with greater or smaller potential for slaughter!


Again, why would they consciously choose to leave an unrealistic bug in the game just to make it harder? A far more likely hypothesis is that they simply didn't notice.

If I'm walking away from you and you shoot me in the back, how would that pull me back toward you? It makes no sense, but that's what happens in D1. It's a bug, not a feature.No doubt. I think they actually noticed it and decided it was not worth fixing, or to complicated to fix it, or something like that, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

However, how does this statement in any way relate to what I said? Allow me to paraphrase the paragraph you were replying to there and your response to it:

Me: I don't care if it's a bug or a feature, I like the end result.
You: But it's a bug, not a feature!

See the disconnect?


Of course it's a good thing, but D2 did it far better - give the player options, but keep them thematic. A D1 Warrior has to learn magic to be effective later on, but a D2 Barbarian can be effective without doing anything un-barbarianlike. Logically, if a player picks a sorceress, they want to cast spells, just like if they pick a barbarian, they want to swing a weapon. Just so. If you recall, my very first reply to you stated that I consider a lot of D2's gameplay mechanics to be superior to D1's.


Must you read my posts so literally...

We're talking about a game that's still in development, so I used the game developer as a personification of how anyone's assertions about the game's mood would be would be utterly meaningless in the long run.

In other words, Blizzard knows, or should know, that no matter what they do with D3's mood, whether making it darker and more oppressive (like you want) or maintaining the sense of power and mastery that D2 had (like I want) they will end up alienating one of us. No matter what they do, someone will be disappointed. That's what I was getting at.

Is it possible to have both? Perhaps, but I don't see it.Definitely. What's your point though? This thread is, amongst other things, for people to express what their preferences for D3 would be like. Of course not all of them will be fulfilled. Doesn't mean they cannot state them though. So... what were you trying to say up there?


For the umpteenth time: It was a reference to that line of thinking."There's that blind devotion to nostalgia cropping up again. Yahtzee was right."
In response to several posts stating they would like D3 to be a bit more like D1. Stating that blind devotion was 'cropping up there again' (evidently meaning the posts you replied to). With a sentence indicating that the belief in blind devotion to nostalgia being around had just been confirmed (which makes sense only

Just whom are you kidding? You did accuse everyone you responded to of blind devotion; you may not have intended that, but that's the only possible interpretation of the words you used.


With all due respect WW, I don't recall asking for your help.It was a figure of speech.


The difference is simple. D1 has no way (other than teleport and stone curse) of reliably closing distance with monsters that want to stay at range. So for PCs that want to melee, they have to either learn some magic (and if you don't want to learn magic, tough!) or... well actually, that's the only option. Diablo 2 fixed that by giving players more options, and I will always consider more options superior in games.Fully agreed.


I'm glad Glyph read my post as closely as he did, it saved me quite a bit of exasperated typing.

My whole "blind nostalgia" comment that sparked this nonsense was directed at people that DID say "be more like D1 than D2." If you weren't one of them, why on earth were you defending a position you don't hold yourself?Because, as far as I can tell, nobody in this thread said they wanted D3 to be more like D1 than D2, and your post was in response to people saying they wanted D3 to be more like D1 (without the "than D2" addition), of which I was one.

[Optimystik]

That would sort of defeat the point of a game I play mostly for the sake of building up a character that is as powerful and as wealthy as possible, wouldn't it? :smalltongue:

One of the side effects of power and wealth is that it makes the monsters less challenging, you know.


The belt-item-dupe method is something that can accidentally happen once in a while. Being pulled back after being hit while moving happens all the time. I could see them missing the former, I cannot imagine they were unaware of the latter.
I'm not saying it was an intended feature though. Rather, I believe it was something they were well aware of and decided to keep it in the game because they deemed it not worthy of their time (or maybe even not possible with their engine at the time) to remove it. If they had thought it totally broke the game, I'm sure they would have done something to amend it though.
In the end result, it's something that is just a part of the experience when playing the game to me.

Not only can duping happen "once in a while," it is an exploit that can be reliably and routinely reproduced. And sure, it doesn't break the game (at least nor for you and me), any more than the knocklock bug we've been discussing does; but the fact that a bug doesn't break the game doesn't make it any less of a bug. Even if they left it in the game out of sheer laziness, does not justify its presence.


Yes, I know. Which is a pity, as I thought that other line of thought exemplified my thinking much better.

Why on earth would I be talking about "Knocks enemy back?" That's not a bug, that's an actual item property in BOTH games. :smallconfused:


Well, then explain the basis for your interpretation to me. I'll gladly do the same with mine.
The lore for the characters in the respective manuals gives the impression of a fairly similar power level. The Sorceress in D2 is described as a member of a powerful clan of Magi that chose to focus on one type of magic; the Sorceror (to keep the original spelling) in D1 is described as member of another, more generalist and bigger clan, and his capabilities are described with just as much awe. The D1 characters are the absolute elite of the adventurers coming to Tristram; not only that, they are even explicitly mentioned in ancient prophecies ("Beyond the Gateway of Blood and past the Hall of Fire, Valor waits for the Hero of Light to awaken!"). In D2, adventurers set out to investigate the source of evil that befell the western lands and the Hidden Eye monastery, and then choose to chase after the evil once they identify it, just as adventurers in D1 set out to investigate the trouble that befell Tristram and go after it.
Where in this equation does anything enter that indicates D2 heroes are supposed to be an order of magnitude more mythical people than the D1 heroes?

The manual itself answers your question. Every single D2 character is determined to prove that they are better than the D1 characters from the outset, by hunting down the one that failed to contain Big Red.

And you have not addressed my second piece of evidence, that the D1 PCs are relegated to almost pack mule status in the sequel. Blood Raven, described as "one of their finest warriors in the battle against Diablo at Tristram" is a mere speedbump for your character's progress. The Zann Esu hold the Vizjerei in heavy derision in the sorceress entry.

As for "only going to help the rogues and then finding out about Diablo later," this is plainly false. Both the sorceress and assassin mention Diablo by name the instant they set foot in Tristram, for instance. (and again in Act 4 on his defeat: "A hero's mistake is finally corrected.")


As you are free to do. I'm just irritated by your claim you cannot understand my point of view here; I understand the fact your taste for music and perception thereof is different from mine just fine, and as such, if you said you liked D2 better because it has better music, I'd not consider it in any way illogical or not understandable - it'd be a perfectly sensible and logical argument.

Oh, I can understand that you have different preferences. What I can't understand is why you think the two games should have the same mood, or why an oppressive mood is a better match for D2 than the one it has. If I'm mistaken in either of those conclusions, please tell me.


All that indicates is that these individual Rogues and Warriors do not happen to be mythical heroes. By your logic, the D2 Barbarian is not a D2 hero because Barbarians can also be hired as mercenaries. I believe that the Warrior in D1 is a far-above-standard Warrior, the Rogue the most powerful of the Rogues, etc. (and the D2 manual states that this is correct). Likewise, the D2 Barbarian is evidently a far-above-standard Barbarian, and I would extrapolate the same applies to the other classes as well.

The finest rogue, if you can believe Kashya, was Blood Raven. It's reasonable for me to assume that the other two had similar power levels.


And you are still missing my point. You keep repeating their greater potential for slaughter is justified - as if it being justified or not had any impact whatsoever on my preference whether I find it more fun to play with greater or smaller potential for slaughter!

It being justified has everything to do with me understanding your point of view. From where I'm sitting, it sounds like you're saying "they have a higher potential for slaughter than the D1 foes, but they should still be creeping around corners in fear of the next pack of monsters." It makes no sense to me.


No doubt. I think they actually noticed it and decided it was not worth fixing, or to complicated to fix it, or something like that, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

However, how does this statement in any way relate to what I said? Allow me to paraphrase the paragraph you were replying to there and your response to it:

Me: I don't care if it's a bug or a feature, I like the end result.
You: But it's a bug, not a feature!

See the disconnect?

The disconnect I'm having is this:

Me: "It's a bug, they should fix it."
You: "But it makes the game harder! They should leave it alone!"

Again, I just can't understand.


Definitely. What's your point though? This thread is, amongst other things, for people to express what their preferences for D3 would be like. Of course not all of them will be fulfilled. Doesn't mean they cannot state them though. So... what were you trying to say up there?

That you can say what you want, but I won't agree with or even understand most of it.


"There's that blind devotion to nostalgia cropping up again. Yahtzee was right."
In response to several posts stating they would like D3 to be a bit more like D1. Stating that blind devotion was 'cropping up there again' (evidently meaning the posts you replied to). With a sentence indicating that the belief in blind devotion to nostalgia being around had just been confirmed (which makes sense only

Just whom are you kidding? You did accuse everyone you responded to of blind devotion; you may not have intended that, but that's the only possible interpretation of the words you used.

Fine, report me if you're that incensed about it. I really don't care anymore. But I still think my post was the same as AgentPaper's, even if you don't.


Because, as far as I can tell, nobody in this thread said they wanted D3 to be more like D1 than D2, and your post was in response to people saying they wanted D3 to be more like D1 (without the "than D2" addition), of which I was one.

Winthur's long post about "HIS day," warriors studying teleport, and being scared witless while largely tongue-in-cheek, still incorporated a lot of the nostalgia that I found dangerous. As did several of yours about mood. If you two weren't comparing D1 to D2 in saying those things, then what the heck were you comparing them to? Final Fantasy?

[dentrag2]

... Has anyone actually cleared Hell with a necromancer?

I have.

I have fond memories of hitting myself (Iron Maiden from the Oblivion Knights) For something like 20k damage.

Good times.

[Winthur]

Winthur's long post about "HIS day," warriors studying teleport, and being scared witless while largely tongue-in-cheek, still incorporated a lot of the nostalgia that I found dangerous.

HOLY [BLEEP]!!!
NOSTALGIA ALERT!!!
THIS IS NOT A DRILL! I repeat, THIS IS NOT A DRILL!
Nostalgia is going to devour us!
I'm sure someone in the peacekeeping special forces is now kissing his wife goodbye in order to battle the Anti-Spirals Nostalgians.

Seriously, now.

That post? It was entirely a big joke. I know my humor sucks and I'm entirely out of wit (and I demonstrate it by replacing humor with stupid references), but that was all it is. An attempt on a joke. Most of it was an attempt at genuine humor that was supposed to lighten up the mood of all the players that remember those days, while poking fun on the "You All Kids These Days" rants... I wasn't going with the torch saying "VIVA LA REVOLUTION!" to make D3 a carbon copy of D1, and if I had the power, I still wouldn't start buying all Diablo 2 copies in the world just so I could burn them.


As did several of yours about mood. If you two weren't comparing D1 to D2 in saying those things, then what the heck were you comparing them to? Final Fantasy?

But what's WRONG in comparing two games that are not only of the same genre, they're the same trademarks and the same companies! Why is it so suddenly wrong to see things that - in only a few opinions - were done better in the original game? No one here said that D2 is inferior to D1, and even if he did, it's his opinion and he isn't forcing it on anyone.

Trying to pick out by arguments that "Things that made D1 really good and unique are in fact just engine flaws" is like debating the superiority of Easter and Christmas.

It's like going to Star Trek convention and saying: "Well, TOS sucks because it's that much older than TNG, I can't see anyone in their right mind liking the bogus original when TNG is all that much fresher and better done." I honestly have no idea what's your point now. :smallconfused:
It evolves into a mindset of: "Star Wars Prequels are totally newer and hotter. What kind of a loser would you have to be to prefer the Original Trilogy?"

Just leave us old geezers alone. If it bothers you so much, my old, grumpy, 15-year old bones will keep my opinions about D1 to myself and I will (nostalgically) fap to the Soul Burners at home without bothering anyone. :smallannoyed:

[hamishspence]

The finest rogue, if you can believe Kashya, was Blood Raven. It's reasonable for me to assume that the other two had similar power levels.

In Diablo 2 there is a big leap up in power between Blood Raven and The Summoner.

So how powerful was Blood Raven before she became a "corrupted rogue"?

The third, we don't know about, but we know he can defeat the Warlord (or possibly an illusion based on Albrecht's memories of him) and Diablo himself (albeit a weakened version of him)

Assuming they are all on a par with the corrupted Blood Raven in power seems a bit of a stretch.

As for the arrow thing- I figure that a person hit by an arrow while moving is bound to freeze up for a moment.

[Optimystik]

Trying to pick out by arguments that "Things that made D1 really good and unique are in fact just engine flaws" is like debating the superiority of Easter and Christmas.

Winterwind's posts are actually saying the reverse; that engine flaws are part of what make D1 really good and unique.

That's a matter of taste, but they are still flaws. Later iterations of the game can't be taken to task for fixing them; they never belonged there to begin with. Whether it took them 10 weeks or 10 years to be aware of them, they should be removed. If they want to leave them in, they should at least justify them. Magical magnets, grappling hooks, something that makes the slightest bit of sense. If they aren't willing to do that, then they should either fix it, or not care about suspension of disbelief.


It's like going to Star Trek convention and saying: "Well, TOS sucks because it's that much older than TNG, I can't see anyone in their right mind liking the bogus original when TNG is all that much fresher and better done." I honestly have no idea what's your point now. :smallconfused:
It evolves into a mindset of: "Star Wars Prequels are totally newer and hotter. What kind of a loser would you have to be to prefer the Original Trilogy?"

I don't recall calling anyone a "loser" either. You two are going out of your way to make my post personal.


Just leave us old geezers alone. If it bothers you so much, my old, grumpy, 15-year old bones will keep my opinions about D1 to myself and I will (nostalgically) fap to the Soul Burners at home without bothering anyone. :smallannoyed:

Your like for D1 isn't what bothers me (hell, I like it too); what bothers me is the GENERAL tendency to whitewash the past, flaws and all, just as AgentPaper mentioned in his post. Whatever differences you perceive in our tone, our message is exactly the same.

You two are singling me out for some mystically distilled insult and completely disregarding the fact that we said the exact same thing.


In Diablo 2 there is a big leap up in power between Blood Raven and The Summoner.

So how powerful was Blood Raven before she became a "corrupted rogue"?

The third, we don't know about, but we know he can defeat the Warlord (or possibly an illusion based on Albrecht's memories of him) and Diablo himself (albeit a weakened version of him)

Assuming they are all on a par with the corrupted Blood Raven in power seems a bit of a stretch.

Fair enough, but one thing is certain - they're all weaker than the D2 cast, which is the main point, since your D2 character ends up killing them all.


As for the arrow thing- I figure that a person hit by an arrow while moving is bound to freeze up for a moment.

Freeze up is one thing, but get propelled back in the direction that the arrow came from? Newton's head would be spinning.

As it happens, the freezing up bit is exactly what happens in D2 (provided the arrow takes off enough health.)

[Winterwind]

One of the side effects of power and wealth is that it makes the monsters less challenging, you know.Sure. Doesn't change anything about how the monsters are gauged though, how that power scales and what happens when one progresses too uncautiously.


Not only can duping happen "once in a while," it is an exploit that can be reliably and routinely reproduced. And sure, it doesn't break the game (at least nor for you and me), any more than the knocklock bug we've been discussing does; but the fact that a bug doesn't break the game doesn't make it any less of a bug. Even if they left it in the game out of sheer laziness, does not justify its presence.The thing is, you seem to say "it's a bug, so it's bad, get rid of it!". My point of view is: "Okay, it's a bug. Does it make the game worse? Yes? Get rid of it, then. No? Okay, have it stay."


Why on earth would I be talking about "Knocks enemy back?" That's not a bug, that's an actual item property in BOTH games. :smallconfused:Because of this (in response to why packs of monsters in D1 are more dangerous than in D2):

It was particularly notable when looking at Knocks Enemy Back effects. In D1, those were awesome, and Griswold's Edge was an excellent weapon for having that mod, because it allowed one to fight a big group of melee monsters while not having to face all of them at once. In D2, I actively avoided weapons with that mod, because all they did was slow down my killing speed against melee and helping ranged opponents to get more shots at me.


The manual itself answers your question. Every single D2 character is determined to prove that they are better than the D1 characters from the outset, by hunting down the one that failed to contain Big Red. Just because they set their goals higher initially does not mean they are more powerful initially.


And you have not addressed my second piece of evidence, that the D1 PCs are relegated to almost pack mule status in the sequel. Blood Raven, described as "one of their finest warriors in the battle against Diablo at Tristram" is a mere speedbump for your character's progress. The Zann Esu hold the Vizjerei in heavy derision in the sorceress entry.And note that these two have failed and not defeated Diablo, much unlike what happens when you play a Rogue or a Sorceror in D1 and beat him. Clearly not the same continuity. It cannot be the same continuity, because it can be only one who defeats Diablo.


As for "only going to help the rogues and then finding out about Diablo later," this is plainly false. Both the sorceress and assassin mention Diablo by name the instant they set foot in Tristram, for instance. (and again in Act 4 on his defeat: "A hero's mistake is finally corrected.")Okay, I'll grant you that.


Oh, I can understand that you have different preferences. What I can't understand is why you think the two games should have the same mood, or why an oppressive mood is a better match for D2 than the one it has. If I'm mistaken in either of those conclusions, please tell me.Not 'should' have the same mood. Blizzard is free to put whatever mood they want to in their games, as long as it suits the players. I'm not presumptuous enough to dictate what sort of mood a game must have.

However, when talking about my personal preferences, I find a dark, sinister mood a lot more fun to play in. Hence, if D2 had had such a mood, I would have found it more fun. That includes the gameplay and the story fitting that mood. Simple as that.


The finest rogue, if you can believe Kashya, was Blood Raven. It's reasonable for me to assume that the other two had similar power levels.Since the Warrior defeated Diablo, certainly not.


It being justified has everything to do with me understanding your point of view. From where I'm sitting, it sounds like you're saying "they have a higher potential for slaughter than the D1 foes, but they should still be creeping around corners in fear of the next pack of monsters." It makes no sense to me.I never said anything about them having a higher potential for slaughter; that was you.

The thing is, you seem to set out from the assumption the D2 characters having a higher potential for slaughter - be that true or not - was the only possible way to go from, and anything that did not fit that was inconsistent.
No. Blizzard had a choice what story to write and what characters to make. If they had made the characters creep around corners in fear of the next pack of monsters, then obviously those characters would not have had a higher potential for slaughter. That was not a given from the start. And me, personally, I would have preferred characters cautious of the next pack of monsters, not in spite their higher potential for slaughter, but because of the lack thereof.


The disconnect I'm having is this:

Me: "It's a bug, they should fix it."
You: "But it makes the game harder! They should leave it alone!"

Again, I just can't understand.See above. It being a bug is not enough to warrant removal; it making the game worse would be.


That you can say what you want, but I won't agree with or even understand most of it.Okay, if that's the stance you prefer to take, I'm out of this discussion. Have a nice day.


Fine, report me if you're that incensed about it. I really don't care anymore. But I still think my post was the same as AgentPaper's, even if you don't.If I had any inclination to do so, I would have done that right away.


Winthur's long post about "HIS day," warriors studying teleport, and being scared witless while largely tongue-in-cheek, still incorporated a lot of the nostalgia that I found dangerous. As did several of yours about mood. If you two weren't comparing D1 to D2 in saying those things, then what the heck were you comparing them to? Final Fantasy?We were not comparing D1 to anything. We were saying we wanted D3 to be more like D1 in certain regards than D2 was in these regards (which is something completely different than saying D3 should be more like D1 than D2, as it says nothing about where between D1 and D2 D3 should be situated, just that it should end up somewhere in between), and nothing beyond that.

[hamishspence]

In D1 though, you can't stand between squares, so a "stopping" effect when you are half-way between squares is going to have to drop you in one or the other.

[Optimystik]

The thing is, you seem to say "it's a bug, so it's bad, get rid of it!". My point of view is: "Okay, it's a bug. Does it make the game worse? Yes? Get rid of it, then. No? Okay, have it stay."

No, I am saying "I think it makes the game worse, AND it's a bug, so get rid of it." You are saying "I don't think it makes the game worse." We both have subjective opinions of it, but only I have the objective point that it is indeed a bug.


Because of this (in response to why packs of monsters in D1 are more dangerous than in D2):

There is a causality error here. You are saying that knocking enemies back in D1 is preferable to doing so in D2 because you need that extra buffer to keep from being swarmed, whereas in D2 you don't (to the point that knocking enemies away actually slows your killing rate.) But the reason knockback is a detriment in D2 is because your character there is so much stronger to begin with than a D1 character that he can handle being surrounded better.

In other words, the difficulty levels are already vastly different even before factoring in knockback in the sense that you meant it; therefore, using it as any kind of measure of difficulty is meaningless.


Just because they set their goals higher initially does not mean they are more powerful initially.

It is not definitive proof, but one assumes that someone setting out to specifically hunt down a Prime Evil has the skills to do so. Particularly when they also know he has added the powers of his last opponent to his own.


And note that these two have failed and not defeated Diablo, much unlike what happens when you play a Rogue or a Sorceror in D1 and beat him. Clearly not the same continuity. It cannot be the same continuity, because it can be only one who defeats Diablo.

The warrior defeated him in canon, but the point is moot, since each of the D2 ensemble beat all 3 D1 classes. That was my point.

And again, the manual itself points out the disparity in skill between Barbarians and Warriors, Zann Esu and Vizjerei, and especially Amazons and Rogues. So I am quite justified in claiming these classes are elite.


Not 'should' have the same mood. Blizzard is free to put whatever mood they want to in their games, as long as it suits the players. I'm not presumptuous enough to dictate what sort of mood a game must have.

However, when talking about my personal preferences, I find a dark, sinister mood a lot more fun to play in. Hence, if D2 had had such a mood, I would have found it more fun. That includes the gameplay and the story fitting that mood. Simple as that.

And again I ask; why would a manhunt of a possessed wretch by an elite warrior have a dark and sinister mood? It might be more aesthetically pleasing to you, but would make absolutely no sense to me.


Since the Warrior defeated Diablo, certainly not.

The D2 classes beat him, the best rogue and a top sorcerer.


I never said anything about them having a higher potential for slaughter; that was you.

The thing is, you seem to set out from the assumption the D2 characters having a higher potential for slaughter - be that true or not - was the only possible way to go from, and anything that did not fit that was inconsistent.
No. Blizzard had a choice what story to write and what characters to make. If they had made the characters creep around corners in fear of the next pack of monsters, then obviously those characters would not have had a higher potential for slaughter. That was not a given from the start. And me, personally, I would have preferred characters cautious of the next pack of monsters, not in spite their higher potential for slaughter, but because of the lack thereof.

Of course it was Blizzard's choice to make, but they chose to go the route of your character curbstomping a legion of demons. Several legions in fact, from all three brothers. The chosen mood and music thus follow naturally from that decision.


See above. It being a bug is not enough to warrant removal; it making the game worse would be.

See above; one is a subjective call, one is not.


We were not comparing D1 to anything. We were saying we wanted D3 to be more like D1 in certain regards than D2 was in these regards (which is something completely different than saying D3 should be more like D1 than D2, as it says nothing about where between D1 and D2 D3 should be situated, just that it should end up somewhere in between), and nothing beyond that.

Fair enough; I still disagree on the specific regards that you chose, but at least your stance is clearer.


In D1 though, you can't stand between squares, so a "stopping" effect when you are half-way between squares is going to have to drop you in one or the other.

True, but making it pull you back to the originating square was the wrong decision on their part (if indeed it was a conscious decision as Winterwind claims.) It is artificial difficulty, by making it harder for your character to retreat; and it is less realistic to boot. (An arrow in the back should logically knock you forward, not yank you backward.)

[hamishspence]

if it applies when you are moving toward the monster though, it works.

if it applies when you are moving parallel to the monster when it's firing at you, its OK.

Only when you are running away might it look a little odd.

also, the manual strongly focuses on the Warrior. It doesn't speak of "an adventuring party" - if the other two were in on it, they don't get any mention.

[Karoht]

my understand of what he posted is that hes basicaly saying that even tho our characters "survived" the conflict they didnt really survive it mentaly. After all having waded through hell itsself fought fallen angels ext ext your faith in the higher powers would be rather diminished. Wouldnt be suprised if the paladin went off on a holy quest to clense himself, the amazon went and found some weak man to impregnate her and she settled down as the seer of the village, the assassin went nuts and offed herself in some elaborate trap, the sorc had her powers striped from herself to keep from going mad with power, the necromancer realised that zombies and the like arnt needed anymore and turned to pottery *shrugs* that kinda thing.

The barb is a warrior, he no doubt went "home" and trained the men of the village that where left ext.

Someone told me that in the novels, the Barbarian is the only one that actually goes to Act 5, ergo the only one that would have been exposed to any influence of Baal.
The Amazon stays in the camp of Act 1, the Sorc stays in Act 2, the Necro stays in Act 3, and the Pally stays in Act 4. At least, this is how I heard these books go. I have no idea where the Druid and Assassin figure into all this.

Is it not also possible that the D2 characters retire or move on as it were?

[hamishspence]

Which novels are these? I've read the Sin War trilogy, and some of a set of books set in the Diablo universe that don't focus on the game characters (Legacy of Blood is my favourite)

But I haven't heard of a set of novels starring the main adventurers of D2 and LoD- are they new?

[Karoht]

Which novels are these? I've read the Sin War trilogy, and some of a set of books set in the Diablo universe that don't focus on the game characters (Legacy of Blood is my favourite)

But I haven't heard of a set of novels starring the main adventurers of D2 and LoD- are they new?

No idea. Sorry for second hand info.

However, character progression-wise, those locations for those characters always made sense to me.

It always bugged me that you never took Diablo's soulstone to Hellforge yourself, as you had done withe Mephisto. Same with Baal. It would have been awesome if you had gone back to the Hellforge, Baal was waiting for you, steals Diablo's soulstone and does something with it. Or something along those lines. Could have given a primary encounter with Baal rather than no encounter with him before Act 5. Lots of ways that could have gone down.

Tyrial looks to me like he's at least going to be a boss. Look at his armor on the main site, then look back at his armor from D2. It's more fiercesome, darker. Also in the trailer there is a part where he looks either really pissed off, or really evil-ish. Strikes me that Tyrial is going to be a huge part of the story. I'm more curious how they're going to bring Diablo himself back in.

[DranWork]

perhaps... Tyriel is Diablo!?? IT was all a masterful ruse by the lord of hell to get rid of thoes pesky brothers. He traped Tyriel in Baal's prison and cast some kinda spell on him that made him look like the dark wanderer which is why we see him in act 3 just out side the town.. then the player actualy kills the real Tyriel in hell.... What a plot twist!

[ShneekeyTheLost]

No idea. Sorry for second hand info.

However, character progression-wise, those locations for those characters always made sense to me.

It always bugged me that you never took Diablo's soulstone to Hellforge yourself, as you had done withe Mephisto. Same with Baal. It would have been awesome if you had gone back to the Hellforge, Baal was waiting for you, steals Diablo's soulstone and does something with it. Or something along those lines. Could have given a primary encounter with Baal rather than no encounter with him before Act 5. Lots of ways that could have gone down.

Tyrial looks to me like he's at least going to be a boss. Look at his armor on the main site, then look back at his armor from D2. It's more fiercesome, darker. Also in the trailer there is a part where he looks either really pissed off, or really evil-ish. Strikes me that Tyrial is going to be a huge part of the story. I'm more curious how they're going to bring Diablo himself back in.

You can't kill Diablo, just send him back to Hell. You broke his Soulstone, but he was working just fine without it before the Horradrim were duped into making it. Sure, he can't simply possess whatever Hero comes along and kicks his arse anymore, but guess what... he's still the Lord of Terror. And in Hell.

In fact, all three Brothers are now in Hell, back in control. That's not a good thing, because that spells an end to the Sin War. Now the forces of Evil are united as a whole legion. So now, you're not just dealing with a bunch of individuals, you are dealing with the literal army of Hell, organized, cooperating, and actively working together to kick everyone's arse.

Remember the Prologue for Act V? Yea, that's one small part that Baal could scrape up together on a moment's notice. This is all of them, run by the Three Brothers.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Optimystik]

if it applies when you are moving toward the monster though, it works.

if it applies when you are moving parallel to the monster when it's firing at you, its OK.

Only when you are running away might it look a little odd.

I was specifically referring to running away - not because it fits my analogy best, but because trying to retreat from a monster is the only situation in which artificial difficulty would apply.



It always bugged me that you never took Diablo's soulstone to Hellforge yourself, as you had done withe Mephisto. Same with Baal. It would have been awesome if you had gone back to the Hellforge, Baal was waiting for you, steals Diablo's soulstone and does something with it. Or something along those lines. Could have given a primary encounter with Baal rather than no encounter with him before Act 5. Lots of ways that could have gone down.

Tyrial looks to me like he's at least going to be a boss. Look at his armor on the main site, then look back at his armor from D2. It's more fiercesome, darker. Also in the trailer there is a part where he looks either really pissed off, or really evil-ish. Strikes me that Tyrial is going to be a huge part of the story. I'm more curious how they're going to bring Diablo himself back in.

It seems to me that Baal made the entire Worldstone his phylacterysoulstone. Destroying it would thus have been necessary while still eluding the prophecies, as they couldn't predict what happened to the soulstones themselves.

Dark Tyrael seems to be the most likely outcome of LoD, similar to Raiden going evil in MK: Deception. (Whether the guardian begins to weary of his charge, or gets corrupted inadvertently, remains to be seen.)

[tyckspoon]

I was specifically referring to running away - not because it fits my analogy best, but because trying to retreat from a monster is the only situation in which artificial difficulty would apply.


It also applies when you're trying to advance on ranged enemies. Getting bounced back into the map-space you just tried to move out of repeatedly is frustrating and quite lethal, especially since you're probably also taking enough damage to stun you... part of why Warriors wanted/needed to get a good Teleport skill (yes, yes, 'footwork', but frankly I find it near impossible to make a D1 character move fast enough or precisely enough to carry out such footwork. The discrete map squares thing doesn't help there either.)

[Myrmex]

No idea. Sorry for second hand info.

However, character progression-wise, those locations for those characters always made sense to me.

It always bugged me that you never took Diablo's soulstone to Hellforge yourself, as you had done withe Mephisto. Same with Baal. It would have been awesome if you had gone back to the Hellforge, Baal was waiting for you, steals Diablo's soulstone and does something with it. Or something along those lines. Could have given a primary encounter with Baal rather than no encounter with him before Act 5. Lots of ways that could have gone down.

Tyrial looks to me like he's at least going to be a boss. Look at his armor on the main site, then look back at his armor from D2. It's more fiercesome, darker. Also in the trailer there is a part where he looks either really pissed off, or really evil-ish. Strikes me that Tyrial is going to be a huge part of the story. I'm more curious how they're going to bring Diablo himself back in.

I think in one of the ending vids it shows "you" smashing the soulstones at Hellforge.

Tyreal is definitely going to be a bad guy. He's had such a series of screwups, it's hard to tell whether he's playing his own angle, a huge fool, or a tool of Hell.

[rangermania]

I'll not hold my breath until D3 is out but I'll not upgrade my PC untill I see what it needs to run smoothly eighter... :smallbiggrin:

[Karoht]

It seems to me that Baal made the entire Worldstone his phylacterysoulstone. Destroying it would thus have been necessary while still eluding the prophecies, as they couldn't predict what happened to the soulstones themselves.

Dark Tyrael seems to be the most likely outcome of LoD, similar to Raiden going evil in MK: Deception. (Whether the guardian begins to weary of his charge, or gets corrupted inadvertently, remains to be seen.)

Weary of his charge, you go retire. Find a lake. Take up fishing. That kind of thing. Corrupted? Seems a little... overused. I mean, this is Tyrael. He's an extremely powerful agent of good. I doubt his will would be turned quite so quickly.

Tyrael as the villian all along? Righteous villain maybe? Perhaps he was guiding events somewhat. He couldn't smash the Worldstone without good reason, and let Baal do what he was going to do with the Worldstone? Perhaps he really did let Baal and Diablo/The Wanderer escape on purpose? Now the heavens can get involved in the affairs of the world, but so can Hell. Maybe it was one of those moves to perpetuate further conflict, or bring the (cue the end of the world music) final conflict between Heaven and Hell. I see a story more about the mortal world caught in the middle, rather than just some big army of Hell come to kill all hoomans, Take 3. No, there is more afoot here. I can smell it.

So who might be the Heavenly counterparts to the Three?

[AgentPaper]

So who might be the Heavenly counterparts to the Three?

The holy trinity, obviously. On steroids, of course.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Weary of his charge, you go retire. Find a lake. Take up fishing. That kind of thing. Corrupted? Seems a little... overused. I mean, this is Tyrael. He's an extremely powerful agent of good. I doubt his will would be turned quite so quickly.

Tyrael as the villian all along? Righteous villain maybe? Perhaps he was guiding events somewhat. He couldn't smash the Worldstone without good reason, and let Baal do what he was going to do with the Worldstone? Perhaps he really did let Baal and Diablo/The Wanderer escape on purpose? Now the heavens can get involved in the affairs of the world, but so can Hell. Maybe it was one of those moves to perpetuate further conflict, or bring the (cue the end of the world music) final conflict between Heaven and Hell. I see a story more about the mortal world caught in the middle, rather than just some big army of Hell come to kill all hoomans, Take 3. No, there is more afoot here. I can smell it.

So who might be the Heavenly counterparts to the Three?

Now this I can see.

Tired of the endless stalemate, confident of Good's inherent power advantage and superiority, Tyrael allows the Worldstone to become corrupted so he 'had' to destroy it and allow the final conflict between Heaven and Hell to finally happen, anticipating leading a legion of angels et al into the very gates of Hell, charging bravely forward, and finally putting an end to it all by finally ending the Three Brothers.

Unfortunately... he mis-estimated power forces. Now he's struggling to keep what ground they have, all hell is literally breaking loose, and there is literally no end in sight. The mortal world is the battlefield, which is getting destroyed by all the supernatural conflict. If something is not done soon, Hell wins by default, by killing off all mortals as a side effect of attacking the holy forces.

[Winterwind]

Hell killing off all mortals would, by my understanding, be against Hell's interest, as it would reestablish an eternal stalemate. Hell and Heaven had been fighting for an eternity before mankind came to be, with no side being able to gain an advantage; when mankind came to be, thanks to mankind's unique ability to choose between good and evil, it became the one thing that could tip the balance to either side. Hence both sides began trying to convince mortals to join their cause, leading to the Sin War (which is not the war taking place in Hell after the Prime Evils departed, by the way, but, to quote Diablo 1, the war between Heaven and Hell "falling upon mortal soil").

Though I am not sure if the events of the games have not tipped the balance enough already for the above to no longer apply...

[Myrmex]

Perhaps he was guiding events somewhat.

Somewhat?
Tyreal is directly responsible for the corruption of some of the most powerful humans in sanctuary, as well as the most powerful artifact that arguably gave half the classes in D2 a fighting chance vs. the Three & their armies.

[Optimystik]

So who might be the Heavenly counterparts to the Three?

The Angiris Council. (http://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Angiris_Council) In the wake of Tyrael's rash act, the other archangels may come to the forefront (particularly the zealous Imperius and/or the compassionate Auriel.)


Though I am not sure if the events of the games have not tipped the balance enough already for the above to no longer apply...

I'd say the balance is still there (i.e. humanity hasn't explicitly chosen one side over another) but is more tenuous now, because both sides can act more directly on Sanctuary and influence us. But time will tell...