Trailers: Diablo 3: Demon Hunter

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Nemu:
Diablo's just gothic, it's easier to be grittier, IMO.

I wasn't talking about grittiness, I meant the Diablo trailers are low quality; barely more than rendered graphics engine machinima.

Benedict Wolfe:

Nemu:
Diablo's just gothic, it's easier to be grittier, IMO.

I wasn't talking about grittiness, I meant the Diablo trailers are low quality; barely more than rendered graphics engine machinima.

It's because they're using the actual game engine instead of prerendered stuff. To compare:
This is pre-rendered. Prettier, though not true to the game's actual appearance. Just keep in mind that you'll be playing from a different view. I expect it won't be such an eyesore when you've got that whole top-down view going for ya.

To Funk: Maybe I'll have to admit that it's just nostalgia going for the writing of Diablo II, but the sheer amount of cliche condensed into a single video is disheartening. I certainly anticipate the third installment, but I'm going to sit here trying to convince myself that the quality is only indicative of this video being a trailer rather than indicative of the actual gameplay experience.

I don't think you should hand a person a gun handle first, it can cause bad "accidents" to happen, *BLAM* "Oh Sh**, sorry, do you have bandages? I swear I can fix this." Ever since I saw a parody that's all I can think of whenever anyone hands another a gun.

Reminds me of Vanquishers from Torchlight

I thought this was a very cool character until she started talking in a faux british accent and turned into a red-eyed crossbow-uzi shooting Night Elf.

Still, it's good to see that they're trying to mix up the stereotypical archetypes for D3 so it's more of a discovery process when it comes to the classes. Asides from the flavour gone horribly wrong, colour me interested.

Blizzard lately for me has turned into one of those car wrecks you see and can't seem to look away from for some reason. After they got WoW big and a large player base for it seems like they just don't try at games anymore. I grew up on their games and I can't even stand to look at what they do with them these days. I hope they use that money from the MMO and put it towards something. Anyways, hope the game doesn't disappoint for those looking forward to it.

shitty cgi is shitty

Van Helsing would bow in awe. I only want to buy this more now.

Retributionx:
Oh look! It's world of warcraft meets diablo.
Fucking rage :@ Every ounce of my hate.

I don't see the warcraft in it?

It seems to me Blizzard is too stuck in the past. It already showed that clearly with SC2 but no one apparently cared, we'll see what happens with Diablo 3. It all just lacks creativity and any spark of innovation.
Of course I'm assuming some things here, since the game isn't out yet, but all the signs surely point in that direction...

Also, I think it is ok to use the in-game engine for cinematics, but why not use some better models and textures? It is pre-rendered anyway...

boo.

wtf blizzard? did you run out of money? same as in starcraft II:

GIVE ME YOUR AWESOME PIXAR QUALITY PRE-RENDERED STUFF!!
:(

after getting over that though... it looks *fairly* good of in game stuff, I guess the video compression doesn't help.

regardless, I've never played a diablo game (despite LOVING each and everyone of their RTSs)
but this trailer made me want to buy this!

Damn,
me and my friend actually had a bet regarding what kind of ranged specialist will be coming out. I said it was going to be like a steam punk engineer with flintlock pistols and blunderbuss and he said it will be crossbows (aka assassin's creed type).

Sigh...
well I owe him $100 now... thanks for nothing Blizzard.

Good lord that was corny.

Also, nice shoes.

And now I remember why most videogame protagonists never open their mouths. O gezz that dialog would have made me krindge if I wasnt laughing so hard at it. Game play looks core thought.

"I had no choice"
"There is always a choice"
Uh...yes. She chose to run and it looks like it worked out pretty well for her. LOL I think the LRR guys need to take a look at this stuff when the game comes out. XD

Chal:
Just keep in mind that you'll be playing from a different view. I expect it won't be such an eyesore when you've got that whole top-down view going for ya.

I doubt it: I have no plans on playing this title. It looks like I'll be going retro for the foreseeable future, what with the upcoming titles. Hard to get excited for new games nowadays.

With all the money those guys have, you'd think they would afford better writing than this.

If you don't mind, I will disassemble this post:

Tiagojdferreira:
meh
I really loved Diablo 1, but Diablo went blah blah blah

one point at a time:

This looks so cartoony.

Everybody and their mother has said that. It really is not that "cartoony". Now, Warcraft 3? That's cartoony. WoW Vanilla as well as a good portion of BC? That was cartoony. Compared to those, this is not even close to cartoony. Unless by cartoony, you mean different than horrid 90s era graphics.

The cool thing about Diablo 1 was that it tried to look real giving you an immersion that Diablo 2 failed to deliver and Diablo 3 seems yet to fail again.

Diablo 1 looked like pixelated pig-feces. Everybody looked like they were made of clay blobs that somebody rubbed with charcoal. It was only slightly immersive due to the fact that the sound/music department did their work well enough to create a nice ambiance for each level, whether it was the windy acoustic guitar of Tristram or the dark howls of the lower levels. Also, D2 was the superior game, bar none. Better graphics (within reason), same sound/music competence, better voice acting and better gameplay by far.

We went from dark dungeons and horrifying demons to all in the open with creatures that even though look pretty cool, fail to give you any tension.

Yes, D2 did have nice variety. What's wrong with that? Also, are you implying that D1 was full of tension and D2 wasn't? I don't know about you, but those little murdering psychopaths from the Kurast jungle and those demon beetles from the Anaroch desert always made me tense due to the former butchering me like a bunch of demented children would tear apart a birthday cake (Ohohoho) and the latter shooting off a thousand sparks of electricity whenever I would so much bump elbows with it. D1 in comparison was pretty tense during the first few levels and your encounter with the butcher, but after you hit your stride, the game eases up.

In Diablo 1 an enemy was a threat, in Diablo 2 it was just a small obstacle in the way and in Diablo 3 it seems you can kill all the enemies in the scenario in one shot.

The enemy was a threat in D1? Only if you were some kind of incompetant, water headed caveman. Granted, in D2 a majority of the enemies weren't too big of a threat alone, but when you put together a horde of 20 thousand, you'll quickly find your moistest meat being served at the demon bar-be-que. Not to mention some enemies were quite the thorn in one's testicles (see above for midget cannibals and demonic gnats). The bosses in D2 were fair challenges ,though in some instances, quite unfair. (Go back to your fecal pit, Duriel and take your holy freeze with you.)
Lastly, I do hope you realize that all of these trailer and examples of the various classes abilities are just EXAMPLES. They will not do that much damage in the final game, this is all just to show the ignorant masses that grenades explode and molten arrows burn. None of these abilities will instakill all enemies or make the game a cakewalk (I know...)

I know that the fact that you can kill a lot of enemies doesn't mean that the game is easier, it just means it has more monsters, taking away the threatening status out of each monster.
I'm probably going to buy it because I'm sure it's an awesome game. It just isn't what it could really be.

Wrapping up here, see above posts concerning how most enemies are easy alone, hordes rip out your flesh, certain monsters, bosses, etc, etc. I'm not going to say that you're stupid, because that would be rather presumptuous of me. What I will say is that you are a tiny bit naive in assuming trailers and ability examples would work the same way in the final product.

I know it's hard to come up with truly innovative ideas...but to me it just seems like blizzard recycles a lot of its old content and mechanics. I mean just look at the character classes: Barbarian = warrior, witch doctor = warlock, wizard = mage, monk = paladin, demon hunter = well... hunter...with demon in front of it. I guess it comes down to there are only so many ways to eviscerate an evil minion, but I really think progressive character video games need to get away from the whole strength, agility, intelligence, and vitality model. I love your games blizzard, (ignoring storytelling) but how about something that's not a sequel?

Solon5694:
I know it's hard to come up with truly innovative ideas...but to me it just seems like blizzard recycles a lot of its old content and mechanics. I mean just look at the character classes: Barbarian = warrior, witch doctor = warlock, wizard = mage, monk = paladin, demon hunter = well... hunter...with demon in front of it. I guess it comes down to there are only so many ways to eviscerate an evil minion, but I really think progressive character video games need to get away from the whole strength, agility, intelligence, and vitality model. I love your games blizzard, (ignoring storytelling) but how about something that's not a sequel?

You could say that all character classes just build on the archetype of Warrior, Spellcaster, Rogue, because that's mostly true. I'll somewhat agree with you on barbarian, because its a carbon copy of the barbarian from the last game, but witch doctor strikes me as being more of a necro/element druid/troll priest if that makes any sense. The wizard is also pretty much a mage, but it seems to have more physical/psychic magics than the D2 sorceress. I disagree with you on the monk, the monk is a monk from every other fantasy game ever, not a paladin. Demon hunter is actually pretty neat in my opinion, combining an assassin, an engineer and a hunter to make some kind of ridiculous backflipping, uzi-crossbowing, grenade throwing awesome with tits, though the writing for that trailer also made me cringe.

progressive character video games need to get away from the whole strength, agility, intelligence, and vitality model

An interesting thought, but evokes sillyness in my mind. Please elaborate?

how about something that's not a sequel?

I would like to point out that blizzard is no nintendo when it comes to sequels, however, with activision corrupting them, we would be lucky to get something that's not a sequel in the coming years.

DeliciousCake:
You could say that all character classes just build on the archetype of Warrior, Spellcaster, Rogue, because that's mostly true. I'll somewhat agree with you on barbarian, because its a carbon copy of the barbarian from the last game, but witch doctor strikes me as being more of a necro/element druid/troll priest if that makes any sense. The wizard is also pretty much a mage, but it seems to have more physical/psychic magics than the D2 sorceress. I disagree with you on the monk, the monk is a monk from every other fantasy game ever, not a paladin. Demon hunter is actually pretty neat in my opinion, combining an assassin, an engineer and a hunter to make some kind of ridiculous backflipping, uzi-crossbowing, grenade throwing awesome with tits, though the writing for that trailer also made me cringe.

Ok true my comparisons aren't perfect, but even when classes are "combined" they're just using two different categories of already used content. To point a few examples, the Demon hunter's abilities "fan of knives" which is directly copied out of Wow's rogue ability, the grenade ability is exactly identical to the witch doctor's fire bomb ability (ignoring aesthetics), and finally it's use of crossbows and engineering are almost identical to wow's hunter class. To give due credit, the bolas thing is pretty cool and new. Best part of the trailer in my opinion.

To add perspective.

Diablo 1 to Diablo 2 was innovative because it expanded to new frontiers off of a great idea. Look at the difference between the Warrior, Sorcerer, and Rogue, of Diablo 1, to the added classes Necromancer, Amazon, and Paladin of Diablo 2. They were entirely new! They were so new that they left room for Diablo 1's classes to fit right into the sequel . And as far as my experience went, didn't overlap that much at all. In my opinion it was one of the things that made the game so exciting.

In contrast, Diablo 3 I can generalize all the classes (albeit imperfectly) back to things I've seen before. Anyway, not saying my opinion is better, just saying how I feel about it.

I don't have a answer as to what could replace the 5 core stats, but I do know that what we are familiar with inevitably goes mundane in repetition. That really was the extent of my point.

True blizzard isn't as bad as Nintendo, but still look at their titles...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_Entertainment#History

All titles past 1995 feature the names Warcraft, Starcraft, or Diablo. Maybe 15 almost 16 years isn't that long in the gaming industry, but it seems like a pretty long time to me.

Emergent System:

Chal:
Looks like a fun replacement for assassins. Still, Blizzard's writing has been making me shudder as of late.

It's like they were trying to condense as much stupidity as possible into the character. "I stand alone! I will never stop killing! There is always a choice!"

And then she pulls out her two one-handed crossbows and starts firing them like uzis.

Hmm... I wonder what a Demon Hunter might say in real life...

*sigh*

Solon5694:
Diablo 1 to Diablo 2 was innovative because it expanded to new frontiers off of a great idea. Look at the difference between the Warrior, Sorcerer, and Rogue, of Diablo 1, to the added classes Necromancer, Amazon, and Paladin of Diablo 2. They were entirely new!

...

In contrast, Diablo 3 I can generalize all the classes (albeit imperfectly) back to things I've seen before. Anyway, not saying my opinion is better, just saying how I feel about it.

Uh, maybe they were entirely new to you if you had never played another game in your life at that point or something. All the D1 and D2 classes are archetypes as old as dirt or variations of a theme. Only the summoning necromancer really struck me as something unique, and that's only because no RPG games give you the power to do what that class could - fight exclusively with your summoned army while you're just there to keep them alive and provide debuffs. And even that had been around for a while alteast in D&D that I know of, and probably tons of other pen & paper RPGs as well, nevermind uncountable amoutns of old stories and legens and books and comics and tv shows and movies and stuff like that, unrelated to games but relevant to the talk about if it was an original idea or not (which it wasn't).

It really saddened me to see that they weren't bringing back the necromancer because it is such a rarity to be able to play a true pet class in RPGs. Mostly what you get is a few backup pets or maybe 2-3 strong pets, not entire armies like the nec could produce. But I digress.

Of course there's nothing wrong with archetypes. Personally I greatly enjoy many of them, especially the wizard and paladin ones. Too bad this game apparently won't see a paladin either... I guess the demon hunter is supposed to be his dark 'n edgy cousin or something.

John Funk:
People complaining about the dialogue have clearly never played a Blizzard game before. Their dialogue is the very definition of Narm Charm. It's ALWAYS been like that.

I mean, have you guys played WC2? "The orcs... have DRAGONS...!!!!"

I honestly don't have any criteria for what I'd consider good writing vs. bad writing beyond my initial impression of it. But this is bad writing. Really, really bad writing. Been too long since I played WC2 for me to remember any of the dialogue, I could barely speak english back then, but when I played through SC1 and WC3 and D1 and D2 I didn't really have any moments that popped out at me as "bad writing". Starcraft 2, however, was absolutely littered with it around every single corner. That entire story was extremely poorly written and if the gameplay hadn't been so entertaining I don't know how I'd feel about it. The other D3 writing that I've seen up to now hasn't made me react poorly to it, but this video is seriously just laughably bad in my eyes.

Emergent System:

Uh, maybe they were entirely new to you if you had never played another game in your life at that point or something. All the D1 and D2 classes are archetypes as old as dirt or variations of a theme. Only the summoning necromancer really struck me as something unique, and that's only because no RPG games give you the power to do what that class could - fight exclusively with your summoned army while you're just there to keep them alive and provide debuffs. And even that had been around for a while alteast in D&D that I know of, and probably tons of other pen & paper RPGs as well, nevermind uncountable amoutns of old stories and legens and books and comics and tv shows and movies and stuff like that, unrelated to games but relevant to the talk about if it was an original idea or not (which it wasn't).

It really saddened me to see that they weren't bringing back the necromancer because it is such a rarity to be able to play a true pet class in RPGs. Mostly what you get is a few backup pets or maybe 2-3 strong pets, not entire armies like the nec could produce. But I digress.

Of course there's nothing wrong with archetypes. Personally I greatly enjoy many of them, especially the wizard and paladin ones. Too bad this game apparently won't see a paladin either... I guess the demon hunter is supposed to be his dark 'n edgy cousin or something.

You have a point there. I gamed before just nothing I played really was similar to Diablo 1 or 2. You call em old as dirt, but I never got into D&D or any other games like it. That's really part of what made it so great was that I recognized the architypes from literature and now I could experience them in an interactive medium.

It reminds me of a cross between the Amazon and the Assassin from Diablo 2. I'm not entirely sold on this character, sadly. Don't let the awesome trailer delude your mind, something doesn't feel quite as right about this one. (btw, I am ALWAYS a skeptic...it's just how I am with most things video game wise...I think Yahtzee said it best in one of his videos: It's best to have low expectations when it comes to games, that way you won't be horribly disappointed when it turns out to be crap....)

Chal:

GoGo_Boy:

Chal:
Looks like a fun replacement for assassins. Still, Blizzard's writing has been making me shudder as of late.

It's just for their reveal trailers. Yeah they're incredible cheesy but it's not like this is important :f

Tell that to the SCII campaign.

Don't get me wrong, I still love the games, but Bioware it ain't. I'm a big fan of Diablo, if the avatar didn't give it away, so as long as the gameplay is top-notch then the story can hang itself =P

I wouldn't rag on the Wings Of Liberty campaign, no, it wasn't particularly well-written, and comparing it to Bioware is just laughable,
But it did its job, it captured the feeling it needed to capture, found a new way to represent the characters, and was a perfect conduit for the story,
All in all i'd say the story's pretty damn good, just not in the same sense as a Bioware game

Except for the end, that was way too fluffy bunnies and rainbows for me, ESPECIALLY considering it's a Starcraft game,
Kinda seemed more like Raynor's wetdream and at the end of the credits he was gonna wake up and go drown himself in some more whiskey

Hmm, looks promising enough, although the "rumoured" classes for the game looked alot more exciting to me, but eh, what can you do,
The only thing i'm still irked about is the Necro's "replacement"
But that's just because i'm a heavy Necro fanboy and loved the aesthetic of the class

SupahGamuh:
Wow, that looked pretty cool. Now I'm seriously starting to look forwad to this game next year, along with Guild Wars 2.

Don't hold your breath if you're thinking next year. Late 2011 or 2012.

AeroEngine:
shitty cgi is shitty

Please go back to /b/
_____________________________
They need new writers and and should stop trying too hard to be bad ass but the art was pretty good.

Solon5694:
To point a few examples, the Demon hunter's abilities "fan of knives" which is directly copied out of Wow's rogue ability, the grenade ability is exactly identical to the witch doctor's fire bomb ability (ignoring aesthetics), and finally it's use of crossbows and engineering are almost identical to wow's hunter class. To give due credit, the bolas thing is pretty cool and new. Best part of the trailer in my opinion.

While you're right that Blizzard are big fans of revisiting game concepts and systems that have worked well before, it's a stretch to compare the demon hunter to the WoW hunter. The only real similarity seems to be that they both specialise in ranged weapons. Not much of that trailer seems to indicate a character whose playstyle involves holding the target at range while standing stock-still and sniping.

Man, when I was hearing "Demon Hunter" I thought I was going to see a dude with abs, being blindfolded and have two warglaives, using demonic strength and power to best them at their own game, but it seems to be otherwise.

...And the cinematic didn't seem to be up to standards. I mean, shooting and jumping ONLY?
*Shrug* This class will be able to solo things quite easily still I suppose.

Bleh, I like my heavily armored, defensive based classes like Paladin or Templar. Even Fighter in Diablo 1 could be dressed up in such a manner. I'll take a pass on this game unless an expansion releases a class that looks interesting.

DeliciousCake:

Everybody and their mother has said that. It really is not that "cartoony". Now, Warcraft 3? That's cartoony. WoW Vanilla as well as a good portion of BC? That was cartoony. Compared to those, this is not even close to cartoony. Unless by cartoony, you mean different than horrid 90s era graphics.

What I meant by cartoony is that in a way to avoid the uncanny valley Blizzard opted to drop some of the realism and get something more "cool" and "stylish" that wont make you look at the characters as if they were trying to be human and yet looked creepy because there was something wrong with them. That is fine by me, but a decision like that drives all the game design decisions in a new direction. That is why Diablo 3 is more of an hack and slash than it's predecessors. I do know that the 90's graphics were worst, but already back then you had games that decided to look more realistic and others less realistic. What I mean by more cartoony is that they don't try to be realistic. They try to look awesome, and they succeed at that, just like (e.g.) Final Fantasy graphics do. That doesn't make them bad in any way, it just makes them more fantasy and less real. And i personally prefer more realism (this is a matter of taste, and I've never questioned the quality of Diablo's 3 graphics).

Diablo 1 looked like pixelated pig-feces. Everybody looked like they were made of clay blobs that somebody rubbed with charcoal. It was only slightly immersive due to the fact that the sound/music department did their work well enough to create a nice ambiance for each level, whether it was the windy acoustic guitar of Tristram or the dark howls of the lower levels. Also, D2 was the superior game, bar none. Better graphics (within reason), same sound/music competence, better voice acting and better gameplay by far.

Diablo one was made, like you said, in the 90's. There were no state of the art graphics back then. Diablo 2 did have better graphics, and a good flavor to it, but the game had a different concept behind it. I wouldn't say better, I would say different. You can't compare Chess to tetris, and even though the gap between Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 isn't that big, the truth is that both games are completely different experiences. While I was a great fan of Diablo 1 (and still am), I've only beaten Diablo 2 once, because it just didn't made that click for me.

Yes, D2 did have nice variety. What's wrong with that? Also, are you implying that D1 was full of tension and D2 wasn't? I don't know about you, but those little murdering psychopaths from the Kurast jungle and those demon beetles from the Anaroch desert always made me tense due to the former butchering me like a bunch of demented children would tear apart a birthday cake (Ohohoho) and the latter shooting off a thousand sparks of electricity whenever I would so much bump elbows with it. D1 in comparison was pretty tense during the first few levels and your encounter with the butcher, but after you hit your stride, the game eases up.

There's nothing wrong with the variety, the thing is that the intensity of the experience is smoothed by that. If you feel like there's a threat, and that every obstacle you face has that threat's signature you embrace the experience in a completely different way than if it isn't. In Diablo 1 pretty much everything is focused around Diablo. All the problems in the village are some how related to an evil presence and you see the whole story unfolding in front of you, building up to the point were you fight the prime evil (which, by the way, was from being the hardest part of the game).
In Diablo 2 you do quests here and there and you don't get that feeling that there's something greater behind it. Of course, in Diablo 1 you didn't knew the story right away and the game could explore Diablo. If they stick with that in Diablo 2, it would probably be boring. But making you kill Mephisto, then Diablo and then even Baal is like saying "You're the biggest hero in the world". In the first game killing Diablo felt like something unique. In Diablo 2 it's like "two bad guys down, one more two go".
It's true that the "those little murdering psychopaths from the Kurast jungle" were a pain in the ass, but the thing is that there need to be a bunch of them for them to be threat. The game was more hack and slash, and that isn't wrong. That's pretty good, but I still prefer Diablo 1 were you needed to stay in front of a door so only one enemy could attack you at a time and stuff like that. In Diablo 2, you could try to face a lot of enemies at the same time and succeed, whereas in Diablo 1 if you got surrounded by 6 or 7 enemies you'd probably be dead.

The enemy was a threat in D1? Only if you were some kind of incompetant, water headed caveman. Granted, in D2 a majority of the enemies weren't too big of a threat alone, but when you put together a horde of 20 thousand, you'll quickly find your moistest meat being served at the demon bar-be-que. Not to mention some enemies were quite the thorn in one's testicles (see above for midget cannibals and demonic gnats). The bosses in D2 were fair challenges ,though in some instances, quite unfair. (Go back to your fecal pit, Duriel and take your holy freeze with you.)
Lastly, I do hope you realize that all of these trailer and examples of the various classes abilities are just EXAMPLES. They will not do that much damage in the final game, this is all just to show the ignorant masses that grenades explode and molten arrows burn. None of these abilities will instakill all enemies or make the game a cakewalk (I know...)

You were expressing yourself so well, why did you need to use the "incompetant, water headed caveman"? Apart from that, you said something that is quite truth full.
[quote]the enemies weren't too big of a threat alone, but when you put together a horde of 20 thousand

It's true! Diablo 2 is a harder game than Diablo 1. No doubt there. But like you said, a horde in Diablo 2 as opposed to few in Diablo 1.
The boss fights were great and I really remember Duriel (actually it's the part that I remember best from Diablo 2).
I do know that this vid is just an example of how awesome and indestructible they want you to believe that the Demon hunter is, but as I said before (and more then once) the game focus on killing hordes instead of having problems with each enemy. Diablo 2 was and is a great game, but it's not the same genre as Diablo 1. That's not bad, it's just different. It's a matter of taste which one you prefer. I personally loved Diablo 1, beaten it more than ten times and yet, in Diablo 2 I've never felt even compelled to beat the game twice. I've finished it once and it was enough for me.

[quote]Wrapping up here, see above posts concerning how most enemies are easy alone, hordes rip out your flesh, certain monsters, bosses, etc, etc. I'm not going to say that you're stupid, because that would be rather presumptuous of me. What I will say is that you are a tiny bit naive in assuming trailers and ability examples would work the same way in the final product.

Wrapping up here, I didn't say that Diablo 2 was easier, I said that individual enemies don't oppose as much of a threat when compared to enemies from Diablo 1. The game went from being hidden and killing one enemy at a time to out in the open, mass killing machine a la hack and slash (it changed in genre). Being the two games different and with different genres, I prefer the first one above the second one (but that's a matter of taste). Saying that Diablo 1 is better then Diablo 2 would be something stupid to say, since they are different at their very core. What I said was that I preferred it.

Tiagojdferreira:
[A whole great big massive wall of text that I won't bother quoting for the sake of others who may want to look at this thread]

At first I thought that was a pretty late reply on your part, but then I realized that I'm pretty late myself.

Well, I personally enjoyed D2 more than D1, but that's because I'm a fan of the hacky-slashy variety of games. However, D1 was still a hack-n-slash game, it was just a more unrefined game. Kinda like a prototype or a diamond in the rough. It had quite a few moments, but it always seemed to me that blizzard wanted to do a little more with its gameplay, but couldn't due to technology and possibly even time constraints at the time.

Now, I enjoyed the way the story was layed out in D2 because at first, you find yourself in some kind of random camp filled with people who you don't know or care about and you do a few things for them, fight a few demons, uncover a bit of lore here and there. Then you see tristram and hear deckard cain's story about how it was fucked and then, up until the 4th act, the game feels a bit like a chase to find the wanderer. There's no secret to who he is, but there is a bit of mystery as to what he is doing, apart from placing lords of hell in people's backyards to murder them for shits and giggles. It also always seems you're just 50 steps behind, up until you see him in the demonic flesh in the 3rd act, which I personally always fucking loved due to it being a rather good mix of gameplay and story. Even after having played through it for the 30th time, I always try to attack him, even though I know he's immune. Then, after a bit more lore, you find out that diablo was trying to get ressurected or whatever and you go kill mephisto. And then you kill diablo and everything is wonderful forever...OR IS IT? A cinematic shows that baal is still alive and trolls Marius hardcore by murdering him and taking his powerstone or whatever. Then after a ton of attempts to prove your worth and a retarded twist at mount arreat you kill baal and everything is again wonderful forever...OR IS IT? Destruction of the worldstone, great future perils, blah blah blah.

Now, the point of that terribly stupid plot synopsis was that though the plot in D1 was basically: "Find out who or what is making this town into a bad vacation spot", the plot in D2 was more "Find out what that wanderer guy is trying to do and catch up with him before he does it" The game's story also takes on a much wider scope than D1, and the 4th act ending cinematic has always been my favorite, because for a year: that was the end of D2: You did manage to conquer great evil, BUT it looks like you forgot one, silly you. And by the time LoD came out, it was apparent that you forgot probably the most powerful one.

Also, D1 had it's fare share of hordes too. Granted, not as many or as big as D2, but still a fair amount: the fallen ones always traveled in at least groups of 3 and sometimes as many as 12. Gargoyles were rarely found without a bunch of company as well as the imps. Not to mention the skeleton king's rooms which will filled with...well...skeletons. And on quite a few occasions I met up with a group of fat demons who smothered me in their greasy rolls. In fact, most of the times you engaged in battle, there were at least 4 or 5 enemies of various types standing near you. Double also, everybody moved so slowly in D1 that it was impossible to get surrounded, unlike D2 where not only could you run, but some enemies could run like the flash on a mix of cocaine and steroids.

But if you really like D1 over D2, then I suppose it's just difference in taste...and that whole wall of text I unleashed was rather pointless...

I have noticed two prevalent mind sets that I would like some insight into.

First, the "Blizzard's writing was always bad" thinking. Was there like a gap between 1998 and 2004 in which we managed to miss the original Starcraft (which I played at around 8 years old, so going by people's opinions), Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3? Help me out here, because I'm really sick and tired to repeat my praise for Warcraft 3 and, to a lesser extent, Diablo 2's writing.

Second, the "It's just a game. Why should there be any realism at all?" thinking. Think about Dragon Age. Then think about what this character here represents. High heels, uzi crossbows, dialogue so out of place and bad it makes me want to shoot myself... Does this seem appropriate to you for a dark, gritty and grounded fantasy game? Have you played Diablo or Diablo 2?

Oh, hey Sylvannas. Fancy meeting you here. In Diablo.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here