In your opinion, wich game hade the better story to tell, Diablo 1 or Diablo 2?
I'm sorry I can't write more, it's just I have to go back to school soon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I like the life I lived, because I went from negative to positive.
You know very well who you are, don't let them hold you down, reach for the stars.
I think the main reason is that you are constricted to this small, nearly-abandoned town for the entire game, rather than zipping back and forth through Sanctuary like Diablo II. Though it's easy to understand why you're traveling so much, you just never seem to get a "feel" for each place you visit; instead it feel like, "just do this quest, kill this thing, and then go away."
In Diablo, you actually could feel the plight of the remaining townspeople, so to speak. They would explain to you why they remained in Tristram, what life was like during all of the events that took place there, and aid you with any information they had. You also were given realistic quests, such as the tainted water supply and Ogden's sign (which there was a discussion about recently, if I remember right).
The above reason was one thing that really irritated me about Diablo II. Why is it that you can only talk to a select few townsfolk? Do the rest of them not care about what's happening, or are they all mute? As silly as it sounds, give me a reason to want to fight for you, other than just gaining access to a new town where the process starts all over again.
hmm. diablo 1 story was about destroying the evil under the church which was diablo. who was trapped there by the horadrim.
diablo 2 you had to find and destroy the evil that had ecsacped and unleished on the world of sanctuary.
diablo 2 has a longer story than diablo 1. but i think diablo 1 had a more stable story then diablo 2. diablo 2 seemed like you were just a player killing evil and saving the world. in diablo 1 i think it is odgan. or the tavern owner. if you had no idea what you were doing you went to him first. he would say. "thank goodness you have returned......." which to me would mean the player has been there before. but i think both stories are good. but i think diablo 1 takes the lead.
I preferred the Diablo 1 storyline.
It always followed up and you kind of knew everything that was going on.
It had believable quests and everything seemed to fill in the blanks. Everything in the game is based around the evil of Diablo and what better place to look for it in a defiled church infested with demons.
I’m going off topic here, but Tristram from Diablo 1, in comparison to every other town in diablo 2 was more realistic and felt better. When you came back from the labyrinth, you felt like you were right at home in Tristram, that you hade shelter from everything. You felt amerced in the land and you taught as if you knew everyone in the town like your best friend even that drunk. However...in Diablo 2, you don't get that same kind of feeling for some reason.
That was off topic, but I think since there’s more history behind Tristram, you had mixed emotions about the place and that had an effect on the game play which not too many games could top at that time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I like the life I lived, because I went from negative to positive.
You know very well who you are, don't let them hold you down, reach for the stars.
Diablo 1 had the lone hero descending into the depths of Hell and not really knowing what he was to be fighting, heck you didn't even know you really know you would have to fight a Prime Evil till virtually endgame.
Diablo II you were essentaully following the Prime Evils on a big ass trek over mountain ranges and oceans, through deserts and jungles. But as a whole DII has a good storyline. Kill evil, save the world and all that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
Diablo 1 felt darker but i cant really decide. There are things about Diablo 2 i came to "need" in every game i played ever since. To me its a tie, what Diablo 1 has with its feeling, Diablo 2 has with even greater cinematics and really larger storyline.
''May the Gods give you the strength and power to bear the madness which flows through our minds.''
''Zubin, I've always imagined you as a crazy raver. The kinda guy that spends all night dancing to trance music while waving glow sticks and popping ecstasy.'' - Murderface
In Diablo 1, the story is darker. I mean, just take the butcher mission for example, there isn't a mission that remotely resembles that in Diablo 2...not even close. In Diablo 2, nobody really seems that worried or shows any emotions about what's going on. During the first game, you can easily sense that people are scared and are worried about their survival. When you complete a mission in Diablo 1, it really feels like you helped unlike number 2.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I like the life I lived, because I went from negative to positive.
You know very well who you are, don't let them hold you down, reach for the stars.
In Diablo 1, the story is darker. I mean, just take the butcher mission for example, there isn't a mission that remotely resembles that in Diablo 2...not even close. In Diablo 2, nobody really seems that worried or shows any emotions about what's going on. During the first game, you can easily sense that people are scared and are worried about their survival. When you complete a mission in Diablo 1, it really feels like you helped unlike number 2.
Well you have The Smith, but that really doesn't do justice to The Butcher...
Yea, Diablo 1 was darker and Diablo 2 was more fast paced. Almost like two different game series...
Though Act 5 people seem worried. Then again Act 5 is the only act where they are being besieged. The other acts arn't in imidiate danger, unlike D1 where everyone was in imidiate danger.
Act I they are like "I don't trust you, this is our tiny little camp...*sigh*, we lost so many of our sisters... *sadface"
Act II: "I lost my family to that monster Radament", and "Me and my men keep this city safe, but not anywhere beyond the city walls." and "Oh my god, there are demons coming up from the Palace! THey killed all the Harem girls! My men are fighting them off as best they can, but we are losing. Can you help us?"
Act III: Our city... our massive city... has been taken by Mephisto. We retreated to the docks, and Ormus has protected us with spells, but it won't last long! I'm afraid the magic is running out. Can you help us? Quickly, find the Blade of the Old Religion, it will protect us for a little while longer..."
The last couple of replies reminded me of something that's bothered me about Diablo II for awhile. I think it was even addressed in a webcomic somewhere.
In Act I, why is Akara so worried about the demons in the Den of Evil when there are just as many, if not more, monsters sitting just outside of the camp? And why don't those monsters attempt to go toward the camp? There's only one Rogue near the entrance; judging by all the dead bodies throughout Act I, the guard wouldn't be that hard to overtake.
And why is Flavie out in the middle of nowhere by herself? There's nothing left to protect out there from what I can see. Dead bodies, abandoned huts, and a few random rocks - not really worth it, if you ask me. And why is it that she's never attacked, regardless of how many demons are surrounding her? At least the Barbarians in Act V would attack and be attacked out in the field.
Maybe that's partially why I think Diablo had the better story. It was visually more believable, if that makes sense. You could better feel the sense of urgency in the first game; the nearly-abandoned town, the experiences of the remaining townspeople, and the realistic quests (like I stated before). Everyone in Tristram knew what was lurking within the catacombs, whether from stories (Gillian), demon sightings (Ogden), or personal experience (basically everyone else).
The location of the church made the original game more frightening, too. It was right in the heart of Tristram, and it seemed really off-putting that demons could come spilling out of the cathedral at any time; and we know they ventured into the town at night anyway (Ogden's quest for his sign), which added to the urgency.
Diablo II seemed to lack that. The only time demons ventured anywhere near the town was in Act II, during the Palace quest, and Act V, during the Seige on Harrogath quest. Granted, Diablo II did have some pretty believable side-quests (rescuing the soldiers, the Gidbinn), they didn't seem to measure up to the original game. The locations of the final confrontations in each Act are also pretty far-off (the middle of nowhere in a desert, or on top of a high mountain) compared to the original game, where the final battle takes place directly underneath Tristram. I don't envy those people.
In a random thought, in Diablo, your first quest is to kill the demon known as The Butcher, who is obviously a higher-ranked monster. In Diablo II, your first mission is to run around and kill stuff, and if you try to advance, you're scolded by Flavie. Yeah, I knew I was going to kill stuff, so thanks for pointing out the obvious, Akara. Next time, give me a slightly bigger challenge.
I know I'm all over the place with this right now, but it's nearly 7:00 AM and I haven't been to sleep yet. Yay, insomnia.
lol I love those little things you say at the end of your posts
Yeah, I think thats why I kind of subconsciencely chose the first game. Diablo II has too many things that draw attention to the fact that its a game for us to play.
Also, I recently started playing diablo again, and I didn't get the butcher for my first quest I got the 'our water supply is tainted' one lol. I so wanted to rediscover that horrid Butcher.
ok diablo 1 had a darker story but it seemed like you didnt have to do much but kill diablo. it didnt seem like you had to do specific quests in order to kill diablo.
diablo 2 had a more in depth story. you had to do specific quests in order to kill the last boss of that act. but diablo 2 seemed a little off on the darker side. maybe what blizzard thought was "oh hey this place isnt tristram. why does it all have to be dark like diablo 1?" but they should have had more darker places like diablo 1.
both games had their goods and bads but i went with d1 with this one cuz it seemed to have more of a diablo feel to it.
diablo 2 was just another adenture game
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You are like a rose in a great rose field. Each rose is so beautiful to me. But if one dies... I can still look at many other roses..." God of Darkness.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm sorry I can't write more, it's just I have to go back to school soon.
To find the truth, you must risk everything.
I think the main reason is that you are constricted to this small, nearly-abandoned town for the entire game, rather than zipping back and forth through Sanctuary like Diablo II. Though it's easy to understand why you're traveling so much, you just never seem to get a "feel" for each place you visit; instead it feel like, "just do this quest, kill this thing, and then go away."
In Diablo, you actually could feel the plight of the remaining townspeople, so to speak. They would explain to you why they remained in Tristram, what life was like during all of the events that took place there, and aid you with any information they had. You also were given realistic quests, such as the tainted water supply and Ogden's sign (which there was a discussion about recently, if I remember right).
The above reason was one thing that really irritated me about Diablo II. Why is it that you can only talk to a select few townsfolk? Do the rest of them not care about what's happening, or are they all mute? As silly as it sounds, give me a reason to want to fight for you, other than just gaining access to a new town where the process starts all over again.
/random, nonsensical thoughts
diablo 2 you had to find and destroy the evil that had ecsacped and unleished on the world of sanctuary.
diablo 2 has a longer story than diablo 1. but i think diablo 1 had a more stable story then diablo 2. diablo 2 seemed like you were just a player killing evil and saving the world. in diablo 1 i think it is odgan. or the tavern owner. if you had no idea what you were doing you went to him first. he would say. "thank goodness you have returned......." which to me would mean the player has been there before. but i think both stories are good. but i think diablo 1 takes the lead.
It always followed up and you kind of knew everything that was going on.
It had believable quests and everything seemed to fill in the blanks. Everything in the game is based around the evil of Diablo and what better place to look for it in a defiled church infested with demons.
I’m going off topic here, but Tristram from Diablo 1, in comparison to every other town in diablo 2 was more realistic and felt better. When you came back from the labyrinth, you felt like you were right at home in Tristram, that you hade shelter from everything. You felt amerced in the land and you taught as if you knew everyone in the town like your best friend even that drunk. However...in Diablo 2, you don't get that same kind of feeling for some reason.
That was off topic, but I think since there’s more history behind Tristram, you had mixed emotions about the place and that had an effect on the game play which not too many games could top at that time.
To find the truth, you must risk everything.
Haha, I love random, nonsensical thoughts!
I agree, Diablo 1 has the better story.
Diablo II you were essentaully following the Prime Evils on a big ass trek over mountain ranges and oceans, through deserts and jungles. But as a whole DII has a good storyline. Kill evil, save the world and all that.
The only plot twist in DI was "Cain the Storyteller" is actually omg "Cain the last of the Horadrim"!
While DII was like 'Tyrael is actually Baal', which is a cooler plot twist, I think. Maybe.
And DII had all the subplots too.
Crap, DI also has subplots.
Hmm.... I suppose... DII has a more lengthy story then. Oh, but longer doens't mean its better.
Crap, I still can't decide.
Not voting until enough good arguments are made.
''Zubin, I've always imagined you as a crazy raver. The kinda guy that spends all night dancing to trance music while waving glow sticks and popping ecstasy.'' - Murderface
To find the truth, you must risk everything.
Well you have The Smith, but that really doesn't do justice to The Butcher...
Yea, Diablo 1 was darker and Diablo 2 was more fast paced. Almost like two different game series...
Though Act 5 people seem worried. Then again Act 5 is the only act where they are being besieged. The other acts arn't in imidiate danger, unlike D1 where everyone was in imidiate danger.
Act I they are like "I don't trust you, this is our tiny little camp...*sigh*, we lost so many of our sisters... *sadface"
Act II: "I lost my family to that monster Radament", and "Me and my men keep this city safe, but not anywhere beyond the city walls." and "Oh my god, there are demons coming up from the Palace! THey killed all the Harem girls! My men are fighting them off as best they can, but we are losing. Can you help us?"
Act III: Our city... our massive city... has been taken by Mephisto. We retreated to the docks, and Ormus has protected us with spells, but it won't last long! I'm afraid the magic is running out. Can you help us? Quickly, find the Blade of the Old Religion, it will protect us for a little while longer..."
Act IV: lol, they don't say anything here.
Act V: etc etc.
In Act I, why is Akara so worried about the demons in the Den of Evil when there are just as many, if not more, monsters sitting just outside of the camp? And why don't those monsters attempt to go toward the camp? There's only one Rogue near the entrance; judging by all the dead bodies throughout Act I, the guard wouldn't be that hard to overtake.
And why is Flavie out in the middle of nowhere by herself? There's nothing left to protect out there from what I can see. Dead bodies, abandoned huts, and a few random rocks - not really worth it, if you ask me. And why is it that she's never attacked, regardless of how many demons are surrounding her? At least the Barbarians in Act V would attack and be attacked out in the field.
Maybe that's partially why I think Diablo had the better story. It was visually more believable, if that makes sense. You could better feel the sense of urgency in the first game; the nearly-abandoned town, the experiences of the remaining townspeople, and the realistic quests (like I stated before). Everyone in Tristram knew what was lurking within the catacombs, whether from stories (Gillian), demon sightings (Ogden), or personal experience (basically everyone else).
The location of the church made the original game more frightening, too. It was right in the heart of Tristram, and it seemed really off-putting that demons could come spilling out of the cathedral at any time; and we know they ventured into the town at night anyway (Ogden's quest for his sign), which added to the urgency.
Diablo II seemed to lack that. The only time demons ventured anywhere near the town was in Act II, during the Palace quest, and Act V, during the Seige on Harrogath quest. Granted, Diablo II did have some pretty believable side-quests (rescuing the soldiers, the Gidbinn), they didn't seem to measure up to the original game. The locations of the final confrontations in each Act are also pretty far-off (the middle of nowhere in a desert, or on top of a high mountain) compared to the original game, where the final battle takes place directly underneath Tristram. I don't envy those people.
In a random thought, in Diablo, your first quest is to kill the demon known as The Butcher, who is obviously a higher-ranked monster. In Diablo II, your first mission is to run around and kill stuff, and if you try to advance, you're scolded by Flavie. Yeah, I knew I was going to kill stuff, so thanks for pointing out the obvious, Akara. Next time, give me a slightly bigger challenge.
I know I'm all over the place with this right now, but it's nearly 7:00 AM and I haven't been to sleep yet. Yay, insomnia.
lol I love those little things you say at the end of your posts
Yeah, I think thats why I kind of subconsciencely chose the first game. Diablo II has too many things that draw attention to the fact that its a game for us to play.
Also, I recently started playing diablo again, and I didn't get the butcher for my first quest I got the 'our water supply is tainted' one lol. I so wanted to rediscover that horrid Butcher.
EDIT: 500th post!
*Awarded the rank of Knight of the Realm*
diablo 2 had a more in depth story. you had to do specific quests in order to kill the last boss of that act. but diablo 2 seemed a little off on the darker side. maybe what blizzard thought was "oh hey this place isnt tristram. why does it all have to be dark like diablo 1?" but they should have had more darker places like diablo 1.
both games had their goods and bads but i went with d1 with this one cuz it seemed to have more of a diablo feel to it.
diablo 2 was just another adenture game