Diablo 3 better than diablo 2?

  • #21
    D3 is a much better looking game. And I really appreciate that. But for me, D2 is still a more enjoyable experience over all, mostly because D3's item game isn't quite where it needs to be yet.
  • #22
    Never played Diablo 2. (I know that makes my opinion on Diablo 3 totally invalid and I'm basically a retarded WoW kiddie)

    Yet I am enjoying Diablo 3. I got the free version of Diablo 2 and LoD with my collector's edition and I'd like to go back and play it through once eventually.

    So yeah I like the game. I don't think it's amazing but I don't think it's the worst thing to hit the shelves.
  • #23
    Frankly, gameplay wise I perfer Diablo 2. Graphics wise, I prefer 2006 version of Diablo 3.

    The 2012 version of Diablo 3 has some good combat though, so points for that.

    Quote from Mormolyce
    I played a hell of a lot of D2 back in the day but I don't think I could bear to anymore. Those graphics really didn't age well and the skill tree is so old fashioned and hideously restrictive.


    The skill tree was awesome when we first got it, and really Blizzard stole Diablo 2's skill tree to use in their Diablo 3, albeit with some tweaks.

    Quote from Mormolyce
    In terms of gameplay I think D3 is well ahead of D2. Blizzard has just had so much experience both in D2 and WoW with designing characters and talents and I think they (and the genre) have come a long way. I honestly can't say there's anything about D2 I really miss - except maybe Necromancers but hey it's a new game so it needs new classes. Oh and I kind of liked how you saw the terrible fate of the three original D1 heroes in D2, would've been nice if they'd snuck the D2 heroes into D3 somewhere.


    Yea, you are right, Blizzard didn't have any experience going into Diablo 3, did they? :/ Hell, Sierra had more experience with Diablo games then Blizzard did, what with Runic (ie Blizzard North) making D1 and D2. You can't really hold Blizzard responsible when they have no experience making a game like Diablo 3, and for their first try, it's a good game. (Kinda why I can't forgive Runic for many of their mistakes in Torchlight, after all they did make Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 and LoD. :/ )

    And yea, I also agree about missing the Necro.
  • #24
    No. 2012 vs 2000. Diablo 2 actually had innovative features and Diablo 3 feels like a game released around 2006 or 2007. And a copycat at that. The thing that is so unfortunate is that everytitle until this Blizzard has OWNED. 12 years in the gaming world is 2 centuries in the real world. Unfortunately D3 won't have many players 2 years from now and D 2 will. Quality vs um D3
  • #25
    Quote from vedeli

    No. 2012 vs 2000. Diablo 2 actually had innovative features and Diablo 3 feels like a game released around 2006 or 2007. And a copycat at that. The thing that is so unfortunate is that everytitle until this Blizzard has OWNED. 12 years in the gaming world is 2 centuries in the real world. Unfortunately D3 won't have many players 2 years from now and D 2 will. Quality vs um D3


    Because of the game quality or the difficulty? I think most people boil the two together as one complaint, but really the two issues should be denoted as seperate. D3 could have been a D2 clone in terms of itemization, but still people would have quit in droves once they hit the act3 step. In terms of improving the look, feel, and functionality of the game it's accurate to say Blizzard improved upon D2. The "quality," issues everyone is hanging onto are actually just thinly veiled gripes of three kinds:

    1. RMAH: Some think it to be mandatory (lol?), others think it shouldn't exist for moral reasons, and still others simply assume it takes all the good items out of the regular AH (it doesn't).

    2. The game is too hard: Legitimate gripe for those expecting another D2 where pretty much all the content pre-LoD was doable naked with a higher level character. I rather like the new challenge, but I can see where this concern comes from.

    3. Itemization is bad, drop rates on good items too low: Relates to the above, but frankly this is the most legitimate complaint. Tal's set should probably not be getting strength rolls. The truely random / random uniques and underpowered uniques even with good rolls are one of the things I would point at as "bad design," on Blizzard's part.

    tl;dr: I think the generalizations are a little cliche at this point. If you have a criticism to level at D3, I think it would be best to stick with specifics than gloss with phrases like "quality."
  • #26
    Quote from proletaria
    1. RMAH: Some think it to be mandatory (lol?), others think it shouldn't exist for moral reasons, and still others simply assume it takes all the good items out of the regular AH (it doesn't).


    Well, it shouldn't, but deciding to put an RMAH in the games instead of ads doesn't make a game bad.

    Quote from proletaria
    2. The game is too hard: Legitimate gripe for those expecting another D2 where pretty much all the content pre-LoD was doable naked with a higher level character. I rather like the new challenge, but I can see where this concern comes from.


    I've only played the beta and about 20 minutes of the game at a friend's house, but the game doesn't seem too hard imho. Granted, as I've only beta played it, I can't make a concrete opinion on this.

    Quote from proletaria
    3. Itemization is bad, drop rates on good items too low: Relates to the above, but frankly this is the most legitimate complaint. Tal's set should probably not be getting strength rolls. The truely random / random uniques and underpowered uniques even with good rolls are one of the things I would point at as "bad design," on Blizzard's part.


    Again, because I only played the Beta and about 20 minutes at a friend's house, I can't say much on itemization.

    Anyway, my main gripe with D3 is that it seems to be too generic. It's good for Blizzard's first game of the genre, but it just feels generic. Like something you'd see from a company just starting up. Diablo 2 was innovative, PoE was innovative, TL was innovative, Blizzard's first hack'n'slash is just kinda generic.
  • #27
    Innovative in what way, though? D3 did add a host of new features to the game (and not just the loathsome RMAH), such as encouraging players to clear all around acts for their loot rather than just run to bosses repeatedly, shared stash, random events, etc. Perhaps they weren't the first in the industry to roll out the ideas, but that's immaterial if the games which did aren't in the debate, tbh.

    As far as i'm concerned, D3 has been plenty innovative as far as the title goes. It just has individual problems with scaling and itemization which I hope to see solved in the future. I'm not sure what you expected from the game, but since you don't play it I guess it doesn't matter. :D
  • #28
    Quote from Sindromica

    In its current form D3 is no-where near diablo 2 for playability...even if you compare The original pre expansion d2 i still feel D2 wins out....that being said you have to remember that when Diablo 2 was released it was unique except for obviously Diablo 1,there was nothing else like it so ofcourse nothing to compare it to.I played Diablo 2 on and off for 12 years...how many players can (Honestly) say they will be playing Diablo 3 in 12 years time?


    Not even close D2 without LOD at the early stages was terrible, the end game was kill diablo since nothing else gave XP and it gave an abysmal amount. D3 is of to a very solid start in many areas And it is miles ahead of where D2 where at a similar time frame. I know i played them both. Been with Diablo since Diablo 1. And D3 is clearly on the right track in many areas. My biggest grip is how they nerfed content and failed to deliver on the fact that inferno is supposed to take months of not years to complete. It is your longterm goal work on. Well that didnt hold true with nerfs almost instantly
  • #29

    Diablo 3 is Diablo 2's ugly step sister.

    fixing that a little.)
    Diablo 3 is Diablo 2's retarded step brother, without balls.
    "A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever." Shigeru Miyamoto-nintendo boss

    "I think it's hilarious because gamers won't be getting watered down anything.
    This is flat out Diablo 3." -Anonymous discussing the console version
  • #30
    Quote from proletaria

    Innovative in what way, though? D3 did add a host of new features to the game (and not just the loathsome RMAH), such as encouraging players to clear all around acts for their loot rather than just run to bosses repeatedly, shared stash, random events, etc. Perhaps they weren't the first in the industry to roll out the ideas, but that's immaterial if the games which did aren't in the debate, tbh.


    Anybody that played Diablo 2: Eastern Sun already has experience with Shared Stash, and random events were in Diablo 2 to a small degree. I'll admit that running bosses repeatedly was common in Diablo 2:LoD, which Runic first produced back in 2001, but today that kind of gaming is anything but normal. As for it being immaterial, I tend to think that it's very important. That's like comparing Einstein vs Kaku on their take on gravity and leaving Newton out of the picture.
  • #31
    Quote from LinkX

    Anybody that played Diablo 2: Eastern Sun already has experience with Shared Stash, and random events were in Diablo 2 to a small degree. I'll admit that running bosses repeatedly was common in Diablo 2:LoD, which Runic first produced back in 2001, but today that kind of gaming is anything but normal. As for it being immaterial, I tend to think that it's very important. That's like comparing Einstein vs Kaku on their take on gravity and leaving Newton out of the picture.


    I wasn't into the mod scene, so I never had the same experience with shared stash mechanics. As I recall the farming method of choice pre-LoD was act4. Pretty similar to the current situation with act3 inferno, really. It could be done cheaply, if you had time on your hands, but there were still some serious threats even if your were geared (ie. iron maiden taking out a ww barb mid-spin).

    Your comparison doesn't resonate me with, so perhaps you could elaborate? I think the first implementation of a new technology is rarely the best quality. There is something to be said for fine-tuning and improving upon established things instead. I think there is a fine line to tread between expecting a measure of innovation and being caught up on the lack there-of.

    Personally, I think you're missing the forest for the trees, but your opinions are your own. And don't think I didn't notice you dodged the question there. :D
  • #32
    Quote from proletaria
    I wasn't into the mod scene, so I never had the same experience with shared stash mechanics. As I recall the farming method of choice pre-LoD was act4. Pretty similar to the current situation with act3 inferno, really. It could be done cheaply, if you had time on your hands, but there were still some serious threats even if your were geared (ie. iron maiden taking out a ww barb mid-spin).


    I wasn't either, but my gf was majorly into the mods. (She forced me to play it a couple times. Lol.) And yea, like I already said, Runic did drop the ball on boss running with Diablo 2, though they improved it with Torchlight to some degree, and considering Runic put Diablo 2/LoD out back at the beginning of the millinia, over a decade ago, I'd say they didn't do too bad with it. And, again, they improved with their next game, Torchlight.

    Quote from proletaria
    Your comparison doesn't resonate me with, so perhaps you could elaborate? I think the first implementation of a new technology is rarely the best quality. There is something to be said for fine-tuning and improving upon established things instead. I think there is a fine line to tread between expecting a measure of innovation and being caught up on the lack there-of.


    Fine tuning and improving is one thing, but when you credit one company for the achievements of another, that's far from fine tuning or improving.

    Quote from proletaria
    Personally, I think you're missing the forest for the trees, but your opinions are your own. And don't think I didn't notice you dodged the question there. :D


    What question did I dodge? o.o

    If I dodged something, it wasn't on purpose. Lol.
  • #33
    Quote from LinkX

    I wasn't either, but my gf was majorly into the mods. (She forced me to play it a couple times. Lol.) And yea, like I already said, Runic did drop the ball on boss running with Diablo 2, though they improved it with Torchlight to some degree, and considering Runic put Diablo 2/LoD out back at the beginning of the millinia, over a decade ago, I'd say they didn't do too bad with it. And, again, they improved with their next game, Torchlight.


    Never played torchlight either and from what I read it wasn't terribly popular (compared to diablo, at least). Anyway, the point was those features were improvements.

    Quote from LinkX

    Fine tuning and improving is one thing, but when you credit one company for the achievements of another, that's far from fine tuning or improving.


    Including worthwhile features developed by others is never a bad thing. Any failure to properly cite "new," mechanics was unintentional ignorance on my part.

    Quote from LinkX

    What question did I dodge? o.o


    The first sentence. I prompted you to answer how you expected them to innovate. If, for example, you had asked me how I wanted car manufacturers to innovate and what disappointed me thus far, I would say that electric cars have been around too long to still be in development and that I expected cars to fly in twenty years time circa 1980.

    If a company had solicited me in a similar fashion and I responded "you didn't innovate enough," they'd have nothing to go on. I could say "I like your competitor's model's better," to give them -some- idea, but the best way to provide constructive criticism is to provide detail.
  • #34
    Quote from proletaria
    Never played torchlight either and from what I read it wasn't terribly popular (compared to diablo, at least). Anyway, the point was those features were improvements.


    For the spiritual successor to Diablo 2, it really didn't get the press it deserved. Nor did they market it as well as they could have. :(

    Quote from proletaria
    Including worthwhile features developed by others is never a bad thing. Any failure to properly cite "new," mechanics was unintentional ignorance on my part.


    Quote from proletaria
    The first sentence. I prompted you to answer how you expected them to innovate. If, for example, you had asked me how I wanted car manufacturers to innovate and what disappointed me thus far, I would say that electric cars have been around too long to still be in development and that I expected cars to fly in twenty years time circa 1980.

    If a company had solicited me in a similar fashion and I responded "you didn't innovate enough," they'd have nothing to go on. I could say "I like your competitor's model's better," to give them -some- idea, but the best way to provide constructive criticism is to provide detail.


    My bad. I tend to hone in on the parts that really get me. :(

    Path of Exile seems to come to mind for skill systems, graphics are generic (Though you can't fault them for that when everybody is trying for a realistic view), the monsters I've faced and I've seen my friends face and the locales are meh, and Diablo looks wimpy. (Not in the same manner as the Blood Elves when Burning Crusade came out. In the manner that I feel I could beat him myself if he existed irl.)
  • #35
    in gameplay and graphic aspect d3 its a way bether then d2 of course but for me the length and story inst
    i mena d3 story was amasing but could be mutch more explored i thing some aspects could be inproved and some details have passed by and some other were not so epic example cains deth
  • #36
    Quote from LinkX

    Path of Exile seems to come to mind for skill systems, graphics are generic (Though you can't fault them for that when everybody is trying for a realistic view), the monsters I've faced and I've seen my friends face and the locales are meh, and Diablo looks wimpy. (Not in the same manner as the Blood Elves when Burning Crusade came out. In the manner that I feel I could beat him myself if he existed irl.)


    It's fair to say then, the majority of your issues with the game center on the graphics instead of gameplay? I wouldn't have guessed that.
  • #37
    I pooped my pants TWICE when i heard about Diablo 2 being developed! i only pooped once when i have seen diablo 3....
    Sex, Drugs, & Rock n' Roll
  • #38
    Quote from proletaria

    It's fair to say then, the majority of your issues with the game center on the graphics instead of gameplay? I wouldn't have guessed that.


    DIablo 1 & 2 had a more dark serious tone, unlike Diablo 3, its tone seems more like PG13

    like Dark Knight (2008) compared Batman & Robin (1997)...

    hope that isn't a bad example
    Sex, Drugs, & Rock n' Roll
  • #39
    Quote from KillDiablosMom

    DIablo 1 & 2 had a more dark serious tone, unlike Diablo 3, its tone seems more like PG13


    Aside from the actual ambient light level, I can't say I understand this. There are dismembered bodies, pools of blood and gore, as well as heaps of horrific looking monsters in Diablo 3 everywhere I want to find them.
  • #40
    Quote from proletaria

    Quote from KillDiablosMom

    DIablo 1 & 2 had a more dark serious tone, unlike Diablo 3, its tone seems more like PG13


    Aside from the actual ambient light level, I can't say I understand this. There are dismembered bodies, pools of blood and gore, as well as heaps of horrific looking monsters in Diablo 3 everywhere I want to find them.


    too cliche.

    Diablo 3 is a nice pop-up book :)
    Sex, Drugs, & Rock n' Roll
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes