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.
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.
You can find the Diablo II OST right here.
If you want the expansion OST, it's right here.
Cherish that site. It has almost any piece of video game or anime music you can think of.
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.
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