I loved D1. It had amazing music and atmosphere not to mention the extremely addictive playstyle that helped define the genre.
I also loved D2. Graphically speaking I don't think there were many improvements from D1, but it helped evolve the playstyle and IMO was more story focused than D1. By that I mean, in D1 you had your random quests and your base story of, 'the king's son was kidnapped. Go rescue him' along with random tomes you'd find throughout your adventure (which were AWESOME and helped create that atmosphere as well as give you some backstory and perspective!). However, those tomes and tidbits were about as much story as you got in D1.
In D2, there was a much more involved and fluid style of story. You had the cutscenes between acts that help bring that story to life. The game started to really come alive for me in D2 and was an excellent sequel to an amazing game.
D3 I think takes the best things about D2 and makes them better. The game has a more involved storyline than ever before. The cinematics are visually breathtaking. Graphically speaking, it's a huge improvement over the first two games by far. As for the question of whether it will be a better sequel to D1 than D2 was, I don't think so. At least not 'better' but equal. I'd put it on par with D2 personally but I really can't answer the question until I have the game on my computer and playing it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh pitiful shadow lost in the darkness,
Bringing torment and pain to others.
Your damned soul wallowing in your sin.
Perhaps... it is time to die.
Because let's face it - Diablo 1 from the perspective of 2012 seems like a rich game - but mainly because of all the books and theories put between it. The game itself was fairly simple lore-wise. Same with Diablo II really. I feel like - despite not being the same team from D1 and DII - they are trying really hard to make the DIII story WAY more deep.
After I read the Book of Cain, I must say I was thoroughly impressed. You can really see the backbone layout from 1 and 2 are still there, but they have gone so much further with it. The story is really structured and thorough, and for a hack n slash that really says a lot about its designers.
I consider Diablo 2 to be the sequel to Diablo 1. I do not consider Diablo 3 to be a sequel to either, it's a separate game that just happens to be made by the same company and with a similar name.
It's not that it's not a nice game, it is one. I just don't consider it as good as the former 2 (compared to their release time) and different enough that it's simply not the sequel.I still plan on enjoying it though.
Huh???
<snip>
I also do not believe that D3 is as good as D1 or D2. It's way better!, in more ways than can be put forth in this post without creating a wall of text.
<snip>
Anyone who claims D3 is not a sequel to either D1 or D2, is either lying or just not telling the truth. Diablo 3 should rather be named Diablo3., it's that much better than anything the previous games ever where.
There are so many things in your post that I disagreed with, but since I have neither the time nor inclination for such a thing I shall keep it short.
I do not appreciate being called a liar. It makes me think you're... well let's just say my opinion of you isn't at its most positive at the moment. Besides having given some very very good reasoning for my opinion, it is an opinion, just like everyone elses post on this subject. What you are doing is arguing that green is a better colour then red. It's tremendously stupid.
Also, you mistakenly thought this was about quality, it is not. It's whether people feel if Diablo 3 is a better sequel to 1 then 2, or if it is a sequel at all. Diablo could be the best game of the year, or in existence (I assure you, relatively few people believe this) and it would have little bearing whether it is considered a sequel to either game.
Please, learn to read.
My apologies, Ramsey, perhaps I could have worded my post a little differently. My statement of "is either lying or just not telling the truth" was intended to be wymsical, and not directed personally at you.
But your own statement of "and different enough that it's simply not the sequel" just didn't make any sens to me at all! Not the sequel? The definition of sequel:
A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting work.
or
a novel, play, etc., that continues a previously related story
As I understand it, that perfectly qualifies D3 as such, right? Diablo III is different enough to stand on it's own as a single entity, but it has enough similaries with the previous two games, and adds alot of it's own narrative to the story, that it can rightly be called a sequel.
Is (or will) Diablo III be the best game in existence as some believe? I don't know, it's still too early to make that judgement. Is Diablo III the best version of the game so far in the franchise? From what I've seen and experienced of the beta, most assuredly yes.
But again, my opologies if some statements in my earlier post was taken too personally.
I hope to see you online in the game world come May 15th...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Peter Alexander DzomlijaDo you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as you die, so shall I be Reborn...
No actual harm done, but, let me explain my view once more.
Technically, you are correct, Diablo 3 is a sequel to Diablo 2, which is a sequel to Diablo 1. They do indeed continue a storyline. However, the original post in this thread asked if Diablo 3 felt like a truer sequel to Diablo 1 then Diablo 2. The operational word however, is "feel". It's by definition not a logical thing. And it simply doesn't feel enough like something from the Diablo franchise. There are some possible reasons for it.
For example
Heck, I felt the same way moving from Diablo 1 to Diablo 2, thinking that the look just wasn't right. Anyone who knows me will remember that I even made the mistake of thinking that the Amazon would play the same as did the Rouge, and 2 weeks of play was utterly destroyed by my first ever encounter with Duriel.
I'm not going to make that same mistake again. And it is perhaps too early to judge whether or not it "feels" like a better sequel to D1 as did D2 to D1. Just as it took extended game time with D2 to get me to like it (which I didn't at the start), I'll wait untill I've played D3 beyond what the beta provided before I can make any respectable judgements on it.
Although I must point out that because of the beta, I am leaning towards liking it very much, if not more so than I did D2...
1) The development team is different this time around. This by necessity has caused a different design philosophy and different decisions then the original team
I do not recall exactly where I read this, but the original D2 team (Blizzard North) did start work on D3 as early as 2003, but their design decisions and direction (more WOW like than anything) would have resulted in an entirely new game, with almost nothing in common with D1 and D2. This, I believe, contributed to the project being completely scrapped, and eventually led to Blizzard North being shut down.
2) The time difference between first and second, and second and third is tripled. And the world has changed tremendously in that time, video games have gone through a lot of evolution.
The time difference between releases is explained because of the scrapping of the original D3 project and the closing of Blizzard North. The work on what eventually became the D3 that we know today started in 2005 (2006?), of which we know the first public announcement was made in 2008.
I don't even want to think of the amount of work that has gone into the development of D3, as concentrating too much on how they did it will distract from my enjoyment of the game. Needless to say though, there is far more detail present than ever before (thanks to the evolution of gaming technology), and applying that amount of detail logically will take more time.
3) There are a lot of decisions that gave me a certain ill feeling. The RMAH for example makes me feel as if the game is meant to leech money from players (let me emphasise to other readers, that you cannot argue with a feeling). Far worse then this is the decision to have the game only playable online and not having any support for Lan. I cannot help feel (no matter the protestations that it's for "security") that this was done to keep people on the Blizzard servers with ready access to the RMAH. That some people believe these measures are necessary for keeping the server up makes me want to become a hermit.
I originally did not like the idea of them not having offline Single Player or LAN play, and to a certain degree, still do not. But again, the beta come into play. My dislike of online only was somewhat tempered when I ran the Open Beta, and didn't notice the difference between offline or online.
To put it another way: If you take the absolute worst and slowest DSL internet connection available in the Americas, Europe (or anywhere else in the world for that matter), then you already have something better than the best that is available in South Africa. And I was still able to play without problems. In the time I was playingthe Open Beta, I only had a single timeout, and my statistics show that in a single hour, Diablo III generated between 8MB and 10MB of traffic during gameplay. Some of my friends whose line speed is less than 1/8 of mine also played without problems.
So what about the RMAH? Or even the GAH? It's a logical step from the vendors in D1 and D2. But this time, you're not buying from an in-game character, you're buying from a living, breathing person.
No biggie, really. I remember over the years, even playing offline, that I would sometimes find an item that I already had (for example), but with slightly better stats. So instead of getting rid of the first one by selling it in-game, my friends would bug me for a trade, and they would go so far as to offer me R100 or some other real-world object for it.
The RMAH is nothing new. The only difference that now Blizzard themselves would be benefitting from it, just as we would. And I am certain that whatever funding is generated through the RMAH will be diverted to improving the quality of the game, expansions, etc.
There were plenty of decisions to do with gameplay, some I agreed with (like being able to respec at will) and some I didn't.
What's wrong with respeccing? Being able to choose at will from whatever pool of skills are at your disposal is logic.
I'm (for example) a programmer who is fluent in Delphi/Pascal, Visual Basic, VBA, Command Line and HTML. Some projects require my skill with HTML while others need VBA, or even a combination of any one of them.
So why should my Wizard not be able to make those same choices? She uses "Ray Of Frost" and "Wave Of Force" primarily to get rid of the smaller monsters, but when she encounters a nastier monster, like a Tomb Guardian, or King Leoric, she doesn't have to endanger herself by using only those two skills. With all her training, she can pick whatever she wants, and use them whenever she wants. This time, "Arcane Torrent" gets added to the mix to destroy the demons. She wouldn't be a Wizard otherwise.
Because of all these factors and some more, Diablo 3 didn't feel like it was a part of the Diablo franchise. I am looking forward to it, I have enough friends playing that we're making our own clan. It seems like it will be a nice game, I plan to enjoy it. But it just doesn't feel like a "Diablo" game. I don't think any game will though, it's simply been too long.
Also, when I compare the Diablo games to eachother, I compare them based on the time they were released. I judge Diablo 1 based on gaming in 1996, and Diablo 2 based on gaming done in and around 2000. And I don't think that Diablo 3 will be as good as 1 and 2 when based on that criteria. Both of them were innovative for their age, bringing in new concepts and ideas. I do not believe Diablo 3 is innovative, except perhaps new ways of getting money from players
You're quite right, actually. Diablo 1 should be judged on gaming standards of 1996. Diablo 2 on the standards of 2000.
Diablo 3 should be judge on the stands of 2012, as it is rightly being judged.
We can't really judge yet how innovative D3 is, because nobody outside of Blizzard themselves have seen the game beyond the Skeleton King, so no-one can make that call. Let's all just wait until May 15th to play beyond Leoric before we make any judgement calls.
Personally? I believe that "We ain't seen nothin' yet!"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Peter Alexander DzomlijaDo you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as you die, so shall I be Reborn...
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I also loved D2. Graphically speaking I don't think there were many improvements from D1, but it helped evolve the playstyle and IMO was more story focused than D1. By that I mean, in D1 you had your random quests and your base story of, 'the king's son was kidnapped. Go rescue him' along with random tomes you'd find throughout your adventure (which were AWESOME and helped create that atmosphere as well as give you some backstory and perspective!). However, those tomes and tidbits were about as much story as you got in D1.
In D2, there was a much more involved and fluid style of story. You had the cutscenes between acts that help bring that story to life. The game started to really come alive for me in D2 and was an excellent sequel to an amazing game.
D3 I think takes the best things about D2 and makes them better. The game has a more involved storyline than ever before. The cinematics are visually breathtaking. Graphically speaking, it's a huge improvement over the first two games by far. As for the question of whether it will be a better sequel to D1 than D2 was, I don't think so. At least not 'better' but equal. I'd put it on par with D2 personally but I really can't answer the question until I have the game on my computer and playing it.
Bringing torment and pain to others.
Your damned soul wallowing in your sin.
Perhaps...
it is time to die.
My apologies, Ramsey, perhaps I could have worded my post a little differently. My statement of "is either lying or just not telling the truth" was intended to be wymsical, and not directed personally at you.
But your own statement of "and different enough that it's simply not the sequel" just didn't make any sens to me at all! Not the sequel? The definition of sequel:
(http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/sequel)
or
As I understand it, that perfectly qualifies D3 as such, right? Diablo III is different enough to stand on it's own as a single entity, but it has enough similaries with the previous two games, and adds alot of it's own narrative to the story, that it can rightly be called a sequel.
Is (or will) Diablo III be the best game in existence as some believe? I don't know, it's still too early to make that judgement. Is Diablo III the best version of the game so far in the franchise? From what I've seen and experienced of the beta, most assuredly yes.
But again, my opologies if some statements in my earlier post was taken too personally.
I hope to see you online in the game world come May 15th...
I'm not going to make that same mistake again. And it is perhaps too early to judge whether or not it "feels" like a better sequel to D1 as did D2 to D1. Just as it took extended game time with D2 to get me to like it (which I didn't at the start), I'll wait untill I've played D3 beyond what the beta provided before I can make any respectable judgements on it.
Although I must point out that because of the beta, I am leaning towards liking it very much, if not more so than I did D2...
I do not recall exactly where I read this, but the original D2 team (Blizzard North) did start work on D3 as early as 2003, but their design decisions and direction (more WOW like than anything) would have resulted in an entirely new game, with almost nothing in common with D1 and D2. This, I believe, contributed to the project being completely scrapped, and eventually led to Blizzard North being shut down.
The time difference between releases is explained because of the scrapping of the original D3 project and the closing of Blizzard North. The work on what eventually became the D3 that we know today started in 2005 (2006?), of which we know the first public announcement was made in 2008.
I don't even want to think of the amount of work that has gone into the development of D3, as concentrating too much on how they did it will distract from my enjoyment of the game. Needless to say though, there is far more detail present than ever before (thanks to the evolution of gaming technology), and applying that amount of detail logically will take more time.
I'm glad that D3 has taken as long as it has.
I originally did not like the idea of them not having offline Single Player or LAN play, and to a certain degree, still do not. But again, the beta come into play. My dislike of online only was somewhat tempered when I ran the Open Beta, and didn't notice the difference between offline or online.
To put it another way: If you take the absolute worst and slowest DSL internet connection available in the Americas, Europe (or anywhere else in the world for that matter), then you already have something better than the best that is available in South Africa. And I was still able to play without problems. In the time I was playingthe Open Beta, I only had a single timeout, and my statistics show that in a single hour, Diablo III generated between 8MB and 10MB of traffic during gameplay. Some of my friends whose line speed is less than 1/8 of mine also played without problems.
So what about the RMAH? Or even the GAH? It's a logical step from the vendors in D1 and D2. But this time, you're not buying from an in-game character, you're buying from a living, breathing person.
No biggie, really. I remember over the years, even playing offline, that I would sometimes find an item that I already had (for example), but with slightly better stats. So instead of getting rid of the first one by selling it in-game, my friends would bug me for a trade, and they would go so far as to offer me R100 or some other real-world object for it.
The RMAH is nothing new. The only difference that now Blizzard themselves would be benefitting from it, just as we would. And I am certain that whatever funding is generated through the RMAH will be diverted to improving the quality of the game, expansions, etc.
What's wrong with respeccing? Being able to choose at will from whatever pool of skills are at your disposal is logic.
I'm (for example) a programmer who is fluent in Delphi/Pascal, Visual Basic, VBA, Command Line and HTML. Some projects require my skill with HTML while others need VBA, or even a combination of any one of them.
So why should my Wizard not be able to make those same choices? She uses "Ray Of Frost" and "Wave Of Force" primarily to get rid of the smaller monsters, but when she encounters a nastier monster, like a Tomb Guardian, or King Leoric, she doesn't have to endanger herself by using only those two skills. With all her training, she can pick whatever she wants, and use them whenever she wants. This time, "Arcane Torrent" gets added to the mix to destroy the demons. She wouldn't be a Wizard otherwise.
You're quite right, actually. Diablo 1 should be judged on gaming standards of 1996. Diablo 2 on the standards of 2000.
Diablo 3 should be judge on the stands of 2012, as it is rightly being judged.
We can't really judge yet how innovative D3 is, because nobody outside of Blizzard themselves have seen the game beyond the Skeleton King, so no-one can make that call. Let's all just wait until May 15th to play beyond Leoric before we make any judgement calls.
Personally? I believe that "We ain't seen nothin' yet!"