Absolutely. You know, when I first hit the Rogue Encampment after loading up D2 on its day of release, I felt it was graphically inferior in many ways to D1. It also didn't feel particularly 'dark' or 'scary' like D1 was. For instance, skeletons in D1 had quite a lot of fine detail to them. In D2, they looked chunky and badly drawn/assembled.
As a result, I never played D2 as much as I perhaps wanted to, because I felt it was lacking compared to D1.
D3, I believe, is what D2 should have been, and I am absolutely stoked about that, can't can't wait for May 15th.
Considering what little we have to go on and the focus of the "warrior" in the cathedral and the fairly obvious relation to Leah. Yes I'd say D3 probably pulls more from D1 than 2. The only big references I've seen to D2 is the Barbarians story and Mount Arreat (spelling?)
Story wise, it appears to be more about D1 from the beta. But that is only because they arête telling the whole story through the game. The beginning of the game focuses on the story of D1 because that's the beginning of the story.
Trust me, the ramifications of D2 will play a much larger role.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
I would say that DII was closer to DI than DIII, and DIII is closer to DII than it is to DI. That doesn't make any game bad, or any less of a sequel or continuation of the Diablo line though.
In DI you have a very basic game. Limited skills, slow movement, you go into the cathedral and kill demons floor by floor.
DII evolves that into a better game. Tons more skills, richer gameplay, longer, bigger world to explore, more classes, and you still kill demons.
DIII then evolves even more from DII. Way better graphics than the previous games, more complex combat, three times as many skills on your bar at any given moment, supported PvP, but it's still the same Diablo game style that made it so popular: go and kill demons and receive loot.
That's why I would say no game is more of a sequel than the other. They're all just evolutions of the same game to make the best Diablo possible.
i have just gone back and finished diablo 1 again. After i managed to get it to work properly, the game is great and the story as you play through is absolutely epic. Brought back so many good memories and the lore books with epic voiceovers are perhaps even more awesome than they were back when i first played it. I understand them more now lol. (Halls of the blind, Arkaine's Valor, Warlord of Blood, etc)
Well worth the playthrough if you wanted to relive the story before release
Considering what little we have to go on and the focus of the "warrior" in the cathedral and the fairly obvious relation to Leah. Yes I'd say D3 probably pulls more from D1 than 2. The only big references I've seen to D2 is the Barbarians story and Mount Arreat (spelling?)
They changed the Barbarians story, just FYI. He's no longer the barb from D2, he's a different one now. But I'm sure we'll meet the barb (if he's dead or alive) in D3.
There hasn't been a single person from the original core Diablo team there in years (and only one remaining from that team as of D2's launch) , so if it is a truer sequel, that's a product of study and reverse engineering rather than any continuity in the people behind it.
Even most of the people that weren't on the core team, but played a role in making it - Adham, Wyatt, O'Brien, Strain, Roper - are all also long gone.
Of course, the Aliens and Harry Potter series have had different directors, the James Bond series has had multiple different leads, doesn't necessarily make it a good or bad thing.
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.
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Tyrael destroys the worldstone at the end of D2, and now Hell has planned an all-out assault on Sanctuary from that exact location years later in D3. If D3 was about the Sin War trilogy, I would agree with you not being a sequel at all, but this game lines up with the events of D2.
I guess I should have been more specific about what I meant. I don't mean that it picks up from where Diablo 1 left off, story-wise. I meant does the game "feel" more like diablo 1 or diablo 2 to you? In my opinion, it feels much more like Diablo 1.
I don't understand how people keep going back to the 'it's not the same people so it's a different game' mindset. This has happened before in gaming, what matters is whether the developers can capture the same spirit of the product or not, but that's beside the point.
The question the OP raised wasn't if the developers are still the same or if the story continues, he's asking whether or not they captured the spirit of Diablo better than D2 did. To an extent, I think they may very well have. People who think D2 is so very true to the Diablo name should go play the two games again, time has clearly made your mind jaded.
I remember clearly the discussions I had on the diablo2.net site around release time where people tore the game to shreds. 'It was too light and cheerful, why skill points and not books, why no random quests, the monsters aren't evil enough, not enough level randomization.' People were fuming, but in time they grew quiet when they realized how good D2 actually is, and the same will happen once D3 is released.
Diablo 1 and 2 were made by Blizzard North which was initially a separate developer before being acquired by Blizzard. Matt Uelman did the music of Diablo 1, 2, not 3.
The art direction is more similar in D1 and D2 compared to D3. So D3 with its painting style and such is more different than its predecessors.
Blizzard North was initially known as Condor, but was changed when Blizzard purchased the company. You should be grateful they did, Diablo was envisioned to have been a claymation, turn based RPG, until Blizzard changed it to the great game it is today. One of the reasons Blizzard North was closed down was due to the crap D3 they were working on, it looked horrible, and I'm really glad things turned out this way. The D3 we have today is a whole lot better than what it looked like back them.
"The art direction is more similar in D1 and D2 compared to D3."
Are you serious? Diablo came out in 1996, D2 came out in 2000. That's 4 years between the two games. D3 will come out 12 after D2 was released, so I'd damn well hope the artwork was improved in the years since 2000. People should remember, gaming graphics have come a long way in the last decade, and technology has changed in new and interesting ways so obviously things won't look the same.
One of the reasons Blizzard North was closed down was due to the crap D3 they were working on, it looked horrible, and I'm really glad things turned out this way.
And you're basing that on what, exactly? An unsourced wikipedia article with zero relevant primary links? Leaked screenshots which were probably from a background artist's portfolio, with zero emphasis on character art, monster art, UI, and with the lights turned on 100% and the camera pulled back twice as far as it would ever be? Because that would be a really stupid assumption, in terms of it having any relation to the appearance of the actual game.
Of course, maybe did you play a build from early 2005, and aren't the type to regurgitate idiotic assumptions. If so, apologies.
One of the reasons Blizzard North was closed down was due to the crap D3 they were working on, it looked horrible, and I'm really glad things turned out this way.
And you're basing that on what, exactly? An unsourced wikipedia article with zero relevant primary links? Leaked screenshots which were probably from a background artist's portfolio, with zero emphasis on character art, monster art, UI, and with the lights turned on 100% and the camera pulled back twice as far as it would ever be? Because that would be a really stupid assumption, in terms of it having any relation to the appearance of the actual game.
Of course, maybe did you play a build from early 2005, and aren't the type to regurgitate idiotic assumptions. If so, apologies.
Much closer to D2 than D1, in terms of gameplay. D1 was slower paced, enemies were more dangerous, and skills/abilities were more fluid between classes. Small random set of non-linked quests. Classes are general archetypes with only a certain superficial level of backstory.
D2 got faster paced, the player became more powerful relative to his foes, and there were more of them, and classes gained seperate skill trees. Story is told in acts and gains some progressive linked questlines. Classes became more specific, though they are still not specific characters, they do gain specific places of origin and some personality.
D3 now has seperate skill trees, seperate damage scaling stats, the player is even more powerful relative to enemies (and there are even more of them), and quests are justified and linked, and told through dialogue between players and helpers, as well as lorebooks. Classes are more than just archetypes and are distinct characters, with not only settings and origins but individual goals and outlooks.
Seems to me to be a natural evolution from 1->2->3, D1 in no way seems closer to D3 than D2.
One of the reasons Blizzard North was closed down was due to the crap D3 they were working on, it looked horrible, and I'm really glad things turned out this way.
And you're basing that on what, exactly? An unsourced wikipedia article with zero relevant primary links? Leaked screenshots which were probably from a background artist's portfolio, with zero emphasis on character art, monster art, UI, and with the lights turned on 100% and the camera pulled back twice as far as it would ever be? Because that would be a really stupid assumption, in terms of it having any relation to the appearance of the actual game.
Of course, maybe did you play a build from early 2005, and aren't the type to regurgitate idiotic assumptions. If so, apologies.
Sounds like someone worked for Blizzard North.
So Blizzard closed down BNorth for... shits and giggles? We've seen screenshots from Bnorth's version, we know they got shut down because Blizzard wasn't happy with their work, and we've seen the crappy games the ex-Bnorth people have made since they left.
And you're basing that on what, exactly? An unsourced wikipedia article with zero relevant primary links? Leaked screenshots which were probably from a background artist's portfolio, with zero emphasis on character art, monster art, UI, and with the lights turned on 100% and the camera pulled back twice as far as it would ever be? Because that would be a really stupid assumption, in terms of it having any relation to the appearance of the actual game.
Of course, maybe did you play a build from early 2005, and aren't the type to regurgitate idiotic assumptions. If so, apologies.
Actually, I read that on the old Blizzard forum, not certain about the source. Vivendi did sack the North team, they didn't leave on their own volition. And like others have said, the response to thier version of D3 was underwhelming.
Luckily I was blessed with eyes and common sense so by looking at the horrid 3D perspectives and insane zoom angles, I clearly surmised that it didn't feel right, and still required extensive work ... after about 4 years of development, I might add. That and coupled with the whole items going from dark to light and the game having guilds and guild halls, not to mention mounts, the game just seemed off. A designer even stated it was WoW in the Diablo universe ... with Hell vs Heaven factions akin to Alliance vs Horde ... that's a chilling thought.
Well, I just used logic to get to this point, and many people agree, even Blizzard, who saw the early work North did, and yet scraped everything to start fresh. Of course, you didn't play an early build yourself, and unless you are the type who mindlessly regurgitate insults in an attempt to cause confrontations, then you're just going on your own assumptions.
Actually, I read that on the old Blizzard forum, not certain about the source. Vivendi did sack the North team, they didn't leave on their own volition.
Right, no link or source. And another repeat of the bizarre claims that "vivendi" (as if a global conglomerate that included french water rights, a giant cable channel and african cell phone companies was a person) reached through 3 layers of management, over the heads of Irvine execs, a full 9 months after WoW had been established as a smash hit with over 3 million subs at that point. Got it.
So Blizzard closed down BNorth for... shits and giggles? We've seen screenshots from Bnorth's version, we know they got shut down because Blizzard wasn't happy with their work, and we've seen the crappy games the ex-Bnorth people have made since they left.
Within a year after Blizzard North's closure, Blizzard also bought AND closed down a fairly large studio (Swingin' Ape). Was that all because their work quality was poor? And, if so, isn't it odd that they liked the studio enough to buy it but then, just a few months later, hated its work product enough to shut it down? Or maybe other factors were at work, and business is sometimes trickier than 2+2=4. In any case, you have no idea why they were shut down, and have absolutely no links to back up any second-hand opinion you may believe as facts.
And - "screenshots" - really? You really think the game was played with minimal monsters and the lights at full blast, at twice the camera distance of every other iteration in the series?
As for the last part, again, Flagship only had about ten blizzard north developers from a total of around 60 when D2 shipped. And the company lead was a guy who had been up in the bay area for less than a year, after being in Irvine for a full decade. They were definitely many things, but they weren't "Blizzard North", whether or not they had an interest in selling that image to investors, and whether or not that made for a convenient narrative for people who wanted to portray them as losers in order to make Irvine seem relatively responsible for the previous successes. Runic also has a grand total of three guys from that team, so painting them as "Blizzard North" is even more ridiculous.
What I find particularly funny about this grouping of brain-dead memes is the associated idea that the remaining people at Blizzard were somehow responsible for the success of the earlier games, yet they haven't released anything except shinier versions of games released back when those older devs were still around and Clinton was still in office. I don't know if that qualifies as "irony", or just stupidity on the part of the fanbois.
I would say that DII was closer to DI than DIII, and DIII is closer to DII than it is to DI. That doesn't make any game bad, or any less of a sequel or continuation of the Diablo line though.
i lol'd
whoever said Diablo 2 looked worse than Diablo 1, when was the last time you played it? Diablo 2 was a slick as hell looking game in it's day, the only thing that really trumped it from the original in my opinion was the score, and yea the Dungeon was darker in D1 but there was only one dungeon.
I think the thing to remember is, the events that have shown so far for the most part are revolving around Tristram, which is of course famous because of the things that happened in the original Diablo. So it would look that way, they know what they are doing with story telling though, Baal was almost the first person you see in Diablo 2 and never actually turns up until the very end... I think that Diablo 2 was an exceptional sequel, and Diablo 3 will be too, but if you think you can relate Diablo straight to Diablo 3 you have to have a pretty good imagination... well maybe, if Diablo 3 finished at the skeleton king.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
and this
many problems with it.
The game has progressed for the last 15 years to the best diablo game yet.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Trust me, the ramifications of D2 will play a much larger role.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
In DI you have a very basic game. Limited skills, slow movement, you go into the cathedral and kill demons floor by floor.
DII evolves that into a better game. Tons more skills, richer gameplay, longer, bigger world to explore, more classes, and you still kill demons.
DIII then evolves even more from DII. Way better graphics than the previous games, more complex combat, three times as many skills on your bar at any given moment, supported PvP, but it's still the same Diablo game style that made it so popular: go and kill demons and receive loot.
That's why I would say no game is more of a sequel than the other. They're all just evolutions of the same game to make the best Diablo possible.
Well worth the playthrough if you wanted to relive the story before release
They changed the Barbarians story, just FYI. He's no longer the barb from D2, he's a different one now. But I'm sure we'll meet the barb (if he's dead or alive) in D3.
Even most of the people that weren't on the core team, but played a role in making it - Adham, Wyatt, O'Brien, Strain, Roper - are all also long gone.
Of course, the Aliens and Harry Potter series have had different directors, the James Bond series has had multiple different leads, doesn't necessarily make it a good or bad thing.
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Tyrael destroys the worldstone at the end of D2, and now Hell has planned an all-out assault on Sanctuary from that exact location years later in D3. If D3 was about the Sin War trilogy, I would agree with you not being a sequel at all, but this game lines up with the events of D2.
Battle.net Profile / Diablo Progress Profile
The question the OP raised wasn't if the developers are still the same or if the story continues, he's asking whether or not they captured the spirit of Diablo better than D2 did. To an extent, I think they may very well have. People who think D2 is so very true to the Diablo name should go play the two games again, time has clearly made your mind jaded.
I remember clearly the discussions I had on the diablo2.net site around release time where people tore the game to shreds. 'It was too light and cheerful, why skill points and not books, why no random quests, the monsters aren't evil enough, not enough level randomization.' People were fuming, but in time they grew quiet when they realized how good D2 actually is, and the same will happen once D3 is released.
Blizzard North was initially known as Condor, but was changed when Blizzard purchased the company. You should be grateful they did, Diablo was envisioned to have been a claymation, turn based RPG, until Blizzard changed it to the great game it is today. One of the reasons Blizzard North was closed down was due to the crap D3 they were working on, it looked horrible, and I'm really glad things turned out this way. The D3 we have today is a whole lot better than what it looked like back them.
"The art direction is more similar in D1 and D2 compared to D3."
Are you serious? Diablo came out in 1996, D2 came out in 2000. That's 4 years between the two games. D3 will come out 12 after D2 was released, so I'd damn well hope the artwork was improved in the years since 2000. People should remember, gaming graphics have come a long way in the last decade, and technology has changed in new and interesting ways so obviously things won't look the same.
And you're basing that on what, exactly? An unsourced wikipedia article with zero relevant primary links? Leaked screenshots which were probably from a background artist's portfolio, with zero emphasis on character art, monster art, UI, and with the lights turned on 100% and the camera pulled back twice as far as it would ever be? Because that would be a really stupid assumption, in terms of it having any relation to the appearance of the actual game.
Of course, maybe did you play a build from early 2005, and aren't the type to regurgitate idiotic assumptions. If so, apologies.
D2 got faster paced, the player became more powerful relative to his foes, and there were more of them, and classes gained seperate skill trees. Story is told in acts and gains some progressive linked questlines. Classes became more specific, though they are still not specific characters, they do gain specific places of origin and some personality.
D3 now has seperate skill trees, seperate damage scaling stats, the player is even more powerful relative to enemies (and there are even more of them), and quests are justified and linked, and told through dialogue between players and helpers, as well as lorebooks. Classes are more than just archetypes and are distinct characters, with not only settings and origins but individual goals and outlooks.
Seems to me to be a natural evolution from 1->2->3, D1 in no way seems closer to D3 than D2.
So Blizzard closed down BNorth for... shits and giggles? We've seen screenshots from Bnorth's version, we know they got shut down because Blizzard wasn't happy with their work, and we've seen the crappy games the ex-Bnorth people have made since they left.
2 + 2 = 4
Luckily I was blessed with eyes and common sense so by looking at the horrid 3D perspectives and insane zoom angles, I clearly surmised that it didn't feel right, and still required extensive work ... after about 4 years of development, I might add. That and coupled with the whole items going from dark to light and the game having guilds and guild halls, not to mention mounts, the game just seemed off. A designer even stated it was WoW in the Diablo universe ... with Hell vs Heaven factions akin to Alliance vs Horde ... that's a chilling thought.
Well, I just used logic to get to this point, and many people agree, even Blizzard, who saw the early work North did, and yet scraped everything to start fresh. Of course, you didn't play an early build yourself, and unless you are the type who mindlessly regurgitate insults in an attempt to cause confrontations, then you're just going on your own assumptions.
Right, no link or source. And another repeat of the bizarre claims that "vivendi" (as if a global conglomerate that included french water rights, a giant cable channel and african cell phone companies was a person) reached through 3 layers of management, over the heads of Irvine execs, a full 9 months after WoW had been established as a smash hit with over 3 million subs at that point. Got it.
Within a year after Blizzard North's closure, Blizzard also bought AND closed down a fairly large studio (Swingin' Ape). Was that all because their work quality was poor? And, if so, isn't it odd that they liked the studio enough to buy it but then, just a few months later, hated its work product enough to shut it down? Or maybe other factors were at work, and business is sometimes trickier than 2+2=4. In any case, you have no idea why they were shut down, and have absolutely no links to back up any second-hand opinion you may believe as facts.
And - "screenshots" - really? You really think the game was played with minimal monsters and the lights at full blast, at twice the camera distance of every other iteration in the series?
As for the last part, again, Flagship only had about ten blizzard north developers from a total of around 60 when D2 shipped. And the company lead was a guy who had been up in the bay area for less than a year, after being in Irvine for a full decade. They were definitely many things, but they weren't "Blizzard North", whether or not they had an interest in selling that image to investors, and whether or not that made for a convenient narrative for people who wanted to portray them as losers in order to make Irvine seem relatively responsible for the previous successes. Runic also has a grand total of three guys from that team, so painting them as "Blizzard North" is even more ridiculous.
What I find particularly funny about this grouping of brain-dead memes is the associated idea that the remaining people at Blizzard were somehow responsible for the success of the earlier games, yet they haven't released anything except shinier versions of games released back when those older devs were still around and Clinton was still in office. I don't know if that qualifies as "irony", or just stupidity on the part of the fanbois.
i lol'd
whoever said Diablo 2 looked worse than Diablo 1, when was the last time you played it? Diablo 2 was a slick as hell looking game in it's day, the only thing that really trumped it from the original in my opinion was the score, and yea the Dungeon was darker in D1 but there was only one dungeon.
I think the thing to remember is, the events that have shown so far for the most part are revolving around Tristram, which is of course famous because of the things that happened in the original Diablo. So it would look that way, they know what they are doing with story telling though, Baal was almost the first person you see in Diablo 2 and never actually turns up until the very end... I think that Diablo 2 was an exceptional sequel, and Diablo 3 will be too, but if you think you can relate Diablo straight to Diablo 3 you have to have a pretty good imagination... well maybe, if Diablo 3 finished at the skeleton king.