Diablo 2

[Ruzbeh]

Understanding that the current gaming industry is in a state of complete crisis, I turned to indie games, quickly realizing indie games were also shit, much like their big budget counterparts, only in a different way. My attention then turned to older games, games of an era in which the developers weren't completely fucking stupid, and games which I had played a little but never really got into. In this case, Diablo 2.

Diablo 2. With the many years-long hype of Diablo 3, many memories were stirred of Diablo 2. I've been playing Diablo 2 in the last week or so.

I can't say I'm too impressed. There are some likes and dislikes. The real reason why I played this game a few years ago but didn't really get into is because the game doesn't do a very good job of introducing you to the core mechanics. It doesn't pull you in. It sure didn't pull me in. The only thing that really grabs you is the mysterious, gloomy setting in which the first act takes place, coupled with a very decent soundtrack.

In fact the only reason why I'm playing it as much as I am is not because it's so amazingly incredibly fun (it's reasonably fun, but nothing mind-blowing). I'm playing it 'cause everyone keeps saying what an amazing game it is. I saw some people say Diablo 3 is decent but Diablo 2 is amazing. Well then Diablo 3 must be really shit because Diablo 2 isn't really all that amazing. It's definitely good, but nothing about it suggests to me why some other game couldn't top it. Which I guess makes Diablo 3 all the more sad.

I've actually played the original Diablo somewhat recently. Like, a few years ago. I finished it but I can't really remember much of it. All I remember is that it was gloomy as fuck, and the town was quite a shithole. I thought it was interesting how whole game took place in that one town with the labyrinth below.

There are quite a few dislikes. What I don't like about Diablo 2 is the difficulty. It's too easy. I have so many fucking town portal scrolls it's not even funny. So many potions, so much gold I don't know what to buy with, it's kind of silly. If the difficulty setting later on improves, it's still a negative because then the difficulty level is inconsistent, which is probably worse than a difficulty that is merely too easy.

There's also a whole bunch of shit I don't like, but that's because it's an old ass game. No 60 fps for example. In fact I feel it's like 25 or so fps at times, with how the camera moves around. It's pretty unfortunate. The interesting thing is that reviews from when the game was released in 2000 or so mention that the graphics are outdated. So even by the standards of 13 years ago, the graphics are outdated.
Personally, I think they're obviously outdated, but the game has aged fucking incredibly well. I love the graphics, despite the choppy camera movement and animation. I find moments in the game where I'm WOW'd by the graphics. Some pre-rendered strctures like the entrance to the Monastery in act 1 and that palace or some such in Lut Gholein look fucking incredible. There's an alluring quality to pre-rendered graphics, and I fucking love it. I guess that's why I played through the original Diablo, and I guess that's also why I keep playing Diablo 2.

Unlike recent, modern games, and much like many old games of this era, it's an easy game to pick up and play. Do I have 15 minutes to spare? Then I go into that shithole desert and kill some shit, get some gold, get that exp, save and quit game and be satisified. I guess this is a quality RPGs have in common.

The mechanics though - the most important quality of ANY game - aren't particularly good. For example, I just learned the 'Blaze' skill on my Sorceress. The description sounded cool, but all it does is leave a trail of fire in my wake. It looks really lame if you just walk and you see a trail of fire... it's a useful skill though. The game is decent, it's fun, playable, but once again, just not very good. There are some old ass games people still hype to this day and some of it is deserving and some of it isn't deserving. Diablo 2 is good, but overrated. In fact, reviews from when Diablo 2 released aren't always giving it super high ratings. I personally very much agree with the reviews I've skimmed through.

Of course, when compared to today's games, it's a 23490823056712039845 out of 10, but using my own scale I'd give it something like 7 out of 10, MAYBE 8 out of 10. Even if the rest of the game I haven't touched is structured well, it can't be given a particularly high rating due to the mechanics and somewhat crappy camera movement.

It's odd how no one seems to have topped it though. After I'm done with Diablo 2 I'll give a game called NOX a try, a game similar to Diablo 2. Path of Exile is a recent diablo inspired game but it just looks boring to me. Or perhaps better put, it doesn't look that much better than Diablo. Even looking at Path of Exile, I think I still prefer pre-rendered graphics. I think a style of pre-rendered graphics plus real-time character models would work best.

[Joe Molotov]

Grind for lewt, breh.

[ToxicAdam]

I think it's pretty stupid to pass such generalized sweeping opinions on a game you've barely scratched the surface on. You need to try other characters, max out skill trees and gather high level loot before you can really understand the appeal of a game like Diablo 2.

Then there's the whole multiplayer aspect that pushed it to another level. Especially when you think of the landscape of games you could play on-line at the time. It went from a game that you could spend a few hundred hours on, into a game that you could spend 1000 hours on.


--- /// ---


That's always been the rub with 'loot games' though. You have to spend so much time with it before you can decide if it's great. Games like Titan's Quest, Sacred 2, etc don't really reveal themselves until you've went through the campaign once and are going through a second time. That's when the real strategy of how to manage mobs, allocate skill points and effectively utilizing complimentary skills comes into play. But it's sometimes hard to slog through those introductory levels to get to that magical point. I know I couldn't do it with POE.





 

[Stoney Mason]

I think it's pretty stupid to pass such generalized sweeping opinions on a game you've barely scratched the surface on. You need to try other characters, max out skill trees and gather high level loot before you can really understand the appeal of a game like Diablo 2.

Then there's the whole multiplayer aspect that pushed it to another level. Especially when you think of the landscape of games you could play on-line at the time. It went from a game that you could spend a few hundred hours on, into a game that you could spend 1000 hours on.

Also the fact that it's kinda pointless to go back and play games in the past and judge them on modern whatever current year you are on standards. The context of the time and what that game did at the time relative is far more important. A person tends to sound very ignorant when they go back and play a classic and want to tell you how things are. Especially if they weren't there when that thing hit.

[Himu]

Never judge a loot game by the first run. Doing so isn't very smart.

[brob]

I prefer Diablo 1 to be honest. Never played 3 but I assume I wouldn't like it much. Diablo 1 had great atmosphere of oppression and scarcity and a nice sense of progression with the environments changing as you went deeper and deeper. I liked the little narrative bits the game gives you from time to time as well (the butcher is a good stand-out example). Diablo 2, on the other hand, felt like it was more concerned with grindan loots and having lots of varied dungeons for the players to run through while they grindan loots. The narrative structure in D2 was cool though.


Demon's Souls captured some of that same feeling I had towards Diablo 1. Muted, desolate and oppressive stages with a hub of safety where you could engage NPCs for some narrative bits and whatnot.

[Stoney Mason]

Diablo 1 is a great little game. I really dug it for its time but Diablo 2 for me was a whole other thing. It kind of blew my mind to be honest. It seemed so deep. And so varied. And just a lot of interesting content in it. Especially when you judge it as a full package.

Diablo 3 for me was a fun little popcorn game but it didn't have the mystery and it wasn't the evolution or direction I really wanted. Not to mention the obvious stuff like the auction house. The moment to moment combat was fun though.

I think path of exile is a spirtual kin to Diablo 2 but a lot less fun version for whatever reason. Maybe partially production values and the combat is just less fun.

Also I'm fairly light/casual on this genre. I'll do 2 playthrough but that's its. I'm not going to grind myself into the ground to get whatever uber epic loot exists.

[Human Snorenado]

Judging an arpg on your first playthrough

[Human Snorenado]

Judging an arpg on your first playthrough

You laugh as though this is amateur or something but it's the norm. After the first 100 hours of banal pointing and clicking and hotkeying most people know whether they enjoy that particular blend of banal pointing and clicking and hotkeying or not.

Unless they rolled some objectively shitty character.

No where in his OP does our lovable, distinguished mentally-challenged special fellow lord mention anything about how much he's played the game.  I assume he's through the first difficulty level, maaaaaybe the second, and isn't into Hell yet.

Let's be real- arpgs are NOT for everyone.  If you don't enjoy grinding for incremental upgrades for all of eternity, then find something else to play and stfu.

[Phoenix Dark]

Understanding that the current gaming industry is in a state of complete crisis, I turned to indie games, quickly realizing indie games were also shit, much like their big budget counterparts, only in a different way. My attention then turned to older games, games of an era in which the developers weren't completely fucking stupid, and games which I had played a little but never really got into. In this case, Diablo 2.

Diablo 2. With the many years-long hype of Diablo 3, many memories were stirred of Diablo 2. I've been playing Diablo 2 in the last week or so.

I can't say I'm too impressed. There are some likes and dislikes. The real reason why I played this game a few years ago but didn't really get into is because the game doesn't do a very good job of introducing you to the core mechanics. It doesn't pull you in. It sure didn't pull me in. The only thing that really grabs you is the mysterious, gloomy setting in which the first act takes place, coupled with a very decent soundtrack.

In fact the only reason why I'm playing it as much as I am is not because it's so amazingly incredibly fun (it's reasonably fun, but nothing mind-blowing). I'm playing it 'cause everyone keeps saying what an amazing game it is. I saw some people say Diablo 3 is decent but Diablo 2 is amazing. Well then Diablo 3 must be really shit because Diablo 2 isn't really all that amazing. It's definitely good, but nothing about it suggests to me why some other game couldn't top it. Which I guess makes Diablo 3 all the more sad.

I've actually played the original Diablo somewhat recently. Like, a few years ago. I finished it but I can't really remember much of it. All I remember is that it was gloomy as fuck, and the town was quite a shithole. I thought it was interesting how whole game took place in that one town with the labyrinth below.

There are quite a few dislikes. What I don't like about Diablo 2 is the difficulty. It's too easy. I have so many fucking town portal scrolls it's not even funny. So many potions, so much gold I don't know what to buy with, it's kind of silly. If the difficulty setting later on improves, it's still a negative because then the difficulty level is inconsistent, which is probably worse than a difficulty that is merely too easy.

There's also a whole bunch of shit I don't like, but that's because it's an old ass game. No 60 fps for example. In fact I feel it's like 25 or so fps at times, with how the camera moves around. It's pretty unfortunate. The interesting thing is that reviews from when the game was released in 2000 or so mention that the graphics are outdated. So even by the standards of 13 years ago, the graphics are outdated.
Personally, I think they're obviously outdated, but the game has aged fucking incredibly well. I love the graphics, despite the choppy camera movement and animation. I find moments in the game where I'm WOW'd by the graphics. Some pre-rendered strctures like the entrance to the Monastery in act 1 and that palace or some such in Lut Gholein look fucking incredible. There's an alluring quality to pre-rendered graphics, and I fucking love it. I guess that's why I played through the original Diablo, and I guess that's also why I keep playing Diablo 2.

Unlike recent, modern games, and much like many old games of this era, it's an easy game to pick up and play. Do I have 15 minutes to spare? Then I go into that shithole desert and kill some shit, get some gold, get that exp, save and quit game and be satisified. I guess this is a quality RPGs have in common.

The mechanics though - the most important quality of ANY game - aren't particularly good. For example, I just learned the 'Blaze' skill on my Sorceress. The description sounded cool, but all it does is leave a trail of fire in my wake. It looks really lame if you just walk and you see a trail of fire... it's a useful skill though. The game is decent, it's fun, playable, but once again, just not very good. There are some old ass games people still hype to this day and some of it is deserving and some of it isn't deserving. Diablo 2 is good, but overrated. In fact, reviews from when Diablo 2 released aren't always giving it super high ratings. I personally very much agree with the reviews I've skimmed through.

Of course, when compared to today's games, it's a 23490823056712039845 out of 10, but using my own scale I'd give it something like 7 out of 10, MAYBE 8 out of 10. Even if the rest of the game I haven't touched is structured well, it can't be given a particularly high rating due to the mechanics and somewhat crappy camera movement.

It's odd how no one seems to have topped it though. After I'm done with Diablo 2 I'll give a game called NOX a try, a game similar to Diablo 2. Path of Exile is a recent diablo inspired game but it just looks boring to me. Or perhaps better put, it doesn't look that much better than Diablo. Even looking at Path of Exile, I think I still prefer pre-rendered graphics. I think a style of pre-rendered graphics plus real-time character models would work best.

I beat Act I in the time I could have wasted reading this post.

[Himu]

Serious question: are you playing this by yourself or with friends? arpgs are pretty boring by yourself.

[Phoenix Dark]

Against my better judgement I skimmed the post and came across the sentence "I can't say I'm too impressed."

[Rufus]

Serious question: are you playing this by yourself or with friends? arpgs are pretty boring by yourself.

Except if you play hardcore, then they can be pants shittingly exciting.  I play them solo 99% of the time.

[Human Snorenado]

Playing in a group of competent players IS more fun, but it's so tough to coordinate multiple people's schedules across different time zones, etc.  Playing with randoms is almost always face meltingly awful.

[Cerveza mas fina]

I think it's pretty stupid to pass such generalized sweeping opinions on a game you've barely scratched the surface on. You need to try other characters, max out skill trees and gather high level loot before you can really understand the appeal of a game like Diablo 2.

Then there's the whole multiplayer aspect that pushed it to another level. Especially when you think of the landscape of games you could play on-line at the time. It went from a game that you could spend a few hundred hours on, into a game that you could spend 1000 hours on.

Also the fact that it's kinda pointless to go back and play games in the past and judge them on modern whatever current year you are on standards. The context of the time and what that game did at the time relative is far more important. A person tends to sound very ignorant when they go back and play a classic and want to tell you how things are. Especially if they weren't there when that thing hit.

This pretty much sums it up.

[Bebpo]

Never judge a loot game by the first run. Doing so isn't very smart.

There's actually a few genre where the bulk of the enjoyment doesn't come from the first run; that the first run is just a "something you gotta do" and then the fun is in new game+  Bayonetta, Devil May Cry spring to mind though I know there are few dozen games like this I've played over the years.