EPTAlso, I hate having to make games harder by myself. I will just not do it. Can't even explain why very will, maybe because you still can't measure it against others? I much prefer the makers of a game introducing a harder level than me.
I found what made D1 so unique. - Page 3
| Forum Index > Diablo 3 |
|
aseq
Netherlands3996 Posts
Also, I hate having to make games harder by myself. I will just not do it. Can't even explain why very will, maybe because you still can't measure it against others? I much prefer the makers of a game introducing a harder level than me. | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
 | ||
|
Bleb
Croatia278 Posts
after that it's horrible if you play coop - you can easily kill your teammates with spells and such (and you couldn't target properly) - after few hours only mobs color change - there aren't any good mobs after butcher and leoric... atleast for me... those 2 gave me creeps but other had no effect on me - since we couldn't play 2 mages we played 2 barbs... which meant : opening doors and shift clicking for ages... - killing ranged mobs would literatelly take 30-45 mins (can't remember the name of those before diablo) - there was no skill required in d1 (at least that's my opinion)... what-so-ever... imagine playing barb with only basic attack... | ||
|
Glioburd
France1911 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On January 17 2012 22:50 Bleb wrote: ah... I wish OP played game beyond first 3-4 hours after that it's horrible if you play coop - you can easily kill your teammates with spells and such (and you couldn't target properly) - after few hours only mobs color change - there aren't any good mobs after butcher and leoric... atleast for me... those 2 gave me creeps but other had no effect on me - since we couldn't play 2 mages we played 2 barbs... which meant : opening doors and shift clicking for ages... - killing ranged mobs would literatelly take 30-45 mins (can't remember the name of those before diablo) - there was no skill required in d1 (at least that's my opinion)... what-so-ever... imagine playing barb with only basic attack... I don't think he's trying to say D1 was perfect, just that it did some things right that was lost along the way. Overall I think the western RPG genre (and the action-RPG genre) has been careening away from atmosphere and exploration and more and more into loot-porn. D3 is not the game to fix that and will still be awesome, but I do wish some games would return to the concept of not being about whoring out gear. Get back to the roots of not showering you with magical gear (or gear in general) so when you DO get something magical it feels special. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
Hard difficulty was something people would laugh about. Now you start a game and put it on hard by default and put porn on the other monitor to distract you enough to make it hard (no pun intended). more is not better ... quality is better and id love to see games reduce in size massivley just to get that quality back. | ||
|
PraefektMotus
Germany129 Posts
On January 18 2012 02:09 MrTortoise wrote: I remember when normal difficulty meant you ahd to play the game for 3 months nono stop to be good enough to beat it. I remember those times too and they were shit. A game that offers no challenge whatsoever is somewhat diverting, but a game that is WAY too hard actively screws you out of the experience. I still remember the Nod campaign in the original C&C. It was so difficult I finished maybe 8 of the 14 something missions. I didn't want to be "tested" by the game, I just wanted to see the new units, watch the cutscenes, and follow the story. The game didn't let me and that sucked way more than if it had been too easy. That's why truly good games give you one playthrough on normal on exactly that, normal (i.e. not frustrating) difficulty so you can enjoy what the game has to offer, and everything after that is a hell mode with grinding, min-maxing and general male adolescent masochism with corresponding rewards. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
| ||
|
Eknoid4
United States902 Posts
On January 17 2012 14:56 Medzo wrote: Because grinding isn't hard. Takes 10 minutes. You didn't have to do that either, it just made it easier. I have played hardcore ironman runs plenty of times and imo the game isnt hard at all until hell mode and only when you're first running through it. If you have items, its never hard but you can run into a combo that is difficult MSLE (which they removed) or sometimes certain packs in the right locations are difficult. yeah, but what class did you do this on? | ||
|
Paraclete
United States100 Posts
On January 17 2012 01:14 justiceknight wrote: i still remember the time when my friends and i are running around when toying with the Butcher.It was so fucking hard to kill as though its the last boss of the game.We couldnt experience the same when playing D2 and its just like other RPG game ,wasnt exciting. Good old times T_T... Haha I remember when I first killed the The Butcher I was so proud of myself. I ran back up to get potions to heal and as soon as I entered the first level of the cathedral he was right there. He had followed me up the couple levels, and I got scared shitless. Turns out you can just kill him by running in one of the rooms with the bars for walls and shutting the door behind you. Then you can proceed to take out a bow and shoot him until he dies. | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
On January 17 2012 01:47 Sek-Kuar wrote: What made D1 unique? Battle.net. There were many games like this, but only D1 had massive online multiplayer possibilities that gave it huge advantage over other titles. What about D2? It took everything good from D1 (=battle.net) and added many new things people admire till nowadays - and D2 became one of the most award winning and selling games of all time. I really dont understand why are poeple complaining about old things missing from D1... Nobody ever said they were good. Read some original reviews of D1 back from 97, its just average game that gave people something they never dreamed of before (read again = battle.net). D2 has real Diablo music. D2 is what started Diablo cult. D1 was just like alpha version, just for testing some stuff, with timeless and outstanding multiplayer. As for difficulty, D1 is old school game - where you have to learn by yourself without all info and help in game (i.e.D3 beta "you have unequipped inventory slot", "this item is exactly for this", "go visit this NPC"), but games like this are doomed nowadays and will never go back. Back in times where games were still quite rare, you had to accept how it were. But nowadays its like this, I skip every RTS instantly if it doesnt have minimap in left bottom, simply because thats how Im used to play. I dont need to waste time learning and getting used to new UI just to test game, where I already know good ones... Thats how it work nowadays. Hard games that took time to learn will never come back. OK I google some to support what I just said and here is what I found, old review from Feb 97 (2-3 months after release) fromPC Gamer: http://i.imgur.com/I8Czm.jpg http://i.imgur.com/TfqJY.jpg + Show Spoiler + D1 was not original game, mostly just clone There were even better games of similar kind Without acces to battle.net, its like 7 out of 10 average game But with Battle.net - it became huge hit Battle.net is that ONE THING that burried all other similar games, even those D1 just copied or those better in terms of gamplay or other stuff. You're oh so wrong about the game's reception. D1 got multiple GOTY awards and is still (if memory serves) the highest scoring PC game of all time in gamespot, while D2 didn't surpass 9.0 on the same site. Publications regularly recognize diablo 1 as one of the most important games of our generation. D1 was a revolution in online gaming and it's SP experience was amazing as well. Of course you can find other opinions, but you're generalizing. It was also way harder than D2, particularly in the 2 easier levels. If you haven't faced a pack of elite spitters in the catacombs you don't know what's hard, particularly when playing as a warrior in poor equipment, which used to be the norm. Personally, I have a hard time actually explaining this, but for me, D1 was the WAY superior game, having played both for years, i never found in D2 the magic that made D1 such an incredible game. I feel D2 went too far away and I feel glad that, mechanically, D3 feels closer to D1 than to D2. | ||
|
PraefektMotus
Germany129 Posts
| ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
But yeah d1 was difficult if it was your first hack and slay. But i guess d2 would be difficult as well if its your first game and you end up having a zombie miniboss in the first cave with maybe a lightning buff. *starts to hack it and bzz bzz dead hero* But d1 left more impressions on me. But thats natural d2 played more on the ground and not in a small church with a red glow coming from it and a catacomb that is 100 times bigger then the church. Nothing against the upper world, but dungeons are just way better to create an eerie atmosphere then a sunny day out in the open, with zombies and some oversized hedgehogs. d3 actually looked better again, but we haven't seen much of it to really judge it. | ||
|
Kupon3ss
時の回廊10066 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
D2 was a never ending grind. The real game was to make hacks and bots to grind for you lol. Also A2 A3 A4 A5 are kinda ugly design wise and the bestiary is awful and makes no sense too. The gothic feeling of D1 was much better. | ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
On January 17 2012 17:29 TobZero wrote: you totaly forget the most important point. when we played D1 back in 1990 whe had TWENTYTWO years less gaming experience. everything was "new" back than and we had the mind of kids and teenagers. playing games for over 20 years changes you. a lot of you seem to forget this  I've only played for around 13 years of gaming but I felt that while my tastes have changed, my search for fun/quality hasn't changed much. It used to be shooters or RTS, these days it's mainly RPG. | ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
On January 18 2012 01:35 Logo wrote: I don't think he's trying to say D1 was perfect, just that it did some things right that was lost along the way. Overall I think the western RPG genre (and the action-RPG genre) has been careening away from atmosphere and exploration and more and more into loot-porn. D3 is not the game to fix that and will still be awesome, but I do wish some games would return to the concept of not being about whoring out gear. Get back to the roots of not showering you with magical gear (or gear in general) so when you DO get something magical it feels special. Yeah. Loot-porn doesn't make for a fun game. | ||
|
Gann1
United States1575 Posts
On January 17 2012 21:19 aseq wrote: I didn't think they differed much in difficulty, but I've only played them single player (so no higher difficulties in DI). In Diablo I, I can vaguely remember you could dump your excess money into your primary stat, which made it easy? In Diablo I I'd die from Lazarus, the Butcher, but hardly ever (maybe the succubi on the last level). In Diablo 2, I remember dying to lightning scarab, fetish shaman, oblivion knight. There were more normal monsters with abilities that you had to know about. Also, I hate having to make games harder by myself. I will just not do it. Can't even explain why very will, maybe because you still can't measure it against others? I much prefer the makers of a game introducing a harder level than me. You never played hell/hell, did you? Was way harder than anything in Diablo 2, especially with a warrior. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6022 Posts
On January 18 2012 10:05 Boblion wrote: D1 was a short action game with some roguelike elements. D2 was a never ending grind. The real game was to make hacks and bots to grind for you lol. Also A2 A3 A4 A5 are kinda ugly design wise and the bestiary is awful and makes no sense too. The gothic feeling of D1 was much better. The only acts that repulsed me because of their ugliness were 1 and 3. I'd still indict them all on not being dark enough, though. The reason the bestiary probably went to shit is they put so much stuff in the game for you to grind that every act is a hodgepodge of weird creatures so you don't get bored fighting the same guys all the time. The underlying problem is probably there being too many guys, and none of them very threatening. | ||
|
Flamingo777
United States1190 Posts
On January 17 2012 01:15 frontliner2 wrote: Good thing D3 will be easypeasy Good thing? :s | ||
| ||
