|
When Diablo 3 was first announced there was a gigantic wave of complatins about how the game didn't look and feel as dark or creepy as the first one. The same concerns were also raised with Diablo 2. People blamed the color palette, the music, the monster design, the sounds in general. All in all they were saying the atmosphere of the game wasn't right but it seemed like no one was completely able to put on paper what was EXACTLY different with Diablo 3.
Personally, I never thought the colors were wrong. Diablo 1 was made 15 years ago when 8 bit color palettes were awesome. It's normal that the game wasn't as colored as today's games are. You could even call it a vintage style at this point. I refuse to believe that we have to limit ourselves to 1990s CGI to get the atmosphere right in a game that will come out in 2012. (We could start a release date discussion right here but, let's not).
Fast forward to last weekend; my friend brought his PC over to my house so we can have a little LAN. We played the usual games and I thought we could re-try Diablo 1, just for old times' sake.
As we progressed through the first levels of the dungeons I started noticing gameplay differences with the second and third games. I think it's the combination of these that made Diablo 1 the creepy horror game that it was.
================================================================
A. It's Dark, as in Doom 3 dark. You can survive without +light items but they make a serious difference.
B. The music does a good job at setting the mood but after hearing it for two hours, I turned it off. The thick silence that ensued made the game surprisingly eerie.
But I think the single feature that made the game was this one:
C. The loot, and the difficulty.
Diablo 1 was hard. Potions were rare, gold pieces were scarce and monsters hit hart. (We wiped on King Leoric). Dying was awful because your body popped and you would lose all your equipment. I'm not saying I want this in D3 but it had a great effect at scaring the hell out of you.
Last but not least, playing D1 reminded me how special it was to find a simply bigger weapon. For the longest part of Normal in D1, a weapon upgrade is simply a bigger axe. If you have a small axe, and you find a Large Axe, it's cause for celebration. Your damage suddenly doubled.
Magic items come way later and Non-magical items last for a while! If you DO find a magic weapon, there's always a chance that it's a Moronic Cap of Clumsiness but if it turns out to be good, you pause and appreciate how lucky you are to have found a magical helmet. If a unique drops, your break out the champagne.
In Diablo 2, it takes about 15 minutes of gameplay to get rid of all your normal items and from then on you start owning everything until a broken monster 1-shots you because that's their only hope.
So, combine the lack of light, the toughness of monsters versus your own weakness, the scarcity of special loot with the general atmosphere of the game and NOW you have one creepy masterpiece.
I know by the time we get to Inferno difficulty we'll have lightsabers and bows that fire nuclear warheads instead of arrows but we shouldn't forget the importance of non magical items and the slow progression they provide.
|
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...
|
You got wiped on Leoric? I already get wiped on the Butcher :S
Good thing D3 will be easypeasy 
|
On January 17 2012 01:15 frontliner2 wrote:You got wiped on Leoric? I already get wiped on the Butcher :S Good thing D3 will be easypeasy
Funny enough, we killed the butcher fairly easily. Because there were 2 of us whacking away at him he couldn't recover fast enough to hit us back.
Leoric however, had way too much armor.
We were finished off by a bunch of fire clans in the dungeon. We both died and ragequitted without getting our gear back.
Game over!
|
oh Diablo 1...
You're completely right. You start off with a miserable sword and even getting a club that does 3 more damage than your initial weapon is a cause for celebration. I remember when I first got my unique item and I thought I just found the ultimate weapon.
|
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.
|
Diablo I ? Yeah, you could dupe all day everyday in vanilla - at least singleplayer. drop gold pick pot -> double the gold.
i recently (~3months) played through diablo on normal at least as a sorcerer, and it was not hard at all. You can really abuse the terrain for a lot of stuff (kill butcher at lvl entrance or behind gates).
The Item Loot was a PAIN IN THE ASS. Items drop, but you only see them when you hover the mouse over the items...and you dont see shit in that pool of pixels and darkness. The unoffiicial exppack-Hellfire introduced a spell to make the items appear on the minimap for ....10 sek or something. Really painful.
And the argument with the uniques is bullshit - you are equipped with all the boss drops which are uniques. arcaine valor, veil of steel, just to name some that i got left in my mind, and i only played through once.
I really love Diablo I for the excellent experience back in the days, but dont hop on the train with the QQ of how bad Blizzard turned things. Because thats not true. They always improve the important mechanics.
And i just remembered the skills in Diablo....oh god was that aweful....you found a book here, another there, and you just couldnt use it properly...i played till diablo kill with Firebolt and Fireball....oh and holybolt.
|
On January 17 2012 02:26 bOOgyWC wrote:
And the argument with the uniques is bullshit - you are equipped with all the boss drops which are uniques. arcaine valor, veil of steel, just to name some that i got left in my mind, and i only played through once.
Calm down buddy, I was just reminiscing on D1.
Besides, if you play multilayer you don't have access to any quests that give you unique items.
The butcher gave me a book of charged bolt.
|
On January 17 2012 01:04 Krowser wrote:
Magic items come way later and Non-magical items last for a while! If you DO find a magic weapon, there's always a chance that it's a Moronic Cap of Clumsiness but if it turns out to be good, you pause and appreciate how lucky you are to have found a magical helmet. If a unique drops, your break out the champagne.
I know by the time we get to Inferno difficulty we'll have lightsabers and bows that fire nuclear warheads instead of arrows but we shouldn't forget the importance of non magical items and the slow progression they provide.
This is funny because it is/was true. I loled hard.
|
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.jpghttp://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.
Diablo 1 was pretty awesome and certainly NOT a clone of gauntlet like PC gamer suggests. Gauntlet was an awesome game though =]. And im like 99.9999% sure that diablo 1 is what started the diablo "cult." Im not knocking diablo 2. But I played both games a lot growing up and will definitely vouch for diablo 1's awesomeness. It didn't take very long for diablo 2 to come out after diablo 1 so most people think of diablo 2 when they think of diablo nowadays.
I feel like the big difference between the two games was diablo 1 was very horrific/survival while diablo 2 was more arcade like. Both styles have their own advantages and I kind of hope that diablo 3 is a mix between the two.
Also I cant remember where but Jay Wilson talked about the lighting in diablo 3 and that its hard to make dark areas because its 3D but birds eye perspective.
|
good times!
To kill the butcher just get a ranged weapon and lure him to a gated room and lock him behind the bars.. :D I do miss that game (although I played much more D2 - and most likely won't have the time for D3..).
|
On January 17 2012 03:36 y0su wrote:
good times!
To kill the butcher just get a ranged weapon and lure him to a gated room and lock him behind the bars.. :D I do miss that game (although I played much more D2 - and most likely won't have the time for D3..).
Or the staircase to goes down to the next level. He gets stuck on the opening.
|
On January 17 2012 02:34 Krowser wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 02:26 bOOgyWC wrote:
And the argument with the uniques is bullshit - you are equipped with all the boss drops which are uniques. arcaine valor, veil of steel, just to name some that i got left in my mind, and i only played through once.
Calm down buddy, I was just reminiscing on D1. Besides, if you play multilayer you don't have access to any quests that give you unique items. The butcher gave me a book of charged bolt.
alright - sorry i didnt play multiplayer back then. didnt want to sound upset, though. You were still wrong then about single player, at least. 
|
havent played D3 yet, but with the general pattern of games, I can agree with OP 100%
damn casuals!
|
On January 17 2012 01:04 Krowser wrote:
A. It's Dark, as in Doom 3 dark. You can survive without +light items but they make a serious difference.
Yeah, they make monsters aware of you quicker.
|
On January 17 2012 04:13 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 01:04 Krowser wrote:
A. It's Dark, as in Doom 3 dark. You can survive without +light items but they make a serious difference. Yeah, they make monsters aware of you quicker.
I noticed that! Monsters have the same light radius that you do.
I remember having the Gotterdamrung, which gave you -40% light and while wearing I could walk into a room unmolested, until I removed the helmet and suddenly a bunch of monsters that were just standing there decided to jump me.
|
For me, most of Diablo 1's atmospheric appeal came from its sounds. The music was gloomy and spooky. The rainy, half-deserted village of Tristram had its incredible soundtrack that I still listen to today. The NPCs had very unique voices and accents. I loved talking to Farnham the Drunk, who had turned to drinking after experiencing the horrors within the cathedral himself. Then there were all kinds of memorable encounters or books to be found in the labyrinth. Who doesn't remember the Butcher's "Aaah, fresh meat!" or Zhar the Mad's silly rambling? I think I still know the poem about the Halls of the Blind by heart.
|
Great write up. I remember when we unleashed Diablo for the first time, as a toddler, I just screamed until someone ran and shut me up. The feeling that you actually defeated a great evil was immense. Now, more than a decade later, we laugh in the face of the devil "lols what's wrong with his skin"
|
hmm I guess no one here played it realy seriously
Anyone remembers Jarulf's Guide? (online) or the Diablo Strategy Forum (DSF - before it was removed by Blizzard)? This game was played, analysed and discussed throughout many many years (and there are still ppl playing it, testing stuff, releasing mods), although it had it's flaws and problems with duping, cheating and bugs. Variants with rule sets were created to make the game harder (a few examples: BNM (Beyond Naked Mage - because mages were overpowered, in this variant a mage has to wear items with negative effects on it), LoL (living off the land - not allowed to visit the town) and especially IM (Iron Man - start with lvl 1 char, no town services, you die = you stay dead (except your companion got a res scroll), and thats were the gameplay comes into effect the most.
The dungeon as a chessboard. Step by step because your light radius activates monsters. The sounds of attacking monsters. Choke points to lure monsters to and fight them one by one. Shot by shot. No friendly fire! your arrows and spells kill your friend!. Exp sharing. Sword for animals, blunt for bones. Heal other. The lack of identification scrolls...and so much more. Btw. I think it was only around 2005 when the first IM team managed to beat Diablo on hell mode. Things like friendly fire and helping your companion/working together also apply to a normal coop game when a high lvl mage can accidently kill you with a few fireballs or when monsters are immune to your spells.
I know that some D1 "veterans" were not pleased with D2 and unfortunately left the scene. D2 is a different game, it's maybe like broodwar and starcraft 2: good, but in another way. If you like one game, it's not certain that you like the other.
Ah I just recognized: It's 15 years now already! wuhu!
|
Yeah the atmosphere contributed a lot to my enjoyment of the game.
What I also like was that they kept overall damage/life low, so instead of starting off with a sword that does 1-2 and end up with a sword that does 250-300 you ended up with 8-15 or something like that. I guess it makes the player feel less powerfull but I always thought doing 2k damage/hit was silly, and since they balance the monster HP it doesn't change the overall system.
|
I still play through D1 (normal difficulty only) once every year. Takes only 2 evenings, but is so rewarding. Knowing everything by heart makes it pretty easy, but while playing it I reminiscence about the first time I entered the game! As a young boy of 11 years old I freaked out several times, but I endured and finally destroyed the evil Diablo as a melee Rogue.
I have played every char in D1 to 40+ on B.net and every char multiple times to 90+ on D2 (both LoD and Classic), and for me the PvE aspect of D2 could never come close to the atmospheric dept of D1. Sure, Cow Level was AWESOME (God, did I love throwing Lightning Fury into the hoards), but the rest of the levels were actually pretty underwhelming and uninspired. Most of the time I spend in D2 was on 4v4 duel games with item restrictions (both LoD and Classic private communities).
And although D2 was a pretty good game I never revisit the game for PvE purposes, never do you get that unsettling feeling that D1 gives you. Currently I am enjoying Path of Exile, which is a pretty good Hack&Slash game and will be free to play. If you get the chance to play the beta, you should definately give it a chance.
|
Yeah, games got easier with companies trying to introduce the games to a more casual gamer.
And there is really nothing people can do about it. The casual gamer is where the money is so obviously companies will make games marketed towards this target group.
But there is really no reason to cry over a game gotten "easier" since it's pretty much the "hardcore gamers" own fault. I have been in the gaming community for a very looooooong time. I know what the trend was within these gaming communities and cracking copies of games in order to play them without paying is not really the best way to give money back to the companies.
So in the end the companies tended to focus on a much wider social group (Average joe with a job who just wants some relaxing entertainment from now and then), instead of the broke teenagers that called themselves "hardcore gamers". Creating the "wonders" of casual games today... One gotta love FarmVille *sarcasm*
Personally, I do think that D3 does not look pretty "creepy" at all. But then again, I have not really played the game yet and I will not make a final opinion on it before I play it. I didn't play D2 either with the mindset of it needing to be somekind of horror/adventure game. But more like a game where I could satisfy my craving for grinding :D If I want to play a horror game, I'd actually go and pick up a dedicated horror game.
|
D1 was not harder than D2. It may have had less magical items, but the difficulty difference between playing with a D2 char in common blue/green items to a D1 char of comparable level, but "normal" equipment is neglible. D2 simply added more tiers of items; these obviously filled people's inventory slots without making everything easier in the process.
What really took away many people's challenge in D2 were muled items and cookie-cutter specs. Even without the muled stuff, an optimized build could easily tear through most of the content at ease and without any support. If you didn't have one, though, you were screwed (or challenged, however you'd like to put it). I distinctly remember some of my very first D2 chars having tremendous difficulty with act bosses and several zones even on normal difficulty, much more so than anything in D1 except maybe for the Butcher and Hell.
What you're right about is the atmosphere, but then again D2 had a greater variety and a higher replay value through it's several zones. D1 may have been super atmospheric, but that got old after some time too.
|
Imho D1 is harder, in that it's more unforgiving. There were multiple mob types that could swarm and kill you if you ran into a room carelessly. There were mobs you could not outrun. In D2, you could run from just about every situation (there were a handful that were dangerous -- Battlemaid Sarina spawning on the staircase or charge/whirlwind into a pack of oblivion knights) but it wasn't quite what you expected every single time you turned a corner.
If something was hard in D2, it usually just means it takes you longer to beat it down, or you could just avoid it. If something was hard in D1, it meant you had a decent chance of dying.
Regarding the "I had some difficulty with act bosses" guy - I've played a bunch of games of Diablo 2, mostly on hardcore without muling. I usually go through Normal mostly skill-less (or with level 1 for prereqs) and it's not very hard *IF* you're appropriately leveled. You probably had difficulty because you didn't know to clear out the valley of kings a couple times before fighting Duriel.
|
I remember when it was getting too difficult to kill the butcher, I would always end up run to a cell, close the door and hit him with an arrow to his knee. But killing him with no sort of dirty tricks was damn satisfying and big accomplishment.
|
Diablo 3 isn't scary whatsoever. I think one thing you touched upon but didn't flesh out is the dark.
Particularly, in Diablo 3 you have a full field of vision. Even in dungeons, you can see how far your monitor's resolution can see. In Diablo 1, it was just a little bit of line of sight around your character, and the rest was nearly pitch dark. It did a lot to set the tone.
|
I find the story line and lore of diablo 1 so much more enjoyable than diablo 2 and what there is of diablo 3. Also for single player the random quest spawn is fun, although some times frustrating haha
|
The big difference between Diablo 1 and 2 is that 1 focuses on atmosphere while 2 focuses on action. 1 has a low sight radius, punishing death mechanics, gloomy and creepy music and sound effects, lethal bosses like the Butcher, a very dark town, slow walking speed. 2 is a lot faster, more accessible, has greater replayability due to more classes and specs and a vastly bigger endgame. I spent a lot more time on 2 than on 1, but 1 always remains more memorable because of the awesome atmosphere.
A more extreme comparison would be Planescape Torment and Diablo 2. I probably spent hundreds of hours on D2 and only a couple ones on PST. However, those few hours were so intense (all the quests in Sigil, Ravel and her black-barbed maze, the chocolate-eating mage, Coaxmetal, Grace's Brothel and its cellar, the Transcendent One, so many cool things I can't list them all) that I have way more fond memories of PST than I have of D2.
|
Yeah, the Butcher is a classic beginner's trap until you figure out to skip him or hide behind a closed door. The whole presence of light radius. D2 is faster and has more stuff or is just more crowded in general. By itself, this isn't bad, just different. But it's noticeably worse atmospheres for the theme of the game (despite having more atmospheres for all the acts). And its not as difficult, or at least the curve isn't at all the same. It depends how you evaluate endgame D2 content. But then, D2 had more attention from modders who sought to fix some of these problems.
|
|
|
On January 17 2012 09:45 Kurast wrote:
I find the story line and lore of diablo 1 so much more enjoyable than diablo 2 and what there is of diablo 3. Also for single player the random quest spawn is fun, although some times frustrating haha
This for sure is true about story, though I think it has something to do with game/story parts. Whereas D1 is one story in 4 locations you just explore 1 by 1 but arent really that important (it could be pretty much same with 16 cathedral levels), D2 is more like 4 (5) stories in different acts you travel to because of story.
As it goes for lore, I think here you are wrong, simply because there is much more in D2. D1 is pretty much 1 demon, 1 order, 1 kingdom+village lore - but D2 is whole world through entire time lore.
As it goes for atmosphere, is it really just me who did find D1 music not just scarier, but also kinda depressive? Tristram theme always gave me headache after 5-10 min, cathedral was good, catakombs lets say ok, caves boring, hell also kinda depressive. Hellfire music was horrible, though that wasnt Blizzard fault ^^
I overall liked D2 music much more, for me this adventure music fits game more than scary dungeon music. One thing that however nobody will ever take away from me, one thing I always loved so much about is totally different music for all acts. D1 music is very similar in all nontown locations and it doesnt really feel like any change, but in D2 every act is unique and it always made me enjoy every new character little more.
|
On January 17 2012 09:16 Typhon wrote:
Imho D1 is harder, in that it's more unforgiving. There were multiple mob types that could swarm and kill you if you ran into a room carelessly. There were mobs you could not outrun. In D2, you could run from just about every situation (there were a handful that were dangerous -- Battlemaid Sarina spawning on the staircase or charge/whirlwind into a pack of oblivion knights) but it wasn't quite what you expected every single time you turned a corner.
If something was hard in D2, it usually just means it takes you longer to beat it down, or you could just avoid it. If something was hard in D1, it meant you had a decent chance of dying.
Regarding the "I had some difficulty with act bosses" guy - I've played a bunch of games of Diablo 2, mostly on hardcore without muling. I usually go through Normal mostly skill-less (or with level 1 for prereqs) and it's not very hard *IF* you're appropriately leveled. You probably had difficulty because you didn't know to clear out the valley of kings a couple times before fighting Duriel.
So you had to grind the valley of kings to level up and take on Duriel?
If you had to go grind specifically for an encounter, how is it not hard?
|
On January 17 2012 13:08 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 09:16 Typhon wrote:
Imho D1 is harder, in that it's more unforgiving. There were multiple mob types that could swarm and kill you if you ran into a room carelessly. There were mobs you could not outrun. In D2, you could run from just about every situation (there were a handful that were dangerous -- Battlemaid Sarina spawning on the staircase or charge/whirlwind into a pack of oblivion knights) but it wasn't quite what you expected every single time you turned a corner.
If something was hard in D2, it usually just means it takes you longer to beat it down, or you could just avoid it. If something was hard in D1, it meant you had a decent chance of dying.
Regarding the "I had some difficulty with act bosses" guy - I've played a bunch of games of Diablo 2, mostly on hardcore without muling. I usually go through Normal mostly skill-less (or with level 1 for prereqs) and it's not very hard *IF* you're appropriately leveled. You probably had difficulty because you didn't know to clear out the valley of kings a couple times before fighting Duriel. So you had to grind the valley of kings to level up and take on Duriel? If you had to go grind specifically for an encounter, how is it not hard?
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.
|
I remember the good old days, back playing Diablo and Baldur's gate over at my buddy's place. Both of us were perplexed by the D&D rules (especially dice for damage and hit points) in BG and overwhelmed by the tedium of the dungeon trudging that is Diablo. But that's not to say that we weren't totally sucked in by it.
I never finished Diablo as a wee lad back then, but about 6 years back or so I popped it into my new desktop to play for nostalgia sake and was blown away by the atmosphere and presentation (the music does so much for it!). I always played rogue before but I picked a warrior this go around, and honestly the game is not hard at any point for a warrior. Years of RPG grinding and repetitive discipline in games that are actually difficult trains you to stick it through, over and over if necessary, until you succeed, and armed with this knowledge and the steadfast hardiness of the warrior class I stomped through the game in one afternoon. But it was good fun, and it's one of those things that makes me wish I had been older when the game first came around so I could more fully appreciate it.
I especially love how DARK the theme is; how doomed Tristram is, what with its Bishop thralled, the king dead and it's Prince missing in action, with the denizens of Hell boiling forth from the monastary to slay the innocent. You don't really see such a sense of bleakness or hopelessness in stories anymore; the only thing that came close for me was Demon's Souls with it's strong Hellish Purgatory/Limbo overtones. I really loved D2, but beyond most of later Act I the game does not capture the darkness of the original
|
The Butcher was definitely in a list on what made D1 awesome.
|
for those saying that D1 wasnt harder than D2, go ahead and play the warrior/rogue past normal difficulty and then we can talk
|
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
|
Diablo 1 was a horror story, Diablo 2 was a chase. Diablo 1 had one location and one dungeon, coming back to town felt like coming up for air, you interacted with the same ravaged characters over and over again in the ruins of their lives. Diablo 2 was a sprawling "boy's own adventure" spread out over 4/5 acts with multiple towns, a much larger cast of players who were often looking to a brighter future and half the game you are fighting outdoors.
It's not a secret as to why the games feel so different, they were never intended to feel the same. It's like Alien vs. Aliens, same universe, completely different themes.
There is another important point which will differ somewhat from person to person but... I am guessing like me most people who encountered Diablo 1 first time round did it in quite a private way when compared with Diablo 2. I wasn't constantly bumping into randoms with a lot to say, or bots selling shit, or even reading up much on line. It was just me and a couple buddies taking turns on trying not to die. With Diablo 2 I knew from the off that I was one tiny part of a huge community even before the game came out when I was waiting 2 years for release and visiting boards to get all the info I could on it.
|
Yeah, the music and atmosphere was nice, but as a huge diablo fan who both D1 and D2 at around the same time due to terrible computers, and then D2 for years on and off, D1 was actually a pretty shitty game from the gameplay sense. Combat was really simple and you had an ever more limited moveset and enemyset than in D2, it really dragged after a while and wasn't fun. Everything really behaved the same. You could call some really OP enemies "hard", but it certainly took basically no skill....you walked at like 3mph and had maybe one functional spell if you were lucky.
I played both games online as well, and D2 is an improvement in every category barring the atmosphere (which D2 just went in a slightly different direction). God D1 online was a lol, with the rampant duping and hacked items (anyone remember "Ya"? it was a potion you wore on your head that made you onehit everything).
|
On January 17 2012 10:11 PraefektMotus wrote:
The big difference between Diablo 1 and 2 is that 1 focuses on atmosphere while 2 focuses on action. 1 has a low sight radius, punishing death mechanics, gloomy and creepy music and sound effects, lethal bosses like the Butcher, a very dark town, slow walking speed. 2 is a lot faster, more accessible, has greater replayability due to more classes and specs and a vastly bigger endgame. I spent a lot more time on 2 than on 1, but 1 always remains more memorable because of the awesome atmosphere.
You called it!
|
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.
|
I dont know what you guys are talking about but until I hear the death noises of the goblins and goatmen in diablo 1, with all the blood splattering on the floor noise effect, Diablo 1 has the best atmosphere
|
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 agree with you, D1's atmosphere was unique... Darkness, sound and music... I miss this game !
|
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.
|
I remember when normal difficulty meant you ahd to play the game for 3 months nono stop to be good enough to beat it.
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.
|
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.
|
There's room for both types of games (See Dark Souls & Super Meat Boy vs most other games). The problem with difficulty in older games is the game wouldn't necessarily help you get better or would feature random difficulty spikes (say if the Butcher was a mandatory boss to progress he'd be an awful difficulty spike, his beauty was you could just run away and continue on).
|
On January 17 2012 14:56 Medzo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 13:08 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On January 17 2012 09:16 Typhon wrote:
Imho D1 is harder, in that it's more unforgiving. There were multiple mob types that could swarm and kill you if you ran into a room carelessly. There were mobs you could not outrun. In D2, you could run from just about every situation (there were a handful that were dangerous -- Battlemaid Sarina spawning on the staircase or charge/whirlwind into a pack of oblivion knights) but it wasn't quite what you expected every single time you turned a corner.
If something was hard in D2, it usually just means it takes you longer to beat it down, or you could just avoid it. If something was hard in D1, it meant you had a decent chance of dying.
Regarding the "I had some difficulty with act bosses" guy - I've played a bunch of games of Diablo 2, mostly on hardcore without muling. I usually go through Normal mostly skill-less (or with level 1 for prereqs) and it's not very hard *IF* you're appropriately leveled. You probably had difficulty because you didn't know to clear out the valley of kings a couple times before fighting Duriel. So you had to grind the valley of kings to level up and take on Duriel? If you had to go grind specifically for an encounter, how is it not hard? 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?
|
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.
|
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.jpghttp://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.
|
Both Diablo 1 and 2 aren't hard in a sense that execution is difficult. They are only hard if you a) do not know the game at all and think that you really shouldn't skip the Butcher or b) picked a suboptimal spec in D2. Everything else is just tedious, like summoner necro in the Arcane Sanctuary or the Maggot Lair - there's no special skill needed there, just patience. The fact that loot is random makes it impossible for the game to ask for very specific actions because chances are that you don't have the skill activated or the correct item for it. The only hard part I can remember was a self-found necro on normal against Duriel. That really had to be executed well, but then again, there was no punishment for dying on normal and on NM/Hell he was cake with beefed up minions and Decrepify.
|
the expansion was scary >.< all these bolts coming out of nowhere D: . But i liked the added difficulties, was fun to start on nightmare, where you killed your first barrel and had your first magic weapon in the pocket if gold dropped out of it. Yeah d2 went a bit more in the comic look and d3 as well, but i guess they just want to be able to sell it to below 18 years old. Which was no issue at all when diablo1 was produced.
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.
|
I don't recall their being anything unique in Diablo I, as you could just literally dupe any item you want
|
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.
|
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.
|
On January 18 2012 01:35 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yeah. Loot-porn doesn't make for a fun game.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On January 17 2012 01:15 frontliner2 wrote:Good thing D3 will be easypeasy
Good thing? :s
|
You know what was awesome about Diablo 1? I could play a Warrior and cast Mage spells. I wore nothing but Mage Armor and shit like that. I would cast 3 fireballs and be empty. haha but man it was hella fun. =)
|
if i never played diablo 1 and would like to play it, where can i legally acquire a copy of it
i'd rather not pirate a blizzard game because blizzard games are you know...good
|
|
|
i love love love love love D1. Even when i got deep into D2, i still played through diablo 1 at least once a week. It has something that the others dont. And you did a good job telling it like it is. There is just something about the pace you walk, the battle stance you take in the dungeons, the dark dankness of everything. You hearing the monsters down the corridors. Oh man what a game. Im gonna have to play through that one again this week. Hell was a pain to get through as the warrior sometimes for me too. Damn harps.
Nice to see a thread about D1 ^__^. I am enjoying that D3 is bringing back some of that diablo 1 lore tho. It is refreshing.
|
What I liked most about Diablo 1, and which probably was the reason that I even played the demo of 1 longer than the full version of 2 is: you could build your character in any way you wanted. If you wanted to make a warrior that could learn all the spells in the game, then you could do so. You could distribute the stats any way you wanted.
Now you're just stuck in your class with skill trees to choose from.
|
On January 18 2012 11:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +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.
What? One and four were the awesome dark Acts.
Jails and hell as a theme is just better than desert/forest/tundra.
The rest of them did have their moments though, Act 2 maggot lair, Act 3 sewers, Act 5 not so much, but Baal's laugh made for a decent atmosphere.
Caves were good too, the fields in Act 1, meh.
Diablo 1 had the decent from jail to hell, and it was great.
The feel of starting out in a terrible place, and having it steadily get worse, instead of ruining that all with some random sand/jungle areas.
I feel like D2 could have done that too, to a large extent, and the atmosphere would have been a lot better.
Start in the jungle, roam into deserts, then large caverns akin to that giant Skyrim underground, then jails and hell.
|
On January 18 2012 18:43 Psyonic_Reaver wrote:You can buy it from www.battle.net
Can you? I can't find it on my account, DII is under classic games even. There's only 7 titles to choose from in total, no WCI or WC2 either.
|
It's terrible. Blizzard should have War1, war2 (Bnet edition) and D1 as a digital download.
|
Diablo 1 is no longer supported by Blizzard, i believe they have withdrawn Battle.net access to it.
|
Why hasn't anyone mentioned the shrines yet?
|
Meh, Diablo 1 was pretty mediocre looking back on it. Yes, the butcher was scary... when I was 4. Most of the difficulty wasn't really difficulty, but rather "let me stand in this doorway for 10 minutes so I can effortlessly kill everything!" Not that Diablo 2 was any better in either regard - the only reason I played Diablo2 for years was because it's PvP was far and away superior to every other RPG imo.
The atmosphere doesn't mean all that much to me, potions having CD is far superior to them being scarce for me, and I honestly believe that d2's system of progression was just as good - they just made the higher tiers beyond impossible to find outside of duping/mfing all day. Good luck farming up your own hoto/cta/enigma. Honestly, the progression item wise was better than Diablo 1's Pre-LOD in my opinion. I don't really think you have to be stuck using bland white weapons to have appreciation for better weapons.
|
i wish i could go back to the days TT
|
Basically all old games share one big advantage concerning atmosphere. All had ridiculous and unrealistic graphic. So they left a lot of room for your imagination. Like a book somehow. Recent games focus on realistic graphic. However there is no more room for your own imagination.
|
The butcher gave me the willies as a kid. I waited until my rogue had cleared 9-ish levels down before coming back to kill him. And even then it was hard.
|
This thread made me decide to play D1 again, THANK YOU SO MUCH (no sarcasm here btw, and no metasarcasm either, I'm genuinely happy about it)!
|
What I love about Diablo 1 the most was taking advantage of the terrain. Too many mobs behind doors was annoying, but there was plenty of other ways you can take advantage of the terrain in your favor. Diablo 2 felt too much like an arcade game with the insane run speeds. I love Diablo 1's more methodical approach.
|
i feel like the diffinculty of Diablo 1 varies like hell on each playthrough. Sometimes it's a cakewalk, sometimes feels impossible. Maybe it punishes really hard for choices i made (and i don't see which one was it), or it's about rolling drops/quests/mobs. Those acid spitters.... fuck em.
|
Yeah I'm having a problem with RPGs being so easy these days. I'm playing Skyrim on the hardest difficulty and it's pretty much impossible to die unless you find a dragon priest in which case it's impossible to even take one hit without getting owned. The D3 beta (which is only a beta but still) is so easy it's a joke (and not even fun). Difficulty up plz.
|
On January 19 2012 02:06 Neo.NEt wrote:
Yeah I'm having a problem with RPGs being so easy these days. I'm playing Skyrim on the hardest difficulty and it's pretty much impossible to die unless you find a dragon priest in which case it's impossible to even take one hit without getting owned. The D3 beta (which is only a beta but still) is so easy it's a joke (and not even fun). Difficulty up plz.
"Yeah RPGs are too easy except for the fights I can't manage but avoid so my argument is still valid."
Yeah, right.
|
The butcher was scary as hell! but i was very young when i played it, always when i made a new char i was hoping that i would not get the butcher quest.
|
On January 19 2012 02:16 Shockk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 02:06 Neo.NEt wrote:
Yeah I'm having a problem with RPGs being so easy these days. I'm playing Skyrim on the hardest difficulty and it's pretty much impossible to die unless you find a dragon priest in which case it's impossible to even take one hit without getting owned. The D3 beta (which is only a beta but still) is so easy it's a joke (and not even fun). Difficulty up plz. "Yeah RPGs are too easy except for the fights I can't manage but avoid so my argument is still valid."Yeah, right.
Yeah, because a proper difficulty curve should consist of a piss easy game with a few optional, easily avoidable encounters that requires hours of theorycrafting, grinding and huge amounts of luck to pull off.
I agree with that other guy. I miss games that are moderately challenging from beginning to end. Challenge shouldn't come from mostly hidden encounters that are so frustrating you're going to pull your hair out.
|
Seriously. Used to be that gamers wanted to play games. Now gamers want to zone out for a couple hours and step away from their computer with their ego stroked. God forbid mandatory content asks for a little effort from the player.
|
Not really sure why this thread has devolved into a circlejerk over RPG difficulty. Most of what's thrown around on the last pages is pure hyperbole, and many folks seem to have forgotten how little older games' difficulty had to do with them actually being hard, but with the controls being much less refined and gamers having several years (or decades!) less worth of gaming experience under their belt.
But hey, go ahead and enjoy agreeing with each other's nostalgia-tainted, horribly exaggerated opinions if that makes you feel better. Us other people are having fun with (challenging) current RPGs in the meantime.
|
Multiplayer with fire wall mage was hilarious. Good times all arou... i mean, for just myself. ^^
I agree with the OP, but only because it was my first time playing a game like that, so Diablo was my first game of that genre and thus was overflowing with awesome things i'd never seen before.
|
On January 19 2012 04:23 Shockk wrote:
Not really sure why this thread has devolved into a circlejerk over RPG difficulty. Most of what's thrown around on the last pages is pure hyperbole, and many folks seem to have forgotten how little older games' difficulty had to do with them actually being hard, but with the controls being much less refined and gamers having several years (or decades!) less worth of gaming experience under their belt.
But hey, go ahead and enjoy agreeing with each other's nostalgia-tainted, horribly exaggerated opinions if that makes you feel better. Us other people are having fun with (challenging) current RPGs in the meantime.
There was no circle jerk. It was just one post on that previous page talking about difficulty before your one-liner no-content response. In fact, the thread started with difficulty discussions on page 1 and was moving slowly away from it before that post and your response.
It's not exaggeration to say that current games are made to be much easier than games as recently as the mid-2000s. All the challenge in today's mainstream games are relegated to optional sidequests that offer masochistic levels of difficulty. With few exceptions, the main storyline is designed to be extremely easy. All the challenging content are optional and can be easily avoided.
|
On January 19 2012 05:07 andrewlt wrote:
It's not exaggeration to say that current games are made to be much easier than games as recently as the mid-2000s. All the challenge in today's mainstream games are relegated to optional sidequests that offer masochistic levels of difficulty. With few exceptions, the main storyline is designed to be extremely easy. All the challenging content are optional and can be easily avoided.
Because this applies to all games and is true for all genres and for all target audiences. Geez, you're really making it easy for me here; I was criticizing hyperbole and you're delivering yet another round.
Hint: Diablo 2 was easily as hard, if not more challenging in higher difficulties, than D1. Skyrim can be much more difficult (and not just so in dragon priest fights) than Oblivion or Morrowind. The Witcher's hard difficulty was so popular that the developers patched another, even harder mode due to community demand. Ultra-hard platformers like Super Meat Boy or I Wanna Be The Guy are racking up incredible sales (but we're deviating a bit from RPGs there).
On the other hand, even older, "challenging" games can be played with cookie-cutter builds and refined equipment/characters on higher difficulties without breaking a sweat or encountering challenges at all. A halfway decent party in BG2 will tear through the whole content at ease. A wizard, pretty much regardless of skills, will crush the whole of D1's content.
Challenge is what the players make it. The vast majority of players will find older games challenging not because they actually were harder (not saying some weren't), but because they had a harder time playing them. Due to inferior controls and a lot less metagaming than what's going on today. These days you're having guides, walkthroughs, tipps & tricks everywhere; gameplay videos months before a title is released and a wealth of experience with games (which tend to be pretty similar overall) to profit from. Think back a few years or decades and you probably had no clue what you were doing when you played D1/BG/Daggerfall for the first time, probably rolled crappy stats as well or picked the wrong skills, and voila, you had a challenge.
I'm not dismissing the trend that a lot of games are easy these days due to the shift in target audiences. This is true. Neither do I want to deny that there's a wealth of older, challenging titles. But saying that all older games are hard and all new games are easy - and this has been said quite a few times in this thread and elsewhere to - is nonsense and simply not true. For so many reasons.
|
D3 does not need to be scary. I will be satisfied if it lets me play a hero character without being over the top. But when I see bullshit abilities like the monk that summons pillars I am not sure I will get that.
|
I think careful difficulty scaling is something almost every game could improve upon. Edmund McMillen, one of the creators of Super Meat Boy, is a genius at this and it shows in his games. SMB in my opinion wasn't even that hard until Rapture, and I'm certainly no skilled platform gamer. But it was really noticeable how gradually and subtly the difficulty increased in Super Meat Boy and it made the game fun. Skyrim on the other hand was bad at this and it definitely had a bad impact on the game. For example, some mobs scale in Skyrim and some don't apparently. You faceroll some fort and then there's this one mob that hits like a truck and has five times more health for no frickin reason. Difficulty balance is a wreck in this game. Now Skyrim is supposed to be a very open RPG with a huge environment to RP in. For RP purposes, screw difficulty balance, nobody cares. But if you want to play Skyrim like a real game, it really falls short after a while.
So all in all, hardly any game has outstanding difficulty balance in my opinion. If one has it though, it really glues you to the game because you get reasonable and appropriate problems to solve.
|
Well it's a trend to make games more accessible and easier because the majority of gamers doesn't appreciate the things you're mentioning and it's not the minority that brings in the cash.
|
One million copies of Super Meat Boy sold beg to differ. Triple A titles get more accessible, that's true. However, I think it's important for indie developers to realize that proper difficulty balance is a great selling point that doesn't suck up huge amounts of money, and the more indie titles there are with great difficulty design, the bigger the pressure on triple As to deliver the same. That's my hope at least.
|
>4 players
>All cast Chain Lightning over and over
>Last surviving player Resurrects everyone else and buys the mana potions
>Mana Shield all powerful
>Brain generates "fun"
Oh memories.
|
I remember being scared to the point of almost soiling myself when I had to face the Butcher in D1.
"Ahhhh FRESH MEAT!"
Diablo 1 was a great game, and I definitely agree with a lot of your points, it was a different breed for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
