Characters/Character Creation

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Tue May 26, 2009 7:11 am

Just to put the "Diablo 1 classlessness" in perspective: as a Warrior or Rogue, you had a lot less max Magic than a Sorcerer, and since higher levels of spells required more and more Magic, you'd hit your cap fast. This can be alliavated by + X Magic items, but only to a certain extent. Furthermore, a Sorcerer casts a lot faster than a Warrior or Rogue.
Similarly, a Rogue was faster with a bow than the others, and a Warrior swung his weapons faster than the others.
In the end, you always ended up with very similar characters. This was further enforced because the randomness of the spells ("skills"). You had to make-do with what you found.

I understand why might like D1 over D2 (I still play D1 myself from time to time), but you have to realise its limitations.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Tue May 26, 2009 12:21 pm

Oh of course it has limitations, the technology used during the era of its making shows that easily. But -for- its time is one of the primary reasons it's the best game.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:03 am

Siberys wrote:Oh of course it has limitations, the technology used during the era of its making shows that easily. But -for- its time is one of the primary reasons it's the best game.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but are you saying that because it was a revolutionary, extremely good game for its time (and limitations), that it is a superior game to D2? (Correct me if I'm wrong.

)
If so, it does not really make sense. After all, the steam engine was revolutionary and a great advance, but we didn't stop there and went on to better things.

It is a true that the D1 characters made you care more. Probably because you spent the entire game in Tristram, as opposed to a quick questgrab from most NPC in DII.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Wed May 27, 2009 9:39 am

Not exactly. I'm not saying the limitations are the reasons it's a great game, I'm saying despite the limitations, it's a great game for its time.

In order of importance, here are the reasons-

1- Classlessness
2- One of the best storytellings I've ever heard
3- Gruesome and morbid enemies (a little more so than diablo 2)
4- Despite the limitations it had the best combinations of Action and RPG.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Wed May 27, 2009 10:04 am

Classlessness is an illusion in Diablo 1. See my earlier post. There's only partial overlapping between the classes.
But it's indeed a great game for its time. It had a lot of atmosphere.

terran698 · Post by **terran698** » Sun May 31, 2009 11:04 pm

bloody

i agree that the morbid enemies are needed for a great game. i love d1 where you know something big is near because you walk into a room and its covered with blood and there are like 50 tortured victems on stakes and chained to the walls. example: the butcher's room. there are very few places like this in d2. and basically none in wow which from what I'be seen d3 is going to be modeled after, graphically speaking.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Sun May 31, 2009 11:41 pm

I still don't see the comparison to World of Warcraft. Even if D3 uses slightly brighter colors, it still looks nothing like WoW.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:32 am

Siberys wrote:I still don't see the comparison to World of Warcraft. Even if D3 uses slightly brighter colors, it still looks nothing like WoW.

I think the "DIII looks like WoW" is a knee-jerk reaction to something new. DII is often much brighter than people seem to remember.

terran698 · Post by **terran698** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:57 pm

just too bright`

well my thing is d3 is going to be way to bright. d2 was too bright but it had its darker moments. wow has too many colors. that is my biggest gripe. the potions style i think will take a little gettin used to but many will end up liking it.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:57 pm

terran698 wrote:well my thing is d3 is going to be way to bright. d2 was too bright but it had its darker moments. wow has too many colors. that is my biggest gripe. the potions style i think will take a little gettin used to but many will end up liking it.

Well...here's my beef. Diablo 1 had a FAR different look than Diablo 2. Diablo 1 was much darker, grittier and even more gothic in a sense; yet Diablo 2 is the more popular game. If we go by the theory that Diablo 3 will be bad because of it's brighter colors, then Diablo 2 would not have gotten the shear insane quantity of players because it was brighter than diablo 1.

Oh, and i won't like the health orbs. The belt system in diablo 2 was the first system for potions that actually made sense. The better, bigger and thicker the belt, the more potions you can hold. And furthermore, I have to wonder just exactly how many people complained about the use of potions to restore health. One, maybe two percent at best? I mean the potion system has been used in RPG's for ages now, ever since Dungeons and Dragons was invented. I mean...what's so bad about it? It worked for a hundred other games, why not diablo 3?

I'll praise any game company for trying some innovation now and then, including and especially blizzard. I may not like WoW, but it was the first MMORPG right? And the world itself is pretty enormous.

But the type of game Diablo is, the whole point of the game, sticking to the formula would be FAR better than innovation IMO.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:13 am

I agree that the Health Orbs aren't the most brilliant idea in gaming history. It makes it so hard to rationalize. I feel more "at home" with quaffing a potion to get better than picking up (and then do what with it?) a pulsing red orb left behind by a slobbering frenzying demon. But that's just me.

I think one of the reasons DII was more popular than DI is that it's a lot more userfriendly: a run-option and the useful alt-highlight. At least, those are the two features I miss most when playing DI.

Loki[D.d.G] · Post by **Loki[D.d.G]** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:56 am

GawainBS wrote:I agree that the Health Orbs aren't the most brilliant idea in gaming history. It makes it so hard to rationalize. I feel more "at home" with quaffing a potion to get better than picking up (and then do what with it?) a pulsing red orb left behind by a slobbering frenzying demon. But that's just me.

Still i suppose we could get used to it over time... Plus health orbs don't take up valuable inventory space, so that a good thing, right?

That said, i agree with sibs that the belt system in d2 was extremely convenient. Collecting rejuvenation pots to be morphed with the cube into greater reju pots was a nice move on the game's behalf. Would have been brought along to d3 if i had my way... but ive realised long ago that things i am hoping for usually don't happen

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:45 am

Potions don't take up inventory space either.

Loki[D.d.G] · Post by **Loki[D.d.G]** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:13 am

GawainBS wrote:Potions don't take up inventory space either.

Didn't they? I recall apart from the potions you had in ur belt in d2, the rest took up space in ur inventory as regular items do, did they not? Or is my already pathetic memory failing me?

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:17 am

Those do, but I never carried more than those in my belt. It was a misunderstanding.