Preview Diablo III Hands-On Impressions

[Mrowak]

What did You guys really expect? Story? Great graphics? Interesting lore? Nope, its Diablo. Graphics were always shit (especially with D2 blamed for low res even when it was released)

Graphics were not ALWAYS shit. Diablo 1 had pretty solid graphics for a game back in 1996.

Also This.

In terms of art-design:

D1 >>> D2 >>>>>> D3

 

[Malakal]

What did You guys really expect? Story? Great graphics? Interesting lore? Nope, its Diablo. Graphics were always shit (especially with D2 blamed for low res even when it was released)

Graphics were not ALWAYS shit. Diablo 1 had pretty solid graphics for a game back in 1996.

Arguable but fine, not always.

Why should anyone bother with mindless shit? Too much time?

Besides, we already have too much mindless games all around. Mindless = casual = boring

We dont have enough GOOD mindless games. After a day of hard, intelectual work (well I work with my mind I think that makes me intelectual) some whackign and slashing seems so much more... enchanting.

I only wanted the things that made D1 great: genuinely (as opposed to lamely) dark ambience and some level of world integrity capped with some great art-design. So far I can see that d3 is going to have even less of all that than D2.

Very much subjective. What 'world'? It was one dungeon. The village was lame, NPCs soulless quest and item dispensers. Graphics were dark, sometimes too dark to actually see anything, I dont count that as atmospheric. D1 did have some truly good places and enemies (Butcher for example) but so did D2 (Harem or Duriel). It depends on what You like. I enjoyed a change of pace coming from more open areas...

 

[Excommunicator]

People with PhDs can be and often are morons. It's not some magical cure for idiocy and it does not mean they are automatically level headed or intelligent beyond their study. Let us not try to use it as meaningful causality here

 

[CraigCWB]

It literarly introduced all that into wRpgs

OLOLO guys did I just get KKKs for bashing Diablo 2 for the horrible decline of RPGs? Now that's done I'll go play Dragon Age and Failout3 to fight the decline

Why would anyone blame Diablo II - which was a great game in its own right - for the decision made by other developers to try to be "more accessible"? Blame Warren Spector and Deus Ex and the way the game mags were pimping for "accessibility" and "immersion" back in ~2000. Blame makers of single player games for copying the play style of MMOs. Blame industry pundits for selling developers on the idea that the demographics had somehow "changed". All this various bullshit is like claiming that if there's nothing on morning television but cartoons, that there's no market for anything but children's programming on morning television. It could very well be that there's no market for sophisticated computer games anymore, but if that's so it's only because the adult market got alienated by developers who kept pushing idiotware on them.

None of that is Diablo IIs fault. Find some fuckers at Bioware and Interplay to blame. They were certainly running their mouths off enough about it. As were people at Origin and Sirtech, before them. And BEFORE Diablo I was even released, I might add.

 

[Mrowak]

I only wanted the things that made D1 great: genuinely (as opposed to lamely) dark ambience and some level of world integrity capped with some great art-design. So far I can see that d3 is going to have even less of all that than D2.

Very much subjective. What 'world'? It was one dungeon. The village was lame, NPCs soulless quest and item dispensers. Graphics were dark, sometimes too dark to actually see anything, I dont count that as atmospheric. D1 did have some truly good places and enemies (Butcher for example) but so did D2 (Harem or Duriel). It depends on what You like. I enjoyed a change of pace coming from more open areas...

Perhaps you are right that my point there was very subjective. Likewise was yours saying that Tristram village was lame and NPCs were soulless item dispensers. Even if so, their d2 counterparts are much much worse - and thats a terrible setback for a game that is a sequel. Furthermore, taking the same village and copying-pasting it 4 times in the second game with everything actually more mundane and making much less sense isn't a great achievement at all.

One more important thing. You see, by 'world' I meant its portion presented in game in relation to the setting and background info the game provided through the self-same npcs you find so boring. On this facet D1 made much better job than D2 all the way, at least to me. Back at its release the devs managed to capture exactly the atmosphere of mystery and terror in context of a small community. And that made all the difference. Suddenly a game about banal shit boring going down a dungeon and killing big bad one in it became truly unique. Indeed, we could argue without the heavy grimdark feel Diablo would go past everyone's radar unnoticed. D2 failed to capture that feeling and thus in my eyes is vastly inferior to its predecessor, at least in that respect.

About enjoying open areas... You know, back in the day when I was pimply teenager when I heard about open areas in D2 I thought it would be cool idea. After all it would open opportunities for more random quests (D1 was famously acclaimed for), some random encounters with the non-hostile inhabitants of the world, more mysteries to unravel etc. Finally a village would cease to be a hub around which all action took place. What's not to like in open areas? ...

Can you tell me now what type of change of pace do open areas in D2 offer because I did not notice any?

Edit: Oh, and...

We dont have enough GOOD mindless games. After a day of hard, intelectual work (well I work with my mind I think that makes me intelectual) some whackign and slashing seems so much more... entertaining.

Fix'd for ya bro

Diablo 2 (except for extraordinary cinematics) was everything but enchanting.

 

[Archibald]

People with PhDs can and often are morons. It's not some magical cure for idiocy and it does not mean they are automatically level headed or intelligent beyond their study. Let us not try to use it as meaningful causality here

I guess you never finished school?

About enjoying open areas... You know, back in the day when I was pimply teenager when I heard about open areas in D2 I thought it would be cool idea. After all it would open opportunities for more random quests (D1 was famously acclaimed for), some random encounters with the non-hostile inhabitants of the world, more mysteries to unravel etc. Finally a village would cease to be a hub around which all action took place. What's not to like in open areas? ...

i`m seriously thinking that there were maybe 5 people in whole world like you. D1 was entertaining H&S game, majority expected another good H&S game, was it as good or not is another question but still, i doubt that anyone really expected some open world exploration.

 

[Mrowak]

About enjoying open areas... You know, back in the day when I was pimply teenager when I heard about open areas in D2 I thought it would be cool idea. After all it would open opportunities for more random quests (D1 was famously acclaimed for), some random encounters with the non-hostile inhabitants of the world, more mysteries to unravel etc. Finally a village would cease to be a hub around which all action took place. What's not to like in open areas? ...

i`m seriously thinking that there were maybe 5 people in whole world like you.

Having our previous discussions in memory I will take that as a compliment

D1 was entertaining H&S game, majority expected another good H&S game, was it as good or not is another question but still, i doubt that anyone really expected some open world exploration.

Yes, D1 was in essence an amazing hack&slasher. h&s - not RPG, not Adventure Game, not Strategy - yes I'm aware of the difference. However, it did many things right, and among it the stress on atmosphere. To my eternal regret D2 decided to ditch that aspect almost entirely not giving anything in return - no, great gameplay (only ON nightmare and hell IN multiplayer) is no reason for that as I see no way the art-direction and ever-pervasive feel of mystery could hurt it.

Who said anything about open world exploration a la Gothic? 4 quests, one for each act. For example, in act 2 encountering a caravan attacked by ravenous hords of monsters on a desert - you manage to save caravan's head life - you get a reward - you fail that - no phat lewt for you. Just look - a new feature introduced - possibility of failure. Not very high degree of sophistication, so far, you must agree. Add 8 more each appearing in consecutive acts throughout all difficulty levels and you and you have 8 time less tedium and 8 times more surprise. Add randomised quests in the vein of those that WERE in D1 single player and you have tripled the fun factor.

Going on a pixel hunting spree 3 times with exactly the same quest-sets for each session, with the same old tired village-hub pattern and with NO variation from click, click, die, die is in my dictionary definition of boredom.

People with PhDs can and often are morons. It's not some magical cure for idiocy and it does not mean they are automatically level headed or intelligent beyond their study. Let us not try to use it as meaningful causality here

I guess you never finished school?

Sorry, Archibald - either you have a PhD yourself and you took Excommunicator's remark too personally, or you have yet to learn an important lesson in life - having a piece of paper saying that you are smart does not guarantee you really are. Yes, I know also people who behind a thin facade of self-importance and bullshit backed-up by their 'titles' they 'earned' through nothing but jackAssery are worthless scum deserving only utmost contempt from any true, serious academic.

 

[MetalCraze]

Graphics were always shit (especially with D2 blamed for low res even when it was released)

What
When D2 came out it had quite nice graphics for something tile-based (considering that there is no other way to make randomly generated areas). Not graphics-whorism like IE games of course with their pre-rendered but static areas - but still.

 

[CraigCWB]

Mrowak, if you're seriously claiming Diablo was a better game than Diablo 2 I've got to disagree. Diablo was little more than a random dungeon generator - done very well, but even so you're attributing qualities to it that exist only in your imagination

Diablo II retained all that was good about Diablo and improved upon it by tacking a meaningful storyline on as a framework, and reducing the random elements to layouts, populations and loot drops.

I think you're the first person I've ever encountered who claimed D1 was better than D2. I don't know what it is you preferred in D1 but you've got pretty unusual tastes.

 

[CraigCWB]

What
When D2 came out it had quite nice graphics for something tile-based (considering that there is no other way to make randomly generated areas). Not graphics-whorism like IE games of course with their pre-rendered but static areas - but still.

Yeah, that's the way I remember it. In fact the graphics in Diablo II were widely praised, whereas the graphics of the competition (Fallout 2 and BG2, MM6?, Jagged Alliance II) - not so much.

People either forget what sprite animations looked like back then, or they never knew and started playing D2 when it was already an aging game engine.

 

[Mrowak]

Let us make a few things clear my friend.

Mrowak, if you're seriously claiming Diablo was a better game than Diablo 2 I've got to disagree. Diablo was little more than a random dungeon generator - done very well, but even so you're attributing qualities to it that exist only in your imagination

You say that I'm deluded in thinking that Diablo 1 had done some elements better than Diablo 2. That's fair enough for you. I would appreciate however if you could provide some feedback for me - exactly in what way d2 does the things I mentioned better than its predecessor? Otherwise, I'm afraid, your point holds little validity.

So...

Diablo II retained all that was good about Diablo and improved upon it by tacking a meaningful storyline on as a framework, and reducing the random elements to layouts, populations and loot drops.

... what are the features D2 improved upon? How does exactly D2 introduce meaningful storyline in game (disregarding those admitedly excellent cinematics). What do you mean by saying that in d2 random elements in (I presume dungeon) layouts are reduced? How do they compare? Random elements in populations - ok I'm not following you here at all. What do you mean exactly? And loot drops? As far as I know most of the loot is randomly generated both in D1 and 2. Yes, there is more loot in d2 but - firstly, d2 is sequel so it's natural to expect from it more of everything, and secondly more loot =/= better game. Or am I wrong?

And finally did D2 really benefit from reducing / increasing (- I would argue for that) randomness for those aspects?

I think you're the first person I've ever encountered who claimed D1 was better than D2.

You need to go out more :D

But seriously, just take a look at, for instance this thread and especially a couple of posts by DraQ, herostratus and myself over there. The opinion on D2 is not as uniform as you were led to believe.

I don't know what it is you preferred in D1 but you've got pretty unusual tastes.

My tastes are quite obviously

 

[fizzelopeguss]

The graphics were most definately not widely praised. Every rag and piece of shit website out there was pissing on the 2d visuals and low resolution. Even PCZone, probably the most "monocle" rag going at the time joined the band wagon in its review.

It sure as fuck aged better than the 3d engines of the day though.

 

[CraigCWB]

Mrowak, this is from an earlier comment of yours:

You know, back in the day when I was pimply teenager when I heard about open areas in D2 I thought it would be cool idea.

If you were a "pimply teenager" when D2 came out, how old were you when D1 came out? I didn't say you were "deluded" in your opinions about Diablo 1. I said that you attributed qualities to the game that exist only in your imagination. That's perfectly understandable if you were 11 or 12 years old when you played it... especially if it was your first computer game.

I on the other hand was a 30 year old married guy who'd been playing computer games for over a decade when Diablo came out.

I would appreciate however if you could provide some feedback for me - exactly in what way d2 does the things I mentioned better than its predecessor? Otherwise, I'm afraid, your point holds little validity.


You ask me to show in "exactly what ways" D2 improved on D1? Please peruse some of the claims you have made:


You see, by 'world' I meant its portion presented in game in relation to the setting and background info the game provided through the self-same npcs you find so boring. On this facet D1 made much better job than D2 all the way, at least to me.

However, it did many things right, and among it the stress on atmosphere. To my eternal regret D2 decided to ditch that aspect almost entirely not giving anything in return

Likewise was yours saying that Tristram village was lame and NPCs were soulless item dispensers. Even if so, their d2 counterparts are much much worse

I think I did a better job of explaining how D2 improved upon D1 than you did explaining how it was inferior

And why don't you hold yourself to the same standard, and acknowledge your points have no validity because you have not explained exactly what made the same feature superior in D1 as compared to D2?

 

[Chefe]

I on the other hand was a 30 year old married guy who'd been playing computer games for over a decade when Diablo came out.

You do realize that the Codex is composed entirely of teenage girls, right? That basically makes you a pedophile.

 

[CraigCWB]

You do realize that the Codex is composed entirely of teenage girls, right? That basically makes you a pedophile.

No, it's populated entirely by internet transvestites who like to roleplay teenage girls. If that hasn't been clear enough in MMOs it should be completely obvious if you look at what the mod community does with roleplaying games.

 

[Chefe]

You do realize that the Codex is composed entirely of teenage girls, right? That basically makes you a pedophile.

No, it's populated entirely by internet transvestites who like to roleplay teenage girls. If that hasn't been clear enough in MMOs it should be completely obvious if you look at what the mod community does with roleplaying games.

No, it's entirely teenage girls and a handful of 20-somethings transvestites. I know because we used to have awesome sleepovers. Now everyone's all into boys and we never hang out much anymore like we used to.

 

[Topher]

Mrowak I couldn't agree more with your opinion in regards to Diablo 1 and Diablo 2. I too feel that the original is the superior game.

* I hadn't planned to get especially involved in this top but since I've already thrown my hat into the ring I suppose it's to late for that.

To be quite clear on my feelings toward Diablo.

Like already mentioned Diablo 1 managed to capture the atmosphere of a small village in the throws of turmoil perfectly, something which I never though Diablo 2 managed to do. I will say that enjoyed the design of the act 2 and act 3 hubs from Diablo 2 but neither drew me in and made me feel like a part of their world. The was something about the lore and the simple approach to storytelling that I really enjoyed about Diablo 1, less proved to in fact be more. I also preferred the more open character system that was used in Diablo 1 and have never been as enthusiastic about the use of "skill trees" (though it wasn't all bad to be sure); though my single largest compliant against Diablo 2 is it's lack of difficulty, especially during the first act. My most recent attempt to play was halted because of how overly easy the first act proved to be for my character. I know that can be alleviated somewhat through the use of "editing tools" but that is hardly a proper solution.

Diablo 2 while certainly not a bad game by any means lacked a certain charm that I found so compelling in the original. Diablo 1 was simply a "dressed up" rouge-like and never seemed to shy away from that fact whereas I always got the impression Diablo 2 was far too geared for MP; too much grind, too much loot and too little interesting level design. The only areas I remember enjoying from Diablo 2 were the rare trips indoors during Act 1 and the sewer in Act 2. Come to think of it I was always extremely vexed by the fact that every time I turned of my game to take a break all the enemies would respawn, it just didn't feel like a consistent and persistent world and that really drew me out of the whole experience.

 

[Ancient]

Blizzard sucks it take ages for them to develop pretty simple game with manpower they have.

 

[Archibald]

Sorry, Archibald - either you have a PhD yourself and you took Excommunicator's remark too personally, or you have yet to learn an important lesson in life - having a piece of paper saying that you are smart does not guarantee you really are. Yes, I know also people who behind a thin facade of self-importance and bullshit backed-up by their 'titles' they 'earned' through nothing but jackAssery are worthless scum deserving only utmost contempt from any true, serious academic.

This is just my observation that usually people who claim such things are morons who failed to finish school or do anything reasonable with their lifes. As to cover their inferiority complexes they try to attack those who managed to do something.

 

[Malakal]

Sorry, Archibald - either you have a PhD yourself and you took Excommunicator's remark too personally, or you have yet to learn an important lesson in life - having a piece of paper saying that you are smart does not guarantee you really are. Yes, I know also people who behind a thin facade of self-importance and bullshit backed-up by their 'titles' they 'earned' through nothing but jackAssery are worthless scum deserving only utmost contempt from any true, serious academic.

This is just my observation that usually people who claim such things are morons who failed to finish school or do anything reasonable with their lifes. As to cover their inferiority complexes they try to attack those who managed to do something.

I'm with Mrowak on this one, PhD here (in Poland that is) are more often obtained by asslicking and having no ambitions whatsoever (ambitious people start, You know, making money) rather than by any research being done. Of course people with no education seem all too eager to belittle those with titles, but its not necessarily an indication from where this point of view comes. I finished my studies and dont intend to EVER return to make a PhD, its such a colossal waste of time for me.

Of course I do know that Polish education system is rotten veyond belief and represents at best 3rd world class...

 

[Malakal]

Graphics were always shit (especially with D2 blamed for low res even when it was released)

What
When D2 came out it had quite nice graphics for something tile-based (considering that there is no other way to make randomly generated areas). Not graphics-whorism like IE games of course with their pre-rendered but static areas - but still.

It was bashed as the ONLY reason for it being bad in all gaming magazines that I used to read then. Low res and bad graphics. Me? I didnt care and I dont care, but mainstream media did use this argument.

 

[Mrowak]

Mrowak, this is from an earlier comment of yours:

You know, back in the day when I was pimply teenager when I heard about open areas in D2 I thought it would be cool idea.

I would appreciate however if you could provide some feedback for me - exactly in what way d2 does the things I mentioned better than its predecessor? Otherwise, I'm afraid, your point holds little validity.


You ask me to show in "exactly what ways" D2 improved on D1? Please peruse some of the claims you have made:


You see, by 'world' I meant its portion presented in game in relation to the setting and background info the game provided through the self-same npcs you find so boring. On this facet D1 made much better job than D2 all the way, at least to me.

However, it did many things right, and among it the stress on atmosphere. To my eternal regret D2 decided to ditch that aspect almost entirely not giving anything in return

Likewise was yours saying that Tristram village was lame and NPCs were soulless item dispensers. Even if so, their d2 counterparts are much much worse

I think I did a better job of explaining how D2 improved upon D1 than you did explaining how it was inferior

And why don't you hold yourself to the same standard, and acknowledge your points have no validity because you have not explained exactly what made the same feature superior in D1 as compared to D2?

Hmm... in other words you're backing away. You see, I think that I explained quite well how D2 is inferior to D1. If not in this thread than also in the thread I provided link to. I'm sorry but I don't feel like repeating myself or the people I agree with over and over again each time someone new enters discussion. I decided to give you the link exactly because I wanted you to familiarise with the argumentation of people sharing my opinion.

You, on the other, failed to address even one question I asked you about. You stated that D2 improved upon D1 in a number of aspects. Nevertheless, you failed to explain how exactly was that an improvement - you simply stated it was and implied I was wrong in even daring to think otherwise. I'm afraid that's leading us into discussion on the level of a kindergarten: I'm am right, you're wrong :stomps: :whines: :snivels:

If you were a "pimply teenager" when D2 came out, how old were you when D1 came out? I didn't say you were "deluded" in your opinions about Diablo 1. I said that you attributed qualities to the game that exist only in your imagination. That's perfectly understandable if you were 11 or 12 years old when you played it... especially if it was your first computer game.

I on the other hand was a 30 year old married guy who'd been playing computer games for over a decade when Diablo came out.

Ha, you assumed I played D1 for the first time in 1996. Wrong. First, at that time games were not released simultenously all over the world and I don't live in Kwa. Moreover it was not until 1998 I bought my first comp. Long story short I finished D1 in 2001 - only a month before D2 was released. I played both one after another, hence nostalgia factor in evaluation of both games is, I daresay, minimal. For me the drop in quality was substantial - mind you after Warcraft2, Starcraft and Diablo 1 and being in rather ehm impressionable age of 16 I was pretty much blizzard's fanboy at that time. Furthemore, I replayed D1 repeatedly in single and multi till now. The same happened with D2 (in multi), albeit much less often. I think that as far as objectivity is concerned I'm doing fine, thank you. Much better than you, apparently.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Sorry, Archibald - either you have a PhD yourself and you took Excommunicator's remark too personally, or you have yet to learn an important lesson in life - having a piece of paper saying that you are smart does not guarantee you really are. Yes, I know also people who behind a thin facade of self-importance and bullshit backed-up by their 'titles' they 'earned' through nothing but jackAssery are worthless scum deserving only utmost contempt from any true, serious academic.

This is just my observation that usually people who claim such things are morons who failed to finish school or do anything reasonable with their lifes. As to cover their inferiority complexes they try to attack those who managed to do something.

I'm with Mrowak on this one, PhD here (in Poland that is) are more often obtained by asslicking and having no ambitions whatsoever (ambitious people start, You know, making money) rather than by any research being done. Of course people with no education seem all too eager to belittle those with titles, but its not necessarily an indication from where this point of view comes. I finished my studies and dont intend to EVER return to make a PhD, its such a colossal waste of time for me.

Of course I do know that Polish education system is rotten veyond belief and represents at best 3rd world class...

There's some truth in both sides here. The difficulty of a PhD varies with the field (and assuming we're talking top-tier universities rather than a diploma mill). In some of the sciences, you can get a PhD largely working as an underling on a more experienced scientist's research. That's just because that kind of research inevitably requires teams, and the PhD students are the most junior folk on the teams.

Areas where there is a need to garner a decent publication history in your own right are quite a lot harder. The good academic journals have acceptance rates of about 0.5% (1 in 200). Factor in that all of those contributors have PhDs, and that the PhD student is at the bottom of the pile, and the majority of folks who undertake PhDs aren't going to come out of it with enough publications to get an interview as an academic. Even so, it's a hefty task if nothing else - I found working as a private sector lawyer far less onerous, and with much less 'competition' (it's pretty hard to slide off the salary-raise chain in law unless you really go out of your way to screw up) than getting a foothold in the humanities, and the standard of the average PhD student (at a good university, mind you) was leagues ahead of most of the folk in the legal profession over here. Not that that's particularly difficult.

Of course, there are plenty of morons in both fields (in the sense of general idiocy/pig-headedness, rather than lacking analytic intelligence per se) but you can say the same about any area. A PhD basically tells you that the guy has the skills to produce research - which is a reasonable and fairly transportable skillset. As for whether there's any serious intellect, you'd have to see his/her publication history. There's plenty of folks with PhDs who don't have any serious peer-reviewed research to their names.

 

[Mrowak]

Sorry, Archibald - either you have a PhD yourself and you took Excommunicator's remark too personally, or you have yet to learn an important lesson in life - having a piece of paper saying that you are smart does not guarantee you really are. Yes, I know also people who behind a thin facade of self-importance and bullshit backed-up by their 'titles' they 'earned' through nothing but jackAssery are worthless scum deserving only utmost contempt from any true, serious academic.

This is just my observation that usually people who claim such things are morons who failed to finish school or do anything reasonable with their lifes. As to cover their inferiority complexes they try to attack those who managed to do something.

I'm with Mrowak on this one, PhD here (in Poland that is) are more often obtained by asslicking and having no ambitions whatsoever (ambitious people start, You know, making money) rather than by any research being done. Of course people with no education seem all too eager to belittle those with titles, but its not necessarily an indication from where this point of view comes. I finished my studies and dont intend to EVER return to make a PhD, its such a colossal waste of time for me.

Of course I do know that Polish education system is rotten veyond belief and represents at best 3rd world class...

There's some truth in both sides here. The difficulty of a PhD varies with the field (and assuming we're talking top-tier universities rather than a diploma mill). In some of the sciences, you can get a PhD largely working as an underling on a more experienced scientist's research. That's just because that kind of research inevitably requires teams, and the PhD students are the most junior folk on the teams.

Areas where there is a need to garner a decent publication history in your own right are quite a lot harder. The good academic journals have acceptance rates of about 0.5% (1 in 200). Factor in that all of those contributors have PhDs, and that the PhD student is at the bottom of the pile, and the majority of folks who undertake PhDs aren't going to come out of it with enough publications to get an interview as an academic. Even so, it's a hefty task if nothing else - I found working as a private sector lawyer far less onerous, and with much less 'competition' (it's pretty hard to slide off the salary-raise chain in law unless you really go out of your way to screw up) than getting a foothold in the humanities, and the standard of the average PhD student (at a good university, mind you) was leagues ahead of most of the folk in the legal profession over here. Not that that's particularly difficult.

Of course, there are plenty of morons in both fields (in the sense of general idiocy/pig-headedness, rather than lacking analytic intelligence per se) but you can say the same about any area. A PhD basically tells you that the guy has the skills to produce research - which is a reasonable and fairly transportable skillset. As for whether there's any serious intellect, you'd have to see his/her publication history. There's plenty of folks with PhDs who don't have any serious peer-reviewed research to their names.

This.

I was going to explain to Archibald in detail how precisely having PhD does not have to reflect person's intellectual or personal qualities but Azrael the cat as usual proved more up to the task than I could (at present) dream of.

 

[DraQ]

Very much subjective. What 'world'? It was one dungeon. The village was lame, NPCs soulless quest and item dispensers. Graphics were dark, sometimes too dark to actually see anything, I dont count that as atmospheric. D1 did have some truly good places and enemies (Butcher for example) but so did D2 (Harem or Duriel). It depends on what You like. I enjoyed a change of pace coming from more open areas...

Malakal cannot into impliedsetting and atmosphere.



Also if 'open areas' essentially mean 'large flat plains of nothing' then it is not an improvement. And change of pace mostly came from player being able to effortlessly steamroll generic baddies right from the start, which was the final nail in the atmosphere's coffin.

 

[CraigCWB]

being in rather ehm impressionable age of 16 I was pretty much blizzard's fanboy at that time. Furthemore, I replayed D1 repeatedly in single and multi till now. .

The same happened with D2 (in multi), albeit much less often. I think that as far as objectivity is concerned I'm doing fine, thank you. Much better than you, apparently..

Objective fanboys, is it? :D