Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Diablo vs Diablo II

Diablo vs Diablo II? Who wins?

  • Diablo

    Votes: 5 55.6%
  • Diablo II

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Diablo II: LoD (click this if you think LoD inclined D2)

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • they're shit (but I secretly played and enjoyed them)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • they're shit (stupid clickfest game)

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • Total voters
    9

kaizoku

Arcane
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
4,129
Someone posted a link to Diablo's Tristam theme on the VGM thread and while I listened to it a trip down the memory lane ensued.
It was possibly the first RPG I ever played. And it was an amazing experience.
I'm tempted to try it out again just to see if it has withstand the test of time. Can it still be interesting or is it just the nostalgia?
But man... there was just something special about simply running away from that fast and scary powerful butcher in Diablo 1.

Then Diablo II came out. It seemed to do everything better. You had more classes, more weapons, potion and weapon crafting, and even companions. Incline, right?
But somewhat it seemed to lack something.
Or maybe it had an excess of something. Maybe too many items? Too many dungeons? (can a dungeon crawler have too many dungeons?)
After a while I just stepped back and thought "wtf am I doing here?! stupid mindless clickfest action for uber items?" and quit.
 

thesoup

Arcane
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
7,599
My first "RPG" was Diablo. In terms of atmosphere, Diablo wins, but regarding combat and overall fun, Diablo 2 is the better game.

I was like 10 when I first played Diablo. I was scared as fuck when entering every next level. I remember shitting bricks when I first encountered The Butcher. I think it was that game which made me save like a retard with OCD.
 

Renegen

Arcane
Joined
Jun 5, 2011
Messages
4,062
Well they are good games but... their problem is Blizzard. I played Diablo 2 for several years and Blizzard's policy was to ignore fan input completely and to arbitrarily change the rules whenever they wanted. Every few patches they'd nerf or boost different skills and your hard work had to be thrown away. At the start of Diablo 2, grinding was done on any map, at the end, it's all Baal runs. At the beginning, you could gamble for unique items, at the end, you couldn't and they became extremely rare. As the years wore on, Diablo 2 became more of an MMO. And those who "cheated" with something as simple as a maphack were banned in the hundred of thousands. The game was also so addictive that after I quit it 3 times, I decided to never touch a Blizzard game again.
 

pocahaunted

Arcane
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,017
Location
Pyongyang, Best Korea
Aye, Diablo 2 is certainly the most fun.

LoD, however, was a huge mistake. It turned the game away from rares as high-end items towards the copy-paste boss farming bots fueled by overpowered uniques.
 

baronjohn

Cipher
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
2,383
Location
USA
I always hated DIablo. The setting was just so incredibly banal (comparable to FNV wild west) and the gameplay a mindless spamfest.

IMO Diablo was one of the games that spearheaded the decline. It showed publishers that they can get away with poorly thought-out grindy shitgames, and they went for it.
 

Malakal

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Poland
Renegen said:
Well they are good games but... their problem is Blizzard. I played Diablo 2 for several years and Blizzard's policy was to ignore fan input completely and to arbitrarily change the rules whenever they wanted. Every few patches they'd nerf or boost different skills and your hard work had to be thrown away. At the start of Diablo 2, grinding was done on any map, at the end, it's all Baal runs. At the beginning, you could gamble for unique items, at the end, you couldn't and they became extremely rare. As the years wore on, Diablo 2 became more of an MMO. And those who "cheated" with something as simple as a maphack were banned in the hundred of thousands. The game was also so addictive that after I quit it 3 times, I decided to never touch a Blizzard game again.

Honestly, no one should EVER listen to fans. Because they usually are dumb and dont know what they want at all, and if they do know its a bad idea anyway. Just look at the modding scene of almost any game, shit always outweights good mods.

No, devs should be clever people that do what they want and we love them for who they are.
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,182
Location
Bjørgvin
Malakal said:
Honestly, no one should EVER listen to fans. Because they usually are dumb and dont know what they want at all, and if they do know its a bad idea anyway. Just look at the modding scene of almost any game, shit always outweights good mods.

No, devs should be clever people that do what they want and we love them for who they are.

Some input is always good, but not all. Just look at Thief 2, with the stupid robots. The undead were far more frightening than the cute, clusmy robots that are so easily tricked into blowing themselves up.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
Diablo 1 >> LoD > Diablo 2.

Roguelike-lite beats an MMO-lite any day.

Especially given how Diablo 1 had tons of atmosphere and consistent world design, Diablo 2 is just kitchensink of derp.
Sure the item system was better in D2, so were more unique classes, but it lost the element of randomness in form of gear (you can always outfit yourself with anything you wont if grind enough) and spellbooks, had no persistency, had derpy resurrection system, no thematic consistency whatsoever and there were too many magic drops and too much tiered stuff.
 

Renegen

Arcane
Joined
Jun 5, 2011
Messages
4,062
Malakal said:
Honestly, no one should EVER listen to fans. Because they usually are dumb and dont know what they want at all, and if they do know its a bad idea anyway. Just look at the modding scene of almost any game, shit always outweights good mods.

No, devs should be clever people that do what they want and we love them for who they are.
The game was already finished. All people were asking was for skill rebalances. Some skills have remained useless to this day. Either way, it was a harbinger of Blizzard's handling of fans in future games. Like not having LAN in Starcraft or attempting to impose Real ID on its accounts.
 

kaizoku

Arcane
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
4,129
DraQ said:
Diablo 1 >> LoD > Diablo 2.

Roguelike-lite beats an MMO-lite any day.

Especially given how Diablo 1 had tons of atmosphere and consistent world design, Diablo 2 is just kitchensink of derp.
Sure the item system was better in D2, so were more unique classes, but it lost the element of randomness in form of gear (you can always outfit yourself with anything you wont if grind enough) and spellbooks, had no persistency, had derpy resurrection system, no thematic consistency whatsoever and there were too many magic drops and too much tiered stuff.
What do you mean by consistent world design? Was D1 consistent because it had catacombs all the way down to hell?
If D2 had nothing but the same type of location I'm sure people would complain that the areas look exactly the same as D1.

I agree about the atmosphere, there was just something about it. But I can't pinpoint what exactly is this.
The music in Tristam is dark, which really sets the mood for the game as a desolate and forsaken place, then you have the claustrophobic and dark dungeons. And I guess the dangerous monsters. If you weren't careful you would end up dead in no time. Maybe the sense of adventure that came with dwelling into each underground level until you get face to face with the devil.
Is there anything more to this atmosphere?

Were the open areas what killed D2 atmosphere?
 

Suicidal

Arcane
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
2,207
Diablo II LoD for all the multiplayer fun it brought me and my friends.
 

Hobo Elf

Arcane
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
13,997
Location
Platypus Planet
LoD > Diablo 2 > Diablo

Despite the strong elements where Diablo 1 excelled over Diablo 2, it wasn't gameplay which is still king no matter what.
 

DwarvenFood

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
6,408
Location
Atlantic Accelerator
Strap Yourselves In Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Wasteland 2 Codex USB, 2014 Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
I never played them multiplayer, but Diablo 1 has great atmosphere and was one of the first ARPG's (or Diablo-clones) done real well.

Diablo 2 polished up the gfx and gameplay, but was not totally dumbed down so it was not that bad a sequel as we get these days.

Holding my heart for Diablo 3. Probably more towards MMO gameplay with symbolic single player "campaign".
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
129
CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK
 

Kingston

Arcane
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
4,392
Location
I lack the wit to put something hilarious here
Diablo 1 is a more enjoyable singleplayer game due to the atmosphere and whatnot. Diablo 2 doesn't really work well as a singleplayer game, there are too many areas that feel like filler. But D2 LoD multiplayer kicks ass and has provided me with countless hours of fun, so I guess I'll vote for that.
 

attackfighter

Magister
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
2,307
The biggest flaw in Diablo 1 is how the enemy archers endlessly kite you. Once you advance passed the skeleton tier of enemies (who don't kite) the game starts to become a real chore due to the kiting alone. It's still playable, though only once.

Diablo 2 I found too MMO-ish. The campaign was long and boring, dungeons consisted of millions of shit enemies who were only there to impede you from grinding the bosses, more tiers of loot made inventory/looting more annoying than in D1 and finally the game's atmosphere was quite a bit less gloomy than it's predecessor's (a trend which seems to be continuing in D3 as well...). I wrote it off as a shitty WoW prototype and stopped playing halfway through the desert area.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
19
Location
In deep shit
I can only speak singleplayer wise- diablo 2 is shit. Boring, too grindy, without much atmosphere, everytime you save and exit, all the monsters you killed respawn, which I presonally hate, as there is already too much of them. While diablo 1 is a solid roguelike game with a great atmosphere and style.

Seems like blizzard decline will continue with diablo 3, as it is a real MMO, not even pretending it's not like diablo 2... :decline:
 

CappenVarra

phase-based phantasmist
Patron
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
2,912
Location
Ardamai
I don't need to elaborate this one much, right? :)

D2 was too damn colorful, and moved thematically from "everything's ruined, and you're fucked even when you think you've won" to "the chosen hero of light saves the day! huzzah! meet Tyrael at 5 o'clock sharp for tea and biscuits!". D1 might have been mechanically a bit primitive, but I don't mind. I can still look at D1 item sprites and drool; D2 has way too many of them, and made them bland as fuck. Not to mention my pet peeve: D2 replaced that beautiful list of blue text in premium item shops with a clickety visual grid. Yeah, I know, I get like that sometimes :shrug:.

DraQ said:
Roguelike-lite beats an MMO-lite any day.
Absolutely :salute:

attackfighter said:
The biggest flaw in Diablo 1 is how the enemy archers endlessly kite you. Once you advance passed the skeleton tier of enemies (who don't kite) the game starts to become a real chore due to the kiting alone. It's still playable, though only once.
Archers kiting? You are aware of things such as corners and spells, right? Playable only once? I'm completely confused about which game you speak of :)
 

attackfighter

Magister
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
2,307
CappenVarra said:
attackfighter said:
The biggest flaw in Diablo 1 is how the enemy archers endlessly kite you. Once you advance passed the skeleton tier of enemies (who don't kite) the game starts to become a real chore due to the kiting alone. It's still playable, though only once.
Archers kiting? You are aware of things such as corners and spells, right? Playable only once? I'm completely confused about which game you speak of :)

Spells aren't viable if you're a fighter, and I was speaking from the perspective of someone who did use corners (the kiting was still very annoying). Perhaps it is worth multiple playthroughs if you roll with a mage or thief-archer, but I haven't played them so I wouldn't know.
 

sea

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
5,698
Diablo, all the way. There are a few things that I think Diablo nailed and that the sequel lost, not because it was a badly made game, but because it lost sight of what made the original a success and chose to focus on the wrong elements in pimping out its "bigger and better" gameplay. As far as sequels go, it was exactly what it should have been, but that is also sort of the problem in itself.

First, there's the difficulty. Diablo is a reasonably difficult game, but it's difficult in a very measured sort of way. It punishes stupidity very very quickly (running into a pack of enemies vs. drawing them out and using choke points), and it always feels fair whether you win or lose. No random arrows and spells flying around to hit you as you run away, no cheapass bosses that require you to run in circles for a half-hour, no portaling back to town over and over to stock up on potions. Diablo II felt more geared towards online play due to the number of enemies, the cheap shots and random deaths increasing reliance on other players, and so on. It had less a "you died because you screwed up" feeling and more a "you died because the game wanted you to die" sentiment. That emphasis on absurdly difficult and bloated enemies also hurt things. Diablo II was largely an exercise in strategic use of town portals and drinking potions; Diablo was more concerned with endurance and how to tackle encounters themselves. It made more sense from a multiplayer and mass market standpoint to do what Diablo II did, but I don't really like it either way.

Second, there's loot. Most of your time in the original game was spent outfitted with normal items plus a few decent magical ones, if you can find them. Uniques were extremely rare, comparatively, but stood out as being not just more powerful, but also having upsides and downsides to them. Uniques felt like powerful, ancient artifacts with special properties to consider, with risk and reward, not just better versions of gear you could already find. Diablo II conflated the problem even more with set items, crafted items, runeword items, rare items... it got excessive and the boundaries between different tiers of loot broke down. In the original Diablo, you could find a good item early on and use it for the rest of the game; in Diablo II, loot was largely disposable outside of its online economy. Torchlight, Titan Quest, and Dungeon Siege all inherited the worst qualities of Diablo II's loot, showering the player with it and simultaneously making it almost entirely useless. Loot in RPGs should be about trade-offs, with occasional really cool items to spice things up, and not about selling junk to vendors so you can... uh... gamble it away on more junk?

Third, Diablo was focused. Though it had less variety in environments and enemies, those that were in the game felt like natural extensions of one another, progressing in severity and getting darker and darker with each level down the hatch. You had one central goal and everything in the game revolved around it. Side-quests were minimal and incidental, and not necessary to slog through before the game decided to open its doors to the next chapter, unlike Diablo II, where the game would present a bunch of "optional" quests per act only to reveal later on that they were all actually mandatory. Its grab-bag "world tour" of locations also felt forced to me. Diablo was a game about claustrophobic tunnels and dark depths, not about jungles and deserts. It had its moments (the Mayan-style tombs were great) but it tried too hard to impress.

Fourth, Diablo was about steady progression towards an objective, and not about grinding. Though there was leveling, spellcasting, new gear to find, and so on, it was all in service of the greater objective of winning the game. Harder difficulties and online play presented a greater challenge and required more metagame knowledge to succeed in, but even there the focus was largely on smart play rather than just maxing out your character or trying new builds. Diablo II turned that around and made its hard difficulties not so much more difficult as it did simply increase the barrier of entry. Want to play on the highest level? Be sure you've worked your way up to level 60 before even trying (the word "work" is very appropriate here), and you have to have X character build to stand a chance. I never found those levels difficult so much as just tedious and repetitive, a test of patience in grinding and not in ability.

Fifth, randomness with purpose. Diablo was heavily inspired by roguelike games and as such, reveled in its random selection of quests, items, and so on. Shrines could give permanent positive or negative bonuses, sometimes you'd find a boss and sometimes not, and sometimes you'd get a great item early on or sometimes you'd have to wait most of the game. This lack of predictability ensured a lot of interesting repeat play. However, that randomness was more articulate than just a series of modifiers selected from various loot and monster tables - the experience you were left with was specific enough that it was memorable. The Chamber of Bone, the Butcher, King Leoric, the poisoned well, the Archbishop, and others all stood out because there were only a handful per play-through, and they were all distinctive. Diablo II tried to replace that feeling of hand-crafted encounters with boss monsters featuring X, Y and Z properties, rare items with 10 different effects, and so on... but it just could not compare to Diablo's more thoughtful approach. It's the same issue that games like Daggerfall run into - huge game worlds with limitless potential, but nothing memorable or distinctive at all about them.

Sixth, and probably the weirdest complaint, is running. The ability to run, in Diablo II, was widely praised and Blizzard were congratulated by their fans for its inclusion, as it cut down tedium in getting place to pace. Personally, I think it undermined a lot of the balance in combat, and had additional effects on the gameplay that were for the worse. The fixed movement speed in Diablo meant that you had to be very careful about how you tackled a given situation, and ensured you were punished if you were stupid. In Diablo II, running completely changed how the game played. Instead of punishing you for bad play, it required you to simply retreat and hop through one of your infinitely-available town portals. Combat became less about tactical positioning and resource management, and more about kiting HP-bloated enemies and running circles around them while firing off abilities every few seconds, quaffing potions the whole time. Environments were larger to make up for the increased movement speed, often to their detriment, as it meant longer stretches of nothing to do or, worse, more repetitive enemies to grind through. This in turn led to more junk loot to sell, higher XP requirements to gain levels, and so on. It's one of those "it sounded good at the time" ideas, whose effects were felt throughout the game, and the rest of the mechanics weren't able to compensate effectively.

This isn't nostalgia, by the way. I only ever really played the original Diablo after I'd got my fill of Diablo II. I never missed the multiplayer duels, the boss grinding, the magic finding, and all those other rote, repetitive tasks that defined Diablo II. The expansion was also a lot of fun, but pushed things even more towards modern MMO design and multiplayer. Diablo II is, in many ways, still an excellent game, a genre-defining one, and the perfect sequel, in that it takes the distinctive elements of the original game and expands on them in interesting ways. At the same time, it also lacks that very same tight focus that made the original Diablo so good, its focus on multiplayer, repeated play, and impressive graphics ultimately undoing a lot of the first game's finer points.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom