Jump to content


Does Diablo suck?


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#21 charmin

charmin

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 15 August 2008 - 05:56 AM

Then maybe my issue with the game is that BECAUSE it's on the edge of an RPG, at least in terms of its presentation (faux-medieval setting, character classes, skill trees, inventory management), it's disappointing to an RPG fan.

Quote

(Unless you want to imply that you are the only sensible person and all other people who enjoyed Diablo are stupid idiots.)

Well... :P
15"MBP@2.4/250/2/256 (This space saving format should be an international standard)
I'm actually TOO good at both TMFPPG and Fable:TLC.
I sleep in a BBEdit T-shirt, but I'm a TextMate user.

#22 Janichsan

Janichsan

    Jugger Bugger

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8102 posts
  • Steam Name:Janichsan
  • Location:over there

Posted 15 August 2008 - 06:56 AM

View Postcharmin, on August 15th 2008, 01:56 PM, said:

Then maybe my issue with the game is that BECAUSE it's on the edge of an RPG, at least in terms of its presentation (faux-medieval setting, character classes, skill trees, inventory management), it's disappointing to an RPG fan.
Well, that could be said about basically every action RPG – which is why I'm not a huge fan of this genre.

"We do what we must, because we can."
"Gaming on a Mac is like women on the internet." — "Highly common and totally awesome?"


#23 Tetsuya

Tetsuya

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2178 posts
  • Location:MI

Posted 15 August 2008 - 08:53 AM

View Postcharmin, on August 13th 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

I'd have put it in the same genre, but I think it's a poor example. A HnS game should be about action, and things kicking off, and beating the crap out of hordes of enemies.

its an Action-RPG, not a hack-and-slash pure action game like Dynasty Warriors.  

View Postcharmin, on August 13th 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

Diablo (II, LoD) throws pitiful enemies at you that fold like paper, and then the odd frustratingly damaging enemy. All of these are microscopic, so you can't appreciate the hacking and slashing.

honestly, it sounds like you never really played the game.  And it sounds like you're unfairly comparing it to games that are FAR newer.  (see more below).  But seriously, the game was meant to be played in 800x600 resolution.  For the day, the enemies were VERY large; except for the deliberately small ones early on.  Particularly in LoD; the enemies there are bigger than you are.  And as for folding like paper:  only in "Normal"; playing the game at higher difficulty levels massively increases the strength of the monsters.  "Normal" is pretty much just "Training Wheels".  

View Postcharmin, on August 13th 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

They're also largely exactly the same except for some palette rotation, which reeks of "cheap". You're constantly juggling loot and repairing equipment, which smells of RPG-style micromanagement, but without a plot or any sense of character development (beyond the odd special move, which in themselves are less than impressive).

I'd say that any of the Dynasty Warriors games is a much better example of Hack n Slash than Diablo is. More hacking and slashing, less juggling.

again, i feel you're comparing the game completely unfairly to newer games.  The game is nearly 10 years old (or is it 10 now?) and Diablo 2 is not much younger.  The plot is minimal but definitely there, particularly if you actually take the time to read the text from the NPCs and listen to the dialogue.  And as for "cheap", it had the highest production values of its day.  Pallette swapping was done by EVERY game back then - it was downright necessary if the game was to be profitable.  There are still over 30 kinds/models of monsters.

#24 Magnum

Magnum

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Location:tBC's litter box

Posted 15 August 2008 - 09:26 AM

View PostTetsuya, on August 15th 2008, 09:53 AM, said:

The game is nearly 10 years old (or is it 10 now?) and Diablo 2 is not much younger.

I think that Diablo 1 is like 11 years old, and Diablo 2 is 8 years old.

Anyway Charmin, you say that Diablo sucks, but that is your own opinion. You can't stop me from liking them, and it all comes
down to you just being that nasty forum troll.
2.71828183 * 3.14159265 * 299792458

#25 devSin

devSin

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 15 August 2008 - 09:27 AM

Quote

But seriously, the game was meant to be played in 800x600 resolution.
640x480. 800x600 wasn't supported until LoD, but even there, it's not the default. But the models for tougher monsters can be fairly large (and it's not like the smaller enemies are all that small).

Palette swapping hasn't ever been "necessary" for a game to be profitable, but you're right that it's either that or only being able to have 30 monster types (one per model). The palette swaps in Diablo are OK, but the tints are pretty terrible.

The game has some RPG qualities and a fair enough story, and I think it's worthwhile to get through the series at least once, but you'll want some other reason to continue playing (that's the part where I agree that the games suck -- I don't understand what keeps anyone endlessly playing either game for the last decade).

#26 charmin

charmin

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 15 August 2008 - 10:45 AM

View PostTetsuya, on August 15th 2008, 03:53 PM, said:

i feel you're comparing the game completely unfairly to newer games.  The game is nearly 10 years old (or is it 10 now?)

Not necessarily. Granted, they're different genres (supposedly), but Baldur's Gate and Fallout are that age, and they're much more compelling games. (Personal tastes will obviously make this sentence untrue for some people). On the other than, the main Action-RPG that springs to mind is BG: Dark Alliance (which IS much newer), and I thought that was far better than Diablo, although only in multiplayer. It was a pretty poor experience solo.



View PostdevSin, on August 15th 2008, 04:27 PM, said:

(that's the part where I agree that the games suck -- I don't understand what keeps anyone endlessly playing either game for the last decade).

That's part of my reason for comparing it to newer games. People act like it's still an amazing game, which validates my comparison.

View PostMagnum, on August 15th 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

Anyway Charmin, you say that Diablo sucks, but that is your own opinion. You can't stop me from liking them, and it all comes
down to you just being that nasty forum troll.

Methinks you don't understand what trolling is. Make a valid point like the others in this thread, or stay out of it.
15"MBP@2.4/250/2/256 (This space saving format should be an international standard)
I'm actually TOO good at both TMFPPG and Fable:TLC.
I sleep in a BBEdit T-shirt, but I'm a TextMate user.

#27 devSin

devSin

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 15 August 2008 - 11:34 AM

View Postcharmin, on August 15th 2008, 09:45 AM, said:

Not necessarily. Granted, they're different genres (supposedly), but Baldur's Gate and Fallout are that age, and they're much more compelling games. (Personal tastes will obviously make this sentence untrue for some people).
I think that's just personal taste. You can't really compare two RPGs with an action or "story-light" game like Diablo -- if you go into it expecting more of the same, sure, it might suck, but the goal is entirely different (the game itself is well done, but you may prefer something with a little more substance). And honestly, I think it's even more of stretch to compare a purist CRPG with Diablo II than with the original (for various reasons), so depending on which side of the fence you were on, the sequel could have been considered an improvement or a total flop (Blizzard obviously picked the side they felt was best for the title).

View Postcharmin, on August 15th 2008, 09:45 AM, said:

That's part of my reason for comparing it to newer games. People act like it's still an amazing game, which validates my comparison.
The problem is that it may very well be an amazing game, even after all this time (the gameplay that people seem to like didn't change in the last 10 years just because other games came out after it). I don't like the fanatic nonsense and the culture that makes Battle.net unapproachable to anyone over the age of 12, but the game is solid for what it is. I'm not aware of any title since that directly competes with Diablo (Dark Alliance was only a console game, no?), although I'm sure there are some foreign titles that try to capitalize on its success by being "similar but better (really!)."

And it's possible Blizzard hit the right combination with the item system to keep people looking for ever better loot when the stuff they already have is sufficient to beat the game on the highest difficulty (and it's not like you're ever actually going to really play through the game again, so what's the point?). I don't understand it and it certainly isn't something that would compel me to run around the same five tilesets for years and years and years, but it does exist for some, and I can appreciate that. (And if "newer" automatically implied "better," most of these people would probably be playing Hellgate: London, but most opinions seem to agree that it blows chunks.)

Does Diablo suck? I don't think so. Is it my absolute favorite? Not even close. It's good for what it is, and I certainly enjoyed playing it (and replayed the series recently, and might even do a Nightmare run just for kicks), but there's very little that makes me want to come back to it after I've finished (which I don't equate with it sucking, just that it's fun until it's over, but then it's time to move on).

#28 QuantaCat

QuantaCat

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1995 posts
  • Location:Vienna, Austria

Posted 15 August 2008 - 11:54 AM

View Postcharmin, on August 15th 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

Methinks you don't understand what trolling is. Make a valid point like the others in this thread, or stay out of it.

What do you expect from this thread? A reason to play Diablo 3? Or a reason to scold people for liking Diablo in general? Or something else entirely?
QC.


avatar courtesy of James Grimlee.

#29 Tetsuya

Tetsuya

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2178 posts
  • Location:MI

Posted 15 August 2008 - 01:54 PM

Titan Quest and Hellgate: London, are both good examples of modern games in the Diablo/2 model.  Both were very successful; and if you notice, the gameplay isnt very different at all.

#30 Dark_Archon

Dark_Archon

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1792 posts
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 15 August 2008 - 03:14 PM

View PostTetsuya, on August 15th 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

Titan Quest and Hellgate: London, are both good examples of modern games in the Diablo/2 model.  Both were very successful; and if you notice, the gameplay isnt very different at all.


Uhh.. Hellgate: London was a complete failure, and the company went under. They released an unfinished product, and people responded by not buying it.

Edit: And Baldur's Gate and Fallout are a completely different genre(unfortunately, a dead genre) from Diablo 2 with a completely different audience. Diablo 2 is an action game, while BG and Fallout are epic RPGs.

For the record, Baldurs Gate 2. Fallout 1&2 and Planescape: Torment are probably my top 4 favorite games. It is too bad that developers seem to be blowing their entire budgets on things like graphics.
Mac Pro 2.66 Ghz NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 7 GB RAM SONY DW-D150A SuperDrive

#31 DaveyJJ

DaveyJJ

    All hail Bastet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3895 posts
  • Steam Name:DaveyJJ
  • Location:Inside Bastet's secret temple preparing for the catpocalypse.

Posted 15 August 2008 - 05:12 PM

View PostTetsuya, on August 15th 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

Titan Quest and Hellgate: London, are both good examples of modern games in the Diablo/2 model.  Both were very successful; and if you notice, the gameplay isnt very different at all.

And to add to what Dark_Archon said, Iron Lore, the developers of Titan Quest, have also folded and gone under. TQ and it's expansion weren't as successful as many would have liked unfortunately, despite fairly good reviews.

Quote

It is with great regret that we must announce that as of close of business Tuesday, February 19, 2008 Iron Lore Entertainment has ceased active game development. Several unrelated events occurred which resulted in Iron Lore being unable to secure funding for its next project.

We would like to extend our thanks to everyone who has helped us in the last seven years – our team who moved mountains to create such great games, our publisher THQ who has been a great partner through three product development cycles, and most of all our customers and fans. We owe all of the success we’ve had to you, and our greatest satisfaction has come from creating games that have given enjoyment to the community.

I personally quite liked TQ and the expansion pack, and the included editor is superb for making quick adventures but failed me when it came to even adding relatively simple things like quests etc. But as something I could mould an adventure from that would amuse you for an hour, it worked well. TQ = better resolution and more interesting mythos than DII, cool physics and lighting, and a good level system.

But you're right, gameplay really isn't much different than D2 is.

Raven 27" i3 iMac 3.2GHz | 12GB RAM | 1TB HD | 512MB 5670 ATI Radeon HD
Crow iPad 2 | 32GB WiFi


"Not my circus, not my monkeys." -- Polish folk saying
"In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this." -- Terry Pratchett
"I love cats because I enjoy my home; and little by little, they become its visible soul." -- Jean Cocteau


#32 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 15 August 2008 - 05:31 PM

View Postcharmin, on August 15th 2008, 05:45 AM, said:

waiting for a constructive argument.

You didn't start a constructive topic, so I'm not going to give you any constructive arguments.  Instead I'll just say you're wrong.  :P  It's not my favorite game ever but it doesn't suck, either.  The end.

--Eric

#33 PeopleLikeFrank

PeopleLikeFrank

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2690 posts
  • Location:The Republic of Soviet Canukistan
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 15 August 2008 - 06:33 PM

Diablo II personally ticked me off when I finished the campaign without getting some of the higher tier powers - I realized I was supposed to replay the whole stupid thing again just to level the character up some more, and that's when the bottom dropped out of the whole genre for me.

Of course, it would have sooner or later anyway. I just realized that the thin veneer of 'RPG' in 'Action-RPG' is a strange addictive thing that keeps me going when I'm not really having any fun. I keep leveling up a character in order to fight the slightly tougher enemies in order to level up the character some more, and when there's no story or anything behind that, it just doesn't work for me.

I realized that a little too belatedly again when I was playing Titan Quest. I picked it up because it was real cheap on Steam, and I was thinking 'Yeah!, I haven't played a new game in a bit, I wanna chop up some monsters!'. Then around the time I was chopping up the third slightly different coloured Satyrs with a new prefix in front of their name, I realized suddenly and stupidly that it was the same thing again - the promise of my character becoming more powerful keeping me going, but I wasn't enjoying the journey at all. When they made me fight the same Cyclops boss again a second time because I happened to need to quit just after beating him the first time, and spending another twenty minutes kiting him around again, I suddenly remembered why it was that I don't like this sort of thing at all. I quit and have never booted up the game again. Nor regretted that fact.

All to say perhaps that I perfectly understand why someone would not only not like Diablo, but feel some antipathy towards it in its undying adulation by the gaming masses. It's a rather mindless genre, the only real depth of which comes from calculating DPS and better values gotten from the purple armor versus the pink. At the same time though, it's a totally high-quality product with Blizzard's usual loving attention to detail, great production values, and overall polish, so I can't call it a 'bad game'. It's just a genre that will never do anything for me whatsoever. More power to those who like it, I guess. Gaming in general is just trying to outsmart a cloud of ones and zeroes, to paraphrase Yahtzee, so no particular point in getting snobby about it.
The dork formerly known as nobody
---
MBP: C2D @ 2.66 Ghz | GeForce 9600M GT 256Mb | 8GB RAM | 120GB SSD + 500GB HD | 10.6.2 / W7 x64
PC: Q9550 | 6950 2GB | 8GB RAM | 80GB SSD + 750GB HD | W7 x64

#34 MILBOP DIPPLEBERRY

MILBOP DIPPLEBERRY

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 569 posts
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 16 August 2008 - 12:35 AM

Some things suck yet are awesome at the same time and Diablo II is one of them.

If you don't understand how this is so, then you probably never will.

#35 alldaveallen

alldaveallen

    Legendary

  • IMG Writers
  • 630 posts
  • Location:Somewhere between the computer, the fridge and the nursery

Posted 16 August 2008 - 12:41 AM

View Postcharmin, on August 15th 2008, 09:45 AM, said:

Not necessarily. Granted, they're different genres (supposedly), but Baldur's Gate and Fallout are that age, and they're much more compelling games. (Personal tastes will obviously make this sentence untrue for some people). On the other than, the main Action-RPG that springs to mind is BG: Dark Alliance (which IS much newer), and I thought that was far better than Diablo, although only in multiplayer. It was a pretty poor experience solo.
That's part of my reason for comparing it to newer games. People act like it's still an amazing game, which validates my comparison.

It's still an amazing game to me because I bought the Diablo 2 Battlechest on EBay 6-ish years ago for $15-20 (I forget, but something like that), and I'm still playing it. My cost per entertainment hour is some tiny nano-fraction of a penny at this point. I like it because it is hard but not too hard. I like the interface. I enjoy nearly-brainless click and slash action. I like the not-particularly high demands it makes on my computer, and I especially liked it when I was poorer than dirt 5 years ago and playing on a beige minitower, and it was frequently the only thing I could afford to do for fun. I respect and admire people who can plan out character skill attributes in games like Baldur's Gate and Fallout 2 and actually get to the end of the game, but every time I have tried those games I blow it and I get the feeling I blew it from the start. So I like D2 because I managed to get 3 characters to the end of Hell-level LOD before I ever read a build guide. Plus I find the turn-based combat of BG/F2 a little boring. They are certainly more compelling games in terms of story and general richness of their worlds, but I realized at some point I was spending more time reading the manuals than playing the games.

I dislike that the point of the endgame is to play the game over and over to find loot that allows you to be better at playing the game over and over.  So apparently do other people, which is why Blizzard seems to introduce things like "Uber Diablo" and "Pandemonium events" and so on. I look forward to further refinement of the mindless click and slash action with D3. As a crypto-socialist anti-capitalist, I sincerely hope that there will be ways to advance your character other than getting more stuff, because it's like The Sims with demons or something. Bleah...


I'm not really sure what you're looking for on this thread. You could very easily take apart someone's general like of a game, break it down into specific traits they like, and then find better examples for each of those traits. But you could do that with anything. "I like ice cream because it's cold and sweet and you can buy it at the store."  "Well, why don't you try liquid nitrogen and saccharin?"

#36 Tetsuya

Tetsuya

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2178 posts
  • Location:MI

Posted 16 August 2008 - 08:03 AM

View PostDark_Archon, on August 15th 2008, 02:14 PM, said:

Uhh.. Hellgate: London was a complete failure, and the company went under. They released an unfinished product, and people responded by not buying it.

a little fact checking might not hurt you, and would certainly make you look less uninformed.  

HG:L sold well over 400,000 copies.  That's not a failure.  The after-market support (by the players) sucked, and yes, that was because the game WAS released unfinished, because EA forced them to get it out.  However, Flagship is NOT out of business (a quick, 5 second check of the HGL website or FSS website would show you that); EA dropped them (EA seems to be like Fox: we have a great game (HGL) or, in the case of Fox, show (Firefly), and then we under-promote it, over-hype it when we do promote it, and then dick everyone around during development so you get screwed in the end.  However, it looks like Namco is going to be picking up FSS and they seem to be very much behind HGL (and Mythos) and seem to be dedicated to giving FSS the backing they need to get back on track.  And actually, the 2nd major content release had really polished Hellgate up (Abyss Chronicles).  It was ready to go before FSS had to go into station-keeping mode while waiting on word from Namco.  I will admit that that isnt a great excuse for shipping the game in the state it was shipped, but that was EA's fault, not FSS.

I'd predict a re-launch of Hellgate, or, possibly, a year-ish down the line, a second game that uses all of the tech and us set in a different city (so it can be fresher in people's minds).

#37 devSin

devSin

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 16 August 2008 - 02:17 PM

View PostTetsuya, on August 16th 2008, 07:03 AM, said:

However, Flagship is NOT out of business (a quick, 5 second check of the HGL website or FSS website would show you that); EA dropped them (EA seems to be like Fox: we have a great game (HGL) or, in the case of Fox, show (Firefly), and then we under-promote it, over-hype it when we do promote it, and then dick everyone around during development so you get screwed in the end.  However, it looks like Namco is going to be picking up FSS and they seem to be very much behind HGL (and Mythos) and seem to be dedicated to giving FSS the backing they need to get back on track.
Excepting, of course, that Bill Roper fired all but the top brass (after putting up the Flagship IP as collateral for loans and was then threatened with losing it), Flagship Seattle has been dissolved and (along with Max Schaefer) formed a new independent game company (that won't be involved with Mythos or anything Flagship), and there's no clear word what, if any, future either of these titles will have now that the teams behind them are gone (not to mention that it's not yet clear who exactly owns the IP for them).

Of course, I'm sure that's somehow all EA's fault too. Curse you, EA! Curse you for allowing Flagship to agree to your deadlines and for not continuing to back them when the paltry North America sales numbers came in and when your customers turned out to be incredibly unhappy!

#38 Cobra

Cobra

    Legendary

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 16 August 2008 - 08:24 PM

Personally to sum up Diablo, I would describe it as a dungeon crawler full of randomly generated goodness :)

#39 ant on holiday

ant on holiday

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • Location:the big mango

Posted 01 September 2008 - 05:01 AM

i personally love rpgs like diablo and titan quest. then though i have to level up for ages to defeat some kind of boss blah blah blah... but there are side quests, which can level you up a bit. so if you ask me, diablo dosent suck, and if you ask the whole lot who play these kind of games, the majority will say: they DONT suck. :D
waiting for diablo 3... wonder how long i have to wait
Antti

#40 Malt-Pipefishes

Malt-Pipefishes

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Location:Somewhere in the 20th Century

Posted 01 September 2008 - 01:20 PM

View PostMagnum, on August 14th 2008, 12:47 PM, said:

Wait, this forum has trolls? *Equips troll killing gear*
Don't you see? only the power of goodness can destroy these monsters!

(Obscure Reference Man strikes again!)
1.8Ghz Intel iMac (Q1 2006) 1.5 GB RAM, x1600 gfx card

"Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci."