07-03-2008, 08:08 AM
Quote:D1's character movement speed is a direct correlation to the speed at which computers of that time could move through the load-hit-store cycle. If it takes (insert cycle amount) processor cycles to write a lighting value for a tile to the cache and the game is trying to read that value before it's done writing you've got a broken game. And in D1's case we are looking at computer speeds back in 1996.
You can run just fine in the Dungeons in the Dark Mod just fine. It can cause very minor problems on some systems (newer systems, ironically), but that is more a function of it being a modified feature and not due to processing.
The actual doesn't really matter much as does the relative speed to the rest of the game. Monsters are just as fast as players and the dungeons are much smaller. You could walk through every level in D1 *much* faster than it would take you to run through every act in D2. And as Nystul has already mentioned the player can control the pace of his own game quit easily. Either way, walking speed or how many times you can cast teleport on a level is really not the point.
Frankly, the general atmosphere of this thread that "Diablo 1 is old and games have evolved" sounds like a cop out to me. I'm not saying if they don't remake Diablo 1 with new graphics it will be terrible. But it could be something really great. "Oh, but it looks like so much fun," they say, as if it were some sort of excuse. Are you kidding me? Are we really going to settle for the lowest common denominator which defines a game? I've played hundreds of games that were fun, whether they sell for $50 on retail shelves or if it's a short flash game I stumble upon on the internet. For the games that are just fun, I'll be amused for awhile but eventually I'll move as they are nothing special.
Diablo 2 is fun, as I am sure Diablo 3 will be, but Diablo 1 is great. Don't forget that when it came out, Blizzard was a relatively unheard of producer and it became one of the most popular games that year. They produced a game with in-depth, strategic gameplay. It did not have such an obvious predecessor. This is significant because that means Diablo 3 can be a great game with solid gameplay without being a Diablo 1 clone. Since it is a series, however, I don't think it is out of line to make a comparison of the previous installments. I don't know how to make a game with such involved strategy, but that isn't my job. The point of my original post was to simply to look at what made Diablo 1's gameplay so much better. IMO it is that much more important for Diablo 3 to really shine as it IS based on such strong games and they have clear models to compare and improve upon, much as you would expect a 3rd generation cell phone, car, or computer to really outclass the first generation. Diablo 1 did not have that luxury. So far, however, I am just not seeing it.