The Diablo Formula and how Diablo 3 falls short
#18
(07-11-2012, 05:28 PM)Jaffa Tamarin Wrote: For me, D1 ended after killing Diablo in normal. Because I was playing off-line single-player, not part of any on-line game communities, and never found out until much later that there were higher difficulties I could have gone on to. Big fail on Blizzard's part there.

But really, that was the game. The rest was for goofing around.

One thing Diablo and Diablo II had in common was that the difficulty levels were a complete afterthought. I think this entire genre has these new game plus style difficulty levels because someone at Blizzard said "Hey guys... Doom and Quake have difficulty levels... maybe we should too!" Somehow hell/hell in Diablo ended up being a lot of fun, but areas like hell/church and nightmare/church are just trash.

Diablo II was supposed to be so epic, with each Act being much larger than the entire game of Diablo, that it wouldn't need extra difficulty levels. But then someone on the Blizzard forums said "Hey guys... Diablo has difficulty levels... maybe Diablo II should too!"
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: The Diablo Formula and how Diablo 3 falls short - by Nystul - 07-11-2012, 08:49 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)