In the twilight of 1.09..

[Thecla]

A dim place, ancient beyond knowledge. Ages of rain and wind have rounded the granite, and the sun is feeble and red. A million cities have fallen to dust... Earth is dying..

...here are a few random comments about the problems with how D2 worked out, mostly from a perspective of what I had hoped for coming from D1, all those years ago. It may, of course, be a long twilight for 1.09 until 1.10, and quite probably a false dawn, but that would not be the first (or the last) one. And lest my comments sound too negative, I should say that I've warmed to D2 over the years, in part because it's still better than anything else out there, although I still firmly believe that D1 has been the best computer game I've ever played. :)

_________________________________________________________________________________


Blizzard's lack of enforcement of legit play on the realms. (Or, as Pete would say 'Buzzard', probably conditioned by posting for too long on Bliz's word-filtered forums. Or 'fora'.) D2 was a slow train wreck compared with D1, but a train wreck it was, nevertheless. Bliz has been much more active post LoD in cracking down on hacks/dupes than before, but they were much too late in doing it, and they only got serious long past the point where it made a difference. I don't blame them for leaving open exploits (no code is completely secure); but the whole point of realms is that you can take action against those who cheat. Unfortunately, I think that, at first, Bliz decided not to do this (presumably because they didn't want to alienate their overall customer demographics -- hint not the "M" demographics, although I don't automatically equate below M-demographics with lack of maturity) until things had got completely out of control. Big mistake. (And why hasn't Bliz long ago fixed some seriously harmful hacks like the drop/trigger hacks?).

Single player vs large mp games. Bliz's efforts to encourage coop play didn't work. Instead, their system virtually created two different games: single player (realm or not), regular D2; and multiplayer rush/level-up/kill-with-uber-itmez-in-large-gamez/cow-levelz/etz. Well I think you can tell where my own preferences lie, and of course there are a few people that play meaningful co-op games, but by-and-large, the idea of players having to band together to defeat the worst enemies was a total and utter failure. In part, the fact that more players did nothing more than increase the hps of the monsters (with a few dreaded exceptions, like stygian dolls), together with their xp and loot, was responsible for this.

Bliz games are too popular for their own good. (Whatever Occhi's said about Bliz giving players their own noose to hang themselvez and them taking it). One of my pet peeves is people who want to know if their traded item is a dupe just because they don't want it to disappear. They wouldn't care one jot if it was a dupe or not if they were guaranteed that it wouldn't vanish. IMO Bliz should delete every single duped item, both the original and the dupe (not that you can distinguish between them electronically), and people should be glad of it. I despise the "But I traded legit items for my dupe" whiners -- I'd rather get typhoid than use a dupe (ok -- well maybe not). Bliz is doing them a favor. In D2 (unlike D1, where your items could be duped without your knowledge) nothing can be duped without the complicity of the person who found it. Caveat emptor, and have Bliz enforce absolute compliance of legit items. (It's unbelievable to me that, after D1, Bliz did not implement unique item codes before 1.07, or whatever version it was.) How they will manage this in WoW when there are no private games to retreat to, I don't know. As Jean-Paul Satre remarked:

L'enfer, c'est les autres dans votre jeu privé.

Effect of server side play in reducing immediacy of combat. This turned out to be one of the worst changes from D1. I recall arguing strongly in favor of the server side model before D2 came out, unlike say Pete and maybe Jarulf and others. I also expessed confidence that this would provide a legit environment to play the game. :( But one of the side-effects of the server-side model is that it reduced the directness of combat from D1 (despite the desync problems in mp D1) , and made D2 "mushy". Part of this loss of precision is the transition from the one-on-one combat of D1 to the mass slaughter of D2. I guess WoW will go to the "click-on-enemy-and-watch-the-encounter-resolve-itself" MMORPG model (yah, yah, there will be all those strategic choices you can make too).


Some other random combat comments. Melee characters got the shaft in D2 -- ranged characters (which are what I prefer to play, more powerful or not) have a much easier time. There are almost no dangerous ranged attackers at all (just abyss/oblivion knights -- what happened to monster randomization? -- and mslebs, and maybe one or two I forgot off the top of my head, or maybe not). In fact, there is almost no danger in combat (stunlock in D2 is nothing, especially since it's all the more easily avoided because it depends on life instead of clvl), aside from a few monsters. The extreme difference in difficulty between the vast majority of monsters and a very few nasty ones doesn't really make sense (make 'em all harder -- but don't destroy that sense of character omnipotence ;) ).

Skills, characters, and equipment. I never really like the skill system in D2. It didn't promote variety -- instead there were a few cookie-cutter builds, and those that were different were the ones that chose to be. I preferred the D1 system where all classes had access to all spells; and I always resented the fact that my 'zons couldn't learn teleport (though my main 'zon -- now PNF -- wore a teleport ammy for just this purpose, and kept lots of gold in her stash.) The game is also too equipment dependent: the D1 systems where clvl was much more important was better IMO. I'm afraid 1.10 will just exacerbate this with a ton ofnew uniques, though clearly the general D2 b.net dupe/hack/ith/white using population has already voted with their feet on this question, as did the general D1 population.

Atmosphere. The D2 game was too large -- often it feels like you're just getting through places -- more concentrated would have been better; and the graphics (or, perhaps, the artists) were just not as good as the hex-based graphics in D1.

Well, I could ramble on for a while longer, but that's enough. I do hope 1.10 will be good (whenever it finally appears).

[WarBlade]

Some other random combat comments. Melee characters got the shaft in D2 -- ranged characters (which are what I prefer to play, more powerful or not) have a much easier time. There are almost no dangerous ranged attackers at all (just abyss/oblivion knights -- what happened to monster randomization?

Yeah. :( While I have no problem with the style of melee being able (at least in theory) to apply a lot of force at a single point, while AOE spell users do wide area effects, I wonder why the creators so completely disregarded balance in terms of what each could handle. Meleers get all manner of 'fun' things to get hammered by, while a Sorceress gets . . . Duriel.

Fine, so Blizzard creates annoyances by the truckload for meleers like seas of Maggot larvae. I wish they'd comlimented such things by including the likes of the charging Horned Demons or The Hidden of D1 to give ranged attackers a similar problem. :(

[NiteFox]

Fine, so Blizzard creates annoyances by the truckload for meleers like seas of Maggot larvae.

Ugh. Worst memory I have is getting trapped in the corner of the Maggot Queen's lair with about thirty Maggots and nearly a hundred young in a players 8 game. My poor Druid hadn't even learned Fury then, and had to take each and every one of them out using Feral Rage and Hunger.

A painful day. Took me twenty minutes to clear out the mob.

I don't think charging enemies would work quite as well. Hornies aren't really that difficult to avoid in D1, and the only other enemy that "charges" that does cause problems are Snakes, and even then it's a short-range charge (Unless you dodge that and watch the floorshow :D ) used to pluck retreating melee fighters out of their escape.

Really, ranged attackers need better ranged attackers to make life more difficult. Some of the most nightmarish enemies in D1 for a sorc or a Rogue were ranged attackers with fast or widespread attacks (Lawyers) or hunted in packs (Witches)

[ManaCraft]

Meleers get all manner of 'fun' things to get hammered by, while a Sorceress gets . . . Duriel.

Hey, dont forget the ancients :P

And oh my, how I miss the hidden! :ph34r:


ManaCraft

[NiteFox]

Then come back to D1 MC :)

The level generation threw up something I hadn't seen in the Caves for a long time - Mud Runners and Horned Demons. Yay. They make a lovely *splat* when you Fireball their pachedyrmal asses into oblivion.

And Breakspine dropped a Doombringer.

[Occhidiangela]

You do get the experience of Hiddens when on my dial up. You get to be attacked by invisible monsters who are on the server but not on your screen! Just like hiddens, except that you can never see them! I call them the Dreaded Desynch Assassins!

Wow, don't even turn invisible after an attack, what a tough monster, and even Inner Sight won't light them up!

:P

[WarBlade]

Hey, dont forget the ancients :P

And oh my, how I miss the hidden!  :ph34r:


ManaCraft

The Ancients? For a Sorceress???

Seriously the only danger there is the Hell Level nastiness of certain ability combo's and Korlic's freeze-you-on-the spot bug. A Sorceress is has the ability to Teleport clear and can spend most of the fight just running around letting Thunder Storm do the work.

[bschultz]

Effect of server side play in reducing immediacy of combat. This turned out to be one of the worst changes from D1. I recall arguing strongly in favor of the server side model before D2 came out, unlike say Pete and maybe Jarulf and others.

Was Pete even around here back then before the game came out? I dont recall any of his posts until around the time of the LOD beta. Of course I could be, and most likely, am wrong. :P

[--Pete]

Hi,

Check out the date on http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/messag...ageid=937959447

And that was just my first post to the (at that time) new forum. I'd been around DSF and the beach a few years before that.

--Pete

[Boutros]

Heh, I don't think anyone around here (other than Pete) has been around long enough to say when Pete showed up on the scene.

I certainly haven't

[Conner Macleod]

I won't, for one, be a mourner of the demise of this patch. There is no reason for the game to have become so hacked and molested - wait, there is. Poor monitoring of the realms is what I believe destroyed it. How many people in the trade channel are actually looking for anything legit anymore? I would guess around 20%. How many people are looking for duped charms, rings, iths, etc? Oh, answer is - too many.

I actually compliment Blizzard on making a game SO popular and a community that is so diverse. What other game that is four years old will you still find around 100,000+ people actively playing on closed? And since open doesn't track it, who knows how many fans are still out there playing a game that sold 7 million copies? I hate playing with anyone with an Ith in any game, and I always have chosen to either find my own stuff whenever possible. Best find from a chest for me? Shaftstop. Value? 1 soj. To me? Priceless. I make my own charms, I craft my own goods. Best thing they did with LoD - crafting. Ok, going OT there, back to topic.

I'm only hoping that they eliminate some of the hacks. Not too hard to do, make a program to analyze the items a character has versus what is actually possible in a legit game. But you're right, they don't want to offend their clientele that enjoy hacking/cracking/whacking/whatever. lol The below-M audience has always driven me nuts. Once the patch is released, they can get to the business of making the realms a little better for legits, afterall, 2 (count em!) programmers are gonna need their employment extended once it's out.

[Kevin]

What other game that is four years old will you still find around 100,000+ people actively playing on closed?

Just because the game was set for release in 1999 doesn't make it 4 years old. Diablo 2 hit shelves June 28th, 2000. So, it isn't even 3 years old yet. D2 won't turn 4 until June of 2004.

I am not trying to be an ass here. I do this all the time with age of video games, as do many other people. Most people think games are much older than they are. I keep thinking that D1 is like 10 years old, but I am pretty sure it wasn't released until 1997, which makes it about 6 years old. (I am going on the 97, because I seem to recall the "game of the year packs" that had War2, Diablo, and Starcraft, and I think that SC was a 98 release). But I didn't bother to check on those dates specificially.

[--Pete]

Hi,

There seems to be some question on D1. Some sites give it as early January '97, others as late (like 28th) December '96. We discussed that on the old forums not too long ago. I suspect from what I've read that the '96 date may have been when the game magazines got some early release copies. Probably an attempt on Buzzard's part to make the game eligible for two shots at game of the year ;)

However, either way it is about 6 years old.

--Pete

[Thecla]

I got D1 the first day it was available from retail outlets in the US, and it was definitely January '97 (as far as I recall somewhere between Jan 5-7), having played a demo from some computer gaming magazine in Nov or Dec of '96, so those reports that it was available Dec '96 are just wrong. (I wish I'd kept that demo disk -- at one time Gyrefalcon on the old DSF put up a link to download the original D1 demo, and I didn't get that either. It only included the warrior and the first two lvls of the church, and my main memory of it is that items lost durability at a horrendeous rate.) Bliz missed the Christmas '96 deadline, which I personally think says something positive about their standards, rather than their attempt to get two shots at the game of the year (and, in the normal course of events, I'm not someone who can be accused of a lack of cynicism).

[--Pete]

Hi,

I got D1 the first day it was available from retail outlets in the US, and it was definitely January '97

I didn't get it till Feb. '97, so couldn't say from personal opinion. I was pretty sure that an early Jan. date was right, but did find a couple of sites that gave a late Dec. date. As I said, I suspect that those were some kind of a pre release evaluation copy.

at one time Gyrefalcon on the old DSF put up a link to download the original D1 demo, and I didn't get that either.

I downloaded that, but that was a few systems ago :) And, yep, things did wear out *very* fast.

Bliz missed the Christmas '96 deadline,

Don't they always? ;)

rather than their attempt to get two shots at the game of the year

That was humor. I think that the success of Diablo took a lot of people, including people from Blizzard South, by surprise. Not everyone liked it. http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/...b97/diablo.html is one example. And, he is pretty much correct on all points, but he overlooked one important fact. Diablo was (and often still is) *fun*.

--Pete

[Thecla]

Bliz missed the Christmas '96 deadline,

Don't they always?

Yup, we can be sure that WoW won't come out in early Dec of 2010, or early Dec of any other year for that matter.

rather than their attempt to get two shots at the game of the year

That was humor. I think that the success of Diablo took a lot of people, including people from Blizzard South, by surprise. Not everyone liked it.

Oops, yes - I did realize that was humor (or humour): next time, my response won't be quite as wooden.

I'm sure D1's success took almost everyone by surprise. I think the game was in many ways a fluke. (I recall reading that it was originally planned as a turn-based game, so that people could kill a few monsters before they turned in for the night, and at some point someone suggested to the creators who later became Bliz North that they make it into a real-time game.) But whatever anyone's opinion is on the pro's and con's of D1 vs. D2 as games, I believe that D1 was revolutionary as a PC game (in terms of it's design and multiplayer aspects) in a way that D2 could never match.

[the Langolier]

Skills, characters, and equipment.  I never really like the skill system in D2. It didn't promote variety -- instead there were a few cookie-cutter builds, and those that were different were the ones that chose to be. I preferred the D1 system where all classes had access to all spells; and I always resented the fact that my 'zons couldn't learn teleport (though my main 'zon -- now PNF -- wore a teleport ammy for just this purpose, and kept lots of gold in her stash.)  The game is also too equipment dependent: the D1 systems where clvl was much more important was better IMO.

I couldn't agree with you more Thecla, especially about items. I personally think my character is ugly when it is decked out in all unique or rare gear. But ofcourse, this is really the only sensible way to equip a normal character given the extra affixes. The good thing about D1 is that the items were very balanced. No single item is SO much better than any other item that, while you may still seek out that perfect item, a similiar item would do very nicely. The mix between unique items and quality magic items is very balanced: there are several uniques that are very useful, but many more magical items that no unique can compare to. I also enjoy the balance of magical/unique items between the very rare finds (for instance, an obsidan jewl of the zodiac and uniques like the deadly hunter).

Another aspect that lowers D2's quality is the shear number of affixes. Estimating an average of 5 affixes per slot, with 10 slots, you get a total of 50 affixes (don't forget charms too). This is often times a low approximation as well. In D1 there was an average of only 20 affixes. This means that a character has to pick the most beneficial prefix/suffix combonation. Often times sacrificing one or two affixes can have a large affect on a character. It can be very fun to experiment by changing one affix and to see the affect on your character. In D2 however, this effect is greatly reduced - both because of an increased number of affixes, but also the shear combonations of affixes prodouce items that can be quite different. While one item may obviously be a better choice, its relative affect on a character can be negligable. Then, ofcourse, you may happen upon such a powerful item that you are almost FORCED into using it because far surpases any other item you could replace it with.

Its seems to me that in D2 you have a one-size-fits-all set of equipment that is an obvious choice or anything else you may have, with very little item swapping - perhaps nearly none save for secondary weapon setups. In D1 there is rarely a single setup that worked best versus anything you might find on a single level. For instance, getting high amounts of life and good resistances to battle elemental enemies might cause a large decrease in blocking power or AC, wherease a prime setup for melee battle can make you vulnerable to ranged magic.

P.S. What is with potions in D2? I understand trying to lean away from "I'm about to die"-instant healing to forcing players to plan ahead when it comes to health, but c'mon! It takes at least 4 potions over a period of 20 seconds to fully heal my druid. In the middle of a battle it has virtually no affect. But I bet I am drinking them the wrong way.

[WarBlade]

P.S. What is with potions in D2?  I understand trying to lean away from "I'm about to die"-instant healing to forcing players to plan ahead when it comes to health, but c'mon!  It takes at least 4 potions over a period of 20 seconds to fully heal my druid.  In the middle of a battle it has virtually no affect.  But I bet I am drinking them the wrong way.

Werebears in particular are something of an anomaly with their extraordinary high life and Oak Sage can compound high life issues for any character too.

The red potions only heal a fixed amount (or critical heal occasionally) and with a high life Druid that fixed amount won't go far. The rejuvenation potions on the other hand heal a percentage of your characters total life so those are really the ones a Werebear wants. Use the cube to get them if necessary.

As for drinking Healing Potions the wrong way, if you have minions to tank for you, try slipping out of the fight, shape shift back to human, guzzle a Healing Potion, then shapeshift back to bear form. ;)

[AtomicKitKat]

As for drinking Healing Potions the wrong way, if you have minions to tank for you, try slipping out of the fight, shape shift back to human, guzzle a Healing Potion, then shapeshift back to bear form. ;)

Kind of silly though. :P Try shifting back to bear before the potion finishes its job. :P

[Occhidiangela]

But's what the final verdict on Diablo. Well, it's good, but it ain't that good. Okay, it's fun to play for a while, but with the amount of time this game has been in development, I'd expected a lot more. There's a lack of real depth to Diablo that I suppose I'd come to expect after playing Bethseda's Daggerfall. There's only three characters, and compared to Daggerfall's elaborate dungeons, Diablo's levels are pretty repetitive. There's no real spark of originality. While multiplayer might squeeze a little more out of the game, there are better RPGs and better games around; Daggerfall for example. While Diablo is by no means a crap game, there's nothing here to make it a must have. A bit of a disappointment.

He ignored two things, one that is and one that evolved. The part the "is." KISS. The KISS principle allowed the game to reach a large audience. The balance between playability and complexity has been the bugaboo of game designers for years. Avalon Hill's World War I game andyone? What was it called, 1914? The German infantry was a 7-12-3 . . .

Player imagination and role playing. The ability of many players to seek odd twists and fun variations on a theme.

However, if one is a pure RP player, and not a Dungeon Crawl player, then one appreciates why the reviewer wrote what he did.

I think he also underestimated the number of 13 year olds who would have access to bnet. :)