DII vs. Titan Quest

[Thecla]

And the winner is...DII.

I recently gave Titan Quest a try, but ground to a halt near the end of the epic (aka nightmare) difficulty game. TQ does have really pretty graphics --- a area in which DII never quite delivered IMO --- and the I like the Greek/Egyptian/Chinese backgrounds...but that wasn't enough.

In desperation, I recently reinstalled my old DII LoD disks, and started a trusty bowazon (who's currently lvl 39 in nightmare act II --- a kuko dropped from a random boss in nm/tamoe highlands which made her life infinitely easier, though I've yet to acquire a single item of mana-stealing equipment...).

I was struck again by the replayability and enjoyability factor of DII, even if it is perhaps a bit of a cotton-candy version of DI. This got me to wondering why DII succeeds where TQ fails, especially when TQ is so closely modeled on DII.

A few things DII does right and TQ does wrong (some of these are major and for others the devil is in the deatils):

a) Random environments

This is the most crucial difference, I think. Playing through epic TQ with exactly the same maps, quests etc. (the addition of one or two new bosses in epic hardly counts) as normal became stultifying even on my second time through the game. Doing it again on legendary difficulty would seem almost inconceivable.

b) Combat

TQ had some really weird combat AI --- for example, monsters had a certain max range, and once they reached it they bounced back as if they were on elastic strings making kiting them easy (and, often, this was the only reasonable way to kill them). The game was too easy early on, but it definitely got tougher in the middle of epic difficulty --- but often this was a 1%/99% difficulty choice, where almost everything was very easy, and the odd boss (e.g. the Manticore) would have almost unavoidable one-hit kills. Or you would get one-hit without 0 resistance to some attack form, and have no worries at all if you maxed it for that encounter.

DII pre 1.10 had a little bit of that 1%/99% flavor with almost everthing no danger, and then the odd MSLEB/lagged Duriel/hell ancient etc. being deadly, but still you always felt much more in control.

As one tiny example, if used correctly, the Amazon's decoy in DII was and is a wonderful and incredibly powerful skill for safe scouting, protection, and crowd control. TQ has a version called monster lure. But the lure can't be placed --- it always appears in exactly the same position relative to your character (at 2 o'clock a few yards away), so woe betide if you happen to be going in the opposite direction. I don't know what they were thinking when they designed the skill this way.

c) Itemization

TQ has lots and lots of items and mods (many more than DII I would guess). But they honestly still make no sense to me. The progression of drops as you go through the game is really uneven. You get the feeling that every time you clear an area, a huge garbage bag of stuff is being dropped on the ground, and probably every single thing is going to be useless.

Now perhaps I'm just not as familiar with the mods in TQ as I am in DII, but having lots of random items is not enough on its own, they have to be part of a well-thought out progression that is appropriate to the character level and monster difficulty.

d) DII has a much stronger multiplayer component (with its "secure, cheat-free servers" ;) ) than TQ.


________________________________


One thing I was a bit shocked by on trying DII for the first time in a long while is that the lag on the realms is as bad or worse than ever. I would've thought they'd have fixed that eventually, especially since I suppose there are far fewer players now than before. I guess there must be some fundamental issues with their implementation of server-side games.

Anyway, I'm hopeful that Hellgate:London will be a worthy DII succesor --- TQ was fun to try but it isn't there for the long haul IMO.

[Maitre]

I'm not sure if I disagree with that statement or not.

I actually don't mind the fixed map in TQ as much as others. I like to have an idea of where I am, and how much further I need to go to reach a life fountain before I save the game and shut-down for the day/night. I'm playing through my third character at the moment. I started with a ranger (hunting+nature), followed with a full-on melee conqueror (warfare+defense), and am working out a battlemage (warfare+earth). I think the replayability is great with the possible skill combinations: there are usually two or three different ways to play each combination, so the fun is in finding out what lets you cruise through packs of monsters, what gets you by, and what gets you killed.

I do think there are too many possible mods for item stats, etc. I've run into a wall with one character because I can't find decent gear with mods to replace what I'm wearing (can't give up the +resist gear for higher armor, or I'll just die to different monsters). Similarly, there are too many damage types to try and protect against: vitality, piercing, poison, bleeding, burning, fire, cold, lightning, physical, and magic. The other thing that I don't like so much is the sheer number of areas. It strikes me as going back to D2 and adding the "frigid plains," the "ancient forest," the "tamoe lowlands," and the "tamoe midlands" to act 1. The upside though is that you'd have to add 6-7 more side quests per act and a merchant next to each waypoint.

Regarding graphics, I'm much more amused by the death animations in TQ. My favorite thing at the moment is taking my conqueror through mid Greece to batter and shield charge the maenads (SP????). I've gotten fairly good at flinging them off of cliffs and over river banks, but my new goal is to shoot them across gaps and have them land on the other side. The smaller demons are also fun to do this with, but because they appear only in the cave areas, it's more about driving them into walls than flinging them across ravines.

I think I'm leaning toward TQ rather than D2, but I might be persuaded.

[Merlinios]

I was struck again by the replayability and enjoyability factor of DII

What? Wherein lies the replayability? Building wealth? It certainly isn't in playing the game (bots exist), leveling to 99 (after the initial rush of the competitive coffee junkies, virtually nobody bothers without aforementioned bots), or "discovering" new stuff, regardless of how random the maps and spawns may be. I find myself (and a lot of other people) playing increasingly weird variants just to keep the game interesting. And I'm pretty sure that if replayability exists only because we force it to, it can exist on another game which allegedly has MORE item mods/skill components.

even if it is perhaps a bit of a cotton-candy version of DI

Sounds about right, but then, why is the Diablo I forum so dead?

a) Random environments
This is the most crucial difference, I think. Playing through epic TQ with exactly the same maps, quests etc. (the addition of one or two new bosses in epic hardly counts) as normal became stultifying even on my second time through the game. Doing it again on legendary difficulty would seem almost inconceivable.

Erm...I point to maphack here. Though I (and I expect all of you) avoid it like the plague, the sheer number of people that do not suggests something about the random nature of the spawns. Perhaps we're taking a bad sample there, but don't tell me you haven't been frustrated running through the jungles of act three and always grabbing the wrong path (before you learned to see the patterns). Indeed, many players who consider themselves legitimate often elect to skip this entire portion of the game. Now I could be wrong, and perhaps we all really enjoy the random factor, and these maphackers only use it to spot items and far-away enemies, but I've always been a fan of Ockham's Razor.

B)Combat
TQ had some really weird combat AI --- for example, monsters had a certain max range, and once they reached it they bounced back as if they were on elastic strings making kiting them easy (and, often, this was the only reasonable way to kill them).

Sounds a bit contradictory there. The only reasonable way to kill them is ridiculously easy? Sounds like a huge programming oversight, or games are just becoming far too Mickey Mouse for my taste. But I don't know that "weird combat AI" is the right terminology. I think you're just using Diablo II as your comparison instead of being objective. If you'd come from, say, Guild Wars, this type of combat is pretty close to the norm, and yet there are enemy packs that you would MUCH rather have follow you to hell and back.

The game was too easy early on

Were normal Quill Rats hard?

but it definitely got tougher in the middle of epic difficulty --- but often this was a 1%/99% difficulty choice, where almost everything was very easy, and the odd boss (e.g. the Manticore) would have almost unavoidable one-hit kills. Or you would get one-hit without 0 resistance to some attack form, and have no worries at all if you maxed it for that encounter.

Assuming you haven't built a paper tiger, Diablo II follows exactly the same system. Gloams, Tomb Vipers, occasionally Dolls or Minotaurs are really the only threatening enemies. I guess Vortex Lords are a bit cumbersome with a speed mod, but realistically, the only places you can even die are the 80+ areas that contain one or more of about six different types of enemies, some of them requiring specific aurae. Easiest example to point to here is the Blessed Hammer paladin. What gives him trouble? Conviction Gloams, possibly Tomb Vipers, MAYBE some extra fast Fanaticized Minotaurs or Dolls. And of course Wailing Beasts (assuming no mercenary). Which constitutes...not a lot of the game's enemies.

I think your polarized view here arises from the fact that you have played Diablo II so much that the easy monsters are now basically ignorable. Eat a meal while talking on the phone as long as there aren't any Gloams or Vipers around. You probably won't even remember them later unless they drop you a Jah.

DII pre 1.10 had a little bit of that 1%/99% flavor with almost everthing no danger, and then the odd MSLEB/lagged Duriel/hell ancient etc. being deadly, but still you always felt much more in control.

Exactly which non-bugged monsters did you have problems with pre-1.10?

Being in control is not where I ideally want to be on a primarily single player game (say what you will, how many non-Baal runs are public?). Control leads to boredom very quickly. I'd rather have enemies that can one-hit me, that I need to use tactics like retreating to defeat than to just mow enemies down like weeds in my front yard.

As one tiny example, if used correctly, the Amazon's decoy in DII was and is a wonderful and incredibly powerful skill for safe scouting, protection, and crowd control. TQ has a version called monster lure. But the lure can't be placed --- it always appears in exactly the same position relative to your character (at 2 o'clock a few yards away), so woe betide if you happen to be going in the opposite direction. I don't know what they were thinking when they designed the skill this way.

Perhaps they wanted players to use a retreat tactic more than the forge blindly ahead no matter what's there used in Diablo II? When someone is overmatched in Diablo II, what is the characteristic response? Run past the difficult enemy until you find something else (like an act boss).

c) Itemization
TQ has lots and lots of items and mods (many more than DII I would guess). But they honestly still make no sense to me. The progression of drops as you go through the game is really uneven. You get the feeling that every time you clear an area, a huge garbage bag of stuff is being dropped on the ground, and probably every single thing is going to be useless.

I NEVER feel that way in Diablo II.

Now perhaps I'm just not as familiar with the mods in TQ as I am in DII, but having lots of random items is not enough on its own, they have to be part of a well-thought out progression that is appropriate to the character level and monster difficulty.

I don't recall seeing that in Diablo II. I guess there is technically a progression, but the stuff at the top is all basically class specific (we all know Windforce is an Amazon item, at least for non-variant players), so you don't generally get anywhere via the progression. This is exactly why the majority of players start new ladder seasons with casters; they are not item dependent.

You can't complete any sets (without mind-numbing quantities of normal boss runs) until Nightmare at least, by which point you should be finding something slightly more usable. So essentially the only sets worth using in the normal game progression are those that you will never actually find all of the pieces for; the class-specifics. Since Lord of Destruction was released, I think I've found one Immortal King's Soul Cage (over three ladder seasons), one Tal Rasha's Guardianship, one full set of Trang-Oul's Avatar, NO Griswold's (Valor?--the Corona)...I'm sure you get the point.

The Titan Quest item system sounds like it is more customizable, which is always a plus in my opinion. Diablo II's progression is based more on random chance than anything. I've had characters that are more powerful by mid-Nightmare, equipment-wise, than others who have finished Hell.

d) DII has a much stronger multiplayer component (with its "secure, cheat-free servers";)) than TQ.

And this is one of the two factors that promote the replayability which you praise. Except no one really utilizes this anymore. The majority of public games are either for trading, rushing, or leveling in Baal runs. Rushing leads to private boss-killing games. Trading is facilitated by the same, and Baal runs are representative of a small portion of the population (beyond those needed to level high enough to kill Mephisto and friends).

One thing I was a bit shocked by on trying DII for the first time in a long while is that the lag on the realms is as bad or worse than ever. I would've thought they'd have fixed that eventually, especially since I suppose there are far fewer players now than before. I guess there must be some fundamental issues with their implementation of server-side games.

That or they can no longer afford to devote as much server space to Diablo II. WoW MUST run smoothely. It is income. It is new. It is everything. Diablo II is eight (?) years old. The only thing Blizzard is reaping from it is company loyalty. The number of players has not decreased THAT much. There are still six digits of people in certain peak hours. I don't think I've seen it fall below 40,000. Ever.

Anyway, I'm hopeful that Hellgate:London will be a worthy DII succesor --- TQ was fun to try but it isn't there for the long haul IMO.

Doesn't really seem to be the same genre. First person MMO RPG shooter as opposed to a hack-n'-slash barely capable of being called an RPG. What exactly is it about Diablo II that appeals to you so much? I know it may well be the most addictive game ever made, but that hardly makes it a GOOD game (at least from a non-business standpoint). I can spend an hour playing many other games, and feel like I've accomplished something, or get up and feel good about what I did, or any number of other positive factors. But all an hour of Diablo II gives me is some vague sensation that I need to play another hour, find another item, and I always feel like garbage when I turn it off.

Diablo II has exactly one real factor still going for it; nostalgia. I think this is literally the only reason it compares favorably to so many newer games. I probably shouldn't be talking this severely about it, having wasted so much of my time killing hellish minions, but really, what is it that keeps us playing? The game is not even "fun" anymore. When's the last time you laughed while playing, friends aside? Even smiled? Felt satisfied? Ever find a Zod rune? You feel elation for about ten minutes. Then realize you don't really have anyone to tell, and unless you just found 1-5 other ridiculously rare runes, you have nothing to do with it but stick it in a frame and hang it on the wall. And I'm pretty sure that's the ultimate in a treasure hunt; finding the treasure. But ten minutes later, you're back to slogging away, looking for another one. What's the deal?

--me

Edit: Confound it. Error in all that quoting somewhere, and I can't for the life of me find it. Switching to Italics.

[Taem]

Not like it really matters, but after playing the TQ demo, I was NOT impressed at all. Just another hack n' slash. Diablo 2 wins hands down, sorry to say. Most of your comments seem like rushed blurts of frustration of whose opinion not everybody shares - your words are very poinently confrontational. You try so hard to defend this game, you only do it shame if it truly is as good as you proclaim because after reading your rebuttle, I know now I'll never buy this game. Thanks for the head's up!

P.S. I like random areas, and hardcore!

[Munkay]

[quote]What exactly is it about Diablo II that appeals to you so much? I know it may well be the most addictive game ever made, but that hardly makes it a GOOD game (at least from a non-business standpoint). I can spend an hour playing many other games, and feel like I've accomplished something, or get up and feel good about what I did, or any number of other positive factors. But all an hour of Diablo II gives me is some vague sensation that I need to play another hour, find another item, and I always feel like garbage when I turn it off.

Diablo II has exactly one real factor still going for it; nostalgia. I think this is literally the only reason it compares favorably to so many newer games. I probably shouldn't be talking this severely about it, having wasted so much of my time killing hellish minions, but really, what is it that keeps us playing? The game is not even "fun" anymore. When's the last time you laughed while playing, friends aside? Even smiled? Felt satisfied? Ever find a Zod rune? You feel elation for about ten minutes. Then realize you don't really have anyone to tell, and unless you just found 1-5 other ridiculously rare runes, you have nothing to do with it but stick it in a frame and hang it on the wall. And I'm pretty sure that's the ultimate in a treasure hunt; finding the treasure. But ten minutes later, you're back to slogging away, looking for another one. What's the deal?[quote]

Ouch. That's a pretty scathing summary of Diablo II. Before I go any further, let me state for the record "your mileage may vary", and indeed anything further written is not an attempt to persuade you away from your opinion. Instead, I want to defend that there are at least some players out there who play for more than just a feeling of nostalgia - though certainly, there is plenty of nostalgia involved.

I do find a lot of replayability in Diablo II, and do not feel I've exhausted my options despite my many avid years of playing (and I've been playing since its release). The biggest knock against its replayability is the nature of the game. It is a click fest. There is a ton of twitch reaction without much strategy. It's a click fest hack and slash, plain and simple. Every game has a nature to it. And we generally choose games depending on the mood we're in. An in depth RPG, a shallow click fest RPG, a twitch FPS, a raid based MMORPG, etc. This in itself makes replayability poor - once you 'burn out' or 'aren't in the mood' for the type of play, there isn't anything else on the table.

Now, there are games that fight classifications like this. For example, Hitman Bloodlines. In the game you can approach every level as a brute force RPG. A strategic RPG. Or a sneaky spy with limited to no killing. But despite this open nature to the game, I'm still playing Diablo II years later while Hitman is gaining dust on my shelf. But why?

The replayability isn't found in the nature of the game. For myself personally, it is the many different combinations of gameplay style/point distribution/found items. I'm still coming up with new ways to perfect a character, new items to try out, different ways of approaching groups/bosses/monsters. Not to forget, the random level generation keeps the game from being the same thing over and over again. You're earlier point about Maphack is fair, though slightly misguided. The popularity of maphack doesn't prove people hate maps, as much as it proves people always want to get from point a to point b in the quickest amount of time. Its a psychological point, not a point about poor game design.

With that said, it doesn't break outside of its own nature. And if you aren't in the mood for it, if you've burnt out on its genre nitch, there really isn't much else to do in it. No matter what you're always killing demon baddies in a twitchy hack and slash. But the ways in which you can do it and develop a character are rather inumerable.

Cheers,

Munk

Ps. I'm not actually that far from your point of view. I (now) play Diablo II in single player only. I started new this summer, use Plug-Y to share items I've found between characters, and have enabled realm only runes. The goals of people on battle.net have perverted the original goals of the game itself. They only care about rushing, the best items, and the highest level. With these goals in mind, the abovementioned "depth" of the game is completely lost and the game devolves into something very similar to what you described.

[Ashock]

And the winner is...DII.

I tried the demo and got the feeling of completely pointless, rushed hack 'n slash. No skills in fighting necessary. Mindless clicking on every possible mob, onslaught of easy mobs.... basically just crap. Whereas in D2 for example you were much better off concentrating on 1 mob then next mob, etc.... in TQ you just click in the general area of the mobs and not even bother looking at what you're hitting. This takes any sort of skill completely out of the game for me. IMO, it was a complete POS. Luckily, I did not waste the $, or even more importantly the time to play it. And yes.... for all our bitching and moaning about how D2 was not as good as D1, D2 was still a hell of a game... especially compared to the alternatives. What can I say, Blizzard knows how to make games.

-A

[ShadowHM]

Nice coincidence. :) A friend of one of my sons was touting Titan Quest to me as a worthy alternative to D2. (He knows how many hours I have spent on D2. :blush:)

Thanks for the write-ups and comparisons. :)

Shadow, who is still determined to get a Conviction Cleric to Guardian, without being towed. :whistling:

[Merlinios]

For the record, I've played neither Titan Quest nor its demo. I just feel that heavily confrontational knee-jerk arguments generate better discussion than "Excellent points. I won't comment on anything specifically." I feel compelled to dig into the why Diablo II is better, and the best way to bring out reasons is generally to attack assumptions.

No, it's not the hell I made it out to be, but it's not the utopia you describe in comparison to Titan Quest. Addiction factor aside, I'd rate Diablo II maybe slightly above average. Diablo original was better in so many ways. Take out Stone Curse, Mana Shield, and maybe Chain Lightning, and it's almost balanced, after giving the baddies in hell a few dozen buffs.

I'll stick to my strategic games, though. They tend to have more replay value (for me). Diablo II, at heart, is always going to be "Click on something until it dies." And if I want to, say, handicap my character, or do some actual role-playing, I have to go WAY out of my way. Anyway, to each his own, I guess.

--me

[Thecla]

For the record, I've played neither Titan Quest nor its demo.

To be honest, I'm a little astounded to hear that after your first response. At the very least, I'd suggest that not having played TQ puts you at a disadvantage in trying to compare it with DII, relative to someone such as myself who has actually played both of them. YMMV.

I feel compelled to dig into the why Diablo II is better, and the best way to bring out reasons is generally to attack assumptions.

As a matter of fact that was exactly the point of my post. I wondered why TQ (nice as it was) didn't (IMO) measure up to DII. They are very similar games (TQ is clearly modeled on DII in many ways, with updated graphics and a classical mythological background, both of which I liked, incidentally), so it's not so easy to put your finger on why. The advantages of DII I came up with were: random environments, better multiplayer support, better combat, and better itemization. How you're in a position to argue with me that e.g. DII combat is no more interesting, difficult, or engaging than TQ combat when you've apparently never played TQ, I really don't know.

No, it's not the hell I made it out to be, but it's not the utopia you describe in comparison to Titan Quest. Addiction factor aside, I'd rate Diablo II maybe slightly above average.

I didn't describe DII as a utopia by any means --- I just think DII was a better game than TQ. By the way, I rather liked TQ (more than I expected in fact), and I'd recommend anyone who liked DII to give it a whirl if they're looking for something similar but a little different. I just wouldn't expect a huge amount of replayablity, at least not on my part.

Diablo original was better in so many ways.

No question in my mind there --- DI was a better game than DII. But, well, you can only play any game, however good, for so long.

I'll stick to my strategic games, though. They tend to have more replay value (for me). Diablo II, at heart, is always going to be "Click on something until it dies."

The difference between strategy games and action RPGs is a whole different question than the difference between TQ and DII.

[Merlinios]

To be honest, I'm a little astounded to hear that after your first response. At the very least, I'd suggest that not having played TQ puts you at a disadvantage in trying to compare it with DII, relative to someone such as myself who has actually played both of them. YMMV.

Is that so? I thought I kept it pretty generic, hinging only on a broader interpretation of what you posted as your problems with Titan Quest (for example, set maps). Regardless, it will certainly put a different spin on the review, which was my original intention.

The advantages of DII I came up with were: random environments, better multiplayer support, better combat, and better itemization. How you're in a position to argue with me that e.g. DII combat is no more interesting, difficult, or engaging than TQ combat when you've apparently never played TQ, I really don't know.

I made no such comparison. You'll note I stayed away from any commentary on Titan Quest not based on your assertions.

Diablo II has a terrible combat system. In fact, the game hinges on its treasure-hunt function, rather than its combat. If Titan Quest's is worse, there are more issues than it being a worse game than Diablo II.

I didn't describe DII as a utopia by any means --- I just think DII was a better game than TQ.

I was struck again by the replayability and enjoyability...

That right there is the holy grail of video game-age. If you can achieve both of those in high levels, what more could you possibly ask for in a game?

DI was a better game than DII. But, well, you can only play any game, however good, for so long.

So this period of time is somewhere between ten years and the (six? Seven?) that Diablo II has been out?

The difference between strategy games and action RPGs is a whole different question than the difference between TQ and DII.

And yet you compare Diablo II to Hellgate: London? If my understanding there is correct, that's going to be more of a tactical first-person shooter with MMO elements...not seeing the comparison.

--me

[Hammerskjold]

I have a hard time finding out what you're trying to say exactly. The original topic to me seems to be a comparison of D2 vs TQ. If someone hasn't played either of the 2, seems like finding out more about it or even asking around seems to be more productive than engaging in some sort of 'confrontational' style debate about it.

You might hold that kind of style yields a better 'debate', but most of the time all it generates is a lot of heat and not a lot of light on the topic. I've got nothing against feeling passionate about the subject during any debate. But personally your original reply reads to me like some angry ranting that distracts and obscures any coherent points you might have.


>So this period of time is somewhere between ten years and the (six? Seven?) that Diablo II has been out?

The quality of video game titles is not appreciated in the same way as other mediums, at least not yet from what I've seen. Almost no one complains that classic Monopoly is an oldy moldy game that needs better looking game pieces to compete and win players attention. (Sure there's special editions and what nots, but classic monopoly is still playable on many levels.) Maybe it's part of the package that video games benefits and suffers from the 'latest is greatest' syndrome.

I'd say that's more a problem with some industry and players attitude, rather than the actual games itself. (And while the D1 section isn't as lively as say the WoW section, if you check there's still some activity going on there.)

>And yet you compare Diablo II to Hellgate: London? If my understanding there is correct, that's going to be more of a tactical first-person shooter with MMO elements...not seeing the comparison.

All Thecla said was something along the lines of hoping Hellgate being a worthy successor to D2. To me that's pretty far from comparing them directly. And since Hellgate hasn't even come out yet, an accurate analysis is hard to do.

You might enjoy the confrontational style, and hey it might even be entertaining in a CNN:Crossfire kind of way. But there's better C-words out there in a debate. Like Clarity, Civility, or Concisiveness. (actually that last word I'm not sure about, but it sounds truthy, so in the interest of breviticiousness, I'll leave it at that.)

[Merlinios]

Apologies. Been working 20 hour days for awhile now trying to catch up with school. I always feel I have to come across strongly on any point that is viewed in a different light by the masses than by myself. When I'm wound this tight, any commentary looks like a personal attack, so I tend to get a little defensive.

Anyway, you are indeed correct about the accusatory tone in my previous post(s). I do feel pretty strongly about how Diablo II has gone to hell, and wasn't that much fun to begin with (addictions aside), though.

I also maintain quite a bit of what I said up there, but perhaps it works better if I phrase it in a slightly less condescending fashion.

-If random map spawns create more replayability/fun, why do so many people use Maphack?

-Where is the infinite replayability of Diablo II? How many video games have you had on the shelf for that long that still see play? For hours a week, potentially? Why is the game so great? Why do even I, who can't stand it most of the time, feel compelled to immerse myself in the hell that Battle.net has become?

-Why are enemies that follow you all the way around the world preferable to those who camp spawn points? There is no extra level of difficulty involved in this placement; they merely must be treated differently. For example, look how easy it is in Diablo II to pull some particularly vicious, but moderately slow-moving enemies out of a chokepoint or entrance to a new zone just by running in a large circle.

-I don't understand your logic in saying that Diablo II does not follow the "Monsters either destroy you and light your mangled corpse on fire or fall over with a good stiff breeze" policy. Obscene boss packs aside, how much can really kill a properly built tank? Just the snakes, the ghosts, and the exploding.

-Why do you feel the progression of Diablo II drops makes more sense than the allegedly uneven progression of Titan Quest? Do you honestly feel that 99% of what falls on the ground isn't utter chaff?

You stated most of these factors as if they point clearly favorably in the direction of Diablo II. I'm not seeing it.

--me, after a nap

[Thecla]

And yet you compare Diablo II to Hellgate: London? If my understanding there is correct, that's going to be more of a tactical first-person shooter with MMO elements...not seeing the comparison.

Well then, you seem to know as little about Hellgate:London as you do about Titan Quest.

Flagship Studios did initially bill HG:L as some sort of cross between an FPS and an RPG, but in reality it is basically an action RPG. It allows both first and third person views, but it's not an FPS type 'twitch' game. Attack skills, to hit calculations etc. are all based on character stats and development in standard RPG style. Tons of items, randomized dungeons, robust multiplayer support, at least three character classes (templar = paladin/melee type, cabalist=sorcerer/necromancer type, and one to be announced in Nov, widely assumed to be some sort of ranged attacker-type) Sound familiar?;)

HG:L won't be a MMORPG-type game either, any more than Diablo (or Guild Wars, for that matter). There will be common towns (underground stations) to provide chat, gathering points etc., but all the actual fighting will take place in instances. (They still seem to figuring out the maximum amount of players allowed in an instance, so I don't know how many they'll eventually allow.)

Interestingly, the dedicated hosting services for HG:L in the US will be provided by another outfit (San Jose-based Online Game Services). Although they've made no official announements, it seems that Flagship, unlike ArenaNet in Guild Wars, is considering some sort of fee for part (though not all) of the multiplayer component --- perhaps the part that involves playing on their dedicated servers. If true, it's not so clear how they will do it and how well it will work out for this kind of game, or whether they will drive away a lot of potential players.

Anyway, I think many people who have actually been following HG:L (as opposed to arguing over comparisons with things they know little about) see it as a possible successor to Diablo. Whether the game can live up to this billing, supposing that it's even possible to do so any more, remains to be seen.

[Thecla]

Apologies. Been working 20 hour days for awhile now trying to catch up with school. I always feel I have to come across strongly on any point that is viewed in a different light by the masses than by myself. When I'm wound this tight, any commentary looks like a personal attack, so I tend to get a little defensive.

Not to worry --- I rarely take stuff personally, and certainly not your comments. But I did find it strange that you responded so strongly to a post about my impression of how TQ compared with DII, when you had never played TQ. (And sorry if my other post was a little snippy in places -- it was before I saw this one.)

I do feel pretty strongly about how Diablo II has gone to hell, and wasn't that much fun to begin with (addictions aside), though.

Well, while it's tangential to the topic of my original post, I do understand your post was really about the problems you see with DII (and I'm not especially trying to defend DII here) rather than anything about TQ.

-If random map spawns create more replayability/fun, why do so many people use Maphack?

I suggest you ask them, since I've never used maphack in my life. (I have also gone through the flayer jungles on my own many more times than I care to think about.)

-Where is the infinite replayability of Diablo II?

I nowhere said infinite replayability. But I have played many, many computer games --- mostly RPGs of various different kinds --- and have spent far and away more hours playing both the original Diablo and Diablo II than any other game.

-Why are enemies that follow you all the way around the world preferable to those who camp spawn points? There is no extra level of difficulty involved in this placement; they merely must be treated differently. For example, look how easy it is in Diablo II to pull some particularly vicious, but moderately slow-moving enemies out of a chokepoint or entrance to a new zone just by running in a large circle.

Here you simply have to play TQ to understand the broken nature of the AI involved in the limited range of monsters from their spawn points. It is as if they're tied to a piece of stretched elastic.

Once they reach that limit they turn around and start to run back. You can then attack them, and move forward. The monsters turn around and run back toward you (unlike what happens in Guild Wars, where as far as I remember from my time playing it, the monsters scuttle away completely, and regenerate health fairly fast), you move back, they run away, you attack them, you move forward, they turn around, you move back, they run away, you attack them...It's truly silly. Now you can say don't use it then, but that kind of self-imposed limitation on admissible tactics is also really silly IMO, unless you are aiming for some sort of variant play.

There are some slightly similar things in DII -- e.g. Diablo won't leave the area of his pentagram, and you can use that to kill him from range, but I think that's fine. You still have to deal with his fire attacks, his lightning breath, his bone cages, and his tendency to run away out of distance. It is nothing like the way it works in TQ.

-I don't understand your logic in saying that Diablo II does not follow the "Monsters either destroy you and light your mangled corpse on fire or fall over with a good stiff breeze" policy. Obscene boss packs aside, how much can really kill a properly built tank? Just the snakes, the ghosts, and the exploding.

Well, that also depends a lot on your level relative to the monsters --- at some point almost nothing can kill you. But for example, the amazon I recently started in DII (and I don't expect to continue playing DII for too long at this point) was lvl 59 when she got to act I/hell and maybe lvl 61 when I got to the outer cloister and did a few hell/pit runs (with lvl 85 odd monsters). Just about anything in there was capable of killing her, and did on a couple of occasions.

Why do you feel the progression of Diablo II drops makes more sense than the allegedly uneven progression of Titan Quest? Do you honestly feel that 99% of what falls on the ground isn't utter chaff?

Again, you have to play TQ and see how it works before you suggest DII is no different. Yes a lot of what falls on the ground in DII is utter chaff. But, yes the item progression and drops in DII make infinitely more sense to me than anything I saw in TQ. Perhaps an expert TQ player would find the reverse. I just giving you my opinion on how it looked to me.

You stated most of these factors as if they point clearly favorably in the direction of Diablo II. I'm not seeing it.

As far as DII itself goes, I have no problem with your opinions on its strengths or weaknesses, but as far as what features point in favor of DII over TQ, you are simply not in a position to argue one way or the other if you have never played TQ and don't know what it's like. Of course that doesn't mean you'll agree with me should you ever play TQ, but at least you'll have some basis for an opinion.

_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

Edit: p.s. While I'm on this (probably long and boring) DII/TQ topic, here are a few more thoughts. Despite my criticisms of TQ, I am not saying it's a bad game --- it's very well produced, has great graphics and I enjoyed playing it while I did. I'm just trying to figure out why it doesn't succeed (IMO) nearly as well as the rapidly aging DII, despite the basic similarities in their overall game-type and design.

I guess the point is: What makes a good action RPG (assuming you like that genre in the first place)?

(a ) Difficulty. Yes, quill rats in the DII's normal blood moor are easy, but the whole of the normal difficulty level of TQ, up to and including the end boss (the Titan Typhon) is pretty much like that. You can get through the entire normal game with one thing: the ability to drink a health potion. I did, nevertheless, succeed in dying a few times, but always because I was stingy with potions and let my health get too low. On one occasion, I died fighting and act end boss. You get locked in a room with the act end bosses, to avoid the cheesy kiting, I assume. I didn't take down enough health potions and ran out of life before he did. It only occurred to me later that all I had to do was portal back to town and buy some more potions. Doh!

The monsters hit harder starting around the middle of epic, which increases the chance of actually dying (again depending or your lvl related to them), but I never got any sense of a learning curve or a progression in skills --- for the most part it's pretty much the same. (I never played the legendary difficulty game, where monsters apparently do a lot of damage.)

You can say DII is easy too -- but, for example, I still remember the very first character I played in the original DII. She was a sorceress who breezed through the game (well, I'm pretty sure Duriel must have killed her a few times), until she hit Travincal and got slaughtered. Now I would have no problem of course, but part of the charm of Diablo is that though it's an easy game and everyone can learn to play it, there is actually something there to learn. I wish every sense of accomplishment could be acquired in such a cheap and easy fashion.;)

(b ) Bosses. In TQ on normal difficulty, and for many bosses in epic difficulty, the main thing the bosses have is lots of hit points. Some bosses create minions that are irritating and get in your way --- in one case, the minions heal the boss, so you need to notice that and dispose of them first, but otherwise it's entirely a matter of patience and potion drinking to kill them, and maybe managing not to stand in the same place for 5 mins -- nothing more.

In epic difficulty you suddenly start to encounter the isolated nastier boss who has one-hit kills. In some cases, it's an elemental attack that is deadly if you don't have resists (there are resistance penalties in epic/legendary' wonder where that came from;)), and if you go buy some appropriate resistance items you no longer have any worries. (In fact, I suspect a lot of TQ may be more equipment dependent than tactic-dependent, and even more so than in DII, for example.)

Some other epic bosses (e.g. The Manticore) just one-hit kill you whatever. Now no doubt there are ways to recognize their attacks and hopefully avoid them, and perhaps my complaint stems from not knowing the game well enough, but it seems to me like a bit of a silly way to make the game 'difficult'.

(c ) Character classes. TQ has a dual class system, like Guild wars. You pick a primary profession from 8 and a secondary profession from the same 8, giving a total of -- wow -- 36 unique character classes. Each profession has their own set of skill trees, entirely similar to the skill trees of a DII character (I tried a hunter/nature combo, called a "ranger").

Personally, I don't like this approach, either in TQ or GW (even though its skill system has a different purpose which is ultimately more PvP/mission directed) . First, many professions don't mesh well together, but beyond that I much prefer 3 or 6, say, unique, different, and well-constructed character classes over the smorgasbord approach.

It's as if you go to a restaurant that offers 4 veggies, 4 sauces, and 4 meats (for 64 menu choices!) and lets you mix and match them. I'd rather have the choice of 4 different unique entrees.

_______________________

Certainly, DII has it's cheesy points too --- for example, the way in which a bowazon can trap meph across this moat and kill him from range with zero risk (though once you have a high lvl valk, it can tank meph just as easily; the near indestructibility of the valk in 1.10/1.11 is also a bit cheesy IMO) --- but I really think the combat, the monster variety and AI, the bosses, the item system, and the character classes are all just better done and more polished, for all their lack of graphical perfection, in DII than in TQ.

[bigeyedbug]

I was struck again by the replayability and enjoyability factor of DII

What? Wherein lies the replayability? Building wealth? It certainly isn't in playing the game (bots exist), leveling to 99 (after the initial rush of the competitive coffee junkies, virtually nobody bothers without aforementioned bots), or "discovering" new stuff, regardless of how random the maps and spawns may be. I find myself (and a lot of other people) playing increasingly weird variants just to keep the game interesting. And I'm pretty sure that if replayability exists only because we force it to, it can exist on another game which allegedly has MORE item mods/skill components.

even if it is perhaps a bit of a cotton-candy version of DI

Sounds about right, but then, why is the Diablo I forum so dead?

a) Random environments
This is the most crucial difference, I think. Playing through epic TQ with exactly the same maps, quests etc. (the addition of one or two new bosses in epic hardly counts) as normal became stultifying even on my second time through the game. Doing it again on legendary difficulty would seem almost inconceivable.

Erm...I point to maphack here. Though I (and I expect all of you) avoid it like the plague, the sheer number of people that do not suggests something about the random nature of the spawns. Perhaps we're taking a bad sample there, but don't tell me you haven't been frustrated running through the jungles of act three and always grabbing the wrong path (before you learned to see the patterns). Indeed, many players who consider themselves legitimate often elect to skip this entire portion of the game. Now I could be wrong, and perhaps we all really enjoy the random factor, and these maphackers only use it to spot items and far-away enemies, but I've always been a fan of Ockham's Razor.

I really don't understand your points about hacks and bots. That's an indictment of a human tendency to make things as easy as possible even at the cost of long term benefits, rather than of game randomization. While Blizzard does have a lot of responsibility for the vast scope of this behavior in D2, the problems lie mostly in their security architecture and enforcement of their own EULA.

even if it is perhaps a bit of a cotton-candy version of DI

Sounds about right, but then, why is the Diablo I forum so dead?

You'll note an even greater lack of activity in the LL TQ forum, despite that game being a few years more recent.

Silly reply, I know, but only proportionally to the initial comment. Seriously, was that intended to support a conclusion?

[Merlinios]

I really don't understand your points about hacks and bots. That's an indictment of a human tendency to make things as easy as possible even at the cost of long term benefits, rather than of game randomization. While Blizzard does have a lot of responsibility for the vast scope of this behavior in D2, the problems lie mostly in their security architecture and enforcement of their own EULA.
You'll note an even greater lack of activity in the LL TQ forum, despite that game being a few years more recent.

While I have difficulty remembering my motives coming from a lack of sleep-induced state, I suspect my point was that since Diablo II is lauded as at least a highly successful and popular game (whether or not it is any good aside), and I think I'd say a majority (based on personal experience, not raw data), or its users elect to go outside the EULA at the (admittedly miniscule) risk of having accounts banned simply to skip the random factor, there was some correlation between the public's enjoyment of games and lack of random factor.

Silly reply, I know, but only proportionally to the initial comment. Seriously, was that intended to support a conclusion?

I think it was subconsciously intended to give me a break from the 12 hour Materials Lab write-up. I have no idea what that one was doing coming out of my "mouth" besides eliciting equally stupid and/or aggressive replies. Sour grapes were involved.



And I haven't looked at the Hellgate stuff since my HDD died. Which I still haven't gotten fixed. Stupid *frantically looks around for something to blame*...me. At first I was trying to milk the warranty, but now I just REEEEEAALLY don't want to call them anymore. I'm almost to the point of considering getting it fixed locally for a "small fee". If I do that, I really hope it's not the MoBo that died.

--me

[-Aerows-]

Here you simply have to play TQ to understand the broken nature of the AI involved in the limited range of monsters from their spawn points. It is as if they're tied to a piece of stretched elastic.

Once they reach that limit they turn around and start to run back. You can then attack them, and move forward. The monsters turn around and run back toward you (unlike what happens in Guild Wars, where as far as I remember from my time playing it, the monsters scuttle away completely, and regenerate health fairly fast), you move back, they run away, you attack them, you move forward, they turn around, you move back, they run away, you attack them...It's truly silly. Now you can say don't use it then, but that kind of self-imposed limitation on admissible tactics is also really silly IMO, unless you are aiming for some sort of variant play.

-snip-

Certainly, DII has it's cheesy points too --- for example, the way in which a bowazon can trap meph across this moat and kill him from range with zero risk (though once you have a high lvl valk, it can tank meph just as easily; the near indestructibility of the valk in 1.10/1.11 is also a bit cheesy IMO) --- but I really think the combat, the monster variety and AI, the bosses, the item system, and the character classes are all just better done and more polished, for all their lack of graphical perfection, in DII than in TQ.

I've been lurking here for a while, and I had to jump in on this topic. I agree with your assessment of the combat AI in TQ. Also, I pretty much agree that while TQ is a good game, it isn't D2. The loot system is to blame, too. There doesn't seem to be a proper reward system in TQ. I've found more unique items off of random monsters than in boss or difficult battles. IMHO, the sense of strategy and reward isn't quite as good as D2's.

[Hammerskjold]

Before I reply, to save needless aggravation I should say this will be mostly D2 (or D2 type of games)oriented. Though I did play TQ for a while at a friends house, not enough to reach the highest difficulty mode, but enough to get the basic general feel for it. Most of what I've found is fairly similar to Thecla's assesment. I was looking forward to the character creation system, but in practice I've found it a bit lacking. I've played and enjoyed games that doesn't use a strict archetype system (IE: Fallout), but for some reason TQ system just didn't quite cut it for me. It's not total garbage, but it did feel lacking somehow.

If my complaint with D2 treasure system is that it's suffering from some affix dilution, TQ has some quality dilution. I have to carefully word this, because if past discussion is any indication in about 5 minutes there will be some angry reply saying, " well guy, not every treasure drop should be ph4t lewt!!!11, go curb your greed you goatmilker!!!'.

The point is not about getting phat l00tz in every encounter producing boredom by riches, but it's also equally ridicilous to have players slog through a virtual pauper's existence and frustration unless the game is relying on a large number of masochistic players. The hard to do balance is probably somewhere where players don't need to worry too much about gear to survive, yet not so obscenely rich and powerful that when that fabled Golden Axe of Godslaying Pwn4ge +5 drops his\her reaction will be 'yawn...should I make room for yet another one of these things?' Nor should it be extremely rare AND extremely powerful that it practically becomes among other problems, a siren call for online cheating.

Anyway, on to mostly D2 stuff.

> -If random map spawns create more replayability/fun, why do so many people use Maphack?

Replayability is not the same as total duration, a great 1 hour long movie does not become a masterpiece by adding another hour's worth of filler. imo most of the jungle parts of Act 3 is tedious filler, randomly generated or not, especially in context of the mandatory quest and the waypoint system. Which I think are equally big problems in a lot of ways.

Most viewers if they have a choice will probably hit the skip\fastforward\change channel button, or leave if it's in a theatre (or snooze through the boring part). These days the more creative type armed with the right tools can release a 'fan's cut' if they feel there is something worthwhile in the source material. (Or maybe I'm just thinking of that fan's version of StarWars ep: 1 with Jar Jar digitally removed.)

I am saying D2 could have benefitted greatly with more ruthless editing, especially during Act 3.

[Thecla]

TQ has some quality dilution. The point is not about getting phat l00tz in every encounter producing boredom by riches, but it's also equally ridicilous to have players slog through a virtual pauper's existence.

Yup. TQ dropped an enormous number and variety of items, but almost without exception (the very occasional set item) I found the contents of majestic chest after magestic chest to be useless for anything except selling, and even that became pointless after a while given how easy it was to accumulate gold. You could buy better, though hardly overwheleming, items (along the lines of good blue items in DII) with a few trips to a merchant. For instance, as an archer, I never found a single bow drop the whole time I played the game (up to nearly the end of epic) that I was remotely tempted to use. I simply upgraded my bow at merchants as they sold better base types. Also (with perhaps a slight degree of exaggeration, I could hardly tell any difference in the quality of the drops at clvl 1 and 15, or between clvl 30 and 45, which seems very strange.

I am saying D2 could have benefitted greatly with more ruthless editing, especially during Act 3.

I agree entirely. One big advantage of randomized environments is that they can be much more condensed and nonlinear than the huge linear expanses typically required for pre-generated maps , which enhances the game-play . DI was a prime example. Maybe in part because of their eagerness to include outdoor areas, Bliz lost quite a bit of that in DII.

The Act III jungles are the worst, but did Act 1 really need every one of those fields, Act II all those deserts (would anyone miss the Roscky Wastes), or Act IV those plateaus (I doubt that 95% of the b.net population even knows that the Arreat Plateau exists, never mind the Pit of Acheron, except perhaps as a waypoint they might get from someone else to complete the set)? And much as I like the glacial trial and ancients way, are they both essential, not to mention the separate jail and catacomb levels in Act I?

A good deal of concentration of the areas would definitely have helped DII quite a bit.

[Merlinios]

Yup. TQ dropped an enormous number and variety of items, but almost without exception (the very occasional set item) I found the contents of majestic chest after magestic chest to be useless for anything except selling, and even that became pointless after a while given how easy it was to accumulate gold. You could buy better, though hardly overwheleming, items (along the lines of good blue items in DII) with a few trips to a merchant. For instance, as an archer, I never found a single bow drop the whole time I played the game (up to nearly the end of epic) that I was remotely tempted to use. I simply upgraded my bow at merchants as they sold better base types. Also (with perhaps a slight degree of exaggeration, I could hardly tell any difference in the quality of the drops at clvl 1 and 15, or between clvl 30 and 45, which seems very strange.

A similar effect can be achieved in Diablo II by actually shopping at merchants. It's just that next to no one does this, so progressively better (but still terrible) weapon drops are picked up until the usable one comes along. Perhaps not as strong, but the effect is definitely still there.

The only real way to prevent this is to either
-make everything usable
-provide a large-scale customization/upgrade system

For the first example, I'm afraid I have to point again to Guild Wars, as my modern game-ology is fairly limited. Items are so unimportant to the game that one can basically equip some random piece of junk found maybe 20% through and use it through the end. The other route is to make obscenely powerful items common, which doesn't seem to work very well unless the enemies have a scaling factor the likes of which I've never seen. Balance is difficult. I wouldn't be too hard on the programmers for not getting there, especially if you have to factor in some randomization.

I agree entirely. One big advantage of randomized environments is that they can be much more condensed and nonlinear than the huge linear expanses typically required for pre-generated maps , which enhances the game-play . DI was a prime example. Maybe in part because of their eagerness to include outdoor areas, Bliz lost quite a bit of that in DII.

The Act III jungles are the worst, but did Act 1 really need every one of those fields, Act II all those deserts (would anyone miss the Roscky Wastes), or Act IV those plateaus (I doubt that 95% of the b.net population even knows that the Arreat Plateau exists, never mind the Pit of Acheron, except perhaps as a waypoint they might get from someone else to complete the set)? And much as I like the glacial trial and ancients way, are they both essential, not to mention the separate jail and catacomb levels in Act I?

Interestingly enough, most of my favorite (so far as I can extend the term to Diablo II) areas are off the beaten path, and utterly unnecessary. I LOVE the Pit of Acheron. Decently hard enemies (as compared to the Arreat Plateau above it). Higher level enemies, so experience and drops are better. Perhaps best of all, it IS off the beaten path, so all of the idiots who refuse to stop spamming you party invites until you join can't find you while you're down there milking experience in large games.

--me