Play Diablo in a webbrowser!

Nobu

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
5,658
Works on phone, too...
Screenshot_20210203-163931.png

...stay a while, and listen!
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,026
but y tho

In all seriousness - Diablo hasn't aged well. The game is highly successful in its presentation and atmosphere, but mechanically it's just not fun anymore unless you are good with a “clicking on things” feedback loop. The classes serve almost no purpose (you can learn anything with the right stat points) the loot system is incredibly limited. You can't even run.

It's really incredible the transformation Diablo received between I and II. Itemization went through the roof, classes actually were unique and distinct with specific class identities. And it's definitely worth mentioning that the environments were much more varied with many more unique enemies. Every aspect was amplified.
I think my personal taste to play Diablo would probably be limited to an hour or two (out of nostalgia) and then I'd be good for over a year. I own D1 still on BNet, and I haven't fired it up in probably 5+ years (I actually can't remember how long its been).
 
Last edited:

Eshelmen

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
5,104
Ugh.... Been playing too much POE recently.

D4 needs to hurry the f up.
 

t1337duder

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
156
but y tho

In all seriousness - Diablo hasn't aged well. The game is highly successful in its presentation and atmosphere, but mechanically it's just not fun anymore unless you are good with a “clicking on things” feedback loop. The classes serve almost no purpose (you can learn anything with the right stat points) the loot system is incredibly limited. You can't even run.

It's really incredible the transformation Diablo received between I and II. Itemization went through the roof, classes actually were unique and distinct with specific class identities. And it's definitely worth mentioning that the environments were much more varied with many more unique enemies. Every aspect was amplified.
I think my personal taste to play Diablo would probably be limited to an hour or two (out of nostalgia) and then I'd be good for over a year. I own D1 still on BNet, and I haven't fired it up in probably 5+ years (I actually can't remember how long its been).
I like both games. As a singleplayer experience, the 2nd one is too easy. Sure, it has a lot more options, but they are just variations of a cakewalk, unless you want to grind the game out until the last difficulty. 1st game also has a better atmosphere. I guess in the end it depends if you prefer time-sink type games or games that test your ability.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,026
I like both games. As a singleplayer experience, the 2nd one is too easy. Sure, it has a lot more options, but they are just variations of a cakewalk, unless you want to grind the game out until the last difficulty. 1st game also has a better atmosphere. I guess in the end it depends if you prefer time-sink type games or games that test your ability.
None of these games are about difficulty in terms of the single player experience at “normal” difficulty. The casual experience is there to make the game digestible.

Anyone playing these titles for 1000+ hours isn’t playing this game on anything other than Inferno and it’s all about the feedback loop, itemization, and character customizations (builds).
 

t1337duder

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
156
None of these games are about difficulty in terms of the single player experience at “normal” difficulty. The casual experience is there to make the game digestible.

Anyone playing these titles for 1000+ hours isn’t playing this game on anything other than Inferno and it’s all about the feedback loop, itemization, and character customizations (builds).
In both singleplayer and multplayer I found Diablo 1 to be way harder. There was some serious PvP ganking.

I probably should not have to point out that the vast majority of people who play these games aren't spending thousands of hours on these games, nor were they even designed for that sort of playability. The games were buggy, filled with exploits, bots, etc. to the point where it seemed a little nuts to take these games that serious in the first place. I stand by what I said - Diablo 2 is a grind. On any of the difficulties. Diablo 1 is challenging, even on the normal difficulty, and requires you to watch your back in multiplayer at risk of losing all of your gear.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,026
In both singleplayer and multplayer I found Diablo 1 to be way harder. There was some serious PvP ganking.
In terms of difficulty you consider clicking on monsters "hard"? There were no skills in D1. You basically left mouse clicked on things. I'm not sure what you found hard about that.
I probably should not have to point out that the vast majority of people who play these games aren't spending thousands of hours on these games, nor were they even designed for that sort of playability.
I think you have zero understanding of the Diablo community. Diablo II was a game that was played for well over a decade. Same now with Diablo III.
They have had seasons with highly competitive leader boards, major content patches and expansions on a regular basis. It was an end of an era when Blizzard finally announced its last content patch and went into maintenance only mode. Diablo I had precisely zero of those things. 1.13c, the last CONTENT patch, came out in 2010 as an FYI: https://diablo.fandom.com/wiki/Patch_1.13c_(Diablo_II) , a few months short of TEN YEARS after the launch of Diablo II vanilla.
You also continue to ignore itemization. Diablo II is about the loot. If you aren't aware of that then really you've never played the game past casual. But you and I are both very aware of that since your declarative statement is that these games weren't "even designed for that sort of playability."

You're talking like someone who wasn't immersed in these games or knew anything about the community. Your posts exemplify that immediately. I did play Diablo II for well over a thousand hours, there's a chance it was over 2000 (this was a time before in game time counters). In early college I basically grinded that game for 4-6 hours a day and I did that for 2 years. And that wasn't counting the time that I played it before those two years or after those two years. So did a lot of other people obviously. Blizzard didn't invest TEN YEARS into Diablo II for a game that people weren't playing.

Here is also an excerpt from the D2 Wiki:
The Ladder System is reset at various intervals by Blizzard to allow for all players to start fresh with new characters on an equal footing. Ladder seasons have lasted from as short as six months to over a year. When a ladder season ends, all ladder characters are transferred to the non-ladder population. Certain rare items are available only within ladder games, although they can be traded for and exchanged on non-ladder after the season has ended.[24]

The game has been patched extensively; the precise number of patches is impossible to determine as Battle.net has the capability of making minor server-side patches to address urgent bugs. As of July 2016, the game is in version 1.14d.[25] Through the patch history, several exploits and bugs such as item duplication have been addressed, as well as major revamps to the game's balance (such as the ability to redo skills and attributes). Not all patches have affected Diablo II directly, as several were designed to address aspects of the expansion to the game and had minimal effects on Diablo II.[26]


and also:
Even more remarkably, the Diablo: Battle Chest was the 19th best selling PC game of 2008[66] – a full eight years after the game's initial release – and 11 million users still played Diablo II and StarCraft over Battle.net in 2010.[67]

Diablo 1 had no such legacy. It definitely wasn't supported for 16 years or given any where near that kind of attention or content - and it certainly didn't have 11 million players playing it 10 years after its initial launch. It never sold more than 2.5 million copies in total (more due to the battlechest obviously).
The games were buggy, filled with exploits, bots, etc. to the point where it seemed a little nuts to take these games that serious in the first place.
Apparently not you. But feel free to point me to any game that had a 100% bug free/non-exploit launch in the past 20 years. So I guess you take zero games seriously. (Take a look at the speed running community sometime, it all literally exists on bugs and exploits - which I assume you also don't take seriously given your attitude).

Show me any multiplayer RPG in which there isn't a direct problem with people botting or if there is value to items in the game, in which people aren't constantly trying to out rice the Chinese.

As has been noted multiple times: there was a big Diablo II community. That's also why there is a big Diablo III community. You're a casual. You clearly aren't a fan of really any of these games or this series as you aren't aware of any of these things.
I stand by what I said - Diablo 2 is a grind. On any of the difficulties.
Yes. And that's the point. Diablo 1 is far worse than D2 on that though so your point seems very contradictory to me. There is no level design changes at all area after area in Diablo I. There are only 3 TOTAL in the whole game (go down floors, all looks same floor after floor). All you do is click, you have no skills that are unique to your class at all. So I guess you just like games that just require clicking to attack, end of list? Diablo II had actual skills and classes. But I guess you'd rather have 3 classes that basically can all be trained the same way.

So, you have no skills, you kills monsters that all look the same, in areas that all look the same - and you honestly want to claim that Diablo II is the grindier game? Diablo II had 4 acts with vastly different locations, much more different enemy types, and actual bosses - other than the final boss (the butcher was a pseudo boss at best)? Alright, whatever you say.
Diablo 1 is challenging, even on the normal difficulty, and requires you to watch your back in multiplayer at risk of losing all of your gear.
You're pointing at one esoteric example and that is how you determine which game is better or worse? You're welcome to your opinion. You can feel about it however you want to feel, but if we're going by the consensus of players (IE: looking at the player base and which game actually had one for a longer period of time), Diablo II wins outright easily. Diablo I has virtually no legacy at this point. Most gamers aren't even as old as me to have played it when it came out - AND also Diablo II when it came out.

Also to contradict you, PvP was also a serious problem in Diablo II - when it first launched hostility could be declared at any time. People would enter games, port to you, declare hostility, then kill you, and take all your gold. Then they'd guard your corpse. Only later did they make it so that hostility had to be declared in town, but that was only a minor inconvenience for people that wanted to kill you. They would simply find you in the game port back to town, declare hostility, and then go back to murder you again. There was plenty of times in which it was more worth it to just leave rather than deal with the griefing. Obviously people geared and built entire characters specifically for PvP, which was a thing you could really and actually do in D2, it gave a serious advantage versus those wearing PvM gear. Did I also mention that D2 has actual skills again? Yeah, it was possible for people to teleport across an entire map with a Sorceress in seconds then dump a bunch of frozen orbs on you. There is NOTHING in Diablo I that can grief you nearly as hard as that or a PvP Paladin.
 
Last edited:
Top