Demon Souls and Dark Souls were both way overratted, although Dark Souls was better executed.To spare you pages of analysis, imagine this. Diablo 3 (or any hack and slash for that matter) has only one set amount of items and they drop from the same mobs always. No randomization. No matter how many time you play through the game. Sorry, but that, in my book is not a fun game to play more than once, no matter how hard it was. If Dark Souls had the amount of items and the randomizationthe Diablo games have, then this game would have been the best game ever.
Starcraft II wasn't anything earth shattering (single player wise).
Diablo III brings new elements to the table that people may dislike now, but as with almost every Bliz game they will love them eventually.I played the Beta and just to be sure that I really liked the game I played, I installed and played Torchlight and Diablo 2, just to compare the feelings those games give me compared to Diablo III. What I realized is that although Torchlight is a great Diablo clone it just didn't do that much to change the genre. I also found it a bit boring. Diablo III on the other hand feels like they reinvented the hack 'n slash genre. All the online elements lift Diablo III above all the games that came before it. I also like what they did with the skills. They departed from the traditional skill tree and they give you the freedom to switch between your skills, the way most RPGs and MMOs do these days. And for some reason, it is not the same to play Diablo (any of them) and to play another Diablo clone, except Darkstone maybe. Diablo games have a certain vibe that the others just don't have. After all we call them Diablo clones for a reason.
Overall, I think D2 was just a more well-rounded game than D3. Also - and I have not played D3 yet so bear with me - the classes in D3 look very, very linear. There does not seem to be much room for specialization. Further, it seems that D3 is "Trying to be different from D2" too much, just like SC2 "Tried to be different from SC1" too much. They got rid of the Necromancer and Paladin - two core classes of D2 that everyone liked to play. The witch-doctor seems comic-like with the flying bomb-bats, etc. The other classes look okay, but they look A LOT more linear than the D2 classes were. The sorcerer for example gets instant access to all of the skills with no specialization required? No Ultimates for each element? No teleport?!Arcturus559
Given the fact that you haven't played the game I understand your point of view. But stay a while and listen.
The fact that they went the hard way to create new and interesting classes is a bonus for us, instead of presenting the same classes again. They may seem linear and that they have no specialization, but the fact is that specialization comes through the mix and match of the various skills and runes. The witch doctor for instance can be a necromancer or he can be a DOT machine like a warlock (WoW). This applies to every single class. Just go play around with the skill calculator at the D3 site and you will "see" each class?s specialization. There is Teleport. :)
Now about D2 being a more well-rounded game than D3. I can't really say that, no one can because we haven't played D3 through to the end. One thing is obvious though. They gave more attention to D3 than they gave to Starcraft II.
Closing I would like to say this. I grew up with Diablo and Diablo II and I haven't been able to finish a single hack and slash game not to mention replay it since then. The only shining exceptions were Darkstone, Demon Souls and Dark Souls. Divine Divinity, Torchlight, Titan Quest, Dungeon Siege? none of them kept me coming back for more? none of them could ever be Diablo.
As always all of the above is my humble opinion and food for thought.
Log in to comment