This is why D3 is better then the first 2

[johntorrio]

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/35767.html

[Grawner]

i fully agree.

[5zigen]

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/35767.html

Glad someone finally did this so they can realize all this complaining about the environment is almost completely unfounded...

[Nostavar]

Very funny how the video shows two level 1 character and then a twinked out high-level character with many skills. Such a fair comparison.

[sbn]

Very funny how the video shows two level 1 character and then a twinked out high-level character with many skills. Such a fair comparison.

Well I think it is still a pretty fair comparison in my opinion. Are we suppose to be paying attention to the character or the atmosphere? It is the atmosphere/colors/graphics/whatever you want to call it that people are complaining about.

I think this video actually shows that D3 to have a much more "dark" or "gothic" atmosphere than either the two.

[sicilian]

Very funny how the video shows two level 1 character and then a twinked out high-level character with many skills. Such a fair comparison.

Well, I don't think the D3 demo showed "high-level" characters. They were overpowered for the area they were in, but I doubt that the skills we saw were the top tier skills for the classes.

Also, I didn't have sound where I watched this. Were they discussing anything during the video where they said it should be a fair comparison, or was it just to show how the game has evolved from 1 to 2 to 3?

[Xeteh]

Well, I don't think the D3 demo showed "high-level" characters. They were overpowered for the area they were in, but I doubt that the skills we saw were the top tier skills for the classes.

Also, I didn't have sound where I watched this. Were they discussing anything during the video where they said it should be a fair comparison, or was it just to show how the game has evolved from 1 to 2 to 3?

Nah, nothing was discussed. They just had the music/sfxs from the games.

[johntorrio]

Very funny how the video shows two level 1 character and then a twinked out high-level character with many skills. Such a fair comparison.

fell free to make your own video with a high level D1 and D2 charector for comparison. It wont make a difference.

Actually someone already did. Cinematic trailers included.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/236680.html

[Nostavar]

Well, I don't think the D3 demo showed "high-level" characters. They were overpowered for the area they were in, but I doubt that the skills we saw were the top tier skills for the classes.
I sincerely doubt a level 1 character will have all those skills from the start.
Even if it will -- it's still a ridiculous comparison. The description of the video is "This time, "combat evolved" actually means something."
Obviously you would show what both games have to offer in that regard, wouldn't you?

Unfortunatly whoever made it (the OP?) prefers dumb propaganda and shows Diablo 1 & 2 characters using normal attack and messing around in their inventory, and then the D3 barb using his full arsenal of skills. It's really stupid because you could do the opposite as well. For Diablo 1, show the Sorceror killing groups of enemies using charged bolt, firewall, chain lightning, etc. For Diablo 2, use an Assassin getting charges from his skills, casting cloak of shadows, converting/stunning with mindblast and laying traps. And then show a D3 barb using nothing but normal attacks. If someone did that it wouldn't get praised but flamed, though it's essentially the same thing...

Oh and for the record I do think D3 will be better than (not then) the first two Diablo games, but it has nothing to do with that crappy video that proves nothing.

[ciphernemo]

That last video was way too long.

Obvious improvement in all aspects, but we're completely missing the gameplay feeling. I'm a fan of the old Diablo because it has a grid-based, notchy feeling to it. Targeting characters was easy, movement was notchy and slow, but specific, and we could use doorways and such to our advantage. It felt more like a live-action, tile-based strategy game.

It's a far cry from D2 and D3, which in my opinion at least, have a very different feel to them due to the fact that they're not locked into a tile-based grid. It's a different type of gameplay, but certainly one I enjoy quite a bit.

The point I'm trying to make is that D1 is a different beast than D2 and D3. To me, D3 adds a lot of new moves, cool audio clips, and impressive visuals, but it is very similar to D2 (which is a good thing). Ultimately, just because the series name and story is the same doesn't mean D1 can be compared to D2/D3 as some sort of 'evolution in gaming'. I'm not trying to argue anything... just stating what's on my mind. :)

[johntorrio]

check the video in the above post.
Also its "Unfortunately" and "Sorcerer" so stop with the stupid b/s cause I can do it also and it pretty petty.

[johntorrio]

That last video was way too long.

Obvious improvement in all aspects, but we're completely missing the gameplay feeling. I'm a fan of the old Diablo because it has a grid-based, notchy feeling to it. Targeting characters was easy, movement was notchy and slow, but specific, and we could use doorways and such to our advantage. It felt more like a live-action, tile-based strategy game.

It's a far cry from D2 and D3, which in my opinion at least, have a very different feel to them due to the fact that they're not locked into a tile-based grid. It's a different type of gameplay, but certainly one I enjoy quite a bit.

The point I'm trying to make is that D1 is a different beast than D2 and D3. To me, D3 adds a lot of new moves, cool audio clips, and impressive visuals, but it is very similar to D2 (which is a good thing). Ultimately, just because the series name and story is the same doesn't mean D1 can be compared to D2/D3 as some sort of 'evolution in gaming'. I'm not trying to argue anything... just stating what's on my mind. :)


the comparison is because people ARE comparing them. I just installed D1 the other day to kill time at work and what a slow *** game it is. The nastalga feeling wore off before I got to the butcher.

D2 came out 4 years later -if im correct- and while more fast paced it was clearly a step up from the first and a noticable step up as well as a predictable one.

D3 came along 8 years later and the predictions people have been holding onto for D3 started soon after D2 was released. They waited 8 years and when their predictions were not what they wanted they essentially paniced and grasped onto anything they could about what they saw as "wrong" in the game in order to justify the predictions they held onto for over 8 years.

[Nostavar]

check the video in the above post.
Also its "Unfortunately" and "Sorcerer" so stop with the stupid b/s cause I can do it also and it pretty petty.
Thanks, corrected. It's not petty, it's helpful. If you don't get corrected you won't learn.
whoops, few minues too late to edit it.

[ThulRasha]

Very funny how the video shows two level 1 character and then a twinked out high-level character with many skills. Such a fair comparison.

About just as fair as this comment of yours? Level 1 doing bloodraven, uhuh. :crazyeyes:

[Nostavar]

Don't act dumb, you know very well what the point was.

[ThulRasha]

No, I don't. You seem to be making excuses so you don't feel bad about criticizing a game. And yet you say that you also think D3 will be better.
What exactly is your point?

[5zigen]

Don't act dumb, you know very well what the point was.

The point was to showcase the environments and how the combat has changed for what is essentially the analog of the same class over 3 generations.

Yes, D2 had WW and he didn't show that, but every other skill the barbarian had was essentially some form of whacking the enemy with your sword(or other weapon of choice).

If you watch carefully, the mood changes a little from d1 to d2 to d3. The difference is that the monsters really make the mood, in D1 they spend the majority of the time smacking the player. In D2 they meander about most of the time unless the barb runs up to one and attacks it, moving incredibly slow. In d3 they show a little more agressiveness, particularly in the initial ghoul scene.

As far as the colors go, there is no great change between the 3, aside from the fact that D1 was 640x480 and something like 256 colors (or the next up palette) and D2 went to... 800x600 with slightly more colors, presumably D3 will have 24 bit colors and unlimited resolution options. To simply pretend that D1 was "better" because it used less colors is silly.

If you don't like the way D3 looks in the video you're certainly free to not wait for it and not buy it when it comes out. But to try to mischaracterize it as essentially "not diablo" is misleading at best and a bold faced lie at worst.

[Nostavar]

No, I don't. You seem to be making excuses so you don't feel bad about criticizing a game. And yet you say that you also think D3 will be better.
What exactly is your point?
Critizing a game? It's called a video.

I made my point very clear here (http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6663844&postcount=9)... If you didn't understand it I'm not sure what I can do about that, but I guess I'll summarize.

The video is dishonest and serves no purpose. You could slack on D3 using the same technique, but applying it to the opposite games. I could be appreciative of a genuine video that shows the best of both (or, all three) games and points out how Diablo 3 will be better. But this isn't a proper demonstration of those games. It annoys me, because unsurprisingly, I like Diablo 1 and 2.

I hope you understand now?

If you don't like the way D3 looks in the video you're certainly free to not wait for it and not buy it when it comes out. But to try to mischaracterize it as essentially "not diablo" is misleading at best and a bold faced lie at worst.
I don't even know what to do with that post. I've never said anything about it being "not diablo".

I think you have me confused with someone else.

To simply pretend that D1 was "better" because it used less colors is silly.
Also a complete fabrication on your part. I don't like words being put into my mouth.

[ThulRasha]

That is part of the game progression, and the video showed that nicely.

In Diablo1 and Diablo2 you mostly used only 1 or 2 skills, because there were only 1 or 2 mousebuttons to map it too.
Sure, sometimes you switched to another, but only temporary to switch back again and start spamming the same skill again.

I understand that you based your critizism on lack of knowing the previous two games, yes.

[Nostavar]

Far from the point. You have no idea how the other classes will turn out. In Diablo 3 we can see the Barbarian using a wide variety of skills. In Diablo 1 and 2 this was also possible if you wanted to. It might very well be possible that you'll only need to use a few skills in Diablo 3 for other classes, or even the barbarian itself. The video is based on incomplete information.

Nice little assumption in the last sentence. I've played them for hundreds of hours. Diablo 1 not nearly as much but I know it well enough.

I guess it shouln't be too big a deal, but I don't understand why someone would want to do a video like this?

[ThulRasha]

What does it matter how the other classes turn out? We are still discussing the video posted by the OP here, are we not?

They picked the warrior from D1 and the barbarian from D2, because that was the closest to the barbarian showcased in the released D3 movie.
Sure, they could have made a comparisson between the necromancer from D2 and the witch doctor from D3, but then what class comes even close from D1?

If you think the video comparison is unfair, then I urge you to spend another hour into D1 with the melee character and see for yourself how many skills you use in the first quarter of the game.

[5zigen]

The video is dishonest and serves no purpose. You could slack on D3 using the same technique, but applying it to the opposite games. I could be appreciative of a genuine video that shows the best of both (or, all three) games and points out how Diablo 3 will be better. But this isn't a proper demonstration of those games. It annoys me, because unsurprisingly, I like Diablo 1 and 2.

The video is very honest and serves a very large purpose. Just because you say it's disingenuous doesn't make it so. supply some support for your assertion because it's an INCREDIBLE leap.


I hope you understand now?


I understood all along, but your petty attempt at patronizing people who disagree with you doesn't make you any smarter than the people you are discussing things with. After all, you're the one tho accused the OP of making, posting and liking "dumb propoganda"


I don't even know what to do with that post. I've never said anything about it being "not diablo".

I think you have me confused with someone else.

Also a complete fabrication on your part. I don't like words being put into my mouth.

People also don't take kindly to being called idiots and patronized for no apparent reason. But I'm so sorry for mischaracterizing your position. I see you like the game, colors and all compared to the first 2 iterations, you simply felt the need to be excessively combative. I hope that's a valid assumption.

[Nostavar]

What does it matter how the other classes turn out? We are still discussing the video posted by the OP here, are we not?
Yeah, and it's relevant because the video is meant to show how D3 will be better, but it doesn't show that at all, combat-wise. Because the things that are shown about Diablo 3 are also possible in Diablo 1 and 2. And the things he's showing about Diablo 1 and 2 might just as well be in Diablo 3. Meaning there's no real comparison being made. It's not a full picture, so to speak.

If you think the video comparison is unfair, then I urge you to spend another hour into D1 with the melee character and see for yourself how many skills you use in the first quarter of the game.
I never said anything opposite to that.

If I'm still not understood I'll give up. Who knows, I might end up praising this wonderfully objective video.

EDIT. @5zigen: Please explain the very large purpose the video is serving.

[phool]

Nostavar is entirely correct, in terms of gameplay depth the comparison is a very biased one. Exactly what terms the OP is making a comparison I have no idea.

In the same way other comparisons such as the 'look here's a screenshot of the darkest place in D1, darkest place in D2, least dark place in D2 promo' have been proferred as proof Blizz are 'betraying' the dark atmosphere supposedly prevalent in the game's previous incarnations have been obviously flawed, this is.

If we showed a clip of a sorc madly teleing around CS surrounded by mostly immune enemies, trying to tk seals while fending off a PKer, then a vid of a level 1 char with no skills and starter weapons in D3, I trust it would be quickly pointed out that concluding D3 is worse than D2 is ridiculous.

Like Nostavar I think D3 will be a far better game than D2, but like Nostavar that doesn't stop me expressing my contempt for idiotic reasoning. I wouldn't have bothered posting except to defend someone who appears to have some sense of reality because I'm quite happy leaving these threads as the inevitable apologist circlejerk, or petty 'fanboi'/'whiner' rehash they're almost inevitably doomed by such unproductive OPs to become, and I'd advise Nostavar to save his reasonable comments for where they're appreciated.

[ThulRasha]

If you think the video comparison is unfair, then I urge you to spend another hour into D1 with the melee character and see for yourself how many skills you use in the first quarter of the game.
I never said anything opposite to that.


But you did, in the post you linked to, saying that you explained your point there:


Unfortunatly whoever made it (the OP?) prefers dumb propaganda and shows Diablo 1 & 2 characters using normal attack and messing around in their inventory, and then the D3 barb using his full arsenal of skills.

So I assumed your point was that not many skills were used in the D1 and D2 parts of the video, and because of that it was an unfair comparisson.

Nice little assumption in the last sentence. I've played them for hundreds of hours. Diablo 1 not nearly as much but I know it well enough.


I don't think you do. Else you would know that auto attack was used mostly by the warrior, even at high levels.

But apparently skills was not your point. So I do indeed still not understand you.


If I'm still not understood I'll give up.
<snip>
I guess it shouln't be too big a deal, ... <snip>


I agree, it is no big deal, we are going on about it for much to long already. Lets simply agree to disagree about the fairness of the video.

[Nostavar]

Nostavar is entirely correct, in terms of gameplay depth the comparison is a very biased one. Exactly what terms the OP is making a comparison I have no idea.

In the same way other comparisons such as the 'look here's a screenshot of the darkest place in D1, darkest place in D2, least dark place in D2 promo' have been proferred as proof Blizz are 'betraying' the dark atmosphere supposedly prevalent in the game's previous incarnations have been obviously flawed, this is.

If we showed a clip of a sorc madly teleing around CS surrounded by mostly immune enemies, trying to tk seals while fending off a PKer, then a vid of a level 1 char with no skills and starter weapons in D3, I trust it would be quickly pointed out that concluding D3 is worse than D2 is ridiculous.

Like Nostavar I think D3 will be a far better game than D2, but like Nostavar that doesn't stop me expressing my contempt for idiotic reasoning. I wouldn't have bothered posting except to defend someone who appears to have some sense of reality because I'm quite happy leaving these threads as the inevitable apologist circlejerk, or petty 'fanboi'/'whiner' rehash they're almost inevitably doomed by such unproductive OPs to become, and I'd advise Nostavar to save his reasonable comments for where they're appreciated.
Thank you. Not all hope is lost then. :)

ThulRasha: Guess I didn't express myself properly in a few points, or you misunderstood me, but I'm not getting into it again. Agreeing to disagree is fine with me.
5zigen: Very weak, that post is nothing but a personal attack and as such is worthless. At least I've stuck to the topic at hand.

Done with this discussion now, I'm sorry I ever began it.

[hankhenry]

barbarians look so overpowered right now but im sure it will change. if it doesn't I know what class im creating

[5zigen]

Yeah, and it's relevant because the video is meant to show how D3 will be better, but it doesn't show that at all, combat-wise. Because the things that are shown about Diablo 3 are also possible in Diablo 1 and 2. And the things he's showing about Diablo 1 and 2 might just as well be in Diablo 3. Meaning there's no real comparison being made. It's not a full picture, so to speak.


I never said anything opposite to that.

If I'm still not understood I'll give up. Who knows, I might end up praising this wonderfully objective video.

EDIT. @5zigen: Please explain the very large purpose the video is serving.

You're well understood, you're just acting incredibly pompous.

The purpose shows both the environments compared to each other, and the way that combat has changed entirely.

If you want to cut the D3 video off before he uses skills that would be fine, but I think they also wanted to show the inventory system (if you notice they did that in all 3 iterations) and the diablo 3 one did seem the most "modern". In D1 it was super rigid, attacking was swing swing swing move swing swing swing move, In D2 it was basically the same thing, in D3 the swings actually had a feel to them. It actually looks like the enemies are getting hit and when they die it looks like there was actual force causing their death. I think that's pretty easy to glean from the video.

Aside from that, the very begining of the D3 video the barb uses only his melee attack and leap or stomp or whatever. Could they have used leap in D2? Probably. Would there have been a point? Not really, you would just be leaping for the sake of leaping.

Aside from leap and whirlwind, EVERYTHING ELSE the barbarian does is EXACTLY THE SAME as the skills showcased in the D2 video. Whacking a single enemy with a weapon is the crux of the gameplay of D2 barbarian experience. He uses a shout, but if you didn't notice, he didn't really need to, which is basically the case through the entire game.

Sure, he could have shown some neat "war cry / berserk" combo, but that would just end up looking almost the same as simply using normal attack and howl, so what is the creator of the video "not being fair" about.

Likewise, it's the crux of the gameplay of the D1 experience too, as all characters could cast all of the different spells. Sure, he could have shown the warrior casting fire wall in front of him and in doorways and then standing there and smacking the enemies. But would it really have made a difference? The character defining aspect of the warrior in D1 was his strength in melee, so it seems logical to showcase that as opposed to the spells which any character can use.

I know the assassin has a lot of skills to use to be effective, but realistically speaking, most characters are 1 or 2 trick ponies. The WW barb, the MS / Strafe zon, the hammerdin, the meteor / orb sorc, ls assassin. It would have shown basically a character spamming 2 skills constantly. Besides how futile it would be to show that, how could that have even been analogous to the gameplay of the barbarian? It would be just as misleading to showcase a high level assassin with 1 point in most of the skills casting them constantly and comparing them to the barbarian in gameplay, as it was to compare the "twinked" barbarian to the starting warrior and barbarian. The classes simply aren't the same, they don't have the same mechanics or playstyles.

In addition to that, it shows that the environments aren't incredibly different/ incredibly bright/ incredibly cartoony like many many people seem to claim. Nor are they the sesame street incarnation to Diablo 1's dark atmosphere. Sure there was more visible area in D3 (and D2) but I am going to go out on a limb and say that was a conscious move to let your computer make the most out of your monitor. Having 50-70% of it being to dark to discern things, while atmospheric, isn't exactly "cool" anymore, and that even ended in D1 by the time you got to the caves and hell where basically everything was illuminated.

I think it does a lot of important things, and even if you cant compare all of the barbarian gameplay, you can compare the begining (autoattack/leap) of the d3 barbarian gameplay to the howl/autoattack in D2 and plain autoattack in d1.



Like Nostavar I think D3 will be a far better game than D2, but like Nostavar that doesn't stop me expressing my contempt for idiotic reasoning. I wouldn't have bothered posting except to defend someone who appears to have some sense of reality because I'm quite happy leaving these threads as the inevitable apologist circlejerk, or petty 'fanboi'/'whiner' rehash they're almost inevitably doomed by such unproductive OPs to become, and I'd advise Nostavar to save his reasonable comments for where they're appreciated.

cute and offensive at the same time.

[ThulRasha]

If we showed a clip of a sorc madly teleing around CS surrounded by mostly immune enemies, trying to tk seals while fending off a PKer, then a vid of a level 1 char with no skills and starter weapons in D3, I trust it would be quickly pointed out that concluding D3 is worse than D2 is ridiculous.


That clip would definately be unfair, since D1 has no teleporting sorceror and from D3 we have no gameplay video of one.

At least the clip posted by the OP showed the melee class of all 3 games.

It's nice that you agree with someone, but why not post your own reasonings on why it would be unfair?
Do you think you can make a more exciting clip of a warrior in Diablo1? I seriously doubt it, but I look forward to seeing it if you decide to make one.

[phool]

I have almost never played D1. I have never played D3. Any extreme value judgements by point of comparison I make will take those factors into account, which is why you don't see me making any, at least none so completely devoid of context and meaning as in the OP.

Explicitly and hopefully clearly (albeit I acknowledge vaguely), I will repeat; it is a fallacy to assume that, because member Ma > Mb, set a > set b, where Ma is a member of set a and Mb is a member of set b.

When comparing the tone of one game to another or the depth of one game to another it is insufficient to compare one one area or one aspect of the 2 games. And when, to return to my above terminology, posters go out of their way to demonstrate their opinion's validity by (in the extreme example) comparing max(a) to min(b) - something we've seen frequently recently (e.g. the sensationalist yahoo article) - the appropriate response is to disregard the comparison.

cute and offensive at the same time.

Oh, snap.

[5zigen]

Explicitly and hopefully clearly (albeit I acknowledge vaguely), I will repeat; it is a fallacy to assume that, because member Ma > Mb, set a > set b, where Ma is a member of set a and Mb is a member of set b.


The video pretty well showed that Ma > Mb, if you're considering melee combat in D1 and 2 versus D3 and I think that was the point. Just because the title of the thread is a larger claim in scope doesn't make the fact that Ma > Mb false.

Your invalidating the entire video (as comparison) because of a very small point (The level difference and difference in skill use). It doesn't seem rational to me.

[ThulRasha]

I have almost never played D1. I have never played D3. Any extreme value judgements by point of comparison I make will take those factors into account, which is why you don't see me making any, at least none so completely devoid of context and meaning as in the OP.


If you almost never played D1, then how would you know if the clip showed by the OP does not give a good representation of it?

you said:

in terms of gameplay depth the comparison is a very biased one.


Based upon what you say now, I'm really don't see how you could make a statement like that.

However, the OP only posted the clip. He didn't make any comparison. He only showed a clip about how a game series progresses.
For all we know he could have meant the graphics, the music, or perhaps the total product. Not only the gameplay.

If you mean than you can only compare the games in full, yeah that would be the most fair thing to do.
But that is impossible since D3 isn't available yet.

[visom]

@nostavar

It may seem like an unfair comparison using a level 1 barb from D2 and a low level warrior in D1, but it still serves the main purpose of showing how the game changed. I think you're missing a point and only judging based on how the character changed. Remember that video's purpose is to show how the overall gameplay change so you can't just focus onto one object (in your case, the character).

Even if the warrior was a high level, his magic skills wouldn't look all that great and judging by the low/weak animations of his magic skills, you'll still think that warrior is a low level (I know he didn't use any, but if you've played D1 then you'd agree anyways).

As goes for the barbarian in D2, if you ever used "stun" or "leap attack" or "frenzy" you'd hardly know that it's a high leveled skill. Frenzy for example, is a level 24 skill, yet it looks exactly like double swing; a level 6 skill (with the exception of small gusts around the barb during frenzy). Same applies for stun+concentration+berserk (hardly a difference). So even if the barb was level 50, all his popular skill (concentration, frenzy, leap attack, war cry, battle cry) would still look like his low level skill (double swing, shout, leap, bash) with the only exception of whirlwind.

In D3, the skills are more animated, making it look more powerful than it really is (I think this is the part where you're mistakened). Also, would your perception of the D3 barb be the same if he wasn't using whirlwind with a fire axe? If he was using a normal axe he would of just cut apart the monsters without leaving a trail of fire. For all we know, whirlwind might be a level 12 skill, that hammer of the ancients might be level 18, leap attack might be level 6 and the ANIMATION just makes it look more powerful (like a showoff skill).

[phool]

Your invalidating the entire video (as comparison) because of a very small point (The level difference and difference in skill use).
in terms of gameplay depth the comparison is a very biased one. Exactly what terms the OP is making a comparison I have no idea.

nuff said there

The video pretty well showed that Ma > Mb, if you're considering melee combat in D1 and 2 versus D3 and I think that was the point.
I'm inclined very much to agree melee combat looks better in D3 than D2 based on what we've seen (due to the regular attack multihitting and the whole 'make them drop the shields' thing, which seem to indicate superior melee-caster balance and more fulfilling gameplay respectively. the latter wasn't even shown in this comparison though), however that does not change the fact while in the D3 promo we have the barb leaping around etc while in the D2 clip the only skill used is howl, once. This is just one facet of the selective bias evident in the comparison.

edit:
If you almost never played D1, then how would you know if the clip showed by the OP does not give a good representation of it?
I don't need to infer anything about D1 at all, I have played D2 extensively and would know that the clip is biased regardless of whether I watched the D1 section or not.

However, the OP only posted the clip. He didn't make any comparison. He only showed a clip about how a game series progresses.
For all we know he could have meant the graphics, the music, or perhaps the total product. Not only the gameplay.

This is why I described the OP* as something along the lines of worthless, and bait for uninteresting replies.

*that's Post not Poster folks

[5zigen]

nuff said there


I'm inclined very much to agree melee combat looks better in D3 than D2 based on what we've seen (due to the regular attack multihitting and the whole 'make them drop the shields' thing, which seem to indicate superior melee-caster balance and more fulfilling gameplay respectively. the latter wasn't even shown in this comparison though), however that does not change the fact while in the D3 promo we have the barb leaping around etc while in the D2 clip the only skill used is howl, once. This is just one facet of the selective bias evident in the comparison.


So if he had leaped in the D2 clip it would have been better? I think you're forgetting a necessary part of what the difference was. All of the skills used by the barb in the D3 display looked very useful.

Leaping in the clip would have just been leaping for the sake of leaping, because that's the only reason to have the skill in D2. They could have shown him getting surrounded by enemies and leaping out of them, but 99.9% of the time you can simply run out of being surrounded as fast or faster than leaping, particularly with the use of howl like he did in the video.

To miss that point I think is pretty brazenly not. And while this is only "one facet" of the selective bias in comparison, I would say it is the "only facet" in the selective bias and comparison. Or would you argue that the exclusion of WW in D2 also is another "facet" altogether, because I think that is stretching again.

And your 'nuff said is you using your argument to prove that your argument is right...

[phool]

Leaping in the clip would have just been leaping for the sake of leaping, because that's the only reason to have the skill in D2.

Simply false, from an exclusively pvm perspective as well as pvp. Play d2c in particular and you'll see the more experienced barbs utilising it effectively and somewhat frequently as crowd control/transport/increasing party efficiency, where leap is the single most effective line of action available to the barb (can you say the same about the barb's first uses of leap? It's not as if he was threatened by being surrounded, or as if he needed to escape in order to reach shamans reviving the ghouls). The issue is that the beginning of act 1 normal, particularly for a melee char, makes for the least involved gameplay of the entire game and that's not merely a matter of skills used. It's slowpaced, there's no player threat, low monster density, no need for crowd control, corpse control, luring, weapon switching, r/w toggling and more. D2's melee combat can be more involved than was depicted in the D3 trailer (but is likely to be overall less involved than in D3) and is almost always more involved than depicted in the D2 clip in the linked vid.

And your 'nuff said is you using your argument to prove that your argument is right...

The intention was pointing out your apparent misunderstanding of my posts, and nothing to do with the validity of any argument.

[johntorrio]

Nostavar is entirely correct, in terms of gameplay depth the comparison is a very biased one. Exactly what terms the OP is making a comparison I have no idea.

In the same way other comparisons such as the 'look here's a screenshot of the darkest place in D1, darkest place in D2, least dark place in D2 promo' have been proferred as proof Blizz are 'betraying' the dark atmosphere supposedly prevalent in the game's previous incarnations have been obviously flawed, this is.

If we showed a clip of a sorc madly teleing around CS surrounded by mostly immune enemies, trying to tk seals while fending off a PKer, then a vid of a level 1 char with no skills and starter weapons in D3, I trust it would be quickly pointed out that concluding D3 is worse than D2 is ridiculous.

Like Nostavar I think D3 will be a far better game than D2, but like Nostavar that doesn't stop me expressing my contempt for idiotic reasoning. I wouldn't have bothered posting except to defend someone who appears to have some sense of reality because I'm quite happy leaving these threads as the inevitable apologist circlejerk, or petty 'fanboi'/'whiner' rehash they're almost inevitably doomed by such unproductive OPs to become, and I'd advise Nostavar to save his reasonable comments for where they're appreciated.

If you had taken the small amount of to scroll down on the first page you would have seen my other post with a more "fair" comparison video so people like you would stop complaining.

fell free to make your own video with a high level D1 and D2 charector for comparison. It wont make a difference.

Actually someone already did. Cinematic trailers included.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/236680.html

[GreatInRemembrance]

Can't wait to see what Diablo IV looks like.

[Wormnet]

You know, it's funny:

You got some people complain that the graphics in Diablo 3 are too bright to the extent that some even go and say that it's too cartoony.

"You're too shallow! Gameplay is better than graphics!"

"This is why D3 is better than the first 2" and what do we get? Gameplay footage featuring the evolution in the graphics between the 3 games...

Oh, the irony...




Wait... are we talking about the evolution of gameplay? How the !@#$ can you say ANYTHING about D3's gameplay if you haven't played it yet?

It's going to take more than some video footage for me to tell if it's going to be better or not. I'm going to need to play the game...

[okiimatsu]

I'm supposed to be surprised that the art of video game design has improved in the last ten years? In viewing the
comparison vid, I can mostly infer that D3 looks modern.

[johntorrio]

You know, it's funny:

You got some people complain that the graphics in Diablo 3 are too bright to the extent that some even go and say that it's too cartoony.

"You're too shallow! Gameplay is better than graphics!"

"This is why D3 is better than the first 2" and what do we get? Gameplay footage featuring the evolution in the graphics between the 3 games...

Oh, the irony...




Wait... are we talking about the evolution of gameplay? How the !@#$ can you say ANYTHING about D3's gameplay if you haven't played it yet?

It's going to take more than some video footage for me to tell if it's going to be better or not. I'm going to need to play the game...

the video is to be taken with face value. After WATCHING the 3 games in the video which one is more appealing? You make your own decision. I've already made mine.

[Wormnet]

More appealing? Diablo 3 of course! I think we all played the previous games to death. D3 brings new stories/quests, classes, skills, monsters and loot. Not to mention the new graphics. We're all hungry for more!

You, however, already flagged it as being the better of the series. As excited as I am to be (hopefully soon) playing a new Diablo game, it's still too soon to be discussing the matter.

Diablo 1 has the atmosphere and style.
Diablo 2 is the better game.
Diablo 3 has the better graphics.

I'd still be playing Diablo 1 if it could run in anything bigger than 640x480. Slap a walk/running feature on there and you got yourself the better game.

[NKlint]

If you didn't have any information on Diablo I, II, or III and didn't know that the gameplay footage from that video was from sequential games which game would you want to play the most?

I'd go with Number III.

[PlasmaTorture]

If you didn't have any information on Diablo I, II, or III and didn't know that the gameplay footage from that video was from sequential games which game would you want to play the most?

I'd go with Number III.

Exactly.

If they made a similar video for, say, the Street Fighters, and had Street Fighter II only using basic punch/kick attacks, Street Fighter III adding in one random hadouken, and then the Street Fighter IV part featuring high level comboes and intense gameplay, of course SFIV is going to look more appealing. It's comparing people barely playing the game/doing the most boring part of the game versus using a character that has skills to use and is fun.

I do concede that the Diablo 1 section could not have been flushed out all that much. However, the Diablo 2 section should have. The apologists just saying "well the barb skills don't look so exciting and in game nobody uses a bunch of different skills" ... well, so what?
They could've shown a Barbarian whirlwind some mobs, switch weapons to dual heart carvers and hork a few bodies, switch back to their main weapon, buff with some shouts, use Wolfhowl to summon wolves and shapeshift into a werewolf, and then run around killing things, unshifting, then leaping into a crowd and using frenzy. Do this, in say, the Chaos Sanctuary where there's a high mob density.
Then, have a Diablo 3 clip (if one existed) where the Barbarian is playing at the start of the game, has minimal skills, and does little but auto-attack.

Which game would look more fun and involved? Even though we know the barb build isn't practical in D2 I just described, it sure is flashy.

I don't know how it's physically possible to think the video isn't absurdly biased. It seriously boggles my mind.

[5zigen]

Perhaps This video should have been used for comparison!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAYfFLUGHX4&feature=related

Looks much more in depth right?

or maybe this pvp video would have shown how robust and in depth D2's gameplay was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yObtbBfmOB8&feature=related

Sorry for being cynical. I just wanted to post some stuff to show that the original video really wasn't that much of a misrepresentation.

[ThulRasha]

If you didn't have any information on Diablo I, II, or III and didn't know that the gameplay footage from that video was from sequential games which game would you want to play the most?

I'd go with Number III.

And if you did have all the information, and had played both Diablo I and II for several years, and if you did know that the gameplay footage from that video was from sequential games, wich game would you then want to play the most?

I'd still go with Number III.

[NKlint]

And if you did have all the information, and had played both Diablo I and II for several years, and if you did know that the gameplay footage from that video was from sequential games, wich game would you then want to play the most?

I'd still go with Number III.

Hehehe during the video...

Diablo I (meh) fast forward...

Diablo II (cocks head) where is the good stuff...?

Diablo III SQUEEEEEEE!

But anyway, if the videos were trying to promote Diablo III and not the other two.. It did a good job.

Meaning that if I were to base starting/re-starting Diablo II based off of that video I probably wouldn't bother.

However the footage is supposed to be illustrating how the melee combat has evolved in the Diablo series as a whole and in my opinion wasn't meant to be interpreted as a D2 sucks go buy D3. The thread made it seem that way.

[visom]

Well guys you have to remember, theres 2 main reason why blizzard release diablo3:
1- to have a third sequel for us customers to enjoy
2- to make profits

Since WoW has really cartoony graphics but is the most popular game out there, blizzard might think that if D3 as the same thing, it'll attract more customers since they know people today aren't looking for dark graphics, but cartoony ones.

But this is just my guess though.

[PlasmaTorture]

Well guys you have to remember, theres 2 main reason why blizzard release diablo3:
1- to have a third sequel for us customers to enjoy
2- to make profits

Since WoW has really cartoony graphics but is the most popular game out there, blizzard might think that if D3 as the same thing, it'll attract more customers since they know people today aren't looking for dark graphics, but cartoony ones.

But this is just my guess though.

No, that's exactly what it is. Not a guess, that's the facts. I think everyone is well aware of this - the game's graphics will maybe have a slightly more mainstream appeal.
Then again, who do you know who plays games and didn't play/love Diablo 2? I know very, very few people (except those who started gaming fairly recently). It was gritty and had a very dark atmosphere. Diablo, Starcraft, and Warcraft all had very distinct looks. Recently they've become much more consolidated, with WoW, SC2, and D3 all have very similar character designs (probably because it's all Blizzard Irvine now instead of the completley different team of Blizz North) compared to the sharp distinctions previously. Still, there's hope, as they darkened the graphics of SC2 somewhat and made the Siege Tanks more realisitc due to fan complaints, so perhaps they'll move a bit away from WoW with D3 as well given the enormous amount (or least loud amount) of complaints.

But that's neither here nor there, because I think we're talking about how ridiculously biased that video is, and not about the graphics. :scratchchin:

[ThulRasha]

However the footage is supposed to be illustrating how the melee combat has evolved in the Diablo series as a whole and in my opinion wasn't meant to be interpreted as a D2 sucks go buy D3. The thread made it seem that way.

The title of the thread and some of the posts do.
Instead of looking at the video for what it is, people jump in to defend Diablo1 and Diablo2 for some reason. (the title is probably the reason).

[5zigen]

Well guys you have to remember, theres 2 main reason why blizzard release diablo3:
1- to have a third sequel for us customers to enjoy
2- to make profits

Since WoW has really cartoony graphics but is the most popular game out there, blizzard might think that if D3 as the same thing, it'll attract more customers since they know people today aren't looking for dark graphics, but cartoony ones.

But this is just my guess though.

It's neat that you say that but if you watch the video can you really, with a straight face, tell me that the Diablo 3 portion of the video is more "cartoony" and that t hey are trying to garner players with that demographic?

D3 is already a ESRB M game. The same rating as D2.

[PepsiMan]

Yeah, it's M. But I still think it's an M with not much bite, in both cases. I don't have much Starcraft II to compare to Diablo III, but Starcraft/Diablo II makes a decent comparison:

In Diablo II, you can go out, and kill monsters en masse. You can make monsters bleed uncontrollably, get cleaved in half, shatter and melt, and so forth.

In Starcraft, EVERYTHING EXPLODES. Everything. It's kind of funny, really (technology limitations yes, but still). A Marine being gored to death by a Zergling will not bleed to death, but will explode. A Siege Tank impaled by a Lurker explodes (Hard to show an impaled siege tank in the SC1 engine). Plus, Starcraft has more "Mature" language than Diablo II. Yet, it's only rated "Teen".

But then again, I'm not one of the ESRB folk and I can't really think for them- I'd swap the ratings around personally.

On the subject of the D2 combat evolution itself, it's kind of an unfair comparison, although if the melee combat was depicted with commonly used moves (like whatever for D1 and Whirlwind or something for D2), D3 would still win out, even if the graphics in those games were completely the same. What D3 has is variety, as far as I can tell.

[PlasmaTorture]

It's neat that you say that but if you watch the video can you really, with a straight face, tell me that the Diablo 3 portion of the video is more "cartoony" and that t hey are trying to garner players with that demographic?

D3 is already a ESRB M game. The same rating as D2.

Any proof on it being M? I had heard rumors about it being Teen for a while and can't find anything either way. The T rating was honestly one of my bigger fears with the game dicretion.

The art direction interview on Kotaku makes it pretty clear that Diablo is going to a step above WoW with gore and such so I guess that implies it will be M, but I've seen no hard evidence either way. The article also confirms my biggest fear of all three franchises going to a unified "blizzard" look, but if the gameplay is good and they get the atmosphere right than it'll be fine I guess. Also is a shame that the petition makes everyone, apparently blizzard too, think that the atmosphere complaints = colors only when it's a lot more than that and color is a very minor, unimportant detail. Oh well.