Diablo 1 is pretty swell

[RhodokMasterRaceOfficial]

One big problem I have with Diablo 2 is that most skills are just useless. They're a waste of programming. You just put in enough points to get to one of the lowest skills on there, increase it's damage through whatever means, and spam it the rest of the game.

I'll agree with this, since I finished it again recently with a necromancer and the only things I ever put any points into were Teeth and Bone Spear, but they introduced spell synergy later on to attempt to remedy some of that. The old "put points into only two spells" gameplay is still viable (they probably made it easier by accident if they're two synergising skills), but this helps out summoner builds a lot more.

How much of a difference is the overall gameplay effect from the original game, though?

 

[Neanderthal]

Thought Sacred and DivDiv were how Diablo franchise should have advanced personally, liked 2 but for year it came out it were both fucking ugly and not ambitious enough, thought narrative was fairly good and consistent with what was set up at end of 1, but what was added in LoD was kinda crap.

 

[Akratus]

One big problem I have with Diablo 2 is that most skills are just useless. They're a waste of programming. You just put in enough points to get to one of the lowest skills on there, increase it's damage through whatever means, and spam it the rest of the game.

I'll agree with this, since I finished it again recently with a necromancer and the only things I ever put any points into were Teeth and Bone Spear, but they introduced spell synergy later on to attempt to remedy some of that. The old "put points into only two spells" gameplay is still viable (they probably made it easier by accident if they're two synergising skills), but this helps out summoner builds a lot more.

How much of a difference is the overall gameplay effect from the original game, though?

Yeah Diablo 1 didn't require a range of spells either. But the synergy stuff didn't help things, it just made that skill monopoly more effective. You're still only using one skill to kill, generally.

Still I like the amount of builds you can have in D2. Not using one kill skill exclusively makes you less powerful, but at least you have a wide range of skills to use exclusively. I've had fun with summoners, throwing axe barbarians, a bow amazon, and most classes have a number of fun buiulds.

 

[RhodokMasterRaceOfficial]

The main issue I think with having huge spell variety is that there's always going to be one or two that're just outright superior to everything else in their respective tree (I.E bone spear and teeth), despite your best attempts at balancing it. I don't really consider having more magic options to be a downside even if that happens, though. Morrowind definitely didn't suffer from it outside of giving you an indecipherably cluttered spell tab.

 

[Lhynn]

It has better spell variety

No there isnt, there are more class specific skills, sure. Not only that, most of them were garbage, and locked behind an awful skill tree.

far greater class variety

Alright, thats an improvement.

the game has far greater variety in locations throughout the course of it

Which is rendered worthless by enemy respawning, and lack of reward for exploration. Plus the locations were more interesting in Diablo 1, and you had actual reason to explore them.

far greater item variety with the addition of sets and rares

This is not an improvement, diablo 1 itemization was fantastic. Diablo 2 itemization is grindy.

and it adds new mechanics like sockets (gems + runewords)

""""Mechanics""""" that add nothing to the game but a bit of customization. Never really gave a shit about what i socketed tho. And the only rune i actually cared for was the one that kept people from freezing me.

and crafting with the cube.

This was p. neat.

The game was an improvement in almost every single aspect.

Again, this isnt true. Gameplay is more interesting in diablo 1, as someone mentioned before, the game was slower but deadlier to force the player to think before acting. While options were not as plentiful as they were in diablo 2, they were more impactful and there werent nearly as many fake options as diablo 2 gave you. Diablo 2 is a game about doing the exact same shit every fucking fight, except in big boss fights were you have to play the boss mechanics mmo style. Diablo 1 fights were completely dependant on what you had available at the time, but more importantly, on what enemy or enemy composition you were facing, both positioning and the layout of the place were extremely important and you found yourself falling back constantly to use the map to your advantage, selecting priority targets based on their skills, positioning and durability.

The opposite opinion when an attempt is made at objectively justifying it is just hipsterism.

Or just a better informed option than your bullshit.

Not even the kind of hipsterism where casuals snub their nose at you for saying Fallout 1/2 are better than Fallout 3 because they have too much ADHD to actually try them, I mean the real kind where you pretend to have reasons other than "I just liked it more".

I have reasons for why i liked it more, tons of reasons in fact. Zagor already mentioned the fantastic sound, the amazing gothic atmosphere, the interesting setting. Game was tense and made my heart throb, each playthrough was different because of the RNG factor and because of the permanency of killing anything. you could make it to the end of the game with a game without mana shield or fireball, and how you played and how you geared your character radically changed depending on what you had on you.

Oh wait.
Joined: Oct 7, 2015
Fuck, you are the same retard thats praising poe on the other thread, arent you?

 

[RhodokMasterRaceOfficial]

Which is rendered worthless by enemy respawning

Explain how the two are even actually linked to eachother. Enemies don't respawn unless you exit the game, which doesn't matter because there's very little reason to backtrack anyway especially if you grabbed waypoints. There was very little reason to backtrack in Diablo 1, either, if you cleared every single floor. So, you're seriously going to have to explain how these two things are linked and how this becomes a point in Diablo 1's favour somehow.

lack of reward for exploration

What were the exploration rewards in Diablo 1? Some instant gratification from clearing a floor and knowing that it wasn't for no reason because the quest you wanted actually spawned this time?

you had actual reason to explore them.

Sorry, but locking game content behind the RNG is just a cheap way of padding out a game's longevity, especially when "game content" corresponds to 3/4 of the game's quests, I.E the parts of the game that don't consist of "CLEAR FLOOR, GO DOWN, CLEAR FLOOR, GO DOWN" and actually offer you some insight into the game world.

""""Mechanics""""" that add nothing to the game but a bit of customization.

""""a bit of customisation""""", as if the runeword combinations and filling your items in the lategame with perfect gems was only just """"a bit of customisation""""" and not power boosts that were fully dependent upon the generosity of the RNG and which the usage of tended to impact your ability to run the game at higher difficulty settings. A bit like something you keep on praising about the first game.

Diablo 1 fights were completely dependant on what you had available at the time, but more importantly, on what enemy or enemy composition you were facing, both positioning and the layout of the place were extremely important and you found yourself falling back constantly to use the map to your advantage, selecting priority targets based on their skills, positioning and durability.

I just finished Diablo 2 and to say that this isn't also true of that game is moronic, which is obvious especially when there are enemies which provide buffs to their friends or when the mob will gangrape you if you let them surround you, or when you try to run harder difficulties and the game hasn't decided to give you any runewords or uniques. Sounds like you just haven't played it recently and/or are just copy+pasting your opinion of it from somebody else.

Or just a better informed option than your bullshit.

Hahaha, but then you go on to say this:

fantastic sound, the amazing gothic atmosphere, the interesting setting

Really, how did Diablo 2 not have any of those things? Are you even able to tell me? I seriously doubt it. Those points are basically just "diablo 1 > diablo 2" buzzwords that mean nothing, a bit like the "muh atmosphere" that comes out of Bethesda fans.

Did the game make your heart throb because of its atmosphere or did it make your heart throb because you were young when you played it and the original Diablo games are too gritty for smallfolk? I'm honestly banking on the latter because I started with Diablo 2 when I was about eight or nine years old and felt the exact same thing, and I still felt the same thing when I tried to play the first game afterwards. Playing both of them again after being slightly older than that did not have the same effect on me. That's not to say I didn't find them atmospheric, but I found them to be atmospheric for different reasons as I matured.

Seriously other than the RNG (which I believe Diablo 2 ultimately benefited from when it dumped the parts that it did) what reasons do you actually have?

 

[Lhynn]

Which is rendered worthless by enemy respawning

Explain how the two are even actually linked to eachother. Enemies don't respawn unless you exit the game, which doesn't matter because there's very little reason to backtrack anyway especially if you grabbed waypoints. There was very little reason to backtrack in Diablo 1, either, if you cleared every single floor. So, you're seriously going to have to explain how these two things are linked and how this becomes a point in Diablo 1's favour somehow.

Oh god, you are like a fucking children, everything must be explained to you because you dont understand.
Limited resources on any given playthough of a game vs unlimited resources that only depend on the time you spent on it make for a wildly different gameplay experience.

What were the exploration rewards in Diablo 1?

Considering that you have limited enemies and thus resources per run, many.

Some instant gratification from clearing a floor and knowing that it wasn't for no reason because the quest you wanted actually spawned this time?

Nope, instant gratification is the name of the game in diablo 2. in diablo 1 most stuff had a severe impact on your game, which spells you found, how many of said spell, what weapons you had available, your resistances, etc. Everything itemization was far more interesting because it was limited.

Sorry, but locking game content behind the RNG is just a cheap way of padding out a game's longevity

Ok, ill be sure to let everyone that likes roguelikes that their favorite genre is cheap shit. After all RhodokMasterRaceOfficial said so.

especially when "game content" corresponds to 3/4 of the game's quests, I.E the parts of the game that don't consist of "CLEAR FLOOR, GO DOWN, CLEAR FLOOR, GO DOWN" and actually offer you some insight into the game world.

If only the game was about clearing floors, and not the encounters in said floor and how you tackled them, then i might agree. But that is the case.

""""a bit of customisation""""", as if the runeword combinations and filling your items in the lategame with perfect gems was only just """"a bit of customisation""""" and not power boosts that were fully dependent upon the generosity of the RNG and which the usage of tended to impact your ability to run the game at higher difficulty settings. A bit like something you keep on praising about the first game.

A RNG that you could keep rerolling forever, wow, such depth, much mechanics. Aso i meant a bit of customization the sense that by the time it became relevant you were beating or already beat the game for the third time.

I just finished Diablo 2 and to say that this isn't also true of that game is moronic, which is obvious especially when there are enemies which provide buffs to their friends or when the mob will gangrape you if you let them surround you, or when you try to run harder difficulties and the game hasn't decided to give you any runewords or uniques. Sounds like you just haven't played it recently and/or are just copy+pasting your opinion of it from somebody else.

Unno, i played a barb, facetanked anything and could jump away whenever i was at even a minimal risk. Positioning doesnt matter because moving is easy. I also beat the game easily in the 3 difficulties without ever praying for an item drop.
After all yellows were enough and my character already had all the skills i would ever need.

Or just a better informed option than your bullshit.

Hahaha, but then you go on to say this:

fantastic sound, the amazing gothic atmosphere, the interesting setting

Really, how did Diablo 2 not have any of those things? Are you even able to tell me? I seriously doubt it. Those points are basically just "diablo 1 > diablo 2" buzzwords that mean nothing, a bit like the "muh atmosphere" that comes out of Bethesda fans.

Much gothic, how could i forget the desert jumping girls, the jumping barbarians, the nigger paladins that hit 15 times in 2 seconds, the rockstar necromancers, the ninjas.

Blah blah blah, you are blinded by nostalgia, blah blah blah.

Nope.

Seriously other than the RNG (which I believe Diablo 2 ultimately benefited from when it dumped the parts that it did) what reasons do you actually have?

Ive already listed them, lack of thematic consistency with locales such as a jungle, a desert and a tundra that have nothing to do with the tone set by the first chapter or the first game. SKill trees, the single most retarded invention from some retarded asshole i wish i could punch to death, skinner box crap, repetitive fights in which you use the skills youve maxed over and over again until you feel like throwing up. the gutting of an interesting setting set in diablo 1.

 

[DawnrazorDCLXVI]

Diablo 2 added more areas, but at the cost of atmosphere and cohesion. The lore on the first game held together because of its unique tone. D2 sacrificed this to add more areas, but without cohesion, or lore, of the first game.

 

[Beastro]

[This is not an improvement, diablo 1 itemization was fantastic. Diablo 2 itemization is grindy.

I loved how certain items could completely change your play style and you found yourself often keeping stuff in town in case you ran into a tough situation that required it.

That is the case in D2 but there's so much damn loot it drowned the effect each piece had unless you were in the end game. D1 had the nice balance between hunting loot but now swamping the game with it.

All favour for D2 though is mooted by the fact that it's the seed that spawned Blizzards shitty MMO style that swamped the genre including WoW itself (which originally started out as very so much like Everquest to the point of being a clone) before it began to be fucked over by Battlegrounds and other crap 6 months into launch.

It's why I find it so amusing how "MMO style" things are hated on this forum when so many began life on D2 before infecting MMOs and then looping around to reinfect single and MP games.

Sorry, but locking game content behind the RNG is just a cheap way of padding out a game's longevity

Compared to D2 which dialled this up a few orders of magnitude?

Diablo 2 added more areas, but at the cost of atmosphere and cohesion.

The only area that worked well in spirit was the desert one and evoking how other-worldly and sinister they often were to people, but even then that's mostly captured in the cut scenes because they don't have non-foreboding shit like beetle swarms rushing you.

That's another amusing thing about D2, how the cut scenes were the main thing that preserved D1s gothic style while the gameplay itself constantly broke it leading me at least, to play the game and endure the grinding combat to see more of them.

Compare that to D1 where the gameplay was at the center of the atmosphere creation in a game that only had minor beginning and ending FMVs.

 

[Lhynn]

[This is not an improvement, diablo 1 itemization was fantastic. Diablo 2 itemization is grindy.

I loved how certain items could completely change your play style and you found yourself often keeping stuff in town in case you ran into a tough situation that required it.

Aye, or how some low level uniques could be with you for the entire run.
It had the charm of a Roguelike, and it used both its setting and its sound to enhance the experience, truly some talented and passionate guys behind it.

It was so good it brought decline, like most good games when they achieve mainstream recognition.

 

[Average Manatee]

It has better spell variety

It has more spell colors. Ultimately the variety in terms of gameplay is close to the same. But in practice its actually worse. Diablo 2's insane skill scaling means that inevitably you'll stick with 1 spell for 90% of the combat since it massively outdamages everything else in your repertoire, a problem which Diablo 1 doesn't have. Furthermore Diablo 1's spell learning system forced experimentation and struggle, something that Diablo 2's system doesn't (Diablo 2 forces you to reroll a character if you somehow didn't read a guide to figure out which spells scale well).

far greater class variety (and all of them are far more unique from one-another unlike in its predecessor where the differences were pretty much limited to the maximum on certain stats)

I'll give you better class variety overall, but classes were still highly different in Diablo 1. You are missing out a huge part of Diablo 1's classes which is the frame time differences.

the game has far greater variety in locations throughout the course of it

Visually more variety, gameplay wise not. Diablo 1 locations play differently because movement and positioning is important. Diablo 2 locations all play as a different background to kill monsters on.

far greater item variety with the addition of sets and rares, and it adds new mechanics like sockets (gems + runewords) and crafting with the cube.

Which is the worst thing that happened to the game.

 

[Lilura]

Unno, i played a barb, facetanked anything and could jump away whenever i was at even a minimal risk.

Yes, I'm sure this "tactic" got you through Hell.

Positioning doesnt matter because moving is easy.

Yes, I'm sure with your madskillz your barb bulldozed Hell Arcane Sanctuary & Maggot Lair, where movement is EZ and 90% of players just wait in town for a good player to rush for them and throw up a TP. And you never jumped the wrong way to get stunlock-raped during your cakewalks.

I also beat the game easily in the 3 difficulties without ever praying for an item drop.

Yes, I'm sure you didn't farm, trade, craft, beg or party-up to get through Hell.

After all yellows were enough and my character already had all the skills i would ever need.

Yes, I'm sure you EZily beat Hell with just random Rare drops on the most item-dependent class in D2.

 

[Lhynn]

Unno, i played a barb, facetanked anything and could jump away whenever i was at even a minimal risk.

Yes, I'm sure this "tactic" got you through Hell.

Good call, it kind of did except for fights that were heavily against me. I did end up with a character that could murder any boss with his fists and auto attack.

Yes, I'm sure with your madskillz your barb bulldozed Hell Arcane Sanctuary & Maggot Lair, where movement is EZ and 90% of players just wait in town for a good player to rush for them and throw up a TP. And you never jumped the wrong way to get stunlock-raped during your cakewalks.

The fuck you talking about? pirated the game, played it solo, beat it easily. Only thing i recall being a challenge were the barbarian statues.

Yes, I'm sure you didn't farm, trade, craft, beg or party-up to get through Hell.

Again, playing solo with a pirated copy, so no, nothing of the sort.

Yes, I'm sure you EZily beat Hell with just random Rare drops on the most item-dependent class in D2.

Are you insinuating diablo 2 is some sort of "hardcur shiz"? because it was just another casual action rpg.

Edit: anyway, diablo 1 and 2 challenge is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so i dont see the point.

 

[Lilura]

Good call, it kind of did except for fights that were heavily against me. I did end up with a character that could murder any boss with his fists and auto attack.

Wait, are you saying your barb defeated Hell bosses bare-knuckled, without a combat mastery?

The fuck you talking about? pirated the game, played it solo, beat it easily. Only thing i recall being a challenge were the barbarian statues.
Again, playing solo with a pirated copy, so no, nothing of the sort.

You beat D2 with a solo barb without farming and crafting?

Are you insinuating diablo 2 is some sort of "hardcur shiz"?

Hell is tough for an item-dependent barb even with concerted farming and crafting. You would need godly Rares to make Hell EZ, that you're highly unlikely to find in a no-farm, no-craft run.

because it was just another casual action rpg.

The pkers and LLDers on Battle.net are about as far from casual as it gets, but whatevs.

Edit: anyway, diablo 1 and 2 challenge is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so i dont see the point.

Diablo 1 is a plod compared to D2 Hell.

 

[Lhynn]

Wait, are you saying your barb defeated Hell bosses bare-knuckled, without a combat mastery?

Yup, had many charms that added base damage. It was a matter of patience bringing them down, i only tried it with diablo and baal tho, baal being complete cake compared to diablo, all things equal.

You beat D2 with a solo barb without farming and crafting?

Farming what? if you mean killing shit, yeah i remember running the first map of hell more than a couple times. Actually found the blacksmith dude at the forge and a one of the bosses that sealed diablo much harder than diablo itself when i first encountered them.

Hell is tough for an item-dependent barb even with concerted farming and crafting. You would need godly Rares to make Hell EZ, that you're highly unlikely to find in a no-farm, no-craft run.

Wasnt really tough, i think my barb had maxed out stamina for tons of hp, str was about as high as needed for the epic i was aiming for. and using berserk. Been a long time tho, but i remember even in PvP in a lan with my friends oneshotting them all the time.

The pkers and LLDers on Battle.net are about as far from casual as it gets, but whatevs.

Sure, there were also pro starcraft players, what does that tell you about the single player?

Diablo 1 is a plod compared to D2 Hell.

Again, how is this in any way relevant? or are you trying to make a point separate from the discussion at hand. Anyway, sure, the by the third time you are beating the game, diablo 2 is actually harder. Bloating numbers does that.

 

[Gentle Player]

I think the argument for Diablo over Diablo II is one of quality over quantity. As much as I enjoyed DII, I seem to remember that when the game came out the best way to build most characters was to level up without spending any skill points other than on prerequisites, and then to pump them all into the newly unlocked highest level spells upon hitting level 30. Level 30! That's the entirety of a Normal mode play-through, and a good bit into Nightmare, in which the player doesn't even begin to properly engage with the skill system. What sort of design is that? Utter nonsense, I say. The expansion introduced Synergies and made it so that the player instead pours points into skills he will never use, just to boost another skill - scarcely an improvement.

There's also the fact that an ignorant person, after having played Diablo I and then jumping into the sequel for the first time, may be forgiven for thinking that he's actually playing some fan made parody of the original. Obviously these games have had little regard for verisimilitude, but where in DI killing an enemy may yield a stack of gold, nothing, or, occasionally, an item, killing the lowliest rat in DII would often have it exploding into a shower of gold stacks and multiple junk items. It's a bit daft.

That said, it's testament to just how bloody fun the game is that even whilst writing about its flaws I'm getting the urge to play the bastard!

 

[Abelian]

It's a damn shame nobody tried to recapture that setting and make a full-fledged RPG out of it

I agree with the way you described Diablo 1, but this is something I agree with especially.

A Czech studio released Inquisitor a couple of years ago, and its gameplay is heavily influenced by Diablo. It looks visually impressive, but I haven't tried it due to the negative Codex review, which criticizes the walls of useless text and tedious combat.

 

[Lhynn]

A Czech studio released Inquisitor a couple of years ago, and its gameplay is heavily influenced by Diablo. It looks visually impressive, but I haven't tried it due to the negative Codex review, which criticizes the walls of useless text and tedious combat.

Yeah tried it. sadly it isnt very good. Or at least the elements in that game dont mix well at all. I should give it a second chance someday.

 

[Starym]

I think you two are arguing about different difficulties, as the base game (with LoD) was infinitely easy and could indeed be cleared just with fists. It was a later patch (don't remember if it was 1.10 that also brought with it synergies or an even later one) that actually made D2 even marginally difficult (which is when Hell would actually be a problem for a not well geared Barb).

 

[Lilura]

Yup, had many charms that added base damage. It was a matter of patience bringing them down, i only tried it with diablo and baal tho, baal being complete cake compared to diablo, all things equal.

Damage from charms would pale in comparison to combat mastery and you would lack the increased AR and critical strike chance bestowed by CM, the bread n butter skill of the barb.

Farming what? if you mean killing shit, yeah i remember running the first map of hell more than a couple times. Actually found the blacksmith dude at the forge and a one of the bosses that sealed diablo much harder than diablo itself when i first encountered them.

Farming generally means killing shit over and over for experience/drops, yes. You'd have to farm more than Hell Bloodmoor to find godly rares for a barb. I think you must have farmed your ass off; you just don't remember because you haven't played in a while.

Wasnt really tough, i think my barb had maxed out stamina vitality for tons of hp

Sure, there were also pro starcraft players, what does that tell you about the single player?

Nothing. Single player has ironman and Hell just the same; it poses many challenges.

Anyway, sure, the by the third time you are beating the game, diablo 2 is actually harder. Bloating numbers does that.

It isn't just bloated numbers, though; it's also increased enemy density, variety and abilities; plus most Hell-capable builds gain access to extra abilities through Rare mods, set mods and runewords by that time, making Hell the most rewarding, variable and fun difficulty level (Hell ironman being the ultimate outside of mods).

 

[Average Manatee]

Discussing Hell difficulty is irrelevant. Any game that has to be finished twice (with the same build no less) before it becomes interesting to play is a poorly made game. Period.

You start Diablo 1 and enter the first level, it's great. You open the Butcher's door on level 2, it's fucking great. You fight King Leoric on level 3, it's fucking great.

 

[Lilura]

It has more spell colors ... Diablo 2's insane skill scaling means that inevitably means you'll stick with 1 spell for 90% of the combat since it massively outdamages everything else in your repertoire

That only has a degree of truth for a Sorceress who must dedicate to an element for killspeed. Still, even a lightning-based sorc will alternate between at least two direct damage spells (lightning/chain lightning) and invest in both Warmth & Frozen Armor from the two other trees. Telekinesis & Teleport are utility spells that non-lite sorcs need, too.

The necro & druid consistently use many more skills than that, being more versatile but lacking the killspeed.

(Diablo 2 forces you to reroll a character if you somehow didn't read a guide to figure out which spells scale well).

The skill tabs themselves give info on scaling and synergies.

I'll give you better class variety overall, but classes were still highly different in Diablo 1.

So what, though? The point still stands and in this respect D2 has D1 beat, handsdown.

Visually more variety, gameplay wise not.

The Arcane Sanctuary and Maggot Lair are just two examples of terrain-based variety; there are many more.

Which is the worst thing that happened to the game.

What? Transmuting & crafting with the cube was a positive inclusion, allowing exact builds to be fundamentally different (great for duelers, pkers), cutting down on farming and being able to carry more.

 

[Lilura]

Discussing Hell difficulty is irrelevant

Irrelevant to a casual, yes.

Any game that has to be finished twice (with the same build no less) before it becomes interesting to play is a poorly made game. Period.

Typical casual remark.

 

[Average Manatee]

The skill tabs themselves give info on scaling and synergies.

The skill tabs themselves give info on scaling and synergies.

They most certainly give no where near the amount of information needed.

I'll give you better class variety overall, but classes were still highly different in Diablo 1.

So what, though? The point still stands and in this respect D2 has D1 beat, handsdown.

Because better class variety matters little when the game plays substantially worse.

Visually more variety, gameplay wise not.

The Arcane Sanctuary and Maggot Lair are just two examples of terrain-based variety; there are many more.

No, those two areas are about the full extent of areas that play different from the rest (which are always wide open). And they are short.

Which is the worst thing that happened to the game.

What? Transmuting & crafting with the cube was a positive inclusion, allowing exact builds to be fundamentally different (great for duelers, pkers), cutting down on farming and being able to carry more.

Because item farming is a shitty part of a game?

Discussing Hell difficulty is irrelevant

Irrelevant to a casual, yes.

Any game that has to be finished twice (with the same build no less) before it becomes interesting to play is a poorly made game. Period.

Typical casual remark.

No, it's shit design. There is no alternative. No intelligent game forces you to play super-pussy mode two times just to be allowed to play normal difficulty. Literally the only way to make Diablo 2 a decent game is to use a character editor to start out on Hell. That's poor design.

 

[Lilura]

Aww, no reply to my first remark?

They most certainly give no where near the amount of information needed.

What info is lacking?

Because better class variety matters little when the game plays substantially worse.

How is the game-play significantly worse?

No, those two areas are about the full extent of areas that play different from the rest (which are always wide open). And they are short.

Maybe they're just the only ones you can remember, because I just mentioned them to you?

Because item farming is a shitty part of a game?

Is it? So why would you deem the cube to be the worst thing to happen to the game, if it cuts down on something you think is shitty?

No intelligent game forces you to play super-pussy mode two times just to be allowed to play normal difficulty.

Hell is normal difficulty to you? Welcome back to my iggy bin, shitstain.