Diablo 3 - Dark and Light Art Video Comparison @ diablo.iii.net

I don't know about that. Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft...Blizzard was a pretty big deal when Diablo II was released, at least as I recall. Not the same as the current environment, obviously, but still a major event.

Anyway, this is probably a bigger issue for true fans. I found Diablo II to be a theme park mockery of the atmosphere in Diablo, so I don't need to have a lot of faith in Boyarsky - just a little bit of attention to building a more cohesive and deeper world will work for me regardless of the colours.

Dhruin said:

I don't know about that. Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft...Blizzard was a pretty big deal when Diablo II was released, at least as I recall. Not the same as the current environment, obviously, but still a major event.

Anyway, this is probably a bigger issue for true fans. I found Diablo II to be a theme park mockery of the atmosphere in Diablo, so I don't need to have a lot of faith in Boyarsky - just a little bit of attention to building a more cohesive and deeper world will work for me regardless of the colours.

Click to expand...

Theme park mockery?

We must have been to different theme parks, then

I don't recall naked women with their bodies severed and entrails spread out on torture tables in those places. That's the kind of thing you almost certainly won't see in Diablo 3 - and which you haven't seen in WoW. It doesn't sit well with the children - and Blizzard are very keen to please everyone. Maybe I didn't watch the videos close enough? I'd be pleased if they actually respected the setting in that way.

Anyway, we obviously had different experiences with the atmosphere of Diablo 2, but calling it a theme park is a new one for me. That term applies excellently to the look of D3 and all of WoW, though.

I thought the art direction felt pretty similar between Diablo and Diablo 2, that the differences were due to the differing settings requiring different environments/styles rather than a replacement of the whole art direction "paradigm" like we're seeing with D2->D3.

For me, Diablo II missed all of the atmosphere of Diablo and the world was a facade. Kill Bloodraven, finish for the day, come back the next and get on the ride to kill Bloodraven again. Finish for the day, come back the next, get back on the ride to kill Bloodraven again... No attempt at a real world - it's a theme park.

I'm not suggesting Diablo had the deepest virtual gameworld ever but there were parts of Diablo where I was genuinely tense as I headed deeper into horror. Diablo II was just a straight race to kill as much as possible - grinding, as it were. I never felt any tension.

the Butcher was a scary dude. I remember the first time i heard him utter AHHHH FRESH MEAT!

Dhruin said:

For me, Diablo II missed all of the atmosphere of Diablo and the world was a facade. Kill Bloodraven, finish for the day, come back the next and get on the ride to kill Bloodraven again. Finish for the day, come back the next, get back on the ride to kill Bloodraven again... No attempt at a real world - it's a theme park.

I'm not suggesting Diablo had the deepest virtual gameworld ever but there were parts of Diablo where I was genuinely tense as I headed deeper into horror. Diablo II was just a straight race to kill as much as possible - grinding, as it were. I never felt any tension.

Click to expand...

It's true that Diablo 2 made the "grind" more convenient - but Diablo functioned the same way - at least in multiplayer. It's true that singleplayer Diablo was different - because it behaved more like a traditional CRPG with a normal savegame IIRC. That said, Diablo 2 faciliated the full quest for multiplayer mode, meaning everything in single was available in multi.

I don't know why you felt you had to race and grind - unless you were trying to defeat hell difficulty quickly. Diablo was the same way, in that you had to grind for loot to be effective in nightmare/hell - so it's up to the player, really.

I'm not sure I understand the critique - but since we're all different anyway, I guess it doesn't matter.

It seems you're criticising the world or the atmosphere because you played it like a race and grinded mobs. That's hardly the fault of the game world, is it? I mean, I certainly played it through normal without grinding anything, and I remember being pretty immersed in the world - though I admit the overland areas were so large, they felt like a chore occasionally. But I don't see the theme park reference at all.

That said, I was conditioned from playing Diablo, and naturally the "loot hunt" was already instilled. So I was on that train pretty soon after defeating the game on normal, but that's the nature of sequels that build on the strengths of prequels. For a first time player, I don't see that Diablo 2 was any different in terms of the "way" you play it. It's just bigger and less intense in terms of atmosphere.

DArtagnan said:

For a first time player, I don't see that Diablo 2 was any different in terms of the "way" you play it. It's just bigger and less intense in terms of atmosphere.

Click to expand...

I have no interest in MP, so any advantages are lost on me. I didn't race through D2 - in fact, I didn't finish it because it didn't hold my interest - but you hit the nail on the head, anyway. It was "less intense in terms of atmosphere", which, for me, left it feeling rather empty (and therefore, like a grind).

Dhruin said:

I have no interest in MP, so any advantages are lost on me. I didn't race through D2 - in fact, I didn't finish it because it didn't hold my interest - but you hit the nail on the head, anyway. It was "less intense in terms of atmosphere", which, for me, left it feeling rather empty (and therefore, like a grind).

Click to expand...

Then I guess we agree

We just use different words, with "less intense" being one way of putting it, and "a theme park mockery grind fest" being another

Sounds like the same level of critique for sure!

j/k

Anyway, I think there are more important things to discuss in this thread. Let's move on