Not really. Diablo is a rehash... StarCraft, on the other hand, and the way it weaves plot with strategy action, is a revolution, in a way. I love it for that. But diablo is a rehash, and so is WoW. Thing is, they are done right...
Guy on blog: Diablo 3 vs Fallout 3
- Thread starter Per
- Start date
Diablo 1:
Gameplay - tuned down real-time combat version of a roguelike.
Setting - Well, dark fantasy. Not exactly original or anything.
Diablo 2:
Gameplay - Hack'n'Slash action game with RPG elements.
Setting - See above.
Warcraft 1-2:
Gameplay - Normal RTS. Make buildings, make units - go kill. Dune 2 already did it.
Setting - ...Fantasy. That's all. Elves, orcs, goblins, dwarfs - nothing special.
Warcraft 3:
Gameplay - Combination of RTS and hero development - Warlords Battlecry did it several years before, and I like how it worked there better.
Setting - See above.
World of Warcraft:
Gameplay - MMO. It gathered what was good in the already existing ones and just polished it off, like they do.
Setting - Again see above.
Starcraft:
Gameplay - See warcraft.
Setting - At best - heavily inspired by Warhammer 40.000. At worst - a rip off of it.
Sooo what exactly is revolutionary about these games, cos I think I might have missed it?
That is what I said already - It doesn't matter if their games are not the first who used an idea or introduced something that shattered the gaming industry, they still make games that are high quality and sell well - that's why there are so many clones of them.
You ever played NetHack?
Gameplay - tuned down real-time combat version of a roguelike.
Setting - Well, dark fantasy. Not exactly original or anything.
Diablo 2:
Gameplay - Hack'n'Slash action game with RPG elements.
Setting - See above.
Warcraft 1-2:
Gameplay - Normal RTS. Make buildings, make units - go kill. Dune 2 already did it.
Setting - ...Fantasy. That's all. Elves, orcs, goblins, dwarfs - nothing special.
Warcraft 3:
Gameplay - Combination of RTS and hero development - Warlords Battlecry did it several years before, and I like how it worked there better.
Setting - See above.
World of Warcraft:
Gameplay - MMO. It gathered what was good in the already existing ones and just polished it off, like they do.
Setting - Again see above.
Starcraft:
Gameplay - See warcraft.
Setting - At best - heavily inspired by Warhammer 40.000. At worst - a rip off of it.
Sooo what exactly is revolutionary about these games, cos I think I might have missed it?
That is what I said already - It doesn't matter if their games are not the first who used an idea or introduced something that shattered the gaming industry, they still make games that are high quality and sell well - that's why there are so many clones of them.
You ever played NetHack?
shihonage
Made in USSR
Diablo 2 was hardly mindless. It was the most mindful hack-n-slash compared to all the pretenders to the throne. The Necromancer class in particular had definite obvious strategy to it, with the second most strategic being the Paladin.
Necromancer sealed off entrances and controlled the enemy flow into the battle. He could also "sap" ranged attackers en masse, and had to decide when to use Amp. Damage or Iron Maiden, depending.
Paladin's "stunning" Smite and "devastating" Zeal were two of the main different approaches to combat, one complimenting another, combined with judicious use of auras that mirrored necromancer's damage modifiers and especially auras of magic resistance.
Even outside of class differences, the way every ability and damage system in the game worked has lead to various strategies in regards to equipment.
It's very hard to make a game where most abilities are interesting, allow for a variety of "builds", and actually mostly work as intended. Diablo2 was that game.
People seem to take Blizzard's work for granted until they see someone else attempt the same thing.
Necromancer sealed off entrances and controlled the enemy flow into the battle. He could also "sap" ranged attackers en masse, and had to decide when to use Amp. Damage or Iron Maiden, depending.
Paladin's "stunning" Smite and "devastating" Zeal were two of the main different approaches to combat, one complimenting another, combined with judicious use of auras that mirrored necromancer's damage modifiers and especially auras of magic resistance.
Even outside of class differences, the way every ability and damage system in the game worked has lead to various strategies in regards to equipment.
It's very hard to make a game where most abilities are interesting, allow for a variety of "builds", and actually mostly work as intended. Diablo2 was that game.
People seem to take Blizzard's work for granted until they see someone else attempt the same thing.
well if Diablo wasn't revolutionary, then why the hell was it the game of the year and won alot of other awards, why is Diablo the cornerstone for this type of games. Then why the hell the action rpg that followed were called diablo clones.
(posted , as Jenx didn't reply in time to pm)
(posted , as Jenx didn't reply in time to pm)
Simple.
While it didn't do much/anything new, it did everything well.
Same goes for the Warcraft series and Starcraft.
My guess is that Diablo was also an introduction to the genre for the generation.
While it didn't do much/anything new, it did everything well.
Same goes for the Warcraft series and Starcraft.
My guess is that Diablo was also an introduction to the genre for the generation.
Slaughter Manslaught
Vault Senior Citizen
Bravo! That is exactly right! Blizzard is showing us how the game is going to be for the whole world. Then they ask: "This is the game, you Like it? Tell your opinions, ask stuff... we're here to help!"
Bethesda is like some isolated military guys who fortifty themselves behind eletric walls, big, mutated dogs and auto-cannons, put a "MAKING A GAME. INVADERS WILL BE SHOT AT. SURVIVORS WILL BE SHOT AGAIN. SO FUCK OFF." and then, in a loooong time, they go out (with a caravan of guards with enough guns to raise small countries) and show a small... bit to the world, then they go back to their fortress, because they are "MAKING A GAME."
No it would be revolutionary if it did anything groundbreaking and original.
Also, I never said Diablo or any of the other games, weren't good. That was actually quite the opposite of my point. The games might not have original ideas but they are very good at what they are.
Duke Nukem 3D. Sure, the game isn't revolutionary or original or anything, but it was a hit, right? Same thing here.
Also, I never said Diablo or any of the other games, weren't good. That was actually quite the opposite of my point. The games might not have original ideas but they are very good at what they are.
Duke Nukem 3D. Sure, the game isn't revolutionary or original or anything, but it was a hit, right? Same thing here.
Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
shihonage said:
The paladin/necro takes strategy?
Hammerdin: Spam hammers.
Zealer: Spam zeal.
Smiter: Spam smite.
Necro: Amp crowds and spam corpse explosion.
D2 is about as "mindless" as you can get. Not that its a bad game or something (quite the contrary) but the only strategy that you need to master is the ability to furiously mash mouse2.
not revolutionary ?
i may be wrong but wasnt starcraft first rts to have varied units among races/sides ?
proof by wikipedia:
i may be wrong but wasnt starcraft first rts to have varied units among races/sides ?
proof by wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starcraft
shihonage
Made in USSR
Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude said:
Ah, well, I don't employ this kind of mindset. I don't play to "win the fastest". That takes the fun out of pretty much anything and makes gameplay experience meaningless to me.
The necromancer can be in fact employed for strategy with some imagination, as I stated earlier. There's a lot more to it than just winning, there's teamwork and helping the right people with the right stuff at the right time.
Paladins can, of course, just spam one skill all the time, but the beauty of playing one is that different situations can call for different skills. Sometimes you need to smite, sometimes you need to zeal, sometimes you need thorns, sometimes you need might.
Diablo lets you have a colorful experience if you let it. Other pretenders to the throne don't replicate this aspect of its design anywhere near as well. And buttons mashers... will always be buttons mashers.
I saw some button mashers the other day... terrible creatures, I avoid them whenever I can.
Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
kyle said:not revolutionary ?
i may be wrong but wasnt starcraft first rts to have varied units among races/sides ?
proof by wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starcraft
Dune 2 had different factions with faction-specific units, and Dune 2 was around 6 years before Starcraft.
For the record, half of the articles on wikipedia are filled with opinions and factual inaccuracies.
*edit*
shihonage said:
You haven't played D2 recently have you? The runewords eliminated the need to do anything besides mash a single button (and BO/BC every two minutes).
Obviously you can go out of your way to make even the simplest game seem complex (Necromancer team work? WHAT? Corpse explosion literally gibs everything on-screen instantly. There is no real teamwork in diablo 2), but when the best results are achieved by spamming a single button, that can hardly be classified as strategic.
Jiggly McNerdington
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Hammerdin requires strategy simply because of how difficult the damn hammers are to aim. Not to mention the hell of going through the maggot lair.
I realize that isn't really strategy. That's the joke you see.
I realize that isn't really strategy. That's the joke you see.
Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude said:
you got to be kidding me,
if you take those 2 units which make little to no difference (you could still just skip em and mass siege tanks/rockets) to gameplay and compare it with totally different game styles for races in starcraft you will see what i mean - starcraft didnt have 'faction specific units' just different factions
also, note a smiley at wiki proof
shihonage
Made in USSR
Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude said:
I'm sorry, but what are these fabled rune words and didn't they majorly nerf corpse explosion sometime around 1.03 because it allowed you to blow up everything on screen ? Was it un-nerfed again ?
Either way, my experiences may not reference the latest patch which as I understand was worked on by just one single dude for 3 years, who was possibly retarded.
aronsearle
Still Mildly Glowing
Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude said:
You havent played it recently either, the only reason runewords turn it into such a button masher is because the huge number of dupes, turning what should be a rare item into common currency.
Luckily there was a ladder reset last week.
Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
shihonage said:
Corpse explosion still affects everything on-screen with +skill gear, and since it is 50% physical 50% fire, amp damage causes CE to do more damage than the original monster's life... meaning that all you need is to amp a crowd, let your merc kill a single monster... and then insta-gib the rest.
The runewords would be Enigma, Spirit, Heart of the Oak for casters. Giving your merc the Insight runeword means that your mana is going to regenerate instantly, removing the need to click mana potions anymore (just one step closer to one-button play).
For melee : Fortitude + Grief and you're practically invulnerable and doing insane amounts of damage.
The fact that 99% of runes are dupes doesn't change the fact that you can fully gear a character in the best runewords in less than 7 days after starting fresh... and then 2-3 more characters the next week (In three weeks of casual play I had fully geared a light sorc, fishymancer, zealer, windy and their mercs in the best gear available (including torches/skillers/5allres-life scs). How did I do it? Spamming mouse2 until everything on-screen died. Uber strategy required obviously.
aronsearle
Still Mildly Glowing
Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude said:
Yea, sure, you get all that without duping in a few weeks
