Is there a debate over which of these two games is better, or does everyone agree D2 is an improvement over the first?

I liked 1 better as a single player game. 2 is balanced like shit in that regard.

Attached: sup.jpg (298x457, 84.42K)

This is about the only argument I can agree with.

Diablo 1 did music and atmosphere better.
Diablo 2 was just Diablo 1 with more added to it in every other respect.
Objectively false.
Aliens was better than Alien. Alien one was good for character, in that the alien actually had character. Aliens was better for Atmosphere and World Building.
Terminator 2 was vastly better than 1. It's not even comparable to the Alien vs Aliens argument. It's just straight better in everyway.

D2 has a better combat system but worse everything else. Just depends on how much that really matters to you. I still think D1 combat is fun, even as a warrior for the most part, because it forced you to use the environment and positioning to your advantage, which D2 didn't do as much.

D2 focused too much on the random drops and grinding and basically adding a ton of things that end up just feeling like a waste of time. But it's not bad if you just play casually with people for fun.

this
Diablo 2 is the game you can go back to at least once a year for the rest of your life, and the original is more of a novelty akin to playing the NES mario games. nb4 someone claims to replay those frequently
I can see 3 being a radical departure from the first two, it is more like a successor to Gauntlet or Champions of Norath. However the first two built off one another really well, a solid experience between them but 2 has way more replayability.
D1 didn't do that better they both have their own unique identity. The atmosphere in 2 is top notch if you're not rushing about online with max players.

Attached: xboxbox.png (364x364, 131.46K)

Diablo 1 is better unless you like grinding.

Diablo 3 was a travesty that should've never been made. I got it for free from a friend who basically bribed me into trying it and I still felt Gyped. It's all of the bad of Diablo 1 and 2 with no redeeming qualities and then even more horseshit. Ruined the story, literally killed off characters AND their replacement characters almost immediately after, crafting horseshit, real money auction house and don't (you) me saying they got rid of it. No, that shit was intended from the start and you can go fuck yourself. Ruined the atmosphere, removed more content than added like Characters, locations, plot points, etc. Ruined already established characters. Diablo 3 was the third nail in the coffin right after Starcraft 2 and Burning Crusade. Again, don't (you) me saying it's "TeH BeSt Exp!" it's objectively the worst for the same reasons Diablo 3 was fucking terrible, but add in flying, which negated PVP almost entirely, traveling, world building, etc. Resilience which ruined PVP balance, Got rid of the already established PVP system which just made whoever was playing the OP class of the month highest rank with no real time spent in it.

They're both great in their own way. It's a shame that nobody seems to have really pursued the Diablo 1 design any further.

why couldn't they adapt diablo in an rts and just did a warcraft arpg

>It's a shame that nobody seems to have really pursued the Diablo 1 design any further.
I remember wanting an FPS that felt like playing Diablo 1. I didn't really like Hellgate London, but I played something called Ziggurat that reminded me of D1 a bit. You might like it. It's like a mashup of Diablo 1 and Doom, pretty fun.

Did you try Torchlight?

in no way.
atmosphere took a perfectly vertical nosedive.

There's one thing that I think D3 deserves credit for and it's the gamefeel. Everything from moving, to attacking, to interacting with the world feels good. Much better than pretty much any other game in the genre.

Everything else really sucks about it.

>Hellgate London
In case anyone actually gives a fuck there's a private server for it that you can play on. Also has working singleplayer. london2038.com/

Both TL1 and 2 had some neat ideas but the execution just wasn't there. With TL2 it particularly sucked that the world didn't use any procgen which made it really boring for replaying.

Attached: hellgate london ass.webm (1080x720, 754.08K)

>Didn't do anything better
Horse shit. Diablo 2 was doing too much with so many places. Lut Golein was just awful. Tristram and the catacombs, caves, and citadel were peak.

cool opinions.

Diablo 2 had the benefit of being an fun online game before the industry started exploitative psychological manipulation.

Diablo 1 had online but it was a sideshow to the core single player.

that's just like your opinion man
there are tons of very aesthetically pleasing locations in 2
not that Diablo 1 isn't any different, just, there's much more

Torchlight 1 was good. It felt like Diablo 1. In all respects it was basically just a reskin of it with some added bits to it. Torchlight 2 was ok, the best parts were the undead areas and the Dragon tower, but it really didn't have much replay ability after one new game +. The werewolf area in particular was amazingly done, it's just a shame it was so short. Melee outlander was peak fun though, fuck rangefags. I stopped after new game ++ simply because no one was playing online at all. You basically locked yourself out of multiplayer if you wanted to actually make the game hard.

Well yeah, what I'm saying is Diablo 1 had focus and did better with it' fewer areas than Diablo 2 did as a whole. Literally if Lut Golein was just removed I'd share your opinion, but holy shit that area alone ruins it.

>before the industry started exploitative psychological manipulation
D2 didn't go as far with it as modern games but I remember reading that gems were basically added to be an addicting and "satisfying" aspect of the game. But maybe I'm wrong because I can't find the page where I read it.

D2 also gets a pass about releasing an expansion that isn't cut content from the original game but if you play classic you can tell the game was kind of left unfinished. Only a few classes get class-specific items, it ends on a cliffhanger, and the fourth act is really short compared to the the first three.

shit taste

youtube.com/watch?v=a0QbfvdmZsA
youtube.com/watch?v=GI4iHTR_FUM
youtube.com/watch?v=uS8hMuHV7Sg

Diablo 2 had
>better online
>better itemization
>better boss fights
>running
>slightly worse atmosphere than 1.
>more carebear mechanics meant to coddle the player like removal of friendly fire and limiting PvP so it was harder to "grief" players.

As a "casual" player in the franchise, I prefer 1 because it is simpler and works as a board game where you move your character on tiles.

>Even posts the worst music in the game
How can one man have such terrible taste.
youtube.com/watch?v=OO-vG8oPhhM
youtube.com/watch?v=8mz9sdLwfuI
youtube.com/watch?v=0gJ4gF9PMlQ
Also better music overall.
youtube.com/watch?v=vcTAVQYMZv0

Speaking as someone who passionately hated D2 when it came out, skill trees ruined the series. Classes in D1 had few things to make them stand apart, different starting stats, different stat maximums, and a unique passive skill, but for the most part each class could do whatever it wanted. Then D2 comes along and says no, you can't learn any skill except your own classes. You can only follow this one path, and nothing else.
It's like comparing D&D 4e with any other edition. You're so locked in to your one class. That's it. No customization. You're a barbarian and you do barbarian things. End of story.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a completely different series. Diablo 2 is an insult to the legacy of 1.

I prefer D1 for being a game that you can play through and enjoy in one go. It has a really tight atmosphere and solid core mechanics. D2 is spread a bit too thin and the overemphasis on end game grinding means that most normal mode players never really get to see neat items. It's like comparing a meal you would get at a nice restaurant with going to a buffet.