Diablo 3

[AEmer]

@ Jonas

First, how much did you play diablo 1? and when did you play it?

Second...Diablo 1 and how hardcore it was... well, it was a 1996 game. If you wanted more hardcore than diablo, you pretty much had something like wasteland, or the ultima series probably...or maybe textbased roguelikes, or quest for glory (I think?) or maybe might and magic 5. Potentially there was also first person contenders like lands of lore maybe?

You didn't even have Baldurs Gate or fallout or even might and magic 6, because those are 1997 and 1998 games

And yeah, I guess by comparison to the games I mention you could say that diablo was relatively soft?, but to our ears today that notion should ring inescapably hollow; it's like saying that a dude who has a 1969 camera doesn't really have a 1960'es muscle car because the only true 1960'es muscle car is 1960'es ford mustang. At the time, sure, one of them was considered a sub-par clone of the real thing, but anyone with todays perspective would say they're really pretty close to being the same thing.

Also, for that matter, I don't think I ever heard diablo described as softcore back then. Just as "not as hardcore" - and only because the hardcore option was something like ultima online, and that was distinctly a bad thing. I've heard that description for diablo 2, but I don't recall it as a description for diablo.

But honestly, that discussion is pretty tiresome. I've adressed it, because you brought it up, and I've already written this out - but honestly, what does it matter? Who cares how hardcore it was. How hardcore diablo 1 was is completely irrelevant to everything ever. I mean, sure, it might bug you that someone is wrong on the internet again, and you know there's the whole anthropological perspective on how things really were in the bad old days, but in my oppinion that's the least interesting aspect of that game.

Anyway I guarantee you that's not why I'm making that comparison. I'm not even saying it's made with old school sensibilities (...which in itself would be kindof dumb because it relies on nostalgia which isn't exactly a sign of quality...), I'm making the comparison for two reasons: To illustrate just how little blizzard had to work with when designing the story of diablo 3, and in order to illustrate how a hack and slash game can pull you in and get you to care...which diablo 3 doesn't even pretend to.

@ DDL

Have you played magicka? Are you honestly telling me that you didn't find the story of Magicka to be a strength of the game? I mean the gameplay is f'in awesome, but the story really does add to it, in my oppinion. Also, this is the year that Kotor was released, and the only reason that it's been worth playing around with that at all has been the story of the game.
It's an important aspect of hack and slash games to have a proper setup and a reason for slashing things, because otherwise the game degenerates into a number crunching puzzle and some manual dexterity play that really isn't that good. When it's just not there, I think it should be pointed out.

[DDL]

Magicka doesn't have level grind. It'd be difficult to even say it has item grind: you only carry two things and there's no inventory. This puts a much greater emphasis on story. Plus it's unapologetically silly, whereas the diablos are very po-faced.

Also, you're sounding surprisingly defensive: I hope you don't think we're being aggressively LOL UR RONG, coz that's not my intention at all. Can't speak for Jonas, of course.

[Jonas]

I hope you don't think we're being aggressively LOL UR RONG, coz that's not my intention at all. Can't speak for Jonas, of course.

No no I'm in laid-back discussion mode here, I like all the Diablo games

Just not for the same reasons as Aemer, I think.

First, how much did you play diablo 1? and when did you play it?

Second...Diablo 1 and how hardcore it was... well, it was a 1996 game. If you wanted more hardcore than diablo, you pretty much had something like wasteland, or the ultima series probably...or maybe textbased roguelikes, or quest for glory (I think?) or maybe might and magic 5. Potentially there was also first person contenders like lands of lore maybe?

You didn't even have Baldurs Gate or fallout or even might and magic 6, because those are 1997 and 1998 games

That's true, I was unclear in my post. I played Diablo 1 all the way through (and just messed around a lot in the first act before and after the playthrough that I finished). I played it in hot seat, which is to say with a friend where we took turns controlling the game. This was around the time it came out. Being that we were 10 years old, we didn't talk much about games in terms other than "woah did you try that quest / level / boss / item / easter egg? That was awesome / awful / scary / difficult / hilarious" (strike any that don't apply). Once I hit high school, the level of discussion was elevated somewhat when I found myself part of a group of roleplaying gamers (tabletop as well as computer RPGs). That was well after Diablo 2 had come out, must've been around 2002, but the Diablo series was always used as the example of a pseudo-RPG without enough narrative and character compared to the very very newly released NWN. Diablo was to us as anything BioWare makes is to the RPG Codex now.

But honestly, that discussion is pretty tiresome. I've adressed it, because you brought it up, and I've already written this out - but honestly, what does it matter? Who cares how hardcore it was. How hardcore diablo 1 was is completely irrelevant to everything ever. I mean, sure, it might bug you that someone is wrong on the internet again, and you know there's the whole anthropological perspective on how things really were in the bad old days, but in my oppinion that's the least interesting aspect of that game.

Uh well I'm sorry that I bothered you then

Anyway I guarantee you that's not why I'm making that comparison. I'm not even saying it's made with old school sensibilities (...which in itself would be kindof dumb because it relies on nostalgia which isn't exactly a sign of quality...), I'm making the comparison for two reasons: To illustrate just how little blizzard had to work with when designing the story of diablo 3, and in order to illustrate how a hack and slash game can pull you in and get you to care...which diablo 3 doesn't even pretend to.

Sure, I think I agree with all of that.

[AEmer]

@ DDL

Well, Magicka doesn't have level grind, but it does have progression, because you, as a player, get better. I don't know if you've played it in single player or coop, but there's a very clear feeling of "I'm getting better at this" to the game; to the point where the game comfortably introduces ever harder enemies without really giving you better tools.
Anyway, I'm not sure why an item system and a much more aritificial progression is an excuse to slack on story, be it serious or not. Fundamentally, you need a reason to be doing things. The better your sense that you're killing demonspawn from hell, the more thrilling the experience is likely to be. A lot of things add up to give you that experience.

And ok, so the giant bouncing titties of diablo 1 succubi probably make you snicker more than anything, but nobody's perfect.

Also, you're sounding surprisingly defensive: I hope you don't think we're being aggressively LOL UR RONG, coz that's not my intention at all.

Don't worry, I don't. If I sound defensive it's probably because I find the discussion stimulating and I want to make my points punchy. I may have gone and pulled out guns that were a tad too big in my haste to do that...

@ Jonas

Uh well I'm sorry that I bothered you then

Come on man, you know I don't mean it like that. It just occured to me after the fact that I'd spent 10 minutes trying to describe something that's pretty dull and inconsequential when you think about it.

That was well after Diablo 2 had come out, must've been around 2002, but the Diablo series was always used as the example of a pseudo-RPG without enough narrative and character compared to the very very newly released NWN. Diablo was to us as anything BioWare makes is to the RPG Codex now.

Meanwhile, I've learned that many of the people I studied computer science with played diablo 2 religiously back then, and consider it _the_ game of their young-adult years.
I don't doubt for a second that a ton of people looked down on diablo 2, and I don't doubt that many people felt like diablo was some shallow copycat game.
I think that's pretty unfair, but you know, it happened 10 years ago, I think I'll learn to be ok with that .

That said, I get why people in 02 would sniff at diablo 2 and say something like, "look at planescape torment, that's a real rpg! It has roleplaying! diablo doesn't, so it's not even an rpg!"
I understand that notion, and the reasons why people made it. And from an anthropological standpoint, I guess it holds my interest. But I don't think that oppinion really holds up.

Anyway, if you want to talk game design in present tense, then I don't think we should be conflating diablos, or talking about what people felt, and I don't think we should even consider release dates...at least unless there's some specific purpose.
All those things muddy everything. But I'm open to a discussion about where diablo 1 had good or bad design, and where it was good and where it was bad, if that's what you want. That, I actually do think might be interesting

[Jaedar]

That was well after Diablo 2 had come out, must've been around 2002, but the Diablo series was always used as the example of a pseudo-RPG without enough narrative and character compared to the very very newly released NWN. Diablo was to us as anything BioWare makes is to the RPG Codex now.

Funny trivia for you: The Codex "hivemind" probably likes diablo more than NWN.

Meanwhile, I've learned that many of the people I studied computer science with played diablo 2 religiously back then, and consider it _the_ game of their young-adult years.

Think I fit in to this group somewhat. Diablo 2 was one of the games I played the most of as a kid.

[Jonas]

Meanwhile, I've learned that many of the people I studied computer science with played diablo 2 religiously back then, and consider it _the_ game of their young-adult years.
I don't doubt for a second that a ton of people looked down on diablo 2, and I don't doubt that many people felt like diablo was some shallow copycat game.
I think that's pretty unfair, but you know, it happened 10 years ago, I think I'll learn to be ok with that .

I think you're missing the point. We'd all played Diablo 1 and 2 extensively as well, we just didn't consider it a "real" RPG and we didn't play it for the plot and the characters.

But to be fair I don't remember what point I was trying to make.

Something about perceptions changing over time, I guess. But since you're not interested in talking about that, I'll drop it.

[fantsu]

D1 was never an RPG.

I love the first Diablo, but it was never a groundbreaking game, just plain fun to play.

Man, even Crusader: No Remorse (I think it came out year before D1) was more of an RPG with more story and voice acting.

Not sure if No Regret came out before D1, but those games are the ones that really started out some major storylines in bird-eye-perspective games.

[AEmer]

we just didn't consider it a "real" RPG and we didn't play it for the plot and the characters.

In a certain sense I understand that. I can see why you'd want to make it a point to say "x is better than y" - and rather than say that outright you do it by proxy by calling it a non-rpg, or a more shallow experience, or what have you, because you want more of the thing you think is good and less of the thing you don't think is quite as good.

Thing is, though, I think that entire approach is wronghanded because something like NVN and something like diablo are such completely different experiences. They may have some of the same elements and some of the same concepts, but they're trying to do such different things on so many levels, I think it's pretty hard to say people ought to have a preference one way or another.

[Jonas]

In a certain sense I understand that. I can see why you'd want to make it a point to say "x is better than y" - and rather than say that outright you do it by proxy by calling it a non-rpg, or a more shallow experience, or what have you, because you want more of the thing you think is good and less of the thing you don't think is quite as good.

Thing is, though, I think that entire approach is wronghanded because something like NVN and something like diablo are such completely different experiences. They may have some of the same elements and some of the same concepts, but they're trying to do such different things on so many levels, I think it's pretty hard to say people ought to have a preference one way or another.

Yeah that's the opposite of what I was saying.

But whatever.

[Jaedar]

Apparently there's a lot of accounts getting hacked.

Unofficially, the theory is that blizzard fucked up their security and you can gain access to someones account just by joining a game with them in it.

[AEmer]

@ Jonas

Sorry for the delay, just came home from vacation. Which was brilliant. Go see amsterdam if you haven't. Also bring money. 'Tis expensive.

As for my misunderstanding what you said...uh, well, perhaps you can explain this to me:

Why was it important to you guys to classify Diablo as a pseudo RPG compared to a real RPG such as neverwinter nights? I mean...you guys, what was it, grudgingly admired it's slick design, even as you scorned it for being mindless hack and slash? You apparently specifically disliked it for it's lack of narrative and character, from my understanding.

Perhaps I jumped too far with my conclusion when I figured that what you guys were doing was establishing a hierarchy of game qualities you had a preference for?

[Jonas]

We were trying really hard to be very intellectual about our approach to games and roleplaying, and somehow it was important to us to classify what was allowed to be called a real roleplaying game and what wasn't.

This was not a question of "x is better than y" but "x is an example of z, y is not". We thought it was lacking quite severely in terms of narrative and characters, but as I recall, we acknowledged even back then that its purpose lay elsewhere

Which is why I raise an eyebrow when you describe Diablo as having very memorable characters. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this... does not match my recollection of the game.

[AEmer]

Yes but what was that reason though? Were you just trying to impress eachother with your powers of observation and deduction?

Or did you feel that the distinction between real and poser rpg's was actually meaningful, that it said something important?

[AEmer]

Also, I'm not saying diablo has very memorable characters. I mean, I do remember them, I remember quite a few of the stories, I even remember a good chunk of the gossip.

But when the game was over, Tristram, Griswold, Wirt, Gillian, Ogden, Cain, Lazarus, King Leoric - these things existed in your mind.

When diablo 2 was over, what was really there? The Horadrim, Tyreal, Hell, Soulstones, the Worldstone, maybe the locations like Kurast and the pandemonium fortress?

It's like diablo 3 is similar to pirates of the carribean 4. The first pirates movie doesn't really have memorable characters, but the 2nd and 3rd movies at least have something to work with. However the 3rd one wraps everything up - just as diablo 2 wraps everything up. What can the next game - or movie - really draw on that is meaningful in a narrative context?

What diablo 2 leaves behind is almost completely impossible to use for building a narrative that ties things together. What diablo 1 left behind was excellent in that regard, at least by comparison.

[Jaedar]

It should be noted that diablos ending was.... pretty strange. Dude just stabbed himself with the pointy red rock for seemingly no reason.

It was the same with diablo2, first you had baal surviving, which they tied up in the expansion. But at the end of that the worldstone shatters. Do they make anything of that? Not that I am aware.

Also definitions are important. Whether something is or isn't an rpg should tell you just as much as whether it is or isn't an fps, or an rts or a beat'em up.