Why Diablo 2 Is Better Than 3
People seem to believe that the Diablo 2 stat point allocation has been lost. Not true, the stat point allocation system has been migrated onto items. You still choose what stats you want to 'level' through choosing items with that stat. Itemisation in Diablo 3 is what stat allocation was in Diablo 2.
I actually like Titan Quest + Immortal Throne better. Main reason being is the mutli-mastery system was much more interesting and being a newer game the graphics/physics/etc were much better.I've also been playing Grim Dawn lately, and while still being developed it's fantastic. It's by some of the same folks that developed TQ, and has many similarities (multi-mastery, engine, etc). With that said they've really expanded on the gameplay systems and is shaping up to be my next favorite ARPG.Before you make the mistake of assumption, yes, I've played D2. I played it for 100's of hours in fact. Awesome game, and certainly one that deserves the accolades it gets. To be fair, there's a ton of stuff that I think Diablo 2 does better:-I do like the dark art style better-Closed online vs only open for TQ-Blizzard cinematics are some of the best in the business.
Yeah quite a few are as good or better.Lol no, not even close. Diablo 2 is by far the best online action RPG ever made. This stuffs more addictive than cocaine.
I played this game nearly every day from 2001 all the way to 2009. 8 fucking years. I believe there were still 50-60,000 concurrent online players at any given time when I retired. I clocked 10,000 hours into that game, which is 30 times more than my 2nd most played game. So fun to grind, find items and not to mention the best and most competitive PVP of its kind. WoW PVP is absolutely terrible in comparison.Shame D3 was so bad. Hardly played 200 hours of it :(.
I actually like Titan Quest + Immortal Throne better. Main reason being is the mutli-mastery system was much more interesting and being a newer game the graphics/physics/etc were much better.I've also been playing Grim Dawn lately, and while still being developed it's fantastic. It's by some of the same folks that developed TQ, and has many similarities (multi-mastery, engine, etc).
With that said they've really expanded on the gameplay systems and is shaping up to be my next favorite ARPG.Before you make the mistake of assumption, yes, I've played D2. I played it for 100's of hours in fact. Awesome game, and certainly one that deserves the accolades it gets. To be fair, there's a ton of stuff that I think Diablo 2 does better:-I do like the dark art style better-Closed online vs only open for TQ-Blizzard cinematics are some of the best in the businessexactly. I loved Titan quest immortal throne.
On top of what you mentioned i actually liked the level design more than Diablo 2. It's not better but Torchlight 2 is almost as good as Diablo 2. When Diablo 3 launched it was pretty disappointing (not a bad game but disappointing) and Torchlight 2 was the game that made me feel like I was playing a real Diablo 2's sequel.
Now Diablo 3's current state is great. But yeah, Torchlight 2. 10/10.Yeah Diablo 3 has REALLY come along way in improving, got to hand it to Blizzard they released a absolute dud and stuck with it. Now the biggest problem imo compared to the original is the requiring to be max level or level cap to do anything worth a damn.
This would be fine if the game had a huge pvp scene, which it is criminal it hasn't yet (the game begs for a arena mode with brackets), but in the pve environment it gets bland. Basically all the items are worthless in less it is a weapon you find at level 60. In Diablo 2 some of the best items in the game required only level 29 or 42, with the cap being level 99.
Something very few ever got to. It's not better but Torchlight 2 is almost as good as Diablo 2. When Diablo 3 launched it was pretty disappointing (not a bad game but disappointing) and Torchlight 2 was the game that made me feel like I was playing a real Diablo 2's sequel. Now Diablo 3's current state is great. But yeah, Torchlight 2. 10/10.Yeah Diablo 3 has REALLY come along way in improving, got to hand it to Blizzard they released a absolute dud and stuck with it. Now the biggest problem imo compared to the original is the requiring to be max level or level cap to do anything worth a damn.
This would be fine if the game had a huge pvp scene, which it is criminal it hasn't yet (the game begs for a arena mode with brackets), but in the pve environment it gets bland. Basically all the items are worthless in less it is a weapon you find at level 60.
In Diablo 2 some of the best items in the game required only level 29 or 42, with the cap being level 99. Something very few ever got to.Blizzard loves its games.
Even when the game has smooth launch, they support it for years. In the case of Diablo 3, they did complete 180. Great job I'd say. Most random, pointless 'peasant' insult ever. People who prefer modern vastly improved and more EXPENSIVE version of an archaic incredibly simplistic game are peasants? Yeah, peasant, you need to look the word up I'm pretty sure you have absolutely no idea what it means.In the gaming world, peasants are not referred to as peasants for being financially poor, but instead peasants are referred to as peasants for being intellectually poor.-A college-educated man.Diablo 2, at the time, was an example of both impressive setting/lore, combat and matchmaking.
With an online that lasted literally 10 years, whose PC version currently has more players online than its Diablo 3 successor, whose combat was as addictive as crack and whose grimdarkyness was cringed at by all. It also had an impressive combat system at the time coming from Diablo 1. However, it was its expansion that really made the game take off by adding a shit ton of content for players to do.
Diablo 2 undeniable set things in stone for future MMORPGS and PC ARPGS.Now, there were plenty of criticisms for Diablo 2 coming out of the first one, but that pales in comparison to the criticism Diablo 3 receives coming out of Diablo 2. Diablo 3: was dumbed down, kiddyfied from the original's dark setting, had its economy ruined by an in-game real money auction house (this was important for Diablo 2), became a huge ham-fest where all the antagonists try to out yell each other much like WoW villains, and otherwise had many key features of Diablo 2 either poorly or never implemented like clans, PvP, hardcore, ladders and proper itemization.
Lastly, Diablo 3 was just fucking broken on release and it took them years to fix it, the difficulty and scaling made absolutely no sense, and between one difficulty and the next the game was either far too easy or utterly impossible (talking about endgame, not normal/nightmare/hell/etc,) Diablo 3 really was/is a peace of shit in comparison to Diablo 2.To its credit, Diablo 3 has recently managed to pull itself out of the gutter, but by now it's too little too late. The game might as well be dead.That's why I called you a peasant. For prefering a much shittier sequel to a game I like. You might argue that Diablo 2 was only good for its time, but then why was it played for 10 years while its successor was almost dead on release?
The other person I called a peasant for liking the console version, which is. Slightly more idiotic. Most random, pointless 'peasant' insult ever. People who prefer modern vastly improved and more EXPENSIVE version of an archaic incredibly simplistic game are peasants? Yeah, peasant, you need to look the word up I'm pretty sure you have absolutely no idea what it means.In the gaming world, peasants are not referred to as peasants for being financially poor, but instead peasants are referred to as peasants for being intellectually poor.-A college-educated man.Diablo 2, at the time, was an example of both impressive setting/lore, combat and matchmaking.
With an online that lasted literally 10 years, whose PC version currently has more players online than its Diablo 3 successor, whose combat was as addictive as crack and whose grimdarkyness was cringed at by all. It also had an impressive combat system at the time coming from Diablo 1.
However, it was its expansion that really made the game take off by adding a shit ton of content for players to do. Diablo 2 undeniable set things in stone for future MMORPGS and PC ARPGS.Now, there were plenty of criticisms for Diablo 2 coming out of the first one, but that pales in comparison to the criticism Diablo 3 receives coming out of Diablo 2. Diablo 3: was dumbed down, kiddyfied from the original's dark setting, had its economy ruined by an in-game real money auction house (this was important for Diablo 2), became a huge ham-fest where all the antagonists try to out yell each other much like WoW villains, and otherwise had many key features of Diablo 2 either poorly or never implemented like clans, PvP, hardcore, ladders and proper itemization. Lastly, Diablo 3 was just fucking broken on release and it took them years to fix it, the difficulty and scaling made absolutely no sense, and between one difficulty and the next the game was either far too easy or utterly impossible (talking about endgame, not normal/nightmare/hell/etc,) Diablo 3 really was/is a peace of shit in comparison to Diablo 2.To its credit, Diablo 3 has recently managed to pull itself out of the gutter, but by now it's too little too late.
The game might as well be dead.That's why I called you a peasant. For prefering a much shittier sequel to a game I like. You might argue that Diablo 2 was only good for its time, but then why was it played for 10 years while its successor was almost dead on release? The other person I called a peasant for liking the console version, which is. Slightly more idiotic.In the gaming world, PC gamers refer to console gamers as peasants because they play games on inferior hardware. You know this already, it's nothing to do with being intellectually poor.I would consider intellectually poor to be someone who says 'Diablo 2, at the time, was an example of both impressive setting/lore, combat and matchmaking'.
This comment does not come from an individual who qualifies for higher education. Diablo 2 had a setting that was anything but impressive. You spend your whole time in a fucking dungeon.
The lore was pretty much non existent (are you really talking about Diablo 2 here or are you confusing it with a completely different game that actually has lore?). The combat was great for an ARPG and the matchmaking well anyone who devotes years of their life playing an incredibly dumb ARPG online I think you need to reconsider your stance on calling anyone else a 'peasant'.The trials and tribulations of Diablo 3 are well documented that's why I avoided it completely for the longest time. The AH fiasco alone was enough to guarantee I wouldn't go anywhere near it. I tried it recently on PS4 and thought it was a much better experience than Diablo 2 though of course back in the day D2 was a big deal as the genre was still fresh at that time and that's based on SP I absolutely can not imagine anything more boring than Diablo Online.By the way your cheap jibes at console players say much, much more about you than it will ever say about them and that's coming from a VETERAN PC gamer of many years.
Most random, pointless 'peasant' insult ever. People who prefer modern vastly improved and more EXPENSIVE version of an archaic incredibly simplistic game are peasants? Yeah, peasant, you need to look the word up I'm pretty sure you have absolutely no idea what it means.In the gaming world, peasants are not referred to as peasants for being financially poor, but instead peasants are referred to as peasants for being intellectually poor.-A college-educated man.Diablo 2, at the time, was an example of both impressive setting/lore, combat and matchmaking. With an online that lasted literally 10 years, whose PC version currently has more players online than its Diablo 3 successor, whose combat was as addictive as crack and whose grimdarkyness was cringed at by all. It also had an impressive combat system at the time coming from Diablo 1.
However, it was its expansion that really made the game take off by adding a shit ton of content for players to do. Diablo 2 undeniable set things in stone for future MMORPGS and PC ARPGS.Now, there were plenty of criticisms for Diablo 2 coming out of the first one, but that pales in comparison to the criticism Diablo 3 receives coming out of Diablo 2. Diablo 3: was dumbed down, kiddyfied from the original's dark setting, had its economy ruined by an in-game real money auction house (this was important for Diablo 2), became a huge ham-fest where all the antagonists try to out yell each other much like WoW villains, and otherwise had many key features of Diablo 2 either poorly or never implemented like clans, PvP, hardcore, ladders and proper itemization.
Lastly, Diablo 3 was just fucking broken on release and it took them years to fix it, the difficulty and scaling made absolutely no sense, and between one difficulty and the next the game was either far too easy or utterly impossible (talking about endgame, not normal/nightmare/hell/etc,) Diablo 3 really was/is a peace of shit in comparison to Diablo 2.To its credit, Diablo 3 has recently managed to pull itself out of the gutter, but by now it's too little too late. The game might as well be dead.That's why I called you a peasant. For prefering a much shittier sequel to a game I like. You might argue that Diablo 2 was only good for its time, but then why was it played for 10 years while its successor was almost dead on release?
The other person I called a peasant for liking the console version, which is. Slightly more idiotic.In the gaming world, PC gamers refer to console gamers as peasants because they play games on inferior hardware.
You know this already, it's nothing to do with being intellectually poor.I would consider intellectually poor to be someone who says ' Diablo 2, at the time, was an example of both impressive setting/lore, combat and matchmaking'. This comment does not come from an individual who qualifies for higher education. Diablo 2 had a setting that was anything but impressive.
You spend your whole time in a fucking dungeon. The lore was pretty much non existent (are you really talking about Diablo 2 here or are you confusing it with a completely different game that actually has lore?).
The combat was great for an ARPG and the matchmaking well anyone who devotes years of their life playing an incredibly dumb ARPG online I think you need to reconsider your stance on calling anyone else a 'peasant'.The trials and tribulations of Diablo 3 are well documented that's why I avoided it completely for the longest time. The AH fiasco alone was enough to guarantee I wouldn't go anywhere near it. Most random, pointless 'peasant' insult ever. People who prefer modern vastly improved and more EXPENSIVE version of an archaic incredibly simplistic game are peasants?
Yeah, peasant, you need to look the word up I'm pretty sure you have absolutely no idea what it means.In the gaming world, peasants are not referred to as peasants for being financially poor, but instead peasants are referred to as peasants for being intellectually poor.-A college-educated man.Diablo 2, at the time, was an example of both impressive setting/lore, combat and matchmaking. With an online that lasted literally 10 years, whose PC version currently has more players online than its Diablo 3 successor, whose combat was as addictive as crack and whose grimdarkyness was cringed at by all. It also had an impressive combat system at the time coming from Diablo 1. However, it was its expansion that really made the game take off by adding a shit ton of content for players to do. Diablo 2 undeniable set things in stone for future MMORPGS and PC ARPGS.Now, there were plenty of criticisms for Diablo 2 coming out of the first one, but that pales in comparison to the criticism Diablo 3 receives coming out of Diablo 2. Diablo 3: was dumbed down, kiddyfied from the original's dark setting, had its economy ruined by an in-game real money auction house (this was important for Diablo 2), became a huge ham-fest where all the antagonists try to out yell each other much like WoW villains, and otherwise had many key features of Diablo 2 either poorly or never implemented like clans, PvP, hardcore, ladders and proper itemization.
Lastly, Diablo 3 was just fucking broken on release and it took them years to fix it, the difficulty and scaling made absolutely no sense, and between one difficulty and the next the game was either far too easy or utterly impossible (talking about endgame, not normal/nightmare/hell/etc,) Diablo 3 really was/is a peace of shit in comparison to Diablo 2.To its credit, Diablo 3 has recently managed to pull itself out of the gutter, but by now it's too little too late. The game might as well be dead.That's why I called you a peasant. For prefering a much shittier sequel to a game I like. You might argue that Diablo 2 was only good for its time, but then why was it played for 10 years while its successor was almost dead on release? The other person I called a peasant for liking the console version, which is. Slightly more idiotic.In the gaming world, PC gamers refer to console gamers as peasants because they play games on inferior hardware. You know this already, it's nothing to do with being intellectually poor.I would consider intellectually poor to be someone who says ' Diablo 2, at the time, was an example of both impressive setting/lore, combat and matchmaking'.
This comment does not come from an individual who qualifies for higher education. Diablo 2 had a setting that was anything but impressive. You spend your whole time in a fucking dungeon.
The lore was pretty much non existent (are you really talking about Diablo 2 here or are you confusing it with a completely different game that actually has lore?). The combat was great for an ARPG and the matchmaking well anyone who devotes years of their life playing an incredibly dumb ARPG online I think you need to reconsider your stance on calling anyone else a 'peasant'.The trials and tribulations of Diablo 3 are well documented that's why I avoided it completely for the longest time. The AH fiasco alone was enough to guarantee I wouldn't go anywhere near it. @blueinheaven:I'm aware of what I'm comparing it to.
Diablo 3 is a worse game back then than Diablo 2 is now. The only thing Diablo 3 does better is graphics, that doesn't make a game. You still haven't done anything to refute anything I've said aside from the story, I agree, it did have a shit story, but it's much better than anything else back then. You've more or less just spent this entire time spitting insults and you have the gall to call me poisonous?I am very disappointed you resort to 'console only gamer' as a puerile juvenile insult.I think you are worthy of Veteran status. Veteran Troll will suffice. Hey, don't feel bad, embittered and twisted PC gamer who cries every day because things just aren't how they used to be would make you look fucking pitiful but it's okay we are nice people on here and will spare you the horrible truth.lol. @blueinheaven:I'm aware of what I'm comparing it to.
Diablo 3 is a worse game back then than Diablo 2 is now. The only thing Diablo 3 does better is graphics, that doesn't make a game. You still haven't done anything to refute anything I've said aside from the story, I agree, it did have a shit story, but it's much better than anything else back then. You've more or less just spent this entire time spitting insults and you have the gall to call me poisonous?I am very disappointed you resort to 'console only gamer' as a puerile juvenile insult.I think you are worthy of Veteran status. Veteran Troll will suffice. Hey, don't feel bad, embittered and twisted PC gamer who cries every day because things just aren't how they used to be would make you look fucking pitiful but it's okay we are nice people on here and will spare you the horrible truth.lolI have refuted everything you've said every step of the way you just won't acknowledge it.
Diablo 3 now is what Diablo 2 was then. Incredibly flimsy story that doesn't even attempt to justify what the game actually is i.e.
Kill, loot, keep killing keep looting get better stuff better skills that's all both of them are.The only difference is D3 got off to a terrible start but that's okay I can read as well as anyone and avoided it completely till the version I thought I could live with finally went on sale.You still haven't said what D2 did better back then or since than what D3 does now because you can't. It's the same game because Blizzard did pretty much sod all to it apart from taking years to make D3 a game people might want to buy.D3 looks better than D2 and plays the same. You hate that, specially now that console gamers are playing it too that's possibly your worst nightmare as you live in this really weird world where a game can only be good if it's played on PC.Of all the games you could have picked as legendary PC titles you pick not Planescape Torment not Ultima Underworld not UFO Enemy Unknown you pick fucking Diablo 2 lmao!
@blueinheaven:I'm aware of what I'm comparing it to. Diablo 3 is a worse game back then than Diablo 2 is now.
The only thing Diablo 3 does better is graphics, that doesn't make a game. You still haven't done anything to refute anything I've said aside from the story, I agree, it did have a shit story, but it's much better than anything else back then. You've more or less just spent this entire time spitting insults and you have the gall to call me poisonous?I am very disappointed you resort to 'console only gamer' as a puerile juvenile insult.I think you are worthy of Veteran status. Veteran Troll will suffice.
Hey, don't feel bad, embittered and twisted PC gamer who cries every day because things just aren't how they used to be would make you look fucking pitiful but it's okay we are nice people on here and will spare you the horrible truth.lolI have refuted everything you've said every step of the way you just won't acknowledge it. Diablo 3 now is what Diablo 2 was then. Incredibly flimsy story that doesn't even attempt to justify what the game actually is i.e.
Kill, loot, keep killing keep looting get better stuff better skills that's all both of them are.The only difference is D3 got off to a terrible start but that's okay I can read as well as anyone and avoided it completely till the version I thought I could live with finally went on sale.You still haven't said what D2 did better back then or since than what D3 does now because you can't. It's the same game because Blizzard did pretty much sod all to it apart from taking years to make D3 a game people might want to buy.D3 looks better than D2 and plays the same. You hate that, specially now that console gamers are playing it too that's possibly your worst nightmare as you live in this really weird world where a game can only be good if it's played on PC.Of all the games you could have picked as legendary PC titles you pick not Planescape Torment not Ultima Underworld not UFO Enemy Unknown you pick fucking Diablo 2 lmao!Where? I provided MUCH more explanation as to why Diablo 3 is nothing compared to Diablo 2.
Why Diablo 2 Is Better Than 3 2
All you did was make singular statements without any substance or explanation: Literally 'because I said so' reasoning.It got off to a terrible start, and then everyone abandoned it to never comeback. It killed the fucking game from the start. Barely any people play the PC version now, I don't know about the console version.D3 looks better (factually true) than D2 and plays the same (factually wrong).' It's dumbed down and doesn't have any of the initial features that made people like Diablo 2.
Hah, I don't give two shits if it's on consoles. I gave up on it a year before I even realized it was going to consoles.Lol, as an ARPG, yeah. Those games you mentioned are much better than Diablo 2.We wouldn't be having this conversation if you were to actually name games better than Diablo 2.
Diablo 3 is in no fucking way better than Diablo 2.I was only joking when I said 'protip: you can't.' Why don't you change your answer to Deus Ex or fallback onto Torchlight 2? @blueinheaven:I'm aware of what I'm comparing it to. Diablo 3 is a worse game back then than Diablo 2 is now. The only thing Diablo 3 does better is graphics, that doesn't make a game. You still haven't done anything to refute anything I've said aside from the story, I agree, it did have a shit story, but it's much better than anything else back then. You've more or less just spent this entire time spitting insults and you have the gall to call me poisonous?I am very disappointed you resort to 'console only gamer' as a puerile juvenile insult.I think you are worthy of Veteran status.
Veteran Troll will suffice. Hey, don't feel bad, embittered and twisted PC gamer who cries every day because things just aren't how they used to be would make you look fucking pitiful but it's okay we are nice people on here and will spare you the horrible truth.lolI have refuted everything you've said every step of the way you just won't acknowledge it. Diablo 3 now is what Diablo 2 was then. Incredibly flimsy story that doesn't even attempt to justify what the game actually is i.e. Kill, loot, keep killing keep looting get better stuff better skills that's all both of them are.The only difference is D3 got off to a terrible start but that's okay I can read as well as anyone and avoided it completely till the version I thought I could live with finally went on sale.You still haven't said what D2 did better back then or since than what D3 does now because you can't. It's the same game because Blizzard did pretty much sod all to it apart from taking years to make D3 a game people might want to buy.D3 looks better than D2 and plays the same.
You hate that, specially now that console gamers are playing it too that's possibly your worst nightmare as you live in this really weird world where a game can only be good if it's played on PC.Of all the games you could have picked as legendary PC titles you pick not Planescape Torment not Ultima Underworld not UFO Enemy Unknown you pick fucking Diablo 2 lmao!Where? I provided MUCH more explanation as to why Diablo 3 is nothing compared to Diablo 2. All you did was make singular statements without any substance or explanation: Literally 'because I said so'It got off to a terrible start, and then everyone abandoned it to never comeback. It killed the fucking game from the start. Barely any people play the PC version now, I don't know about the console version.D3 looks better (factually true) than D2 and plays the same (factually wrong).' It's dumbed down and doesn't have any of the initial features that made people like Diablo 2.
Hah, I don't give two shits if it goes to consoles. I gave up on it a year before I even realized it was going to consoles.Lol, as an ARPG, yeah. Those games you mentioned are much better than Diablo 2.You gave no explanation as to why D2 is better.
You spouted nonsense about setting and lore which is actually lies. D2 has neither, not a grain of it, not even a hint of either. D3 is the same game it just took them longer to get it right because they were too busy trying to screw stupid people over for money because that's what Blizzard do. And D3 looks better so therefore the same game that looks better = better game. Even you can see how this works.I have to give you props though for suggesting that Diablo 2 could be 'dumbed down' LOL.I know the games I mentioned are not ARPG's but they are classic, legendary PC games from back when PC games were actually amazing and not just another fucking multiplat that looks better in higher resolution.
You wouldn't understand. My point is D2 is a hilarious example for anyone to uphold of PC gaming excellence but you wouldn't know that as you have no history with the platform.Anyway, I am off to bed. It's late here in the UK. Feel free to insult me and expand upon D2's amazing setting and deep lore (LOL).
2 Is Better Fm
Diablo 2 and D2 LoD were market changers, new era of arpg. Obviously, game got old, but it was extremely advanced, enjoyable and popular many years after its release (some even say that its prime in gameplay and popularity was in 2003-007). It started dying out sometime after 2010, when blizzard stopped caring about new serious patches and bot wardens.Is Diablo 3 a better game? Currently yes. Was vanilla Diablo 3 better than Diablo 2? It was worse in every aspect, it surpased d2 after RoS and few more patches (mainly greaters and seasons), so it wasnt an easy task.
Or other way around - vanilla Diablo 3 was so bad that it wasnt hard to be a better game or to repair it.Is Diablo 2 still better in some aspects? Diablo 2 is probably the closest to perfect ARPG game ever made. In D2, you level up, and while you're leveling up you find gear that you will use. It isn't like D3 in the way that you level up to 70 in an hour, then find a set, then follow this certain path.
It really just is a different kind of game. While I was waiting for the new D3 ladder to start, I went back to D2, and I was floored with how much fun I was having playing it. The graphics are actually pretty awesome, and hold up well. The only issue I have with it now is the low chance for rune drops. Runes are essential to making the highest-powered gear in the game, and their drop rate is very low. Without botting, I doubt people find enough to make most runewords. Even with botting, I had trouble finding all the runes I needed (minus through trading).
But even with trading, it seems runes were the only things anyone wanted and wanted to trade with. Over-all though, if you want to try it, you should. I would def recommend doing it while d3 season is coming to a chill.
It will definitely be a good time. There's a reddit D2 server called Slash Diablo that is active and is also active in getting rid of any botters. When it first came out though, it was the only of its kind that actually matter/good/worth playing. And because it dominated that position for so long, people became so fond of it that it get its reputation even to this day.Very well said,. My only addition to the other comments here is that Diablo 2 was great in its time, but I think Diablo 3 is better today except in class selection.
D2 classes blow D3 classes out of the water. No comparison. I'm almost disappointed with the classes in D3. Looking back, I SO want to play an Amazon, Druid, or Necromancer in D3. If they brought the D2 classes to D3, D3 might be the best game ever.edit for quote credit.
A different game, for a different time. Kids these days will never know the struggle of logically figuring out builds on their own, and committing to spending skill points. Nor will they know the struggle of trading items, memorizing item trade values, and negotiating.in other words, most of us 80s-90s kids will always put d2 lod on a pedestal because it was a solid game, that challenged you as an individual.
2 Is Better Far East Movement
You either took it for what it was, or not. D3 ros is like d2 lod with bumpers and padding.
Yeah, some rose-tinted glasses here. The biggest problem with D2 is that when you pick skills, you're locked in forever. If you want to experiment with builds, you have to start a new char. You can't experiment; if you want to build a char properly you just have to follow a build from the start.There was a lot of bitching when D3 came out about how easy it is to change your skill build.
But I think this was absolutely the right decision. What you lose in the feeling of personalisation, you more than make up for by being able to experiment and tweak and then look at a build if you want to optimize. Start a new char.
You can't experiment; if you want to build a char properly you just have to follow a build from the start.There was a lot of bitching when D3 came out about how easy it is to change your skill build. But I think this was absolutely the right decision. What you lose in the feeling of personalisation, you more than make up for by being able to experiment and tweak and then look at a build if you want to optimize.You can unlock your skills in D2 now. There is a cube recipe and Akara can do it 3 times per character as well.