This quote sums up my opinion. I think they should have kept it the same but updated. I especially dislike the fact that they dummed down the leveling. I liked making my own choices on my characters and customizing them. Diablo III doesn't really have this. Sure you can choose which spells to use but it is not the same as the customization you got in Diablo II.Diablo II in my own opinion, is mechanically perfect. What I mean is, things outside of mechanics are the only things that could be improved, such as graphics, balance, new features, etc. The way the game operates shouldn't be tampered with and Blizzard has shown that they don't see it that way by tearing the entire game down and rebuilding it all differently and trying to call it a Diablo II sequel.
What I am saying is, they need to preserve what was so great about Diablo II, and just improve on it rather than just changing everything to the point of being an entirely different game.
The grid based inventory is one example. This inventory system is one of the most eminent trademarks of Diablo II's mechanics, yet Blizzard [COUGH WoW Interns COUGH] decided to consider dropping it for slot based inventory. I don't know if they're still doing that, but I think it's a horrible idea.
One of the changes I DO agree on is the separation of PvM and PvP. The arena setup would also allow REAL legit tournaments to prove once and for all who really is the best PKer, rather than in DII where, all time, you run into pubs who claim they're #1... 99% of them using Gmod, AA, Tmc, Sorb, Juves, NKing, Bo killing, etc. You get the point, they're all douchebags and they're not actually good. If Blizzard pulls it off right, those kind of people wont have a place on Diablo III, they will stick to DII where they can rely on BMPK.
I love the graphics update and absolutely LOVE the idea of each person getting their own loot rather than in DII, where you have to have quickdraw reflexes to pick drops and compete with Pikit.
These are all GREAT improvements, but there is one problem. They're not preserving the mechanics that actually matter the most. They're creating an all new game, as far as I see it. I may be wrong, it could turn out to actually be better than Diablo II, but the chances of that happening are VERY low and I think that is why Blizzard are taking their time to ensure that they pull it off.
I am on the fence on this one. I honestly think the game is most likely going to be a St. Anger [That's a good laugh for those of you who actually get that joke lol] but who knows, maybe it wont it. We wont really know until it comes out.
I also think it was a horrible idea to not include the "Paladin" in their initial choice of classes. Most of your chronic D2 players [Pun half intended hehe] are dungeon crawlers. As we know, dungeon crawlers like the powerful Knights in shining armor. It really didn't HAVE to be a paladin exactly, it's the general DPS Melee Knight that dungeon crawlers love to play. The Zealer, The Charger, and The Smiter were all fun builds. I understand that Blizzard knows they created a monster when they created the Paladin, but honestly, the monster was 70% Hammerdin and 25% Fister. They would attract more hardcore players if they would bring back the "Knight", just without all of the flashy "Holy Magic" spells.
NONE of the current starting classes they've showed us so far fit this even loosely. Not the monk, not the Demon Hunter, not the Wizard, not the Barbarian... NONE of them. That's one huge mistake.
This is an excellent point as well.I think there are enough differences between these two sets to consider that a comparison is not fair. We are talking about different times, different players, different computers, and even a different Internet. We have to judge each game on the corresponding context. Anyway, as I said in another post, I think Diablo II marked a whole generation, and I don't think that Diablo III might add that accomplishment to a list of its merits.
Aside from WoW because it is what marked MMOs as a whole, do you think there will be any future great game to mark a whole generation? It is kind of hard to think of something that can accomplish it in this day and age of internet gaming.I think there are enough differences between these two sets to consider that a comparison is not fair. We are talking about different times, different players, different computers, and even a different Internet. We have to judge each game on the corresponding context. Anyway, as I said in another post, I think Diablo II marked a whole generation, and I don't think that Diablo III might add that accomplishment to a list of its merits.