Favorite Diablo 2 Charachter

[CrazyKillerMan 0]

Mines a druid

[JP- 0]

Paladin because he is an 'ok' fighter and i like healing people. Oh and because he is a knight type person and i like that.

[BladeRunner 0]

Where is the option "None of them, they are all dire characters from a dire game"?

[Deviant 0]

I love The Barbarian ... Superb devastating attack - the only real warrior

 

D.

[CrazyKillerMan 0]

Quote:

Where is the option "None of them, they are all dire characters from a dire game"?

heh....failed to see that pov.

[BladeRunner 0]

I know most will disagree, but in my eyes D2 was a victim of it's own hype.

We kept getting teasers, a mad scamble to get into the Beta test.

But, from the moment I ran that beta I knew something was rotten in the orchard.

I went out and bought it on release day, but to say disapointment is a bit of an understatement.

The 640x480 graphics annoyed me, the fact levels re-spawn after you leave the game annoyed me.

They also touted "You'll want to play again and again" but after I completed it in around 7-10 days with a Paladin I totally lost interest, really wasn't interested in going back.

Multiplayer gave the game a bit more lastability, but even that became sour after a while.

Sure their expansion pack gives you 800x600 graphics, but come on, this is 2001, not 1996!

[HarU 0]

Blade runner, You don't know what you are talking about. As far as the graphics go, imagine having the busiest servers in the world and selling the most games in the world. Now throw in all the money you would need to have servers to support all those games playing on all those servers running HIGH END graphics! The game would be sooo slow and choppy that no one would care about graphics anymore, they would just want playability. So, instead of doing the inevitable, they saved themselves time and money and made the resolutions lower because they knew it would pose a problem in the long run. That is why the graphics are the way they are. This also allows lower end machines the ability to enjoy this game as well.

[CUViper 0]

that's a lame excuse HarU... why not just give the user the option to run at any resolution they want? Give the options for anywhere from 640x480 to 1600x1200.... then everyone is happy. Oh, and the resolution you run at has NO effect on the amount of work the servers have to do...

[HarU 0]

Ummm, actually the resolution you run at doesn't affect the servers, it affects you. I retract that point of my argument. Have you ever played that game online? I have a geforce 2 pro with tbird 800 and 512 megs of ram and i lag out A LOT at 800x600. The problem is that there is so much commotion and action going on at once that it bogs your machine down. If you go higher, not only are you having to worry about the Latency, but now you are fighting with the speed of your computer. Another reason they didn't go higher is because creatures would spawn all at the same time on the screen whether you are next to them or not. So that would cause crashes. I bet they tried it at first and the amount of textures having to be rendered all at once completely crashed the machine. You ever played everquest? You notice the graphics on that game??

 

If blizzard allowed higher resolutions they would have to support them. This means severe testing (which would have delayed a game that had already been delayed about a year and was so eagerly awaited by EVERYONE) with different Display adapters at different res with different drivers. And like i said, there would be no way to have the game run as fast paced and as smooth as it does now if the res was higher.

 

Its amazing how you can sit there and rip on one of the best selling games ever (and still going strong) because the resolution isn't high enough. You guys are the kind of guys that aren't ever happy with what you get. You probably eagerly await every patch to come just so little things that you don't like get changed. You pick the most trivial thing about the game to rip on. Thats fine if you don't like it, but in order for you to respond and flame me Viper, you must REALLY not like the game. Instead of whining about a great game loved by everyone, go find yourself a game you think is better and let the D2 community enjoy the one game that has taken over all our free time do to its greatness.

 

P.S. In response to the original post.... Sorceress for life baby! (and im talking long before the whole fire wall and nova boom)

[BladeRunner 0]

I feel I have got every right to rip D2 apart, I parted with £40 of my money and unfortunately it was not a good purchase.

I work in IT, I am on a damn good wage, but £40 is £40 and I don't like wasting my money.

Now, onto resolutions.

D2 was not designed to be multi-player only.

First and foremost it is a single-player game, not everybody has Internet access, not everybody has access to a LAN.

Forcing a low resolution was necessary because of the way the graphics were done - sprites.

The reason for this is because D2 was over two years late, when they first started writing it their design was good, however when you release something 2 years late suddenly it looks dated.

Blizzard always said that 640x480 would be the maximum, furture resolution enhancements were not possible, it was a supprise when the expansion pack offered a slightly higher resolution.

You argument on screen resolution and Internet lag is very, very flawed.

The resolution doesn't make the slightest amount of difference as all screen rendering is done on the local PC.

You move your character and the server in turn tells all other clients (If they can see you) that you have moved and force a re-draw on their screen.

I play many on-line games, Anarchy On-line being my current favourite.

I play that at 1024x768 with maximum details on, sure lag exists in major towns (It will when you;ve got a couple of hundred people running around) but outside of town the game is very smooth.

 

The delay due to testing is also flawed.

D2 was written for VooDoo cards, infact anybody who still owns a VooDoo card can actually enjoy better performance from D2 than anybody else (Once again this shows just how much D2 was delayed).

If they were doing all the testing you feel they were doing, D2 would not have hit the shelves where people using a GeForce graphics chipset found unexplained lag and frame drops in single player games.

 

Blizzard couldn't keep the D2 servers up for more than an hour when D2 first went live.

If the game had been so designed to be a multi-player game, then surely better testing of the servers were needed?

Sure, the likes of Anarchy On-line had problems in the beginning, but that was with thousands of people attempting to log into the game server.

Oh, and lastly have you noticed that when it rains on one persons screen, the weather is usually totally different on the other players, even when they are in the same location?

That ends the technical aspects of the game.

 

Anybody who describes D2 as a "role-playing game" needs their head examined.

The amount of computer magazines that listed it as such in their reviews made me very angry.

The game is pure hack & slash with certainly no role-playing aspects, the game lacks the depth of many other on-line games.

The choice of characters was certainly an improvement over the original game, but balance issues still haven't been sorted out now.

 

I don't know how you can describe it as a great game loved by everyone.

A recent pole over at madonion.com was very much 50/50, certainly not the 99% "happy with" that your feeling.

The game was seriously hyped, but delivered so little.

As games go, D2 will not stand the test of time.

Blizzard did a stirling job with the original Diablo.

There was hardly any advertising for it before release, I actually bought it on a whimm when I was out shopping one day and loved it.

Mainly because at the time 640x480 was still quite common.

Blizzard simply added some new characters, re-hased it and then released it as an all singing, all dancing sequal, there was nothing innovative about it.

[HarU 0]

First of all, if you would've read my second reply i stated that the video lag didn't come from the servers but from your machine. Secondly, when you state that diablo was intended more for single player then, as you so intricately put it, you need your head examined. Blizzard has probably the best online gaming area (battlenet) out of anyone around right now. In fact both betas they did for D2 and D2x were not "to see how good the game is," but to test battle net. Thats why they were called Battle Net Betas! Your comment on Anarchy having thousands of users on at once being the cause of server problems, well, multiply that by at least 2 and thats how many people were trying to log onto battlenet. Your attempt at a point there totally negated your comment about battle net sucking when D2 was first released. Another comment on the graphics....the game was worked on for how long before it was released? I think at least 2 and a half years. Do you understand the graphic enhancements achieved since the beginning of D2 creation? You notice how act 1 looks like $hit compared to 3 and 4? Act 1 was finished over a year before the game was done. I know this because i have a friend that works at blizzard. That is probably why i defend them so valiantly, but it will also add light to my arguments being that i get this information straight from blizzard.

 

You say D2 will not stand the test of time, yet they've sold millions and millions of copies and continue to have more overall sales than almost any game out. Not to mention the fact that they've already anounced Diablo 3! You think a game like anarchy online will stand the test of time??? If so, then IMO, you seriously lack taste in games. Your comment on RPG's....well, d2 is described as an Action Role Playing Game. It is simple when you think about it. It is non stop action with not much dialogue or story, hence the "Action" part of the genre. But, you still choose a character class that you build from level one while changing statistics, proficiencies, magic, inventory, and all the other aspects thrown into RPG's which contributes to the RPG portion of the genre. No one said it was solely an RPG.

 

Oh, and my argument about Screen lag with resolutions going hand in hand with Latency online is not flawed. If you payed attention i stated that with higher resolutions the computer user has to worry about both Internet lag AND graphic lag due to the slowness of their computer. By making it so no one could go higher in resolution they eliminated the complaints about graphic lag due to slower machines. If you go to battle net forums or Diabloii forums you will get a chance to read what the ladder players are saying about lag. The sorceress spells Firewall, Meteor, Blizzard, etc. and a few of the other skills from other characters were SPECIFICALLY given a timer due to the amount of graphic lag they caused. People would complain non stop about these spells causing too much lag when spammed all over the screen. Now, imagine those spells at 1024x768. You could pretty much multiply the lag by 3 if the res was as high as 1024. Of course, i know there were many other reasons why higher resolution couldn't be achieved, but this was surely a thought when designing this game.

 

And about the weather on one screen being different is due to a random generated effect coming from the computer and not the servers. You can turn weather off in the options. But are you saying if you do that, and you are the host of the game, then all weather will turn off on all machines?!?! No...thats just silly.

 

Your comment on D2 not being innovative and not offering any real new aspects to the game is completely false. Here are some new enhancements:

 

1.) like you said, 5 different characters

2.) All the new characters had their own skill sets that could be developed to high levels. This meant that you couldn't make a fighter that was also able to hold a staff and cast lightning spells like in the first Diablo. Each character had 3 different skill trees to customize and develop. The array of possibilities with these new characters were so much greater than Diablo 1. This added for a tremendous amount of replay value. For example: ice sorceress.....fire sorceress.....lightning sorceress.

3.) Hirelings to help you on your travels. This was a great addition if you liked single player because now you didn't have to travel alone.

4.) A multitude of different weapons which relied on certain characters proficiency levels and classes in order to wield them.

5.) Better graphics, prettier scenery.

6.) Longer, more in depth story line including 4 all new acts each with their own set of quests.

7.) Randomly generated maps which added a better replay value.

8.) Unique, Rare, and Set items.

9.) Gambling. Gave a better way to use your money and a chance to get uber weapons

10.) Waypoints. So that you can replay certain areas that provide more experience or better drops. Makes it easy to replay bosses as well.

 

There are 10 items, and ive just begun to scratch the surface. There are many, many more. D2 went gold on presales due to fans reading about the new enhancements and wanting the game so bad.

 

As you can see, your arguments are also flawed. If you wish to continue to debate, please feel free. After all, i work in IT as well, and i am quite bored right now.

[thatsteveguy 0]

I personaly have never played such a boring game in my life. and I found it no different that diablo regardless of whatever they said was new.

I let my dog play with the cd.

complete waste of money.

[BladeRunner 0]

*Sigh*

Fine, in your eyes Diablo II is great.

In my eyes it was and is complete and utter ****.

I'm really not in the mood to argue.

Yes, they sold x amount of copies of the game, but what exactly does that mean?

You still honestly think those x amount of players still play on a regular basis?

You don't think that like me, many of those copies of the game have been pushed to the back of people shelves never to be played again?

 

The bad points of the game:

 

**** graphics

**** screen resolution

Can't just jump in to the game and play for 10 minutes as the level will have re-spawned.

Hack & Slash, Hack & Slash, rince & repeat.

Battlenet Servers that were hacked resulting in people 'loosing' hardcore characters

Not a roleplaying game no matter what anybody says

NO feeling that you 'must' complete it again

Hyped up to a point of hysteria so anybody would buy it

Optimised for a dead graphics card system (3DFX)

Despite 'testing' the game was released with serious GeForce issues

Despite 'Battlenet Testing' the game was released, battlenet servers crashed and were down for over a day.

 

The good points of the game:

 

The box was simple, plain, yet eyecatching

3 CD's gave you the feeling you had value for money

If you were still stuck playing on a 14" monitor it was a great purchase

[CUViper 0]

Sorry if it sounded like I was flaming you HarU - I have nothing against you OR the game. I haven't even played the game, so my argument had nothing to do with my feelings for the game. I was only trying to point out that the servers are not the issue with higher resolutions, which you did of course agree with later.

[HarU 0]

OH..okay...thx viper. Sorry bout getting defensive.

[CrazyKillerMan 0]

holy crap

you guys are bonkers

 

Heres the way I feel about D2:

Yes, it could have been written way better, and released way earlier. BUT when I was only at a young age, Diablo was released, and, I was hooked. Now, i am a little dissapointed in the games detail in itself, but i love the game. And I can see how others would not.

 

I just like sitting down and getting crazy items, and, most of all, killing the 3 prime evils.

 

I think its fun, but then again, I also think starcraft is fun, but q3 & unreal, i though,twere a waste.

 

And its not against 1st persons either, I loved Halflife, and quake, and doom, not to mention Wolf3d, and duke 3d.

 

But all in all, this was a simple poll, and just asking ppl what they thought was the best/coolest charachter, proceeded into a large arguement!

So thats it, stop posting your arguements, id rather not read them.