Alright, I played the Diablo 3 campaign. Why was this hated on release?
Yeah, the story is kinda stupid, the first three quests or so give a bad first impression, and I can imagine playing it over and over wouldn't make for a good post game, but overall it was a really good time.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Because it was the sequel to Diablo 2 and it's braindead garbage in comparison.
Like diablo 2 had any story at all
LMAO
take the nostalgia glasses off homosexual, diablo 3 has more character development than 2, what a dumb homosexual
yea this post really speaks to why people hated d3. It went with a more modern "we followed the guide on how to tell a story so we know its good" route, similar to The Last Jedi. Every character has a purpose, they all have clean little story archs with drive and motivation. None of them just happen to exist in the world youre currently in. You are GOD you are SPECIAL you are THE CHOSEN ONE. An ancient evil has AWAKENED. It was worthy of a pulitzer.
>Every character has a purpose
But that's not true. There's plenty of incidental, pointless characters and conversations that exist solely for flavor.
>Story
Moron. No one cared about Diablo's story, D3's gameplay was braindead and that's why it was hated.
And no one gave a frick about diablo 2's random ass story that had no actual cohesivness, diablo 3 at least you cared somewhat about leah
Diablo 2 is a literal who gives a frick story and they introduce baal to make him go out like a b***h, literal who boss
Maltheal shits on every diablo 2 villian with ease
Keep coping d2 gay boy
>literal who boss
hes literally the focus of the cinematic
If you didnt buy LOD knowing youre chasing down the guy from the end cinematic of the first one, you are a zoomer
And his whole personality was
>me big and evil demon ACK!
Maltheal was waaaayyy more interesting
Had actual character and motivations
Keep coping again homosexual
>Had actual character and motivations
what is the difference in motivations between diablo and baal?
>being le evil for the sake of it is interesting
Even fricking lucifer who diablo is based off has more interesting character development and motivations
KEK
So You admit both Baal and Diablo are bad characters, and Diablo 1 has a bad story.
>Maltheal
Who?
angel of wisdom (former)
main antagonist of the d3 expansion
Imagine having to use >muh story as a crutch for trash gameplay. Go cope elsewhere.
>shit better stay muh story because i literally can dispute its objectivley better than diablo 2 literal who story line
KEK diablo 2 fanboys need to be gassed sub anartic IQ
Did you get lost on the way to reddit or homosexualera? Gameplay > Story, and that's doubly true for Diablo. There's nothing else to discuss, you're a homosexual, the end.
>And no one gave a frick about diablo 2's random ass story that had no actual cohesivness
???
every act cinematic shows you exactly where you're going and why, and the quest dialogue explain fully the negative effects of the Wanderer passing through the location each Act takes place in and how its fricked them up, and why they need your help, the entire game is following the footsteps of Marius and the Wanderer right through the gates of Hell and to the destruction of the soul stones, seems like you're the one coping here, you seem like just another homosexual who gets off on getting attention
.>other anons admitting this game has no story in thread
>pretending like it does
KEK, you gays need to be gassed, go grind the same boss the billionth of time you degenerates, don't give a frick about your muh environmental story telling gay,
it has a story, its story is just not a boring highly polished design by comittee turd like The Last Jedi
But youre right, D3 follows the rulebook very well. Its mass market.
>the ultimate cope
it has le story, just use your imagination is all dog
KEK you gays are so delusional its unreal, you need to be gassed pronto
have a nice day, brainless shit
>Brainless shit
>t. diablo 3's highbrow story enjoyer
kek
Cope. Diablo 3 is the the underrated masterpiece of the franchise. It's the Revenge of the Sith.
that is an amazing bait image
Next thing you will do is a food analogy
You are human shit and don’t deserve to live, have a nice day
>i somewhat cared about the low effort daughterbait
that's because you're a moron. d3 story was capeshit tier
Thats still more of a story than diablo 2 ever had
LMAOOOOOO
As someone who enjoys Diablo 3: The campaign is dogshit, and when the game initially released it had this moronic auction house that should have never been implemented in a looter game of any kind. They didn't actually fix the game until the expansion released, and the game didn't get really good until seasons were implemented.
Gameplay was really shitty on release. They reworked pretty much all itemization since then, so the fact you had a smooth experience was not what happened on launch. All gear was geared towards being so rare you had to buy it on the RMAH. So most people had shittier builds. You could beat the game on normal but at launch the later difficulties (which have all since been replaced) were shit. Inferno was impossible at the first patch.
The story is pretty bland though, people hated the shift in tone compared to d2. The expansion campaign isnt bad, IMHO, but neither are good.
I think the game has come a long way, but the hate at launch was deserved.
>people hated the shift in tone compared to d2.
I gotta be honest: the tone and story of D2 are also shit, so I can't see that criticism as anything but nostalgia. D1 is the only one of these games with good writing in any sense. I think D3's incidental dialogue lands better than D2's despite the "MEMBER THIS???" shit. Probably just a matter of D3 having way more.
That aside, when I say the campaign is a good time what I mean is the actual content within it. The Cathedral dungeon was really fun for me, so even with shit drops I have trouble imagining it being a drag. Did they change aspects of combat/enemy spawns too?
Lets take the tone from three side archs in the 3 games
1 - Halls of the Blind
Dark, creepy, no clue as to what the reward will be
2 - the countess
violent, dark, creepy, ghosts, general hints at vast treasure from the villagers
3 - the warden
generic, trope filled HE DID TERRIBLE THINGS, none of it fitting the art direction of the game, cartoonish
Every aspect of storytelling and world building is better in the first 2 games. Every aspect.
This is almost as vapid of a criticism as "a butterfly killed Cain." You could literally say
>generic, trope filled HE DID TERRIBLE THINGS, none of it fitting the art direction of the game, cartoonish
about The Butcher quest in 1. It's about execution.
>I gotta be moronic: the tone and story of D2 are also shit
ftfyf
Deckard Cain gets killed by a butterfly.
People also hate female Diablo, but this was kinda before woke shit so we will let that pass.
i don't hate scary-sexy demon girls in principle, but turning Leah into the new Diablo was stupidly tragic. mostly stupid.
I liked it.
That's how Diablo and his brothers always come into the world, through possession. This has been the case since D1.
im not a diablogay but i always thought the diablo games were about shitting on monsters as quick and hard as possible and none of you guys gave a shit about story
They are. D3 story hate is a mix of pointing out that increased emphasis on story is very stupid, the story has holes and is poorly executed, and people wanting to hate 3 for not being D2-2. It does plenty just fine --even well-- despite the bad parts. Its biggest sin is making some replay-unfriendly choices a couple times, which is why updates added Adventure Mode.
Diablo 2 didn’t have much story, but it had a darker atmosphere and if you didn’t care about the story, it was easier to ignore. Meanwhile, D3 happily rubs its ”HA HA HA YOU CAN’T DEFEAT ME AND I WILL DEFEAT YOU” -tier villain speeches on your face all the fricking time, which is pretty damn annoying.
A bad story is easy to ignore, but bad writing that is pushed to your face is harder to ignore. D3 isn’t nearly as bad as something like Borderlands 3, but there’s kind of the same principle behind the dislike of their writing.
>darker atmosphere
LMAO i hate this fricking meme, i never felt this playing the game
Maybe it was dark because it the classes view on remastered the game is literally pitch fricking black
LMAOOOOO actual trogolodytes
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO everyone on this website (except for me!) is so dumb xDDDD
You are a moron and I would enjoy slitting your throat
I prefer 2's style of writing to 3's wink wink nudge bullshit and still think 3 handled itself better in terms of dialogue. It has a lot of sincere little moments and cute interactions, mostly facilitated by the player character speaking now. 2 tried a bit too hard with its NPCs, if that makes any sense. The story was less obnoxious and did a better job conveying things indirectly, but I'd rather listen to Leah and my character than Gheed and Akara, if that makes any sense.
TL;DR:
The gradual fall of Tristram > Talking to Tristram npcs in general > The implications of the Dark Wanderer's journey > Talking to D3 NPCs > D3 background details/better backstory bits > Talking to D2 NPCs > D3's actual story and execution > D3 REMEMBER THIS/HAHA SO WACKY shit
D2s writing was orders of magnitude better. Its a passive narrative structure, its not the focus of the game, and its actually good writing.
D3 is your generic fantasy plot with 4 generic twists that are all telegraphed far in advance and a surprise to no one.
I suspect one of the d3 writers, a troony, is in this thread. I cant see even a troll wasting their time defending d3s "story"
Did you even read the post you were responding to? I just said the passive aspects are better than D3 as a whole, but the active writing in D2 was worse.
diablo story might be stupid and aids but tyrael is still an amazing character and i dont care if anyone disagrees
Based.
Kinda sad people thought this thread was about the actual story instead of the story mode as a gameplay experience. Maybe I should have worded it better.
Black person
Azmodan was a bad villain, Cain got decked by a butterfly and we got cutscene'd by Adria. Also Tyrael got nogged.
Reaper of Souls was pretty cool though.
>Renegade Angel going TOTAL HUMAN DEATH
>ask question
>get answer that isn't what I want to hear
>LMAO WRONG WRONG WRONG
epic thread!!!
>Someone disagrees with you.
>Shit yourself and greentext screaming instead of discussing it.
>newbie can't greentext properly
LMAO
Bad troll, LMFAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>shit i]m getting destroyed better say bad troll
KEK destroying d2 gays is so easy, their so fragile and full of cope its unreal
LMFAOOOOO
>I can't greentext correctly so I'll call them a *looks up the word* troll!
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The rmah and broken difficulty, which has been patched and memoryholed.
I guess that's it. Makes sense if most players were on PC. Was PS3/360 reception better without the auction house, then? I guess the difference doesn't mean much when RoS was like only a year later. Any difference in opinion there would probably be buried under PC version discourse until 2014.
Diablo 2 is still better.
For me, I hated the story and aesthetics. Diablo 4 corrected all of that. D3 gameplay was pretty great though, even on release. I preferred launch version to 2.0.
>aesthetics
This is the part I REALLY don't get. D1 and 2 have their charm, but D3 is absolutely gorgeous. Yeah, it leans a bit much into the Joe Mad wannabe artstyle of Warcraft 3/WoW, but the color choices and the way scenes are arranged is stunning. The water in the game looks incredible. The dungeons are all pretty as hell. The enemies are very readable in a 3D game, which is way harder than in 2D. My only real complaints are the humanoids being too exaggerated in the face (you can't see them up close, thankfully) and that it doesn't use a proper radial lighting system to emulate the D1/2 feel. It's a really damn pretty game, especially for Gen 7. Feels more like a well crafted, high res Gen 6 game in a lot of ways. Probably because it started dev back in 2008 and needed to run on shit computers.
lol, lmao even
I've noticed Blizzard fans respond like this more than most fanbases. I wonder what part of the brand culture causes this.
>D3 is gorgeous
>calls others fans of Blizzard
question fricking mark
You can like a game without liking the company/brand. People who are really into Blizz as a whole tend to act like that, at least from my experience.
to be fair d3 art was quite good
I genuinely laughed my ass off in real life. I now no longer possess an ass. Thanks, homosexual.
>Why was this hated on release?
RMAH.
Error 37.
Insane Act 2 difficulty ramp on Inferno.
Piss poor balancing(melee basically unplayable compared to something like DH).
The overall color scheme of the game was very colorful and bright.
Basically no actual endgame.
The game was designed around RMAH so drops were exceedingly rare, making the meta to just equip gold farming gear and breaking pots to farm gold and then using that gold to buy gear.
You were constantly getting "phone calls" from demons and other characters talking to you from afar.
Most of the music was very forgettable.
They advertised and promised arena PvP, but it never happened.
These are just off the top of my head. D3 probably had a dozen other issues at launch.
This is probably the best answer so far, thanks anon. I'm really taking for granted the fact that later versions just function properly.
Only things I think I would disagree with are the color choices (did they change any with RoS?) and the music. I don't think the songs are bad; I think this game just has some of the worst audio mixing I've ever seen.
>I'm really taking for granted the fact that later versions just function properly.
A lot of the things I mentioned were solved fairly fast considering that RoS came out just 2 years after the release of D3. They managed to turn it around and make it into a good game relatively fast, considering that they didn't have a huge team working on the game.
>Only things I think I would disagree with are the color choices (did they change any with RoS?)
No, it's just that the massive difference between D2(grimdark, serious, gorey, etc.) vs D3(colorful, bright, kid-friendly, etc.) made a lot of people upset.
>and the music
D3's music is okay, but D2's music is just legendary, so it makes D3's music very forgettable.
I think the aesthetic difference is really overplayed/misattributed. D3 is a bit brighter, but not by much. It's more that it lacks the lighting system of 1 and 2. Diablo 2 was also about as colorful as D3. It's just that D3 uses more vibrant hues and stronger color coordination. You'll get dark places being draped in deep blues in D3 where D2 would opt for more grays, but in places D2 would use orange D3 will use a richer shade.
It's really just down to D3 being more abstract and exaggerated. Not "less serious/more kid friendly." I think some aspects of this were necessary for the game to pop as a 3D fixed camera game in 720p, while other aspects are the game's own style and yeah, some outright mistakes.
Comparison pic.
That's a bit of a disingenuous comparison, isn't it?
I'd say D3 has worse contrast than D2, which is why it leans on color, but it's definitely not as bad as you're making it out to be.
It is not just about the color/contrast, it is the art direction. D3 is cartoonish, full of blur, round edges, and wow-like design. It looks like f2p mobile game.
>Post a lie.
>"That's a lie."
>WELL OK BUT
Just start with your actual opinion instead of making shit up.
You're the one coming up with this whole "D3 and D2 are not that different tho" moronic nonsense
>Give an opinion.
>Post evidence you know isn't true.
>"That's not true, why would you even bring that up?"
>"Well it's YOUR fault for having an opinion I disagree with!"
What the frick is wrong with you? If what I said is so stupid you don't need to present fake evidence.
what fake evidence? the other anon posted a pic proving his point and you just ignored it, you're just trying so hard to go against common sense here
Man, I wonder what it's like in the nostalgiagay fanboy world where
>"That image is doctored and misleading, here's what it actually looks like without color"
means
>"I am ignoring your evidence."
this one, homosexual:
I'm done with you and this shitty thread anyway
>"Why post a lie to support your argument, stupid?"
>"You didn't drop the point and move on to my next topic of conversation, therefore you are wrong. Conversation closed. End of rine."
What possess children to act like this? An inability to "win" arguments in real life? All I asked is why you were acting like a gay, you fragile little baby.
>brings up gays and babies in same sentence
confirmed paedo, rope yourself
Absolutely desperate for validation. Have one last (You) for the road.
>that vanilla Belial bossfight
I wish that every boss fight in D4 was similar to that. It actually felt like it had some mechanics and was pretty hard while also being punishing, but in a fair way.
>posting the fake
Go away.
that pic has brightness and contrast set to the absolute max, usually the game did not look that bright
it's not about that though, it's more about the style and how it looks less gothic and more generic in 3
you get a lot more warm textures and tones in 3, which goes against the cold isolating aesthetic of 2
>You get a lot more warm textures and tones in 3.
The first act of 3 aside from one cave is color coordinated around blue. The first two acts of D2 are primarily vibrant green and pale orange.
What the frick are you talking about?
>primarily vibrant green and pale orange
What a fricking liar, first off, the grass in D2 is not vibrant green at all, it's a completely different tone, darker and shittier. However, pay attention, I as talking about the overall style, not only color. Textures are warmer too in 3.
>D3 launch
>look up what I can do to improve my character
>literally all plebs that can't have gold handed to them nor wanted to spend real money were forced to go to Inferno and break pots over and over again
i remember this. literal pot breaking simulator. and i did this for hours.
i can't get that part of my life back.
>and i did this for hours
I did it all day every day for several weeks. I don't know how the frick I even accepted that shit back then.
>You were constantly getting "phone calls" from demons and other characters talking to you from afar.
I 100% agree with this especially because they were all
> New demon is going to kill you""
>Kill demon
> "Oh i didn't need that anyway, but the next demon is going to kill you"
Good game to enjoy casually, like all other Blizzard games. Sweaty try-hards playing the campaign for the 100th time on a difficulty setting no one else is even aware of so they can get better gear to kill the same monster only with more health never seem to enjoy video games.
>Why was this hated on release?
not for the campaign lol people hated the WoW auction house with optional RMTing
As a fan of D3 playing D4 I can tell you something I realised:
There is very little follow up in terms of story from D2 and characters are scrapped or disrespected. I think , for example , they felt about the death of Deckard the same way I felt about Nephalim retcons in D4.
Cain dying wasn't the problem. It's that the execution of his death scene was lame. It really would have been as easy as having him hold off a demon for a few seconds to save someone else, but the player and Leah are both supposed to be basically unstoppable so they just kinda randomly lasered him to death.
Best option would have been to have him save Tyrael, but that would have just led to people being mad at Ty.
The cartoonish wow art style is ugly as frick.
>why was it hated on release
the world wasn't randomized and the story blew ass
>on release
>Error 43 or whatever it was that made the game always log you out of server
>always need to be online to play
>enemies were ridiculously strong
>you died all the time on harder diffs and repairs were expensive as frick if you didn't shell out cash so you'd spend hours farming by breaking pots to repair to try higher levels again
>the fricking wasps or whatever that hit like trucks
>*we took the enemies stats and doubled them on harder difficulties.png lmao*
>real money auction house
Etc etc
I wouldn't be playing Diablo at all if not for the angels.
you cannot die for the first 24 hours of gameplay. Zombies barely chase you and have like a 3 second wind up animation.
People talked too much. Its especially egregious in Act 4 when Diablo will not fricking shut up. Though it makes sense since he possessed a girl this time.
I maintain to this day that it would have been a better twist if Deckard Cain had been Belial the entire time
That'd be pretty cool, yeah. They were probably afraid of upsetting fans with a retcon like that and shot themselves in the foot trying to avoid it.
>yeah the story is kinda stupid
Kinda really really dogshit actually.
D3 gameplay is kinda good and was the best arpg in feel til d4 came along. But the toneshift in a sequel to fricking diablo just dont fit. And with the way gear works you use sets for pre made builds or you get fricked for no damage. So builds are pretty fricking dull. Acquiring the sets is too easy so there's no real end game besides number go up for GRs.
D3 is only good as a casual couch co-op roguelike with friends. Only to play with your buddy occasionally and never touch it again.
because they were big mad their waifu Leah got burned to ashes by Imperius
Diablo 3 and 4 both suffer from the modern game problem of being over reliant on cinematics and exposition as modes of storytelling, which are an inherent misuse of an interactive medium. What I loved about 2 was how the story was mainly in the background, you could stay awhile and listen but for the most part you were on your own. Diablo 4 in particular has a really slow start where you’re watching a lot of cutscenes and dialog before you get going and I find it extremely tedious.
Absolutely true. I'm enjoying d4 but it's irrefutable. So much forced passivity of the player. "Fetch this, watch me walk, listen to me ramble about garbage". I ended up mostly not minding the story or the characters (neyrelle and lorath were both very reddit but mephisto was well presented)
D2's method was so good->straight into gameplay, story text is presented if you're interested but very easily skippable-> cool cutscenes for completing an act.
D3's use of the audio texts with the bestiary guy and co. wasnt a bad method, a snippet of story that doesn't impede gameplay at all. Something d4 couldve used more of.
Current D3 is way better than D4 it's crazy
Bought it on switch Friday, I'm already paragon lvl 38 and played more than I have played D4 (and I bought it on release)
>you watch most of the cutscene even if you skip it
>boring classes
>ruined classes
>anything fun nerfed in 2 days
>gameplay that causes you to fall asleep like anything blizzard does
>Why was this hated on release?
Well for one it did not resemble Diablo 2 whatsoever.
It was a much different game on release.
The real money auction house was a dominant interest factor for many people, which made the focus on repeat farming of trivia for 'valuable' drops the most profitable thing to do. Like breaking vases in the angel area to get lots of blue weapons so you could get one with a good roll and sell it. The best weapons were blues with the correct damage affixes, by far. You could get a yellow with the same affixes + something else, but was much more difficult.
Uniques were straight up bad except for a few specific outliers that were stupidly OP.
I don't think set items existed at all, it was just yellows and then as broken a weapon as you could get, and then hopefully kill things before they rushed you down.
The endgame experience was horrifically unbalanced in general, basically the only way to farm in the endgame was with immunity tricks in a party, and even then it was unrewarding.
tl;dr almost a totally different game than current D3, almost everything was overhauled
>Well for one it did not resemble Diablo 2 whatsoever.
To be fair, D2 was barely like D1. The rest of your points are good.
did they ruined level scaling already?
>doing act5 on different char (level 26)
>zone is level 35
Cain's death was kin0.
Said nobody.
At least he died doing something important instead of like a total b***h.
Nah he died like a b***h. Didn't even get a real cutscene, just an in-game one. AHAhhahhaahAAHahah. It's amazing.