|
Post by kaoru on Jan 20, 2018 6:18:11 GMT -5
Right? I know quite a couple of people who would rate Eternal Blue higher, but I always liked Silver Star a bit better. Maybe it also depends on what system you played them on.
|
|
|
Post by dsparil on Jan 20, 2018 6:37:20 GMT -5
Diablo - This is going to elicit the same Really?! response I had for WL, but I much prefer the simplicity and properish Rogue-like nature of the original versus the more outdoor and loot oriented sequels.
Fate - Same as above if you think of Fate as Torchlight 0 although it's technically a spiritual predecessor sharing only the lead designer. I only now learned that it had 3 sequels on its own for the original publisher.
|
|
|
Post by ommadawnyawn2 on Jan 20, 2018 6:58:05 GMT -5
Right? I know quite a couple of people who would rate Eternal Blue higher, but I always liked Silver Star a bit better. Maybe it also depends on what system you played them on. So which ver. did you play and why's it better?
|
|
|
Post by Bumpyroad on Jan 20, 2018 6:58:16 GMT -5
Diablo - This is going to elicit the same Really?! response I had for WL, but I much prefer the simplicity and properish Rogue-like nature of the original versus the more outdoor and loot oriented sequels. It's not more outdoor-you could fit the whole Diablo 1 in Diablo 2 dungeons. Let's just say - D1 is Kobe Bryant and D2 is Michael Jordan standing next to each other. Which one would you choose?
|
|
|
Post by kaoru on Jan 20, 2018 7:09:35 GMT -5
Right? I know quite a couple of people who would rate Eternal Blue higher, but I always liked Silver Star a bit better. Maybe it also depends on what system you played them on. So which ver. did you play and why's it better? I played them on the Playstation. And have no personal experience with the other versions. Just heared that PSX Silver Star is supposedly a bigger improvement over the MCD version than PSX Eternal Blue is on its MCD one.
|
|
|
Post by ommadawnyawn2 on Jan 20, 2018 7:31:57 GMT -5
Sorry, I meant why better than the second game.
|
|
|
Post by kaoru on Jan 20, 2018 7:43:47 GMT -5
Ah, got it. It is mostly that I like the cast and the general story progression of the first game a bit more. The difficulty balancing of the second game also feels a bit too harsh at certain points. Tho I think that's just in the US release, since Vic Ireland always thinks he knows better than the rest of the world and can't stop tampering with games.
|
|
|
Post by dsparil on Jan 20, 2018 8:03:00 GMT -5
Diablo - This is going to elicit the same Really?! response I had for WL, but I much prefer the simplicity and properish Rogue-like nature of the original versus the more outdoor and loot oriented sequels. It's not more outdoor-you could fit the whole Diablo 1 in Diablo 2 dungeons. Let's just say - D1 is Kobe Bryant and D2 is Michael Jordan standing next to each other. Which one would you choose? It's been forever since I've touched Diablo II, so my memories of III are probably taking the place of II somewhat. I mainly like the simplicity of having a single town and a single dungeon. Not to belabor the analogy, but Kobe was much better at three pointers so there's still a reason to pick him. 😛
|
|
|
Post by ommadawnyawn2 on Jan 20, 2018 8:33:18 GMT -5
Ah, got it. It is mostly that I like the cast and the general story progression of the first game a bit more. The difficulty balancing of the second game also feels a bit too harsh at certain points. Tho I think that's just in the US release, since Vic Ireland always thinks he knows better than the rest of the world and can't stop tampering with games. Right, I didn't get a great first impression of Lunar 1 on MCD myself but really liked 2 on MCD. Will have to try the PS1 version of 1 at some point. There are recent hacks that restore the difficulty, for both versions: www.romhacking.net/forum/index.php?topic=23436.0
|
|
|
Post by Bumpyroad on Jan 20, 2018 8:33:43 GMT -5
It's not more outdoor-you could fit the whole Diablo 1 in Diablo 2 dungeons. Let's just say - D1 is Kobe Bryant and D2 is Michael Jordan standing next to each other. Which one would you choose? It's been forever since I've touched Diablo II, so my memories of III are probably taking the place of II somewhat. I mainly like the simplicity of having a single town and a single dungeon. Not to belabor the analogy, but Kobe was much better at three pointers so there's still a reason to pick him. 😛 That's apt. Well, ok. There is no accounting for taste(s), otherwise we might end up discussing classical music. People think they like classical music, but they don't. Nobody does really
|
|
|
Post by zerker on Jan 20, 2018 8:46:20 GMT -5
I thought about adding Arkham Asylum but at the end of the day I would say Arkham City is better, while there's something to be said for the more intimate approach of the first game's in exploring the titular Asylum, the second game's larger sense of scale is just so impressive. It's close though. The problem with the sense of scale is that I didn't feel the city environment was nearly as good as the smaller spaces in the first game. The environments in the first game worked with your abilities in interesting ways. Because of the wider space, that aspect got toned down severly in the second game. Instead, there are a few odd buildings here or there that might have a riddler-trophy on/in them, but the skills required for those start diverging from what is used in the normal flow of gameplay. Arkham City had a few good enclosed environments (e.g. the Old/Under Gotham section), but those were severely reduced in quantity from the first game. Let me put it a different way: I felt compelled to complete the riddler trophies in the first game, and felt rewarded by doing so. In the second, I felt actively discouraged from doing so. Although there's something about an 'open world checklist' design that puts me off in a way, as well. dsparil : I'm with you on Diablo as well. I finished the first game, but lost interest somewhere near the start of Act 2 on the second.
|
|
|
Post by lurker on Jan 20, 2018 10:41:10 GMT -5
I kinda like Diablo 2 more. It felt like it had less filler, a better plot, and more interesting areas.
Edit: How is the expansion for the original? Never really hear it talked about much and Blizzard doesn't seem to be interested in re-releasing it like their other games and expansions.
|
|
|
Post by zerker on Jan 20, 2018 12:14:49 GMT -5
I kinda like Diablo 2 more. It felt like it had less filler, <snip> Less filler? Really? Have you forgotten the endless, samey field/desert/etc areas? I'd be curious what you consider filler in Diablo 1.
|
|
|
Post by Bumpyroad on Jan 20, 2018 12:23:53 GMT -5
Edit: How is the expansion for the original? Never really hear it talked about much and Blizzard doesn't seem to be interested in re-releasing it like their other games and expansions. Pretty silly in the "over the top" kinda way, voice acting feels especially overdone. You get 2 new areas to explore and 2 new half-baked character classes, accessible by tweaking one of game's text files, which i couldn't be bothered with. It feels like it's been stitched together.
|
|
|
Post by lurker on Jan 20, 2018 12:26:14 GMT -5
I kinda like Diablo 2 more. It felt like it had less filler, <snip> Less filler? Really? Have you forgotten the endless, samey field/desert/etc areas? I'd be curious what you consider filler in Diablo 1. Should have specified that it felt like there were less filler quests.
|
|