An underrated choice of the original diablo is that it would only show you a subset of story quests and boss monsters in a single play-through. A few (like the butcher) would always show up, but for most others there'd be multiple options for which story quest would be in the game. A lot of games since include every quest in every playthrough (or change it based on what choices you make), and games like the Witcher 3…
Also which spells you could use was determined by which books you happened to find.
I loved this feature, because it doesn't really lock you into a static class.
So you're happy with bigger numbers? Because the content is absolutely identical from T1 to T2484... and there's absolutely no other way to increase the x in Tx except grinding lower levels to increase some stat on your gear by a small amount. Like my other comments about PoE, I'm talking about what passes for endgame. Where you have all the recommended gear and can do mostly everything. I know that you first need to…
> So you're happy with bigger numbers? Because the content is absolutely identical from T1 to T2484... and there's absolutely no other way to increase the x in Tx except grinding lower levels to increase some stat on your gear by a small amount. So ... like PoE? I'm not sure what you want here. Every game in the genre is like this. PoE doesn't do it any better. What you described is just wrong.
Diablo 2 didn't. Felt more satisfying to play it thrice on different distinguishable levels of difficulty than doing rifts or whatever poe calls those (i forgot) for 0.000001% improvements per run.
But why should I do that? I don't get that argument. I've never went back to a low level zone in any game just for the purpose of "obliterating everything". If there is a quest I missed, sure. But what's the point doing that?
Diablo 4 makes you go back and forth across zones, GTA-style. Not only for sidequests, but also the main storyline. D2 solved this by artificially constraining you to one region per act in a linear fashion. In D4 when you pass through or go back to a zone you've been in, and the monsters are tougher, it feels awful.
AFAIK D4 does that in some capacity. There are zones that scale from 50-100 for example and if you are below 50 you'll have a bad time. It's correct that once you visit a former zone the monster scale with your level but as soon as you have the mount you don't have to put up with them. And because of the game design (a lot of dungeons, world bosses, legion events etc.) it's a welcome thing that they happen all over the zones and are not restricted to some high level area.
Well, it's a 12-month development schedule. This pitch was dated 1994. Diablo was released in 1997... doesn't seem too bad.
I wrote the isometric engine for this game in about 1996: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination:_The_Nemesis_Proje... It was planned to be a totally 2D game in the vein of Diablo, but as this brief lays out, the amount of 2D assets required for all the rotations of the characters gets out of hand extremely quickly. After we started development we figured this out and decided to switch the characters to 3D and kee…
Just a quick note, but cross-checking that article with your profile here makes it quite obvious who you are… I hope you’re ok with it?