Thread: Is the new Diablo 3 Version better than Blizzard's?

I know this is a pretty dead horse, but I don't think most people realize just what a HUGE complement they are giving to the game play of D2, and NOT the art style, when they say D3 isn't dark enough.

Take just a second to think back to the land scape of some of the Acts.

Act I: Nice green grass, pretty little stone walls (in good repair), and nice "happy trees". It wasn't until you went down into a dungeon that things got dark and sinister looking.

Act II: Although it was a desert and barren, it was far from sinister looking. It was bleak but well lit. There were more very ordinary palm trees and very refreshing looking oasis'. The only thing sinister looking in Act II was an occasional body on a pike. They were so random I never felt that I was the next to be hoisted to a superior look out spot. Again, things didn't get sinister until you went down into a dungeon of one sort or another. Granted things did get dark when the snake guys turned off the lights, but it really didn't make things more sinister, just darker.

Act III: Even though this was a jungle setting, it really wasn't that intimidating of a setting, in fact was nicer than most exploration documentaries you see on TV. Not really the stuff nightmares are made of. As in the first two acts things didn't get scary until you went down into a dungeon.

Act IV: This is the first and really only act that is remotely Dark and Sinister . Once you leave the pandemonium outpost.. its game on for nightmares and bad dreams!

LOD Act V: Most of Act V wasn't all that sinister, the first area, even though there was an army of demons outside the city gates, I never really got the impression that city was about to fall. The ice tunnels weren't sinister, they weren't scary... at least all by themselves.

What made D2 so dark and sinister wasn't really the landscape in most cases, it was the impending doom we all knew could come rushing up to end our little walk in the park.

If D2 could be considered so DARK and SINISTER with what is now considered horrible graphics, just think what could be done with D3. If it was the monsters that made D2 so scary.. then the pressure isn't on the art department of D3 team, but the game play and monster design departments!

nice synopsis ambrose.. i agree with you on some points

yeah lol, but I want to see a dark outdoor scene where your in the middle of a ranging thunderstorm with tornadoes and shit flying around, fuck even cows flying in the air! I don't care how unrealistic it is. Imagine this scenario, You can't see nothing until lighting strikes across the map, which will happen often enough for you to see the crazy horde of MOBS surrounding you in there trap. Just as the lighting gives you the advantage of vision across your screen, It's to late! the MOBS are closing in all at once surrounding you!. your options are either to TP outa there or break your way though, but you'll risk the danger of running into another trap! MAKE THE GAME EXCITING PLZZZZ feed me those natural highs or I'm start snorting crack and LSD!!!! At first glance the video demo made me excited, but as i soon found out watching the video demo the third time, that excitement was just from hearing that D3 was announced not with the demo itself! So I'm very happy about d3, but very disappointed with the demo.

And the reason why most people play D2 isn't because it was dark, It was because it was FUN and EXCITING and so UNPREDICTABLE which made the game so REPLAYABLE. For EXAMPLE: no matter how mindless something like mfing was, you can do it 1000 times in HC and not die, but that 1001 time your lvl 82 hc mf Sorc dies because she teles into the middle of a 2 unique MOB with fanta/Might/mana leech dolls/Big dudes and got PWND. The chances of two unique MOB with two crazy auras in one spot, and you teleing into that one exact spot was 1001/1 but thats what made the game Diablo 2 all of the reasons above