If you compare it to what we got in Diablo 3, I call it depth. Beyond that, you get out of it what you get out of it.
Not sure what depth you're talking about. Both games are just a neverending clickfest until some phat lootz drop that you hope is an upgrade. If you're talking about the skill tree of Diablo 2, that's got to be a joke to call that 'depth'.
Well I agree with you on ME, I enjoyed the skill and item system of the first much more than 2. I don't disagree with you about depth, but being locked into a build doesn't really add depth to me. For your necromancer example, I'd love to have skill trees like they did in diablo 2, but the ability to respec them whenever like in D3. I like to make little tweaks to my builds and try different things as I go along, a skill system like D2 doesn't really allow for that.
Edit: I'd also say that the rune system in D3 could have plenty of depth if they tweak some runes to be more useful. On my barb I've come up with a couple different skill builds that work for me and the nice thing is I can switch between them whenever.
People forget about these things when they don their rose tinted glasses.
I remember when D2 came out people complained and said D1 was better. If you asked that same person today I bet they will say D2 was the greatest thing since sliced bread and that blizzard failed with diablo 3.
My ex-girlfriend sucked, but then she stopped.
Marriage will do that unfortunately
Why do you consider that fun though? I don't have enough time nowadays to level multiple characters of each class to max, I'd much rather be able switch between different builds on the same max level necro. It also gives you the freedom to experiment in game without spending a ton of time spreadsheeting your builds to min/max your guy or reading up on guides and such. I guess if you have that much fun planning stuff out in advance then I can see why D3 is disappointing, bu you have to realize a lot of people hate that method of being locked into something that you spent a ton of time on.
Oh, time is an issue, granted. And I get what you are saying. what I am saying is, diablo 2 had depth in this area that Diablo 3 doesn't. You may not want that depth, but a lot of the fans of the original feel that this loss is significant and disapointing.
"Building" in D2 was very plain. You pick one skill, max it. You pick skills that provide synergy bonuses to that one skill and max them. Then for your gear you get just enough str and dex to wear whatever gear you've got picked out (which was loaded with +skills necessarily) and dump all the rest of your points into vitality.
You gotta EARN ! that gear SON !I think it's funny that people like grinding and farming. I guess it's cheaper than a casino.
Once you build a 60th level Barbarian, there is no reason to build another one. He/she now has access to every ability.
I put in a few hundred hours in Diablo II back in the day. The skill tree was bullshit before they came out with the synergy system way later. You had a choice of one or two late (level 20?) skills and if you wasted any points in any earlier skills, you had a crap character. I just went online to find guides on what would get me the best character, follow that to a tee with maybe some minor variation with excess skills.
In the new Diablo 3, I actually switch between a bunch of the available skills when the situation calls for it. And now that I'm older (what, 10 years now?), I have less time and patience for the "depth" of Diablo II... And to be realistic, what depth? There were a few functional cookie-cutter builds per class before and maybe even after synergies, and you allocated points according to that. Then you took that f*cker to the cow level to farm until you got bored.
thats a good thing, having to lvl another char in D2 just to try a different build was NOT A GOOD THING
Diablo 2 nostalgia is extremely strong. I liked D2, but it was in no way as amazing as people seem to remember it to be.
I gave the game a chance, played through to Act 4 Inferno in what was an unhealthy quick amount of time and just shelved the turd.
Maybe I am just not as interested in PVP, or having "THE Best Build" out there, but I don't think I ever built someone else's build in Diablo 2. Sure, I focused on skill points that made a rounded out character (If i built a necromancer that was focused on skells, I didn't waste points in Bone armor or Bone spear, as for instance), but I can't say it was ever a "Only a few good builds per class" type situation. As stated before, I had two separate necromancer builds and I am sure there were a dozen other types. Same for wizard and barbarian and paladin, etc...
And that is exactly what I find obvious and really dumbed down in diablo 3. There is no configuration of wizard that you can have that any other player can't switch to at a moment's notice (other than equipment). It is so generic that I see no point to any of it. Every single Monk is just like every single other Monk.
Problem with not staying on the beaten path was that the measure of how "good" a character you made depended on how well it did in a full game of 8 players. I never touched PVP, but outside of a few builds, many classes (pre-synergies) just sucked outside of singleplayer. You would be unique, but completely useless, which made it no fun.
Think I remember making a poison nova necro... what a piece of crap. Think he was the only one I didn't level past 80.
But it doesn't change the fact that Diablo 3, everyone is so generic, you've seen one Demon Hunter, you have seen them all. At least in Diablo 2, even if there were only a few combos, that is more than you have with Diablo 3.
I could list some significant areas that make Diablo 3 a terrible game in comparison to D2, but there is no point trying to change people's minds who like the game.
The easiest way to lay a summation on it is to say D3 is much simpler and lacks a lot of the depth D2 had. If you've bought into the marketing BS and excuses on why item design, character customization and the way those work together have been streamlined for the better, there will be no convincing someone.
D2 was a much better design and more deep experience, if you played it beyond being a casual and weren't the type to just do what someone else was doing and make yourself a hammerdin.
All D3 has over D2 is better combat and visuals, and why the fuck not, it is 2012. That is the minimum expectation you would have. In terms of depth and replay value, the game is a fucking flop, big time. It's been bred and aimed squarely at the World of Warcraft player base and you can see that in all sorts of facets of the game.
Not that it doesn't make sense. The WoW audience is Blizzard's cash cow and it is sound business sense to have simplified the game and aimed it squarely at them. It is still the death and departure of the franchise. I lay most of the blame squarely on the game having been made by new people who did not actually create this franchise.
I gave the game a chance, played through to Act 4 Inferno in what was an unhealthy quick amount of time and just shelved the turd. It is totally lacking the replay value and quality of the item hunt that Diablo 2 did. Why the fuck will I keep playing a game to 'upgrade' to a weapon that does nothing but give me 50 more dps and a few more points in my primary stats. What is that ? It's like the gear grind in World of Warcraft, which I did in that game until they released wrath of the lich king and dumbed that game down as well. Never mind that Inferno plays like Super Mario Brothers and kiting, slow-paced combat. So much for fast paced hack n slash arpg. Terrible game.
If you played Diablo 2, just take a loot at the Arreat summit, http://classic.battle.net/diablo2exp/items/, item design in that game was incredible and added so much depth to what you could do. You could create a build entirely around a single item. That is not happening in Diablo 3. Every class can use essentially the same weapon so long as it as their primary stat. The game is designed just like WoW.
lol, fuck Blizzard. Diablo 3 is a fucking joke, it feels like Call of Duty gone Diablo.
Right now everyone is building 1 of 2 ways:
Glass Cannon - max offensive power and die in a single hit (basically every class but Barbs/Monks)
Barbs/Monks - Max vit, resist, armor, then pop the 2 minute cool downs to kill packs and run from everything else.
I think this will change as we find better and better gear. People are just now starting to find enough gear to enable infinite WotB / Whirl Wind in inferno. Soon gear like that will become more common and then people can start to specialize.
LOL. I never tried poison Nova.
And I guess I get what you were saying. Back in the days of Diablo 1, I remember playing a wizard and my buddy played a warrior. After a few books of fireball and flame wave, we would go stomping into a room. He would charge and i would flamewave 10 times. Everything in the room would be dead by the time he hit the third time.
but I think that your experience was based on unfortunate choice, rather than there only being a few 'Combos' per class. I could be wrong on that front. But it doesn't change the fact that Diablo 3, everyone is so generic, you've seen one Demon Hunter, you have seen them all. At least in Diablo 2, even if there were only a few combos, that is more than you have with Diablo 3.
And maybe the problem is me. I personally hate that every toon in every RPG game these days starts off with the potential to do it all. In Skyrim, you could cast spells from the very beginning, regardless of class or race. Same with KoA:R, and with Witcher and with pretty much all of them in the last 5 years. It's like they are afraid to allow the player to make a decision that actually has irrevocable consequences. Not like back in the day when you chose Wizard as your class and for the rest of the game, you cast spells and had no Hit points. or warrior, and never once used magic.
I hate that stupid class system. I enjoy games that let me mold the character how I will actually play rather than limit me to their shoehorned model. Elderscroll Games have that going for them at least, although you don't really need to make any sacrifices in that particular series since you could rather easily max all skills. At least the Witcher forces you to specialize since you only have a limited number of skill points.
Wasn't exactly reasonable back then either - just in the opposite direction. Ever read a first or second edition AD&D or D&D players manual? Magic-users were completely and totally useless. The were only viable because every DM on the planet ignored half the rules. Material components, spells that took 25 seconds to cast and could be interrupted by anything.