I would say that D1 was really more single player than multi-player. D2 was more multi-player because of all the support they provided. Both games were great, but D2 aloud a safer place for gamers to gather, and all the character balances that Blizz did was targeted more for multi-player, even adding runes to LOD was because of multi-player no single player could possibly collect all those runes/items on their own.KickTheBukkit wrote:it's a good (broad sence of the word) game, but it's NOT a diablo 2 sequel... hell it is everything a diablo game SHOULD NOT be.
but blizz (and god maybe it was just wilson's "great" idea) decided to USE the diablo franchise's name to promot this "thing"
D1 and D2 where single player orientated games with multiplayer option... D3 and that fat bastard even kept repeating it was planned to be a MP game... why? because they are greedy!
and now they won't even open their mouth because they KNOW how hard they failed!
i think if runic would pull such a card on T2, they would actualy admit their mistake. but that will actualy never happen because they LISTEN to their comunity and fans (and beta testers) i don't know what blizz gained from their beta because the game is STILL bugged like hell (and not minor bugs but godmode characters...)
they should have release the game under a diffrent name (and slightly alterd story be it a bad/good one) and had to take the time to iron out the flaws AND ACTUALY LISTEN TO THE COMUNITY and beta testers.
Even today I can't play Diablo 1 with my brother because I am a mage guy through and through I love magic and I love long range attacks, my brother is a tanker, he loves melee combat. In diablo 1, if we play together my spells damage him so it defeats the purpose of playing multi-player. This ofcourse was offline play, I wouldn't go on open battle.net You could catch a trojan just by reading a comment in chat lol.