THE FINAL STAGE ZERO POST ABOUT DIABLO (WARNING: NOT HUMOROUS)

Today we discuss whether or not Diablo III really is better than Diablo II, with a focus on death and dying.

"How can you even bring this up?" You ask. "Diablo III is the latest and best take on its genre. Or maybe I'm trying to say that Diablo II was dark and scary and trying to do new things while Diablo III is elegant and colorful and all about doing almost nothing new."

You are correct. But that doesn't get to the core of what makes those games better or worse than the other. It is how the games handle death and dying differently that makes one superior (to the other). Let us actually begin.

The modes. The Diablos II and III are basically two games in two. Or four games. Whatever! Two's called the "Hardcore Mode" and the other two's called the "Not Hardcore Mode." This is why when we begin comparing Diablo II and Diablo III, we'll actually be comparing their takes on those (two?) modes! ARGH!

1. Why Diablo II's Not Hardcore Mode (NHM) provides a better experience than Diablo III's Not Hardcore Mode: It's because Diablo III abandoned the The Average Enemy is Dangerous So You Better Spam Your Health Potions system. Instead it uses the God of War Health Orb and You-Can't-Spam-Your-Healing-Potions systems. At first, I did like the new systems; they made the boss battles have a sense of I-can't-just-press-the-health-drinking-button-to-win; plus I didn't have to waste time making potions of rejuvenation.

But it also made all the non-boss battles either too easy in all of Normal Difficulty, or, with the higher difficulty elite monsters, impossibly hard without the right loot, which takes forever to get. Or in short: Diablo III's monsters end up being too easy or too hard, while Diablo II's monsters are variations of "about right," unless you play D2's Barbarian (google iron maiden Diablo II).

But that's actually not really why Diablo III's NHM is worse than Diablo II's; Blizzard has recently patched Diablo III so that the higher level, epic monsters aren't so ludicrously difficult; it doesn't change the fact that Diablo III's normal difficulty is stupidly, boringly easy, but...oh well, at least a D3 player can say, "Well, the graphics are prettier, and it's easier to start a game with my friends and get items - via the auction house. And the interface is pretty."

The best way to convince yourself that Diablo II's NHM is better is to realize that, until you get to level 53 in Diablo III, D3 doesn't punish you for dying (and yes this is a bad thing). In Diablo II, dying would cost you XP, a chunk of the gold you were carrying, damage to the stuff you wore and wielded, and temporary nudity which would result in you having to retrieve your items from your corpse. In Diablo III, the punishment is minor damage to your adorned, wielded stuff....and that's it; repairs cost nearly nothing until you've played through 2.5 of the game's difficulties. Diablo III (in not hardcore mode) takes forever to provide the thrills of risk.

2. NOW ON TO HARDCORE MODE! Which game's is better?

Diablo III's. The auction house shortens the time it takes to get the items you need to beat the game.

3. And now, the final word on Diablo: which game is better? D2 or D3?

Answer: Who cares? Both games are a waste of the times of 99+% of everyone who plays them. Neither game is particularly fun and neither provide great social experiences; and no, I do not consider giving friends "legendary" loot great social experiences, especially since all it does is motivate them to bore themselves in a boring game even more.


And it doesn't help the case for these games that the only intellectual growth they offer goes in the form of, "Stop playing me! Life's too short!"