6 ms·

edit: Didn't read the the "spiritual" part of the "spiritual successor". Though you could argue diablo 3 is, I would not be so bold. You should still try diablo

edit: Didn't read the the "spiritual" part of the "spiritual successor". Though you could argue diablo 3 is, I would not be so bold. You should still try diablo 3 if you haven't. Diablo 3 is actually pretty good now if you want a successor. If you just want something similar to diablo 2 I suggest torchlight or titan quest. Diablo 1 is tricky because it was so much closer to rogue likes (probably because originally it was one). I would love to see a game that has a more subdued and methodical pacing but with less town hacks :)

EpicEng 8y ago
>Diablo 3 is actually pretty good now if you want a successor. Diablo 3 is in no way a spiritual successor to D1 and 2. Yes, it's much better than it was at release, but it is still very much a streamlined, mass market friendly ARPG. Modern Diablo gameplay consists of leveling (1-2 hours), finishing your season journey (another 2-3 hours, maybe), getting your free super-powerful six piece handed to you, and then grinding paragon levels and filling in a couple of gear spots here and there. It in no significant way resembles the Diablo of old. If you want a true sequel try PoE or Grim Dawn.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- robohamburger 8y ago
  I guess I didn't read spiritual in the successor part though I am not sure what that means. I can see how they games are different enough that saying diablo 3 is a spirital successor is probably not useful. I don't think arguing about what it means would be fruitful, so I concede the point. > Yes, it's much better than it was at release, but it is still very much a streamlined, mass market friendly ARPG. How is this bad? It seems like you are implying it is. Also how is diablo 3 mass-market and diablo 2 not? > Modern Diablo gameplay consists of leveling (1-2 hours), finishing your season journey (another 2-3 hours, maybe), getting your free super-powerful six piece handed to you, and then grinding paragon levels and filling in a couple of gear spots here and there. Agree, that is how I play it. This is slightly hyperbolic but not that far off. It took me about 2 days of playing to get to T13 (the hardest difficulty). This could be made more interesting but I kind of enjoy tweaking my build and min-maxing :) > It in no significant way resembles the Diablo of old. If you want a true sequel try PoE or Grim Dawn. Which diablo? Diablo 3 is a true sequel, you just don't like it, which is fine.
  - Ataraxy 8y ago
    To be fair, OP was looking for a modern spiritual successor (not sequel) of which D3 is not.
    - robohamburger 8y ago
      Agreed, which is my bad. Though spiritual successor is kind of squishy idea it's probably obvious they were not considering diablo 3 as being in the running.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    > How is this bad? It seems like you are implying it is. Also how is diablo 3 mass-market and diablo 2 not? It's not, it's just a different approach than what most ARPGs (including D1 & 2) take. ARPGs tend to be information heavy, customization heavy, and hard to get into as a result. That's not the way blizz went, which is fine, but it turns off the hardcore ARPG fans. >Agree, that is how I play it. This is slightly hyperbolic but not that far off. It took me about 2 days of playing to get to T13 (the hardest difficulty). This could be made more interesting but I kind of enjoy tweaking my build and min-maxing :) Which is perfectly fine :) Sure, I was simplifying things a bit, but the fact that you (or anyone else) can get to ROFLSTOMP levels of power in a couple of days is a departure from most ARPGs. Min-maxing in D3 is essentially "Is the tooltip green?" You have a handful of stats you care about, defined by your 6 piece (which you were handed) the vast majority of the time, and all you're doing is making incremental improvements to those few stats as you grind rifts. Not much depth there. Paragon levels are too strong and should just go away IMO. >Which diablo? Diablo 3 is a true sequel, you just don't like it, which is fine. We're talking about a "spiritual successor" here. In other words, a game that builds upon the core gameplay concepts introduced by Diablo. Diablo 3 is not that. It does not resemble D1 or 2 in tone, setting, or gameplay (aside from running around and killing stuff obviously.) I have yet to find a single person who would argue that D3 is an evolution of the original design as opposed to a complete re-imagining of the genre. Hell, it's not even a loot focused grind any longer.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- poisonarena 8y ago
  I couldnt get into D3 because there is too much focus on the items, I think the items should compliment the character, not the reverse
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    Then you simply don't like ARPGs, period. ARPGs are loot games. The entire point of these games is literally grinding for loot. Loot makes you strong, not levels. You want a different genre, which is fine, but change the loot part of an ARPG and you're left with an RPG.
- klibertp 8y ago
  ...what, exactly, do you see in PoE that resembles Diablo 1? I can't think of much beyond the camera view angle.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    Primarily tone, aesthetic, and depth. Of course they didn't copy the systems 1:1, but it _feels_ more like diablo than diablo 3 ever did. I realize that I'm using vague terminology, but you'd be hard pressed to find fans that don't agree. We're talking about a "spiritual successor" here, not "add up how many aspects of PoE are identical to D2." I know you said D1, but few people make or care about that comparison. D2 is the most popular and the latest entry in the series that people who were turned off by D3 care about.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - duskwuff 8y ago
    I'd describe PoE as more of a spiritual successor to Diablo 2. There's a lot of weird aspects of D1 which were removed in D2 and later games -- for instance, spellbooks, elixirs, and randomly generated quests. As a concrete example: PoE's schema for items (normal/magic/rare/unique, maximum of 3 prefixes and 3 suffixes) is almost a carbon copy of Diablo 2's item system.
- vkou 8y ago
  To be fair, the only commonality between Diablo and Diablo 2 was in: 1. The Atmosphere. (Except for most of Act 1, and Acts 2 and 5.) 2. The Name. Diablo was a slow, tile-based click-and-slash dungeon crawler. Diablo 2 was... Something else entirely. Blast/teleport[1] through everything at top speed to farm bosses. Non-linear power curves. Incredibly high emphasis on gear[2]. Far less tactical, and far more forgiving to mistakes. In that sense, the gap between Diablo and Diablo 2 was probably bigger then the gap between Diablo 2 and Diablo 3. The core gameplay loop of Diablo 3 is the same as Diablo 2 - it's just that getting your first set of end-game gear is a bit faster, and there's less emphasis on farming bosses. And the ham-fisted story is in your face. [1][2] Enigma... And the rest of the ladder-only rune-words are a game-breaking abomination. They were supposed to be balanced by the rarity of high-end runes, but in practice, those runes are plentiful, because of duping and botting.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    Sure. When I (and others) think "spiritual successor to Diablo" we're almost certainly thinking of D2, not so much D1.
    - grawprog 8y ago
      Except this was a discussion specifically about diablo 1 on a post about diablo 1's source code.
    - Karrot_Kream 8y ago
      I've noticed this in the fandom too, how come? Was D2 just much more popular than D1?
      - EpicEng 8y ago
        Yes. D1 was groundbreaking, but D2 was/is the most played by far (and was also groundbreaking, maybe moreso.) It's still played by many today, D1 not so much.
  - mihaifm 8y ago
    Enigma wasn't an abomination by itself, since the runes were incredibly hard to drop. It was the fact that they were easily accessible through trading from people exploiting dupe bugs and botting. These issues aren't fixed to this day in D2.
jarcane 8y ago
Agreed. This game gets a lot of hate left over from its rubbish launch state, but the game as it exists now is easily my favorite game in the genre since the original. They've very much done what Blizzard has always done best: take a great game and make it accessible but without losing the depth. It's actually the first game that really got me to even give a shit about the high-level buildcrafting. Best 20€ I've spent on a game in a long time.

EpicEng 8y ago

>Diablo 3 is actually pretty good now if you want a successor. Diablo 3 is in no way a spiritual successor to D1 and 2. Yes, it's much better than it was at release, but it is still very much a streamlined, mass market friendly ARPG. Modern Diablo gameplay consists of leveling (1-2 hours), finishing your season journey (another 2-3 hours, maybe), getting your free super-powerful six piece handed to you, and then grinding paragon levels and filling in a couple of gear spots here and there. It in no significant way resembles the Diablo of old. If you want a true sequel try PoE or Grim Dawn.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
robohamburger 8y ago
I guess I didn't read spiritual in the successor part though I am not sure what that means. I can see how they games are different enough that saying diablo 3 is a spirital successor is probably not useful. I don't think arguing about what it means would be fruitful, so I concede the point. > Yes, it's much better than it was at release, but it is still very much a streamlined, mass market friendly ARPG. How is this bad? It seems like you are implying it is. Also how is diablo 3 mass-market and diablo 2 not? > Modern Diablo gameplay consists of leveling (1-2 hours), finishing your season journey (another 2-3 hours, maybe), getting your free super-powerful six piece handed to you, and then grinding paragon levels and filling in a couple of gear spots here and there. Agree, that is how I play it. This is slightly hyperbolic but not that far off. It took me about 2 days of playing to get to T13 (the hardest difficulty). This could be made more interesting but I kind of enjoy tweaking my build and min-maxing :) > It in no significant way resembles the Diablo of old. If you want a true sequel try PoE or Grim Dawn. Which diablo? Diablo 3 is a true sequel, you just don't like it, which is fine.
- Ataraxy 8y ago
  To be fair, OP was looking for a modern spiritual successor (not sequel) of which D3 is not.
  - robohamburger 8y ago
    Agreed, which is my bad. Though spiritual successor is kind of squishy idea it's probably obvious they were not considering diablo 3 as being in the running.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  > How is this bad? It seems like you are implying it is. Also how is diablo 3 mass-market and diablo 2 not? It's not, it's just a different approach than what most ARPGs (including D1 & 2) take. ARPGs tend to be information heavy, customization heavy, and hard to get into as a result. That's not the way blizz went, which is fine, but it turns off the hardcore ARPG fans. >Agree, that is how I play it. This is slightly hyperbolic but not that far off. It took me about 2 days of playing to get to T13 (the hardest difficulty). This could be made more interesting but I kind of enjoy tweaking my build and min-maxing :) Which is perfectly fine :) Sure, I was simplifying things a bit, but the fact that you (or anyone else) can get to ROFLSTOMP levels of power in a couple of days is a departure from most ARPGs. Min-maxing in D3 is essentially "Is the tooltip green?" You have a handful of stats you care about, defined by your 6 piece (which you were handed) the vast majority of the time, and all you're doing is making incremental improvements to those few stats as you grind rifts. Not much depth there. Paragon levels are too strong and should just go away IMO. >Which diablo? Diablo 3 is a true sequel, you just don't like it, which is fine. We're talking about a "spiritual successor" here. In other words, a game that builds upon the core gameplay concepts introduced by Diablo. Diablo 3 is not that. It does not resemble D1 or 2 in tone, setting, or gameplay (aside from running around and killing stuff obviously.) I have yet to find a single person who would argue that D3 is an evolution of the original design as opposed to a complete re-imagining of the genre. Hell, it's not even a loot focused grind any longer.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
poisonarena 8y ago
I couldnt get into D3 because there is too much focus on the items, I think the items should compliment the character, not the reverse
- EpicEng 8y ago
  Then you simply don't like ARPGs, period. ARPGs are loot games. The entire point of these games is literally grinding for loot. Loot makes you strong, not levels. You want a different genre, which is fine, but change the loot part of an ARPG and you're left with an RPG.
klibertp 8y ago
...what, exactly, do you see in PoE that resembles Diablo 1? I can't think of much beyond the camera view angle.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  Primarily tone, aesthetic, and depth. Of course they didn't copy the systems 1:1, but it _feels_ more like diablo than diablo 3 ever did. I realize that I'm using vague terminology, but you'd be hard pressed to find fans that don't agree. We're talking about a "spiritual successor" here, not "add up how many aspects of PoE are identical to D2." I know you said D1, but few people make or care about that comparison. D2 is the most popular and the latest entry in the series that people who were turned off by D3 care about.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- duskwuff 8y ago
  I'd describe PoE as more of a spiritual successor to Diablo 2. There's a lot of weird aspects of D1 which were removed in D2 and later games -- for instance, spellbooks, elixirs, and randomly generated quests. As a concrete example: PoE's schema for items (normal/magic/rare/unique, maximum of 3 prefixes and 3 suffixes) is almost a carbon copy of Diablo 2's item system.
vkou 8y ago
To be fair, the only commonality between Diablo and Diablo 2 was in: 1. The Atmosphere. (Except for most of Act 1, and Acts 2 and 5.) 2. The Name. Diablo was a slow, tile-based click-and-slash dungeon crawler. Diablo 2 was... Something else entirely. Blast/teleport[1] through everything at top speed to farm bosses. Non-linear power curves. Incredibly high emphasis on gear[2]. Far less tactical, and far more forgiving to mistakes. In that sense, the gap between Diablo and Diablo 2 was probably bigger then the gap between Diablo 2 and Diablo 3. The core gameplay loop of Diablo 3 is the same as Diablo 2 - it's just that getting your first set of end-game gear is a bit faster, and there's less emphasis on farming bosses. And the ham-fisted story is in your face. [1][2] Enigma... And the rest of the ladder-only rune-words are a game-breaking abomination. They were supposed to be balanced by the rarity of high-end runes, but in practice, those runes are plentiful, because of duping and botting.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  Sure. When I (and others) think "spiritual successor to Diablo" we're almost certainly thinking of D2, not so much D1.
  - grawprog 8y ago
    Except this was a discussion specifically about diablo 1 on a post about diablo 1's source code.
  - Karrot_Kream 8y ago
    I've noticed this in the fandom too, how come? Was D2 just much more popular than D1?
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      Yes. D1 was groundbreaking, but D2 was/is the most played by far (and was also groundbreaking, maybe moreso.) It's still played by many today, D1 not so much.
- mihaifm 8y ago
  Enigma wasn't an abomination by itself, since the runes were incredibly hard to drop. It was the fact that they were easily accessible through trading from people exploiting dupe bugs and botting. These issues aren't fixed to this day in D2.

jarcane 8y ago

Agreed. This game gets a lot of hate left over from its rubbish launch state, but the game as it exists now is easily my favorite game in the genre since the original. They've very much done what Blizzard has always done best: take a great game and make it accessible but without losing the depth. It's actually the first game that really got me to even give a shit about the high-level buildcrafting. Best 20€ I've spent on a game in a long time.