Pandemonium.
Well that certainly didn't take long, did it? Barely a week after beating my first run through of 'Diablo II: Resurrected' I jumped right back into the crucible to get myself good and caught up before the beginning of 4 by playing the game which first intrigued me about the franchise to begin with. Diablo III, often decried as the 'black sheep' of the franchise- at least until 'Diablo Immortal' showed up as the degenerate black hole of quality, creativity and purpose that it ultimately is. Back when I was a fiddler around with demos, Diablo III was all I had to go off to assess what this popular franchise was like, and I remember somewhat liking what I was seeing. (After a few playthroughs to get to terms with the game, that is.) But now I've approached the game from another angle, having experienced all that Diablo II has to offer- what now do I think of Diablo III?
The most striking aspect I've always heard grumblings about when it comes to this franchise is that apparently Diablo III sacrifices on the higher design ideals of the franchise just a tad too often. Diablo was supposed to represent the dark underbelly of gothic diabolism, with brooding dark dungeons littered with corpses of the slain in a fatalistic aesthetic that reminds the player constantly how they are staring into the foulest side of the world. It should be moody, dark, or fiery and chaotic. And Diablo III is... well it is quite cartoony in comparison. I know that Diablo II has a 4k lick of paint, but it must be said that in terms of sheer design Blizzard did noticeably aim for a more stylised design approach that better suits there other titles. Games wherein the sillouettes of characters are immediately notable for how distinctively exaggerated their bodies are, or the way each character stands. It's also quite colourful in every instance, finding deep blues and effluent greens even in the pits of it's darkest dungeons- and it does quite stand out.
Initially I'll admit that Diablo III felt like a toybox version of the franchise I got to know, probably not helped by the fact the game hadn't seen any sort of visual remaster since release. (The character models could certainly use some kind of face lift.) But when it comes down to it I go generally prefer games that have the style to find colour and highlight the depth of the environment even in the most realistically monochrome settings. When I compare the first dungeon of Diablo II and III, the Den of Evil is pretty same-y across the board- Diablo III's world in every respect has more life and vibrancy that immediately makes it more fun to explore. Admittedly, I ended up spending a lot more time with Diablo III then I did with II, so I did kind of just 'get used' to the visual style, but I don't hate what III went for. That being said, given the themes and tonality of this franchise, I do agree that Diablo is usually better off finding colour in the bouncing of light off the slick of the blood pooling around the cobblestones. (In that regard, Diablo IV appears to be headed in the right direction.)
Speaking of design and the world, I should probably commend Diablo III for working on one of my gripes with II. Namely the layout of dungeons feeling largely samey with a different tile set swap-out being the only distinction one can usually make between one dungeon and the next. The randomised map layout would sprawl on an obviously square and typically boxish grid, making exploration less interesting when you know pretty much what you're going to find in any given dungeon (Albeit in very broad strokes.) III dispels that utterly. Dungeon layout and maps have depth, the illusion of verticality, shape, distinct design motifs- tombs have special rooms design to be cairns, hellish siege engines have giant ascending central staircases- everwhere feels distinct and intelligently hand designed- which in turn makes it so special when the player comes around and discovers that these too have the hand of randomly shifting design thrown into them. Also: Diablo III's dungeons all have the restraint to not be more than two floors deep without changing the environment or setting, which helps so much for not getting bored. I really appreciate that.
But visuals aren't the only common sticking point with players whenever it comes to the Diablo versus Diablo grudge match- there's also the actual RPG levelling itself. In Diablo of the past you'd be awarded perk points and attribute points to spec into the skills of your choosing. Spending points where you need to in order to the best at a particular skill meant that an explorative player would be less effective than a power player who knew exactly where to spend their points throughout the entire game- rewarding familiarity with the game systems, and necessitating stat perk reset mechanics for higher level play. Diablo III does away with all this in it's entirety for a system which is much more hands-off and casual friendly- and of course that's going to meet the accusation of being 'watered down'; as the gaming community are pretty predictable in that regard.
The way levelling works in Diablo III is simple; you gather the experience and the game does everything else. You don't need to assign attribute points, the game handles all that automatically. You don't even need to unlock skills with perk points, every skill is provided to the player level-by-level until they have the full class unlocked at the end- allowing for the player to switch up their playstyle on the fly in whatever way they choose. On one hand this really does dispel that dawning horror of "Oh god, I'm 10 hours in and I've specced my character horribly" which is a grim realisation that all casual players trying out their first ARPG (or even any RPG that isn't a modern style one) will realise at some point. You're never more than a few skill switches away from changing your playstyle completely. On the otherhand, there's a layer of skill and stat understanding that becomes lost until the very endgame of activities because a typical player just never needs to think about it. You can pretty much just slap on the more powerful gear and worry about nothing else throughout the entire game and have a fairly swimming time.
And when you do reach that endgame? What then? How do you really customise your hero and how they play to suit your specific playstyle? It all comes down to gear rolls and set bonuses. Diablo III's gear all roll with boosts, and legendary gear roll with powerful specific skill manipulating effects that a smart player will change their move-set for in order to capitalise on. For example, my Necromancer hero received the legendary 'Funerary Pick' weapon quite early on; a weapon that allowed his 'Siphon blood' ability to scale by %300 and split off to hit two other mobs at the same time- tripling leech healing and destroying most rooms of small mobs. As such, that gear spurred me to slot in the 'Siphon Blood' power and make great use of it. And thanks also to the 'Kanai Cube' (the successor to Diablo II's Horadric Cube- this one owning tons more customising) I could extract that specific power and place it atop of my character as an all around buff in the late game. Whilst at face value this change to design seems wholly limiting, the Diablo III that exists today probably offers a lot more intricate and varied late-game builds than any Diablo released before it. It just happens to have a more player friendly intro levelling system slapped on top.
Although whilst we are on the topic of being 'player friendly', I do have a gripe to mention with regards to Diablo III and it's gameplay- how bloody easy it all was! Diablo II wasn't the most difficult game in the world but I got stuck at least once. (on Duriel) I had to level my character carefully and play within the confines of my class. (as a Trap-Assassin) With Diablo III I literally breezed through the intro area without getting down to three quarters of my health bar. Thankfully Diablo III allows you to switch difficulty up without restarting the entire game, so I pushed up to hard. Same problem. Then Expert. A bit of challenge. Then Master; now I had a fight every now and then. In pretty much any difficulty level before Master the game is painfully easy, and even at Master and beyond the only real 'threat' is from the Greater Rift post-game challenges- and I think that's kind of a thematic shame.
To explain what I mean; in narrative, Diablo is a game about staving off the overwhelming forces of hell that are always on the verge of taking over the world. (Or heaven, in the case of 'Reaper of Souls') Thus you'd expect the biggest challenge to come from taking on those monsters and demon lords in the main story, that just makes sense. However because of the way the game progression is laid out, silencing hell is just power-level training on your way to the true hardest activity- going through endless Nephalem training exercises. You see the disconnect in story and gameplay there? I know it's a loser's game to judge a system heavy game genre like ARPGs by it's gameplay and narrative cohesion- You'll find the same sort of problem in any game with a main story and endgame content pilled ontop of it- expect for, perhaps, World of Warcraft, which always knows to keep it's toughest enemies tied to it's narratively significant raids. I just think a happy medium accord could have been reached here if Diablo III had a bit more design consistency from the get-go.
Which I guess brings us around to the great re-design; because yes, I know the story as we all must. When Diablo III first launched it was actually something of a shallow mess that failed to step up from, or in some people's eyes even meet, what Diablo II had achieved before it. All those systems which felt dumbed down had no slap back endgame make-up round to justify the choice and Diablo III kind of felt like a dud to some diehard fans. The expansion to the game, Reaper of Souls, and subsequent updates saw drastic changes to the game's fundamental design, with reworked gear stats, totally new endgame systems (some of which I've mentioned on good terms right here) and a more coherent path to recurrent play for die hard lovers. They pretty much pulled a Final Fantasy XIV 'A Realm Reborn' with Diablo III and the resulting game is, in my opinion, more fun to grind out than II was. Hell, I actually completed the core journey path of this season (Season 28) before starting this review, something which I held no desire to do for Diablo II.
When it comes to narrative, my thoughts of Diablo III are a little more complicated in how they compare to the previous entry. In contents and scope I'm much more a fan of Diablo III's full bodied narrative with it's plethora of properly written characters, appropriately placed stakes and solid grasp on player agency so I'm not running around chasing the plot again. I also like the abundance of lore that the game has, much of which is spent fleshing out the previous games so players can better contextualise the world of Diablo without having to resort to ancillary reading materials. (Even if such lore snippets are pretty horrible placed, just dropping into the world in vaguely related places with no discernible rhyme or reason. Unless you expect me to believe that Lilith left her plans to corrupt Inarius in the exact same place that Inarius left his and I guess the silly bugger just never bothered to read one of her explicitly detailed betrayal plans.) 
An interesting way that Diablo III chose to present it's characters is by having the 'hub' of each act be populated by the same vendors, and having your 'mercenaries' of this game be actual specific companions who have their own stories which play out across the game. All these characters had their own little quirks and personalities that brought them to life, even if some choice members felt a bit 'whimsical' within the world they were supposedly placed. (Does the rogue need to be womanising in the middle of a demon assault on the city? What is this: D&D?) It really does build this feeling of community around the player so they feel as if they're progressing in a unit, instead of on their own in this grim world, which perhaps somewhat suits the intentionally different feeling world of Diablo III. Perhaps I wouldn't have appreciated this approach as much in II, and I don't think it's making a return in IV; but for what it's worth I feel that the camp-like presentation of supporting characters is at least congruent to this game's ethics and presentation. But somehow all of this that Diablo III does right still isn't everything.
Because when I think back to Diablo II, specifically the remastered version of it, I prefer the way that game feels. It comes down to presentation I think. In it's framing as a tale told of the past, (Like Diablo IV appears to be doing) in the fantastically gothic cutscenes in the design of the world that seems to seep deeper and deeper to hell the further your progress- Diablo II feels more dire and diabolical, whereas Diablo III feels more like an adventure tipped with bouts of excitement. I don't think it would take much to meet those two styles into creating the single ideal narrative for this franchise, and I get the feeling that is exactly what Diablo IV aims to do- but it should be said that whilst I certainly felt more involved following the story of the Nephalem, I did so with wistful longing for the emotion sparked in me by the tale of the Prime Evils.
Although whilst I'm talking about the 'Nephalem', there's a couple more points I want to cover. Firstly, for such a hugely important plotpoint, the 'Nephalem' story point is absolutely brushed past so quickly I didn't even notice it happen, and I really thought some more explaining would go into unveiling exactly how it has occurred. (Maybe there's a log book explaining it hid up some demon's rectum if I just kill enough of him.) And secondly; Reaper of Souls felt like it's own add-on adventure rather than a continuation of the Diablo III narrative. I know it does, actually, continue directly on- but all it really serves to do is justify the return of Diablo in future entries, nothing that happens in the expansion itself feels really important to the grand scheme of the Diablo narrative. Not like how 'Lord of Destruction' was a core-port of Diablo II which couldn't be skipped by if you wanted to.
Summary
Diablo III is a game that has lived a very long life and gone through a whirlwind of change since it first launched, having to carry the weight of a legendary predecessor as well as marking it's own path on the world. When I look at Diablo III I see a game that is almost lockstep with the general feel of other Blizzard properties, even whilst it tries to maintain the uniqueness of the Diablo brand, which can lead to some cohesive friction at first. Once I got used to this version of the Diablo world, however, what I found underneath was a enjoyable and decently expansive game which made up for a lot of it's shortcomings with great swap-out class customisation, a moderately engaging endgame loop and solid narrative that felt satisfying to beat. For diehard Diablo fans, III will always be a black sheep which unforgivable sullied their beloved brand- but for me it is a fine, if wobbly, successor which- probably more due to the general trend of design rather than direction- was actually more appealing to stick with than Diablo II Resurrected was. I certainly do recommend the game, and award it a respectable slap-bang B Grade in the arbitrary review scale for surpassing my expectations. If the franchise has your attention, this is as fine a place to start as any. And for what it's worth, streaking past max level in Diablo III has me near feverish to pick up the cause again come Diablo IV! (Maybe I will get it on release date...)
No comments:
Post a Comment