Did you finish reading the entire thread, either you’re really fast or you got lazy again, first finish what we were talking about then ill give you what ever you want, if you don’t respect my plea i wont respect yours
its not, he said so himself
Like what choices? maybe a dual-tree sorc could choose to use cold or fire charms, sure. Other than that, it’s basically no choice at all.
Have 40 spaces for charms? CHECK
Have room for anything you want to pick up? CHECK
That’s bad game design. No tradeoff. No choices.
1 Like
Oh, first time that I see it coming from you, it seems like you are against charms as well, unlike you I like the choices coming from charms, and as you already debated with me about in another thread, I don’t just stack +1 skill charms
it seem you don’t even remember our conversations
Since you once again fail to provide facts or evidence of your claims i shall provide them for you just to prove you wrong. Since you are currently at the stage of wrongfully attacking my vocabulary and refusing to provide evidence for your claimed “facts”.
After everyone left for the weekend, Dave sat down at his computer and pulled up Diablo’s code. He scanned through and hit on something. The game was written so every action—movement, combat, quaffing a healing potion — took up a certain amount of time. Monsters moved immediately after the player initiated a command. Once the time to perform an action expired, the game turned back the clock and the player-monster turn cycle began anew. All he needed to do was whittle the time between actions down to nothing.
Dave began to type. The sunlight filtering in through his window grew faint, then faded to night, leaving him suffused in the glow of his monitor. Occasionally a breeze sighed through the window, rustling the blinds and fluttering the hockey posters hanging over his two desks. He never once looked up.
A few hours later, he built a new version of the game, took up his mouse, and played.
I can remember the moment like it was yesterday that this happened. I was sitting and I was coding the game, and I had a warrior with a sword, and there was a skeleton on the other side of the screen. I’d been working on all this code to make characters move smoothly, doing a whole bunch of testing, and we’d talked about how the controls would work. We wanted it to be visceral. Click and swing, click and swing. We wanted it to automatically happen: If you clicked on the monster, your character would go over there and swing.
I remember very vividly: I clicked on the monster, the guy walked over, and he smashed this skeleton and it fell apart onto the ground.
The light from heaven shone through the office down onto the keyboard. I said, “Oh my God, this is so amazing!” I knew it was not only the right decision, but that Diablo was just going to be massive. It was really the most defining moment of my career, as well as for that genre of gaming. A new genre was born in that moment, and it was really quite incredible to be the person coding it and creating it. I was just there by myself coding it up. It was pretty incredible.
– David Brevik
Can you please elaborate this post? I am trying to understand what choices could possibly come from having a charm inventory, than not having one?
Are you going to suddenly start picking up cracked sashes or something? it is very unlikely more than 1 or 2 charm/jewels, and maybe 1 high end item at most will drop in an entire run.
Please read my original post again as i typed an extra word in which was edited shortly.
why are you trying to prove that diablo 1 and 2 are action based right now, we can play it you know 
you got the wrong quote darling 
, you still didn’t read the thread, good luck on finding the right quote yourself 
My post completely contradicts your statement though. Proving you wrong.
It does not, if you knew anything about the topic you would have known that brevik hated the idea and wanted nothing to do with it, until his entire studio disagreed with him in which point he had to try it
1 Like
Factual. Diablo 2 would have never come to be weren’t for the hungry fans and some of his associates wanting to continue development, and even then, he did not enjoy working on the game which lead to some grueling years of support… uhg.
1 Like
May be factual, but out of context.
how exactly is it out of context, because you are wrong ?
Well, it seems like you might be right to some extend after all on this topic.
The guys at Blizzard Irvine had been sold on the game design and the team making it, but they didn’t know it was turn-based at first. When they found out, they argued strongly against it, pointing to the success of their own game Warcraft as an example of the intensity and fun of having to make survival decisions quickly and under pressure.
The Blizzard North devs liked real time, but didn’t think it was right for Diablo, and they argued back and forth for a while (there are lots of interesting quotes from both sides of the debate, in the sample chapter), but ultimately most of the Blizzard North team came to support the real-time theory. No one really knew until they actually tried it out though, so that very evening David Brevik tackled the project:
1 Like
I’m right about more then just that, you just don’t trust me and instead of trying to understand where we are coming from and what we are trying to say you push against it
we are all Diablo players and we also don’t want anything to break the game
Because it is not related to what we are discussing currently, so 
Can’t be wrong about some out of context thing i have never mentioned 
it is, again, go back up and look at the posts 
you just made a few posts even linking whole paragraphs lol
Agree. I don’t think anyone means to break the game with their proposed changes, but I worry those changes may do just that.
Charm inventory may sound nice, but it definitely changes the balance of the game, from both a PvM and PvP standpoint, as well as making it just that much easier, and less decision making.
1 Like
About how Diablo 2 came to be? Or if he enjoyed working on it? Not really.
as you agreed with me before, a good elegant implementation wont break anything
Even i can agree with that.