One of the reasons for the openness was that there was no such thing as a primary attribute. Meaning, if I wanted to take the engineer (heavy melee class) and use a ranged weapon that was fine. Each class had three skill trees unique to them, but was not restricted by gear. Meanwhile, Torchlight 2's set of classes were more open and less defined. The rune system that allowed players to attach a skill modifying affect, while having a major impact, still only had set effects on the specific skills. When you played as a Barbarian, you were never going to use bow and arrows and equip quivers likewise a Monk would never need a Witch Doctor's sacrificial totem.Ībilities were set in stone in terms of their use, potential and utility and would never change. In Diablo 3, each class was designed as a defined character, with a back-story, unique abilities that fit and preferred gear and attributes. With both Torchlight 2 and Diablo 3, the designers had a different philosophy that wasn't quite perfect. The Man/Woman Behind the Armor:Ĭlass design is a major point in ARPG design, as this is what defines your abilities and search for loot. When I broke both titles down into these categories, the winner wasn't as black and white as I hoped. When it comes to ARPG design, there are three areas that we can judge them on: Character Design, Loot and Combat.
While on the outside both teams created a similar game, if we look closer there are very subtle differences that make it that much harder to pick a winner. And Torchlight 2 from Runic games, which is helmed by the co founders of Blizzard North and the creator of Fate.īoth developers set out to create an ARPG of a similar mold. With Diablo 3 coming from Blizzard, which is arguably one of the biggest developers in the world. With these two games we had an almost David vs.
0 kommentar(er)
