Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (
More info?)
Gabriele Neukam <Gabriele.Spamfighter.Neukam@t-online.de> wrote:
>On that special day, Thomas Engler, (thomas.engler@gmx.de) said...
>
>> And the best "Diablo"-clone might be "Sacred
>> Plus". There is also an add-on available "Sacred Underworld" which adds
>> about 40% to the world and introduces two new races.
>
>Don't call Sacred a Diablo clone, or people will be disappointed after
>trying it. It is a game in its own right, but might not appeal to hard
>core Meph and Baal runners. There is no point in doing such things in
>Sacred. And doing the same things over and over, although it is
>possible, soon becomes quite tedious in this game.
>
>It is more story oriented, and has a fixed map. There are differences
>in the handling of runes. There are no runewords, and no gems with
>fixed values (except for those two dragon thingies). So you are much
>more dependent on chance, when planning certain builds. Especially when
>the skills are built with runes which have to be found firsthand.
>
>The way characters are built, is different, and there are no spell
>synergies, except for maybe such weak ones as the hell power - hell
>disk combo. As a result, there are way less variants of certain builds
>running about than in Diablo.
>
>The game is obviously inspired by Diablo, yet I would say, it is less
>similar to Diablo than Darkstone.
When I played Sacred (at the 1.6 patch level, I believe), it was full
of significant bugs. Also, it very much had the feel of a
single-player game with (broken) multiplayer functionality grafted on
as an afterthought just hours before release. These concerns were far
more disappointing than any dissimilarities to Diablo 2.
--
Greg
phobos78-marslink-net
Replace dashes and move in by 1 planet to reply.