Blizzard's "Diablo" certainly made waves in the gaming industry when it was released in 1997. Its strange mix of action and roleplaying kept many glued to their chairs for months on end, and spawned nearly as many imitators as the legendary "Doom." In 1997, the formula worked splendidly - but it's the new millennium now that "Diablo II" has come to store shelves, and it just feels a little long in the tooth. That hasn't kept it from becoming one of the most overwhelmingly critically praised games of 2000, though. One PC Gamer reviewer went so far as to call it "the best game ever" at the time. Apparently he enjoyed the minimal story, the pithy roleplaying elements, and the repetitive click-fest that is "Diablo II" - or maybe he just needs to play more games, because this one remains tremendously overrated. I really want to stress how gratingly easy critics were on this game, just because it had the Blizzard logo on the box. Much better games have taken critical beatings, and justice dictates that "Diablo II" is put in its proper place. Even so, it's certainly not a bad game, and can become very engrossing despite its lack of depth and dearth of variety.
Though the "Diablo" games can often be found in the roleplaying section, there is little actual roleplaying to be done. You are offered five character options at the beginning of the game, and you pick one of them as your avatar - it's that simple. It should be noted, though, that each character plays quite differently, and all have unique and impressive skills (or spells) that they can employ when things get rough. Of course, you will also tweak your character's stats to your liking as you gain levels, which is why this is considered roleplaying at all.
In reality, though, "Diablo II" is a top-down isometric action game, and that's just fine. Wading through hordes of demonic baddies is certainly an enjoyable experience - though I myself couldn't help but wish there was more to the game. Combat only ceases when you're in one of the game's three cities (one city per episode), and you really only visit these cities when you need weapons or other items, or perhaps when you're ready to receive your next quest. Quests are extremely linear as well. While playing through the game, I didn't encounter a single quest that was designed to boost experience and was not somehow related to finishing the game's main storyline. I enjoy linearity, personally, but the inability to do your own thing, even just a little bit, keeps "Diablo II" from maintaining its freshness. It all boils down to hacking and slashing, leveling up, and repeating that process until the credits roll. It's certainly fun at times, but it's not enough for the game to stay compelling for long periods. Great games transport you to another reality, but "Diablo II" will never allow you to forget that you're just staring at your monitor and constantly clicking on things with your mouse. Even the outdoor environments just feel like the spruced up tabletops upon which you are playing with your fantasy-themed action figures.
Oh, yes, and I can't forget to mention that "Diablo II" has a truly awful save system that would be more at home in "Everquest." In other words, there's an autosave, and that's about it. It makes casual sittings with the game become more frustrating than they should ever have been, since when you die you'll lose key items in your inventory (like your primary weapons), and you'll have to find your body to recover them. To make matters worse, enemies respawn like rodents when your back is turned, and it's just so bloody  aggravating!
In the end, I have been focusing more on the game's faults than its virtues, since I feel that its faults have been least touched upon in the press - but it really is a good game. It is far from achieving the greatness others have claimed, but it's good. If you're one of the few people with a PC and a penchant for gaming on planet earth who hasn't yet picked up a copy, you could be well-served if you're in the mood for some lightweight action. Don't put too much stock in those editorial reviews you've read, though, and take note that games like "Icewind Dale," "Baldur's Gate," "Divine Divinity," and "Nox" have all done this isometric roleplaying thing considerably better than "Diablo II." They actually offer depth as well as frenetic combat. (Well, all except "Nox," but it was just so bloody fun!) It's inevitable that Blizzard will eventually begin working on "Diablo III," and though it will certainly make plenty of money for the company, if it's to attain true success it had better acknowledge its peers and offer more than its shallow predecessor.
Final Score: C+
Blizzard's "Diablo" certainly made waves in the gaming industry when it was released in 1997. Its strange mix of action and roleplaying kept many glued to their chairs for months on end, and spawned nearly as many imitators as the legendary "Doom. " In 1997, the formula worked splendidly - but it's the new millennium now that "Diablo II" has come to store shelves, and it just feels a little long in the tooth. That hasn't kept it from becoming one of the most overwhelmingly critically praised games of 2000, though. One PC Gamer reviewer went so far as to call it "the best game ever" at the time. Apparently he enjoyed the minimal story, the pithy roleplaying elements, and the repetitive click-fest that is "Diablo II" - or maybe he just needs to play more games, because this one remains tremendously overrated. I really want to stress how gratingly easy critics were on this game, just because it had the Blizzard logo on the box. Much better games have taken critical beatings, and justice dictates that "Diablo II" is put in its proper place. Even so, it's certainly not a bad game, and can become very engrossing despite its lack of depth and dearth of variety. Though the "Diablo" games can often be found in the roleplaying section, there is little actual roleplaying to be done. You are offered five character options at the beginning of the game, and you pick one of them as your avatar - it's that simple. It should be noted, though, that each character plays quite differently, and all have unique and impressive skills (or spells) that they can employ when things get rough. Of course, you will also tweak your character's stats to your liking as you gain levels, which is why this is considered roleplaying at all. In reality, though, "Diablo II" is a top-down isometric action game, and that's just fine. Wading through hordes of demonic baddies is certainly an enjoyable experience - though I myself couldn't help but wish there was more to the game. Combat only ceases when you're in one of the game's three cities (one city per episode), and you really only visit these cities when you need weapons or other items, or perhaps when you're ready to receive your next quest. Quests are extremely linear as well. While playing through the game, I didn't encounter a single quest that was designed to boost experience and was not somehow related to finishing the game's main storyline. I enjoy linearity, personally, but the inability to do your own thing, even just a little bit, keeps "Diablo II" from maintaining its freshness. It all boils down to hacking and slashing, leveling up, and repeating that process until the credits roll. It's certainly fun at times, but it's not enough for the game to stay compelling for long periods. Great games transport you to another reality, but "Diablo II" will never allow you to forget that you're just staring at your monitor and constantly clicking on things with your mouse. Even the outdoor environments just feel like the spruced up tabletops upon which you are playing with your fantasy-themed action figures. Oh, yes, and I can't forget to mention that "Diablo II" has a truly awful save system that would be more at home in "Everquest. " In other words, there's an autosave, and that's about it. It makes casual sittings with the game become more frustrating than they should ever have been, since when you die you'll lose key items in your inventory (like your primary weapons), and you'll have to find your body to recover them. To make matters worse, enemies respawn like rodents when your back is turned, and it's just so bloody  aggravating! In the end, I have been focusing more on the game's faults than its virtues, since I feel that its faults have been least touched upon in the press - but it really is a good game. It is far from achieving the greatness others have claimed, but it's good. If you're one of the few people with a PC and a penchant for gaming on planet earth who hasn't yet picked up a copy, you could be well-served if you're in the mood for some lightweight action. Don't put too much stock in those editorial reviews you've read, though, and take note that games like "Icewind Dale," "Baldur's Gate," "Divine Divinity," and "Nox" have all done this isometric roleplaying thing considerably better than "Diablo II. " They actually offer depth as well as frenetic combat. (Well, all except "Nox," but it was just so bloody fun! ) It's inevitable that Blizzard will eventually begin working on "Diablo III," and though it will certainly make plenty of money for the company, if it's to attain true success it had better acknowledge its peers and offer more than its shallow predecessor. Final Score: C+