Zeewolf: And to those who say it's not fun to play any more, wrong! I completed it a couple of years back, basically twice because my character was overwhelmed in one of the last levels and I had to restart, and I had tons of fun.
BleepBl00p: It feels weird seeing people give it 5 star or 10/10 when Diablo 2 exists and improves pretty much everything about it.
The gameplay is very clunky compared to pretty much any hack n slash game released after it.
Mqstout already covered the point I wanted to make to an extent, but I disagree with you for the same reason.
Before I state why, let me just say that there are definitely things Diablo II improves over the original. In fact, Diablo II did what any good sequel should: it expanded the mythos of the universe and refined the gameplay. I'll even go so far as to say that, for any people who were primarily interested in the series for its multiplayer and hack'n'slash mechanics, Diablo II is undoubtedly the better game.
However, for those of us who were primarily interested in Diablo from a singleplayer perspective, there was definitely something lost (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, changed) in the transition. While I could point to the pacing and atmosphere, I feel like that's only part of the answer. I think the other part lies in how the game handles the horror element.
When it comes to why games include horror elements, they generally fall into two categories: either they exist to empower the player or to invoke a sense of dread and helplessness within them. While this is something that obviously varies from game to game and is more of a scale than two strictly separate categories, most games will still predominantly veer towards one or the other direction.
The original Diablo is one of the very few examples that manages to strike a balance between the two: it simultaneously makes you feel like a badass while at the same time also invoking the feeling like you're in over your head. It's a fairly unique experience that very few games to this day have been able to replicate.That includes Diablo II, which in its desire to improve the multiplayer hack'n'slash experience, tilted the direction more towards empowerment.
I'm not trying to claim that it was a mistake for Blizzard to do this — in fact, not only were they playing to their strengths (that being multiplayer gameplay) by reorienting themselves like this, the massive success of Diablo II showed that there are many who are hungry for that kind of experience. But still, despite being part of the same series and sharing many gameplay similarities, the original and its sequels still end up being fundamentally different experiences. And for some of us, the experience provided by the original was a more interesting one, despite how much clunkier it is technically compared to its sequels.
Anyway, regarding the news itself, there aren't many things that can make me ecstatic. This was one of them. Like many others, I genuinely thought it was impossible that we'd see Blizzard games on the service. The fact that GOG has managed to accomplish this is spectacular and bodes well for the future It helps that I've been seeking to reacquire the game, so to say that this comes at a rather opportune time is an understatement. Overall, a fantastic addition to the library (including my own soon).
That said, as a longtime Blizzard fan, this happy news does come with a somewhat bitter aftertaste. As glad as I am to see Blizzard do this, it also strikes me as something very uncharacteristic for the company, As shown by the Hellfire debacle, Blizzard was traditionally very protective of their games and refused others from tinkering with them (too much). The sheer fact that they not only agreed, but cooperated on this kind of project is arguably
another sign of Activision Blizzard's increased influence on the company and the gradual shift away from Blizzard's unique company culture (for better or worse).
