Diablo + Hellfire

When this game was originally released, my teenage self had some very preconceived notions about what an RPG was supposed to be: turn-based, with a profound story and interesting characters, a variety of colorful environments to explore, and so on. Diablo, with its real-time, action-focused gameplay, what appeared to be a threadbare plot, an ever-present sense of gloom and dread encased in a palette of muted grays and browns was not something that interested me. I wrote it off as a mindless click-fest, and the handful of times I tried playing it, I blamed my character's death as the consequence of poorly-balanced gameplay. In 2012, my tastes had changed. Diablo III came out, and I decided to try it out. I actually really liked it. It appeared the genre had evolved a lot since the "mindless click-fest" that I'd made Diablo out to be. "Thank goodness those designers at Blizzard finally learned how to make a game with interesting, well-balanced mechanics!", I thought. When Diablo showed up on GOG, something occurred to me: what if the original Diablo *wasn't* a mindless click-fest, but I'd just failed to appreciate it for what it was? I'd since seen David Brevik's 2016 GDC post-mortem on the game and it seemed like the game may have had more going for it than I'd given it credit for. So 25 years later, I decided to give it another shot. I'm now about 6 hours in and just defeated the first boss, who I found pretty challenging. Even the townsfolk reveal interesting histories as I progress; there's enough of an air of mystery about the story that I'm intrigued by it, rather than bored. Exploring the labyrinth is engaging; I'm always curious about what's around the next corner, while also readying myself in case a horde emerges from the darkness. In short, I'm having fun so far, and I'm glad I gave the game a second chance.

I've been playing through Diablo 1-3 over the last few weeks. Funnily enough, I finished Diablo 3 first, then worked my way backwards through the earlier titles. What struck me the most, is just what little the whole "bloat" of Diablo 3 adds to the experience IMO. I mean, there's lore, endgame content, a whole slew of difficulty settings, more gems, more gear, more artisans - more everything! It's bigger, flashier - but also "wordier", more colorful etc. And then there's Diablo 1 - a game that its developers envisioned at the time as a simple, playerfriendly version of the CRPG that everyone could just pick up and play. And yet - in comparison to the more "modern" Diablo 3 it also seems so much more "mature". It expects you to play much slower and more methodically, the story is dark and foreboding - rather than loud, bombastic and operatic. Well, to be honest, this is written from the perspective of someone who has played through the three games mostly for the storyline and the broad differences in gameplay - I don't dare say anything about the scope and quality of the endgame content, playing in higher difficulties etc. So, if you're even slightly interested in the series' history and development - definitely give Diablo 1 a go!

...and I still like this game! I played it the first time in 2015, so WAY past its prime time. So I'm definitely not writing this here with rose tinted nostalgia glasses. I usually have a very hard time to like such old PC games, either because I find them graphically dull or because the gameplay is horribly outdated. But it's not the case with this one! Sure, the genre has evolved and you can find more elaborate gameplay in modern games (even the sequel to Diablo offers better gameplay), but what's here still holds up nicely if you're into that sort of genre. And what makes this game so compelling for me is the atmosphere that's created by the beautiful and memorable music score and the cool gothic art direction. And the fact the all dialogues (the few that are there) are fully voiced, something which I personally prefer over reading silent text boxes. I also find the sprite work and the overall design direction holds up well, and the dated visuals actually still fit the tone of the game. All in all I'm surprised I've played through the entire game and liked every minute of it, despite its age. If you ever thought to yourself: "Why would anyone still play old junk like this?" Well, that old "junk" might still be fun even today. Let that be said from someone who thought so himself.

I'm not used to do insta-buys but once I saw the newsletter in my email I have already known I will buy this game right away. I have nostalgia glasses on so bare with me please. I will try to put them down though. Diablo is random generated isometric dungeon action RPG. You get some (not so random) quests to do some story but the game is heavily oriented on combat, we may almost say hack 'n' slash. Tons of generated weapons and armor, three very different classes, three (unlockable) difficulties, very small inventory, no instant travel (there were some shortcuts though). This is the game from which the term "diablo-like" derived. I think Diablo may be almost unplayable for modern player who didn't play this game back in the day. Controls are crazy compared to today standard - this is properly isometric, that means you step on squares and not anywhere between them. Character have to do sharp turns to move (45 degrees) and it looks rather funny and may become frustrating (depending on your own standard). The resolution is... minimal, to put it in some good terms. But those problems didn't exist back then. This was THE GAME, everything ("diablo-like") after it has roots in this one. Diablo 2 solved much of those nuances and brought new good things (ie. skill tree), but there won't be any Diablo 2 without Diablo, right? It is more like 4.5 stars for me only because of the controls and resolution, but back in the day, this was best "diablo-like" RPG out there for years to come!

Jaaaaaaa endlich ist Diablo 1 digital verfügbar, dankeeeeee GOG!!!!!!!!! Wie lange habe ich darauf gewartet, endlich mal wieder Diablo 1 zu spielen?! Der Preis ist völlig in Ordnung.