There is a lot to like about this game. Especially when played just after the first Witcher, you can notice and appreciate how much better it looks and sounds. The writing also seems to be on a great level (I say "seems" because I am not going to finish the game) However, the combat difficulty ruins it for me. At first I saw it as a challenge. When I reached the second boss of the first chapter (the king assassin) I gave up. Repeating the exact same sequence of moves for 40 minutes is not entertaining, it is boring and frustrating. I am giving up.
I never played it before. It's quite different from other shooters I tried. The first half is slow paced and relatively boring. Halfway through the pace goes up and culminates in a wonderful climax. I enjoyed it. There are some issues with bugs - the game crashed a few times. It is still very playable though.
Diablo is great. I remember playing it as a kid and being afraid of enemies hiding in the dark. The game matured well except for cut scenes, which do look awful. I like the vibe. It's dark, scary, and evil. You truly feel alone and surrounded. I can't help but compare it to the sequel - Diablo II (I never played the third game). Two things stand out - the game mechanics were significantly improved and the atmosphere was damaged. It is true that game mechanics can be a little frustrating in Diablo, especially how projectiles work. Rogue used to be my most favorite character, but during the replay I was frustrated with how counter-intuitive shooting is. Also on Windows 10 there is a lag in mouse movement, which didn't help. I expect playing the Sorcerer to be equally unpleasant. I must try the warrior. In Diablo 2, that was no longer an issue. However, Diablo II was not scary or dark at all. Instead, it was colorful. I need to focus to remember any piece of music from the sequel. In Diablo there are 5 or 6 pieces, but I remember them all. They play on repeat and yet are not tiring. The sounds are very well chosen. The color pallette is modest but well put together. I also like monster design. It's interesting how enemies turn more human the closer you get to hell. Lastly, level themes are great and progress nicely. There isn't much of a story that was told in Diablo and I see it as an advantage. Too often game plots are cliche beyond belief. I also like how quests are assigned randomly. In Diablo II every game was identical, it became very boring very quickly. So, if the sequel is "so much worse", why is it so popular while the original is not? I think the answer is in game mechanics. At the end of the day, it is a game. If hitting your enemies is not fun, then what's the point? I wish Diablo 2 had different art design, but in the end it is a better game. All in all, Diablo is still fun to play over 20 years later. That's quite an achievement, if you ask me.
The remastered version was the very first opportunity for me to play the game, even though I have heard about it many years ago. It blew me away. To put it very briefly: HW1 has an amazing story line. HW2 has a typical "chosen one and the prophecy" bullshit story, but the gameplay is fantastic and I enjoyed it a lot. Overall, definitely worth your time.
It's a fun game. I love the artwork and music. I think it aged well, if you don't mind pixels. It is also fun to see that a lot of great ideas started with the first game in the series, you can tell Team17 had a good team working on the game. I am one of those players who don't play online, so AI quality matters. The AI is brutal with classic weapons - bazooka and granades. However, it does not understand friendly fire nor mines, so it often shoots itself in the foot, which is balancing its ability to hit any target at any distance. One disappointment is level design. Randomly generated levels are repetitive and boring. I didn't have a chance to play with friends, but I expect it to be somewhat similar in this regard to later Worms games. I think it's interesting to see where the franchise started, but other than that Worms Armaggeddon is a better choice.
