Talk:Diablo (video game)

Genre

I highly dispute the fact that diablo is an Role playing game or even an action rpg. According ot hte action-rpg article, the games have character developmoent, and npc interaction. Diablo has none of the former and very little of the latter. Diablo is more like a dungeon crawler or some other kidn of hybrid. It is definately not a role playing game. Games like Secret of Mana and crystalis which are action rpgs, have lots of character devlopment, npc interaction, in addition to hte action elements. Diablo doesnt really share anythign with any of those. --Larsinio

I agree that the description is technically wrong. Diablo *is* a roguelike game. The differences noted in the article - that it's isometric viewpoint, etc. - are not important to the definition of a roguelike game. However, I think that it's a distinction that really doesn't matter to many people. "Action adventure" is also a name that might apply to Diablo and Diablo II. They certainly lack any avenues for character development or decision-making. For instance, you can't tell Cain to go and stick one of his quests up his fundament - you have to complete it to get to the next area. The games are linear with a single plot, not multi-pathed like an RPG. Examples of computer RPG's would be the Fallout and Baldur's Gate series of games - both use the top-down isometric viewpoint, but the gameplay is worlds apart from Diablo's, focusing less on items and more on choices. -Kasreyn 05:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Diablo should be described as a rougelike, apart from the dungeon and items being randomized there are very few parallels, although I realize that Moria and Angband were cited by developers as influences. But rougelike refers to a very specific style of gameplay. Apart from the randomized elements Diablo is about as rougelike as Gauntlet. -DMPineau 31, August 2009

That Diablo Subculture needs its own article then.Of course i don't think it more then a Hobby,or a Fandom created just for that game.

Regardless of whether you 'think' Diablo is an action RPG, is it still considered one by it's creator. Akaroo 04:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Good point. Blizzard's opinion surely should count for something?  ;) -Kasreyn 10:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As you can assume one of several "roles" in Diablo to play then it is an RPG by definition. It just isn't anywhere as sophidticated as other RPGs becasue the determination of what is possible is relatively limited. Candy 12:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

By this logic, Hexen also should be an RPG... M3n747 (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've always said that the Diablo series was specifically NOT an RPG at all; rather, it is an Action game with RPG-elements. In a true RPG (such as those listed above,) one plays through the story as a specific character, doing exactly what that character would do and developing a storyline specific to that individual. This is in contrast to playing through the same game in a different role while yielding a completely different experience appropriate to that new character. In ANY game you technically "play" the "role" of a character (often a single one;) for example, in Doom you play as a Space Marine, but you certainly wouldn't consider Doom an RPG. So, while the Diablo series contains certain RPG elements (character statistical development, equipment & inventory management, etc.,) it ultimately plays as an action game (or some sub-type if you'd care to identify one.)24.13.34.230 01:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC

This game has never pretended to be considered an RPG, why do people insist on classifying this game as one? It is an action/adventure game and nothing more. Diablo is no more of an RPG game than (for example) the Quest for Glory series, and less of one in fact since there is hardly any dialog at all. Just because the game has statistics, classes, or an inventory does NOT mean it is a role-playing game. Role playing games are characterized by allowing the player to play a role which is not predefined in the story. He/she writes his own story and the game reflects his/her decisions. Diablo is completely static in this way and thusly it is NOT an RPG. Case closed. -Akaroo 02:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You make a good case, and I would certainly tend to agree. However, WP's policy against original research instructs us that our own analysis of the topics presented is irrelevant and cannot be included. It is the verifiable, sourced analyses of notable third parties which should be used. In this case, I'd say Blizzard first and foremost, and games companies and publications as well. Kasreyn 22:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong my friend; blizzard and publications just use words to excite the public. Its why bands are not allowed to classify their own genre, or all these "punk poppy" bands out there would say they belong to genres they do not. Its self-promotion and should not be allowed. So the question is, how do we know what anything is? Simple; role-playing has a definition. There is no debatin it because it is not a subjective argument. Roleplaying allows you to take the role of the character and develop it. It harkens back to theater class; would you call diablo theater class? If Diablo is a roleplaying game by any argument, that "reason" could be used for (and a gentleman above made a very good example) Doom and saying "Oh I play a space marine and there is a story it is rpg" Zelda, Warcraft 3, command and conquer, My little pony; they all become roleplaying games because you take the roles of characters. Lara croft, Splinter cell.. the list would just go on and on. Just remember this; roleplaying games are not defined necessarily by the mechanics or presentation of it. It is the reason why solely text-based roleplaying games are considered roleplaying games. Experience, class, levels, all the things that diablo and final fantasy and many other imitations rely SO Much on, are in roleplaying arbitrary ways to communicate in the best way possible events in a manner that can be translated into numbers and statistics. If roleplaying games could, they would most definitely throw away these rigid rules but because they run on machines or are rolled on dice we can not do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.46.58.113 (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sin War

What exactly happened to Horazon the Summoner and Bartuc the Warlord of Blood? The Summoner in Diablo 2 is supposedly Horazon, but the battle.net says that the Summoner is impersonating Horazon. The Warlord of Blood was supposedly killed in Diablo 1, but Bartuc the Bloody makes an appearance in Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction. GoldDragon 05:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems simple enough to me. So Bartuc and Horazon were slain - why's that a problem? Hell is where bad folks go when they die. Seems reasonable to me that if an evil person were sufficiently useful, the demons would dust him off and send him back into the fray. Thus, Bartuc the Bloody was probably the undead version of the Warlord of Blood. The Summoner is definitely not Horazon; it's almost certain that Horazon was devoured by his own "pets" long ages ago. (Interesting note: Horazon's journal has the same voice as the journals throughout Diablo 1 - but some of those were written by Lazarus. So apparently that's neither Horazon's nor Lazarus's voice, but merely a narrator.) Kasreyn 01:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Hell is where bad folks go when they die."

That's not necessarily how it works in the Diabloverse though.

SPOILERS

In the Legacy of Blood novel, it's said that Bartuc was killed during the Sin War. His armor was on Earth, but whether he came back in any other form isn't adressed. As for Horazon, it's said that he created the Arcane Sanctuary, and that overtime he merged with it. The Summoner is stated to be the body of another person who stumbled upon the place and that Horazon is "taking care of him", evidently using his body as a substitute human form. 24.255.171.205 01:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can help here, depending on what character type you use when you slay The Summoner in Diablo II, you may get a specific comment made by your character which alludes to the Sorcerer hero of Diablo having later become The Summoner. We all know the Warrior became Diablo, and allegedly the Rogue became Blood Raven. This can be further explained. Depending on which character you beat Diablo with you would see a different ending animation, though they remained largely the same. The character slays Diablo, and then embeds the Soulstone in their skull, either to contain the evil or out of lust for power I can not say. To make the plot make sense simply assume that all three heroes saved Tristram together, each was corrupted by the presence of the Soulstone but only the Warrior really embedded it within his skull. The Rogue returned to her Sisters and became Blood Raven, the Sorcerer discovered the Arcane Sanctuary (where he either went crazy enough to believe himself to be, or was posessed by, The Summoner), and the Warrior slowly lost the battle with Diablo as he freed the remaining Prime Evils. Hope that helps! -Robobvious 96.233.64.228 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Future of other two classes

Where does the claim that the Summoner and Blood Raven are the future versions of the other two classes come from. There is no references and it is written in a very POV style. Thefro552 00:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's speculation based on the fact that they're said to have fought Diablo and they're the same kind of class that the other two classes were. However, it's stated that there were several heroes who came to Tristram, and not necessarily all of them were killed. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to remove that part of the article, go ahead. 24.255.171.205 01:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not mere speculation, depending on what character class you use to kill Blood Raven and The Summoner with in Diablo II they will say something upon defeating them, if you're using certain characters the comment they make will allude to them having been the heroes of Diablo. -Robobvious 96.233.64.228 (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet more additions and fact tweaks today.

If anyone feels I am overwriting or bloating the article, I'll be happy to discuss ways of trimming. There seems to be much redundant material. If there is confusion or a dispute of fact, please consult Jarulf's Guide, which I have used extensively as my source. Cheers, Kasreyn 04:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

It appears that this article has grown out of control. I haven't worked on this article, but one look at it reveals that it is one step short of a full game guide. This article desperately needs trimming according to WP:NOT and the WP:VG guidelines. In short, we need to cut out large slabs of information that is gamer-specific and focus on the real-life relevance of Diablo, including development and reception. I ask that editors familiar with Diablo assist in trimming the article and preserving information that is encyclopedic -- that is, informative to the general reader rather than a Diablo player. --Scottie_theNerd 09:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How is the general reader defined here? Is it policy to assume a stance that the reader must necessarily be someone initially disinterested in the subject? While I enjoy surfing WP for random knowledge myself, some people come here with a specific purpose in mind, go straight to the page they want, and arrive with a keen interest in the subject at hand.

"General reader" is a phrase that has relevance to, say, a print newspaper - where you get the sports section with the finance section and the comics, and you just throw away the parts you're not interested in. The innate selectivity of WP's design means that people (once again, excepting us knowledge junkies and autodidacts ;) are generally already interested when they arrive at a page; someone who's into cars but not video games can just click the disambig link if they really wanted to end up, say, here.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that, where WP is concerned, I don't know what a general reader is, so I have no idea what one would find informative. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As the video game guidelines say, "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable". I think this is a pretty good base to check which things should or should not go in the article, and which things should go in external links or one of the other wikis mentioned in the guidelines. Sega381 07:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, it would certainly seem you're correct where WP policy is concerned. I must say I'm disappointed in the policy being so minimalist in this instance. I can hardly imagine who else info on a video game could be really useful to other than someone actually playing it, but I will concede the point without much further grumbling. :P Kasreyn 18:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DiabloScreenshot.jpg

Image:DiabloScreenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this right?

In order for Diablo to actually leave the Soulstone, Diablo needs the stone to be shattered.

This phrase seems odd to me since at the end of diablo 2 the soul stones are smashed destroying the Diablo and Mephisto. Also Izual in Diablo 2 says that the three brothers purposefully caused their own exile from and planned for Tyrial to use the soul stones on them so that they could corrupt them and later corrupt the world stone. I would like to get others ideas from this. Seta-san 07:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Seta-San

Agree; don't seem to recall it actually mentioning during D1 or in the manual backstory that the stone had to be *shattered*, esp. since D's influence obviously affected Laz before he even physically reached the stone. Note also (speculations ahoy, cap'n!) that in D2's manual, it says that the Horadrim were unable to bind Baal normally because the stone was shattered. Thus, Tal Rasha's sacrifice was necessary in order to make the largest fragment of the yellow soulstone effective. But this is all knowledge received from D2, and we shouldn't wind up retconning the information; it's possible Blizzard simply changed their minds about how Soulstones worked in between the two games! Kasreyn 23:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In D2 when you smash the soulstones you're in Hell, and that little fact might influence what happens to the Prime Evils afterwards. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.93.110 (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Diablo Movie Update

Date: June 19, 2007 Time: 12:48 Eastern Time

Yesterday there has been an update on the Diablo Movie and I don't know if there was a movie on this article in the past or not but I think there should be a article posted on wiki about the Diablo Movie informing anyone who is intrested about it.

Link Found Here http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=117288 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.160.39 (talk • contribs)

While the source is reliable, it's nothing but speculation, which Wikipedia does not endorse. Wait until an official announcement. --Scottie_theNerd 11:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Result On Gameplay" Section -- Written as In-Universe

Result on Gameplay section contains references to in-games spells not mentioned in article. Person reading article will have no idea what they are. Tagging section with VideoGame Cleanup. I'd propose considering deletion for section if it can't be rewritten according to guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegainTheTruth (talk • contribs)

Much of the article needs to be wiped to conform to Wikipedia guidelines and present encyclopedic information rather than in-depth game discussion. --Scottie_theNerd 10:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the fix to the problem you mention is a simple rewrite avoiding mentioning spells that haven't been previously described. (Removing all mention of specific spells would be the simplest anyway). Deleting the section seems a bit excessive to me. Kasreyn 23:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bug section partially restored

I've restored the latter part of this section, along with an inline source. If either the write-up for the bug or the formatting of the citation need work, just let me know. As for the dupe bug, I'm still searching for a reliable source. It's worth conceding that while abuse of the Manashield Bug was near-ubiquitous in the days of D1's popularity on Bnet, and became probably a defining feature of Sorcerer play for many, the dupe bug itself was far less commonly used due to the fact that it was far easier to dupe items with a trainer. Consequently, I can well imagine even veteran D1 players remaining ignorant of the bug's existence, and its obscurity may well argue against its inclusion here. Kasreyn 07:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The bugs mentioned can be very useful if included in a game guide, but they don't make much sense in the article. It's a little too detailed, and useful only as a strategy or important fact when playing. I like the game a lot, and I used to play it for a long time, but it made no sense to me to find something that specific when reading an article on the game. That kind of information should be in the External Links section, with links pointing to game guide info. I think still there is a lot of detailed game-guide info, as commented in another discussion, and I'll try to trim it when I have some time. Sega381 20:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not thrilled with the need for so much trimming, but I want to say I think you did an excellent job of it. The article is now more readable and still contains most critical information. Kasreyn 18:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried to keep the gist while removing the details. There are still a couple more sections I haven't trimmed yet, that need a little trimming, but I don't think I'll change it that much. But many things are missing: in the Gameplay section, there should be comments on the automap, and general gameplay of the game; the multiplayer section could be better; and the out-of-gameplay sections need a little expanding too... I'll see what I can do about it, but people who know more about the game could help a lot too. Sega381 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Influence

The Influence section mentioned Ragnarok Online as one of the games that "imitated" Diablo. I have played both games and I can't find any similarity between the two game. The two games have different themes, different mechanics, different viewport, different engine capabilities, and different interface. I have also played Dungeon Siege and Titan Quest, but being that they are the same genre, I will leave them there. --Voidvector 06:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Diablo1cdcoverscan.jpg

Image:Diablo1cdcoverscan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RPG, not adventure

I changed the description from action-adventure game to action role-playing game, as it originally was. I don't know why this was ever changed. The action RPG article cites Diablo as one of the more influential examples of the genre; the action-adventure article sees the main difference in the presence of experience points and stat-driven gameplay, which Diablo has, and does not mention Diablo at all.—Graf Bobby 13:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Link to "Sanctuary (disambiguation)"

This is not a good link at all. Linking directly to disambiguation pages is generally discouraged, but usually only happens when the person linking doesn't know it is a disambiguation page because it is not mentioned in the article title. In this case, the page it links to doesn't even mention this usage of Sanctuary. Either this link (under "Character classes") needs to be to a yet-to-be-created article about the fictional world (the article title could be different, of course), which the disambig page would also reference, or the info needs to be incorporated into this article or a related one and the link removed or fixed appropriately. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Music

I feel there needs to be a small subsection about the music in Diablo, especially the music played when the player is in "town" is absolutely awesome, sublime, a piece of art, unparalleled even to this day by almost any other game music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SevenMass (talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's heavily POV. --Fogeltje (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, thats my opinion, but I'm not trying to suggest that my personal opinion should be incorporated in the article. But I think the music is good, and I know I'm not the only one with that opinion, so I figured there has to be something written somewhere, in a game review or by a critic, that can be used in the article? Well, I thought that maybe if I started a discussion about it, someone might think of something... It doesn't hurt to ask, I think. SevenMass (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that is obviously very POV, I do agree someone could maybe add something about the music. I would do it but I don't really know anything about it. --KearF (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The music was done by Matt Uelmen. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1133394/) (Thinking about it, why not create a section where the people who worked on this game are credited?) Doing a not-so-extensive search I've found its easier to write about D2 music, lots of articles and interviews about that. D1 music seems more difficult to find information about. SevenMass (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's bad to use IMDB as a source, it is not highly reliable in my eyes. But you are correct, Uelmen is credited in the game. You should always take game credits from the game itself. Also I never wanted to discourage you from starting a discussion, far from it, my earlier statement was a simple statement of fact that your current suggestion was heavily POV. I don't see why a short well written and sourced section about the music can be written. Finding third party citations about the music would be best.--Fogeltje (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just Throwing this out there, also in World Of Warcraft, you can obtain the Armor Cow King's Hide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.101.157 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

release date?

the intro says December 1996, but the article says:

Diablo was released by Blizzard on January 2, 1997', with an official announcement on the release by Blizzard Entertainment on January 3, 1997. An oft stated release date of November 30, 1996 is incorrect as Diablo only went gold and into full production on December 27, 1996.

Those seem inconsistent --CTho (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hidden Messages

I've taken screencaps, pasted them into bitmaps, and used the fill tool on the black parts, and no hidden messages were revealed. Can we find a reliable source for these claims, or at least do a collaborative investigation and vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.125.132 (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried the same. No message on the menu screen nor in the splash video in Diablo 1.0. Here are the edited files. All I did was filling the major black parts with white, with a tolerance value of 0.

Edited menu screen on imageshack

Edited splash video screenshot on imageshack

I'm going to remove the passage in the article now.

--User Enricopedia from German Wikipedia 17:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The messages are present in the installer picture. It says so in the article, unless someone has deleted it (again). I found over 8.000 references to the picture by using Google, first try. Perhaps you're new to the net? 128.214.133.2 (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

interesting item

the sword that griswold creates for the hero from Diablo I is actually a unique item in Diablo II, Griswold's Edge. Is this worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.189.2 (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Nope, not noteworthy. Dp76764 (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

cut out content

regarding cutscenes: I'm very very sure there is a (broken?) cutscene in the Diablo data files where you see the archbishop lazarus... --92.226.146.39 (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_f2JXu7jVY&NR=1

Is it not like the one that was deleted of the Butcher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.16.9 (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Griswold == The Smith

"... except for Griswold who, 'had so faithfully armored the one I called friend during his battles, suffered perhaps the worst fate of all, being corrupted into a slavering demonic beast thirsting after human flesh.'"

Get a clue.67.101.119.99 (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Griswold is not the Smith, you can fight and kill Griswold in Tristram in D2. -Robobvious 96.233.64.228 (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. You can fight and kill his animated corpse. That doesn't exclude his "soul" (as far as Diablo universe's concept of it goes) becoming the Smith... but there is little to no evidence to support that theory either. --217.173.198.165 (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Portman reference

Why is the Natalie Portman reference continually deleted? 128.214.133.2 (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

probably because there is no references for that statement... - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The first hit on Google: http://whatsayou.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/natalie-portman-rocks/ You're not even trying, are you? (Yes, I know I should log in, but right now I'm in a hurry. Sorry.) (EDIT: logged in) Tirolion (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Too bad blogs aren't reliable sources: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources Dp76764 (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is too long

Can we please make all three Diablo articles consistent, and draw together the similar themes (Characters for example is an issue with fairly heavy comparison throughout the series...) So can we place only a brief description of what the Characters 'do'/game specific events here, and really explore their depth in a 'Playable Characters of Diablo' section. I can't really think of anything else, but i suppose the Starcraft article is a good example.--Tyraz (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

video game?

This is a computer game, not a video game. I don't think its ever even been ported to a video game.18:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.223.156 (talk)

See the definition of video game: "A video game is an electronic game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device." This is definitely a video game. DP76764 (Talk) 18:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Video game is generalization term: it contains all electronic games (console games, computer games, arcade games etc.) Sir Lothar (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Added citation banner

I have added the citation needed banner for the article because I see Citations needed all over the page, If anyone agrees with me please tell me here and we can maybe remove it if it's reasonable. --Poohunter (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the following section is rather dubious: "Diablo has been credited with creating a sub-genre of point-and-click action RPGs" While pointing and clicking and RPG might sound like a new tag, this same "kind" of game play was present way back on the Atari 800 (Indiana Jones), albeit without the clicking. :) Point being that the series of actions a player would perform was nothing new for this game, it was just named something different. Diablo was basically just a really large and beautiful (for the day) single room game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.32.94 (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This surely needs clarifying and some reliable sources, that's true :). Sir Lothar (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiplayer

Do we seriously need a small list on how to play this game through different networks? Muskeato 22:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

IMHO those information are verifiable (WP:VER), don't break WP:POV rule, so I don't see the point in removing this section. Sir Lothar (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not denying that, I just thought it seemed unnecessary to spell out the different forms of connection and how to use them. That said, if you believe it should definitely stay then that's fine. Muskeato 12:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Inverted commas

Inappropriate, they stilt the article.