Talk:Diablo (video game)/Archive 1

Latin Names?
I seem to recall in the instruction manual for the game the Three Prime Evils had Latin-sounding names. Not sure if they were actually Latin.

Odium, Excidium, and Metus. Metus I'm sure was Diablo's, and I think Odium and Excidium were the names for Mephisto and Baal respectively. Anybody else remember that? Or am I just nuts?

I think it's worth a mention in the article, that is, if I'm not just nuts. TotalTommyTerror 18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Introducing
I'm hoping I'm not upsetting anyone with my edits. I've been playing Diablo for a very long time and see some improvements I can make to the article's factual accuracy. Please reply to me here if you need verification of any fact I include, I will provide reference as needed (though usually all you need is a close reading of Jarulf's Guide). -Kasreyn 17:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mods and Variants
I'm thinking on adding sections on Modifications and Variant playing styles.

Modifications are unofficial fan-made (ie., no Blizzard involvement) alternate versions of the games. They often have all new items, altered character classes and monsters, and sometimes even new graphics. In this section I would briefly explain what a mod is and list some of the more popular ones (ie., V&K's Middle Earth Mod, Abysmal, Hellfire: The Dark, and a few others).

Variant playing styles are basically a set of voluntary "rules" for play, the purpose of which is to add challenge to the game and win respect from your peers. The rules are strictly voluntary, so you're on the honor system as to observing them. They typically involve limiting what spells you can use, what items you can equip, or what stats you can add to, but sometimes they go so far as to declare certain monsters off-limits for killing, or specify "quests" (example, "you may not learn Mana Shield until you kill the Butcher bare-handed"). Variant characters are usually indicated with an abbreviation in the title, such as "Pete(IMH)" or "Jarulf(BNM)"

Some sample variants:
 * Immortal Hero (IMH): If you die, you delete the character.  This is the equivalent of Diablo 2's Hardcore mode, though of course it is on the honor system.
 * Living Off the Land (LOL): You may buy nothing in town, not even pay to identify items or get them repaired by Griswold.  Therefore you're totally reliant on what you can find in the dungeon.  Very challenging.
 * Barbarian (BAR): This predates the Barbarian from Hellfire, and is not the same thing.  A Barbarian is a Warrior who cannot take points in Magic and is not allowed to use spells.  Additionally, he may not use any magical items (blue) except for one magical sword from a limited few types, and only a few unique (gold) items are allowed.  Very challenging.
 * Nakedmage (NM): This is a Sorceror character who is not allowed to equip any items, ever.  The lack of bonuses and armor class means the Nakedmage is dead if he ever lets a monster close to combat range.  I myself have a level 39 Nakedmage.  It's mildly challenging for a skilled player.
 * Beyond Nakedmage (BNM): The BNM may not wear any gear that isn't cursed (has negative effects), and must wear all the cursed gear he finds.  Very challenging variant.

If anyone finds it hard to believe people actually played (and still play) these variants, I can provide links to webforums where such players can be found. It's a strong part of a small but devoted Diablo subculture.

Does anyone object to this information being added to the article? If needed, I can provide links to the pages with the variant style descriptions to avoid the appearance of original research. -Kasreyn 12:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course not,just no one plays it anymore.

i played a naked mage myself(its should be noted Variants are mostly based on Emergent Gamestyles,thriving because of options Diablo provide and lack of challenge with usual game).The association with tags and clan-like structure of those variants,which band into parties however makes it different(e.g. like social game clan or ingame social construct(a group which is sort of micro-subculture)) from players who just adopt variant gameplay. Variants are lot less popular on Diablo II,due gameplay mechanics and system based on item builds.Its mainly a Diablo I topic. like starcraft mods,this needs a separate article.(e.g. Diablo_variants) FrozenVoid 08:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

PlayStation version
I believe that there may only be one PlayStation version.. but eBay gives me some conflicting info. -- Sy / (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no 2-player version released specifically for Playstation 2. There was a version released in 1998 for Playstation by Blizzard Entertainment in association with Electronic Arts, which featured both 1 and 2-player modes.

--Sminturn 13:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible copyvio for character class descriptions?
I haven't played Diablo for at least 4-5 years, but it seems to me that the descriptions of the character classes are lifted straight out of the in-game text/user manual. Could someone please verify this? Also, wouldn't this be a copyright violation if they were lifted from the game manuals? Sheehan (Talk) 15:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Diablo backstory
An article can expound on the backstory of the games, manuals, and novels. The official diablo 2 website also gives good information on monster history.
 * Eh. The article's already pretty long as it is.  All we need is a short summary.  I don't really see a way to justify increasing the backstory section any more than it already has been.  Diablo may be one of my favorite PC games ever, but that doesn't make it particularly notable on wikipedia.  Kasreyn 10:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jarulf's Guide


I've added a note to the article on the importance of this resource. Blizzard themselves call it "the definitive guide". Fans such as myself call it simply, "The bible". Its information was originally compiled in the most laborious imaginable way, testing out weapons and swinging at monsters for thousands of times and totalling how many times they hit, things like that. Eventually Jarulf decompiled Diablo and viewed the code, refining the guide to its present form. I've been present in Battle.net channels where Blizzard employees such as, iirc, gfraizer have openly admitted that Jarulf knows more about Diablo than anyone working at Blizzard today does. (Most of the folks who coded Diablo 1 have long since left the company.) Having spoken to him myself on a number of occasions on the old DSF forum, I can attest that he knows his stuff.

I mention all this merely to explain why I've moved his guide up to have pride of place and added a description. Jarulf's Guide is without doubt the best single resource available for a Diablo 1 player. Next best would be asking the folks over at the Lurker Lounge, where Jarulf and a lot of the other co-contributors to the Guide still post. Kasreyn 00:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bugs
added notes on the dupe and mana shield bugs. If further explanation is required, I'd be happy to provide it. This is not hearsay; I have personally tested and verified these bugs, which still exist in v1.09 (current version). Kasreyn 00:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Release Date?
This doesn't seem to be correct. Maybe December 30 is what's meant? I recall It missed a holiday release. Typdrei 18:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On GameSpot the release date is set Nov 30, 1996 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.192.85 (talk • contribs)

Censorship?
I've heard the vaguest rumour concerning censorship, in that the European version was censored in some way (much like Fallout was.) Confirm/deny? 216.68.209.189 19:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)dethtoll
 * I'm not sure what there would be to censor. As far as I know there is no profane language in Diablo.  Perhaps some of the blood and gore?


 * Note that in chat channels on Battle.net, profanity spoken by players is masked by the software automatically; this has been in place since day one in every online version. Kasreyn 20:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that only green blood is allowed in Germany in video games 58.107.100.147 15:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There was no seperate European version. And the green blood was never an explicite rule in Germany, it was just a way of game developers to indicate that the enemies were not human and thus convince the BPjM that the game doesn't create the impression that killing people is a Good Thing. — Graf Bobby 16:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening Evil Laugh Easter Egg
When i speed the laugh up it sounds more like the sound of a scavengers death rather than a fallen one! Hypersonic 15:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening Diablo cutscene
Shows ravens, deserted houses, corpses hanging from trees, all alternating with a glowing sword, while our hero enters the dungeon. Is there any backstory to this whatsoever, particularly the glowing sword? GoldDragon 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Blizzard never states what was the real purpose behind the glowing sword and other scenes in it. Anker99 22:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Sin War
What exactly happened to Horazon the Summoner and Bartuc the Warlord of Blood? GoldDragon 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_characters_in_Diablo#Bartuc86.129.17.154 23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment too specific
"Early in its history, Diablo had been influenced by Moria and Angband.[1] Diablo in many ways resembles roguelike games, the main differences being more realistic graphics (utilizing DirectX) and the fact the game is in real time, rather than turn based." Only the Windows version uses Direct X. The Mac version doesn't. It needs clarifying or striking (preferably the latter). Candy 12:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Some changes I've made
Continuing to try to get the facts in order. A few minor points: All of these claims are sourced from my own experience and from Jarulf's Guide. Kasreyn 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Uniques are not the same every time. Even in D1, there are quite a few Uniques whose stats vary within a preset range.
 * We need a cite for the claim that D1 pioneered the affix system. It sounds right to me, but I'm not 100% certain.
 * There seems to be some confusion about quests. These are the Multiplayer quests:  Butcher, Leoric, Lazarus, Diablo, and that's it.  There are no quest reward items in MP either:  the Butcher and Leo drop random items, not the cleaver and the undead crown.  By comparison, single player does draw its quests from three "quest pools", and in SP, certain uniques are autodropped as rewards for some quests, such as the Ocular Amulet for completing the Halls of the Blind quest.
 * Not all D2 quests are compulsory. One can skip quite a few of them, such as the Countess, Radament (once you already have a Cube), Izual, and a few others.  D2 also has just as much randomization of level design as D1, so I don't understand the claim that it's "much more" linear.  D2 is not the only game with certain super-unique bosses waiting at predetermined locations (compare the Butcher to Thresh Socket or Rakanishu).
 * I've added a note on an important imbalance between Warriors and Sorcerors: Sorcerors can equip +strength gear and wield any sword or armor they want to, but Warriors can never attain enough +magic gear to read the highest spell levels or equip the best staves.  This makes the "Turtle Mage" (caster warrior variant) decidedly weaker than the "Battle Mage" (fighter sorceror variant).
 * Note on spelling: The game D1 spells it Sorceror.  I'm not sure whether we should go with Blizzard's spelling or the more commonly accepted "Sorcerer".  My understanding is that both are technically acceptable, though "Sorcerer" is preferred.
 * I removed mention of the WoW Prairie Chicken quest. The Cow Level section was getting disproportionately long, and I didn't really see the relevance anyway.

I wonder if the randomness in Diablo II has been toned down somewhat. In particular, a certain area is always populated with the same monsters. By contrast, in the first Diablo, certain levels may contain 2-3 out of 6 possible monsters.

Is it possible for a warrior to (artificially) reach high levels of mana by wearing lots of high magic-enhancing equipment? GoldDragon 22:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The most Magic a Warrior can attain in original D1 (not Hellfire) is 225, and he has to suffer some crippling combat disadvantages just to get that high. 225 is enough to max out a few low level spells and get some of the better spells to a decent level, but it's not enough to max out all spells.  In D1 (again, not Hellfire), only the Sorceror can max out all his spells.   You can download a copy of Jarulf's Guide, which contains absolutely everything you could ever want to know about D1 & Hellfire (excluding strategy).  Hope this helps, Kasreyn 16:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Some issues in this article
Hey, there are couple things I noticed about this page which should probably be addressed in order to improve the Diablo article. The first is the rather large trivia section. Why do we need all this continuation info about Diablo II here? Wouldn't it make more sense to move that stuff to the Diablo II article and use it to refer back to the first game?

It also seems to me there is not enough info on the actual gameplay, while at the same time there are a bit too many sub articles about specifics within the game (i.e. gold, shrines, etc). Perhaps a bit of consolidating is in order. And lastly, is the "Bugs" section really that great of a necessity? Couldn't that be merged with something else, or just out-right removed? -- Grandpafootsoldier 08:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The bugs heavily affect gameplay,becuase every sorcerer(or player that has lot of mana) use the mana shield bug.And the duping bug produced alot more items then players ever found in dungeon.The story of DIablo II and I are connected,i see no point removing it completely(maybe cleaning the references and removing some).


 * I wasn't saying that the Diablo II stuff should be removed, just moved to the Diablo II page, it just makes sense to me. Also, even if the bugs are as significant as you suggest (I've never really encountered them) they should be added into the criticism section or the multiplayer section (as they were used for online cheating if I remember correctly). I don't really think we need an entire section for two gameplay bugs.


 * P.S. please sign your name when you leave a comment using the four ~ marker, it helps to keep track of who's saying what. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was the one who added the material on the two critical bugs. I think they're notable for the fact that Blizzard has repeatedly insisted they are either unfixable or not worth the time, whereas they have actually been fixed in third-party mods (proving that they can be fixed).  If you feel they need to be trimmed, I wouldn't mind, I just couldn't think of a more concise way to explain the bugs without sacrificing accuracy.  It's difficult to explain how to reproduce the dupe bug, but if you want to you can certainly reproduce the M/S bug to see for yourself.  I have to dispute with the person you are replying to on one point, though:  not all sorcerors abuse the M/S bug.  In fact, some of us are very careful to ensure we never activate the bug.  It takes all the challenge out of the game.


 * Which items of trivia, in specific, would you want to remove? I'm all ears.  Kasreyn 23:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If they are that important they probably shouldn't be removed then. It's just that this article is rather sub-section heavy, and if that info could be consolidated into another section it probably should be, in my opinion.


 * Also, as I told the other guy, I don't want to delete the Diablo II related trivia (some of it seems to quite note-worthy), I just thought it would make more sense if it was actually incorporated into the Diablo II article. -- Grandpafootsoldier 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Random item system
"Diablo pioneered a system to handle the many combinations of random items imbued with random magical properties (i.e. any item "of the Eagle" will give hitpoints to the player, any "Bronze" item will increase the chances of a hit, etc)"

I disagree with the statement that Blizzard "pioneered" this system; a similar system was used in Might and Magic (at least from MM3 onwards), e.g. "Obsidian Boots of Water Walking". While Diablo did use such a system, it was hardly anything new, with MM3 predating Diablo by about 6 years.

Syke107 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I concurr with Syke107. To go further back, this type of system has existed in Dungeons & Dragons (and likely in other places as well) as part of the magic item generation rules since at least the late '80s (quasi-implemented in a computer game at least since Pool of Radiance in 1988). But I agree that the Might & Magic series is a particularly well implemented example of this (and probably my favourite :D). -Nayrb 74.12.79.2 10:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited the text to say that Diablo 'popularized' the type of system. It sounds a bit clunky the way I wrote it, though. I wanted to delete the paragraph, but I thought some type of comment on the type of system was warranted. -Nayrb

Maps
Diablo 2 maps are not randomly generated. They are selected from a pool of 4 prefabricated maps and rotated at different angles (north becomes south, etc). I have removed the statement of them being randomly generated. 24.239.129.219 01:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? I can see that for some maps, like the Tamoe Highlands, but what about the Stony Field or Crystalline Passage or Halls of Vaught?  There are some aspects of level design that repeat, such as the tendency of the Orifice Chamber to be in the southeast in Tal Rasha's true tomb, but in large, the levels have a great deal more randomness than D1 levels, from my experience.  Can you direct me to a resource on the subject?  If D2 maps really are that prefabricated, I'd like to learn more.  Cheers, Kasreyn 19:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that Diablo 2 maps are randomly generated, although since its usually not dark halls like Diablo 1, it does not make a significant difference in gameplay. GoldDragon 05:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Opening Diablo cutscene
Shows ravens, deserted houses, corpses hanging from trees, all alternating with a glowing sword, while our hero enters the dungeon. Is there any backstory to this whatsoever, particularly the glowing sword? GoldDragon 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Blizzard never states what was the real purpose behind the glowing sword and other scenes in it. Anker99 22:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Here's some help from the RogueBasin site: http://www.roguebasin.com/index.php?title=Diablo - Diablo is certainly a member of the roguelike family. Many term it as a hybrid roguelike. In fact it presaged the appearance of hybrid action roguelikes that are more common today. Also, Diablo is actually closer to games like NetHack and Moria than to Telengard. The dungeon crawl games directly influenced by Telengard are the Fate/Myth/Torchlight series. 50.54.236.164 (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe the PC version of Diablo is a roguelike, while its PlayStation port is an action-RPG. The crucial difference is the control system - not the physical device, but the way it is used. Consider: in the original PC version, you have indirect control. You click a location to tell the hero to go there; you click an enemy to tell the hero to attack it. But all you actually control is a cursor. But in the PlayStation port, you have direct control. You press the d-pad and the hero moves accordingly; you press the attack button and he swings his sword immediately. You are the hero. --Stormwatch (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2015 (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 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 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.

There is also an issue with the Mac release date, which was much later than the PC version. I'm trying to find out officially when it shipped for Mac right now and will update then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseyodonnell (talk • contribs) 13:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

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.  DP 76764  (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)

Besides, Diablo was ported to the PSX Sephiroth878 (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2011 (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)

What about a source such as this. Diablo is 6 on this list: http://www.pcgamingedge.com/10-most-revolutionary-pc-games-ever/ ? =DSephiroth878 (talk) 16:45, 3 September 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.169.54 (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I "agree", way too many of them and it is just "unnecessary". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.152.73 (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

is Diablo's Public Service Announcement worth the space on the article?
Well it seems that I have dug up and recreated this PSA from the Game.

When you enter Level 16 (Hell) you are greeted by Diablo laughing at you. Well.... if you reverse the audio file he says this: "Eat your vegetables, and brush after every meal." I recreated it and have the audio files and the source I got it from is retromags.com. Sephiroth878 (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken Williams
The Ken Williams linked to is the Sierra founder. This can't be accurate, can it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.212.166 (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)