Diablo II PC

User Score
8.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1073 Ratings

User score distribution:
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 26, 2011
    7
    Diablo II is step back from the original. It lacks the heavy, dark atmosphere of the original, and somehow the action has become even an more mindless and frantic clickfest, with larger areas and more enemies. The biggest offense though is the change to the single player mode, as the game was designed from the ground up for multiplayer. Enemies and bosses now respawn and the entire gameDiablo II is step back from the original. It lacks the heavy, dark atmosphere of the original, and somehow the action has become even an more mindless and frantic clickfest, with larger areas and more enemies. The biggest offense though is the change to the single player mode, as the game was designed from the ground up for multiplayer. Enemies and bosses now respawn and the entire game world resets after you reload a single player game, and you cannot progress through the game unless you use the waypoint system. This is fine for multiplayer, but it unacceptable for single player, forcing offline players to tediously fight through areas they've already been to before. And of course, a constantly resetting game world kind hurts the atmosphere of the game also. But even the online multiplayer mode on Battle.net isn't all that great either as most online players are only concerned about item collecting and leveling up their characters, and so the vast majority of players just rush through the game as fast a possible, often skipping entire Acts, and these "rushes" are facilitated by the game's waypoint system. Blizzard sacrificed the single-player experience in favour of an improved multiplayer experience, but the game became failure in terms of both single player and multiplayer. Expand
  2. May 24, 2012
    7
    Really good game, not as good as the first but still fun and enjoyable, the story is good and the gameplay is fun, the only thing i didnt like are some of the attacks from some characters that are just ridiculous and overpowered, it feel like i was playing some anime game which takes away some of the realism the first game brought.
  3. May 31, 2012
    7
    Positive points : * Decent story for a hacknslash game. Ok, it is simple and full of cliches, but the dark atmosphere is nice and it is so much better than the pure lack of story in many games of that time. * The skill trees system is just perfect. Simple but effective. (and it was later copied by half the game designers on the planet) * Hours and hours of pure fun. * Excellent cinematicsPositive points : * Decent story for a hacknslash game. Ok, it is simple and full of cliches, but the dark atmosphere is nice and it is so much better than the pure lack of story in many games of that time. * The skill trees system is just perfect. Simple but effective. (and it was later copied by half the game designers on the planet) * Hours and hours of pure fun. * Excellent cinematics for its time. * Highly addictive Negative points : * The randomness of the level design adds nothing to the game. It makes the maps seem blank, soulless and illogical without adding real replay value. * Unbalanced difficulty. Some tough fights among a lot of easy monster-bashing requiring no special skills. * Sometime, while playing, you suddenly realize how repetitive the action is. But it does not last long. * Highly addictive Total : Off course it has completely outdated graphics and purely repetitive gameplay, but it is terribly fun and enjoyable nonetheless. An old imperfect game really still worth playing. It defined the hacknslash category. It still does. Expand
  4. MichaelU.
    Feb 18, 2008
    5
    A mediocre rpg. First of all, the graphics stink. Even when it was first released, the graphics were not that great. Another thing is the size of towns. The very first place you go to is a laughably small camp with about 10 people there. The rest of the space is filled with monsters and stuff. While the second and third towns are bigger, you are still left with the feeling that you are A mediocre rpg. First of all, the graphics stink. Even when it was first released, the graphics were not that great. Another thing is the size of towns. The very first place you go to is a laughably small camp with about 10 people there. The rest of the space is filled with monsters and stuff. While the second and third towns are bigger, you are still left with the feeling that you are lonely. Simply killing monsters and collecting items is fun for quite a while, but by the time you reach the third act, it gets quite boring. The skill system is cool, but it is very easy to completely mess up your character and have the wrong skill combo. The combat is either extremely easy or insanely hard, there isn't really an in-between. at one point your slaughtering enemies and then a special monster comes and nearly kills you. Altogether, this game was fun for a while, but got boring soon. This game is best for those who don't like thinking much and just want to battle. For the rest of you: this is a fun little game, but be prepared to get bored sometime. Expand
  5. Personwhoboughtit
    Dec 7, 2002
    6
    Entertaining for a week, maybe. It really is just boring and I played the first one too. It really is just a repetative game. People who like it THINK they are having fun, but it really just gets old fast.
  6. Aug 29, 2011
    6
    Mindless clickfest which is addictive because of the fantastic loot system and (some) good high level abilities. No other facet of this game interests me at all. Story is extremely cliched, dialogue minimal and bland and the cimematics between acts is very much at odds with the graphical gameplay. In Hell mode you tend to spend much more time trying to avoid fights than to seek them outMindless clickfest which is addictive because of the fantastic loot system and (some) good high level abilities. No other facet of this game interests me at all. Story is extremely cliched, dialogue minimal and bland and the cimematics between acts is very much at odds with the graphical gameplay. In Hell mode you tend to spend much more time trying to avoid fights than to seek them out and really the only thing that keeps you going is the thought of a good drop (which rarely happens). Anyone who has ploughed through acts 3, 4 and 5 in Hell mode has my deepest sympathies. One of those games where your forefinger has its own case of St Vitus' Dance and your brain goes into partial shutdown. Such games have their place and can be good for brief periods but can never be construed as classics in my opinion. Expand
  7. FormerBlizzardFanUm...Idunno
    May 5, 2003
    5
    This game is good as in "it got me addicted for 3 years". However, what made it hard to enjoy is that the game is unbalanced. I'm sure Blizzard wanted all players to try out different character classes. However, everyone went and picked either an Amazon or a Sorceress just because they were the top 2 classes in Diablo in terms of MvP (Monster vs player) and PvP (Player vs Player). This game is good as in "it got me addicted for 3 years". However, what made it hard to enjoy is that the game is unbalanced. I'm sure Blizzard wanted all players to try out different character classes. However, everyone went and picked either an Amazon or a Sorceress just because they were the top 2 classes in Diablo in terms of MvP (Monster vs player) and PvP (Player vs Player). Also, it's sad seeing the items and armor Blizzard gave the NPC's or vendors to sell are pathetic and no one even buys them. Same goes for throwing potions. That's a friggin waste of space if you ask me. Even, say for example, a stupid Conquest Sword of Shock, it'll take forever to kill 1 cow in the cow level with that toy. It's a good game, dont get me wrong, but needs improvement. And alot, i mean. Expand
  8. Mar 4, 2012
    5
    graphics bad. game old. pvp bad. players hide run cant find. repeat click click click click fingers hurt waste my time. why buy pvp stuff when game prevents
  9. ZiggyStardust
    Oct 31, 2002
    5
    I would like D2 if it weren't for 1 glaring flaw. The combat takes absolutely no skill! To fight you simply click on the enemy. Everything else in the game is done so exceedingly well, that it's such a shame to see it almost go to waste. Granted, the game isn't really about skill, it's about leveling up. But isn't it much more rewarding leveling up when you did I would like D2 if it weren't for 1 glaring flaw. The combat takes absolutely no skill! To fight you simply click on the enemy. Everything else in the game is done so exceedingly well, that it's such a shame to see it almost go to waste. Granted, the game isn't really about skill, it's about leveling up. But isn't it much more rewarding leveling up when you did something to earn it rather than just spent a lot of time playing the game? Maybe it's just me, but I can't recommend D2. Expand
  10. Feb 23, 2014
    5
    Having barely touched the original game back in 1997, its clear to me that what Blizzard brought to the table in Diablo 2, seemed to focus on improving upon the obvious technological limitations of the original game and updating, essentially, the same sort of gameplay for a newer generation. Which doomed us all really. You see Diablo II remains to this day as, "one of the most addictiveHaving barely touched the original game back in 1997, its clear to me that what Blizzard brought to the table in Diablo 2, seemed to focus on improving upon the obvious technological limitations of the original game and updating, essentially, the same sort of gameplay for a newer generation. Which doomed us all really. You see Diablo II remains to this day as, "one of the most addictive things I can remember from any one time in my life." I ate, lived and breathed Diablo 2. You see I had the time to get away with this kind of ridiculous obsession when I was sixteen. The game is now 14 years old and it quite obviously looks it. Role playing games just don't work like Diablo anymore either. Whether that's good or bad in the grand scheme of things is up to you. However, from a gameplay perspective its the ultimate in tedium. It suffers from a grandiose introduction sequence that goes absolutely nowhere, features no real plot besides, "Diablo's back again- and this time its personal," and is literally teaming with item variations and boring side-quests. It was essentially "the" game before World of Warcraft and I can't even remember if "Everquest" was more popular or not in its time. Literally thousands of people remember Diablo 2, but do they remember how boring it was outside of battle.net? I do. It was all just filler really. The grinding was really the most fun when you were with a large group of people online and in no time at all you could level up and pick out new skills to improve your character class. However, outside of all of the boss runs, loot runs, rare drops, sets of armor, unique items, and leveling up- what was the point of the freaking game? Half the quests were immensely drawn out, featuring treasure hunts for items that meant nothing to anybody aside from NPC's. Speaking of which, the NPC's, though varied and well designed, are all just "there" for rudimentary purposes. Outside of your reality they are empty shells of data with no purpose or logical reason to exist outside of assigning you, the player character, quests to accelerate to the next area of the game. They add very little to the aesthetic of the game as a whole. Which is entirely different than smaller details such as the soundtrack, the one thing that actually seems to have purpose in this entire franchise. Both the original game's soundtrack and the sequels soundtrack are fantastic in every way possible. They practically gave me a reason to continue playing just to hear what different areas of different acts sounded like. All of the tracks settle on the theme of each area or locale in the story, exuding atmosphere and forming the backbone of what you'll be hearing most of the game aside from repeated death screams and weapon swings. I almost wonder how well the game would've sold if it wasn't for the soundtrack alone since the sound effects themselves are rather dull and once you've heard one "thwack" of a weapon hitting the flesh of some malevolent demon creature, you've heard most of them. While the sound effects and voice work is "decent" they end up being somewhat mediocre and are just sufficient rather than truly great. In terms of the visuals, for the year 2000? Its 256 colors at 640x480. They didn't hold up and it certainly didn't look amazing on release and was even pointed out by Gamespot's review way back after the games release. The actual gameplay is the most traditional of RPG mechanics: Leveling up by getting experience by killing monsters with items they drop so you can use those items to kill harder monsters to get better skills to get better items so you can then kill bigger monsters, etc.. so on and so forth. Its very repetitive, its very tedious and its very unrewarding if you ever played the game for much more than an hour. As far as support for the game from Blizzard? You can pretty much not bother counting on Blizzard forever. I doubt they really want to keep up with all the complaints and suggested fixes that people have talked about. Besides- that's what mods are for. For goodness sakes, this is a developer that banned a "widescreen patch" for the game on battle.net years ago. The title itself is not particularly deep or complex and comes across as a little soulless, which isn't surprising really. This is Blizzard after all. Expand
  11. Apr 15, 2015
    6
    A boring clickfest with unimaginative environments. It's just fighting and collecting stuff. The game is quite hard as well. There are better RPGs out there.
  12. Nov 19, 2013
    7
    Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player) Gameplay (1/2) Visuals/Story (0/2) (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is
    Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player)

    Gameplay (1/2)

    Visuals/Story (0/2)

    (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is better than the visuals, review this section as if the visuals didn’t matter)

    Accessibility/Longevity (2/2)

    (Review this section only on Accessibility if the game has no longevity) (Review this section only on longevity if the game isn’t accessible)

    Pricing (2/2)

    Wildcard (0)

    This is a guideline for how to properly review games. Many reviewers like to get a “feel” for a game, and arbitrarily give a game a score that they believe it deserves. This results in wildly different scores between different reviewers, and vastly different scores between similar games. This guideline addresses these problems and scores games fairly and consistently. This guideline also gives scores that are usually similar to the metacritic score.

    The review score is based out of 10 points. There are no “half” or 0.5 increments. It is impossible to have a score above 10 or below 0. The review score will change as the game gets new dlc, drops in price, or if more secrets are found through the game increasing its appeal.

    The scoring is split into 6 sections. The first five sections can add a possible 2 points to the final score. The first 5 sections are Single Player/Multi Player, Gameplay, Visuals/Story, Accessibility/Longevity, and Pricing.

    Notice that 3 of these sections have two parts. These particular sections will be scored based on the stronger part of the game of the two. For example, if a game has a lousy single player campaign, but an excellent multiplayer component, that section will be based solely on the multiplayer as if the single player did not exist. This allows games to be based on their own merits, as many unnecessary features are shoehorned into video games by publishers to reach a “feature quota”. Games that excel in both areas of a section don’t receive should be noted in the written review, but cannot increase the score past 2 in that section. However, it can be taken into account in the final section

    The final section can add 1, add 0, or subtract 1 to the final score. This final section is the “wildcard” section. This section is for how the reviewer “feels” about the game, but limits this only to this section, rather than the entire 10 point review. This section can include any positive or negative point that was not covered in the previous 5 sections.
    Expand
Metascore
88

Generally favorable reviews - based on 34 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 33 out of 34
  2. Negative: 0 out of 34
  1. 86
    Held back from being an EXCELLENT game by the fact that it features no really interesting characters or roleplaying, it only has a few simple quests, its story is paper thin, it has a few technical issues, Battle.net is unreliable, and the gameplay is ultimately shallow and repetitive.
  2. PC Gamer
    94
    Don't steal, but lie and cheat if necessary. As a gamer, it's your duty to own Diablo II. [Aug 2000, p.75]
  3. Spank!
    88
    If you're going to buy one role playing game this year then this has to be it.