Jump to content

Talk:Diablo II/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Who or what is an "Urdar"?

It has to do with this game.

-G

It's a monster Scott 18:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Trivia

Reasons behind why the Trivial assets, such as random things that are cool and hidden within the game, were removed under which I do not know why, but I feel as if they cause no harm and should be told, so Players and others alike can realize these views. Only a minor conception, I know, but I feel as if they should be. Possibilites to add more of these would be simple, and I am sure somewhere out there someone would love to see a Compiled Listing of these finds.

I agree, besides it does no harm. Blank24 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Distinction between info and strategy

Even though strategies used in a game does play an important role, I don't think that the strategies should be on this page. This is not a strategy guide, it should give information about the game, not neccesarily how it should be played. If strategies have to be present, we should at least get some standardised structure to place it in, otherwise it becomes messy. The ideal would be to create a "Diablo 2 Strategies" section or page, and move everything to that section/page. Bertus 13:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, with you. I think the main issue is that character build evaluations are a rather subjective topic (since it is often based on an individual's gaming experience rather than some hard cold facts) and as such doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia. I think a list of common builds, with a very brief description of what they are (example: "Meteorb sorceress: A sorceress mainly relying on the meteor, frozen orb and fireball spells. The rest of the points are typically spent on the appropriate synergies and masteries along with teleport and static charge. Often used for Magic Finding.") would be appropriate, along with the explanation of other common game terms, but the builds' strengths and weaknesses should not be discussed here. Artagas, 10:36 23 Jun 2005 (CET)

While it is true that this is an encyclopedic article and not a strategy guide, I do feel that much of the information on this page is encyclopedic. Describing the pros and cons of the different characters is information which allows the reader to interpret the information on his/her own. I would consider things such as "how to beat" or "where to find" to be more strategy. This article is clean for now.--TheAznSensation 2 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)

The "pros & cons" are not strategy guides. When I rewrote those sections a while ago, I tried to portray the evolution of the character builds over time, not how to build them. A strategy guide would be "to build a javazon, invest 7 points into pierce, max lightning fury, get a physical damage merc for lightning immunes; forget about magic and rare javelins, Titan's Revenge is far superior; there is some dispute about the ideal Valkyrie skill level...". I believe it would be far more interesting five years from now to know how the classes evolved over time. The evolution of battle.net is a piece of Blizzard history that should be preserved, while strategy guides only last as long as the actual game and become useless afterwards. ... @ Artagas: those build evaluations are in fact cold hard facts. The way it works is that when a new patch was released or a new discovery made, as soon as the pioneers decided that build x was "overpowered" and build y was "useless", other people who hadn't even tried them parroted the pioneers' opinions and they became an objective reality. The overwhelming consensus in 1.09 was that druids were "useless", so nobody made a druid and those who did fully expected their character to be "useless", which of course made them seem more useless than they really were, which in turn reinforced the stigma. Therefore, the "pros & cons" are the "voice of battle.net", not my "personal opinion". This is supposed to be a historical article, not Laz's Opinion of Diablo 2. FYI, I personally consider Shockwave to be the most overpowered skill in the game. BrotherLaz, 19:35 9 Jul 2005 (GMT)

I like the structure a lot more like it is now. It's not perfect, but it's a LOT better than it was at the beginning. I agree that the evolution of the game should be captured, since it is valueble information. (Game developers and Blizzard themselves can use it, which is the point of an encyclopedia.) I think in all cases the structure of any article should allow any reader to skip the parts he isn't interested in. Like it is not, you can read what a Barb IS, and skip the Pro's and Cons. This was impossible previously. A person who knows nothing about D2 was forced to read rather technical D2 stuff to find out what a Sorceress was. Bertus 07:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote all of the class sections. Barring a revert or vandalism, they should be a lot better now.BrotherLaz, 22:55 6 August 2005 (GMT)

Selling items on eBay

From the article:

Interestingly, this trading occurs in-game, and in the real world. Certain "unique" items can sell on Ebay for upwards of $500USD(which mind you, is illegal).

Is this really illegal, and if so, why? Is it based on an end user licence agreement, and if so is there any legal concensus on how enforceable it might be?

Not illegal at all, in the common sense of the word. The worst that could happen is that your access to D2 online is terminated.

But, it is indeed disagreeing with the EULA, and is punishable by bannings. For example, sony prohibited any sales of Everquest items, and they enforced their rule contacting ebay to close any auctions that were selling any everquest items.

The issue of maphacking, however, is very intresting, any thought on that?

12/14/03, I added alot more depth in the hacking of Diablo II. there are HUGE communities that are based on bots and other hacks of Diablo II, so I thought a little history should be added. This might work better as a seperate page, but for now it's a BREIF history of diablo ii hacking. --Raeky

Raeky, buddy, you are just the perfect person to spot to help me with this disputed line:

However, as Blizzard began banning for bots, this was also the most severely hit bot with hundreds of thousands users penalized for using it. (btw, this is legacys_mule) I cannot believe this figure is correct... 100,000+ users penalised? I would say not possible for 100,000+ users to have been 'penalised' "for using d2jsp". any feedback?Pedant 23:53, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Heh it looks much different from when i added some new stuff about 1.10 release i can't even find that edit --Alexsc25

I found it at last. --Alexsc25Alexsc25

Dudes, sign your name with ~~~ or ~~~~ so your signature appears correctly (with a link to your user page). —Frecklefoot 15:05, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is Battle.net all that matters?

Hmm, why is so much focus on Battle.net and hacking and not the features introduced by Diablo II, the background story, etc? Looks pretty skewed to me. :-\ The majority of news in Diablo II lies not in hacking and bugged items after all (this existed back in Diablo I too), but in its new features. Maybe I'll start by at least adding info for all classes. :-P Jugalator

I agree. I just assumed a Battle.net fanatic added all that junk. While it is okay, it's not really informative about the actual game—just with the problems with it (and just the multiplayer aspect to be specific). Any more info on the actual game would be very welcome, IMHO. —Frecklefoot 15:01, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Because there's no reason to play the game on singleplayer: it's like playing CS with bots. Most people don't even play on singleplayer (like me, until I quit after my accounts got screwed over)... ugen64 21:38, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
I far prefer the social atmosphere of single player and I'm am an extravert --Non-User Olleicua
Well, I only played D2 in single player mode. I don't know where you get the "most" assertion you make. If few people even play it, why does Blizzard even go to the trouble of including it in the game? Including a multiplayer version and a single player version is about as much trouble as creating two seperate games. Evidentally, quite a few people play it single player—enough to justify Blizzard going to the trouble of making the single player mode. —Frecklefoot 21:56, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
Funny how the text keeps saying things about germans? --pheel 17:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Battle.net is a fundemental aspect of Diablo II (and all Blizzard games now). It is what made diablo ii the success it was. Also the bots and other "hacks" for diablo ii are groundbreaking in the sense that not many other games have and the kind of community behind it to develop such infinitely complex "cheats" or addons (like d2jsp) before for any game. Its only fair that they are at talked about in the article. I also feel that general "blah blah blah details" about the game are not so imporant in the article here. Anyone can go to www.blizzard.com and read all they want about classes and such. Raekyraeky
"Battle.net is what made Diablo II the success it was." Not true. It would've been a huge success even without Battle.net. WarCraft II didn't have Battle.net access and it didn't hurt its sales any (granted WC2 was released before there was Battle.net). It sounds like you want the article to be just about Battle.net and nothing else. I think the layout of the other sections of the article are fine—they give brief descriptions of the classes and such. If one wants in-depth discussions of these aspects, they can go to the Blizzard web site for more information, but brief overviews are very appropriate for the article. However, I think there is a lot of information in the Battle.net section that could be moved to the Battle.net article. —Frecklefoot 15:02, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)


I disagree. Battle.net did contribute a lot to the success of D2. One note of games like Warcraft II is in the lack of continuity between games. That is, it doesn't matter if you research all the technologies in the previous games, all that matters is the current game. In D2, you have a character that is continuous across games. Without something like the closed realms, it is impossible to have an environment where players can play multiplayer cooperatively without other people joining in with level 1 characters with insane stats and causing general griefing. Also, it does mean more to have a level 99 character that you can assure your friends is "legit". Anyone can hack an singleplayer / open bnet account to level 99, but it takes "effort" (or just a lot of time wasting) to get to level 99. Multiplayer is a big part of games nowadays, and should not be ignored. Unfortunately a few game designers take this a little too far and totally neglect single player aspects, but that's another discussion.--Mylon 00:45, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am in favor of putting as much useful info on wikipedia as possible. Also I think organization is critical to allow users to see what they are interested in. have three pages/sections for, strategy guide, hacking/Cheating history, and Game Concept. I don't think any of us can judge what information is helpful to Wikipedia and we should all try and be open minded about it. --Non-user Olleicua

I agree that battle.net is important, but another aspect that i think is often ignored is the storyline. Most players just rush through the whole game without realizing that there is an intricate story behind it all, such as the war between hell and heaven, andt he history of the prime evils. Maybe include more information on that? 66.41.59.162 23:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

German Diablo II players

From the section Battle.net Player versus Player (PvP):

  • "On the other hand, european leagues like Post Reality think of most German players as rude, impolite and playing lame"
  • "A remarkable fact is that mostly german people buy from so-called "itemshops"."

Do Germans have really such a bad reputation in that game the it is noteworthy on an article about it? --Conti|✉ 21:48, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

no, its the Koreans,"gogogogogogogo" , hey, just kidding I play on Asia realm a lot, you can level a player really fast co-op games can be blindingly quick, and those asian guys all seem to be real great at staying close enough to share exp and far enough to have room to kill... which is just as racist a statement. Everybody has some subset of the whole that they 'hate' Me I really hate those hcpk trapassins, load up traps by the waypoint and hostile you when you get there, whilst they sit in town fondling their stashPedant 00:03, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I find the relevance and necessity of an addition like this, highly unrequired, so what if they commit such actions, such to be that it would not require an Article. -- LordAndrew


I added some info on the Druid and sorceress. Juicyboy 325. 11/15/04

Second Person?

Nitpicking, but... shouldn't the article be written in the more formal third person? Also, is it just me, or do some parts of this article read like a strategy guide? 68.9.205.10

It sure seems like it is. tyler nelson 18:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Expansion Set Page

Is there any reason why the expansion set is listed under Lord of Destruction expansion pack, and not under something less ambiguous, such as Diablo II: Lord of Destruction or Diablo II Expansion? If there isn't any oposition to this, it would make sense to change the page on of my suggestions, and also change the link in the Blizzard Entertainment Games category bar.

I realize this isn't they totaly correct place to talk about this, but it looks like no one has ever checked the LoD talk page. --Jkarp 05:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- The 1.11 quest is only for expansion. It shouldnt be on the Diablo II Page.


Tesseract

Why has the Horadric Cube been described as a tesseract? Isn't a tesseract 4 dimensional? Aligma 17:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess because the cube is bigger on the inside than the outside? Makgraf 02:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
That's why... it desn't meet the 3-dimensional standards... and the inside is larger than the outside. --RPC (Peytonio) 01:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Diablo II items

I think there should be somewhere a list of unique, set items with their proporties, just as all pokemon are listed in wiki. Exe 14:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to start adding set items, would there be a problem with this? Eav 11:37, 23 Nov 2005.

I'd suggest you go add them to the Diablo wiki on Wikicities] instead... but that's just me. nae'blis (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather than adding the items to this website, I suggest people simply link to the Arreat Summit, the website which gives a comprehensive listing of everything Diablo 2:

http://www.battle.net/diablo2exp

Clean-up tag

Yeah, I'm the same guy from "Second Person?"

Some of the sections (particularly the Sorceress section) are written in second-person and look as if they belong in a strategy guide. A simple description of the character classes and their strengths and weaknesses serves the article better than step-by-step instructions to create an "uber" sorceress. TaintedMustard 23:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think each character should have a sub section. For instance, the sorceress should have a Sorceress Strategies sub section. Alternatively, all strategy related info can be moved to a completely new "Diablo 2 Strategies" page. Bertus 11:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree too. D2 strategies redirect to a Strategy page (as Bertus says). And Druid/Assassin info should actually belong in Diablo II: Lord of Destruction and not here... suggestions? Debroglie 3 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Agreed here, as well. This page needs serious work; the class information sections read like strategy guides, as is mentioned, and while the evolution of certain builds might be interesting, it should be relegated to its own section rather than tossed in with the rest. The article should be something that the average reader can pick up and look at without having to trip over terms like "javazon" and "skelliemancer." Ajudd 1 Feb 2006

- Just as an idea (and yes, I am replying to my own edit), perhaps a lot of the strategy / build information should be merged to the DiabloWiki, which is linked at the bottom of the page?Andy 09:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Corpse explosion

a really minor issue, but i wanted it to be fixed. The skill specific part stated that CE damage scales up with the number of players. However, that is not the case, so i changed it. To confirm, I asked in this thread http://forums.diabloii.net/showthread.php?t=358361 where one of the biggest skelemancer experts answered, saying that it indeed does not scale up. (would be insane if it did anyways) - Artagas

Yes, you are correct, this scaling was removed in the current patch 1.11, but the scaling was there in 1.10. The Grim Reaper 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There was certainly no scaling of CE in 1.10.. Well, anyhow, that's not the point anymore.

Please merge

Please merge the following content into the article somewhere. The vfd consensus for the article in question is for it to be merged here. The article for the meantime has been redirected. -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

In the fictional universe of Diablo 2, the Priests of Rathma are a segregated group of magi that study the concept of mortality. Living deep underground, these magi have learned how to raise the undead to fight for them. Through their wisdom, these "Necromancers" have learned not to question the threshold of mortality, but to accept it as a part of life. The Necromancer's skill tree is based around summoning creatures and cursing the minions of the undead. This character class sports expertise in wands and daggers.
While this has been included for a while, locationally it makes no sense. There is a discontinuous jump from strategy to storyline here. Suggestions on moving this to a different area or better delineating it? Kickstart70 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should delete it. Makgraf 19:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Bulk move of Pros & Cons

The Pros & Cons of the five original classes do not really fit here. They're LoD based and don't apply to Classic DII. I'm rewriting them and moving everything related to content past 1.07 to the Lord of Destruction page. Someone else who still plays Classic DII can write the rest from a Classic point of view. Don't scream vandalism, please. It's for the good of humanity ;)

How do you pronounce Diablo

Die-a-bloe, or dee-ablow?

Pece Kocovski 02:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ordinarily in American English, I believe it is the latter. nae'blis (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Deeablow, but at the same time, die-a-bolikal. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 20:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh and in-game voices say "Dee-a-blow". -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 20:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It is pronounced dee a blo but not spelled that way.

It's diablo (dee ah blow). --RPC (Peytonio) 01:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Colenzo

There are no objects called the "Carin Stones" in Diablo II. Rather, they are the "Cairn Stones". I do not believe that this is meant as a tribute to Karin Colenzo. The actual tribute to her is in one of the warcries of the Fallen type enemies - they yell "Colenzo" at intervals. There is also a boss Fallen Shaman named "Colenzo" that appears at the Throne of Destruction in Act V of Lord of Destruction.

Cairn is pronounced Carin (or Karin) in the game, so it is possible it could have come from Karin Colenzo. --RPC (Peytonio) 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right. A cairn is a manmade pile of stones. And that's what they are in the game. It's just coincidence that someone on the development team has a name slightly similar to the real-world word for what that is. It should be taken out of the article.

Also on the subject of Easter Eggs, the unique Dirk-class weapon is called "The Diggler", a clear reference to Dirk Diggler of "Boogie Nights". The "Tarnhelm" is a reference to the opera "Das Rhinegold" of "Der Ring des Nibelungen" (aka The Ring Cycle). The "Buriza-Do Kyanon" is Engrish for "Blizzard Cannon". There are many, many others.

New Game Concepts section needs to be dissolved.

No one seems to have noticed that there is both a New Game Concepts section and a Changes From Diablo I section. These wouldn't necessarily be redundnant sections as they are named, but New Game Concepts doesn't talk about altogether new game concepts-- it just talks about changes from Diablo I, as per its first sentence. And actually, most of what it talks about are item details, which don't belong on this article at all. I mean, it has a whole page of statistics on gems? Good Lord. I call for the removal of the New Game Concepts section, merging only the critical information from it into the Changes from Diablo I section, and any further details being put in a separate page.

This article as a whole is too long for an overview on Diablo II. What's written for Amazon is a nicely-sized paragraph; other character classes have disproportionately much detail, including strategies, which also don't belong on this article.

Having played Diablo I but not II, I'm not qualified to make these changes myself, but I can tell they're strongly needed.

Secret Cow Level --- Really a Secret?

I removed this section and put it in the separate article Cow Level. Reasons:

  • It's too detailed for this article
  • It really should be a secret in some sense -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Praetis (talk • contribs) 12/21/2005 02:51:56 UTC (UTC)
I disagree; this game has been out long enough that any secret about the Cow Level is long since approaching irrelevance, and putting it somewhere else (without linking it, no less) just makes it harder to find. We're an encyclopedia, not a strategy guide, and should be striving for completeness. nae'blis (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


You're right. I was thinking of linking it. How about for the sake of respecting the level of detail, leaving it separate but adding this into the list of "Changes from Diablo I" section:

There actually is a secret cow level.

Even if everybody "allegedly" knows about it, isn't it still a spoiler? You know, like Aeris dies! TotalTommyTerror 18:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler tags are the best we can do. Beyond that the needs of the encycopedia outweigh the possibility of "spoiling" it for someone who has been living under a rock for the last decade. Even then, who found about about the cow level without having it "spoiled" for them. This isnt really a spoiler in the same sense. This should be merged asap66.112.37.194 04:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I had edited the definition of the origin of the cow level to the correct statement; that is, it originated when the rather close-knit group of people in #EFNet IRC (circa 1995-97) was suddenly hit with an influx of people when the Beta/Demo was released, and we essentially made up a story to make them do stupid things to amuse us. Since I included my name in the post as one of the primary originators (which was true) some overzealous full-time wiki editor deemed it 'vandalism' and removed it. Since there is no documented resource I can cite regarding this, I can't cite anyone who would know; that is Kingy, Leavandor, Bearright, Kythorn, or maybe ElJay or another op at the time, therefore I can not correct the post. Do I really need to resurrect the dead husk of the Scorched site?

Of note: Haven't gone to EFNet for years, and the site I mentioned has been dead for just as long. I was promoting nothing except getting the right story there. RedFalcon 21:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Story and Characters

I think these are really interesting. Confusingly the article refers to the cinematic and the game story without differentiating them. then there are seperate character articles that have some but not all of the information. I'd like to see this improved.

images

copyright status? 66.112.37.194 04:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Let's not get anal about this shall we?

Nothing about mods?

The most play I've experienced has very little to do with Vanilla LOD, and it's pretty weird about no mods being mentioned on the wiki, as modders taken the game and run with it since Blizzard has moved on to the bigger and bigger. The Zy-El mod for instance is an augmentation designed to improve the single player game, and is a much deeper experience due to the item crafting and increased difficulty.

- I'll add a section about mods to the LORD OF DESTRUCTION page. This is the regular D2 page. I know the disambiguation page doesn't list LoD and everyone ends up here, but let's just say this is the page for everything that doesn't require or involve LoD. -BrotherLaz

How is it possable to hack a game?

I have heard a lot of talk about hacking this game but how is it done? I dont want a specific answer (i dont want to do it) but how can it be done?-Fiarrsturm 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Just like with any other form of hacking, hacking a game like Diablo II can be acheived through both instinct and skill. Someone with enough knowledge of the OS that Diablo II is running on, could presumably find out where certain data is stored in memory and alter it. That is what 'trainers' do.
Things such as the various 'maphacks' work on the same principle, but are (usually) restricted to merely making the entire map visible, though many also include related exploits.
On the 'character editor' side of things, people with plenty of experience in reverse engineering can figure out how the *.d2s file format works. People with plenty of time can simply figure it out through trial and error.
On top of all those methods, someone with access to a decompiler could always find out exactly what is going on, and use that knowledge to create a crack, or any of the above hacks with relative ease.
I hope that explains it well enough for you. --60.227.18.58 03:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article?

This article has gotten quite large, and it seems to me a split would be in order. My proposal would be to split out the Character Classes and New Game Concepts into a new article, which we could call Diablo II Strategy. Any thoughts on this idea? -- MisterHand 23:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I kind of wonder if strategy belongs on Wikipedia at all. There are almost infinite combinations people prefer, and they tend to get non-encyclopedial/POV. A short description of the classes plus any storyline that is associated with them would be better.Kickstart70 00:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree, actually. How about this less drastic proposal: we split off only the Character Classes section into a new article titled Diablo II Character Classes? By not putting "Strategy" into the title of the new article we wouldn't be encouraging folks to try and turn the article into a full-fledged strategy guide. -- MisterHand 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the strategy guide stuff could be largely excised without harming the article. A little bit of theory about the differences between characters is one thing, but we're not trying to recreate the Tomb of Knowledge here... -- nae'blis (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Game Credits

First off, kudos to Phorque for splitting off the online stuff to a new article. But this article is still quite long. I'm looking at the Game Credits section, and I really can't see it's value in an encyclopedia article. Unless there are objections, I'm going to remove it (with the exception of the notable folks, such as Bill Roper, who I'll mention up higher in the article). -- MisterHand 15:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MisterHand, while Metzen is a notable, it's hard to reckon he was in the context of this game (you have to dig past 60 names to get to his). Michio Okamura appears in the list of 13 character artists.
Fair enough, it's probably more important that Diablo II is mentioned in their individual articles than vice-versa. -- MisterHand 20:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I tried to reflect the most major roles this time. I could see adding leads, but the list starts getting unweildy again....

Here we go again with the credits, this time in the sidebar. I'm going to change it to what was agreed on before....

Merge of Mastadex Hero Editor

See Talk:Mastadex Hero Editor#Cleanup/merge for more rationale. I find it funny that article was kept in AfD, now we need to live with it. Anyone got any ideas on what to do? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Section merge

Anyone have any thoughts on merging the sections New Game Concepts and Changes from Diablo I (probably the former into the latter)? --Kickstart70 16:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Diablo II not expansion

I think this article should be rewritten with all references to the Lord of Destruction expasion pack removed as the expasion already has its own article.--Metmop 19:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"All" is a pretty powerful word; where exactly do you see LoD being referenced too much? It is mentioned 14 times in the article, and some of those could be removed, but to call for a rewrite is pretty extreme. EVula 20:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

More specificly, remove talk of items that can only spawn in LoD, such as runes and jewels. Also individual items listed in the amazon and necromancer character "Strategies" The Pademonium Quest can be removed as that is no part of Diablo II, but DClone could be mentioned.

Looking for...

Looking for people who are at least somewhat familiar with the wiki concept (one edit here is enough) and interested in the upcoming Diablo III. Leave a note on my user talk page if interested. ℑilver§ℑide 04:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fistadin

I think this article lacks in its leaving out any mention of the mighty Fist of the Heavens-focused paladins. While that build was nerfed with the coming of 1.07 (LoD), it was the most powerful PvP build I've ever seen. Hammerdins are mentioned, and they were nowhere near as popular, or powerful, as Fistadins, before the nerf. Plus, whenever a Fistadin entered a PvP game, most people would leave :) That deserves mention.


Please don't do that. I will simply state that with the current patch a FoH'er is not a good dueler anymore.The Grim Reaper 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to mention it. Simple.

IGN lets it slip?

Not article worthy, more for anyone who wants a little ray of hope if they don't think Diablo 3 is coming up, have a peaksie at [1]. It's an advert for IGN insider subscription, but it happens to have Diablo III alongisde a lot of other things that have been confirmed to be at E3 2006. You never know, it might not be that far away. Gaz 18:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes from Diablo I

I just removed the following, if anyne knows what could be meant, please clarify and read

  • Increases in the average amount of monster, player and item attributes
  • Simplified, icon based store system, replacing the text based system

134.130.4.46 05:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

glitches

i think we should include some common glitches like the str 1 i hear noobs complaining all the time of how to do that -NOOBLET

Removed Diablo III E3 Comment

Removed the statement about announcing Diablo 3 at E3 in May, since E3 is now past and it was not announced. Sentance removed read: "possible at E3 in May," 70.126.56.64 00:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the D3 section completely, becouse I think It adds nothing to the D2 article. SevenMass 14:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ladder Season

Hi, Just a concerned fan wanting to know when the next ladder season will begin. I know form last years reset that it sucks but many of my friends would like to kno as well.

E-mail me at angrytoy_soldier6611@yahoo.com with any info regarding this situation. 

         There has been no information declared about the next reset, as with all the others, you only get a week or so advance knowledge and they come as a big suprise to many.The Grim Reaper 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Stone of Jordan

I'd like to see an article specifically about the long and storied history of the Stone of Jordan. No other single item in a video game has ever been such an object of contention that I'm aware of. This game built an entire economy out of SoJs. It was rampantly duplicated, then Blizzard's dupe-deleting policy made it decline in value, then people got around that, and it rose in value, then they added the Uber-Diablo that only appeared when you sold SoJs to vendors, then players started an IRC channel to track which servers were selling the most SoJs, etc. There's easily enough sordid history behind this item that I believe it warrants its own article, if only as an interesting study in sponateous generation of an artificial economy. It was never intended by the developpers that the item become a currency, but it pretty much did. All other items were valued in terms of how many SoJs they were worth. If I had reliable sources other than my own experience, I'd start such an article myself. But surely this sort of thing must be documented somewhere. --Lurlock 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, what you've just written would be the limit of the article. You'd be lucky to get a meaty paragraph out about it, without blatently pasting loads of into on stats, drop rate and other irrelevant stuff. Andymc 17:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the general feelings of Lurlock, in fact I wonder if there doesn't already exist somewhere an article about economics in MMORPG? Because there certainly are already numerous academic articles already written about it. Mathmo Talk 14:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
As I've been reading more I've came across exactly the article you are looking for to include this into, Mudflation. Mathmo Talk 15:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

hey im new,and dont know how to tag an image. can anyone tag it for me? its in the collector's edition section

need correction

The following is incorrect and needs a rewrite- On April 1st, 1999, a Diablo II Screenshot of the Week featured cows fighting. People wondered if the screenshot was an April Fool's joke or if there really was a Secret Cow Level planned for Diablo II. It turned out that there was a cow level in the sequel, Diablo III

As of Aug 2006 Diablo III has still not been announced. Barrel-rider 03:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a mistake, it should read Diablo II Andymc 17:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


What happend to the townsfolk of Tristram?

What happend townsfolk of Tristram? I now, what happend to Cain the Elder (Deckard Cain), Griswold the Blacksmith and Wirt, but what about others? (Pepin the Healer, Farnham the Drunk, Gillian, Ogden and Adria the Witch) anyone now?

180888 16:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

if you look in the bottom right corner of tristram, you see a corpse on the ground where farnham would've been. as for pepin, ogden, adria, and gillian, i can't say. Parsecboy 21:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to remove the sections on the Assassin and Druid from this entry. Given that they are both only available within the expansion (and are represented on that page), the Assassin entry was of poor quality and the Druid heading was blank. 


            (Pepin, Gillian, Ogden were killed as well, as you can see the bodies. Adria, unconfirmed.)

Necromancer class listing

I cannot seem to find the Necromancer class listing along with the others... as if someone removed it by mistake. can anyone fix this problem and include in the info the Necromancers being Priests of Rathma.

Some anon editor removed it, it's back now. --Pentasyllabic 17:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Up to date sales?

Anyone feel like finding out current sales on Diablo II? The last update appears to be from the year 2000.. It's about 7 years later, and if I am not mistaken, this game is STILL being sold in almost all gaming stores. I'd very interesting to see sales figures, myself.

Barbarian in Hell mode

This is so minor it's almost unworthy of me saying anything, but in his character discription it states that he is the sole character class that can have passive resistance to all elements. While I believe this to be true, it threw me off because I play as a Paladin and they are granted a similar skill, an aura to effectivly negate a certain percentage of all elemental damage, but it is "half-passive" meaning that it costs nothing more than the right skill slot to be activated. So what I'm asking is, does anyone else feel this to be slightly misleading? I mean, in Hell mode (or in any mode for that matter) technically the Paladin does have a passive resistor to all elements. I'm also not sure if they still are but I believe the auras were once marked as a passive ability. So to finish, there may not be anything wrong with it, but I just wanted to see what everyone else thought, I think it may need to be edited but I won't touch the article till I hear from you guys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Severen (talk • contribs) 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Pally auras are active in that they have to be assigned to the right click slot to give benefits. Barb natural resistance requires no skills to be assigned anywhere; that's why they're passive. Parsecboy 08:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt Uelmen

The articles about computer games always neglect the composers. The music of the game is really important for the game. Withou Matt Uelmen, the game wouldn't exist. After the succes of it's compositions from Diablo II you should mention his name in the article, for at least once. Lot of games, including Diablo 2 has background music that devastes lots of scores from movies that won Oscar Prise, i won't give a specific example. --Tulok 10:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned within the article, yet to make a special mention that would promote Matt Uelmen sounds a tad unencyclopedic, sure the music in the game is an important part of it, but not as much to say that "without it there would be any game", thats more of a personal opinnion.
God Damned it, that guy does his work and no one appreciate it, try playing the game without the music, i know his music it's not so coloured as the other scores but he did the best for Diablo 2. And you could sign up to wikipedia, or if you already are you could use your wikipedia user --Tudor Tulok 21:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

David Thomas

The link to David Thomas (barbarian voice actor) points to a disambiguation page that does NOT include an entry for David A. Thomas Jr., and I feel is therefore misleading.

Physics engine?

What was the physics engine for d2? Or was there no engine due to the game being 2d? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duct tape tricorn (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Diablo 2 does not use a physics engine, as something like that wasn't around at the time of release.

- I am not spy —Preceding unsigned comment added by I am not spy (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Copies sold

The "fifteen million copies" figure is not stated in the pdf reference provided, which instead refers to the Diablo franchise as a whole selling 17 million units, presumably including the first game and expansion packs. Unless a citation is provided for that figure, it will be edited. Shawnc 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else find it strange that the "List of best-selling video games" article shows Diablo 2 clocking in at 4 million, while Diablo shows 2.5 million? Where does this 17 million number come from at the top of this article? Shaflugi 00:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The source for the "List of best selling..." is from 2001; that was 6 years ago that Diablo 2 had sold 4 million, with another million for LOD. The source from this article is from 2006, so even that's out of date. Parsecboy 14:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sure Diablo II has sold more than 4 million copies since the year 2001. In most "reception" segments they usually have the latest amount of copies sold. If someone has a source of the most recent amount, please put it; and leave it. The current information is extremely old, and doesn't add to the article. Here is one source but it has D2 and D2 LoD sales combined. http://www.betanews.com/article/Efficacy_of_Activision_Blizzard_merger_will_be_tested_with_Diablo_III/1214851866 And, just in case anybody questions the source http://www.insidetech.com/news/2453-blizzard-entertainment-diablo-iii-is-in-the-works

Jascar (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In the first source you provided, it says "...Diablo, Diablo II, and Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, which have combined to sell almost 20 million copies worldwide", while the second source says "Diablo II and Diablo II: Lord of Destruction have both sold more than 20 million copies..." In their Diablo III press release, Blizzard states "To date, the franchise has sold more than 18.5 million copies worldwide." So there are some inconsistencies. --Silver Edge (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Voice acting

I've seen this at least one other time, an edit to change the voice actor for the Necromancer from Michael McConnohie to Michael Bell. The voice actor was McConnohie, anyone who owns the game with the full manual can easily verify that in the credits at the end of the manual as I did. I reverted the change and altered Michael Bell's wiki entry. Hopefully that clears up any confusion.--Fogeltje 13:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Diablo II: Diablerie

I went ahead and added a small section on this just under Reception. I felt it was worth mentioning, since it's a full adaptation of the game's themes and characters. If possible, I would like to expand on it slightly. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, could we have the search string "diablo ii diablerie" redirect to the Diablo II page? I doubt the book itself would warrant an article of its own. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article so needs to be cropped. Probably to about half its current size. Ong elvin (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that the article needs to be cut down any. It's only 27kb, which is well within the article size guidelines. What specifically do you think needs to be cut down? Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The stuff that reads like a player's introductory guide to Diablo 2. I think maybe half was an overestimate; probably closer to a third. I'm thinking at least half of the class description if not the entire section altogether; similar articles only devote a single sentence per class to describe it generally. Also, kill the second-last paragraph of Multiplayer, the boss descriptions, and the entire Easter Eggs section. The last paragraph of Multiplayer could be moved to a new Development section; Development sections are pretty much a must-have as part of establishing real-world context. Amongst those, Easter Eggs obviously needs to go. Ong elvin (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I mostly agree. Multiplayer should keep all its subjects, but there's too much in-game information about each by far. I don't find Characters to be excessive as a whole, but "The 7 Great Evils" is outright unneeded, as it has its own article that doesn't even seem to be cleanly linked (perhaps the character descriptions would best be suited to a similar page?). Easter Eggs is both bloated and unnecessary, but the cow level is prevalent enough to deserve brief mention somewhere. OG17 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Objective Missing on Multiplayer

I think that the multiplayer section should include how objectives work online. Example, if Player 1 clears out Den of Evil and finishes the quest, and player 2 comes in who still has to do the Den of Evil quest, they cannot complete that quest unless joining a server that hasn't finished it or creates their own. But they can still follow player 1 and assist them in act 1 until they join act 2, which they cannot follow player 1 since their story has them in act 1. Signed Ledgo —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles provide general information, not detailed instructions. It's not meant to be a surrogate manual. OG17 (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Besides, in the scenario you give they can follow the other player to act 2. Den of Evil is not an essential quest. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 06:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please, do not add more info into it, it must be informative; this means simple, precise and accurate. But above all, optimal.200.90.215.215 (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a link to http://www.diabloii.net/. This website is useful and contains a huge amount of useful information not found on the other two external links. Just because it's a "fansite" does not make it bad.

Pi is 3.14159 | Talk 02:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the link. While it's true that most fansites aren't worth linking, this one is professionally done (aside from not updating the Fact of the Day for over a year), and continues to reference current media coverage of the game, Blizzard's other franchises, etc. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 05:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Release dates

Why has the good old :

(PC)
United States / South Korea /Canada / European Union June 29, 2000
Poland July 5, 2000
(Mac)
June 29, 2000 been removed??

It's so much better than

, and it's also more accurate, as the Poland release date has been removed.

Mostly because, due to a site-wide discussion, the use of flags is generally depreciated. Nifboy (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

When Worlds Collide Tournament of 2004

Hey Guys,

We should add a section that described the events in 2004 where everyone ran the ladder and got the signed collectors edition for being first to level 99. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.206.106 (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The soundtrack?

Could someone say some things about it? The composer (Matt Uelman) travelled all over the world collaborating with different musicians for it. More info can be found in the liner notes which used to be up on the strategy site, but can be found on archive.org [2]. Also here [3] it mentions that the Diablo II expansion soundtrack drew inspiration from Wagners opera "Tristan and Isolde". {Phoenixdolphin (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)}

Story and Characters

I updated the story section to include important characters and a cleaner looking story description. RedKlonoa (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

poorly written

this article is extremely poorly written, at least as a wiki article. It has a conversational style, including asides and other tripe, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. someone should take a pen to it 70.53.49.146 (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to do so yourself! Nifboy (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

640x480 resolution limitation

I think this limitation needs mentioning in the article. When the game was released in 2000, 1024x768 gaming was the norm. The fact that this game forced users to play at 640x480 was quite a disappointment to many. It was considered a step backwards and was one of the few criticisms of the game. Perhaps a critism section needs to be created to put this under? Davez621 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[citation needed] We need a source from a reviewer before we can add that. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 19:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It supported 800x600. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
No, only the expansion pack added support for 800x600. The original could not run higher than 640x480. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davez621 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
At any rate, we're all missing something important: was 1024x768 gaming really the norm? It was certainly the norm for gamers to have screens that supported such a resolution, but were games generally run at 1024x768? Anyway, with the CRTs that were prevalent back then, 800x600 looked quite good already. Nowadays, on screens like my 1680x1050 LCD, it looks quite bad. But from a distance it's still good. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Story

The story section needs to be updated. I came here looking for detailed information and found a pretty scant and poorly written section. There are character names/places in each act that are missing as well as the major points of each act, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.247.186 (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The story section is fine. Wikipedia does not aim to retell stories in detail. A wikipedia gives a broad overview of subjects. If you look for details, you can try some of the external links or the Diablo wikia.--Fogeltje (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Then why do many many many other game articles on this site have very detailed story sections. The Portal game comes to mind as I read it the other day and was quite pleased by it. It needs sprucing. j_lechem@msn.com (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:WAX. The fact that other games have a detailed story section doesn't mean they should have or that this article should have. Those others probably need be trimmed down.--Fogeltje (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation 7

Citation 7 is commented as a dead link. An archived version can be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20071118023009/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdoup/is_200505/ai_n13462894 Dean (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Great find. I think I fixed it! XF Law (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad info about Leopard

Not only is the information that I recently removed about the Leopard incompatibility completely wrong, it doesn't even match the linked references.

When this particular model of MBP was released, the latest version of Mac OS X was 10.5.2, meaning Mac OS X >10.5.3 wasn't all that was affected. Also, the problem was that 256 colors couldn't be switched into. At any rate it works for plenty of people who have Leopard, so it's not a Leopard incompatibility but a defect in the drivers released for certain computers. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Version History

In regards to my reverted version history table, I've seen these types of tables in some other games. They can be useful for pinpointing when major gameplay changes occurred, when bugs were fixed, when you started playing the game, etc. In regards to it being "encyclopaedic", my take on that has generally been that if it's factual and relevant to the topic, it will probably be useful information to some people. In point of fact, I was looking for that type of information this morning, and was disappointed that wiki didn't have it, so I added what I could. --Rob (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution history of the user who reverted my edits, it seems his/her only purpose on the wiki is to revert edits. While this may be useful in some cases, it certainly makes me leary when all I see in someone's history are reverts. I would appreciate it if a third party would weigh in on the usefulness or lack thereof to a complete version history table and take appropriate action in terms of reverting the revert or leaving it in place. --Rob (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem very notable or useful to me. Wikipedia isn't a game guide, so this kind of information isn't pertinent. Take a look through WP:NOT; just because something is 'true', doesn't mean it needs to be in an article. And I'm sorry if you don't see the value of maintaining quality and standards levels, and encouraging compliance with policies here. DP76764 19:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
As a Patroller on UESP, I very much see the value of maintaining quality and standards levels...but as a Patroller on UESP, I also know things that catch my attention from an editor. That said, there are some (like Patrollers, Admins, and regular editors who happen to enjoy enforcing established standards) who may have a lot of reverts in their change history, so I certainly don't dismiss your point out-of-hand. UESP's standards and what might be useful there naturally do not necessarily apply here. That's why I requested the input of a third party (or parties). --Rob (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • More input is always good =) What other articles have you seen that have this information? The one's I've looked at do not contain that level of detail (and I would wager that most 'high quality' articles probably don't). Not being an expert on the video game MOS, I would wager that the biggest point against listing every single version of a game is the notability of each version. Unless reliable sources specifically discuss version changes, you'll be in danger of straying into original research territory. DP76764 23:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't remember where I've seen a table like that before, but I'll look around and see if I can find one (or more), and if I do, I'll post back here. I see your point in terms of notability, though. As to reliable sources, the patch history distributed with each patch, which details the specific changes for each, would certainly be considered a reliable source. I mean, I don't think you can get more reliable than the designers' change list! ;) Unfortunately, they don't specify release dates there, or my table would've been much easier to fill in. --Rob (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Counter-strike has been the only article I've found so far that has a version table (though much smaller). But I would submit that that article is fairly low quality all around. Yeah, the release updates should be reliable, but may present a problem. Anything other then merely listing items from the lists would need a 3rd party source to avoid being WP:OR. Ie: if you want to point to a specific version change that, say, nerfs a class/skill and talk about how it affected gameplay, that would definitely need a 3rd party, reliable source. That may be the crux of the problem adding something like this. DP76764 00:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Another one is America's Army which is rated as a B-class article and, like my proposed table, includes version number and release dates...and that one's not so small! :) Vanguard: Saga of Heroes also has a Game Update list, though not in table format. So with three found in the space of a few minutes, I think it's safe to say they're not uncommon, though I'll agree that I looked at several other games that didn't include them (though many mentioned patches and release dates, but there weren't enough to put them in table format).
Certainly in terms of any commentary on the changes made in specific patches, it could be considered original research unless you included the entire text of the patch history, but strictly in terms of the patch numbers and the dates that they were released, that should be strictly factual. I couldn't find a convenient source for release dates anywhere, but was hoping that by posting the table, someone else might be able to "fill in the blanks" for ones that I wasn't able to verify. --Rob (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • (outdent) I think the format in the Vanguard article looks pretty nice ;) Did you check battle.net for release dates? They're usually pretty good about posting info. DP76764 00:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I looked, but couldn't find anything. I'm sure I've come across that info before on their site, but darned if I could find it this time around. Either they've removed it, made it harder to find, or I'm just thinking of some other site that listed it. --Rob (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • D'oh! Just noticed that if you follow the Patch article on Blizzard's site to the FTP directories for older files, the files do have dates on them that seem to correspond to the release dates, but I'd certainly prefer a more reliable source than an FTP site's dates. --Rob (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah well, I guess for now, we'll let this one go. At least I can use the FTP dates for my own info, and if someone finds a reliable source later on, we can revisit whether or not to add that info to the article. --Rob (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to chip in here to say that version history is exactly the kind of content we want here, so long as it's sourced to reliable secondary parties. It isn't game-guide to give a version history at all, and frankly that argument indicates to me a complete failure to understand what is meant be "game guide content". I've restored this and removed the subsequent IP edit about various bosses' attacks (which is what game guide really means). Please don't be discouraged from additions like this in future, Rob. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to have to chime in against a detailed version history, especially a table, since 99.9% of patches are predominately gameplay balancing, bug fixing, and other features below the level of detail we're really interested in. The other .1% is significant content additions (e.g. Team Fortress 2), Star Wars Galaxies' NGE, or expansion packs. Sure, there might be something worthwhile to be said about the post-release development of the game, but cataloging each and every patch (especially minute stuff like 1.09d) is pretty far outside our scope. Nifboy (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't actually seen WP:GAMETRIVIA before: thanks for that. I would note that there are a few notable things about DII's later patches, including the significant changes made to balance and the "Hell freezing over" status assiged to 1.10's release - even to the point where Blizzard commissioned an artist to illutstrate Diablo sitting on an ice flow for it! But let's see where we can go from here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • hehe, I wasn't sure if I'd ever seen that policy either, but had a hunch it was out there. But yeah, a (sourced) writeup of some of the major version points would definitely be a good addition to the article; something like what's now in Counter-Strike or that 'Vanguard' article mentioned above. I'm not familiar with the 'major versions' myself, having dropped the game in 2001 and only recently looked at it again (right after 1.12 came out, thanks to the D3 trailer). DP76764 16:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorceress Section

"The spell Teleport essentially defines the sorceress" - no it doesn't. Many people use the sorceress character and get along just fine without this spell. That statement is an opinion, not a fact, and does not belong in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.200.52 (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not much of a stretch to say that only a tiny minority of theme characters actively avoid the skill. It's one of the most useful abilities in the game (never mind for one point), so much so that other classes often go out of their way for an Enigma or charges. A sorc without teleport is overwhelmingly the exception to the rule, so I don't see anything wrong with the article as written.OG17 (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster, it's an opinion and doesn't belong. I have made several sorcs over the years to make it to at least level 70 and above and have never given any of them the teleport skill or actively looked for something with charges for it. I'm not particularly avoiding it I just never found it necessary. As an opinion it should be removed. -Robobvious 96.233.64.228 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Old discussion; this statement is no longer in the article. DP76764 (Talk) 20:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Added a bit about current price and still a best seller

I think its very important to note in this article that after 8 years, this game is still showing up on store shelves at what I would consider a non-discounted price of $39.99. Most games go down to $19.99 or less (Some $9.99) after just a year or two. Considering that Diablo originally retailed for something like $49.99, the fact that people are still willing to pay $40 for a game that is 8 years old says a lot about its reception. I'd even venture to say that Diablo 2 is the most successful game of all time. I know that statements like that can't go in the article, but I just wanted to state my thoughts about this because I think the facts about its current price and sales should be in the article. -- Suso (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, Diablo 2 and it's expansion pack both sell for $19.99 on Amazon.com. There are even UK sellers on eBay who have it for what works out to be under $10, plus postageDavez621 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, but nobody just buys D2C or the Expansion by itself. So 19.99 plus 19.99 equals $40. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
He said that Diablo 2 *on its own* retailed for $49.99 when new. Now it's $19.99 *on its own*. Compare apples with apples.Davez621 (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No, he never said "on its own", you assumed that was what he meant. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course I assumed that's what he meant. This is an article on Diablo 2, after all. And he stated that "Diablo" retailed for $49.99, he made no mention of an expansion pack.Davez621 (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Now you're just being ultra-technical. It should be apparent that when one is speaking of Diablo 2, the vast majority of people are talking about the game+expansion. Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If it shows up at prices of 39.99 then people are ripped off. In Europe there are Best Buy versions in stores of 9.99 EUR of both the original and the expansion.--Fogeltje (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No they aren't. The price is for what the market will bear. Its obviously still a popular game because it even shows up on the top 100 list of games on The Pirate Bay, which I find amazing because we're not talking about emulation or cult followings, its a matter of people saying "Hey, I don't have Diablo, I should buy it or download it". -- Suso (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


The price isn't $20 because its *that* popular. Whenever there is a mass-banning for cheating, alot of people are still addicted to the game (or were running an items-for-cash shop), and need a new cd-key. Why lower the price when you can just ban some cheaters that will just re-buy the game? -.- Bradridder (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned in Warcraft

Don't know if if it's non-notable for being "trivia", but the Cow Level section could include a note that the "Cow King Leathers" armor was carried over as an inside joke into World of Warcraft, which is of course also produced by Blizzard, as the "Cow King's Hide". (http://www.wowhead.com/?item=13009) Enigmatic2k3 (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know wikipedia very well, but the last link under references is broken.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.87.165 (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine, works for me. DP76764 (Talk) 04:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

historical background

as far as the story line goes, a lot of the characters, have a very rich historical, and theological inspiration, i would love to see some more information about that. especially the inspiration for tyrael, and baal. or at least links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corrysangel (talk • contribs) 22:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Modificiations of Diablo II

Like many games out there, there are more communities making mods of the original. Median, Eastern Sun, Hell Unleashed, AfterMath etc. Are these worth mentioning or are they considered taboo/illegal?128.2.86.175 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Only if you can find a reliable source discussing them and how/why they are notable to the game. DP76764 (Talk) 18:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The first attempt at mentioning this was reasonably good; however, the first half of the edit was more about modding in general. Additionally, the source attached to it did not directly address this game title. I trimmed the paragraph down to keep it focused on this title. DP76764 (Talk) 17:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting story section

It seems the story section could use a thorough rewriting. --Krainert (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done a slight re-write to this, it is by no means good and I'm in a bit of a hurry, could others review and amend as they see fit, thanks. If it has not been looked in to in a couple of days I will take another crack at it. Peace and love - Vortic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.99.242 (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The story isn't told by Deckard Cain. The story is told by the man who follows the Nameless Wanderer / Unnamed Warrior. I'm not sure if they ever give his name but will be able to confirm this in a few days as im doing a play though at the moment. He is subsequently killed at the end of act IV by Baal in order to get his Soulsone back. Act V is then told sort of from the perspective of the Barbarians. Deckard Cain is just along for the ride with the band of Nameless Heros. - LaucianA (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

New Patch (1.13)

See http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=21730644778&sid=3000 . Some of the more notable changes (such as the addition of re-specs) should be integrated into the article. 67.140.211.117 (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


Refrences for new patch (1.13c)

Added refrences for patch 1.13c. Fixed a previous refrence which linked to patch 1.12 instead of 1.13c and also corrected the line which states the current version is 1.13 when it is now at 1.13c —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetalien (talk • contribs) 03:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Wilderness is said to be the "Town theme" of Act I, but Rogue is the corresponding town theme, Wilderness being that majetic track played in the Blood Moor, not in town. Dragore (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote it. You could review it and make your own correction please. --TudorTulok (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

PC Gamer

I added references to two "Top nnn Games" lists by PC Gamer. I'm left wondering how a game can drop from #16 to #82 in just two years. LOL! SharkD  Talk  02:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Original: "Diablo II is a dark fantasy/horror-themed action role-playing game, with elements of the hack and slash and "dungeon roaming" genres. It was released for Windows and Mac OS in 2010 by Blizzard Entertainment, and was developed by Blizzard North. It is a direct sequel to the 1997 hit PC game, Diablo.

Diablo II was one of the most popular games of 2010.[2] Major factors that contributed to Diablo II's success include its addictive gameplay and access to the free online play service, Battle.net.[3]"

1) It was not released in 2010, Jesus, it's a 10-year old game.

2) Most popular games of 2010? As cited in a website pulled in 2008? Yes it's still being played, the numbers would probably show some more popular games for 2010....

3) "Addictive gameplay", says who? How does one define that?

4) I didn't change this, but isn't the Diablo series one of the defining games of the Hack-and-Slash genre? I remember hearing games being refered to as 'Diablo-clones'.

Umma Kynes 07:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad 1) and 2) - that's because article was vandalized by user 99.237.89.97, Sir Lothar (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
As for #3 #4, hack and slash has been around a lot longer than Diablo. SharkD  Talk  12:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
You mean #4? I mean to say, that the game helped to popularize the genre for a wide audience on the pc. I'm just wondering. Umma Kynes 06:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummakynes (talk • contribs)
I'm doing research about the subject at this moment, and will let you know if I find anything. SharkD  Talk  04:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Characters

What name of an article should be for the Diablo 2 and it's Expansion's Characters. Something like: Diablo II Expansion Set Characters? or List of Diablo II and Expansion Set Characters? Radutalk 12:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Andariel & Duriel

I thought I'd comment on the recent edits between "who act as minor bosses for the first two acts" and the more recent "who act as the bosses for the first two acts" They are minor evils in the lore of Diablo, yes. But in terms of game play, they are THE bosses of the first two acts (Andariel much more so than Duriel, but still). Especially with Act I, Andariel is by no means a minor boss, she is the boss of that act. Therefore, I fully support this change, and fully believe it should stay that way. - SudoGhost™ 15:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm utterly confused as to why someone changed it back to say that they're minor bosses of those acts. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Secret Cow Level

Under "Secret Cow Level," it says: Further information: Diablo (video game)

However, there is nothing under that topic that talks about the cow level. 72.87.188.131 (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot omission

I see there's no reference to the Archangel character who appears in the cutscenes -- isn't he kind of a major character? I can't remember his name even but I think there was a Z in it. Vranak (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OK a Y - Tyrael. Vranak (talk)
Aside from the cutscenes, Tyrael doesn't play all that much of a part until act 4 of Diablo II. I agree that he's a major character, but the current summary doesn't particularly seem to have skipped any part of the plot, so it's hard to say it's incomplete. If you want to add a sentence somewhere that includes Tyrael and doesn't break the flow of the summary, feel free to do so. Also, I'd point out that Tyrael is critical to the ending of the expansion, but the Diablo II: Lord of Destruction article doesn't have a plot section at all, so maybe one could be added there. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Credits

It seems pretty wrong to have design credits here that differ so much from the official ones in Moby games (http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/diablo-ii/credits). These reflect that the actually designer (which is usually what Wikipedia limits credits to) is Stieg Hedlund (to quote the credits, "Design: Stieg Hedlund", which seems pretty clear cut). David Brevik and the Schaefer brothers appear as "project and design leads", which is appropriate to their roles as the founders and studio heads of Blizzard North, but this is not to say that they *executed* the design and project tasks--otherwise no team would have been necessary. Eric Sexton is then credited with "additional design", which would seem to indicate a minor role. Chase Clements does not appear anywhere in the credits. Ever.

Since this was a highly successful game, it is natural that people should attempt to add their names to the credits, but this is also the type of sloppy article management that gives Wikipedia a bad name.75.101.56.69 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Diablo 1

The article states that Diablo 1 was made in 1997 however the Diablo 1 article states that Diablo 1 was released in 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.20.91.56 (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It has now been fixed. Thank you. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits to Gameplay

  • "Ascents" is a noun, not a verb. Look it up.
  • There's no reason to use a word like "montane" that very few readers know when the word "mountainous" fits better and is much more common
  • There's really nothing to suggest that act 2 is more like Egypt than any other desert country

Please try to follow the policies regarding WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR. -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Addressed the above concerns. However the Unraveler and the Tombs are clearly Egyptian.Limefrost Spiral (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Fyrael; whether those things are 'Egyptian' is your opinion. I'd say that declaring them as that is going to need a source before it can stand in the article. DP76764 (Talk) 18:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diablo_II/Archive_1&oldid=1144127425"