>>62425I've beaten that one before as well. It often gets overshadowed by D2, but it's a great game in it's own right.
>I was a little bored by it at points, but not in a bad way, if there's such a thing as positive boredom.I know precisely what you mean. In fact, 'positive boredom' is often a draw for me in games these days. If I can relax and play a game without always needing to exert considerable effort to perform well, then I will often find myself having a good time.
>One thing I didn't like is how skewed towards the fighter the game is.Back when I did a playthrough of Diablo 1 I played as the warrior, so the game seemed very 'full' to me. I thought about doing more playthroughs but never got around to it.
>I'm glad I decided to play the original game in the end instead of Diablo II. The second game looks a lot more cartoony, it doesn't have the same grit and appeal of the first.The second Diablo is great as well, but the Diablo 3 is where the series gets seriously cartoony and shallow, and I haven't even bothered looking into D4.
>I just didn't get the ending. Was it written anywhere that the plan was doing what your character does at the end?In game? No. Your character's purpose in the game was exactly as it seemed: enter Tristram, investigate the cathedral, fix the monster problem and save the town. What the protagonist does at the end is meant to be a surprise to the player, and sets the groundwork for the entire story of the sequel. However, I'm not sure if the devs at the time knew that they would be greenlit for a sequel, or if it was just a fun twist they made up on the spot.