Isn't Nethack a completely different game though?

Nethack is a turn-based roguelike. Diablo is an action-oriented dungeon crawl (the original at least; I never played Diablo 2 or 3). To me they don't "feel" the same enough to compare which one is better.

I'm a fan of roguelikes too, by the way. If you want to try a somewhat different roguelike for Linux, I recommend Teleglitch (commercial, scifi, quirky graphics, real-time, brutal gameplay).

edit: and Duskers! How could I forget Duskers! For a really different scifi roguelike: http://duskers.misfits-attic.com/

Another sci-fi roguelike for Linux: https://store.steampowered.com/app/333640/Caves_of_Qud/

Sorry, to me a roguelike must be top down and turn based.

I have a good list here. Nethack, DCSS, the old TOME 2.x releases, SCrap...

I avoid CDDA because I hate games with no clear ending or objectives ingame.

I respect your purism! But do try Duskers, regardless of classification. It's a cool game and shares some traits with roguelikes: autogenerated world, stuff to find and equip, permadeath, and high difficulty as the game progresses (though it's deceptively easy when starting).

Teleglitch is punishingly difficult from the start, and pretty fast paced too, so maybe give that one a pass.

I mean, in philosophy, Diablo and Moria were related. The initial plan was to release Diablo as a modern Moria, and yes, turn based, but they switched into real time and they simplified the game for the more casual generation.

If any, Flare RPG has anything the first Diablo offers with a longish campaign and a good set of skills.

I know that was the plan, but the end result is quite different!

I know, but I can't stop comparing it to Moria/Angband.

I know the timing changes everything (and Nethack is more like a text adventure lore made into a top-down RPG), but the environment and tasks ingame aren't so that different both in Diablo and Moria.

No idea why you are comparing Nethack with Diablo. Two completely different games, but if I had to choose I would 100% pick Diablo so strongly disagree.

Go down levels in mostly randomly generated dungeons and do a thing. There are many differences - turn based is the biggest, graphics is significant, level of complexity (partly enabled by lack of need for graphics) - but they are very far from "completely different". Diablo II even had "hardcore mode" for permadeath.

If procedurally generated is the only prerequisite I guess Nethack is not "completely different" from No Man's Sky then.

Procedurally generated dungeon levels which comprise the bulk of the game, made up of rooms, corridors, and the occasional set pieces. An identification mechanic. Books to learn a spell, scrolls for single use. I can go on.

There are absolutely differences, some significant. But they have a lot in common.

Still, the differences are in the core mechanics which make them very different games. I would be surprised if there's much overlap between the player bases at all, so I still see no point in saying that Nethack is a better game since it appeals to totally different players.

> I would be surprised if there's much overlap between the player bases at all

I would be pretty surprised if, of those who played Nethack around the release of Diablo who also made a habit of purchasing Windows games, there wasn't a majority that also played Diablo.

> I still see no point in saying that Nethack is a better game since it appeals to totally different players.

I agree that the two are sufficiently different, and sufficiently well executed examples of their species, that personal preference between the two is likely to be dominated by the differences that cannot be reasonably labeled "quality".

FWIW, I loved both.

Diablo was based on Moria/Nethack. First it would be turn based, but they switched into a real time gameplay.