I hate being late to the party with games (and it seems that I'm eternally catching up), but that's what happens when you take years off of such a great hobby), but it's either that, or I play the sequals or "spiritual successors" while having no clue as to why everybody's raving about the improvements, nostalgia, etc.
So, Diablo II is going the same way as Diablo did for me. I picked it up, found it simple to play, and the initial levels boring... of each map.
For the unititiated, the original Diablo played out on only one map, and your character simply descended further down as the game progressed. In Diablo II, however, your character travels to (I think) four different lands. Each land has around six goals to meet, with each goal accomplished in a different map. These six (or so) maps then all connect to make the lands.
With that explanation, Diablo II's early levels on each map are BOOOOORING. But, as the storyline for each land progresses, I can see why so many lauded this game.
That being said, I'm probably missing out on the best party of Diablo II: multiplayer over Battle.net. For some lack of foresight, I didn't check to see if I could transfer my single-player character on to Battle.net. Alas, you can not. :( So, I'm stuck with the following decision:
do I complete the game on single player, and then try multiplayer?
do I immediately switch over and start a new game, with a new character, utilizing Battle.net?
--or--
do I complete the game on single player, and then get a taste of Battle.net with
Hellgate: London, or the upcoming Diablo III?