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.
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".
