Is there any way to implement WASD controls for movement and mouse controls for aiming in this game? I've been trying to get used to the controls, but after missing an enemy and clicking next to them and causing my eradicator to stand next to a monster and get eaten for the fifth time in the span of a half hour, I am sorely beginning to miss having aiming and movement being bound to different control sets.

If you are talking about range weapons then hold down 'shift'. Your character will stand still and you can use the mouse to aim and fire. It's the same system as Diablo.

No, it's not possible. Some people are using third-party software like AutoHotkey to map the mouse to keys, but then you can't use the mouse the way you'd like to anymore. Furthermore, it comes with side effects like flickering and of course the risk of getting malware.

As tinyE pointed out, holding the shift-key holds the character in place, while you click for the direction of your attack. This way you attack a location, whether there's an enemy or not. Without holding shift, your character would move if you had clicked on empty space.

I forgot about that. That is key because there are so many traps around. I wish you could do that in Diablo 2. I've lost countless sidekicks because of exploding jars and barrels.

I understand that Diablo used the same system (not that I ever played it), but that still doesn't make the setup any more intuitive. I had been making use of shift in this manner, but in cases where the enemy was out of range I would try to attack directly, and in the several instances where the target moved right before I clicked, I promptly waltzed up next to it and got attacked. Not helping matters are all the enemies that seem to pop into existence the moment I get close to an area that appeared clear from the edge of the screen. Furthermore, the controls also pose a problem with enemies that use AOE spells; it's hard enough navigating bullet hail under normal circumstances, but doing so by clicking and praying that you both estimate where you need to go correctly and hoping that your aim wasn't thrown off by your own movement makes it infuriating.

It's not as if games of this kind never use a setup similar to WASD. From what I understand, the XBOX version uses one stick for movement and one for aiming. I could be wrong on that count, but I distinctly remember playing a PS3 game with similar layout at a friend's place (something to do with zombies, can't recall the title) that used that exact setup, which was essentially the console version of a WASD setup. Again, the mere fact that Diablo used this system does not make the system magically become more intuitive; sometimes tradition needs to be set aside so that things can improve.

With all do respect, if Diablo does it, it is the best. :D

I mean that I would try to click on the enemy, which causes the character to move into range and fire. However, if I missed, which happened way too often, then I moved up to the target to the point where we could have been touching toes. I had considered moving closer in increments, but that seemed far too tedious and would have made the pacing slow down to the point of being boring, not to mention the numerous times an enemy couldn't be hit because they were behind some obstacle or another that moving closer and firing while holding shift didn't seem to address. Why?

No, I mean it. Why is it that if an old game like Diablo did something, it automatically becomes sacrosanct? Much as I liked Wolfenstein 3D back in the day, if any game tried to use some of the design decisions it made use of (lives system, completely 2D environments, and a lack of landmarks), I'd call bullshit on it. If Id software were to release Doom 4 without the ability to look up and down to aim, I wouldn't try to excuse it by saying that's what the old games did, and since I liked the old games, this design choice is therefore perfect; no, I'd point out that games have been letting the player aim manually in all directions since Duke Nukem 3D and Quake.

It doesn't and you make a good point HOWEVER in turn you can't just assume because a game is older that it is sub-standard or incapable of holding it's own next to newer games. I'm not intimating that's what you mean but it does kind of come off like that.

As for my love of the game, to each his own and there is no good and bad, that being said I think you will find Diablo has many more people singing it's praises than not. Also, you may have noticed that since it's release all those years ago, the term "Diablo Clone" has become a permanent part of the gaming lexicon. It's almost become it's own genre. I've actually been on game sites that were divided up with Racing, RPG, Puzzle, Platformer, FPS, and Diablo Clone.

Given that most of my shelf on GOG consists of old games that I enjoy the hell out of and that I just finished rolling around on the floor with the first two Doom games, I think it is safe to say that I don't hate games because of their age. At the same time, if an outdated design choice is preserved in the name of tradition, then I have no problem pointing it out, even if it was in an old game I liked. Ah, relativism, an appeal to authority, and a premise that does not bear any apparent relevance to the issue at hand, the unholy trinity of reasoning; let's take them one at a time. First off, it may be true that some aspect of enjoyment is subjective, but simply citing to there being "no such thing" as good or bad in general never ceases to irritate me; firstly, they do exist, albeit personal standards don't tend to converge on that many points, and secondly, doing so serves only to sidestep having to explain why one likes the design choice in an intelligible manner, which in turn frustrates other people trying to understand the rationale behind said preference.

Secondly, the mere fact that the majority of people like a game that has this design choice ultimately says nothing other than the game is popular. If you are attempting to insinuate that this shows that since the majority likes it, the minority are clearly wrong, then you are contradicting your first premise. If you are citing to this to show that people like the design choice and that therefore there is no reason why the design choice should not fly today, my counter is twofold. Firstly, under this logic, had gaming never evolved from where it was at the start of Evolandia, any complaints over the lack of the ability to move to the other side of the screen would be unfounded so long as there were enough people who defended it due to it being their only exposure to gaming thus far. Games have also had lives systems in the past for the purpose of trying to get as much cash pumped into machines as possible to continue playing, but now that most games are played at home and do not require the player to insert more quarters on death, lives systems are well on the way out for the most part, and the release of a game that uses one is a galling design choice regardless of how many games past used it. Secondly, I would point out the possibility that not all gamers who like the game necessarily do so due to a critical assessment that finds no problem with the design choice, but a combination of nostalgia from having played it back in the day and not having any better examples to work off of; again, if an FPS were released today without the ability to strafe, or a top down RTS that refused to allow the camera to scroll via movement of the mouse, it would get rightly savaged since it had an entire history of gaming evolution to catch up on and therefore should have known better.

As to your last sentence, I am not joking when I say that I honestly don't understand where you are going with this. "Doom clone" was the common name for any FPS back in the day, but first person gaming hasn't adhered to every single design choice that looked good back in the 90s, and has evolved in may respects since then. If there's something I'm missing in this sentence, then by all means, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who desires clarification.

Okay we are talking about games here right? Someone's underwear is evidently two sizes too small. XD

And now insults. I had intended to try to engage in reason and discourse, but it appears that you are more interested in deflecting any possibility of productive discussion by engaging in schoolyard taunts. I am sorely disappointed; in my experience, the GOG forum members have actually attempted to join in dialogue of this sort, and it actually occasionally manages to result in either them or myself coming away having learned something. If you do choose to actually respond to any of my points, I will be delighted, but after this, I rather doubt it. Good day.

No the only thing you want to do is argue. Life is too short. Later.

I see what you mean now. This can be finicky, as you have discovered... I'm pretty sure that I would simply avoid using this, and manually move my character into range before going back to shift-click for firing. That way I was never simply clicking on enemies and never ran the risk of running into the fray accidentally.

Anyway, I hope you are able to deal with the controls because Torchlight is good fun.

I tried doing that, but it either didn't work due to the enemy being concealed by small bits of terrain that gave them total cover from fire or it resulted in me having to take a large number of baby steps followed by missing before I finally landed a hit (which got real boring real quickly).

I would expound on how sad it is that people associate "argument" with fighting as opposed to articulating and defending a set of premises that are intended to justify a conclusion, but something tells me that it would be wasted on you.