• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Diablo 2: Resurrected (remastered)

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
27,874
3,004
126

So...is D2 going to overshadow D4?



edit: also, is blizzard now just reduced to a company that remasters its own games? i get that OW is successful....but outside of they, they haven't really had any new games/IP in what seems like forever.
 
Last edited:

aigomorla

Cases and Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
18,558
1,180
126
lol... they learned from EA.... at least the are not calling it legendary edition, although resurrected is probably just as bad as it is resurrected.

IMO i would probably have preferred diablo 1 being remastered more so then 2.
Dont get me wrong i put in like 2000+ hours into 2, but diablo 1 was the game that started it all and im not sure how many even remember the story plot to 1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shortylickens

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
21,797
775
126
The remaster looks good but unfortunately it'll probably be tied to that stupid Blizzard launcher with constant online DRM, so that makes it an automatic no-buy for me.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,845
1,165
126
lol... they learned from EA.... at least the are not calling it legendary edition, although resurrected is probably just as bad as it is resurrected.

IMO i would probably have preferred diablo 1 being remastered more so then 2.
Dont get me wrong i put in like 2000+ hours into 2, but diablo 1 was the game that started it all and im not sure how many even remember the story plot to 1.
I've done pretty much the same thing. But one thing I remember about D1, even now literally decades later, was that touching a shrine could cause significant permanent damage to your character. A huge wart on a wonderful game.

I take a completely different approach to games compared to most computer game enthusiasts. To me the game quality is paramount, and I could care less about the eye candy. For example, I consider War, Monopoly and chess to be nearly perfect examples of top quality games-despite (maybe even because) all three can take only a couple of minutes to learn all the basic elements of the game. I absolute despise games that take hours of study to even begin to play them.

Up to and through the release of D2-Lord of Destruction, Blizzard was the gaming world equivalent of the Beatles-everything they did was magnificent. D3 and thereafter though, they truly fell off the bus.

I'll wait with an open mind to see what they do with D2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodisanAtheist

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
78,647
11,551
126
I like Diablo 2. I like the idea of a 3D remake, but I probably wont buy it.
I dont need to play that game any more. I did full run-throughs with each character. Twice. Nothing more for me to gain from the experience.
In fact after Titan Quest and Torchlight 1 and 2, theres nothing more for me in the hack'n'slash experience. Its tiresome. I also tried that Warhammer 40k game and became bored long before finishing.
 

GodisanAtheist

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 2006
2,888
1,397
136
D2 and Expansion we're peak ARPG imo. As far as I can tell, the genre has never really grown from that point forward and has really just iterated ad nauseum with various skins.

Blizzard truly is a shell of it's former self, however. The days of really pushing the boundaries in a genre are behind them and they seem to have shifted to putting out highly polished genre capstones (i.e. Overwatch) and reliving their past glory through various remasters.
 

Dranoche

Senior member
Jul 6, 2009
215
25
91
Looks to be very similar to the Starcraft remaster. No truly new features, just the new visuals which can be toggled, and stash upgrades. I'll buy it and play it for a bit with friends and then probably never touch it again. It looks fine.

So...is D2 going to overshadow D4?

edit: also, is blizzard now just reduced to a company that remasters its own games? i get that OW is successful....but outside of they, they haven't really had any new games/IP in what seems like forever.
D2 remaster later this year, D4 sometime 2022 or later, I don't think they'll clash significantly for most people. The D4 showcase in 2019 pandered pretty hard to a particular group of D2 fans, but if they end up unhappy with D4 they'll just go back to playing D2. If the remaster wasn't a thing they'd go back to the original. I'm sure there will be a vocal contingent that does just that. Most people will just play D4.

Some fans have been very vocal about a D2 remaster for quite a while but just like with design of a new game, fans shouting for something doesn't tell you how to make it good. People know what they like, they don't necessarily know what they want. What's the right way to do a remaster? We've had plenty of examples of good, bad, and just OK over the last 8 or 9 years, but it's still a tough position for a developer to be in.

Blizzard put stuff out fairly rapidly in the 90's, as was the case for most developers. When Starcraft launched in 1998 they had about 50 employees. By the time WoW launched in 2004 it was 400, mostly due to WoW and the additional types of people needed to develop an MMO. Then it quadrupled over the next year to support WoW. I'm sure they spent most of the latter half of the 2000's just trying to keep up with the growth of WoW. After SC2 and D3 launched the industry started transitioning to games as a service. Release cadence was alright for a few years there from SC2 to Overwatch, but other than WoW expansions we haven't had anything new in the 5 years since. With continued support of existing games combined with increased development costs/time of most modern games it isn't a surprise that their release cadence has slowed even more. When you consider that they have separate teams working on different properties you might expect a more steady drip or releases or at least new content. It's a little frustrating when I'm in the mood for one of their games, but I have so much else to play I don't worry about it too much.

Blizzard truly is a shell of it's former self, however. The days of really pushing the boundaries in a genre are behind them and they seem to have shifted to putting out highly polished genre capstones (i.e. Overwatch) and reliving their past glory through various remasters.
That's most game developers though these days, and it's not necessarily out of laziness. Game genres expanded pretty significantly in the late 90's and early 2000's. A lot of people (fans) latched on hard to specific ideas. Developers want to create something new and not retread too much, but it's a fine line to walk. How many sequels have fallen flat or had a divided fanbase over the years because people felt they either changed too much or didn't do anything new? D3 failed for some people because it wasn't D2, and even that group was sometimes split over whether it was the visuals or the mechanics (skill trees). It failed for others because of a few specific design decisions (RMAH, loot system, replayability due to campaign structure), but many of those people are now happy with the game after the RoS changes. Some of the former group bought in after that, some didn't. Game development is hard.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,078
103
106
It does look very good, in my opinion.

However, I've played Diablo 2 + LoD for approximately 6 years of my life. I know every nooks and crannies, every classes and builds imaginable. I've tried it all, seen it all, done it all. If one day I do end up buying it on a sale, then I know myself well enough that despite enjoying the new visuals I wouldn't find in me the willpower (and probably not the time) to play the whole thing again. I'd rather just play Diablo 4 if I had to choose to be perfectly honest. Simply because Diablo 2 is a Hall of Fame type of game for me, and it doesn't "need" to prove anything more, be it in its original form or a Remastered form. It's Diablo 2, we know it's good and addicting and timeless. It's really a situation of 'been there, done that' for me.

The only reasons why I would be curious enough to play it again (and buy it on release, instead of waiting for a sale) would have been only if on top of Remastering the graphics, they'd have revamped many other things in regards to gameplay, skills, skill synergies, enemies, loot, new things in maps, new shrines and so on. Then again, if they had done that it wouldn't have been authentic to the source anymore; so might as well stick to D3 until D4 comes out (manner of speech at this point, because I stopped playing D3 on a regular basis about 2 years ago by now; I only check out Seasons when they release for maybe 2 to 3 days then I stop again).
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
78,647
11,551
126
D2 and Expansion we're peak ARPG imo. As far as I can tell, the genre has never really grown from that point forward and has really just iterated ad nauseum with various skins.

Blizzard truly is a shell of it's former self, however. The days of really pushing the boundaries in a genre are behind them and they seem to have shifted to putting out highly polished genre capstones (i.e. Overwatch) and reliving their past glory through various remasters.
I remember when Warcraft came out and it was just so fucking awesome and for about 6 months thats all anyone was playing. We even game Doom a break.

That was a LONG time ago.
 

MalVeauX

Senior member
Dec 19, 2008
592
136
116
But who's gonna go run the g-rushes and Hell Baal runs so I can level up to 85 over night so I can start my build?

I like the idea. But man, too late for me. I played D2 for probably a decade. It was endless Hardcore Ladder for me.

Re-doing all that with just updated graphics? Nah. No thanks. I don't need better graphics to enjoy a game more. D2 was fun because it had a non-stop community and was always alive and things going on. Not sure a 20 year re-master, if it's the same game, just new graphics, is going to really stick with today's generation and I can't imagine all the kids who grew up on D1 and D2 coming out of the weeds for this other than for nostalgia, as in, they're not going to play this for 5 years as a bunch of 40 something year olds.

As far as I'm concerned, D3 was a waste of time. I played it a while too. But I can't see myself even getting out of bed for D4 at this point. It's not Blizzard that made the originals. It's just cookie cutter at this point trying to ride a wave. Blizzard died a long time ago. I don't even read headlines about anything that name touches now. They can't even release Diablo Immortal, let alone Diablo 4. So, let's test the water with a D2 remaster? They're just going to get bought by someone else.

Very best,
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,856
558
126
I watched some of the BlizzcOnline stuff in regard to Diablo II Resurrected, and there was one thing that stuck out to me. It was when the idea was pushed by the (lead?) Vicarious Visions guy that they had no qualms with considering quality of life improvements, but their goal was to not tarnish important aspects of the game. In other words, they want to apply small to modest modernizations while keeping the spirit the same. An example of this would be how the game includes a shared stash similar to Diablo III. They also mentioned a few things that they tried, but ultimated backtracked on due to it just not working. One example was adding couch co-op similar to the console Diablo III. They pulled back on this due to how the character is always centered in Diablo II, and it just didn't work well with couch co-op when they tried it. Another thing that they tried was removing character collision in co-op play, but they pulled back when they saw that -- while helpful in some aspects -- it had too much of an effect in other areas of the game.

I've mentioned this in the past, but along the same vein, I haven't been a huge fan of how Blizzard has handled WoW Classic. Blizzard's reverence to provide as close to the same experience is a bit too rose-tinted. I usually look at the debuff limit as my go-to example of how it just doesn't work. I can't recall the exact limit, but it's something like 12-16 debuffs per unit, and attempting to apply a new debuff will knock an old one off. This wasn't an issue in solo play or arguably in most group play; however, it was a huge issue in raiding... especially when all raid player sizes (20/40) were larger than the debuff limit. There were really two major issues that I see with this...
  1. The debuff limit was largely a behind-the-scenes mechanic that players had to figure out as no visual/text feedback was ever provided.
  2. Heavy restrictions were placed on builds/talents and itemization due to the need to reduce unnecessary debuffs. This meant that a weapon or talent that proc'd a DoT was completely off the table (e.g. Warrior's Deep Wounds).
In regard to #2, I recall getting a Skullforge Reaver on my Rogue, and even though it was a DPS upgrade, I had to go back to my older, weaker weapons due to Skullforge Reaver applying a DoT. In my eyes, what makes that worse is that the itemization can sometimes be in direct conflict with this hidden system. They actually talked about removing the debuff limit prior to the release of WoW Classic, but they decided to keep it in due to it being a coordination aspect of vanilla raiding. For me, I don't see how using release's limit (256, I believe) would've made the classic experience any worse just like how having a shared stash won't hurt Diablo II players.
 

rstrohkirch

Platinum Member
May 31, 2005
2,018
212
106
There are already multiple great mods with popular ladders that also offer a variety of QoL improvements over the original game. Which basically leaves this as graphics overhaul and that's it.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,856
558
126
There are already multiple great mods with popular ladders that also offer a variety of QoL improvements over the original game. Which basically leaves this as graphics overhaul and that's it.
One thing they mentioned was how the original game had items (or their reference?) built directly into the source code, so mods would have to replace an item if they wanted to make a new one. I don't know if some of the fancier mods found a way around this, but the use of Battle.Net means the game can't really support mods.

On that note, I wonder if they'd ever be willing to support single player and multi-player characters like some other ARPGs do. The prior would be stored locally and support mods, but the latter would be stored on servers and not support mods.
 

rstrohkirch

Platinum Member
May 31, 2005
2,018
212
106
One thing they mentioned was how the original game had items (or their reference?) built directly into the source code, so mods would have to replace an item if they wanted to make a new one. I don't know if some of the fancier mods found a way around this, but the use of Battle.Net means the game can't really support mods.
The mods both alter in game items and add new ones depending on the mod. I don't recall them ever saying they removed an item from the game but I'm unsure. The popular mods with ladders simply change the server you login to for bnet to their own. So you still get online ladder play against other players within the current mod.
 

Dranoche

Senior member
Jul 6, 2009
215
25
91
They've indicated support for mods and said that some things that were previously hard coded are now stored as data so they can be modded without having to hack the game. Will be interesting to see what the extent of that is.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,856
558
126
In regard to my own thoughts about the remaster, I'd like to try the game out again. I did play it way back when, but I wasn't all that good at creating builds... and I'm arguably still not that good. :p Consequently, I can remember trying to fight Diablo on my Necromancer and failing many times. I believe it came down to my build not using Bone Wall as it never seemed necessary before that point, but in frustration, I just gave up.

Of course, I've played some other ARPGs since that point, so I wouldn't mind giving it a shot again.
 
Feb 4, 2009
29,142
9,715
136
There is a zero point zero percent chance Blizzard will make this remaster with the same grind as 20 years ago.
I bet it will be too quick and easy.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
27,874
3,004
126
There is a zero point zero percent chance Blizzard will make this remaster with the same grind as 20 years ago.
I bet it will be too quick and easy.
i didn't mind the grind of D2 so much because there were only a handful of class-specific items. which meant that just about any item *could* be useful. versus D3, there's so much more that's class specific, so 99% of gear is just trash.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MalVeauX

MalVeauX

Senior member
Dec 19, 2008
592
136
116
i didn't mind the grind of D2 so much because there were only a handful of class-specific items. which meant that just about any item *could* be useful. versus D3, there's so much more that's class specific, so 99% of gear is just trash.
Agreed. D3 gave you instant unqiues, legendaries, primarls, set items, etc. Everything is crap unless its a super specific item to your build and character. And sure you can horde it all for future character/builds. But none of it is special at that point. And now, with the seasons, you get full super sets just by doing some tasks. It's crazy powerful so you literally are board in 1 week and have a godly build.

In D2, you got something other than a cracked sash or yet another low level set item piece and it actually was useful on nearly every character and rares were actually good, not trash. Rares were better than uniques in lots of instances. Until LOD and sets came around and runewords. But D2 classic, the rares were the good stuff. D2 classic (pre-LOD) is actually a really fantastic grinding game where items matter and its all random. Truly random. Those were the good D2 days really from a game point of view.

Very best,
 
  • Like
Reactions: SAAA and Fenixgoon

Stg-Flame

Platinum Member
Mar 10, 2007
2,961
243
106
After ten years of D2 and suffering through all of the nonsense that Closed had to offer (Hexs/iths/eths/whites/etc.), I don't want to even think about delving back into D2 again. I still have many D2JSP trophies from hosting iron-man tournaments to climbing to the top of various PvP ladders on USWest.

Remaster looks good, but this is one game I will not be coming back to - even for pretty graphics.
 

Stg-Flame

Platinum Member
Mar 10, 2007
2,961
243
106
There were a lot of decent mods for D2 back in the day, but if I need an ARPG fix, I just go back to Grim Dawn.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,451
359
126
The remaster looks good but unfortunately it'll probably be tied to that stupid Blizzard launcher with constant online DRM, so that makes it an automatic no-buy for me.
Yeah, I recently wanted to play starcraft again recently, just single player since I suck at multiplayer. I thought I'd buy the remastered version but it looked like I'd have to always be online. Even regular starcraft has that problem with the latest patch though, but I think there is a workaround for that one.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,856
558
126
Agreed. D3 gave you instant unqiues, legendaries, primarls, set items, etc. Everything is crap unless its a super specific item to your build and character. And sure you can horde it all for future character/builds. But none of it is special at that point. And now, with the seasons, you get full super sets just by doing some tasks. It's crazy powerful so you literally are board in 1 week and have a godly build.
What makes the D3 situation a bit more awkward is that their Seasons sometimes add a bonus or another feature that actually opens up builds using gear combinations that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. I think that shows that it is possible to shake things up in the Diablo III game, but the issue is that you only get one static change in each season, and there's no way to use them outside of Seasons. Given that Diablo III has no sort of PVP, why not just allow live characters to choose a Season bonus? That could add some good build and gearing diversity, and since the player gets to choose, it becomes another avenue for player choice.
 

MalVeauX

Senior member
Dec 19, 2008
592
136
116
There were a lot of decent mods for D2 back in the day, but if I need an ARPG fix, I just go back to Grim Dawn.
Grim Dawn is superior in every way to Diablo everything. I'm a Diablo fan. But man, Grim Dawn is basically the spiritual successor that is the gritty, hordes of builds, lots of items, long playthrough game that anyone who loved Diablo would enjoy as an alternative that is updated and still relevant and expanding often.

Love Grim Dawn. I have too many hours in that game too. Probably not close to a decade plus of Diablo 2 time, but comparing the two without nostalgia, Grim Dawn is excellent and beats Diablo-anything.

Very best,
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY