Diablo 2: Resurrected (remastered)

[bbhaag]

Well I caved and bought the $60 Prime Evil Collection......I LOVE D2 and have been playing off and on since it was launched. Hell I've been playing it again over the past year and half give or take and still having a good time.
Anyway, I guess I'll see when it releases how good it is.

 

[Fenixgoon]

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,

I wasn't a fan of grim dawn. It just didn't have the right feel to me. Can't really explain it same with Titan Quest (same dev IIRC).

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Seems old diablo 2 saves will work with diablo remastered version.
Kind of cool.
Makes me wish I played the original, I do still have a tower from that period.

Diablo II Remaster Can Import Original Diablo II Saves - Blue's News Story

 

[Aikouka]

I was invited to join the technical alpha, which was only for the weekend. Overall, the game felt fairly polished to me, but to be fair, it was still a smaller slice. I believe it was only the Barbarian, Wizard, and Amazon available to play. I played the Barbarian, and up to the final quest in Act I. There were some minor visual anomalies that will likely be cleaned up later on. For example, when dual-wielding, the numbers displayed for both weapons overlap slightly, but they do not do this if you switch to the classic view. Speaking of the classic view, switching between classic and remastered view is pretty simple ('G' is the default key). It was pretty much instantaneous when switching to class view, but there is a very, very slight delay when switching to remastered view; it was maybe half a second.

One thing that I think might be a good change to consider is to provide the option to display helpful tool-tips. This could certainly help those that played Diablo III adjust to some of the changes, or just help those that may be new. (Especially considering we don't get game manuals anymore.) I think that you could just ask the player when they create their first character if they'd like helpful tool-tips or some sort of introduction to features. An example to this could be how some players may not realize that the game has a separate run button, or how spells are swapped into your right click rather than directly activated.

 

[BudAshes]

It would be nice if they fixed Warcraft 3 reforged before releasing another re-mastering...

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It would be nice if they fixed Warcraft 3 reforged before releasing another re-mastering...

Warcraft 3 reforged *is* the fixed version. These are the games that Blizzard makes now, and that's coming from someone who still plays them. I'd put a $20 on D2 'reforged' being a dumbed down version of D2.

 

[BudAshes]

Warcraft 3 reforged *is* the fixed version. These are the games that Blizzard makes now, and that's coming from someone who still plays them. I'd put a $20 on D2 'reforged' being a dumbed down version of D2.

Well multiplayer was completely broken the last time I tried playing it. Not just dumbed down, which it was, but broken as well. Complete lack of pride in their product like the Blizzard of old had.

 

[Aikouka]

Warcraft 3 reforged *is* the fixed version. These are the games that Blizzard makes now, and that's coming from someone who still plays them. I'd put a $20 on D2 'reforged' being a dumbed down version of D2.

Well, you can technically call it slightly dumbed down since Resurrected includes an option to reset talent/attribute points. (I'm not entirely sure if that's just for the technical alpha though.) However, I can attest from having played it that it is fairly faithful in all the right ways.

 

[aigomorla]

sigh.... activision working hard at mining your cash.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

sigh.... activision working hard at mining your cash.

View attachment 45755

- Honestly a little nuts that the remaster does t just come with all DLCs pre-baked in.

That's about as standard practice as it gets with remasters, no matter how crappy they are...

 

[Dranoche]

You're not losing anything with the remaster in terms of these bonuses. The issue is that to get two of the three bonuses for D3 you have to buy another copy of D3. The bonuses for D3 should be bonuses for purchasing D2R, just like all the other bonuses have been for years.

 

[MalVeauX]

Or just accept that classic Diablo 1 & Diablo 2 is dead and no one will re-make something close and just let it die.

Diablo 3 is bad. Diablo 4 will be really bad. Diablo Mobile might as well not even release. And this remaster of Diablo 2? They shouldn't bother selling it at this wackadoo price. They won't make back their money on the development. Legions of online gamers are not going to leave their current games to go back to the D2 servers and that kind of grind. It was great in the 90's and 2000's but it's been over 20 years and things have moved forward. We liked these games, nostalgia, but no one is going to get back to needing to doing endless runs to get garbage items and needing twinks and g-rushes just to enjoy the game. And those who do want to slosh from start to end and have the classic experience didn't need this remaster to do that.

It should have just been a patch or launcher that you could get and just use your previous D2 keys and import/use any of your D2 saves or whatever (obviously unless your Battlenet accounts were active that's all long gone as they self-deleted after a time frame) to allow new graphics and resolutions. I don't need new engine or anything. But something to allow 1080p or something would make sense. Heck, they even did that for Baldur's Gate.

Very best,

 

[Fenixgoon]

Or just accept that classic Diablo 1 & Diablo 2 is dead and no one will re-make something close and just let it die.

Diablo 3 is bad. Diablo 4 will be really bad. Diablo Mobile might as well not even release. And this remaster of Diablo 2? They shouldn't bother selling it at this wackadoo price. They won't make back their money on the development. Legions of online gamers are not going to leave their current games to go back to the D2 servers and that kind of grind. It was great in the 90's and 2000's but it's been over 20 years and things have moved forward. We liked these games, nostalgia, but no one is going to get back to needing to doing endless runs to get garbage items and needing twinks and g-rushes just to enjoy the game. And those who do want to slosh from start to end and have the classic experience didn't need this remaster to do that.

It should have just been a patch or launcher that you could get and just use your previous D2 keys and import/use any of your D2 saves or whatever (obviously unless your Battlenet accounts were active that's all long gone as they self-deleted after a time frame) to allow new graphics and resolutions. I don't need new engine or anything. But something to allow 1080p or something would make sense. Heck, they even did that for Baldur's Gate.

Very best,

ummm don't games like destiny require plenty of grinding?

sigh.... activision working hard at mining your cash.

this reminds me of what i read in the book in "predictably irrational" where you put two deals next to one another in order to make one look like a particularly good deal (D3 prime evil, in this case). people might only be interested in D2:R, but they might just be willing to fork over another $20 to get all the D3 goodies, even if they never play it.

 

[MalVeauX]

ummm don't games like destiny require plenty of grinding?

Maybe, I wouldn't know. When I was younger, I was ok with the idea of grinding away. Older and I see it as a total waste of your limited life. I like games just like the next person. But I'm not wasting weeks or months or more grinding for some nonsense. But I don't speak for everyone, I realize this. I mostly prefer to play through the game (PvE) and discover stuff and play the story and when it ends, it ends. I used to do the repetitive grind, but I can't now, 20~30 years ago I did it, but now, I'd rather play a new game and experience something new with a new story or with new online experience or something than grind an old game that I've gone a few hundred hours on, just for like... items or junk like that. I just see it as a waste of time, at least, for me.

I'm sure I have thousands of hours clocked on D2 LoD. I loved it. But it also is a good learning tool for me to look at how much time was put into that and what I wasn't doing with that time instead. Needs balance.

Very best,

 

[shortylickens]

Maybe, I wouldn't know. When I was younger, I was ok with the idea of grinding away. Older and I see it as a total waste of your limited life. I like games just like the next person. But I'm not wasting weeks or months or more grinding for some nonsense. But I don't speak for everyone, I realize this. I mostly prefer to play through the game (PvE) and discover stuff and play the story and when it ends, it ends. I used to do the repetitive grind, but I can't now, 20~30 years ago I did it, but now, I'd rather play a new game and experience something new with a new story or with new online experience or something than grind an old game that I've gone a few hundred hours on, just for like... items or junk like that. I just see it as a waste of time, at least, for me.

I'm sure I have thousands of hours clocked on D2 LoD. I loved it. But it also is a good learning tool for me to look at how much time was put into that and what I wasn't doing with that time instead. Needs balance.

Very best,

Yeah looking back I wish I had not spent so much time in video games doing nothing. The endless grinding of Diablo 2 is a perfect example.
I'm also sad I joined an MMO. thats been a worthless use of my time and I only just recently figured it out.

 

[BFG10K]

They made the Amazon look like a 60 year old man: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/7872...azon-is-getting-roasted-by-players/index.html

Reminds me of Geralt of Rivia, or Khan Noonien Singh from Star Trek: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Khan_Noonien_Singh

 

[Fenixgoon]

They made the Amazon look like a 60 year old man: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/7872...azon-is-getting-roasted-by-players/index.html

Reminds me of Geralt of Rivia, or Khan Noonien Singh from Star Trek: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Khan_Noonien_Singh

i can see it, but i also disagree with the assessment.

I see her features as similar to Hippolyta from Wonder Woman - https://screenrant.com/wp-content/u...ielsen-as-Hippolyta-in-Wonder-Woman-movie.jpg

 

[MalVeauX]

Yeah looking back I wish I had not spent so much time in video games doing nothing. The endless grinding of Diablo 2 is a perfect example.
I'm also sad I joined an MMO. thats been a worthless use of my time and I only just recently figured it out.

And I'm not judging, all of us on here probably played this and have done this. I don't expect my opinion or value to apply to anyone else. So I don't mean any negative or disrespect mentioning it how I did above towards anyone.

If you enjoy what you do with your time, that's all that matters.

For me, I just found that it's too easy to use grinding and repetitive endless games like this as merely an outlet to not have to do anything else, or it's a great way to lose time and get old fast and find out you may have wanted to do other things with your time when you were younger; something the older-version-of-yourself tends to look back on. I straight up didn't go out with friends or get with my family on many occasions because I was gaming through the weekend. I had fun at the time, but now I look back and I shake my head at myself. Plus those games are dead and gone and no saves and my accounts deleted off old battle.net.

Then you have the loot system like Diablo 3 come around, and every monster you kill drops good stuff. You get full legendary sets right away. Your ladder quests give you full top shelf legendary sets. You climb to end-game content immediately in that game. Then the game isn't about grinding for items, it's just grinding for perfect versions of the items or leveling up legendary gems and seeing how far you can g-rift, etc. Still a ton of grinding. And you'd think people would love it, but it took something away compared to the grind in D2 (where usually you got NOTHING for your time) and so its easy to just get bored with Diablo 3 because they give you everything and your characters are end-game on their own fast, without having to g-rush and do endless Sanc/Baal runs on hardest difficulty, etc. So it becomes kind of pointless after a while, and you don't even need friends in that game at all to accomplish anything, unlike D2.

Anyhow, these days I don't get into any online grind game. I like to play games like the next person. I just prefer to play a game with a story and PvE basically and enjoy the game play and the story unveiled and when its over its over; next game. I still end up wasting time on games. But we all waste time in a way on something, and that's fine. I just personally found grinding to be a very big waste of my own time. For me, I'd rather play 10 new games than play 1 grinding game for the same time. I realized I didn't get anything from the grinding but I do get something from playing new games, new experiences, not just repetitive endless going-through-the-motions.

I'll probably play through D4 when, if ever, it releases. Because I am an old fan. But I won't sink hours into online play with it like D2 and D3. I'll treat it more like D1 and just play through it and at the end I played the game and I can move on.

Very best,

 

[VirtualLarry]

What are the system requirements for all four + Resurrected Diablo games?

Will they all play on a 10th-Gen 2C/4T @ 4.0Ghz (Pentium Gold G6400 for $99, I'm looking at you). Or will Resurrected and 4 require something more along the lines of a 10400 or 10600 (or 11th-gen), basically, how many cores can they reasonably use?

I always thought that D2 was mostly written for dual-cores of the era (A64FX, etc.)

The reason that I'm asking is, I have a friend whom is "into" this series, and he contacted me the other day mentioning that he has another buddy out-of-state, that needs a PC build for gaming, specifically, the Diablo series.

I've got two builds here (could realistically be three):
One with a G6400, either 16GB or 32GB of DDR4 (I forgot what I put in there), and an RX 5700. This is basically a sort of GPU "glass cannon" build, which is semi-ironic, because it has a mini-ITX chassis with glass on it. That one would run at least $1000, probably around $1300 with 32GB of DDR4, and an upgraded CPU to a 10400 or so.

I've got another build that I completed today, it's an Acer pre-built with a 10400 in it, that I upgraded to 16GB of DDR4, has 256GB SSD, and a GTX 1650 D6 4GB card. This is the build that I was going to predominately go with. That one would run $650-700.

I've also got an older PC, which is an HP mini-tower, with a Skylake i5-6400 4C/4T, 3.5Ghz I think, not sure if it has any turbo. OEM mobo, 16GB of DDR4, SSD, and a re-built (Ghetto-style, zip-tied case fan) GTX 1050 2GB card, that was said friend's old card that I removed from his rig to upgrade his rig a while back, because it was caked with dirt and the fan was dead. I "resurrected" the fan, so perhaps, this would be the more appropriate build, LOL? That would run around $400.

Looking for comments on if any of those would be "overkill" for Resurrected or D4, or which would likely be the better value. (Obviously, if they're sticking with D1/D2, the last one would be the best "value"... I think?)

(I've never played the series.)

Edit: Would a Pentium Gold G6400 (2C/4T, 4.0Ghz 10-gen Pentium) and a GT 1030 2GB GDDR5 model, play D2 decently? What about later games? Looking at budget options too.

 

[Stuka87]

I always thought that D2 was mostly written for dual-cores of the era (A64FX, etc.)

It was originally single threaded, and written for Glide. Dual cores did not exist when the game came out. The only consumer type machines with multiple CPUs were PowerMac G4s. Dual Core CPUs first hit the market five years after Diablo 2 came out.

Or just accept that classic Diablo 1 & Diablo 2 is dead and no one will re-make something close and just let it die.

Diablo 3 is bad. Diablo 4 will be really bad. Diablo Mobile might as well not even release. And this remaster of Diablo 2? They shouldn't bother selling it at this wackadoo price. They won't make back their money on the development. Legions of online gamers are not going to leave their current games to go back to the D2 servers and that kind of grind. It was great in the 90's and 2000's but it's been over 20 years and things have moved forward. We liked these games, nostalgia, but no one is going to get back to needing to doing endless runs to get garbage items and needing twinks and g-rushes just to enjoy the game. And those who do want to slosh from start to end and have the classic experience didn't need this remaster to do that.

It should have just been a patch or launcher that you could get and just use your previous D2 keys and import/use any of your D2 saves or whatever (obviously unless your Battlenet accounts were active that's all long gone as they self-deleted after a time frame) to allow new graphics and resolutions. I don't need new engine or anything. But something to allow 1080p or something would make sense. Heck, they even did that for Baldur's Gate.

Diablo 3 is most definitely NOT bad. It had some issues at launch, and the RMAH put some people off. But by the time a few patches came out, and the expansion, it became a great game. And has more playability that Diablo 2 ever did. The only real thing Diablo 2 had over Diablo 3 was the way skills were handled. Many people complained DIablo 3 was "too simple", but these were mostly pre-release and early release reviews, and down the road after some of the patches this changed.

No clue if Diablo 4 will be good. Activision kind of has a history of bad releases as of late. And many of the Blizzard higher ups have left the company. I doubt we will ever see the type of releases we saw from the Blizzard of yore.

 

[Stg-Flame]

Diablo 3 is most definitely NOT bad. It had some issues at launch, and the RMAH put some people off.

Does it still have the Always Online nonsense or can I play a single player game without an internet connection?

 

[DeathReborn]

Does it still have the Always Online nonsense or can I play a single player game without an internet connection?

Yes it does, and it also has strict limits on the number of character slots, unlike D2.

 

[Stg-Flame]

Yes it does, and it also has strict limits on the number of character slots, unlike D2.

Well that's still incredibly stupid. This was the main reason I didn't play it when it was first announced and it's still the only reason I refuse to play it now. It might seem petty, especially given the kind of internet I have, but it's the principal of the matter that my single player game requires an online connection.

 

[Stuka87]

Does it still have the Always Online nonsense or can I play a single player game without an internet connection?

Almost every game today requires an internet connection to play. I have not considered this as an issue for a long, long time. And the reason D3 is this way is because all games are hosted on a server. There isn't a single player mode. You can play "by yourself", but its because you are alone in the game. This is akin to somebody complaining that Final Fantasy 14 is online only.

I can see it being an issue if somebody is in an area where they just can't get a good internet connection. But in the age of digital downloads, a connection to play is the least of their concerns.

 

[Stg-Flame]

Almost every game today requires an internet connection to play.

Almost every game on Steam allows you to go offline after you've downloaded and installed it. GoG games are DRM-free so unless they are a multiplayer game, they don't require a constant internet connection. Even games on the PS4 (can't vouch for other consoles since it's the most recent-gen one I own) can be taken offline but you'll just miss out on some features. RDR2 and other Rockstar games really don't like it when you go offline, but you can still go offline and play the single player aspects of the game. Hell, even early access survival games like 7 Days to Die can be taken offline if you play by yourself.

I'm curious what games you're referring to because the only ones I can think of that require a constant connection are multiplayer games or games owned by a company who hates their customers.