Why do you pretend everyone is so naive?
It was you, in your post, who inferred that it was somehow only D3 players telling D2 players what the D2R remaster should and should not include.
Again: why do you think weâre so naive?
Again, because that was the clear inference of your post that I was responding to. For reference, you posted:
And that post is now as right as it was when I posted it.
Itâs targeted just to people who doesnât like to deny the obvious, so you can freely ignore it.
You do realize that a lot of D3 players used to be D2 players so why shouldnât what they think count, after all they where D2 players at one time
So there must of been issues with D2 that caused them to leave in the first place which you are just ignoring and isnât going to bring people back to D2 just because itâs an unneeded update that is going to flop because the D2 player base isnât as big as D2 players like to think it is
1 Like
Dude, youâve been here long enough to perfectly know how how does this forum work, donât need me to explain it.
Only problem is Iâd be lucky to have spent more than 10 hours in the forums since they started
And from my perspective it looks like it works by everyone having to agree with you and are not entitled to have their own opinion
1 Like
Iâd say the opposite, as me stating the obvious of these forums having always been an old school vs D3 fans war have caused you not to fall into the disrespectful attitude of denying It but also to fall into a personal attack to me.
Iâm sorry, but if your intention is just coming here to spread toxicity, being disrespectful to me, have no intention of being civil, and present your apologies, this conversation is over.
âHereâ is a D3 forum. Your so called âold schoolâ are the ones that come âhereâ spreading toxicity. Always were. If any D3 âfansâ go to D2, PoE, GD forum and spew the same crap, I will call them out the same, that they are spreading toxicity.
You are not entitled of this forum as your rant space.
4 Likes
This is so cute that some D2 purist acting that fans that wanted changes in D2R are D3 fans and not the d2 fans that are not blinded by nostalgia and actually can see the flaws of their favorite game and hoping to improve it. 
6 Likes
I donât mind purists wanting a âpureâ D2 experience with better graphics.
I mean hey, thatâs not going to make my socks roll up and down (especially as Blizzard wants a whopping $70 for it here in Australia), but I get that it would for some people.
What I find so senseless is purists objecting even to optional QoL improvements! I mean, come on, itâs optional!
Donât like it? Turn it off!
Iâll even do you one better, make all these improvements off by default, and then the purists donât even have to do anything at all!
Stackable gems/runes, a decently sized shared inventory, auto-gold pickup, temporarily-assigned-player-loot aka personal loot aka instanced loot, all of these things could be optional, all except the looting would be completely attached to the player only (indeed invisible more or less to everyone else), and in the case of looting could be set by the player creating the game, and easily filtered for in the game lobby for other players preference when joining public games.
Even if the arguments against these things somehow (though not defined how by any post Iâve seen) changed the pure untouchable likeness of being core of D2/LOD, if theyâre all optional then what does it matter to them? Just donât turn those options on and go and play the purest D2 version of D2R you can, and those of us wanting some QoL improvements can play our best version of it at the same time.
How can someone be against an optional change, theyâre completely free to ignore?
2 Likes
Considering they were the ones to say ignore things we didnât like about the original, itâs pretty rich coming from them. They also seem to gloss over the fact that Blizzard is asking for feedback on changes that can be made. So they may want to do more than just some QoL changes if they make sense.
Absolutely, Blizzard themselves recognise the game isnât perfect and is capable of being improved upon.
It just dismays me sometimes when I see a âI donât want it, so you canât have it eitherâ mindset.
3 Likes
Completely agree.
D2R = Classic gameplayâthe same Diablo II you know and love, preserved.
You preserve and have separate selectable on/off options to modify for an improved/updated experience. The authentic D2 experience was clicking on gold. In D2R, you can continue to click on gold OR turn auto-gold pickup on. This is an easy example of how you preserve and give an optional improvement.
1 Like
There is one thing I can say about this comment: Hypocrisy.
You are the same kind of people who go around yelling âThe developers have everything right! They cannot make any mistakes!â
And yet when one of them step out of the predetermined narrative with a different viewpoint, you immediately go âYou are wrong to think this!â
4 Likes
While I agree with the examples you mention, I also donât think you can do literally anything to a game just because it is optional, without hurting the game experience. In the end a game has some kind of intend behind it. That is lost if if the players can just do whatever the heck they want.
Like an optional setting for having 200 Uber Diablos kill themselves outside the act 1 town when you start the game at lvl 1 would imo hurt the game experiment no matter how optional it is.
People who really want that experience can create or find a mod for it.
But yeah, small QoL changes, that basically do not do anything players couldnât do already (through mules, playing with non-ninja looting friends etc) I canât see any problems there.
I would also love to see sensible balance changes, new items etc. As long as those are also optional. Two separate game modes: classic and new, basically.
1 Like
True, any example could be taken to an absurd length, and 200 Uber Diablos committing suicide outside Act1âs town fence when I create a new character certainly would be. 
I agree also, that changes will get (I think) more legitimately discussion worthy when Blizzard gets to a point, hopefully and eventually, where the D2R launch has gone so well that they consider, for example, fixing issues with underwhelming skills.
They may never reach that point, alternately they may reach and even surpass it, and perhaps we see a whole new extra act being developed for D2R? Who knows.
But in the meantime, Iâm all for option QoL fixes that donât involve power creep (so, I wouldnât support for example stackable potions) and would only support a charms inventory if it were deliberately made so small that you couldnât store more charms in it than you reasonably could have in the prior inventory arrangement, and that charms only worked in that charm inventory.
I donât want to change the nature of D2R, I donât believe the changes I and many others are advocating would do that, so long as they remain optional, and donât afford players more âcombat powerâ than those playing a strictly vanilla D2R.
Yeah, I wasnât trying to criticize your points as such 
I agree with the QoL stuff.
There is just a ton of arguments for D3 and D4 on this forum that boils down to âLetâs to this huge game-changing thing. As long as it is âoptionalâ people who dont like it can just ignore it!â (like trading, AI game masters, endless paragon grinds and what not). It tires me a bit 
People can desire whatever huge changes they want of course. Just dont pretend it doesnât change the game.
A remaster is also a bit of a special case imo. A major part of remastering a game is to allow ânew generationsâ a chance to play it. If big game-altering changes are made, it is no longer the original game. So while QoL is fine, I hope they are careful to try and preserve the âfeelâ of what D2 was. For better and worse.
ALL good Shadout 
I do agree, D2R should try and keep fairly close to D2/LOD, it being a remaster and all. At least at first anyway.
I wouldnât support a QoL fix, if it couldnât be made optional (though I canât think of a reason why any couldnât be, but just as a point of principle anyway).
Iâm reminded of the whole Coke and New Coke experience way back when.
The problem wasnât that Coke made New Coke (though I didnât like the taste), the fury, the uproar, was that (at first) they withdrew âoldâ Coke at the same time. They werenât offering a choice. Thereâs a great doco on it even, and Iâd imagine it makes a wonderful case study in university marketing courses on what not to do⌠hehe.