So apparently any changes = “breaking the game” now to you purists. Insanely insufferable. You guys need to stop being so small-minded. Not all changes are bad as long as they are implemented correctly with good community feedback.
YOU play original D2 since you dont want any changes. It’s perfect for you and already available. We cannot find a new game that suits us because there’s no such game available, a balanced D2 with remastered graphics.
This is the “slippery slope” fallacy.
Even if they introduce instanced loot, there’s no reason to assume that will lead to a host of other changes.
you dont get it anyway.
Wait for d4. nuff said.
Went right over your head? That modern games do not = the industry? I’m sorry what was unclear?
Don’t be dense. D4 isn’t available. D2 vanilla original is still available. Hence why you guys need to stick to that since you apparently don’t want ANY changes. It’s perfect.
How are we gonna play a game that doesn’t even exist?
It’s only a fallacy to those too blind to see the causalities. Which is, alarmingly, a lot of people, but then, the world is a cluster because of that exact reason, so what else is new?
The modern gaming industry hire, design, publish, and advertise the games. If you want to argue that some fringe indie games don’t suffer the same fate as the behemoths, the corner is over there. As Blizzard was and is a AAA dev we’re talking “the state of things”. Catch up or don’t.
As for the slippery slope being a “weak” argument; the only reason most things never come to absolute chaotic fruition is due to people like myself pushing back the tide of bad choices leading to worse. Most people don’t see that, they push forward with inane unfounded shortsighted and greedy ideas constantly, and cursed people like myself with further sight have to steer them away from the cliff. Then they turn around with dopey expressions to an exhausted few and say, “That wasn’t so bad.” This interaction happens among individuals, friends, families, communities, every. single. day.
But again you not addressing the point I made why are you comparing us to greedy executives who change things for $$$. The only changes we want would be optional, and wouldn’t impact your gameplay. But would help my experience of the game, which I do love to this day but the online multiplayer was a crap show to say the least.
I love the game but it has flaws, flaws that you may like. But I do not, and they could use some changes to make the gameplay a smoother experience. Honestly I don’t even want that many drastic changes at least from my point of view. They would be relatively minor. Though I know you others disagree which is fine.
What kills the most about this disdain about the slippery slope argument is that AAA games have already exceeded that threshold by a freaking mile.
Full of Loot box transactions
Full of Microtransactions
Content pulled out for paywalls
Content pulled out and advertised as “DLCs”
Games being balanced around 1% Meta e-sport tournament scenes and not average player experience.
Watering down of gameplay and game complexity
These are just off the top of my head. The slippery slope “fallacy” as it relates to gaming, has already driven by you naysayers, done doughnuts, and thrown water in your face and left you cold.
This stuff has already happened. It is already done. This is the state of the big AAA developers all over the world, by a majority.
Individuals like myself railed against this stuff, but no, the slippery slope “fallacy” just can’t be correct.
I’m not here to argue the 500,000 games on Steam (or other platforms) made by indies that only catch on because of Twitch. Which, if you’d argue that the majority of indies wouldn’t employ the same strategy given an increase in content or popularity, I’d just laugh at you.
That’s just capitalism, I didn’t want to get political but its hard to when people bring up economic forces making things change. When people have something to gain from making changes those changes will continue to occur. That’s why I avoid most AAA games these days. But I have nothing to gain other then more enjoyment from say adding instanced loot as a option etc. I enjoy most of the game I just have 3-4 sticky points, balance, charms, multiplayer loot, game play effecting bugs. That I would like optional changes to D2R to allow both experiences to be available in D2R.
I’m not saying you’re malevolent in your intent. This game will remain how it’s framed. Let me elaborate.
If we alter too much of the original, the “greedier” few will feel out some wiggle room. Inevitably they will do something annoying or horrendous, but the rebuttal will be, “Well we changed all this other stuff, why not this?”
If we keep the buzz about QoL and adhere as close to the original as possible, due to the nature of the original, there’s not nearly enough wiggle room without causing an uproar. They will be too frightened to shove in modern day abominations without taking a massive boycott and PR hit.
As with all things, I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
I don’t think that will happen they already took a PR hit from the crap show that was warcraft reforged, but it’s activision so who knows. But I wouldn’t blame people who want changes for what activision executive convoked in the never ending chase of more money. For all we know they will add them even in a “True to original remaster”
It may be; however, the blog post reads:
"
“From auto-gold pick up, large font modes, UI scaling (for PC players), and gamma/contrast settings to enhance readability, we’ve taken strides to equip players with customization options to suit their needs. With these options, players may tweak the visibility of their HUD and graphics, finding the ideal balance between beautiful and gritty, or whatever their preference may be. We’ll be touching on our efforts to make Diablo II: Resurrected more accessible in a later, more detailed blog post.”
I am hoping for more details as it seems Blizzard has more to discuss on the issue of accessibility.
In a public FFA setting without bots/pickit/loot filters users, the idea is to click fast on the item that is desired and not just click randomnly. Having bigger font is a first step as players with accessibility issues to more clearly see the item type that is worth potentially worth clicking on. There are other accessibility changes that could be made that would be worthwhile, especially in the context of multiplayer as I discussed. Visually clutter due to effects and pet transparency clearly impact the ability to read item names quickly. In FFA system, these all become problematic.
It’s not really about blame per say. There’s not any “guilt” in wanting something different than someone else. I’m certainly not a judicator of people’s personal desires. I also fully support mods that allow for all of the things individuals want.
When it comes to D2R, I want it released as resilient to the alterations of modern day “capitalism” as you put it, as possible.
Yes, why not?
I have played dozends of games that all grew with the balancing they received:
Just to name a few that you might have heard of.
Sure, after a certain point a game can reach a stable state where balancing is no longer needed or might do more harm than good. That is something that can be discussed. But using the stance that any balancing is bad a thing is just lazy, because you are scared that you can no longer use your 10 year old auto-pilot-game-mode.
Sometimes it is actually good to shake things up with a rebalancing. Maybe the first season is not the best place for it. But i would certainly love to see some underplayed builds come back and i am sure some others are also a bit nautious of seeing yet another Hammadin.
The only thing that speaks against balancing is that Blizz/VV currently do not have the gathered experience of the D2 times anymore. Balancing usually needs a few patches to get a feeling for. And there need to be long periods in between to give each balancing episode its time to be explored by the players.
After the benefits of the current balancing become evident, but also the problems that it still has.
I think Diablo 2 is in a state where very suble balance changes would still be beneficial to everyone. Things that have close to zero side-effects such as fixing some amazon arrow skills, improving barb throwing weapons, fixing the amazon dodge bug.
Which city would that be? WoW? The best selling mmorpg game of the past ~10 years?
Well, it was your first valid point amongst the 5 of them. It is still available, you know.
The whole world rests on your shoulders, friend. Be strong, for the rest of us.
What game is this?
I follow quite a few things in the gaming industry, but i have not come across that game.
Hm, let’s see, what AAA developers are there.
So again: Which game are you talking about?
So because you do not want bad changes, you also do not want good changes. Understood, i did not know that changes could not be argued case by case and were decided now, for all eternity on everything.
D2 was never a subscription based game.
Cheeky. Wrong, but cheeky. I like.
Good, we’re on the same page. Also, its not balancing, its current Activision inhabiting the husk of Blizzard balancing.
A wordy post, but I muscled through it.
So? What is your burning city then?
It is available. Which makes it right.
Now you went over my head. What is activision inhabitating? Is it Blizzard? Or Blizzard North? Why Activision and not VV? Can we please get our terminology straightend out.
I like the game as it is but i will like more the personal loot system and nothing else changed.
^This, myself as well. If I wanted another game, I’d go play another game.
What do you not understand?
If there was a 200 year old violin that barely worked and could barely be played but it was an incredible instrument in its time and was super valuable, why not want it to be carefully carefully restored to its original glory without adding electric components to it or turning it into something it’s not. How hard is that to understand?
We never said we didnt want ANY changes. We want a D2 that plays on modern systems with a active community, with updated graphics, etc
we want to play that old rare stradivarius violin that needs a polishing, retuning, and some rework to be played again in its former glory.
To put diablo 3, PoE, or other elements that don’t belong into D2R would be a disgrace to the original game that is more loved than any other. D1 wasn’t super popular and many haven’t played it, D2 is considered a classic that so many people loved and it is mentioned as one of the best games of all time on IGN. And D3 was popular but a lot of people hated certain aspects of the game from the auction house, to the story, to the difficulty and from my experience they want D4 to be more like D2 not D3.
to continue to tell us to play the original diablo 2 is a really stupid argument. We want a remaster but we want it done right. We want it to be like the original was. The best diablo game deserves to be replayed and experienced in a way others haven’t had the privilege of experiencing
And nobody would play with it, because it is so valuable. It would just sit in its little glass box and every now and then a famous, accomplished violinist would come by who is allowed to touch it.
I got a hint for you: you are not that famous, accomplished violinist. Neither is any of us.
Even an old rare stradivarius needs to be tuned every now and then. Especially after laying in an unventilated basement for 20 years. Chances are that the strings are broken and need to be completely replaced.
Also it might be argued if the chinrest would be restored or replaced by a more ergonomic peace. Afterall, not everything that is old is automatically better.