Arguable. Again, D3 was going to be an MMO if left to North. I’ve seen a lot of people express their distaste for Diablo going MMO.
Blizzard north made d2 legacy a milestone of a game, Blizzard south made D3. That should answer your question
Hard to know what would had happened.
Imo, the game would have been even better and d3 wouldn’t be that abd, but we will never know
Don’t feed the troll.
You are missing the nostalgic part about this, which is more important as you might think.
D2R would not be ruined if they kept updating and improving the game but D2R should start where D2 “ended”. Not years or fictional patched ahead or behind.
If it feels like a whole different game, they might aswell cancel the whole project and just focus on D4. You might have thought about this subject a lot but so did people at Blizzard.
If they never died then they wouldn’t update D2 at all. D2 wouldn’t have gotten to where it is now at patch 1.14d. Because they would’ve made D3 instead of working on D2. That last patch that was made while they were still alive is the patch that would’ve been the last patch for D2 until they created patches just to update D2 where it would be able to be ran on newer operating systems.
Damn people trying to sound smart are actually looking so dumb… they try so hard that they can’t read the question properly lol
The question ain’t “if they survived would they have updated the game”
The question is “if they had survived and kept improving the game, would purists consider those as game ruining improvements”
I see where OP is going, but…
I’d love to have seen Blizz North survive, especially if they added 5-6 new expansions. More content would have been great. Even if they never changed a thing about how the game played.
Granted, the “state of the art” in APRGs evolved quickly after D2, as companies tried to duplicate and expand on its success. I’d imagine, this would have put pressure on Mr. Brevik to innovate. It’s only natural, from a human nature but also a business perspective.
What astonishes me is how some people say, “Version 1.14 is holy writ - that can never be altered. Just don’t bother me about using the expanded/shared stash tabs…”
He’s forgetting that a lot of people are playing this as a form of D2 HD. They don’t want or need the best possible version of the game. They want the nostalgic feeling of playing an old game with new graphics.
Starting the release with, let’s say a 2.0 version, would be a reason to not play it and just wait for D4.
Starting at 1.14 and working up to 2.0 over time, would have a different outcome.
This topic is a way to make purists look hypocritical, maybe even dumb or ignorant. But that’s just not what it’s about. It’s not the purists who doesn’t get it. It’s the people who want to change the game pre-launch. Wait for the release and then start adding suggestions to improve the game over time.
Which is a good thing because they are
Most of them are against Split server/realm/game mode
How egotistic you have to be to deny other people the game they’d like just because you want to force them to play your way
I hear you. But, it’s important to remember Rod is telling us the devs are in discussions about many of these proposed changes. I don’t think anyone really thinks a thing would change from the betas. Just doesn’t work that way.
So, they’re wrapping up testing/preproduction tasks, getting ready for launch. But, at the watercoolers, the “what’s next” topic is being kicked around a lot. Where they go with any of these possibilities is entirely dependent on how many copies are sold, and how well the game retains players.
If either of those numbers disappoint, the suits will take their discretionary budget some place else.
It’s not forcing someone to play the game the way they want it. They’re not forcing anyone. The game is the way it is, the way Blizzard want it, the way it has been for 20 years. It’s up to you to decide if you want to play it or not.
It is in no way egotistic to not agree with people who want to change a game to their personal needs. It’s not a democratic decision. People are acting like it’s a group decision and are getting upset when their wishes are not met. Guess it’s a generation X issue.
It’s not strange that people don’t want any more split game modes than there already is because it makes a game bleed out faster. A split between HC, SC, Ladder, NL, LoD and Classic is more than enough. We don’t need more splits based on ingame preferences.
1 Like
Great logic…
if there is a split, game bleeds out faster… it actually wont since it would offer people a way to play the game they want, you tend to stick to stuff you like
if there is no split… game will actually bleed out faster due to staleness
purists are against split only because they want to coerce people into their preference because they want to be validate in their “retroKink”, having a split would expose them as weirdos
Not to be pedantic, but removing the 4 geographical areas cut the split modes down considerably. This could be an opportunity to broaden the scope of gameplay while splitting the player base far less than before.
Yes and no. There is a sweet spot. People stick to the game modes they prefer and like to play. On the other hand, no one will play a mode with a small playerbase and only a few people online. 1 game mode with 1000 players is better than 100 modes with each 10 players for example.
We could add the following splits: Ploot, stackable gems and runes, Player X servers, charm inventory.
I’ve probably missed a lot here but there are so many people who want things their way. When they won’t get it, they ask for a split server so “everyone can play the way they want to”.
Where will this start and where will it end? When should Blizzard say yes and when should they say no?
I think it’s a good to say no to all those great idea’s.
I hear the message, but one small quibble: I think any split should focus on core game features, loot allocation definitely being one of those.
OTOH, stackable runes/gems to me are simple QoL features that save clicks and lowers amount of time screwing around with mules. Definitely not game changing in any meaningful sense. Charm inventories are similar but a bit less-so.
If it were up to me (and thank God it ain’t), I’d simplify it and have a “LoD realm” for people who want minimal changes, and “Modern realm” and lump all changes of any kind in that realm. Only 2 splits, and absolutely no more than that.
And Blizz should then look at that Modern Realm as a laboratory to experiment with to see what works, what doesn’t, what’s popular, what’s not. After some time passes, they’d have a better idea what to invest in and where. We’d still have fewer realms than D2 overall, splitting the player base much less than before.
1 Like
indeed
Diablo 3 being the only arpg they made shows how out of touch they were and mostly still are, using D2 to learn what mechanic sticks to its community could teach them what systems and mechanics they could implement to D4 to make sure it doesnt flop and it aspires to D2 greatness
I’ve said before that the main reason Blizz made D2R was to train its new staff (VV) on these kinds of mechanics so they could use it in D4 - and have players pay for that training.
As I’m really not sure there was a business case to make D2R, this seems to pass the Occam’s Razor test…
Well i might want to add the fact that D2R can be seen as a cashgrab but i really think its mostly a marketing vehicle for Diablo4
easye project to grow the Diablo franchise community, to expose them to worthy diablo content, make them hype for the franchise, tune their antena to diablo content so when they give D4 news, people are there to listen and get hype and ultimately buy
thats why i think D2r need content and balance patches, because D4 is 2-3 years away
the boost in playerbase theyll get from D2r will fade away if they let it rot like its been doing for 20 years, they need to water and fertilize their playerbase for it not to die
1 Like
That is a what if that would never happen and we all know that. One that stays in the dream world. You can go an assuming till the cows come home but might not be right at all.