Diablo 2 Ressurrected : 44$ USD (54$CAD)

[kukkamies]

Way too expensive.
I'll do what I did with WC3. Play the old version.
All the content is already there and paid for those of us with it. Only upgrade is graphics. Better graphics for 40$ is a lot to ask. I like Warcraft 3 a lot more and even that 30 was too much.
I like Starcraft even more and even that 15$ is too much for better graphics. Played the old version instead.

[Kolvarg]

The difference is that Warcraft 3's engine was remade making it an actual different game.

I'm pretty sure this is not true. W3Reforged is using W3's engine at its core. I'm sure it had some tweaks to allow the changes they wanted, but it's still entirely based on the original W3 engine and the gameplay itself is mostly unchanged.

Source: https://youtu.be/de-aCP1CXgc?t=310 (@5:10)

The main way that W3 differs from a "pure" remaster is that it doesn't just "upscale" all models and textures, in many ways it re-imagines a lot of the art and style.


When it comes to engine changes, D2 is quite similar - from what they've said in previews replies about a D2 remaster, a lot of stuff was coded around the maximum screen resolution (800x600?), so the engine itself needs to be tweaked quite heavily to actually allow modern resolutions. It won't be built from scratch, likely, but it will be a new version of the old engine for sure - quite possibly with more engine changes than W3R did.


With that said, I agree with the sentiment of not pre-judging D2R because of W3R. Just don't pre-order, wait and see. Worst case you'll still have your original D2 to play, and you didn't spend any additional money. Best case you are able to buy a very good remaster of a great game.

[Soimu]

As long as i can farm gold in wow i don't give a shit ).
I will buy all blizzard products with blizzard credit.

- - - Updated - - -

$40 is pretty reasonable.

no it's not

[ClassicPeon]

I'm pretty sure this is not true. W3Reforged is using W3's engine at its core. I'm sure it had some tweaks to allow the changes they wanted, but it's still entirely based on the original W3 engine and the gameplay itself is mostly unchanged.

Source: https://youtu.be/de-aCP1CXgc?t=310 (@5:10)

The main way that W3 differs from a "pure" remaster is that it doesn't just "upscale" all models and textures, in many ways it re-imagines a lot of the art and style.


When it comes to engine changes, D2 is quite similar - from what they've said in previews replies about a D2 remaster, a lot of stuff was coded around the maximum screen resolution (800x600?), so the engine itself needs to be tweaked quite heavily to actually allow modern resolutions. It won't be built from scratch, likely, but it will be a new version of the old engine for sure - quite possibly with more engine changes than W3R did.


With that said, I agree with the sentiment of not pre-judging D2R because of W3R. Just don't pre-order, wait and see. Worst case you'll still have your original D2 to play, and you didn't spend any additional money. Best case you are able to buy a very good remaster of a great game.

Its using the same core engine obviously but there where many, many changes to it to allow for smoother gameplay. This changes the way the game is played, as i already said. it fixes some "bugs" that players would play around meaning it changes the meta.

its not really a discussion its just a fact.

[Clozer]

As long as this won't become another WC3 Reforged - it's worth the moneys.

[Kolvarg]

Its using the same core engine obviously but there where many, many changes to it to allow for smoother gameplay. This changes the way the game is played, as i already said. it fixes some "bugs" that players would play around meaning it changes the meta.

its not really a discussion its just a fact.

Sure, just saying that it's not the same thing as rebuilding an engine (in fact its probably because they didn't change it enough, and wanted to keep it cross-compatible, that it ended up being so buggy and unstable), or recreating an old game in an existing modern-engine, such as happened with the Spyro remake which was done in Unreal.

And that D2R is very likely going to be in the same ballpark, with many changes to the engine just to support higher resolutions alone. In fact, any remaster of an actually old game is almost certain to require at least some changes to the engine.

[ClassicPeon]

Sure, just saying that it's not the same thing as rebuilding an engine (in fact its probably because they didn't change it enough, and wanted to keep it cross-compatible, that it ended up being so buggy and unstable).

And that D2R is very likely going to be in the same ballpark, with many changes to the engine just to support higher resolutions alone.

Thats exactly what its not going to be, and as i already explained, is the difference between a remaster and a remake.

In the D2 remaster they add polish on top of the old game engine running beneath. Its literally the same engine. They are adding a few features but they arent changing any code.

[Kolvarg]

They are adding a few features but they arent changing any code.

That is literally impossible. Even if they were only enabling higher resolutions and nothing else, they would have to change code. Whether you call it a remaster or a remake, I would guess they will likely change/add as much or even more code than they did in W3R.

How do you expect them to get a game from 2000 running on modern consoles without changing any code?

Do you have any source?

Resurrected is even using a full new 3D graphics engine, where the original was 2D with sprites only. Sound engine is new. Cutscenes were fully remade - not upscaled or re-rendered. Mod support will be completely different. Modern battle.net support will be added. You might say that they are trying to achieve exactly the same gameplay as the original, with no changes besides some UI and QoL stuff - and you're probably right (although you could say exactly the same as, for instance, the Spyro remake, which is a remake and not a remaster). But to say there are no changes to code is just blatant misinformation.

A lot of the actual gameplay code might be unchanged, but an engine is not just for gameplay. Even if they somehow managed to add all those things without changing a single line of gameplay code, to call it just a remaster is pushing the limits on what a remaster is. Much like W3R, this is not just releasing the same exact game with higher quality assets. To achieve the original D2's gameplay in a fully 3D engine they most certainly used quite a few technical tricks and workarounds, and there's as much potential for things to go wrong there as there was with W3R.

If anything, it might be even more technically different from the original than W3R. From what they described, it seems like it's a brand new engine that is running/emulating the old code in the background.

The biggest difference is that thankfully they're not deprecating the Classic version this time. But as far as I'm concerned, and as hyped as I am to try it out, I'll not preorder and wait to see how it actually turns out.

[Easo]

So, basically... No pre-orders, definitely no pre-orders (Blizzard has to be taught a lesson repeatedly for their thick skulls), but let's see when it comes out. Then, yes, I suppose 40 monies can be called reasonable price, if there are no issues by both user and critic reviews.

[zehzao]

That is literally impossible. Even if they were only enabling higher resolutions and nothing else, they would have to change code. Whether you call it a remaster or a remake, I would guess they will likely change/add as much or even more code than they did in W3R.

How do you expect them to get a game from 2000 running on modern consoles without changing any code?

Do you have any source?

Resurrected is even using a full new 3D graphics engine, where the original was 2D with sprites only. Sound engine is new. Cutscenes were fully remade - not upscaled or re-rendered. Mod support will be completely different. Modern battle.net support will be added. You might say that they are trying to achieve exactly the same gameplay as the original, with no changes besides some UI and QoL stuff - and you're probably right (although you could say exactly the same as, for instance, the Spyro remake, which is a remake and not a remaster). But to say there are no changes to code is just blatant misinformation.

A lot of the actual gameplay code might be unchanged, but an engine is not just for gameplay. Even if they somehow managed to add all those things without changing a single line of gameplay code, to call it just a remaster is pushing the limits on what a remaster is. Much like W3R, this is not just releasing the same exact game with higher quality assets. To achieve the original D2's gameplay in a fully 3D engine they most certainly used quite a few technical tricks and workarounds, and there's as much potential for things to go wrong there as there was with W3R.

If anything, it might be even more technically different from the original than W3R. From what they described, it seems like it's a brand new engine that is running/emulating the old code in the background.

The biggest difference is that thankfully they're not deprecating the Classic version this time. But as far as I'm concerned, and as hyped as I am to try it out, I'll not preorder and wait to see how it actually turns out.

Maybe hes talking about this statement:

"Diablo II is running underneath all the visual upgrades, and players can freely swap back-and-forth between the new and old graphics on the fly.
Due to this, the game still respects the grid that Diablo II adheres to, despite having a 3D engine running above everything.
The game respects the 25fps cycle of the original, and abilities/movement will feel how it does in the original.
The 3D game engine running on top of everything allows the game to run in silky-smooth high framerates without breaking the 25fps cycle in the background.
The game can run in 4K."

Its obvious a couple things had to be changed within the code with the new QoL changes like the shared stash and so on, so you're right when you say "But to say there are no changes to code is just blatant misinformation", but calling the "new" Diablo 2 a remaster is the correct way to deal with what they did, they kept the same game and remastered to a more modern GRAPHIC engine, something close to what the same company did with Tony Hawk and something completely different to what happened with Resident Evil 2, which is a remake.

I'm hyped about it but not sold on pre-ordering just yet.

[ClassicPeon]

SNIP

The guy above me already quoted some of it.

That being said i already mentioned this to you multiple times so i'm not sure what you think you are arguing.

The old game engine is literally running beneath the new renderer. The code they are adding is for new additions not to change the old game. There is no "smoothing" out of the old game engine. Its still gonna be on a grid and so on.

- - - Updated - - -

Its obvious a couple things had to be changed within the code with the new QoL changes like the shared stash and so on, so you're right when you say "But to say there are no changes to code is just blatant misinformation", but calling the "new" Diablo 2 a remaster is the correct way to deal with what they did, they kept the same game and remastered to a more modern GRAPHIC engine, something close to what the same company did with Tony Hawk and something completely different to what happened with Resident Evil 2, which is a remake.

Diablo 2 remastered is going to be the old game running with a heavy layer of polish on top(as well as a few added features) but the base game is still the same.

I already explained that

[ati87]

Maybe hes talking about this statement:



Its obvious a couple things had to be changed within the code with the new QoL changes like the shared stash and so on, so you're right when you say "But to say there are no changes to code is just blatant misinformation", but calling the "new" Diablo 2 a remaster is the correct way to deal with what they did, they kept the same game and remastered to a more modern GRAPHIC engine, something close to what the same company did with Tony Hawk and something completely different to what happened with Resident Evil 2, which is a remake.

I'm hyped about it but not sold on pre-ordering just yet.

Sounds more like if your running two games at the same time, something Bioware is also doing with the ME.

Blizzard did something unfortunate with Warcraft 3, they tried to go for a Remake while at the same time do a remaster which is why this is so confusion.
W3 is a remaster with allot of remake elements, which kind of sounds like what they are doing with Diablo.
However if you limit the remake element of the the remaster than you really can't screw up that much (can you?). For example the ME remaster adds a bit more visuals but overall gameplay changes are limited and at best are just to align them more with the other two games.
With Diablo Blizz might have learned it lesson and make the changes less intrusive, hence why you can change back to the original version ingame.

[Kolvarg]

Maybe hes talking about this statement:
Its obvious a couple things had to be changed within the code with the new QoL changes like the shared stash and so on, so you're right when you say "But to say there are no changes to code is just blatant misinformation", but calling the "new" Diablo 2 a remaster is the correct way to deal with what they did, they kept the same game and remastered to a more modern GRAPHIC engine, something close to what the same company did with Tony Hawk and something completely different to what happened with Resident Evil 2, which is a remake.

Sure, and in the sense of just discussing the meaning of "remaster" and "remake", I agree. The "official" consensus in the industry seems to be purely from a design principle not technical, so that any game that at least intends to fully re-create the original game with minimal changes is a remaster even if they require some engine changes (such as D2R and W3R), and even if they are completely rebuilt in a new engine (such as Spyro, Crash and THPS). Whereas remakes re-imagine the game on a fundamental level, making core changes or sometimes completely replacing the gameplay, story elements, etc (such as Resident Evil 2 and FF7Remake).

But on a technical level, there is a huge difference from a remaster like D2R, to a remaster like Spyro, to a remaster that is essentially almost just a port, for instance, from PS3 to PS4 with some higher resolution textures.

In the context I was replying to, ClassicPeon is claiming that D2R is a remaster while W3R was a remake, and therefore it's much more likely to turn out to be good, which is simply not true.

- - - Updated - - -

That being said i already mentioned this to you multiple times so i'm not sure what you think you are arguing.

The old game engine is literally running beneath the new renderer. The code they are adding is for new additions not to change the old game. There is no "smoothing" out of the old game engine. Its still gonna be on a grid and so on.

If you're not sure, re-read, or ask me to clarify whichever specific points I didn't make clear enough.

The fact that the remaster respects the old game's rules, systems and data, does not necessarily mean the engine itself is not modified at all. The Spyro remaster respects the original and fully recreates the original experience with minimal changes, despite being completely rebuilt in Unreal Engine.

But even if the old "game engine" is running with absolutely no changes (which I very much doubt is the case) - there's still an entirely new engine and many new systems running on top of it, so there's plenty of room for things to go wrong. It doesn't matter whether the new code is additions to the old game or not. It's new code that will be running and that may break. It says nothing about whether the final product will be stable or not, buggy or not, good or not.

[Martymark]

Yah I think it's too expensive for an old game I already have that still works well.

Still works...FOR NOW.

Get ready to get Reforged!

[Zarithras]

These prices are beyond reasonable.

In 1990, new NES games were going for these prices. SNES games were going for even more, some $79.99. From 1990 to now, new game prices have essentially stagnated. In that same timeframe, inflation has the US paying 2x what it paid in 1990.

Besides, game dev wise, the only aspect a remaster saves money on is design. All of the other work to build a game is still required - assets (art, sound), code, project management, production, distribution, etc. Remaster don't re-use any of the old game. $45 is already less than other new games, to expect any less is simply misunderstanding what goes into making these remasters.

[trapmaster]

Don't like the price? Don't buy it? Simple as that.

[RCA]

why did you buy it again? all you had to do was register your original code on bnet to download it again.

- - - Updated - - -



nintendo never lowers the price on any of the games they make.

Long lost those codes after like ten years. You rung up a hilarious memory of my father getting pissed at my brother and I for playing too much & getting bad grades that he snapped that CD in half before our eyes. lol or even better, when those discs would get scratched up, my bro used to flush it in the toilet in hopes for it to clean it, I think it worked actually.

[Biggles Worth]

I understand that they have been working a lot of D2 : Resurrected, but 54$CAD (or 44USD) is beyond greedy for a remastered title.

Are they going to use the same old argument about giving us lord of destruction included? Please. This game has been out for 20 years, come the f*** on*.

Personally, I don't mind paying for it, i've been a fan since day 1 of D2 release, but all those friends that I want to play with, and newer player, they won't pay that much.

I'm I the only one who thinks this is ridiculous ?

This is why I farmed a ton of gold and added lots of Blizzard balance to my account.

[RobertoCarlos]

What? Source on this? Afaik they removed the 25fps lock, which more likely than not required rewriting of code.
Then we simply have to fact that sprite animation implementation is different than 3d model animations. So even there it's new code. Same goes with spell effects that require new code.

The source is the diablo 2 deep dive from blizzcon. I can link the time stamp later when I'm on pc not my phone

[Raava]

I guess it depends on the value of the game to you as a player. My best friends brother got me and him into the original just after Lord of Destruction came out and we spent a tonne of hours on it before he introduced us to World of Warcraft. It depends on the value of the game to you.

I went back to Diablo II for the ladder reset every time it happened even though it's old an outdated because it's nostalgic but also extremely fun for me. I know that a lot of people probably do the same. To me, it's worth the price.