[What If] Diablo 2 Expansion after the Remaster

[zEmini]

More likely it's "if you want new content...play D4"

Not sure what point you are trying to make. D4 will be nothing like D2

[Wangming]

God I hope not. The story is a mess as it is. D2 was followed by D3 and we have Immortal between them. To have another story that will have zero follow ups anywhere but still can't use any of the plot points that the other sequels have, would just fuck things up even more.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Not sure what point you are trying to make. D4 will be nothing like D2

My point is remastering a game is one thing.

Adding new content to that game when you have 2 sequels to that game is something else.

[zEmini]

God I hope not. The story is a mess as it is. D2 was followed by D3 and we have Immortal between them. To have another story that will have zero follow ups anywhere but still can't use any of the plot points that the other sequels have, would just fuck things up even more.

My point is remastering a game is one thing.

Adding new content to that game when you have 2 sequels to that game is something else.

Then don't play it? Also Expansion doesn't mean new act or story content. Besides you can stick with your LoD and other players can play a expansion. Everyone wins except for people who don't want others to have fun.

Content I would like seeing in a expansion would be adding more stuff to Act IV & some type of endless dungeon mode via Tristram Cathedral. Uber difficulty? Other wise it is major balance changes, charm inventory and new items.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Then don't play it? Also Expansion doesn't mean new act or story content. Besides you can stick with your LoD and other players can play a expansion. Everyone wins except for people who don't want others to have fun.

Content I would like seeing in a expansion would be adding more stuff to Act IV & some type of endless dungeon mode via Tristram Cathedral. Other wise it is major balance changes, charm inventory and new items.

I'm going to play the hell out of D2:R. If they did release new content... I'd play the hell out of that as well.

I just don't expect them to make any new content for it...because there's no logical reason for them to do so. It's beyond the scope of a remaster.

[hulkgor]

Diablo 4 is a thing. Play that for further Diablo content.

[Triceron]

For people who equate Expansion to new story - Story is not exclusive to an Expansion.

Diablo 2 originally was going to get a second expansion that added a Cleric class and Guild Halls. It was supposed to be called Diablo 2: Sanctuary, or something like that.

https://diablo.fandom.com/wiki/Diablo_II:_Salvation

At the least, it is known that Blizzard North intended to work on a second expansion to Diablo II. The second expansion would have focused more on expanding Diablo II's multiplayer features. Background artist David Glenn built guildhalls for groups of players who wanted to start their own clans. They could meet up in the guildhall, organize experience runs or quests, and head into the field from there. One feature of these halls was the Steig Stone (named after designer Steig Hedlund) where guild members could deposit money. At certain increments, they would unlock new guildhall rooms and various accoutrements for their guild's pad. Two new character classes were also proposed,[3] one of which was the Cleric.[4] However, after a few brainstorming sessions, the team decided not to follow through on the expansion, and instead turn their attention to Diablo III.[3]


This is more along the lines of what I'm talking about as an expansion.

More progression, more features, more items, more bosses. Story doesn't need to be touched on, but adding variety and changing up balance would be highly considered. It's basically what many fan mods have already accomplished through adding new sub-maps for end-game content for D2.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

For people who equate Expansion to new story - Story is not exclusive to an Expansion.

Diablo 2 originally was going to get a second expansion that added a Cleric class and Guild Halls. It was supposed to be called Diablo 2: Sanctuary, or something like that.

https://diablo.fandom.com/wiki/Diablo_II:_Salvation

At the least, it is known that Blizzard North intended to work on a second expansion to Diablo II. The second expansion would have focused more on expanding Diablo II's multiplayer features. Background artist David Glenn built guildhalls for groups of players who wanted to start their own clans. They could meet up in the guildhall, organize experience runs or quests, and head into the field from there. One feature of these halls was the Steig Stone (named after designer Steig Hedlund) where guild members could deposit money. At certain increments, they would unlock new guildhall rooms and various accoutrements for their guild's pad. Two new character classes were also proposed,[3] one of which was the Cleric.[4] However, after a few brainstorming sessions, the team decided not to follow through on the expansion, and instead turn their attention to Diablo III.[3]


This is more along the lines of what I'm talking about as an expansion.

More progression, more features, more items, more bosses. Story doesn't need to be touched on, but adding variety and changing up balance would be highly considered. It's basically what many fan mods have already accomplished through adding new sub-maps for end-game content for D2.

Well, in modern terms, that's less of an expansion and more like a Patch or DLC.

[Triceron]

Well, in modern terms, that's less of an expansion and more like a Patch or DLC.

Well, not quite, since the idea of an expansion means we're dealing with a completely different subset of game, whereas a Patch or DLC affects the original game overall.

Case in point, you can choose to play a non-LOD character in Diablo 2. LOD is its own expansion. You can't just pick which patch to play.

DLC is usually in the form of additional content that generally doesn't affect the base game or its balance, while an Expansion is its own self-contained Patch + New Content package.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Well, not quite, since the idea of an expansion means we're dealing with a completely different subset of game, whereas a Patch or DLC affects the original game overall.

Case in point, you can choose to play a non-LOD character in Diablo 2. LOD is its own expansion. You can't just pick which patch to play.

DLC is usually in the form of additional content that generally doesn't affect the base game or its balance, while an Expansion is its own self-contained Patch + New Content package.

That's not entirely true...since expansions often include changes to the base game as well. Sometimes the developers will allow for the original game to be played without the expansion features...but that isn't necessarily the default option.

[Triceron]

That's not entirely true...since expansions often include changes to the base game as well. Sometimes the developers will allow for the original game to be played without the expansion features...but that isn't necessarily the default option.

Yes but you generally have the option to go back and play a game without its expansion. I mean, the only real instances of a game where you couldn't play the original would be a progressive online experience like an MMO; and I'd call that the exception to the rule.

Expansions for most games tend to be treated as a separate game. Patches and DLC tend to affect all existing content (within the relevant expansion they are made for)

l content, and the #nochange argument would still be relevant to that.

I think D3 is the best example for this.

Loot 2.0 is an overhaul patch, this changes the game entirely from how D3 was originally played. You can't really opt out of this, since even a fresh install requires you to patch to latest to play (if my information is correct).

Reaper of Souls adds a new class and plenty of mechanics changes and additions, like Kanai's cube and such. This is optional and D3 can be played without any of ROS' additions.

DLC adds a Necromancer class to ROS. Now, while the Necromancer itself is locked to DLC content, its items and all its drops appear to all ROS players whether they have the DLC or not. So DLC is still a global change that can not be opted out of.

Of course, I don't think D3 vanilla is very fun by itself, but I'm just using this an example to outline the differences between the Patches, Expansion and DLC. If we were just talking about Patches or DLC for Ressurected, we'd still be facing the ire of the #nochanges crowd, while an expansion would be completely optional and players could enjoy vanilla LOD as the devs intend them to.

[Easyclassictopkeklel]

Don't waste ressources on old games, put them into new ones like Diablo 4. Stop living in the past.

[TigTone]

Don't waste ressources on old games, put them into new ones like Diablo 4. Stop living in the past.

They are not wasting resources, Diablo 4 has its own team at Blizz HQ.

Diablo 2 is being remastered by a company recently acquired by Act/Blizz.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yes but you generally have the option to go back and play a game without its expansion. I mean, the only real instances of a game where you couldn't play the original would be a progressive online experience like an MMO; and I'd call that the exception to the rule.

Expansions for most games tend to be treated as a separate game. Patches and DLC tend to affect all existing content (within the relevant expansion they are made for)

l content, and the #nochange argument would still be relevant to that.

As i said, sometimes they do give you the option of playing the original game without the expansion and sometimes they don't. The same can be applied to DLC...sometimes you can choose to turn that content on or off and sometimes you can't.

Regardless though, new content for D2:R is extremely unlikely. It's a remaster. And there is D4 in development...so any new content ideas are going to go towards that.

Diablo:Immortal, as unpopular as the idea may be with some, is going to serve as the filler piece for the time between D2 and D3.

Also, it's a bit premature to even talk about the idea. While I think it's highly unlikely new content will ever be added to D2:R... if the game is not extremely successful...it's guaranteed not to happen at all.

[Triceron]

Also, it's a bit premature to even talk about the idea. While I think it's highly unlikely new content will ever be added to D2:R... if the game is not extremely successful...it's guaranteed not to happen at all.

It's never premature to talk about any idea :P That's the point of discussion, and if you don't think it's an apt time to discuss then this thread isn;t really for you.

And I addressed your latter point in the opening statement of this thread.

"So let's say in an ideal world, the Remaster does gangbusters sales and they dedicate a dev team to making a new expansion for D2, kinda like how Age of Empires 2 has had a modern resurgence with their modern expansion packs."


This is a what if thread. If you don't want to discuss it, you're free to opt out.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

"So let's say in an ideal world, the Remaster does gangbusters sales and they dedicate a dev team to making a new expansion for D2, kinda like how Age of Empires 2 has had a modern resurgence with their modern expansion packs."

"Gangbusters", in this case, would mean it would have to outsell D3. Otherwise, why not put the work in there instead?

[Triceron]

"Gangbusters", in this case, would mean it would have to outsell D3. Otherwise, why not put the work in there instead?

What would that have to do with Diablo 2 Ressurected?

I mean, you could say that about anything then really, no? Overwatch doesn't outsell D3, why not put work in D3 instead? New WoW expansion doesn't outsell D3, why not put work in D3 instead? There's no connection between what you're saying and the premise of this thread, which is about a potential post-Diablo 2 Ressurected Expansion.

Besides, Diablo 3 didn't fail because of its sales. It failed because the execs had no confidence in the continuation of the Diablo 3 franchise . We have pretty explicit details on how it all went down, to the point where we even know details about the King in the North expansion which ended up being released as patch content due to Morhaime's good will towards the players. The expansion was canned prematurely due to the executives up top wanting to move forward with the brand (fruits that we're seeing today) rather than pour more resources into developing Diablo 3. This is why Necromancer was delegated to DLC, and why the potential Druid was even scrapped even though we had plenty of hints towards it being an explored potential class including supporting concept art. And let's not forget the obvious direct competition to PoE over the past decade or so, which hasn't helped put D3 in a strong light in comparison.


Reportedly, Blizzard Entertainment was reluctant to commit to a second expansion because Diablo III lacks a steady revenue stream (aside from its Asian, free to play model), whereas most of its other games involve either a subscription fee (e.g. World of Warcraft) or microtransactions (e.g. Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm), therefore the game has low profitability compared to other Blizzard games in most regions (Asia being a notable exception).[2] According to a Blizzard employee, the overall sense within Team 3 was that the cancellation of the expansion was a vote of no confidence from higher executives, who thought that Diablo III had been a "colossal fuck-up." The team was instructed to move onto Diablo Immortal or Diablo IV, regardless of whatever form it might take.[1]

Circumstance hurt D3 more than anything.

[Zenfoldor]

Nah, leave resurrected as it is with the QOL they've done. I prefer it not be ruined with modernization in mind. I

If they want to change shit, relegate that to a different version separate from this. Or just don't. It's a masterpiece game for a reason

Meh, I think we have a tendency to overvalue the older content a bit. I trust Vicarious Visions with changes on this one, any scope. I remember D2 so well, I wouldn't mind even bigger changes to keep it fresh. Would I have trusted Blizzard before Vicarious Visions merged.....nah I would probably say, "no changes."

[Mamut]

Do new graphics really mean that much to people? Why not just replay the game now then instead of waiting to buy something for some retail therapy.

Graphics mean so little to me I can't fathom why someone would want to play a game with quite frankly shit gameplay for 2021 standards

Because D2 aged quite bad (mostly talking about resolution and some other stuff) and not everyone wanna bother with modded versions. Im not expecting much from this remaster but Im going to play it while waiting for D4 release. Im not going to play alot but Im quite sure I will have alot of fun while playthrough just for the nostalgia and build testing in refreshed graphics/UI.

And for the OP, theres no way they are going to do expansion for remaster. They are focused on D4 and theres just no point to make anything new for D2.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

What would that have to do with Diablo 2 Ressurected?

I mean, you could say that about anything then really, no? Overwatch doesn't outsell D3, why not put work in D3 instead? New WoW expansion doesn't outsell D3, why not put work in D3 instead? There's no connection between what you're saying and the premise of this thread, which is about a potential post-Diablo 2 Ressurected Expansion.

Overwatch isn't a Diablo game. The idea being is if you are going to deliver new content to a Diablo game...you'd deliver it to the game with the largest target audience.

Reportedly, Blizzard Entertainment was reluctant to commit to a second expansion because Diablo III lacks a steady revenue stream (aside from its Asian, free to play model), whereas most of its other games involve either a subscription fee (e.g. World of Warcraft) or microtransactions (e.g. Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm), therefore the game has low profitability compared to other Blizzard games in most regions (Asia being a notable exception).[2] According to a Blizzard employee, the overall sense within Team 3 was that the cancellation of the expansion was a vote of no confidence from higher executives, who thought that Diablo III had been a "colossal fuck-up." The team was instructed to move onto Diablo Immortal or Diablo IV, regardless of whatever form it might take.[1]

Circumstance hurt D3 more than anything.

That would apply just as much to D2:R as it did to D3.