Diablo 2: Resurrected remaster

[Storyfag]

stunning

And brave!

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I've watched a couple of streams. Overall, positive. I haven't seen any of the performance issues that showed up in the trailer. Sorceress fire spells look fantastic, but lighting is just pitifully anemic. The volumetric lighting helps them out a bit underground, but still pretty weak. I'm not going to be butthurt about the less intricate UI. I may even try to get it working on Linux.

 

[agris]

It would be great if you could play the original at any arbitrary resolution.

I’m sure that won’t happen, but still.

 

[Average Manatee]

It would be great if you could play the original at any arbitrary resolution.

I’m sure that won’t happen, but still.

You kind of can. Just enable windowed mode and then maximize the window.

Obviously it just stretches the pixels, but that's all you could ever do without either a full remake with upscaled graphics or allowing a massively expanded view screen that would radically alter balance.

 

[OctavianRomulus]

Dunno about you guys but the new Sorceress is a big improvement over the old one. Much thiccer and more beautiful face. Also really how love the lighting of her spells makes everything look. I might roll one when the game comes out.

Kinda makes you wonder how the Amazon ended up so ugly.

 

[luj1]

SCR is still the blueprint for remasters, but this ain't nowhere near the disaster of WC3R or HoMM3 remaster.

 

[what am i doing]

It would be great if you could play the original at any arbitrary resolution.

I’m sure that won’t happen, but still.

If I recall correctly the main reason this couldn't happen easily is that a lot of the enemy AI doesn't activate until you're close to where - at the supported resolutions - they'd start to come on screen; however, many player attacks and spells can still be used against them. From what I've heard from the developers in various interviews that touch on the subject it seems like they probably had a lot of magic numbers in their code pertaining to AI behaviour or events that would make it not so simple as just changing one variable that decides when AI become hostile. Perhaps it was done separately for every type of unit and various special encounters, or something like that.

 

[Average Manatee]

It would be great if you could play the original at any arbitrary resolution.

I’m sure that won’t happen, but still.

If I recall correctly the main reason this couldn't happen easily is that a lot of the enemy AI doesn't activate until you're close to where - at the supported resolutions - they'd start to come on screen; however, many player attacks and spells can still be used against them. From what I've heard from the developers in various interviews that touch on the subject it seems like they probably had a lot of magic numbers in their code pertaining to AI behaviour or events that would make it not so simple as just changing one variable that decides when AI become hostile. Perhaps it was done separately for every type of unit and various special encounters, or something like that.

Pretty sure its just a flat radius around you that activates things and it could be easily expanded. They just don't want to because it'd be a massive change to how the game is balanced, and it tilts the balance even more towards spamming AoE skills which is already the strongest thing you can do in D2. Imagine a poor Barbarian trying to cope in melee with single target attacks vs. an AI that aggros from further away whilst stuff like lightning fury amazons, corpse explosion necromancers, trapsins, etc are just deleting entire groups from 3x the range as before.

There's also stuff like pathing issues, since the further away the AI activates the more logic it needs to run through to find a good path to the player.

 

[Storyfag]

Imagine corpse explosion necromancers just deleting entire groups from even further away.

 

[502]

Verdict? Werebear and grizzly fuckable enough?

 

[d1r]

Verdict? Werebear and grizzly fuckable enough?

What is up with this horrible frame rate?

 

[Hellion]

Potato PC and abyssmal internet connection, most likely. When a colleague of mine streamed the game it looked nothing like that.



(trigger warning for manlets: stream is in manly and glorious North AfriGreek)

 

[Reinhardt]

How nice of them to gib dark rogues clothes. Now they won't get cold.

 

[Wunderbar]

Ex-Blizzard dev is frustrated with the remaster.

Diablo 2: Resurrected is censored. Which is ridiculous. D2 was always about being adult, edgy, dark and, yes, even a little bit sexualized. It's a raw fantasy setting. Gothic and extreme. To change it is to make a different game. Stop buying AAA endless remakes. Go indie.

The Amazon was always revealing. In fact, we fought hard to keep it that way as part of the them, as there was some push to change it, even back then. Sucks to see something we fought for get erased in a souless, corporate remaster.

The deliberate, hard won, creative decision to have an adult, dark fantasy content has had its sharp corners rounded off and made safe for who, exactly? This is a complete erasure of the original intent of the creators.

But in the end, that just makes room for real, dark, edgy fantasy games that AAA game makers will no longer make. I look forward to the indies that will take up the mantle. Just pass on Blizzard of today. Entirely.

 

[OctavianRomulus]

Ex-Blizzard dev is frustrated with the remaster.

Diablo 2: Resurrected is censored. Which is ridiculous. D2 was always about being adult, edgy, dark and, yes, even a little bit sexualized. It's a raw fantasy setting. Gothic and extreme. To change it is to make a different game. Stop buying AAA endless remakes. Go indie.

The Amazon was always revealing. In fact, we fought hard to keep it that way as part of the them, as there was some push to change it, even back then. Sucks to see something we fought for get erased in a souless, corporate remaster.

The deliberate, hard won, creative decision to have an adult, dark fantasy content has had its sharp corners rounded off and made safe for who, exactly? This is a complete erasure of the original intent of the creators.

But in the end, that just makes room for real, dark, edgy fantasy games that AAA game makers will no longer make. I look forward to the indies that will take up the mantle. Just pass on Blizzard of today. Entirely.

What exactly did they censor? I'm not seeing it.

Either way, Diablo was always going for a more realistic angle and the rogues going half naked into battle always seemed a little odd to me. Who goes to battle like that? Who takes these people seriously? I think there is definitely a place for sexy and haughty characters in Diablo, such as a Sorceress but not warriors. If you make a warrior character in a realistic-ish fantasy game, give them some goddamn proper armor. Save the sexiness for characters that make sense.

 

[abija]

Shouldn't quote/link to a piece of shit like that even if they are right in that particular instance (it's easy to jump on some bandwagon and argue along). Even worse when he makes it obvious with "stop buying AAA go indie".

 

[Cael]

Who goes to battle like that? Who takes these people seriously? I think there is definitely a place for sexy and haughty characters in Diablo, such as a Sorceress but not warriors. If you make a warrior character in a realistic-ish fantasy game, give them some goddamn proper armor. Save the sexiness for characters that make sense.

When dramaqueens cry about realism in their fantasy...

 

[what am i doing]

Either way, Diablo was always going for a more realistic angle and the rogues going half naked into battle always seemed a little odd to me. Who goes to battle like that? Who takes these people seriously? I think there is definitely a place for sexy and haughty characters in Diablo, such as a Sorceress but not warriors. If you make a warrior character in a realistic-ish fantasy game, give them some goddamn proper armor. Save the sexiness for characters that make sense.

If you want to talk about realism then there shouldn't really be female warriors at all. Female spellcasters, ok, magic is fairly arbitrary, and we can assume that women can be equally effective at it as men, but physical combat? No, it's silly and unrealistic.

That's why complaints about "bikini armour" are dumb. Female fighters are already unrealistic, so if you've already introduced them into your setting there's no reason to try to present them "realistic armour" because realistically women wouldn't be engaging in physical strength-based combat to begin with.

If you're gonna break with realism and add female fighters then at least make them sexy.

 

[Mazisky]

The complain about the amazon butt covered is way too exagerated, it's fine that she has some kind of butt-cover armor. The only issue is that she is ugly, it's fine to make a female character which is not sexualized, but she can't look like tranny.

Unless you openly say that she is tranny by design, than it's fine, but you have to admict it.

 

[OctavianRomulus]

Either way, Diablo was always going for a more realistic angle and the rogues going half naked into battle always seemed a little odd to me. Who goes to battle like that? Who takes these people seriously? I think there is definitely a place for sexy and haughty characters in Diablo, such as a Sorceress but not warriors. If you make a warrior character in a realistic-ish fantasy game, give them some goddamn proper armor. Save the sexiness for characters that make sense.

If you want to talk about realism then there shouldn't really be female warriors at all. Female spellcasters, ok, magic is fairly arbitrary, and we can assume that women can be equally effective at it as men, but physical combat? No, it's silly and unrealistic.

That's why complaints about "bikini armour" are dumb. Female fighters are already unrealistic, so if you've already introduced them into your setting there's no reason to try to present them "realistic armour" because realistically women wouldn't be engaging in physical strength-based combat to begin with.

If you're gonna break with realism and add female fighters then at least make them sexy.

Yes, they are unrealistic, but I want them to make me believe the fantasy. Female warriors are cool. You can do that by giving them proper armor. It makes sense for the Sorceress to be hot and haughty. She's smart and could vaporize you with a twitch of a finger. She doesn't think she needs armor and it makes sense for her character. Warriors are supposed to be more grounded. In medieval times, if you got a small cut from swordfighting, you could die of an infection. An Athena archetype makes a lot more sense for a female warrior.

 

[Reinhardt]

In medieval times, if you got a small cut from swordfighting, you could die of an infection.

Nigga, in medieval times women don't go to battlefield until battle is won and it's time to loot corpses. You shitposting about "unrealistic" and "cool" and then bark about medieval again.
Bikini armors and amazons are same level of realism.

 

[Lacrymas]

Wars aren't decided on physical strength and 1v1 melee combat though. There have been women warriors throughout history. Even if they are extraordinary cases (for whatever reason), our characters are also extraordinary.

 

[Razor]

What is up with this horrible frame rate?

GPU prices and availability say hi. Would not be surprised if he is running this on CPU only.

 

[Reinhardt]

Armor is useless against demons. It can protect against fallen ones or skellingtons, but big demons will just crush both armor and its wearer so chainmail bikini is more realistic than full plate.

our characters are also extraordinary

Stop lying, they are level 1 fags.

 

[Ol' Willy]

Chaimal bikini is an old and stupid trope. If you want mobility and all curves visible, body-tight outfits are the answer.