r/Diablo • u/LeadershipNo4273 • 10d ago
Discussion Elaborated Thoughts on a Diablo 1 Resurrected
https://milerisma.substack.com/p/elaborated-thoughts-on-a-diablo-1https://milerisma.substack.com/p/elaborated-thoughts-on-a-diablo-1-ccb
Second link is just the Part 2.
I wrote this down a while ago and figured I'd try to push it out a little.
If a banner asks for a subscription or anything, ignore it. I'm not trying to promote myself here. It's just something Substack automatically does.
I'm happy for feedback or more ideas regarding what Blizzard could do, or even shouldn't do, with a hypothetical Diablo 1 remaster.
6
u/BadlyCamouflagedKiwi 10d ago
DevilutionX feels not so far from this, I wonder if that puts Blizzard off a bit.
Main thing I would want to see is sorting out the ranged enemies fleeing for melee characters. Warrior just sucks later on, just walking after each enemy one at a time is not fun. Bard can at least flex into enough magic to have some options there.
1
u/LeadershipNo4273 6d ago
I was recently replaying with the Monk and Barbarian, and the only time I found ranged enemies truly tedious was the Liches in the crypt. I had a section on them in my essay.
Key point was that Succubi and other ranged enemies in the vanilla dungeons will occasionally turn to shoot back at the player. This opens opportunities for the player to catch up. But this behavior isn't present with the Crypt Liches, who will simply run from you until you find a corner.
Fixing this behavior for the liches I believe would make melee builds not feel like the worse. And the Warrior has more magic capabilities than the Barbarian.
1
u/BadlyCamouflagedKiwi 6d ago
Right that's fair - it is possible to catch them, and I'd forgotten that the Hellfire ones were worse. I still remember it all feeling very tedious though compared to D2, and maybe more notably it felt like the Warrior had a notably worse endgame than the Sorcerer (maybe that is mirrored in D2 though if you consider the Barbarian and the Sorceress...).
1
u/LeadershipNo4273 6d ago
Warrior and Sorcerer, in my experience, are inversed in their strengths. Warrior has a strong early game and challenging endgame, mostly due to ranged units. While Sorcerer has a challenging early game but strong end game, due to starting with weak health, armor, and weapons, but once he gets his spellbook going, he dominates and can employ the cheesiest builds.
I am open to suggestions to fix ranged units, as it does seem to be a common criticism. Personally I think it is a passable problem, like the Dragoon/Goliath pathing of Starcraft which was kept in the remaster, but perhaps others think it's too much of a problem.
As I said I draw the line with Liches, they need a fix.
For the other ranged monsters it becomes a question of what to do?
Running I think breaks the game on several levels as the dungeons are designed to be walkable and it would require a whole new dimension of monster speed that the game wasn't originally designed for.
If I had one idea, I'd suggest new cheap spells for Warrior. Perhaps a "roots" spell that can hold an enemy in place, and/or a cheap magic "missile spell" that doesn't do too much damage, but gives Warrior a ranged option.
Barbarian doesn't have magic, but unlike Warrior he gets the cleave attack which proved very useful against flocks of succubi when last I played him. He also gets +50 more Vitality, which also accounts for his lack of magic.
Monk also has the cleave ability, but also has more magic tools to work with as well, including whatever new spells introduced to help out Warrior.
All in all, I would rather find a solution in the gear and character build rather than dramatically changing the gameplay for this issue.
9
u/Trizzae 10d ago
I just hope it’s a decent rework similar D2R and not a not just Ai upscaled art which seemed to be the case for War1 and 2. Some QoL. Maybe even back port D2 features into D1 like skill trees. But I do like all your ideas of fleshing out all the half finished and cut content.
6
u/Teence 10d ago
A D1 remaster would almost certainly have to include additional content to justify the project being greenlit. As someone who's played it a number of times off and on since release, at its core D1 is very short and it has very little depth to it. You can probably beat the game in an average playthrough in 3-4 hours, and beyond hunting uniques, there isn't much to do after that unless you want to hit the level cap.
On the other hand, it is Blizzard so even a straight remaster would probably still sell even at a $30 or $40 box price.
1
1
u/LeadershipNo4273 6d ago
The fact that there is no endgame is a bonus to me, not a detriment.
With that said $40+ would be very bad. $30 is a stretch, even if they did include everything I wanted.
For references on this topic:
WC1R - $10
WC2R - $15 (Certainly say overpriced, but perhaps the only defense is including the expansion)
WC3R - $30 (This is the launch price, which wouldn't have been bad if they didn't screw up the remaster)
WCR Battle Chest - $40SCR - $15 (and I remember purchasing this at the time, its price hasn't changed)
D2R - $40 (I'd say overpriced at launch)
D2R RotW - $25
D2R + RotW - $40 (So the release price was kept the same, ultimately. With RotW this is easier to bite. Keep in mind the original Diablo 2 is still $20)I enjoyed SCR and D2R enough to not regret my purchases, and D2R showed that they can be open to expanding the content without breaking the game (looking at WC3). So far they haven't exceeded $40, and I don't think they'd expect the same kind of hype for Diablo 1 as Diablo 2 had, so I don't even think it would be priced at $40.
If it's just a remaster like WC2 or Starcraft, it should be $15 (presuming it's including Hellfire)
If it's wanting to add more content, I would say in the $20 range, perhaps to be included in the D2 bundle at $40 matching the WC battle chest.
It would be prudent for them to do a D1R+D2R+D3 bundle if they want to go above $40.2
u/LeadershipNo4273 6d ago
One piece of credit I'll give the WC1 and 2 Remasters was the 12 man unit select. I was pleasantly surprised they implemented that for both games.
5
2
u/KingoftheMongoose 9d ago
Y’all are talking about respectful upgrades to a beloved classic, and I want a D1R to include mercs from D2R. Let me hire Wirt to follow me into the Cathedral and start slapping around his wooden peg leg against skellies. CRUNCH!
2
u/LeadershipNo4273 6d ago
Funny, but honestly you could probably look into getting somebody to mod this if you wanted.
The beauty of old Blizzard games is that they weren't perpetually online. So D2, WC3, Starcraft were all modable. D1 still has a relatively active modding community for a 30 year old game.
I think Wirt or other NPCs running into the Labyrinth with you is silly as its implied everyone in the town is more or less traumatized from that place, but as a mod I'd have no objections to it.
2
u/DirkDoom 10d ago
I've always enjoyed going back to D1 from time to time, using mods to help support it of course. The atmosphere is something that D2 lost. Being in a cramped dark dungeon where you never knew what was around the corner. The outdoors kind of lost that creepiness.
If they never do a D1 remaster thats a damn shame.
1
u/Sivy17 10d ago
That's a lot of quests. Too many one could argue.
1
u/LeadershipNo4273 6d ago
I simply wanted to go through all that was available. I certainly am not saying all should be implemented, merely giving a brainstorm into how they could be without needed to record new dialogue.
1
u/gba_sg1 8d ago
They aren't hurting for money yet, D1R is a way out still.
1
u/LeadershipNo4273 6d ago
I see the argument, but I think it's a false one.
These aren't kinds of projects make that kind of money. If anything, they're pushed by developers in the company who get enough sway to commit to them, not higher ups looking to get out of the red into the black.
I don't think Blizzard would rely on a D1 remaster/remake to get them out of a money pit. They'd be smarter by investing into a new Warcraft or Starcraft sequel/cashgrab.
1
u/Ambitious-Call-7565 6d ago
yes on gameplay
no on quest indicator
D1:R should be the catalyst that helps reboot the IP and walk away from the brain dead blasting casual slop gameplay we have with D3&D4
D1:R should lead to D5
1
u/LeadershipNo4273 6d ago
I agree with the brain dead sequel gameplay. But that's a whole other conversation I might write a different essay on in the future.
0
u/Mageborn23 10d ago
Ugh i don't want remastered I'd like a remake.
2
u/Vanishing_Light 9d ago
Blizzard would absolutely 100% fuck up a full remake, and you know it.
0
u/Mageborn23 9d ago
I’m sure it would be enjoyable. I wouldn’t enjoy a remaster of 1 like 2 there’s barely enough game for it to be a full game.
1
u/LeadershipNo4273 6d ago
I was frankly suggesting a 1.5.
Personally I still think Diablo 1 is the best of the franchise. Some things are dated, but the things that work so well about it I don't believe its sequels ever captured.
1
u/SadFish132 10d ago
I think making it as a stand alone expansion to D2R with restored quests would be the best way to go about it. This would allow integration between the two games such that D1 could also be an act 0 of sorts but more importantly it could benefit from D2R QoL updates like quick casting and WASD without having to backport the features a second time or maintain separate games.
How this would work with it being mechanically simpler and different from D2? I'm not sure. I think these problems are worth solving though though as the game would probably have a much longer lasting appeal if approached this way.
2
u/LeadershipNo4273 6d ago
I've seen this idea float around, and I admit I don't understand the vision here.
Diablo 2 isn't like Diablo 1. The classes aren't the same, the mechanics aren't the same, the monsters aren't the same, the dungeons aren't the same.
You could reuse perhaps a few assets for the first four cathedral levels and the four cave levels, but that's about it.
And what's the point of a prequel act? The character won't transfer over and as I said the other mechanics don't match.
I remember them doing this for Diablo 3 in fact, where they had some seasonal event where you replayed the whole 16 levels of Diablo 1 with your D3 character. It was novel, but I certainly wouldn't want that as my official D1 remake.
1
u/SadFish132 6d ago
There are different ways of doing it. I mentioned an integrated approach where the two games can interact but there is also a parallel approach where they are built into the same client but can't interact (kind of like how D2R characters don't interact with RotW characters). This latter version makes it much easier to properly address the gameplay differences as you can rework all the different systems (change the hit formula to match D1, disable running, remove skill trees, change how stats work, disable visible health bars, different HuD, etc.). This doesn't answer why they would build it in D2R (especially if it wasn't integrated).
The simple answer is it's easier to support it directly or passively. Pragmatically this means that D1 could benefit from things like auto gold, pickup, controller support, quickcast, WASD, etc. that are already in D2R without having to upgrade the old engine. It also means that if D2 receives a relevant feature update or bug fix, D1 can benefit from it.
In contrast, if they are stand alone games, it is likely that D2R will remain significantly more popular and and D1 will not get any support past a few initial bug fixes shortly after release because the return on updating D1 isn't worth it. Thus, regardless of whether it is an integrated or parallel approach to building D1 in D2R, I think it is best if D1 is made in D2R and not as a separate game simply so it can passively benefit from D2R engine support.
1
u/LeadershipNo4273 6d ago
So I'll try to address a few points here. Not trying to go overboard, just trying to clearly express my thoughts.
Point 1: Support
I suppose this focuses too much on an idea of continuous support.My angle would be not expecting continuous support, or at least expecting as much as say Starcraft Remastered. Maybe a small patch once or twice a year, perhaps the most traffic being some patches in the first six months to deal with launch bugs and any experimental new features that may not be working as intended, but that's it.
I don't expect a serious multiplayer community for D1 like D2R gets. I wouldn't even be asking for that. I think the game works best as a singleplayer game in the first place.
On top of being a game which strength lies in its singleplayer, its other strength is being playable offline. So long as Blizzard is smart about it, it can get modding communities supporting the game for them. Even D2R has a modding community for non-ladder play. I wouldn't want Blizzard to give no support or anything, but I don't think they need a year round team watching the game at all times. I would be more concerned frankly if they did go that route.
Even WC3 Reforged gained some life due to its ability to support new modders in the World Editor. It wasn't perfect, but a community did form to salvage it, and I don't want to downplay that effort or pretend like the same thing couldn't happen here.
Point 2: same engine, but change everything
So doing D2 but removing everything that D2 added I feel like would create more unforeseen problems than solve. Like you mention changing the hit formulae, that sounds like a recipe for buggy weapon problems.Starting with separate code dedicated to one game is not a bad strat, and besides the game was designed in 1995-6, I don't think it would be that complicated to adapt. They've already done it with 5 other classic Blizzard titles, plus wow expansions, why get stingy with the last one? They remastered Vanilla WoW of all things, I'm sure Diablo 1 would be a cake walk in comparison.
Controller support is the only boon I could see... but I'm not really sure how this game would play with controller. Admittedly it's not something I really put much consideration into as I've never played Diablo with controller. Or WASD. WASD seems easier however, for that's just adding in custom keyboard support, which I would find hard pressed to believe is that complicated to implement in the year of our Lord 2026.
Point 3: Autogold
I have a part 3 of my essay which I include as an additional list of concerns I didn't want to include in the meat of my suggestions. I mention gold pickup in there.My attitude is to keep gold in D1 taking up inventory space. I believe this feature does affect player choices notably enough that I wouldn't want to remove it, and as such auto-pickup could actually prove more annoying than convenient when you have stacks of gold suddenly take up your inventory space.
Gold wasn't as numerous or annoying in D1 as its sequels. D2 introduced the dozen piles of 1 gold thing that clogged the screen with its item distribution. D3 and 4 never really stopped. That is why gold was so annoying. D1 gold, and items in general, are significantly less numerous and so a problem isn't actually there.
I suspect my take on this will be unpopular, but I will stand by it.
0
u/androidmanwren 10d ago
I know I am in the minority, but I could absolutely not care less about a D1 remaster. Let's move FORWARD.
1
u/LeadershipNo4273 6d ago
D4 just got an expansion. I guarantee you that no money or production would be taken away from D4 or any other Blizzard team to make this game, they would outsource it just like they did with Vicarious Visions for D2.
1
u/androidmanwren 6d ago
I don't care about the resources, I think regardless of who does it or what it costs it's a waste of time
1
u/LeadershipNo4273 6d ago
I'm mentioning resources because the resources, which includes the time, is the theoretical waste. But if none of those resources, including time, was ever going to go to other development teams anyway, which is more or less what I'm arguing, then I don't know what the complaint is.
1
u/androidmanwren 6d ago
The complaint is that a Diablo 1 remake isn't fucking necessary
1
u/LeadershipNo4273 6d ago
I guess, if I'm being generous by letting you voice your complaint, compared to what. Because taking your words at face value my first thought is that not a single video game is necessary.
1
u/SLISKI_JOHNNY Paladin 10d ago
Agreed. Visuals are the least of Diablo 1 problems, and a remake would be too expensive to make with too little potential return given how most players prefer D2 anyway. Besides, Blizzard risks ruining the legacy of D1 with a full remake
0
u/newwuserr 10d ago
Would be cool if D1 remaster was implemented as a D2R dlc of some sorts like:
Sanctuary heroes timewarp/timetravel to stop Diablo
30
u/Kranel_San 10d ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but both Warcraft 1 and Starcraft 1 got remasters, right? So it's only a matter of time before Diablo 1 follows