Blizzard Drops 21:9 Ultrawide Support from Diablo II: Resurrected, Says It Was Breaking the Game

[Tsing]

Image: Blizzard



Diablo II: Resurrected was originally supposed to ship with support for ultrawide resolutions, allowing owners of 21:9 monitors to use their displays to the fullest. That no longer seems to be happening.



As explained by Blizzard’s PezRadar on the official Diablo II: Resurrected forums, the Diablo II remaster will no longer include traditional ultrawide support because it breaks the game. The technical alpha revealed all sorts of problems stemming from the 21:9 aspect ratio, such as players being able to pull more monsters into battle than intended and enemy AI failing to do its job.



As a result, Diablo II: Resurrected’s ultrawide support is being reduced from 21:9 to 19:9. There will be a vignette on the sides of the game screen for those on ultrawide monitors.



Ultrawide monitor support being modified was a subject we saw heavily...

Continue reading...

 

[MadMummy76]

In programming terms "it can't be done" usually means I'm too incompetent or lazy to do it.

 

[Burticus]

In programming terms "it can't be done" usually means I'm too incompetent or lazy to do it.

Well they are trying to bring a 20 year game up to speed, it's unlikely they are re-writing the whole engine. 20 years ago even 16:9 widescreen was scarce in PC land.

 

[Endgame]

They are running the new graphics engine on top of the original game logic. Monsters will only respond to player actions as far as 19:9 in that code (amazing depth, given the game originally ran on 800x600 monitors).

in all honesty, this is what I expect with ultra wide resolutions. I had several games that wouldn’t work at all on my eyefinity setup (4800x1200). Stick with common resolutions and you’ll have less problems.

 

[Dan_D]

This kind of thing is one of the reasons I don't care for 21:9 displays.

 

[MadMummy76]

This kind of thing is one of the reasons I don't care for 21:9 displays.

So you don't care for ultrawide displays because there is one in 10 thousand games that won't support it, in which case it will effectively function as a 16:9 screen of the same height.

That makes exactly zero sense.

 

[Endgame]

So you don't care for ultrawide displays because there is one in 10 thousand games that won't support it, in which case it will effectively function as a 16:9 screen of the same height.

That makes exactly zero sense.

My experience with eyefinity was more like 1 in 4 games didn’t work with it. No interest in buying an ultra wide monitor after the eyefinity experience. Best to stick to a more mainstream resolution that is guaranteed support

 

[David_Schroth]

So you don't care for ultrawide displays because there is one in 10 thousand games that won't support it, in which case it will effectively function as a 16:9 screen of the same height.

That makes exactly zero sense.

Then it sounds like you haven't had much ultrawide monitor experience over the years. Since I've been running Eyefinity since it came out and now am on a Samsung CRG9, I'll expand a bit for you on why @Dan_D may not have a preference for them.

Yes, most games out there will let you select the 21:9 resolution in their sliders and operate just fine. However, even when they do that, most games do not re-arrange the UI elements to optimize for the ultrawide aspect. Specifically, minimaps, stats/ammo/health counters and other things that are stuffed in the corners of a square-ish monitor are also stuffed in the corner in a way that's way out of the field of vision of the user. In some games, that's an absolute game breaking experience while in others, it's just annoying. There was maybe ONE battlefield game at some point around 10 years ago that actually put the HUD/stats/weapons/maps in the center of three screens for an Eyefinity setup. Then there's the overhead view style games like Starcraft, warcraft, city builder simulations, etc., that are difficult to use on widescreens as they often use the boundary of the screen as the method of scrolling to a different area. This gets a bit weird when actually using it.

That being said, I prefer the ultrawide screen aspect for both gaming and productivity. The overall experience is better even with the negatives that come along with it.

 

[Dan_D]

So you don't care for ultrawide displays because there is one in 10 thousand games that won't support it, in which case it will effectively function as a 16:9 screen of the same height.

That makes exactly zero sense.

First off, there are a lot more games that don't support it than you suggest. Secondly, I dislike 21:9 aspect ratio displays because of their lack of vertical real-estate for productivity and even gaming. In that aspect ratio, I would need them to be quite a bit taller and therefore much larger in physical size to be as immersive as a 43" 4K is. David is also correct in that the HUD doesn't behave properly on a lot of games. Media content besides games are also not designed for the aspect ratio and I watch quite a bit of video on my PC. As a result, I end up with black bars on the sides of what I'm watching. Even worse, a lot of players will display 16:9 content in such a way as it doesn't even fill up the screen top to bottom.

I have nothing against the aspect ratio in theory, but in practice I don't care for 21:9 displays. I've had one and ran it for at least a year and once the novelty wore off, I couldn't wait to ditch it.

On the subject of Eyefinity and NVSurround, I have more experience with it than just about everyone I've ever run across. I literally ran that from about day one all the way up to 4K 40"+ TV's becoming popular PC displays. I think I made that switch around 2017. I ran 3x 30" Dell 3007WFP-HC's at 7680x1600. I used both AMD and NVIDIA cards with multiple GPU's in each configuration. Later on, I ran 3x ROG 27" Swift displays as well at 7680x1440 and in portrait mode. Whatever that works out to.

When it worked it was great. A lot of games I played did work well with it, albeit often with caveats. Fisheye, HUD issues, etc. I tried the 4K TV, and really found 48" and 49" TV's to be too large. Back then they lacked variable refresh rate technology like G-Sync or FreeSync. I went to the AW3418DW for at least a year or so. I've now been running the Acer Predator CG437K for about a year now and it's been the best setup I've used to date with the fewest amount of compromises for me.

Part of why I wanted to go back to a larger format display was the ease of using a 16:9 display compared to ultrawides or multiple monitors in NVSurround or something like that.

 

[MadMummy76]

Then it sounds like you haven't had much ultrawide monitor experience over the years. Since I've been running Eyefinity since it came out and now am on a Samsung CRG9, I'll expand a bit for you on why @Dan_D may not have a preference for them.

Sounds like you make a lot of assumptions. I've been using an ultrawide display for 3 years with satisfaction. I can't pass judgement on the ultrawide experience in the more distant past, but we are talking about today, not ancient history.

As for eyefinity, that is a multi monitor setup which is an entirely different kind of animal. I used to have multiple displays but ultrawide made them redundant for productivity, and I never really liked gaming on multiple screens, so I just used the one display.

Yes, most games out there will let you select the 21:9 resolution in their sliders and operate just fine. However, even when they do that, most games do not re-arrange the UI elements to optimize for the ultrawide aspect. Specifically, minimaps, stats/ammo/health counters and other things that are stuffed in the corners of a square-ish monitor are also stuffed in the corner in a way that's way out of the field of vision of the user. In some games, that's an absolute game breaking experience while in others, it's just annoying. There was maybe ONE battlefield game at some point around 10 years ago that actually put the HUD/stats/weapons/maps in the center of three screens for an Eyefinity setup. Then there's the overhead view style games like Starcraft, warcraft, city builder simulations, etc., that are difficult to use on widescreens as they often use the boundary of the screen as the method of scrolling to a different area. This gets a bit weird when actually using it.

I never had this issue, except for when I tried to connect my PS4 Pro to the ultrawide display, which you obviously not meant to do. But you are conflating multi monitor setup problems with ultrawide. 99% of the problems from multi monitor gaming do not exist with a single ultrawide monitor. Even Just a two display setup is 32:9, so it's really not the same ballpark. And with a two monitor setup the bezel will be in the centre. Which I for one couldn't tolerate. So we are talking about 48:9 vs 21:9, it's not even worth comparing.

That being said, I prefer the ultrawide screen aspect for both gaming and productivity. The overall experience is better even with the negatives that come along with it.

The only negatives are games that don't support it, in which case you can still switch to a compatible 16:9 resolution and use it as if it was a regular display, loosing nothing.

 

[David_Schroth]

But you are conflating multi monitor setup problems with ultrawide.

Not exactly - the way that both Surround and Eyefinity work is that they trick the game/application/whatever into thinking that it's a single ultrawide screen. So while you may have 3x 1920x1200 screens attached, it tells your application/game you only have one 5760x1200 screen. Therefore how the application handles a multimonitor vs a single ultrawide setup should be identical.

 

[MadMummy76]

First off, there are a lot more games that don't support it than you suggest.

Then I must have missed them, because I had not seen a single game that came out recently that would not support ultrawide. As for old games that is understandable, but most popular games will have unofficial patches if you fancy playing old games on ultrawide.

Secondly, I dislike 21:9 aspect ratio displays because of their lack of vertical real-estate for productivity and even gaming. In that aspect ratio, I would need them to be quite a bit taller and therefore much larger in physical size to be as immersive as a 43" 4K is

I had purchased the tallest screen that I can tolerate. A 43" 4K is far too tall for me. It's real estate that I can't use, so what is the point in having it then?

David is also correct in that the HUD doesn't behave properly on a lot of games.

As said I Never had this issue. The difference between 16:9 and my 24:10 aspect ratio is not that huge that the HUD would need to be completely redesigned in any game.

Media content besides games are also not designed for the aspect ratio and I watch quite a bit of video on my PC. As a result, I end up with black bars on the sides of what I'm watching.

Actually 2:35:1 movies which are 99% of all theatrical releases are almost a dead ringer for my screen aspect ratio. So I actually love watching movies on it. And as said I bought the tallest screen I can tolerate. If I bought a 16:9 with the same height it would be a loose loose situation.

Even worse, a lot of players will display 16:9 content in such a way as it doesn't even fill up the screen top to bottom.

Then maybe use a better player? Part of the reason I don't tolerate streaming services is that they all have proprietary players.

I have nothing against the aspect ratio in theory, but in practice I don't care for 21:9 displays. I've had one and ran it for at least a year and once the novelty wore off, I couldn't wait to ditch it.

Well you suggested you don't care for it because of game support, if you simply prefer a 4K TV on your desk, that's another thing. But game support in 2021 is not a reason to not have an ultrawide.

Part of why I wanted to go back to a larger format display was the ease of using a 16:9 display compared to ultrawides or multiple monitors in NVSurround or something like that.

I was always vehemently against ultrawide displays, until I bit the bullet and got one. And I couldn't be happier, even though it was the most expensive piece of hardware I ever purchased for my PC. I did try a 43" 4K TV as the display, and even a regular 4K monitor and thoroughly hated both. The TV was too tall, meaning I had to tilt my head up and down to cover the entire screen, which was terrible. And the 4K monitor was too high dpi which meant I had to use scaling on it, which defeated the purpose of 4K for productivity. So the 3840x1600 display I have now is the best of both worlds.

 

[MadMummy76]

Not exactly - the way that both Surround and Eyefinity work is that they trick the game/application/whatever into thinking that it's a single ultrawide screen. So while you may have 3x 1920x1200 screens attached, it tells your application/game you only have one 5760x1200 screen. Therefore how the application handles a multimonitor vs a single ultrawide setup should be identical.

You did not fully read my post? That's exactly my point. The hud problems you have when using 48:9 or 32:9 I never experienced on 24:10.

You are not going to have the same problems with a slightly longer then average car as with a stretch limo.

 

[Endgame]

You did not fully read my post? That's exactly my point. The hud problems you have when using 48:9 or 32:9 I never experienced on 24:10.

You are not going to have the same problems with a slightly longer then average car as with a stretch limo.

Using 3x screens in landscape was really a sub optimal variant of eyefinity. I was happiest running 3x Samsung 1600x1200 displays in portrait for 3600x1600 resolution, which is close to a standard ultra wide configuration.

it worked fine for which ever battlefield I was playing at the time, as well as Eve Online. Homeworld Remastered and Total War: Warhammer would just crash to desktop with that resolution. Mechwarrior online worked, but hud pieces, like the weapon group selector wound up at the bottom corner of the right screen. Not a deal breaker, but annoying. Master of Orion: CTS kind of worked with the eyefinity setup, but while the UI displayed, you couldn’t click on menu items that were displayed beyond 16x9 range. That was the last time I had the setup running- to play MoO, I moved back to my 30” 2560x1600 monitor and never ended up going back. It was so nice to just have every game actually work.

 

[Dan_D]

Then I must have missed them, because I had not seen a single game that came out recently that would not support ultrawide. As for old games that is understandable, but most popular games will have unofficial patches if you fancy playing old games on ultrawide.

Did I say it was a recent game? No I didn't. Although, the HUD doesn't necessarily do what you'd want it to even on some newer games.

I had purchased the tallest screen that I can tolerate. A 43" 4K is far too tall for me. It's real estate that I can't use, so what is the point in having it then?

Just because you can't use that real estate doesn't mean that I can't. It works better for me and for what I do with my machine. It's also more immersive than any 21:9 display I've ever used or seen, as it fills more peripheral vision while gaming.

As said I Never had this issue. The difference between 16:9 and my 24:10 aspect ratio is not that huge that the HUD would need to be completely redesigned in any game.

That's you. My experience has been different in the past.

Actually 2:35:1 movies which are 99% of all theatrical releases are almost a dead ringer for my screen aspect ratio. So I actually love watching movies on it. And as said I bought the tallest screen I can tolerate. If I bought a 16:9 with the same height it would be a loose loose situation.


Then maybe use a better player? Part of the reason I don't tolerate streaming services is that they all have proprietary players.

Wow, your viewpoint is so myopic its staggering. I'm not using VLC or anything like that. I'm just streaming content via Amazon Prime, Hulu, Netflix, etc. and using a 3440x1440 UW monitor, the content NEVER fit the screen right. On rare occasions it did, it was always a pleasant surprise. Some services were a bit better than others, but it was not a good experience. I could rarely use all my screen when streaming content. I have no control over how that stuff is displayed.

Well you suggested you don't care for it because of game support, if you simply prefer a 4K TV on your desk, that's another thing. But game support in 2021 is not a reason to not have an ultrawide.

I do not prefer a 4K TV on my desk. My 43" is a MONITOR. Not a TV. Game support was but one of the many reasons why I didn't like using an Ultrawide. Had you paid attention, you'd have noticed it was one of a long list of reasons. If I somehow made you think it was the main one, then that's my fault. My real issue is this: " Secondly, I dislike 21:9 aspect ratio displays because of their lack of vertical real-estate for productivity and even gaming. In that aspect ratio, I would need them to be quite a bit taller and therefore much larger in physical size to be as immersive as a 43"."

That clear enough for you?

I was always vehemently against ultrawide displays, until I bit the bullet and got one. And I couldn't be happier, even though it was the most expensive piece of hardware I ever purchased for my PC. I did try a 43" 4K TV as the display, and even a regular 4K monitor and thoroughly hated both. The TV was too tall, meaning I had to tilt my head up and down to cover the entire screen, which was terrible. And the 4K monitor was too high dpi which meant I had to use scaling on it, which defeated the purpose of 4K for productivity. So the 3840x1600 display I have now is the best of both worlds.

This is your experience, not mine. I had a 34" ultrawide and I didn't like it once the novelty wore off. In fact, the only improvement it had over a previous display was G-Sync. I don't have to tilt my head to use my 43" CG437K. It fits my peripheral vision perfectly for the distances I sit at. I don't even have to use font scaling with it. The Acer Predator 43" CG437K has been almost everything I could want in a display. It's the best compromise for what I like to do with my machine. I prefer it for gaming and productivity over a 34" display which I had for about the same amount of time as my current display.

If you like your display then good for you, but don't act like your statements are absolutes. They aren't. Neither are mine. Our eyes and preferences are all entirely subjective.

 

[David_Schroth]

You did not fully read my post? That's exactly my point. The hud problems you have when using 48:9 or 32:9 I never experienced on 24:10.

You are not going to have the same problems with a slightly longer then average car as with a stretch limo.

True - Having been on 32+:9 for so long, something like 24:10 is more or less square to me, so I could see how you don't have issues at that resolution. I literally have to turn my head to see gauges in games because the screen is 4' across (or 5' on my old setup).

 

[DrezKill]

I'm a big fan of 16:10 displays, and I'm sad they are all but gone. My previous primary display was 1920x1200, and I had one day been hoping to move to 2560x1600 (and then 3840x2400 at some point after that), but instead ended up on 1440p cuz you can't find decent modern 16:10 displays, especially with high refresh rates and VRR and whatever else. They still exist in some laptops and for professional-grade monitors, but you won't find normal consumer gaming-grade monitors in 16:10 format. This makes me very sad. I miss the extra vertical screen space, but I've started to get used to 16:9. It's been a trade-off for me - I lost 16:10 but I gained high refresh rate and VRR, and those last two ended up being very important to me after I lived with them. But if I could have everything I have now in my current monitor, but at 1600p instead of 1440p, I would have no complaints at all.

I never got into ultrawides. I do see their appeal for certain game types though. In the past I was captivated by Eyefinity setups.

I'm not a developer on Diablo II: Resurrected, but uh seems kinda f*cked up that they aren't willing to put in the work to get the game to work with a feature they originally said the game was going to ship with. I'm guessing Activision has something to do with that. In my opinion any game being released today, even a remaster of an old game, needs to fully support modern features, and that includes ultrawide resolutions. Maybe a community mod will fix things.

 

[Endgame]

I'm not a developer on Diablo II: Resurrected, but uh seems kinda f*cked up that they aren't willing to put in the work to get the game to work with a feature they originally said the game was going to ship with. I'm guessing Activision has something to do with that. In my opinion any game being released today, even a remaster of an old game, needs to fully support modern features, and that includes ultrawide resolutions. Maybe a community mod will fix things.

A big community draw for D2R is that it’s running on the original game engine. This means that old D2 save games still load, existing mods will still work, and game mechanics work exactly the same for faster attack / cast / recovery rate, among other things. if they dig too far into the core engine, it may end up breaking interactions that currently exist, making it less of a graphics remaster and more of a remake.

At 21:9 monsters don’t react to player actions for thing like casting spells, and some pvp skills have unexpected behavior. Limiting the game to 19:9 resolves those issues, and IMO is vastly preferable to tinkering with the core engine and breaking saves / mods / mechanics.

 

[DrezKill]

This means that old D2 save games still load, existing mods will still work, and game mechanics work exactly the same for faster attack / cast / recovery rate, among other things. if they dig too far into the core engine, it may end up breaking interactions that currently exist, making it less of a graphics remaster and more of a remake.

Aaaaaaahhhhhhh, gotcha.