iatemyelf :
considering the blizzard north version of diablo 3, the one i'm referring to, was never released, we'll never know if it lived up to diablo 2. also, the phrase "live up to" is pretty relative. considering also that it would have been released 10 years ago, criticism of the game would probably not have been as harsh because they wait between d2 and d3 would've been much shorter. i have never heard a diablo fan say they'd prefer an expansion to d2 over d3, at least not until after this iteration of d3 was released.
The D3 was remade because they could not get the quality they had from d2, or that was the official explanation.
And all i know wanted a diablo 3 just like diablo 2 with better graphic, and the story continued, and for me that sound like an expansion.
I played diablo 2 for almost 5 year, and a lot of my friends kept on playing til the diablo 3 was released.
The gameplay works just like they wanted, But they had a very bad launch. There is some problem like the auction house, but it was made because they wanted those there was not able to play that much, to be able to buy what they needed. And they wanted the gold to be more valid, than it was in Diablo 2. in other words they wanted the game to be less grindy.
The big problem is, a lot have an romantic idé on how diablo 2 was, but the matter of fact was, that diablo 2, was one big grind, and a horrible trading system. And they tried to make the game better, but the problem is, the fans did not want changes, they wanted the same game with better graphic.
Therefor they could not make a better game in the eyes of the fans, because that, which would make the game better, would end up be a bad thing for the game in the eyes of the fans.
By the way fans means fanatics, and you can't make changes without those fanatics going crazy.