>>712800164
IMO it's more than that. I find that almost all modern "cinema" is beset by "rules" that modern artists took from their art school classes, which is reductive to how things used to be made.
For Diablo II, someone clearly had an aspiration to something. Idk if it's a novel, or a series of movies they drew from, but the "vibe" of how they decided to depict the wanderer for example, you can tell it's a very deliberate cinematic choice to have him look so run-down and rugged, whereas the remake almost has too much an emphasis on making him "have excellent graphics" or some shit. Or rather, the motion capture of an actor is put in the emphasis because they want "emotion" but that isn't the point of the old direction.
The point in the old direction is to show archetypes, and depict a man who is beyond saving and living his days of old through fear and agony over horrors he's experienced.
In nu-slop cinema, whether it's vidya cutscenes or god-awful TV-shows, there's always a temptation to make someone say something "impactful" and then have sound effects over it that are meant to be like "OMG, BE IMPRESSED". Typically a cut-to-black with a "BWAAAAAAAM" sound to emphasise.... something, that boils down to "Wow. IMPACT."
Older vidyas had better taste, simply put. It was made be geeks with relatively low experience in any artistic field, but they were thinking of the best fucking movies and novels you can find, and they were adamant that the game needed to somehow achieve that same feeling. I wouldn't be surprised if D2 Remastered was directed by some 23 year olds in suits who talk PR-nonsense about how "The Darkness of the Evil World of Diablo is portrayed in the World Class Cinematics" or some shit.
It just doesn't have a 'touch' anymore. It feels "standardized".
