it makes me sad at how poor the graphics are, there nearly as bad as WoW graphics, and they have the same style, also the classes look shit, i hope they dont screw this one up because the series is awesome so far, but it doesnt look good...
rape me once, shame on you... rape me twice and ill poo on your dick.
I would like to see some links to some kick ass D3 content on the main page, I know I spent many hours finding every piece of video/screen released for a while there.
This is the longest gameplay video i've found, being 12 minutes long.
So far, the ground textures are kinda gross. They need some work (Although it's alpha) I really hope blizzard REALLY exceeds the graphics implemented in starcraft 2. To be honest, their quite dissapointing and it's not like the Diablo series is visually demanding. They could do much much more.
Blizzard made 3 strong games StarCraft, Warcraft and Diablo... They have all been very successful in past but they are now making and programing all 3 of those simultaneously so I hope it doesn't affect quality of games I have to admit I am little disappointed with SC2 because game now is to much automated I hope same doesn't happen to D3 (but that is not strategy so lesser chances to fail) I am very eager with anticipation of D3 I'd really like to play it so I shall wait for it hoping it doesn't get delayed because of 2 much games creating.
Happy Lauchday Diablo 2, off I go to play it a little :D
I am actually more looking forward the D3 than SC2. I love D2 because you can just play casually and have loads of fun, and then forget about it, and pick it up again whenever you are bored.
When you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it.
On June 30 2010 20:42 Phayze wrote: I would like to see some links to some kick ass D3 content on the main page, I know I spent many hours finding every piece of video/screen released for a while there.
This is the longest gameplay video i've found, being 12 minutes long.
So far, the ground textures are kinda gross. They need some work (Although it's alpha) I really hope blizzard REALLY exceeds the graphics implemented in starcraft 2. To be honest, their quite dissapointing and it's not like the Diablo series is visually demanding. They could do much much more.
This actually looks pretty stupid. It's like a merge between D2 and WC3
I was hoping for much more epic graphics (yea it's my first time seeing anything D3 related)
When you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it.
Baksteen Netherlands. June 30 2010 21:12. Posts 436
On June 30 2010 21:11 Cambium wrote: I am actually more looking forward the D3 than SC2. I love D2 because you can just play casually and have loads of fun, and then forget about it, and pick it up again whenever you are bored.
What about custom maps for sc2
SC2 has it all!
Derp Derp Derp
Worstcase Switzerland. June 30 2010 21:47. Posts 45
Gimme gimme gimme gimme... Diablo 2 was the first game I played serious and I can't wait for Diablo 3, I think I will start a Cult to worship this game when it's out.
Just the tip of the iceberg...
moon` United States. June 30 2010 21:49. Posts 372
I am hyped for this game. Sadly, I can't play D2 because it feels so archaic. maybe I should give it a chance like going back to BW despite its old school mechanics.
Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like pandabearguy.
On June 30 2010 20:42 Phayze wrote: I would like to see some links to some kick ass D3 content on the main page, I know I spent many hours finding every piece of video/screen released for a while there.
This is the longest gameplay video i've found, being 12 minutes long.
So far, the ground textures are kinda gross. They need some work (Although it's alpha) I really hope blizzard REALLY exceeds the graphics implemented in starcraft 2. To be honest, their quite dissapointing and it's not like the Diablo series is visually demanding. They could do much much more.
This actually looks pretty stupid. It's like a merge between D2 and WC3
I was hoping for much more epic graphics (yea it's my first time seeing anything D3 related)
Do note, that was like SUPER alpha. The skills and abilities for the Monk class probably arent even NEAR fully developed. And the gameplay shown was merely a little solo explore fest with some multiplayer thrown in there. What made diablo a truely amazing game to play was the ability to play this game with 7 other people. Sure there was games like Everquest 1, or Ultima, but this gave players a chance to experience a whole new world that wasn't excruciating to play, or heavily penalizing when you died. It really revolutionized the RPG genre. But I truely do hope that the graphics really step up signifigantly. If thats even near the end product, or the end product looks like Starcraft II (in graphics quality) I will be heavily disappointed in blizzard.
On June 30 2010 20:42 Phayze wrote: I would like to see some links to some kick ass D3 content on the main page, I know I spent many hours finding every piece of video/screen released for a while there.
This is the longest gameplay video i've found, being 12 minutes long.
So far, the ground textures are kinda gross. They need some work (Although it's alpha) I really hope blizzard REALLY exceeds the graphics implemented in starcraft 2. To be honest, their quite dissapointing and it's not like the Diablo series is visually demanding. They could do much much more.
This actually looks pretty stupid. It's like a merge between D2 and WC3
I was hoping for much more epic graphics (yea it's my first time seeing anything D3 related)
What's wrong with the graphics? They're in all likelihood using filler textures for the moment, there's plenty of effects to ooh and aah at in the heat of battle without (at least not in the video) hiding everything you need to see. It's too early to say much, really, but I personally think it's looking good so far.
Amateurish. Nearsighted. A waste of my time and everyone else's.
They just aren't up to par to the past few years standard of graphics. Especially if they're anything like Starcraft 2's graphics. Starcraft 2 looks like a 4 year old game (Even games like command and conquer 3 are graphically superior) If diablo 3 follows this trend it's simply not going to look nearly as appealing Alak. But I have complete faith that the textures in the video I posted are not NEAR completion and as you said are just "filler textures". I just also understand that Blizzard clearly isnt pushing the envelope so to say.
Proud member of the LGA-1366 Core-i7 4Ghz Club
Highways Australia. June 30 2010 22:31. Posts 5742
On June 30 2010 10:51 Khenra wrote: Guys I've got a question about Diablo 2..
So I would like to complete the single player game on Hell difficulty as if Diablo2 just came out. This means no Lord of Destruction and no patches that alter gameplay. However, in order to make Diablo2 run on my Vista, I need to install some patch..
So, is it not possible to play the original game anymore? Using the current patch there is the option to respec and some skills have been rebalanced. This is what I don't want. Is it possible to play on Vista without these alterations?
I'm not sure if this has been answered but what you can do is install a virtual machine with xp on you pc if you really want to play older games that Vista struggles with. Vista should come with the software needed
im a roc United States. June 30 2010 22:46. Posts 661
On June 30 2010 07:05 Insanious wrote: @Phil they have different development teams on each game. This means that they can produce the 3 games simultaneously + new content without taking away from any other game. All programmers at Blizz do not work only on WoW then all on SC2 then back on WOW then all on D3, that would be counter productive
There is some crossover. As I understand it, a few devs will get pulled onto projects closer to release to help with meeting the deadlines. For the most part, though, they are separate. There's also crossover with the art and lore departments, although I don't know to what extent. I'm pretty sure Samwise/Metzen have done work on all three franchises (check old podcasts).
I think that there is just a Lore and an Art department, I don't think they are franchise specific at all. They might be focusing their attention on one game in particular for a while, but they still aren't tethered to any one IP. (Unless you count the WoW quest team as lore related...)
On June 30 2010 22:15 Phayze wrote: They just aren't up to par to the past few years standard of graphics. Especially if they're anything like Starcraft 2's graphics. Starcraft 2 looks like a 4 year old game (Even games like command and conquer 3 are graphically superior) If diablo 3 follows this trend it's simply not going to look nearly as appealing Alak. But I have complete faith that the textures in the video I posted are not NEAR completion and as you said are just "filler textures". I just also understand that Blizzard clearly isnt pushing the envelope so to say.
Like everyone else said, yeah, I'm sure almost everything we've seen is still just placeholder stuff. Even if it isn't, the effects tied to the special abilities have impressed me so far, even if they are still a bit simplistic now (but again, it will improve). Another reason they might intentionally let graphics suffer a bit is if they decide to go overboard with the number of enemies on the screen at any given time. If it's going to become a crazy never ending stream of monsters every step you take, then graphics will have to be toned down. I really hope they don't do that though...
On June 30 2010 22:31 Highways wrote: Diablo is for noobs.
Might as well play The Sims.
But I like The Sims....
"If a game doesn't require hundreds of hours of time studying and training to improve, it's awful." That's what I hear from this, but I guess crazy power gamers are like that though. If I'm not willing to put all of my effort into SC2 because it just seems to exhausting to me at the time, I will happily switch over to D3 and I will enjoy myself.
Beware The Proxy Pool Rush
Ikiron United States. June 30 2010 22:47. Posts 88
On June 30 2010 22:15 Phayze wrote: They just aren't up to par to the past few years standard of graphics. Especially if they're anything like Starcraft 2's graphics. Starcraft 2 looks like a 4 year old game (Even games like command and conquer 3 are graphically superior) If diablo 3 follows this trend it's simply not going to look nearly as appealing Alak. But I have complete faith that the textures in the video I posted are not NEAR completion and as you said are just "filler textures". I just also understand that Blizzard clearly isnt pushing the envelope so to say.
Why does a mass majority of people believe graphics > game play or any other game factor. If you compare BW graphics to game graphics today I bet you think BW is a shit game right? Don't knock a game for its graphics, but for what it really matters. The game-play.
Why be the best when you can die like the rest.
im a roc United States. June 30 2010 22:50. Posts 661
On June 30 2010 22:15 Phayze wrote: They just aren't up to par to the past few years standard of graphics. Especially if they're anything like Starcraft 2's graphics. Starcraft 2 looks like a 4 year old game (Even games like command and conquer 3 are graphically superior) If diablo 3 follows this trend it's simply not going to look nearly as appealing Alak. But I have complete faith that the textures in the video I posted are not NEAR completion and as you said are just "filler textures". I just also understand that Blizzard clearly isnt pushing the envelope so to say.
Why does a mass majority of people believe graphics > game play or any other game factor. If you compare BW graphics to game graphics today I bet you think BW is a shit game right? Don't knock a game for its graphics, but for what it really matters. The game-play.
For RTSes, this is very true, but in a game like Diablo, the gameplay isn't really the most interesting, admittedly. I think graphics are fairly vital to the success of D3, especially if they continue gearing it toward casuals who judge a game in its entirety by graphics.
Beware The Proxy Pool Rush
Ikiron United States. June 30 2010 23:00. Posts 88
On June 30 2010 22:15 Phayze wrote: They just aren't up to par to the past few years standard of graphics. Especially if they're anything like Starcraft 2's graphics. Starcraft 2 looks like a 4 year old game (Even games like command and conquer 3 are graphically superior) If diablo 3 follows this trend it's simply not going to look nearly as appealing Alak. But I have complete faith that the textures in the video I posted are not NEAR completion and as you said are just "filler textures". I just also understand that Blizzard clearly isnt pushing the envelope so to say.
Why does a mass majority of people believe graphics > game play or any other game factor. If you compare BW graphics to game graphics today I bet you think BW is a shit game right? Don't knock a game for its graphics, but for what it really matters. The game-play.
For RTSes, this is very true, but in a game like Diablo, the gameplay isn't really the most interesting, admittedly. I think graphics are fairly vital to the success of D3, especially if they continue gearing it toward casuals who judge a game in its entirety by graphics.
Well if casuals judged a game soley by its graphics I doubt Wii would of had any success. RTS is a different story where the game play is all that really is needed. Hell, if D3 was text based but it somehow had awesome game play I would pay for it since I value game play over graphics any day that's why I own most of my old consoles.
On June 30 2010 22:15 Phayze wrote: They just aren't up to par to the past few years standard of graphics. Especially if they're anything like Starcraft 2's graphics. Starcraft 2 looks like a 4 year old game (Even games like command and conquer 3 are graphically superior) If diablo 3 follows this trend it's simply not going to look nearly as appealing Alak. But I have complete faith that the textures in the video I posted are not NEAR completion and as you said are just "filler textures". I just also understand that Blizzard clearly isnt pushing the envelope so to say.
Why does a mass majority of people believe graphics > game play or any other game factor. If you compare BW graphics to game graphics today I bet you think BW is a shit game right? Don't knock a game for its graphics, but for what it really matters. The game-play.
For RTSes, this is very true, but in a game like Diablo, the gameplay isn't really the most interesting, admittedly. I think graphics are fairly vital to the success of D3, especially if they continue gearing it toward casuals who judge a game in its entirety by graphics.
I agree that the graphics are important for D3, but more in the way of good art direction and keeping it crisp and playable throughout the chaos of a gazillion spell effects and enemies on the screen at the same time. Getting the right ambience and setting the proper mood is key here. The art direction they seem to have taken is a step away from the more "realistic" design prevalent in many games (albeit perhaps not in fantasy games). People have been complaining about the "WoWness" of the graphics, most likely due to a severe allergy against any kind of color saturation, which I think is really unfair. The demos we've seen are low res and unpolished, but I'm pleased with the art direction all in all. Not saying that pushing the limit of the latest shaders is a bad thing, it's just not the end of the world if it doesn't happen.
Amateurish. Nearsighted. A waste of my time and everyone else's.
im a roc United States. June 30 2010 23:21. Posts 661
On June 30 2010 22:15 Phayze wrote: They just aren't up to par to the past few years standard of graphics. Especially if they're anything like Starcraft 2's graphics. Starcraft 2 looks like a 4 year old game (Even games like command and conquer 3 are graphically superior) If diablo 3 follows this trend it's simply not going to look nearly as appealing Alak. But I have complete faith that the textures in the video I posted are not NEAR completion and as you said are just "filler textures". I just also understand that Blizzard clearly isnt pushing the envelope so to say.
Why does a mass majority of people believe graphics > game play or any other game factor. If you compare BW graphics to game graphics today I bet you think BW is a shit game right? Don't knock a game for its graphics, but for what it really matters. The game-play.
For RTSes, this is very true, but in a game like Diablo, the gameplay isn't really the most interesting, admittedly. I think graphics are fairly vital to the success of D3, especially if they continue gearing it toward casuals who judge a game in its entirety by graphics.
I agree that the graphics are important for D3, but more in the way of good art direction and keeping it crisp and playable throughout the chaos of a gazillion spell effects and enemies on the screen at the same time. Getting the right ambience and setting the proper mood is key here. The art direction they seem to have taken is a step away from the more "realistic" design prevalent in many games (albeit perhaps not in fantasy games). People have been complaining about the "WoWness" of the graphics, most likely due to a severe allergy against any kind of color saturation, which I think is really unfair. The demos we've seen are low res and unpolished, but I'm pleased with the art direction all in all. Not saying that pushing the limit of the latest shaders is a bad thing, it's just not the end of the world if it doesn't happen.
Isn't the point of Diablo that it's SUPPOSED to be the end of the world?
Seriously, though, I agree. I really love the art direction so far. Blizzard is doing most of the right things to maintain the same tone as they've had in the earlier games. I was a hardcore D2 fan, so just the fact that it's not 2 dimensional anymore makes me satisfied that the graphics are dramatically improved, and I just want them to maintain the feeling with the correct color pallet and stylistic details.
Store
