Yifes wrote on May 14, 2011, 12:30:

Muscular Beaver wrote on May 14, 2011, 06:42:
Quite the opposite. Diablos graphics were very well made in each game for its time. Just the resolution was too low after a few years. Have you played D1 or D2 with widescreen mods? They look absolutely fantastic, even today.

To be honest, a lot of the tilesets used to randomly generate the maps in D2 look terrible for that era, even at a higher resolutions. And most of the enemies, such as the brightly colored shamans, looked very cartoony. Seriously, my Sorc had a bright purple shield FFS. I remember this after all these years because I spent the entire time thinking just how ridiculous it looked. The only things that looked good were the unique structures and environments, and that is only because they are essentially hand drawn 2d paintings. The same difference can be seen when Bioware switched over to 3d. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, and the old infinity engine games had gorgeous hand painted backdrops that look fantastic even today. When they went to 3d, with NWN, KOTOR, Jade Empire, etc, the 3d graphics looked absolutely shit in comparison.


So yeah, D3 is 3D now. You can keep on whining and bitching about it, or get over it. I can't help but imagine the ppl bitching about D3 not being dark enough as bunch of angsty goths who shop at hot topic and still live in their mother's basements. "ZOMG THERE AREN"T ENOUGH PENTAGRAMS SO ITS NOT SUPER COOL ANYMORE!!!!!!!"

And yeah sure, it's not Blizzard North anymore. It's now Leonard Fucking Boyarsky of Fallout fame. You can't get better than that.

Well I'll ignore your offtopic BS and get to the only 2 points you had in there:
I never said I dont like 3D. 3D games nowadays can look far better (if they are not some console port crap) than the old 2D games. But D3 doesnt because it uses WoW style.
Hell, I even liked Dungeon Siege back then, even though it was one of the first 3D HnS games. It had virtually no story to tell, but it looked awesome, had good controls for a 3D game from that perspective and the graphics created an extremely dense atmosphere and made you feel like youre in the first fairy tale your grandma told you as a child.
D3 just doesnt look like Diablo anymore. Yes, Diablo had some glowing monsters and weapons here and there, but they didnt look out of line unless you had your brightness turned all the way up, in which case it indeed looked more like a my little pony game in bright daylight...

Yifes wrote on May 14, 2011, 12:30:
So yeah, D3 is 3D now. You can keep on whining and bitching about it, or get over it. I can't help but imagine the ppl bitching about D3 not being dark enough as bunch of angsty goths who shop at hot topic and still live in their mother's basements. "ZOMG THERE AREN"T ENOUGH PENTAGRAMS SO ITS NOT SUPER COOL ANYMORE!!!!!!!"

It must be difficult for you to accept other peoples opinions without insulting them. Have you considered counseling? ;-P

Muscular Beaver wrote on May 14, 2011, 06:42:
Quite the opposite. Diablos graphics were very well made in each game for its time. Just the resolution was too low after a few years. Have you played D1 or D2 with widescreen mods? They look absolutely fantastic, even today.

To be honest, a lot of the tilesets used to randomly generate the maps in D2 look terrible for that era, even at a higher resolutions. And most of the enemies, such as the brightly colored shamans, looked very cartoony. Seriously, my Sorc had a bright purple shield FFS. I remember this after all these years because I spent the entire time thinking just how ridiculous it looked. The only things that looked good were the unique structures and environments, and that is only because they are essentially hand drawn 2d paintings. The same difference can be seen when Bioware switched over to 3d. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, and the old infinity engine games had gorgeous hand painted backdrops that look fantastic even today. When they went to 3d, with NWN, KOTOR, Jade Empire, etc, the 3d graphics looked absolutely shit in comparison.


So yeah, D3 is 3D now. You can keep on whining and bitching about it, or get over it. I can't help but imagine the ppl bitching about D3 not being dark enough as bunch of angsty goths who shop at hot topic and still live in their mother's basements. "ZOMG THERE AREN"T ENOUGH PENTAGRAMS SO ITS NOT SUPER COOL ANYMORE!!!!!!!"

And yeah sure, it's not Blizzard North anymore. It's now Leonard Fucking Boyarsky of Fallout fame. You can't get better than that.

This comment was edited on May 14, 2011, 13:15.

eunichron wrote on May 13, 2011, 16:03:
Clearly, all of these people ranting about how Diablo 3 looks like WoW have never played a Diablo game before. It's not about immersion and flashy graphics. It's about spamming your spells to kill the 90194 bad guys that are trying to kill you, and picking up loot, then doing it all over again against harder enemies for better loot.

The graphics are fine. The gameplay will be fine. There's not many ways you can fuck up hack and slash.

Quite the opposite. Diablos graphics were very well made in each game for its time. Just the resolution was too low after a few years. Have you played D1 or D2 with widescreen mods? They look absolutely fantastic, even today.
Ive played WoW since release and thus know very well what WoW graphics look like. When I look a D3 screenshots I always have to think about WoW. Even some models seem to be ported directly into D3 from WoW.
Diablo was immersive, but that was mainly due to the very dark and realistic design. D3 doesnt look nearly as dark or realistic. It looks cartooney, just like WoW. No wonder, this isnt Blizzard North anymore (what most fanboys dont know either).

But I have aready learned that Blizzard fanboys are amongst the worst, so dont feel obligated to answer to this post because you will only support my opinion.

Slashman wrote on May 14, 2011, 00:39:
What does any of that have to do with making the game look better? What does any of that have to do with adding some new things...like more environmental interactivity?

It's not about fundamentally changing the formula. How about just expanding on it in a meaningful way?

Note: I'm not trying to defend Diablo, because I'm not much a fan of the genre, and I really haven't been following the development of the game.

As a casual observer though, I have noticed that they've expanded on D2 in quite a few meaningful ways, such as much more impressive boss fights/mechanics, crafting, PVP (a HUGE one for me), and now the much deeper and improved follower system.

The problem you seem to have with D3 and SC2, is that you have a vision of what needs changing/improving that does not match with Blizzard's. As I've addressed in the previous thread, Blizzard made quite a few improvements to SC2, more so than in most sequels I'd argue. They kept a lot of the defining characteristics of the original, and because you did not enjoy/appreciate these features, you felt disappointed.

Yifes wrote on May 13, 2011, 22:31:

Slashman wrote on May 13, 2011, 21:04:
They are in a better position than any other company to dictate the course of the RTS and action-RPG genres and yet they consistently choose to do nothing new. All the polish in the world doesn't make that any less lame IMO.

New isn't better. People play Blizzard's games once for the story, and they keep playing for the next 10 years because of the gameplay. The multiplayer and competitive communities are the core audience, and it's they who keep these games relevant and popular for all these years. They would have a fit if you changed fundamental mechanics just for the hell of it. You don't see Capcom messing with Street Fighter just because some casual gamers are tired of quarter circle forward.

What does any of that have to do with making the game look better? What does any of that have to do with adding some new things...like more environmental interactivity?

It's not about fundamentally changing the formula. How about just expanding on it in a meaningful way?

RollinThundr wrote on May 13, 2011, 18:42:

Mcboinkens wrote on May 13, 2011, 14:36:
What? It looks fine. Some people need to reinstall D2 and then watch the new D3 videos, it's a pretty ridiculous statement to say that D3 is "consolized". I mean, yeah the spells look prettier, but thats what happens when you make the world truly 3D, it opens up a whole new art path.

Jesus, some of the excuses blizfanboys come up with are great. I've played plenty of 3d RPG's/ARPG's that have had far shorter dev cycles that look far better than DIII.

If an Ubisoft, or an EA took 5+ years to make a game and it ended up just being a rehash of a previous game with slightly better graphics, they would get absolutely lambasted for it. Blizzard does it and they get praised. It's beyond the point of silly.

Blizzard can keep D3, mindless clickfest were awesome 10 years ago, now? I'd rather play something with a bit more depth to it.

You clearly misunderstood what I was saying. I was just saying that it did not really look consolized in any sense. It has more color, but D2 wasn't exactly dark and dreary. There were pretty many colors splashing throughout the screen, its just that most of us had such terrible monitors it was hard to notice. Sure it doesn't look life changing from the aesthetics department, but it looks like it will be fine. The development time is quite strange though, I imagine they had been planning on doing a D3 from the start based on the success of 1 and 2.

Was barely satisfied with SC2 (stopped playing 6 months ago?) and D3 looks like D2 with improved graphics and truly bad character choices. Yeesh. I don't see what's so amazing about any of the "D3 videos" (stopped watching those about 2 months ago). It looks like a new generation of little kids will have something nice to say about it.

Slashman wrote on May 13, 2011, 21:04:
They are in a better position than any other company to dictate the course of the RTS and action-RPG genres and yet they consistently choose to do nothing new. All the polish in the world doesn't make that any less lame IMO.

New isn't better. People play Blizzard's games once for the story, and they keep playing for the next 10 years because of the gameplay. The multiplayer and competitive communities are the core audience, and it's they who keep these games relevant and popular for all these years. They would have a fit if you changed fundamental mechanics just for the hell of it. You don't see Capcom messing with Street Fighter just because some casual gamers are tired of quarter circle forward.

This comment was edited on May 13, 2011, 22:48.

Cutter wrote on May 13, 2011, 19:43:
Blizzard does story well and their games ooze character. They release solid, well made products, and that takes time. Whereas EA releases the same crap year after year with a different name. They constantly shove products out the door ready to go or - more often - not, Blizzard doesn't. I'll agree they may take a little too much time, but better than than the alternative.

You know that's what's been eluding me in the other D3 thread.

I guess I just couldn't find the right words exactly.

Blizzard tells a great story with a lot of the right elements. But it feels like their games are lagging behind the stories they tell.

They make some great cut scenes in their games that really grip you...but it often feels like their game engine and some of their other game elements are incapable of properly expressing it.

I love polished games as much as the next ravenous PC gamer, but I have yet to have someone adequately explain to me why a company that can afford to spend 6 months getting the look and feel of a character just right(and completely scrap it and start again if they aren't 100% satisfied) can't put some more effort into other areas.

They are in a better position than any other company to dictate the course of the RTS and action-RPG genres and yet they consistently choose to do nothing new. All the polish in the world doesn't make that any less lame IMO.

Blizzard does story well and their games ooze character. They release solid, well made products, and that takes time. Whereas EA releases the same crap year after year with a different name. They constantly shove products out the door ready to go or - more often - not, Blizzard doesn't. I'll agree they may take a little too much time, but better than than the alternative.

*eye roll* they added more rune words or socket types or a new way to enchant items? yay thats so much depth!

I'm not sure why you think they are just remaking Diablo 2 with new runewords or enchants but that couldn't be farther from the truth. The presence of popular features that fans have come to expect in your product doesn't mean they aren't adding other things to the game. Blizzard games are usually very well polished, supported and are highly accessible which explains why people like their games more than derivative offerings from other publishers. If you want to make a career out of pointing out peoples hypocrisy on the internet then more power to you but I dare say you're fighting a pointless battle for a crime that you're probably guilty of too.

Dades wrote on May 13, 2011, 18:45:

Blizzard can keep D3, mindless clickfest were awesome 10 years ago, now? I'd rather play something with a bit more depth to it.

It's a good thing they've put more depth in then isn't it? Ubisoft and EA continually rehash their various franchises all the time and have been doing so for years. Blizzard just does a better job at it and tend to make fun games that appeal to a lot of people. I'm not sure why that threatens you so much but perhaps you should wait for some reviews and keep an open mind.

*eye roll* they added more rune words or socket types or a new way to enchant items? yay thats so much depth!

It hardly threatens me one bit, I just find it odd that the same people that bitch on BN about <insert publisher here> rehashing the same ol same ol, praises Blizzard for doing the same thing, taking 5 times as long, and the game ends up looking like ass with little to no innovation. Like I said, it won't personally affect me since I won't be buying D3, just an observation on why I find Blizzard to be extremely overrated.

Blizzard can keep D3, mindless clickfest were awesome 10 years ago, now? I'd rather play something with a bit more depth to it.

It's a good thing they've put more depth in then isn't it? Ubisoft and EA continually rehash their various franchises all the time and have been doing so for years. Blizzard just does a better job at it and tend to make fun games that appeal to a lot of people. I'm not sure why that threatens you so much but perhaps you should wait for some reviews and keep an open mind.

Mcboinkens wrote on May 13, 2011, 14:36:
What? It looks fine. Some people need to reinstall D2 and then watch the new D3 videos, it's a pretty ridiculous statement to say that D3 is "consolized". I mean, yeah the spells look prettier, but thats what happens when you make the world truly 3D, it opens up a whole new art path.

Jesus, some of the excuses blizfanboys come up with are great. I've played plenty of 3d RPG's/ARPG's that have had far shorter dev cycles that look far better than DIII.

If an Ubisoft, or an EA took 5+ years to make a game and it ended up just being a rehash of a previous game with slightly better graphics, they would get absolutely lambasted for it. Blizzard does it and they get praised. It's beyond the point of silly.

Blizzard can keep D3, mindless clickfest were awesome 10 years ago, now? I'd rather play something with a bit more depth to it.

Mcboinkens wrote on May 13, 2011, 14:36:
What? It looks fine. Some people need to reinstall D2 and then watch the new D3 videos, it's a pretty ridiculous statement to say that D3 is "consolized". I mean, yeah the spells look prettier, but thats what happens when you make the world truly 3D, it opens up a whole new art path.

Don't worry, all the whiners will be the first ones to run out and buy it on day 1.

Don't tell me they had a different team, because all D3 is, is WoW look, skinned SC2 units with different animations, and money to pay their employees from WOW

Do you know how I know you're an idiot?

The graphics are fine. The gameplay will be fine. There's not many ways you can fuck up hack and slash.

Not sure I agree with the second part there. Hack and slash is very difficult to get right, it's about more than just the raw gameplay otherwise everyone would still be playing infinite dungeon mods for Torchlight. People need the story, good environmental design and everything else. It's why no one else has replicated Diablo's success or even come close.

eunichron wrote on May 13, 2011, 16:03:
Clearly, all of these people ranting about how Diablo 3 looks like WoW have never played a Diablo game before. It's not about immersion and flashy graphics. It's about spamming your spells to kill the 90194 bad guys that are trying to kill you, and picking up loot, then doing it all over again against harder enemies for better loot.

The graphics are fine. The gameplay will be fine. There's not many ways you can fuck up hack and slash.

I agree, and I'm looking forward to Diablo 3, but it begs the question... what exactly is taking them so long?

Clearly, all of these people ranting about how Diablo 3 looks like WoW have never played a Diablo game before. It's not about immersion and flashy graphics. It's about spamming your spells to kill the 90194 bad guys that are trying to kill you, and picking up loot, then doing it all over again against harder enemies for better loot.

The graphics are fine. The gameplay will be fine. There's not many ways you can fuck up hack and slash.