bhcompy wrote on Feb 9, 2012, 23:53:

DangerDog wrote on Feb 9, 2012, 21:17:
This graphic tweak really helps make the games graphics not look like ass.

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/3967848172?page=1

The difference between the default muddy/blurry graphics and the sharper effect offered with this mini mod is night and day.

I was never a huge Diablo fan but it seems like they made changes to the way Diablo II was setup just for the sake of trying to be "different". Why piss in the soup and not just serve up the same soup with slightly better looking visuals.

Wait, they're using DX9? Jesus Christ. Is it still 2003?

One word: XP.

Fion wrote on Feb 10, 2012, 18:20:
You want a great example of Blizzard greed?

You cant sign up for D3 beta unless you have purchased a blizzard game on battle.net.

Isn't that only one option. I remember Facebook, sign ups, etc.

You want a great example of Blizzard greed?

You cant sign up for D3 beta unless you have purchased a blizzard game on battle.net.

Dev wrote on Feb 10, 2012, 14:55:
Warcraft 2 had a built in system for multiplayer over the internet where NOT everyone needed a cd.

Yup, they called it a "Spawn" install, it only allowed multiplayer play, and if I remember right they stopped doing it with Diablo 2 (with their Battle.net revamp), and I can't remember if StarCraft had it. WarCraft 2 and Diablo 1 both definitely supported spawn installs though.

CJ_Parker wrote on Feb 10, 2012, 14:00:
Bullshit. If they really wanted that they wouldn't even have had a CD check in the first place. But they did. It's why you needed one CD that everyone needed to have in their drive when launching the game for the first time. So why did they have a check if they wanted people to share? See. Bull-fucking-shit.

You obviously have never played the original warcraft 2 (and perhaps some of the others) and don't have a clue about how they worked. Warcraft 2 had a built in system for multiplayer over the internet where NOT everyone needed a cd. So its absolutely false that everyone needed a cd to launch. As I recall it was about 1 cd required for every 3 players in the internet game (NOT lan game). Those other 2 players could launch just fine without a cd or crack, and could play in multiplayer games.

Like I said, they used to want people to share.

As time went on, they got more and more strict about how they wanted to let people share and play, until today where each purchase of starcraft 2 locks to a unique battle net account which can't be used in 2 places at once, and the upcoming diablo 3 doesn't even have an offline mode.

Maybe YOU need to read up on facts before spewing false crap around.

CJ_Parker wrote on Feb 10, 2012, 14:00:
Seriously. Are you retarded? The very existence of Diablo, Warcraft and especially WoW is proof that Blizz was always in it for the MONEY and the MONEY first and foremost. They took popular genres like RPG, RTS and MMORPG and casualized the living fuck out of them in order to -guess what- make FUCKTONS of MONEY.

I think you are confused as to history. Again, perhaps YOU need to read up.
Warcraft 1 came out in 1994.
Command & Conquer came out in 1995.
Its arguable that warcraft 1 was what MADE the RTS popular. They didn't take it and cash in on an already popular genre. Even if you look at Dune 2, the genre really didn't become popular until after warcraft hit. At least one non gameplay factor is that fantasy is and always has been more popular than sci-fi.

Same thing with diablo, its arguable that diablo 1 release in 1996 made the hack n slash (or whatever you want to call it) genre popular on the PC.

Up until about the WoW timeframe, blizzard made a name for themselves that they cared about the customer. They wanted people to share their games like warcraft 2. They had a reputation of patching and supporting games long after release. In fact they updated diablo 2, (a 10+ year old game) within the last year or two, and not just bugs but added content.

Valve and Blizzard are some of the only PC devs left that have that good of a reputation for quality games (both companies only release when its done) and incredible customer support. For many people, any title out of those 2 companies is an instant buy.

For me however, blizzard started to lose its shine after WoW came out, after they got sold to vivendi, and after they got "merged" into activision. Regardless of what blizzard says, IMHO you can see activisions greed spreading through blizzard. Its a slow process, but I think blizzard has passed its peak (in terms of focusing on delivering good games vs focusing on trying to increase the money sucking factor). Diablo 3 looks more like a consolized and dumbed down game for the masses, especially compared to diablo 2.

This comment was edited on Feb 10, 2012, 15:33.

Dev wrote on Feb 10, 2012, 12:44:
Yeah... its a complete coincidence that they started to become more focused on money than customers at that time. That they started doing things like removing LAN play from starcraft 2. Making diablo 3 online only. Putting in real money auction house in D3. I'm not even touching on all the things they did in WoW to get more money.

Seriously. Are you retarded? The very existence of Diablo, Warcraft and especially WoW is proof that Blizz was always in it for the MONEY and the MONEY first and foremost. They took popular genres like RPG, RTS and MMORPG and casualized the living fuck out of them in order to -guess what- make FUCKTONS of MONEY.
And if you want to actually read up on some FACTS instead of spewing more BULLSHIT about how the Blizz and Activision connection is working then you might wanna check this:
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/interview-blizzard-2

Remember, this is the company that used to sell warcraft and starcraft that let you play multiple players on a lan with just 1 cd. They WANTED people to share the game with others back then.

Bullshit. If they really wanted that they wouldn't even have had a CD check in the first place. But they did. It's why you needed one CD that everyone needed to have in their drive when launching the game for the first time. So why did they have a check if they wanted people to share? See. Bull-fucking-shit.

Yakubs wrote on Feb 10, 2012, 09:11:

Prez wrote on Feb 10, 2012, 00:26:
I still, after all this time, can't believe Blizzard ever allowed themselves to become tangled up with dreadful Activision.

They aren't tangled up with Activision, really. Activision and Blizzard are "sister" companies with the same parent. It's not like Activision exerts control over Blizzard. They just share time at the conference call, basically.

Yeah... its a complete coincidence that they started to become more focused on money than customers at that time. That they started doing things like removing LAN play from starcraft 2. Making diablo 3 online only. Putting in real money auction house in D3. I'm not even touching on all the things they did in WoW to get more money.

Remember, this is the company that used to sell warcraft and starcraft that let you play multiple players on a lan with just 1 cd. They WANTED people to share the game with others back then.

Prez wrote on Feb 10, 2012, 00:26:
I still, after all this time, can't believe Blizzard ever allowed themselves to become tangled up with dreadful Activision.

They aren't tangled up with Activision, really. Activision and Blizzard are "sister" companies with the same parent. It's not like Activision exerts control over Blizzard. They just share time at the conference call, basically.

Prez wrote on Feb 10, 2012, 00:26:
I still, after all this time, can't believe Blizzard ever allowed themselves to become tangled up with dreadful Activision.

They never had a choice. Vivendi (which Blizzard was a part of) was merged with Activision and as part of a deal between Virgin and Activision.

Money begets more money.

Absolute Hell on Earth 2012.
Chaos. Rabble Rabble. Pandemonium.

I just looked at some of the screenshots, and it does look ugly. I'm so disappointed.
And what's that I hear? Static shadows? No light from spells? Yikes.

El Pit wrote on Feb 10, 2012, 00:37:

bhcompy wrote on Feb 9, 2012, 23:53:
Wait, they're using DX9? Jesus Christ. Is it still 2003?

Stop whining. I was expecting them to still use a 2D engine for Diablo III.

I wish they did. Modern 2D graphics would surely look better than this game that looks like the textures (and even some models) got directly taken from WoW.
Hell, Even Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale games still look better than that.

AS I SAID Q4 2013



AHHAHAHAHAHAHA AHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA AHHAHAHAHAHAHA AHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA AHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA AHHAHAHAHAHAHA AHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

PHJF wrote on Feb 10, 2012, 00:39:

And my point was more how many people around here complained that SC2 didn't bring anything "new" to the table, and was just a "rehash" of SC1.

Because RTS games have evolved in the years since StarCraft while the hack'n'slash hasn't. Nobody expects Blizzard to innovate, just to actually adopt modern features.

Just curious, do you happen to have a list of these 'evolutions'? I have Sc2, and I don't see it. I'm not saying that D3 is evolved either(I'm not in beta), but D2 as compared to D1 definitely was.

Dev wrote on Feb 9, 2012, 21:42:
This graphic tweak really helps make the games graphics not look like ass.

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/3967848172?page=1

The difference between the default muddy/blurry graphics and the sharper effect offered with this mini mod is night and day.

Nice. Now if only they'd say.. implement 1998 style static/dynamic lighting, (like Diablo 2 has), the game would really stop looking like ass. Static shadows drive me nuts. For god's sake the spell fx don't even generate their own light!

They 'only' lost 100k subscribers because WoW players (and several of them I count as friends) are dumb enough to pay for the game for a year just to get Diablo 3 for free. Not realizing perhaps that you could pay for D3, three times over in a year of $15 a month.

One of my friends is bored to death of the game but he won't leave simply because he has payed for the year. Funny thing is he doesn't give two shits about Diablo 3, he just wanted the mount so he and his wife payed for six accounts (them and their children and each has a second account) just so they could all have the mount, even though they never even play the game anymore. But of course because he signed up for the Annual Pass, he cannot cancel any of their accounts even if he wanted to. It's rather ridiculous.

This comment was edited on Feb 10, 2012, 01:59.

World of Warcraft is 7 years old it is pretty much all down hill from here. They pretty much explored and done all the major lore content and gone to both extremes with raiding. People are beginning to tire of Azeroth and there is nothing wrong with that. I am sure there is plenty of life left but its running its course.

And my point was more how many people around here complained that SC2 didn't bring anything "new" to the table, and was just a "rehash" of SC1.

Because RTS games have evolved in the years since StarCraft while the hack'n'slash hasn't. Nobody expects Blizzard to innovate, just to actually adopt modern features.

bhcompy wrote on Feb 9, 2012, 23:53:
Wait, they're using DX9? Jesus Christ. Is it still 2003?

Stop whining. I was expecting them to still use a 2D engine for Diablo III.

I still, after all this time, can't believe Blizzard ever allowed themselves to become tangled up with dreadful Activision.