Yes WoW is 6-7 years behind. Legend of Conan? Do you mean Age of Conan? You're obviously blind... AoC is damn near photo-realistic on high settings.
You are the average gamer that doesn't understand what, graphically, next-gen really means.
Crysis has better graphics than D3, Half-Life 2 does as well. Team Fortress 2.
These are games that make use of the newest technologies to further enhance the graphics quality. Every edge, every leaf, every blade of grass is in perfect 3d view.
In the D3 trailer, you can clearly see some evidence of Blizzard's flat art work. As they exit the dungeon, the tree root is just flat and painted on. In a true game of current or next gen quality that root would be rendered in full 3d. This is only one example.
Oh lets nit pick because it's 4am and I forgot the name...
Yes I'm the average gamer :rolleyes: I've played or experienced nearly every MMO out there.
I said similar games. D3 is a isometric hack and slash. Those others aren't even close to the same genre.
I prefer that I actually am able to play the game without having to buy a new computer and my computer isn't even that bad.
It's not meant to be fully rendered, you know how bad that'd piss everyone off? If it turned into a fully rendered FPS typed game...
Hate to inform you but the graphics they are using for D3 are at least 6-7 years behind in terms of development. This isn't a bad thing, but I have high hopes they will do to D3 what happened to SC2 when fans spoke out. A little extra work to give textures depth couldn't hurt Blizzard.
6-7 years behind.....what the...:confused: ?
MAXIMUM HYPERBOLE!
Their version of the havok physics engine could have only been done recently, hardly "6-7 years behind." Im sorry, but you have failed greatly with that statement.
So according to you these graphics would have been common every-day PC graphics back in '01 when LOD came out?
Yeah......maybe in an alternate reality. :rolleyes:
Please realize that Diablo III is still in alpha stage, (meaning graphics will improve.) and still in my opinion, looks alot better than Diablo 2 looked for it's time.
Their version of the havok physics engine could have only been done recently, hardly "6-7 years behind." Im sorry, but you have failed greatly with that statement.
So according to you these graphics would have been common every-day PC graphics back in '01 when LOD came out?
Yeah......maybe in an alternate reality. :rolleyes:
Please realize that Diablo III is still in alpha stage, (meaning graphics will improve.) and still in my opinion, looks alot better than Diablo 2 looked for it's time.
Looks exactly the same as Warcraft 3, the only thing updated in the engine was physics other than that they just tossed on specular lighting, screen glow, more detail in shadows. They forgot all the good stuff again, like bumpmapping. Everything else is at the hands of the Blizzard art team. They've gotten better, but I know they can do far better judging by SC2.
Looks exactly the same as Warcraft 3, the only thing updated in the engine was physics other than that they just tossed on specular lighting, screen glow, more detail in shadows. They forgot all the good stuff again, like bumpmapping. Everything else is at the hands of the Blizzard art team. They've gotten better, but I know they can do far better judging by SC2.
D3 looks like WC3? Are you serious? WC3 is a RTS not a HacknSlash. :rolleyes:
To clarify beforehand, because someone will get upset and claim that can't possibly be true.
By graphically I mean the 3d objects surrounded by flat textures.
The reason D3 looks so.. Meh, "pretty", is due to specular lighting, screen glow, and a sign that Blizzard is in fact getting better at doing their texturing.
Yes, wow's graphics are at least 6-7 years behind. I'd go as far as to say 8-9. They have to be though. How the fuck are you going to get an 15 million user bases without being able to run on a 6 year old home computer(not a gaming rig)?
The same goes for Diablo III. The graphics ARE dated. so were Diablo II's. Trying to debate that is fucking stupid, and irrelevant. I'm sick of this per gamer elitism. Maybe its my politics, but I feel like DIablo III should run on as many computers as possible. It should also come out as soon as possible, which would mean maybe skipping that last 3 months of graphical polish.
D3 might not be what you want it to be but it's nothing like WC3...
Quote from "nzkobc" »
Yes, wow's graphics are at least 6-7 years behind. I'd go as far as to say 8-9. They have to be though. How the fuck are you going to get an 15 million user bases without being able to run on a 6 year old home computer(not a gaming rig)?
The same goes for Diablo III. The graphics ARE dated. so were Diablo II's. Trying to debate that is fucking stupid, and irrelevant. I'm sick of this per gamer elitism. Maybe its my politics, but I feel like DIablo III should run on as many computers as possible. It should also come out as soon as possible, which would mean maybe skipping that last 3 months of graphical polish.
I said that earlier...
Quote from "Me" »
I prefer that I actually am able to play the game without having to buy a new computer and my computer isn't even that bad.
Yes, wow's graphics are at least 6-7 years behind. I'd go as far as to say 8-9. They have to be though. How the fuck are you going to get an 15 million user bases without being able to run on a 6 year old home computer(not a gaming rig)?
The same goes for Diablo III. The graphics ARE dated. so were Diablo II's. Trying to debate that is fucking stupid, and irrelevant. I'm sick of this per gamer elitism. Maybe its my politics, but I feel like DIablo III should run on as many computers as possible. It should also come out as soon as possible, which would mean maybe skipping that last 3 months of graphical polish.
I said that earlier...
Quote from "Me" »
I prefer that I actually am able to play the game without having to buy a new computer and my computer isn't even that bad.
If you want to compare/contrast on teh originality both games did, Diablo Storyline wins by a longshot
Who said anything about originality? Don't put words in my mouth!
Quote from "Daemaro" »
God of War doesn't even have item drops. It's not really comparable.
I gave you 7 good reason why the two games are highly comparable! What more do you want, my immortal soul?
Quote from "Veritech017" »
I actually don't see the similarities in art direction... Not even a little.
The fact that there's more colour "to convey mood", something that GoW used a lot. Also, just look at that big statue holding up the platform when the Barbarian first enters the dungeon, if you still don't see it, well...
Quote from "Veritech017" »
Looks exactly the same as Warcraft 3
Wow man, go see an optician pronto before your vision deteriorates further
Okay seriously, yes, both have relatively flat game worlds, but the world needs to be relatively flat because Diablo is viewed from a top-down perspective, just like Warcraft. It's a totally reasonable design choice, nothing to do with art direction. Otherwise Diablo 3 is so much better looking than Warcraft 3 (trust me, I played it yesterday) that they're not even comparable.
Quote from "Nihilanth45" »
Please stop about diablo 3 and realism.
Yep - one word: Whirlwind. And don't get me started on those poison cloud javelins. Mabye Diablo 1 had a sort of "realism in the fantasy world" but Diablo 2 has strayed away from it's roots, and you can't really complain just because Diablo 3 isn't returning to them. Diablo 2 was epic and God of War was epic - their love child is Diablo 3, and it's gunna be epic!
Games like Diablo and Dungeon Keeper wouldn't even exist if it hadn't of been for a nice little movie released in 1985 called LEGEND, which involved a hero venturing into the deepest dungeons to do battle against a big red demon called the Lord of Darkness.
Clip: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VuVg3P7oIwY
As you can see, even the base concept of the first game wasn't something unique to itself. So why kvetch about things like certain style elements that are quite popular being brought in to improve upon things? The Barbarian is a big hulking engine of physical destruction. That's his(or her) bag.
I guess God of War = WoW then. Because God of War has color and vibrancy.
By relation, according to the petitioners, God of War is gay and WoWish because it's not dark and brooding enough.
Brzzzt. Incorrect.
It's painfully obvious that people have a hard time discerning the difference between influence and copy. I'll give you a hint.
Diablo 3? Influenced by Diablo 2, God of War, and WoW.
Limbo of the Lost? Stole and copied over 20 games.
If you can not discern the difference, please educate yourself. Diablo 3's scenery and models (world, creatures, and player) look like WoW while the combat appearance and design (health globes, overall feel of combat, etc) look like a mish-mash of D2 and GoW.
Some don't like God of War, but it's an incredibly-well rated game, and a good Idea for the Barbarian to fight as barbarous as Kratos himself. I liked God of War moderately, while I dont expect Diablo: God of War edition, it's obvious that there are some shining elements there to be borrowed.
This is probably the best summation of the idea of this thread. Specifically, we can all well say that Kratos is the perfect example of a flesh-rending Barbarian (though he's a Spartan, it's pretty much the same thing in definition.) However, it should stay only for the Barbarian. I do NOT want to see my beautiful caster turned in to some Kratos casting Wrath of Zeus or whatever- that is NOT how casters are in the books or in any of the previous games.
a nice little movie released in 1985 called LEGEND
Sweetness, I have to see that. Tim Curry = God. Anyone ever play Sacrifice?
Quote from "fuzz" »
I was expecting it to be a DIABLO game, what an idiot I was
Just because it takes inspiration from God of War's gameplay doesn't mean that it's got any more to do with Greek Mythology. Anyway, take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CAygCNqKbU
It shows the evolution of Diablo, from dark, frightening and claustrophobic: a hopeless mission undertaken by a few everyman warriors to free a cathedral from an army of daemons, to a brighter more epic journey which great heroes embark upon to save the whole world and then finally to - well, Diablo 3.
Notice that in Diablo 1 fallen are a serious threat while in Diablo 2 you can stand in front of one without being in any real danger? In the movie the Barb just stands there checking his gear while being attacked! Diablo 2 is a world populated by massive breasted Amazons, scantily clad Assassins, heroic Paladins and Barbarians who kill their enemies by spinning around in circles while holding out their weapons. There are even talking cows in the game!
When people talk about a "Diablo" game I think they're thinking more of Diablo 1 than Diablo 2, and the series veered away from there a long time ago. However, Diablo 3 does return to it's roots in one sense: you need to think about how you tackle the enemy!
It has been said that Diablo 1 was won by clicking well, while Diablo 2 was won by planning a good build. In Diablo 3 fights will require more tactical thought, and the new moves, increasing the range and mobility of the barb, are in aid of this. This is more like Diablo 1 than Diablo 2.
Sweetness, I have to see that. Tim Curry = God. Anyone ever play Sacrifice?
Just because it takes inspiration from God of War's gameplay doesn't mean that it's got any more to do with Greek Mythology. Anyway, take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CAygCNqKbU
It shows the evolution of Diablo, from dark, frightening and claustrophobic: a hopeless mission undertaken by a few everyman warriors to free a cathedral from an army of daemons, to a brighter more epic journey which great heroes embark upon to save the whole world and then finally to - well, Diablo 3.
Notice that in Diablo 1 fallen are a serious threat while in Diablo 2 you can stand in front of one without being in any real danger? In the movie the Barb just stands there checking his gear while being attacked! Diablo 2 is a world populated by massive breasted Amazons, scantily clad Assassins, heroic Paladins and Barbarians who kill their enemies by spinning around in circles while holding out their weapons. There are even talking cows in the game!
When people talk about a "Diablo" game I think they're thinking more of Diablo 1 than Diablo 2, and the series veered away from there a long time ago.
No. There's still a ton of gothic imagery in D2. They even managed to do it with colour.
I wonder why the current game can't seem to do the same thing.
Agreed, when I first opened the D3 game-play trailer I saw GoW. http://www.gamefaqs.com/portable/psp/home/938607.html
The majority thinks that God of War is at least an 8.4/10 game, meaning that we aren't the only ones that love this game. I must say, I am VERY surprised at the comments of SSJ5Brolly and Veritech017.
Quote from "Veritech017" »
Yes, clearly GoW is using the same flat textures and lack of any sort of
current gen technology.
Hate to inform you but the graphics they are using for D3 are at least 6-7 years behind in terms of development. This isn't a bad thing, but I have high hopes they will do to D3 what happened to SC2 when fans spoke out. A little extra work to give textures depth couldn't hurt Blizzard.
Why are all you are comparing D3 with games like Crysis. If Blizzard released games with such graphics and mad physics, looks like NVIDIA and ATI will be making more money selling new video-cards than Blizzard will - selling the actual game.
Here are the RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIRMENTS for Crysis:
CPU:Core 2 Duo/Athlon X2 or betterRAM:1.5GBVideo Card:NVIDIA 7800 Series, ATI Radeon 1800 Series or betterVRAM:512MB of Graphics MemoryStorage:12GBSound Card:DirectX 9.0c CompatibleODD:DVD-ROMOS:Microsoft Windows XP or VistaDirectX:DX9.0c or DX10
The video card itself cost at least $220.00 sold separately. I know a lot of D2:LOD Players that do not have a Duo Core processor, but I have one. To get a cheap Duo Core processor laptop in stores like future shop would probably cost around $1200.00. The game is so heavy that it takes up 12GBs (SOME COMPUTERS DON'T EVEN HAVE 12 GBS IN TOTAL...) (Keep in mind that the most graphic-heavy RTS game: Command and Conquer 3 only takes up 6GBs /// Diablo 2 LoD only required less than 1.5 GBs.) Diablo 2 Only required 62 MB of RAM to run, while Crysis requires 1.5GB of RAM.
(These were only the recommended settings. If you want to fully enjoy a smooth and crisp game-play, you'll need a lot more.)
To recap on what many posters have stated on this thread, not everyone has the luxury of buying a new computer just to play Diablo 3. Many people have to buy a new computer to handle the current state of Diablo 3, but if you want Crysis graphics? Blizzard is going to lose a lot of consumers.
Well, you get the point now don't you Veritech017? Actually, you probably will never comprehend. Blizzard is smart, they want to use acceptablegraphics to make a great game and at the same time have a very flexible graphics control. This way they can please all of there consumers by being easily handled by most computers and at the same time reserve their resources instead of wasting it on graphics that less than half the forum community can afford.
Oh, right, you also talked about how you don't see any graphical relationship between GoW and D3. I mean... Common -_-'
And that's just the beginning of the resemblance, theres a lot more, but I'll let you absorb it one-step-at-a-time so your brain doesn't overflow.
I still can't believe you confidently stated:
Hate to inform you but the graphics they are using for D3 are at least 6-7 years behind in terms of development.
You're a Diablo Fan right? Lets look at Diablo 2 which was released 9 years ago. The graphics aren't even nearly as good as D3. I am surprised how you can call yourself a Diablo Fan when you can't even stand Diablo 3 graphics. One of the biggest leaps and achievements from Diablo 2 to Diablo 3 was the graphics.
I can tell that I can play D3 on a computer with a crappy graphics card, crappy motherboard, and a crappy amount of ram.
D3 looks as good or better than Company of Heroes, and that's being very hard on it. I had to upgrade my computer from playing Warcraft 3 perfectly to play Dawn of War, and then I needed a new graphics card to play Company of Heroes.
Warcraft 3:
Dawn of War:
Company of Heroes:
Diablo 3:
Forgive me if as my eyes move from top to bottom I see at least some improvement, and again that's being very hard on Diablo 3. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by comparing the quality of Diablo 3's visuals to those of Warcraft 3, except to destroy all your credibility :confused:
Besides, it's a ducking work in progress!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oh lets nit pick because it's 4am and I forgot the name...
Yes I'm the average gamer :rolleyes: I've played or experienced nearly every MMO out there.
I said similar games. D3 is a isometric hack and slash. Those others aren't even close to the same genre.
I prefer that I actually am able to play the game without having to buy a new computer and my computer isn't even that bad.
It's not meant to be fully rendered, you know how bad that'd piss everyone off? If it turned into a fully rendered FPS typed game...
6-7 years behind.....what the...:confused: ?
MAXIMUM HYPERBOLE!
Their version of the havok physics engine could have only been done recently, hardly "6-7 years behind." Im sorry, but you have failed greatly with that statement.
So according to you these graphics would have been common every-day PC graphics back in '01 when LOD came out?
Yeah......maybe in an alternate reality. :rolleyes:
Please realize that Diablo III is still in alpha stage, (meaning graphics will improve.) and still in my opinion, looks alot better than Diablo 2 looked for it's time.
Looks exactly the same as Warcraft 3, the only thing updated in the engine was physics other than that they just tossed on specular lighting, screen glow, more detail in shadows. They forgot all the good stuff again, like bumpmapping. Everything else is at the hands of the Blizzard art team. They've gotten better, but I know they can do far better judging by SC2.
Words I hate in Gaming Culture:
Epic
Hardcore
E-Sports
D3 looks like WC3? Are you serious? WC3 is a RTS not a HacknSlash. :rolleyes:
http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/_images/screenshots/ss29.jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/c9/Warcraft_3_Humans_fight_Orcs_screenshot.jpg
Yeah EXACTLY the same...
Graphically, not gameplay.
Edit:
To clarify beforehand, because someone will get upset and claim that can't possibly be true.
By graphically I mean the 3d objects surrounded by flat textures.
The reason D3 looks so.. Meh, "pretty", is due to specular lighting, screen glow, and a sign that Blizzard is in fact getting better at doing their texturing.
Words I hate in Gaming Culture:
Epic
Hardcore
E-Sports
Yes, wow's graphics are at least 6-7 years behind. I'd go as far as to say 8-9. They have to be though. How the fuck are you going to get an 15 million user bases without being able to run on a 6 year old home computer(not a gaming rig)?
The same goes for Diablo III. The graphics ARE dated. so were Diablo II's. Trying to debate that is fucking stupid, and irrelevant. I'm sick of this per gamer elitism. Maybe its my politics, but I feel like DIablo III should run on as many computers as possible. It should also come out as soon as possible, which would mean maybe skipping that last 3 months of graphical polish.
Graphically they are nothing alike either....
D3 might not be what you want it to be but it's nothing like WC3...
I said that earlier...
I said that earlier...
I gave you 7 good reason why the two games are highly comparable! What more do you want, my immortal soul?
The fact that there's more colour "to convey mood", something that GoW used a lot. Also, just look at that big statue holding up the platform when the Barbarian first enters the dungeon, if you still don't see it, well...
Wow man, go see an optician pronto before your vision deteriorates further
Okay seriously, yes, both have relatively flat game worlds, but the world needs to be relatively flat because Diablo is viewed from a top-down perspective, just like Warcraft. It's a totally reasonable design choice, nothing to do with art direction. Otherwise Diablo 3 is so much better looking than Warcraft 3 (trust me, I played it yesterday) that they're not even comparable.
Yep - one word: Whirlwind. And don't get me started on those poison cloud javelins. Mabye Diablo 1 had a sort of "realism in the fantasy world" but Diablo 2 has strayed away from it's roots, and you can't really complain just because Diablo 3 isn't returning to them. Diablo 2 was epic and God of War was epic - their love child is Diablo 3, and it's gunna be epic!
Clip: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VuVg3P7oIwY
As you can see, even the base concept of the first game wasn't something unique to itself. So why kvetch about things like certain style elements that are quite popular being brought in to improve upon things? The Barbarian is a big hulking engine of physical destruction. That's his(or her) bag.
I was talking about the amount of damage needed to kill something in GoW effecting loot drop. It's not really comparable...
But if you want to offer your soul, I'll take it!
Brzzzt. Incorrect.
It's painfully obvious that people have a hard time discerning the difference between influence and copy. I'll give you a hint.
Diablo 3? Influenced by Diablo 2, God of War, and WoW.
Limbo of the Lost? Stole and copied over 20 games.
If you can not discern the difference, please educate yourself. Diablo 3's scenery and models (world, creatures, and player) look like WoW while the combat appearance and design (health globes, overall feel of combat, etc) look like a mish-mash of D2 and GoW.
Ejamukayshun.
This is probably the best summation of the idea of this thread. Specifically, we can all well say that Kratos is the perfect example of a flesh-rending Barbarian (though he's a Spartan, it's pretty much the same thing in definition.) However, it should stay only for the Barbarian. I do NOT want to see my beautiful caster turned in to some Kratos casting Wrath of Zeus or whatever- that is NOT how casters are in the books or in any of the previous games.
Just because it takes inspiration from God of War's gameplay doesn't mean that it's got any more to do with Greek Mythology. Anyway, take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CAygCNqKbU
It shows the evolution of Diablo, from dark, frightening and claustrophobic: a hopeless mission undertaken by a few everyman warriors to free a cathedral from an army of daemons, to a brighter more epic journey which great heroes embark upon to save the whole world and then finally to - well, Diablo 3.
Notice that in Diablo 1 fallen are a serious threat while in Diablo 2 you can stand in front of one without being in any real danger? In the movie the Barb just stands there checking his gear while being attacked! Diablo 2 is a world populated by massive breasted Amazons, scantily clad Assassins, heroic Paladins and Barbarians who kill their enemies by spinning around in circles while holding out their weapons. There are even talking cows in the game!
When people talk about a "Diablo" game I think they're thinking more of Diablo 1 than Diablo 2, and the series veered away from there a long time ago. However, Diablo 3 does return to it's roots in one sense: you need to think about how you tackle the enemy!
It has been said that Diablo 1 was won by clicking well, while Diablo 2 was won by planning a good build. In Diablo 3 fights will require more tactical thought, and the new moves, increasing the range and mobility of the barb, are in aid of this. This is more like Diablo 1 than Diablo 2.
No. There's still a ton of gothic imagery in D2. They even managed to do it with colour.
I wonder why the current game can't seem to do the same thing.
Words I hate in Gaming Culture:
Epic
Hardcore
E-Sports
http://www.gamefaqs.com/portable/psp/home/938607.html
The majority thinks that God of War is at least an 8.4/10 game, meaning that we aren't the only ones that love this game. I must say, I am VERY surprised at the comments of SSJ5Brolly and Veritech017.
current gen technology.
Hate to inform you but the graphics they are using for D3 are at least 6-7 years behind in terms of development. This isn't a bad thing, but I have high hopes they will do to D3 what happened to SC2 when fans spoke out. A little extra work to give textures depth couldn't hurt Blizzard.
Why are all you are comparing D3 with games like Crysis. If Blizzard released games with such graphics and mad physics, looks like NVIDIA and ATI will be making more money selling new video-cards than Blizzard will - selling the actual game.
Here are the RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIRMENTS for Crysis:
Source: http://www.crysis-online.com/Information/System%20Requirements/
Crysis Physics Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaHS-y_mapQ
The video card itself cost at least $220.00 sold separately. I know a lot of D2:LOD Players that do not have a Duo Core processor, but I have one. To get a cheap Duo Core processor laptop in stores like future shop would probably cost around $1200.00. The game is so heavy that it takes up 12GBs (SOME COMPUTERS DON'T EVEN HAVE 12 GBS IN TOTAL...) (Keep in mind that the most graphic-heavy RTS game: Command and Conquer 3 only takes up 6GBs /// Diablo 2 LoD only required less than 1.5 GBs.) Diablo 2 Only required 62 MB of RAM to run, while Crysis requires 1.5GB of RAM.
(These were only the recommended settings. If you want to fully enjoy a smooth and crisp game-play, you'll need a lot more.)
To recap on what many posters have stated on this thread, not everyone has the luxury of buying a new computer just to play Diablo 3. Many people have to buy a new computer to handle the current state of Diablo 3, but if you want Crysis graphics? Blizzard is going to lose a lot of consumers.
Well, you get the point now don't you Veritech017? Actually, you probably will never comprehend. Blizzard is smart, they want to use acceptable graphics to make a great game and at the same time have a very flexible graphics control. This way they can please all of there consumers by being easily handled by most computers and at the same time reserve their resources instead of wasting it on graphics that less than half the forum community can afford.
Oh, right, you also talked about how you don't see any graphical relationship between GoW and D3. I mean... Common -_-'
Just look at Kratos:
http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/01/kratos_statue.jpg
And now look at the Barbarian:
http://www.cdaccess.com/gifs/screen/d2barbarian.jpg
And that's just the beginning of the resemblance, theres a lot more, but I'll let you absorb it one-step-at-a-time so your brain doesn't overflow.
I still can't believe you confidently stated:
You're a Diablo Fan right? Lets look at Diablo 2 which was released 9 years ago. The graphics aren't even nearly as good as D3. I am surprised how you can call yourself a Diablo Fan when you can't even stand Diablo 3 graphics. One of the biggest leaps and achievements from Diablo 2 to Diablo 3 was the graphics.
Fine, 6 years ago then. Warcraft 3 was released in 2002 and now compare the graphics. Diablo 3 is far more superior.
Just for reference, heres a high-resolution screen-shot Diablo 3:
Heres crazy Crysis released in 2007:
Blizzard isn't famous for their graphics, but you can't push as far as saying that its at least 6-7 years behind in development.
But I can tell that I can play D3 on a computer with a crappy graphics card, crappy motherboard, and a crappy amount of ram.
How can I tell this? Because it will have the same system reqs as WoW. And WoW has the same graphical requirements as WC3.
Also, I was using Crysis as a point to prove that D3's graphics are not even remotely next-gen.
You also attacked me for saying D3's graphics are dated. When I clearly mentioned that as a GOOD thing in a previous post.
Words I hate in Gaming Culture:
Epic
Hardcore
E-Sports
Blizzard sent you an advanced copy of Diablo 3! You know how the end-stage graphics look and the exact system requirements for it?
Darn you Blizzard! :mad:
If you honestly can't tell by looking, you don't know graphics very well.
Words I hate in Gaming Culture:
Epic
Hardcore
E-Sports
Warcraft 3:
Dawn of War:
Company of Heroes:
Diablo 3:
Forgive me if as my eyes move from top to bottom I see at least some improvement, and again that's being very hard on Diablo 3. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by comparing the quality of Diablo 3's visuals to those of Warcraft 3, except to destroy all your credibility :confused:
Besides, it's a ducking work in progress!