I wish it was darker and had a more gothic vibe like the prequels (yes, still whining because of it.). Wish they hadn't decided to go with a kid-friendly approach which they obviously did.
u should read all the post in the thread..just saying..some1 already clarified that D3 is about evil returning to the world not like D2 where evil took over the world..
so obviously when u start the game is more bright and rainbowish because its been 20 years without evil... but like every1 is saying as u go more far in your acts it becomes more and more darker and evil..
also its a good thing they did it this way because u can actually feel the progress you are making as you go further.. whats the point in starting in a dark hole and ending in a dark hole.
you put the words right into my mouth...and i like it this time HAHA
I am sorry Scyberdragon but in your long post you make D3 sound like a graphic benemoth that strains systems. No more than 4 people because it will strain your PC and its hard to do? Come on !! This day and age games like Battlefield etc use ultra high textures in a complete 3D world with 64 players, explosions, tanks etc. So i am sure they can optimise Diablo 3 for more than 4 tiny 3d characters on screen.
I am tired with people saying that diablo 3 can't do this, that, and the other because its technically impossible or a lot of work. Blizzard have also used it themselves when talking about the light radius - "too hard to do". I am sorry but torchlight had something similiar and thats almost an indie game.
I have had really no problems with the games graphics (point 4). Yes it would look better, but iam still going to love every minute of D3 nonetheless.
agreed too..... you have to admit yes diablo 3 mayyybe isnt what it over CCCCOOOUUULLLDDD BE but its still looks AAAMMAAAZZZINNGG lol but yes there are some things that they do or say and im like... i only have 3 - 4 years of programming and i could do that but like we all said its blizz and at the end of the day.. what they do is over all the BEST for it...yes we souldent put all of our trust into BIG comps like blizz or walmart...thats a whole diff sub and i dont want to go politacal on everyone or anything in that matter(espaclally when im drunk LOL) but all im sayins is blizz is last hope for me if they let me down then we as a people have to take ALL of this in OUR hands...not just meaning a game ethier... LOL sorry agin...
Wow. Way to be an ass twords people with lower end PC's lol. I can barley run Sc2. I'm hoping I'll be able to run D3. Thats not fair to the people who cant get ahold of super mega ultra computers. I dont think everyone playing D2 right now has super mega ultra computers and why would blizzard make it so they cant play D3? Thats just my opinion though.
Are you suggesting that games should deliberately not be made to the potential which is capable by the development team just because some people cant afford a gaming pc? I have to agree with sanchet, when I fork out money for a new release game I expect to see the latest developments in gaming technology ( both audio and visual ). The same way as if I were to go and watch a new action movie at the cinemas I would expect to see cutting edge special effects, not special effects from 10 years ago.
I want the visuals and audio of Diablo3 to blow me away, even if it makes my current gaming rig blow smoke.
What I mean is I dont want them to make it so you gatta go out and buy a $1000 dollar computer just to run the game. I want them to make it awesome and vary appealing but I want to be able to play the game lol. I just dont want to have to go out and buy an ultra gaming computer just to do that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
www.myspace.com/mpotatoes for all your Trans Siberian Orchestra listening pleasure
If you want to arrange it
This world you can change it
If we could somehow make this
Christmas thing last
By helping a neighbor
Or even a stranger
And to know who needs help
You need only just ask
Hey, bliz have given you guys a 3 years heads up to start saving up for a new computer :P. Plenty of time to save up for a sweet rig to maximise your D3 experience
I am sorry Scyberdragon but in your long post you make D3 sound like a graphic benemoth that strains systems. No more than 4 people because it will strain your PC and its hard to do? Come on !! This day and age games like Battlefield etc use ultra high textures in a complete 3D world with 64 players, explosions, tanks etc. So i am sure they can optimise Diablo 3 for more than 4 tiny 3d characters on screen.
I am tired with people saying that diablo 3 can't do this, that, and the other because its technically impossible or a lot of work. Blizzard have also used it themselves when talking about the light radius - "too hard to do". I am sorry but torchlight had something similiar and thats almost an indie game.
I have had really no problems with the games graphics (point 4). Yes it would look better, but iam still going to love every minute of D3 nonetheless.
With the party size, I said that main reasoning was actual gameplay. I said that Blizzard plays their games constantly to play test them and that is how they decided four was a good group size.
As far as graphic/computer strain, the point is not that they cannot do it. I never said it was beyond their technical limits. The point is that Blizzard has always put gameplay ahead of graphics. In fact, gameplay is the number one core value and graphics is not even on their seven core values. Blizzard intentionally lowers their graphics and computer strain so that more people can play their game. Of course they could do more but they don't want to. As for people who say why not just make top-end graphics and then add a scaler for people with weaker computers, it is not as simple as just that. They have to find a happy medium for their graphics and they have done just that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
I am sorry Scyberdragon but in your long post you make D3 sound like a graphic benemoth that strains systems. No more than 4 people because it will strain your PC and its hard to do? Come on !! This day and age games like Battlefield etc use ultra high textures in a complete 3D world with 64 players, explosions, tanks etc. So i am sure they can optimise Diablo 3 for more than 4 tiny 3d characters on screen.
I am tired with people saying that diablo 3 can't do this, that, and the other because its technically impossible or a lot of work. Blizzard have also used it themselves when talking about the light radius - "too hard to do". I am sorry but torchlight had something similiar and thats almost an indie game.
I have had really no problems with the games graphics (point 4). Yes it would look better, but iam still going to love every minute of D3 nonetheless.
With the party size, I said that main reasoning was actual gameplay. I said that Blizzard plays their games constantly to play test them and that is how they decided four was a good group size.
.
They only went with 4 players as of current information because the visual effects starting getting in the way. That was the only reason and why it "felt like the right number". Because any more players on screen and you wouldn't have been able to see anything. It was just a giant rainbow bomb.
I wish it was darker and had a more gothic vibe like the prequels (yes, still whining because of it.). Wish they hadn't decided to go with a kid-friendly approach which they obviously did.
u should read all the post in the thread..just saying..some1 already clarified that D3 is about evil returning to the world not like D2 where evil took over the world..
so obviously when u start the game is more bright and rainbowish because its been 20 years without evil... but like every1 is saying as u go more far in your acts it becomes more and more darker and evil..
also its a good thing they did it this way because u can actually feel the progress you are making as you go further.. whats the point in starting in a dark hole and ending in a dark hole.
You're right I didn't read all the posts.. and I still haven't lol. Did you see the size of most posts? god damn.. I don't have all day.
Now, whoever said that has a point. If it does in fact get darker and darker with each act then ok, I'll be happy with that and would understand what Blizz is doing. I admit it would be awesome to see the world slowly change, looking more and more scary along the way. I really really hope this is true.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This body holding me, reminds me of my own mortality.
Embrace this moment. Remember... We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.
I am sorry Scyberdragon but in your long post you make D3 sound like a graphic benemoth that strains systems. No more than 4 people because it will strain your PC and its hard to do? Come on !! This day and age games like Battlefield etc use ultra high textures in a complete 3D world with 64 players, explosions, tanks etc. So i am sure they can optimise Diablo 3 for more than 4 tiny 3d characters on screen.
I am tired with people saying that diablo 3 can't do this, that, and the other because its technically impossible or a lot of work. Blizzard have also used it themselves when talking about the light radius - "too hard to do". I am sorry but torchlight had something similiar and thats almost an indie game.
I have had really no problems with the games graphics (point 4). Yes it would look better, but iam still going to love every minute of D3 nonetheless.
With the party size, I said that main reasoning was actual gameplay. I said that Blizzard plays their games constantly to play test them and that is how they decided four was a good group size.
.
They only went with 4 players as of current information because the visual effects starting getting in the way. That was the only reason and why it "felt like the right number". Because any more players on screen and you wouldn't have been able to see anything. It was just a giant rainbow bomb.
Hey, bliz have given you guys a 3 years heads up to start saving up for a new computer :P. Plenty of time to save up for a sweet rig to maximise your D3 experience
agreed thats one reason why i got a quad core with some kick ass stuff PS it only cost me 600 for everything next time i get a computer it will be a i7(i work at a pizza shop btw making min wage 7.30 a hour and i live on my own so if i can get a 600 comp with a quad core and everything im sure some people in here can get a I7)
I wish it was darker and had a more gothic vibe like the prequels (yes, still whining because of it.). Wish they hadn't decided to go with a kid-friendly approach which they obviously did.
u should read all the post in the thread..just saying..some1 already clarified that D3 is about evil returning to the world not like D2 where evil took over the world..
so obviously when u start the game is more bright and rainbowish because its been 20 years without evil... but like every1 is saying as u go more far in your acts it becomes more and more darker and evil..
also its a good thing they did it this way because u can actually feel the progress you are making as you go further.. whats the point in starting in a dark hole and ending in a dark hole.
You're right I didn't read all the posts.. and I still haven't lol. Did you see the size of most posts? god damn.. I don't have all day.
Now, whoever said that has a point. If it does in fact get darker and darker with each act then ok, I'll be happy with that and would understand what Blizz is doing. I admit it would be awesome to see the world slowly change, looking more and more scary along the way. I really really hope this is true.
I was the one that said it ps...if your gonna make a statement please read even skim dont read EVERYTHING i only read about half of the overall first post others i just went back and put in points after i was finished...i read like 4 lines and i was like Ohhh gotta post HAHA
I am sorry Scyberdragon but in your long post you make D3 sound like a graphic benemoth that strains systems. No more than 4 people because it will strain your PC and its hard to do? Come on !! This day and age games like Battlefield etc use ultra high textures in a complete 3D world with 64 players, explosions, tanks etc. So i am sure they can optimise Diablo 3 for more than 4 tiny 3d characters on screen.
I am tired with people saying that diablo 3 can't do this, that, and the other because its technically impossible or a lot of work. Blizzard have also used it themselves when talking about the light radius - "too hard to do". I am sorry but torchlight had something similiar and thats almost an indie game.
I have had really no problems with the games graphics (point 4). Yes it would look better, but iam still going to love every minute of D3 nonetheless.
With the party size, I said that main reasoning was actual gameplay. I said that Blizzard plays their games constantly to play test them and that is how they decided four was a good group size.
.
They only went with 4 players as of current information because the visual effects starting getting in the way. That was the only reason and why it "felt like the right number". Because any more players on screen and you wouldn't have been able to see anything. It was just a giant rainbow bomb.
there are at least three quotes stating the reason was for pure gameplay and testing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
I am sorry Scyberdragon but in your long post you make D3 sound like a graphic benemoth that strains systems. No more than 4 people because it will strain your PC and its hard to do? Come on !! This day and age games like Battlefield etc use ultra high textures in a complete 3D world with 64 players, explosions, tanks etc. So i am sure they can optimise Diablo 3 for more than 4 tiny 3d characters on screen.
I am tired with people saying that diablo 3 can't do this, that, and the other because its technically impossible or a lot of work. Blizzard have also used it themselves when talking about the light radius - "too hard to do". I am sorry but torchlight had something similiar and thats almost an indie game.
I have had really no problems with the games graphics (point 4). Yes it would look better, but iam still going to love every minute of D3 nonetheless.
With the party size, I said that main reasoning was actual gameplay. I said that Blizzard plays their games constantly to play test them and that is how they decided four was a good group size.
.
They only went with 4 players as of current information because the visual effects starting getting in the way. That was the only reason and why it "felt like the right number". Because any more players on screen and you wouldn't have been able to see anything. It was just a giant rainbow bomb.
there are at least three quotes stating the reason was for pure gameplay and testing.
There are at least three quotes stating the reason was for pure game play and testing reasons, because the visuals were too intense with anything over 4 characters playing in one area. - Fixed.
The main reason that I am concerned about the 4 player cap is because in online games people wont cooperate the same way as in blizard's test cases. Lets say you create a game on bnet in d2 called "lets do trav", obviously looking for help to finish act 3. You set the player limit to 4. Garunteed, one person who joins the server will go mf'ing somewhere, another person will come and do their own thing and in the end you may have your server full without even getting any help for trav. THAT is why I think that the server limits should be raised from 4 to a higher number. YES 4 players may be a good party size and cooperative size BUT I think that in a REAL WORLD scenario, you need more than 4 players in the server to get a cooperative group of 4 players.
Yes but blizzard said in multiplayer if you dont stick together you will die. So those people going off doin there own thing will die 28793084 times get frustrated and leave.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
www.myspace.com/mpotatoes for all your Trans Siberian Orchestra listening pleasure
If you want to arrange it
This world you can change it
If we could somehow make this
Christmas thing last
By helping a neighbor
Or even a stranger
And to know who needs help
You need only just ask
Yes but blizzard said in multiplayer if you dont stick together you will die. So those people going off doin there own thing will die 28793084 times get frustrated and leave.
Wrong. Think about the endgame. You have a strong level 60 player. You join a multiplayer server called "lets do act 3". Because you have a strong character you can not give a shit what everone else in the server is doing, you can just go and do your own thing because your character is strong you can take care of yourself. Its like how strong MF sorcs would join baal runs to kill meph / andy ect in full d2 servers. This statement from bliz may be true when you are starting out you need to stick together but i STRONGLY DOUBT that it will mean anything come the endgame.
But even not in the endgame this can happen. What if I have a character in who is say level 20 and is about to finish the game in norm. And I join a game "lets do act 3!". I may not be strong enough to finish off act 4 by myself in a full server, nor do I feel like helping these guys in act 3 (because I am a hypothetical troll which d3 will be full of or just someone who wants to do my own thing in a full server for a particular reason). Instead I go back to act 2 where I CAN hold my own and kill some creeps / mf / do whatever there.
With that statement I think that bliz are being very naive about the online community being perfect and friendly gamers who all want to do nothing but help each other and fight as a team ... Welcome to the real world where people are cunts...
We have no idea how the match making system will work in D3 otherthan it will better than D2. But even in D2, you could put level restrictions if you wanted to to stop high levels from coming in to MF.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
We have no idea how the match making system will work in D3 otherthan it will better than D2. But even in D2, you could put level restrictions if you wanted to to stop high levels from coming in to MF.
Level restrictions dont really work. Especially in end-game because the mf'ers will be the same level range as the main group. Perhaps some sort of region/area restriction rather than a level restriction. Maybe the game can be limited to a +- 2 areas away from the game creator? Just throwing an idea out there.
Just what I did for the first 10 years of Diablo. Kill everyone who annoys you which on Diablo tends to be alot of people. You find ppl tend to act less like dicks when you are stepping on their bodies.
I've been worried about D3 ever since Bashiok said that PK is out, I don't know what are Blizzard plans on PvP, but i doubt it can match the thrill of the hunt/being hunted.
The 4 player per game confirmation made me REALLY worried.
The 60 level limit(which in my opinion, is merely an excuse to make us buy DLC's to increase the cap) almost made me lose hope.
It still might be a good game, and probably it will be, but i just don't see it matching diablo 1-2 awesomeness, and definitely not what I've been waiting all these years. I just hope Blizzcon and the beta proves me wrong.
Get real, folks, the diablo you all knew is dead, a few years ago i said right here in this forum that D3 had a pretty good chance of being blizzard first bust (i was flamed to death ofc), and what you know, its not even beta and its already looking that way.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
~Mike~
~Mike~
What I mean is I dont want them to make it so you gatta go out and buy a $1000 dollar computer just to run the game. I want them to make it awesome and vary appealing but I want to be able to play the game lol. I just dont want to have to go out and buy an ultra gaming computer just to do that.
If you want to arrange it
This world you can change it
If we could somehow make this
Christmas thing last
By helping a neighbor
Or even a stranger
And to know who needs help
You need only just ask
With the party size, I said that main reasoning was actual gameplay. I said that Blizzard plays their games constantly to play test them and that is how they decided four was a good group size.
As far as graphic/computer strain, the point is not that they cannot do it. I never said it was beyond their technical limits. The point is that Blizzard has always put gameplay ahead of graphics. In fact, gameplay is the number one core value and graphics is not even on their seven core values. Blizzard intentionally lowers their graphics and computer strain so that more people can play their game. Of course they could do more but they don't want to. As for people who say why not just make top-end graphics and then add a scaler for people with weaker computers, it is not as simple as just that. They have to find a happy medium for their graphics and they have done just that.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
They only went with 4 players as of current information because the visual effects starting getting in the way. That was the only reason and why it "felt like the right number". Because any more players on screen and you wouldn't have been able to see anything. It was just a giant rainbow bomb.
You're right I didn't read all the posts.. and I still haven't lol. Did you see the size of most posts? god damn.. I don't have all day.
Now, whoever said that has a point. If it does in fact get darker and darker with each act then ok, I'll be happy with that and would understand what Blizz is doing. I admit it would be awesome to see the world slowly change, looking more and more scary along the way. I really really hope this is true.
Embrace this moment. Remember...
We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.
http://us.blizzard.com/diablo3/media/screenshots.xml#95 Really a rainbow bomb now? And who said it was dark enough thats a shit load of gore can someone explain hwo thats not "dark" enough
~Mike~
~Mike~
there are at least three quotes stating the reason was for pure gameplay and testing.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
There are at least three quotes stating the reason was for pure game play and testing reasons, because the visuals were too intense with anything over 4 characters playing in one area. - Fixed.
If you want to arrange it
This world you can change it
If we could somehow make this
Christmas thing last
By helping a neighbor
Or even a stranger
And to know who needs help
You need only just ask
Wrong. Think about the endgame. You have a strong level 60 player. You join a multiplayer server called "lets do act 3". Because you have a strong character you can not give a shit what everone else in the server is doing, you can just go and do your own thing because your character is strong you can take care of yourself. Its like how strong MF sorcs would join baal runs to kill meph / andy ect in full d2 servers. This statement from bliz may be true when you are starting out you need to stick together but i STRONGLY DOUBT that it will mean anything come the endgame.
But even not in the endgame this can happen. What if I have a character in who is say level 20 and is about to finish the game in norm. And I join a game "lets do act 3!". I may not be strong enough to finish off act 4 by myself in a full server, nor do I feel like helping these guys in act 3 (because I am a hypothetical troll which d3 will be full of or just someone who wants to do my own thing in a full server for a particular reason). Instead I go back to act 2 where I CAN hold my own and kill some creeps / mf / do whatever there.
With that statement I think that bliz are being very naive about the online community being perfect and friendly gamers who all want to do nothing but help each other and fight as a team ... Welcome to the real world where people are cunts...
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Level restrictions dont really work. Especially in end-game because the mf'ers will be the same level range as the main group. Perhaps some sort of region/area restriction rather than a level restriction. Maybe the game can be limited to a +- 2 areas away from the game creator? Just throwing an idea out there.
no needing to worry about mf'ers and what not. cause you know them and all.
The 4 player per game confirmation made me REALLY worried.
The 60 level limit(which in my opinion, is merely an excuse to make us buy DLC's to increase the cap) almost made me lose hope.
It still might be a good game, and probably it will be, but i just don't see it matching diablo 1-2 awesomeness, and definitely not what I've been waiting all these years. I just hope Blizzcon and the beta proves me wrong.