Last week I spent 15 hours on Crysis 2. The graphics were on extreme, and the game really fast paced and enjoyable. The thing though for me is that I play it once and then shelve it for a year. Unless you like Multi-Player.... which is still not working for me...so I only played single player - Crysis 2 is still bug ridden... no polishing I guess.
So these days I play Diablo 2 ... not for graphics but for enjoyment. If Diablo 3 has the same enjoyment factor that diablo 2 has... I dont care about the graphics... although I know that it will be good.
It´s like going to the cinema...you dont go to see the VFX but the story.
Speak for yourself.
Cinema is so much trash these days that I'd rather go in for the special effect and not be disappointed. Its not like I go often at all anyway.
Diablo III will be far more tactical than Diablo II. New classes, new resources, no health potions, etc. And the graphics honestly look perfectly fine. They will only be better when they're on YOUR monitor.
I think Z4L is going to become a big Dfans antihero lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
The op's concerns concern me too, have for 2+ years, nothing we can do about it really, just have to trust Blizzard knows what they are doing. One thing i fear is that they will realize that their engine is too far out of date and make a new engine : /, but the HD screenshots look good, so... im confused.
Plus you cant compare pc games to console games, I assume D3 will have more depth than "Blades & soul"
The op's concerns concern me too, have for 2+ years, nothing we can do about it really, just have to trust Blizzard knows what they are doing. One thing i fear is that they will realize that their engine is too far out of date and make a new engine : /, but the HD screenshots look good, so... im confused.
Engines don't need replacing very often. Have you every played a little game called Call of Duty? Infinity Ward has been using the same engine since CoD 2, October 25, 2005. It's also a fact that they are using it in their next CoD to come out this fall. PC, or Console a engine is an engine. Also seeing as Blizzard has no real competition in Hack'N Slash games, there is zero need to worry about their engine comparably to other.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
The op's concerns concern me too, have for 2+ years, nothing we can do about it really, just have to trust Blizzard knows what they are doing. One thing i fear is that they will realize that their engine is too far out of date and make a new engine : /, but the HD screenshots look good, so... im confused.
Plus you cant compare pc games to console games, I assume D3 will have more depth than "Blades & soul"
They made a new engine for it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Graphics and everything looks amazing for me. Dunno why you call game engine outdated, I mean what you want him to do? That's just a hack n slash game, not some kind of FPS where you need some cool physics or something.
Well they do have cool physics actually Just look at some of the newest footage. Stuff breaks and flies close to the screen, and generally theres a lot of stuff to break.
I smell someone who knows nothing about game design.
1) Graphics should be the last thing on a developers mind.
2) Lower requirements means broader audience.
3) Higher graphics require exponential more work on lighting, shading, texturing, etc.
4) This game you linked to is using the unreal engine. They didn't really implement any of the graphical effects.
5) All game graphics are made at the highest resolution. If you looked at all the models at blizzard in their raw form they probably have 1,00,000 vertices. They lower the quality for performance.
6) Any graphically advanced game that was not fun to play was talked about for maybe 2 months. People make jokes about "But can it run Crysis" for the type of computer to play that game.
7) The game is isometric. so you never really look at the model up close. This means they can dial down the number of vertices in their models.
8) The game has a unique shading style that doesn't require cinematic quality models.
9) The higher the graphics, the better the animation have to be. If your animations are not on par with the graphical quality, the game look like shit. Pixel art games only need a few frames in their animation. Cinematic quality games need EXTREMELY fluid animations. If it doesn't it look like puppets.
GAH, it bothers me when people judge a game based on graphics.
My graphics are the least important to me. Things I look for in a game:
0) Gameplay
1) Art style
2) Music/sound effects
3) Story
If the game has these 4 and multiplayer. I shed a tear.
P.S. OP doesn't understand what an gaming engine really is.
that game looks on par with wow, + a little extra work on the characters. none the less, gameplay looks limited with the classes they have and while i think it would be cool as 2 play for a month, it would probably end up in the same dusty old box as Conan.
Well if the engine was made in 2004 does that mean my 2007 labtop can run diablo3? If so that would be kick ass and I wouldent have to upgrade :P.
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
Isn't it a bit late for an april fools thread, zerg4hire?
Oooohhhh snap!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
- Diablo 3 engine was developed in the year 2004, when they started from scratch.
- The graphics and the game mechanics is limited to what they've allowed the engine to handle.
- Problems: Dull Game mechanics that is already out-dated.
- Auction house, Basic skill tree, Dull skill animation (Chain Lighting, Fireball, Whirlwind, Meteor) The graphics is not at its top notch.
- Characters look exactly like what they've put out in the year 2004. That is 7 year difference from
then to now. SC2 has re-modeled everything, added new lightings with the enhancement of their engine.
But we have yet to see anything of this sort for Diablo 3. (Chances are, highly unlikely)
(Everyout is related to graphics, your animation, your character, the scenery. This means we'll
be seeing less attractive, and less clearer images. Something that will hunt down Diablo 3 for
years to come after release.)
Conclusion
You can't expect to release a game with an out-dated engine. The game just feels like a do-over from many of other previous RPG games we've played in the past. The skills, mechanics and graphics are similar to what we've experienced in the year 2004~2008. In my opinion, as much as I've wanted to play Diablo 3, the game will be somewhat "dull". Maybe, because we've played Diablo 2 for such a long time, and the graphic improvement has actually backfired, due to being less realistic. (Diablo 3 is meant to be gory, hell-like, but with WoW graphics implemented, it makes it much less attractive.)
Diablo 3 would have created a big sensation to gaming market if it released somewhere in 2008. The time difference between the year you make your engine and the release of the game has to be somewhat reasonable. This is a common problem why game looks so unattractive by the release date. Our expectation for games increase every year. In the year 2007, our expectation was lower than 2008, and same for the year 2009. Now we're finally go to a point where Diablo 3 just doesn't seem all that special in the year of 2011.
In my opinion, here is a good example of "work in time-line" game.
Game: Blade & Soul by NCSOFT.
My ultimate question is, will Diablo 3 live up to our standards? What kind of consequences will they be facing if they delayed another year? to 2012 ?
lmfao ok not to troll or anything BUT ARE YOU SERIOUS!!! i dare you to look at one video gameplay of diablo 2 then look at a gameplay video of diablo 3....HAVE YOU EVER PLAYED Diablo 1 or 2? if you did then the graphics for this game ARE AMAZING annddd ps like some plp said 2004 was when a whole different team was developing and WOLE different game like pretty much COMPLETELY they didnt so anything about a engine they basicly bought one from havok then anytime they needed to do any kind of tweeks or ANYTHING to it they had to get permission from them...it was just a mess...sooo blizz as they always do came out and made thier own engine just so they could tweek things when they wanted to and it accually came out better then the havok engine...soo plz stop trolling about graphics/art style graphics are awsome art style is awsome and it will get darker grittier and gloomier as we go its all been stated plz watch blizzcons/interviews/info about something before u try to troll it...its really annoying to put someone stright when i could be typing about other things
that game looks on par with wow, + a little extra work on the characters. none the less, gameplay looks limited with the classes they have and while i think it would be cool as 2 play for a month, it would probably end up in the same dusty old box as Conan.
lol big timmy have you seen the skill trees just by skills alone there is 15 different things you can choose. (each class has 3 skill trees that are totally different things than the next.) not to mention gear/runes/traits/charms lol i could go on....people kill me READ SOMETHING OR WATCH A VIDEO before u post something PLEASE
I just have to comment on game the OP used as a reference point. This is the like taking a Monet and comparing it to a Kinkade. One is original, and has a real well defined artist touch, the other could be used to define "generic."
The other thought that comes to my mind is that Blizzard doesn't work on using supercutting edge graphics to make their stuff look great, case in point, what is one of the best and highest rated games out there. I will tell you that its game engine is pretty old. Honestly it isn't any CoD but it doesn't have to be. None of Blizzard's games have to be cutting edge, but they just look good.
I thought I would cringe going back to play D2 recently and I was shocked at how I quickly adapted to the graphics. They aren't High def, but they are appropriate so while it is old it isn't jarring. That is the sign of a good artist design.
If you want to blame anything for the animations, models, etc., blame the animators and modelers and other artists. You don't need an "up to date" engine to make good graphics.
Cinema is so much trash these days that I'd rather go in for the special effect and not be disappointed. Its not like I go often at all anyway.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Plus you cant compare pc games to console games, I assume D3 will have more depth than "Blades & soul"
Engines don't need replacing very often. Have you every played a little game called Call of Duty? Infinity Ward has been using the same engine since CoD 2, October 25, 2005. It's also a fact that they are using it in their next CoD to come out this fall. PC, or Console a engine is an engine. Also seeing as Blizzard has no real competition in Hack'N Slash games, there is zero need to worry about their engine comparably to other.
They made a new engine for it
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
1) Graphics should be the last thing on a developers mind.
2) Lower requirements means broader audience.
3) Higher graphics require exponential more work on lighting, shading, texturing, etc.
4) This game you linked to is using the unreal engine. They didn't really implement any of the graphical effects.
5) All game graphics are made at the highest resolution. If you looked at all the models at blizzard in their raw form they probably have 1,00,000 vertices. They lower the quality for performance.
6) Any graphically advanced game that was not fun to play was talked about for maybe 2 months. People make jokes about "But can it run Crysis" for the type of computer to play that game.
7) The game is isometric. so you never really look at the model up close. This means they can dial down the number of vertices in their models.
8) The game has a unique shading style that doesn't require cinematic quality models.
9) The higher the graphics, the better the animation have to be. If your animations are not on par with the graphical quality, the game look like shit. Pixel art games only need a few frames in their animation. Cinematic quality games need EXTREMELY fluid animations. If it doesn't it look like puppets.
GAH, it bothers me when people judge a game based on graphics.
My graphics are the least important to me. Things I look for in a game:
0) Gameplay
1) Art style
2) Music/sound effects
3) Story
If the game has these 4 and multiplayer. I shed a tear.
P.S. OP doesn't understand what an gaming engine really is.
Thanks Caniroth for the awesome sig!
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
Oooohhhh snap!
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
lmfao ok not to troll or anything BUT ARE YOU SERIOUS!!! i dare you to look at one video gameplay of diablo 2 then look at a gameplay video of diablo 3....HAVE YOU EVER PLAYED Diablo 1 or 2? if you did then the graphics for this game ARE AMAZING annddd ps like some plp said 2004 was when a whole different team was developing and WOLE different game like pretty much COMPLETELY they didnt so anything about a engine they basicly bought one from havok then anytime they needed to do any kind of tweeks or ANYTHING to it they had to get permission from them...it was just a mess...sooo blizz as they always do came out and made thier own engine just so they could tweek things when they wanted to and it accually came out better then the havok engine...soo plz stop trolling about graphics/art style graphics are awsome art style is awsome and it will get darker grittier and gloomier as we go its all been stated plz watch blizzcons/interviews/info about something before u try to troll it...its really annoying to put someone stright when i could be typing about other things
The other thought that comes to my mind is that Blizzard doesn't work on using supercutting edge graphics to make their stuff look great, case in point, what is one of the best and highest rated games out there. I will tell you that its game engine is pretty old. Honestly it isn't any CoD but it doesn't have to be. None of Blizzard's games have to be cutting edge, but they just look good.
I thought I would cringe going back to play D2 recently and I was shocked at how I quickly adapted to the graphics. They aren't High def, but they are appropriate so while it is old it isn't jarring. That is the sign of a good artist design.
Great, because D3 will have graphics.