the problem i was saying is that all these companies are now trying to make it epic... and in turn everyone is using the word.
the problem with this new turn in d3 is that there is now no continuity between games, d1 and d2 were great in terms of continuity but now d2 and d3... the differences are massive and thus really dont make sense. they have basically changed everything...
the only new artwork i like are the little outposts, or small caravans of people or makeshift towns. etc
how do you think people"don't understand" when they clearly do, and it makes MUCH more sense than the BS you are trying to say. UREH WAS ALREADY THERE!!!!!!!!!! So was many other things that we have yet to see. I am sure they will have some changes to what you may think these places look like, AND there WILL be smaller desolate areas no doubt, as there are already quite a few pictures of smaller wrecked towns...probably more so than the big ones, you just don't like that any of them exist at all. if every game stuck to the same scenery style OVER AND OVER again, it WOULD get boring. Zelda needs a makeover as we have had the same darn thing all the time (and its just now starting to get old), but who knows what they will do. I am confident that Diablo 3 is going to be a artistically stellar game.
how do you think people"don't understand" when they clearly do, and it makes MUCH more sense than the BS you are trying to say. UREH WAS ALREADY THERE!!!!!!!!!! So was many other things that we have yet to see. I am sure they will have some changes to what you may think these places look like, AND there WILL be smaller desolate areas no doubt, as there are already quite a few pictures of smaller wrecked towns...probably more so than the big ones, you just don't like that any of them exist at all. if every game stuck to the same scenery style OVER AND OVER again, it WOULD get boring. Zelda needs a makeover as we have had the same darn thing all the time (and its just now starting to get old), but who knows what they will do. I am confident that Diablo 3 is going to be a artistically stellar game.
change is fine but a change that coincides with the world. a pink building simply wouldnt make sense...
there is only so much diversity one can have. just look at the world around 1000 ad... not much diversity, slighty different buildings due to the local materials but generally all quite similar.
On Topic: I agree with you, Diablo ain't no fucking LotR (i love LotR btw). Its just all becoming "too epic". Even LOD, with its "siege", was pushing it imo. Diablo ain't about sieges and shit, it ain't about full blown wars, its about venturing forgotten tombs and dungeons, its about that claustrophibic feel of a single (nameless) hero in the darkness, you're alone, something's behind u, you can hear it, screams coming from the darkness, wth is going on here, its unnatural, oh shi- i'm surrounded, no way out, none to hear my screams.
Yeah, but that pretty much went out the window with Diablo 2. Diablo's known by, and loved because of it's addictive cooperative online play.
1.) I agree that the more demonic D3 is, the better
2.) I agree is seems slightly more epic, but that is a given as diablo 2 is about 8 years old now.
3.) There is still a bunch of artwork for the places that you would think of in diablo games, as well as some a bit more out of character but nice and believable
4.) I guess i am confused on the monsters...did you not remember that there are birds, things that look like chubacha, big apes, orc like creatures, little monkey like fetish, beetles, maggots, and more that dont really look like demons AT ALL? and not to mention i think a good amount of the diablo 3 monsters look very good and demonic. The big clawed summoned thing that blows up when they kill it, the fat blueish white bloated thigns that blow up into worms, bats (D1 monster), skeletons (diablo 1 and 2), zombies (diablo 1 and 2), new creatures with club like things that look like act 5 creatures, cultists that look F'd up, and almost confirmed monsters like the devilkins in act 1. I dont see THAT much of a difference here. I mean come on! those chubacha things in act 1 didnt even make sense!
D1 was that one catacomb.. D2 was 4 acts outdoor and indoor and catacombs and sanctuaries and what not.. really D3 must "top"(do something differently) D2 with that too or else it will just be a copy on that department.
Uh. Yeah, I did. He said it was about a singular hero (you), going into dark, spooky, horrible places.
And then I pointed out that in Diablo 2, it became less about the singular hero (you), and more about teaming up and beating the shit out of everything you and your party came into contact with.
What I'm saying is that almost everyone is playing it for it's online play now-a-days, not it's single player mode.
BUT. I do agree that the game needs more fire, blood, and just flat out horrible, terror looking things. But all things considered I'm still pretty happy with what we've seen.
Oh wow, I agree completely. ESPECIALLY that second demon you have posted. If that was in the game, that'd be fucking sweet. :thumbsup: (Not so much the second to last one. Don't like him lol)
Within Sanctuary they are real, just as light sabers are real in Star Wars, doesn't mean LotR should have light saber wielding Jedi's.
Its about consistency, if you failed to get it.
Staying consistent to the elements that make diablo "Diablo" is important I do not fail to understand that. I was simply making the point that the comment that being able to construct massive buildings/structures was unrealistic is dumb.
Who cares if we couldn't build something like that with modern real-life methods. We're talking about something unrealistic, something imaginitive. The Diablo realm is made-up.... A place like that should not be confined to realism....That was the point of my statement.
The diablo 1 and 2 games were limited by techonology restraints, so while the creators may have wanted to include massive structures they were unable to do so....Plus....it's concept art so it isn't for sure in the final game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A wizard is never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he early.
He arrives precisely when he means to."
"Losers always whine about their best, winners go home and Fvck the prom queen."
D1 was that one catacomb.. D2 was 4 acts outdoor and indoor and catacombs and sanctuaries and what not.. really D3 must "top"(do something differently) D2 with that too or else it will just be a copy on that department.
I think that's the problem with Jay Wilson, his team, and really all of Blizzard right now. They think they have to make every thing "over the top" (I hate that term), make everything completely mind poppingly huge, make everything go overboard. I, and judging from the reaction after D3 was revealed, many other people, liked Blizzard's old subtlety when it came to their games. In Diablo, we heard about the huge sin wars or mage wars, but we didn't see them. In Starcraft, the Protoss had a planet burning space ship, but it wasn't in the game. Blizzard focused on smaller, more personal conflicts, and added a subtle touch that really set their games apart.
Of course, people say that was only due to the fact that Blizzard had limited resources and couldn't protray grand events in a believable fasion, but whatever the reason, I think there early games will always be considered scared to a lot of people.
I've said this a lot, but I think that a touch or more of realism always makes a game more exciting because we can relate to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D3 Pros: Outdoors environment, night time environment, female Barbarian, rune spell system, the Wizard class
D3 Cons: Fantasy architecture, fantasy armor, fanstasy weapons, no shaders.
I think that's the problem with Jay Wilson, his team, and really all of Blizzard right now. They think they have to make every thing "over the top" (I hate that term), make everything completely mind poppingly huge, make everything go overboard. I, and judging from the reaction after D3 was revealed, many other people, liked Blizzard's old subtlety when it came to their games. In Diablo, we heard about the huge sin wars or mage wars, but we didn't see them. In Starcraft, the Protoss had a planet burning space ship, but it wasn't in the game. Blizzard focused on smaller, more personal conflicts, and added a subtle touch that really set their games apart.
Of course, people say that was only due to the fact that Blizzard had limited resources and couldn't protray grand events in a believable fasion, but whatever the reason, I think there early games will always be considered scared to a lot of people.
I've said this a lot, but I think that a touch or more of realism always makes a game more exciting because we can relate to it.
I think that's the problem with Jay Wilson, his team, and really all of Blizzard right now. They think they have to make every thing "over the top" (I hate that term), make everything completely mind poppingly huge, make everything go overboard. I, and judging from the reaction after D3 was revealed, many other people, liked Blizzard's old subtlety when it came to their games. In Diablo, we heard about the huge sin wars or mage wars, but we didn't see them. In Starcraft, the Protoss had a planet burning space ship, but it wasn't in the game. Blizzard focused on smaller, more personal conflicts, and added a subtle touch that really set their games apart.
Of course, people say that was only due to the fact that Blizzard had limited resources and couldn't protray grand events in a believable fasion, but whatever the reason, I think there early games will always be considered scared to a lot of people.
I've said this a lot, but I think that a touch or more of realism always makes a game more exciting because we can relate to it.
Well I guess you are right, but I'm pretty sure this is just one of the trends that we see all over. Remember the disaster movies at around 2000? There was a lot of them, now it seems for me at least that many game companies do this "over the top" at the moment. And I guess it is acceptable since with todays technology they can finally do something overwhelmingly huge and nice with their games.. everything like this would have looked really stupid with the old days graphics, thats why they rather kept it simple and small I guess.
This is at least what I think about games now that I try to remember
But anyways, even when we see some nice artwork of huge big cities it doesn't mean the game is all about it, the cathedral etc at tristram isn't that epic, we probably have some smaller towns and camps to visit. Well we have to wait and see.. I bet we won't get disappointed.
Well I guess you are right, but I'm pretty sure this is just one of the trends that we see all over. Remember the disaster movies at around 2000? There was a lot of them, now it seems for me at least that many game companies do this "over the top" at the moment. And I guess it is acceptable since with todays technology they can finally do something overwhelmingly huge and nice with their games.. everything like this would have looked really stupid with the old days graphics, thats why they rather kept it simple and small I guess.
This is at least what I think about games now that I try to remember
But anyways, even when we see some nice artwork of huge big cities it doesn't mean the game is all about it, the cathedral etc at tristram isn't that epic, we probably have some smaller towns and camps to visit. Well we have to wait and see.. I bet we won't get disappointed.
anyways its a trend and thats the point im mad that they are just falling into this damned trend... i always thought blizzard was above things like that
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just because it's "legendary" doesn't mean its epic. Read my definition of epic, and you'll know what I mean.
For people that can't comprehend: For me, something that is epic will make me stop, sit back, look, and think. "Wow ..."
CyberPunk RP Nexus
the problem with this new turn in d3 is that there is now no continuity between games, d1 and d2 were great in terms of continuity but now d2 and d3... the differences are massive and thus really dont make sense. they have basically changed everything...
the only new artwork i like are the little outposts, or small caravans of people or makeshift towns. etc
They didn't change everything they are just showing us things that haven't been seen before.
RIP: Demon Hunter: lvl 50 | Barb: lvl 60 (plvl 5) | Monk: lvl12 & lvl70 (plvl 200)
CyberPunk RP Nexus
ugh why is it so hard for everyone to understand.
to use a hyperbole here. its like in d1 n d2 you have regular castles and then boom, in d3 you have modern day skyscrapers...
i dont exactly know what you mean
change is fine but a change that coincides with the world. a pink building simply wouldnt make sense...
there is only so much diversity one can have. just look at the world around 1000 ad... not much diversity, slighty different buildings due to the local materials but generally all quite similar.
Yeah, but that pretty much went out the window with Diablo 2. Diablo's known by, and loved because of it's addictive cooperative online play.
CyberPunk RP Nexus
:confused:
did you not read his post or play diablo 2? lol
exactly! where are the demons from d1?
we need things like this:
http://www.paintingclinic.com/images/bloodthirster/bloodthirster.jpg
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Chaos/bloodthirster/danbt5.jpg
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Chaos/nurgle/guop6.jpg
http://vnmedia.ign.com/screenshots/warhammer/22765803.jpg
http://www.carbonmatter.com/images/GW_Bloodthirster.jpg
http://www.brandxpainting.com/files/images/Great%20Unclean%20One%20002.preview.jpg
http://fc17.deviantart.com/fs14/f/2006/358/b/f/Nurgle_Daemon_Prince_by_Sbags.jpg
http://ca.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.ca?do=Individual&code=99110201206&orignav=13
2.) I agree is seems slightly more epic, but that is a given as diablo 2 is about 8 years old now.
3.) There is still a bunch of artwork for the places that you would think of in diablo games, as well as some a bit more out of character but nice and believable
4.) I guess i am confused on the monsters...did you not remember that there are birds, things that look like chubacha, big apes, orc like creatures, little monkey like fetish, beetles, maggots, and more that dont really look like demons AT ALL? and not to mention i think a good amount of the diablo 3 monsters look very good and demonic. The big clawed summoned thing that blows up when they kill it, the fat blueish white bloated thigns that blow up into worms, bats (D1 monster), skeletons (diablo 1 and 2), zombies (diablo 1 and 2), new creatures with club like things that look like act 5 creatures, cultists that look F'd up, and almost confirmed monsters like the devilkins in act 1. I dont see THAT much of a difference here. I mean come on! those chubacha things in act 1 didnt even make sense!
RIP: Demon Hunter: lvl 50 | Barb: lvl 60 (plvl 5) | Monk: lvl12 & lvl70 (plvl 200)
Uh. Yeah, I did. He said it was about a singular hero (you), going into dark, spooky, horrible places.
And then I pointed out that in Diablo 2, it became less about the singular hero (you), and more about teaming up and beating the shit out of everything you and your party came into contact with.
What I'm saying is that almost everyone is playing it for it's online play now-a-days, not it's single player mode.
BUT. I do agree that the game needs more fire, blood, and just flat out horrible, terror looking things. But all things considered I'm still pretty happy with what we've seen.
CyberPunk RP Nexus
Oh wow, I agree completely. ESPECIALLY that second demon you have posted. If that was in the game, that'd be fucking sweet. :thumbsup: (Not so much the second to last one. Don't like him lol)
CyberPunk RP Nexus
Staying consistent to the elements that make diablo "Diablo" is important I do not fail to understand that. I was simply making the point that the comment that being able to construct massive buildings/structures was unrealistic is dumb.
Who cares if we couldn't build something like that with modern real-life methods. We're talking about something unrealistic, something imaginitive. The Diablo realm is made-up.... A place like that should not be confined to realism....That was the point of my statement.
The diablo 1 and 2 games were limited by techonology restraints, so while the creators may have wanted to include massive structures they were unable to do so....Plus....it's concept art so it isn't for sure in the final game.
"Losers always whine about their best, winners go home and Fvck the prom queen."
I think that's the problem with Jay Wilson, his team, and really all of Blizzard right now. They think they have to make every thing "over the top" (I hate that term), make everything completely mind poppingly huge, make everything go overboard. I, and judging from the reaction after D3 was revealed, many other people, liked Blizzard's old subtlety when it came to their games. In Diablo, we heard about the huge sin wars or mage wars, but we didn't see them. In Starcraft, the Protoss had a planet burning space ship, but it wasn't in the game. Blizzard focused on smaller, more personal conflicts, and added a subtle touch that really set their games apart.
Of course, people say that was only due to the fact that Blizzard had limited resources and couldn't protray grand events in a believable fasion, but whatever the reason, I think there early games will always be considered scared to a lot of people.
I've said this a lot, but I think that a touch or more of realism always makes a game more exciting because we can relate to it.
D3 Pros: Outdoors environment, night time environment, female Barbarian, rune spell system, the Wizard class
D3 Cons: Fantasy architecture, fantasy armor, fanstasy weapons, no shaders.
thank you, qft very good post m8 i agree 100%
This is at least what I think about games now that I try to remember
But anyways, even when we see some nice artwork of huge big cities it doesn't mean the game is all about it, the cathedral etc at tristram isn't that epic, we probably have some smaller towns and camps to visit. Well we have to wait and see.. I bet we won't get disappointed.
RIP: Demon Hunter: lvl 50 | Barb: lvl 60 (plvl 5) | Monk: lvl12 & lvl70 (plvl 200)
it isnt off topic
anyways its a trend and thats the point im mad that they are just falling into this damned trend... i always thought blizzard was above things like that