I think in the case of a Blizzard game, Photo Realistic means it shows the weather of time. That was kind of the subject of photo realism from the get go for most 3D games anyway, if you guys remember the first generation, things such as starfox were simply the designated colors, they showed no age, and then you skip all the way to the Resident Evil 1 remake and we finally begin seeing decay in environment, not to mention other things such as Red Faction with it's Geo Mod
Blizzard's huge array of games was pretty damned terrible up until the jackpot that was WarCraft II, if anyone recalls.
That's a load of crap in what was otherwise a thoughtful post.
The original "Orcs and Humans" was actually quite fun, while "Rock and Roll Racing" and "The Lost Vikings" were both generally well-received.
You need to put this in context - back in the mid nineties, FMV garbage like "Seventh Guest" and incredibly boring non-games like "Myst" dominated the PC. The sad and ironic thing about Bliz's current focus on cinematics, card games, flashy animations, conventions, collectors' editions, etc, and full decade of releasing nothing but WoW iterations is that their initial success was based on them being actual action-based game alternatives to these kinds of overhyped yawners.
That's a load of crap in what was otherwise a thoughtful post.
The original "Orcs and Humans" was actually quite fun, while "Rock and Roll Racing" and "The Lost Vikings" were both generally well-received.
You need to put this in context - back in the mid nineties, FMV garbage like "Seventh Guest" and incredibly boring non-games like "Myst" dominated the PC. The sad and ironic thing about Bliz's current focus on cinematics, card games, flashy animations, conventions, collectors' editions, etc, and full decade of releasing nothing but WoW iterations is that their initial success was based on them being actual action-based game alternatives to these kinds of overhyped yawners.
Dude, Warcraft 1 didn't sell as well as Warcraft 2, not to mention it was innovative in terms of RTS controls. It being fun has nothing to do with the fact that its sales were abysmal in comparison to everything that came after it.
I also think you're forgetting all those Dungeons and Dragons games they made before Warcraft as well, all of which were bad.
And Myst is considered by many to be the best game ever made. Of course next to non of the millenial gamers understand or care to appriciate that game for it's puzzled genius.
OK, honestly, keep that to yourself. No way in hell Myst was a bad game and I played that game the first time in like 2002. Same goes for Riven. Those games are the "quest" type of games and if you don't like them, that's your preference, but Myst was one of the best games of the genre ever made.
I agree with him completely. I'm an artist myself, and Ive been playing diablo since I was a little kid. New diablo looks like a completely different series.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stars aligning fragments of the memories
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
What I was trying to say is that DII never was photorealistic, it's just darker other games, but, honestly, a photorealistic game is boring because it does not allow the flight of fantasy, and if I want to see something photorealistic I can just go outside.
^Thank you.
Kenzai: Why yes, of course I agree with the point that I said I agree with!!
I'm just sad that so many people are so whiny about the graphics.(not flame, just my feeling) Good graphics in video games are awesome (I'm not saying D3's are bad at all) but what really makes the game is the game play, storyline, and re-playability. There is more to the experience than eye candy.
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."
What I was trying to say is that DII never was photorealistic, it's just darker other games, but, honestly, a photorealistic game is boring because it does not allow the flight of fantasy, and if I want to see something photorealistic I can just go outside.
Thank you.
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."
Blizzard's huge array of games was pretty damned terrible up until the jackpot that was WarCraft II, if anyone recalls.
That's a load of crap in what was otherwise a thoughtful post.
The original "Orcs and Humans" was actually quite fun, while "Rock and Roll Racing" and "The Lost Vikings" were both generally well-received.
You need to put this in context - back in the mid nineties, FMV garbage like "Seventh Guest" and incredibly boring non-games like "Myst" dominated the PC. The sad and ironic thing about Bliz's current focus on cinematics, card games, flashy animations, conventions, collectors' editions, etc, and full decade of releasing nothing but WoW iterations is that their initial success was based on them being actual action-based game alternatives to these kinds of overhyped yawners.
Thanks for not getting your panties, er boxers.... whatev you wear, in a bunch. It's nice to discuss things with people who are open minded and don't retaliate to an opinion with "yer stupid you don't even know anything about Diablo, noob!" lol k maybe a lil dramatic, but not in some cases
I think it all comes down to opinion. For me the "spirit" of diablo was the gameplay, and other stuff i mentioned, but for others different things "made" the game for them. When those things get changed, sometimes it's hard to accept that with open arms. Maybe it'll grow on people just like XP did, and Vista will.
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."
I think I made it clear that my response was to the statement, not the poster him/herself, and that I thought the rest of the post was quite good.
I try to stick to the substance of the post, and really don't hold it against folks when they make mistakes. But calling those games "terrible" really is way off-base, and much more of a flame than my response to it. I think the fact that someone bothered to port LV to GBA a decade later says it all:
Of course, the exception to the above is Dimebog. Asking any intelligent poster here not to instinctively flame him is like asking a true Diablo player to let Garbad live. Almost impossible.
One reason I never liked Diablo/Diablo II single player was because of the graphics style. It was such a boring style and it gave a weird feeling while playing single player. I get weird feelings depending on graphic styles, especially with older games (heXen, Turok). Don't know why, but it's annoying. I can easily ignore it playing multiplayer though.
With Diablo III, I like the more colorful lighter style, something I might actually play single player (although I'll probably just play multiplayer anways), and I've never been a fan of dark games anyways.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
Wow thats pretty interesting. Sorry but sounds like a casual gamer to me.
So you never played D1 nor SP D2?
Dude, did you actually ever follow the storyline or something?
Nah, I don't know the storyline. And I did try both D1 and D2 SP. But, I'm not going to go play single player just for the storyline. I want to enjoy the actual gameplay too. And, no, I'm not really a casual gamer, and I don't see how that makes me sound like one. :confused:
Quote from "MasterNeo" »
Lol have you even played it. sp & mp D2 are the same lol.
Yes, I have played it. And also, saying they're the same is mostly true but can also be a matter of opinion. Playing with others has a lot different of a feel than playing by myself, at least in D2. It's weird, I know, but it's me, so I don't really see the point in arguing this
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
Gameplay as first priority.
Not caring much or not going in deptht about storyline.
Thats the key elements of a casual gamer.
You just prefer faster and more fun gameplay instead of "grinding" etc. or else you would be totally an MMO guy.
Im sure you have fun with multiplayer FPS games?
BTW it could be that im not %100 accurate on the meaning of "casual gamer"...
(We are halfway off topic but i guess this isnt harmful...)
I only play Sacred 2 and Rock Band.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
Good old art controversy huh? Hmm a while ago like a month, one of the real creators of Diablo franchise Max Schaefer said something like "yeah d3 has completely different style than previous Diablos but it looks great"
I don't think Bill Roper said something different." It's great but the style is different" is the summary of his words.
I agree with both of them too. Maybe D3 team can add a little bit darkness here and there, some light radius effect and it's done.
More importantly they have to make the game gritty. D3 at least has to be deteailed like Diablo 2 in 3D.
BTW health-orb mechanic is good but it adds arcade feel to the game. I have a great idea for that. Every fallen mob with soul give you soul power (with very small animation) that slowly translates to health if you could spare some soul power to heal your buddy. So what is the purpose of soul power then? It makes your skills and stats stronger... I think this is more gothic and i call this a feature
Think about it... Targeted unique mob has less health and you have really less health. What are you going to do? Do you want to increase your damage using soul power or do you want to heal? If you increase your damage you could kill the mob before it would or otherway it could kill you before. If you gain health, the fight could be longer and you would have more time.
The balance is Blizzard's business but i think this fits with Diablo universe. If you read the books also you could see something like soul power.
I will decide upon the spirit after I play the game, I can't really judge otherwise. Every little bit of the game makes up the spirit, including the pace of the gameplay, lore, and music.
I agree with Bill Roper because I don't really like Diablo II's color palette that much, and I would prefer DIII to be closer to DI... so, I am pretty happy with him saying they're different. I still think the "spirit" may remain there.
Well i hope so, Equinox, but for me, the epic models and animations already seem to have killed the visual aspects and thats a rather major part (again, for me).
You know, the characters stick out so much. Even the barb skills are very flashy. More than half of the mobs encountered are dispatched into pieces immediately or burnt, freezed, whatever.
I agree with that. It's not really what Bill Roper is saying, though. He wants the super-dark, murky DII style again. So I'm caught in the middle, unhappy with either, lol.
I don't really understand why did DIII do this to its visuals. There are many paths they could have gone (heXen II style, for example, fantasy gothic, or even Nox style) that were not any more graphically demanding, but they do seem to be leaning towards WarCraft. It's like middle ground between DI and WarCraft, I'd say. I honestly belive Sacred II dungeouns (albeit rare, S2 is not a dungeon game) look darker and more Diabloish than DIII's do.
Yes, we didn't see the rest of the game, but I can make out the style already, and while I am happy it's not as dark and desaturated as DII was, I wouldn't mind if they removed a few blurred lines. Considering where SCII started and where SCII ended up, I have quite some hope for DIII, and I think it will end up looking very heXen-like.
they'll never see me coming.. life is a sequence of tragedies, inconsistent only by fleeting, elusive moments of pleasure,
serving only to ensure absolute vulnerability to the pain of their inevitable absence.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do agree with you tho.
That's a load of crap in what was otherwise a thoughtful post.
The original "Orcs and Humans" was actually quite fun, while "Rock and Roll Racing" and "The Lost Vikings" were both generally well-received.
You need to put this in context - back in the mid nineties, FMV garbage like "Seventh Guest" and incredibly boring non-games like "Myst" dominated the PC. The sad and ironic thing about Bliz's current focus on cinematics, card games, flashy animations, conventions, collectors' editions, etc, and full decade of releasing nothing but WoW iterations is that their initial success was based on them being actual action-based game alternatives to these kinds of overhyped yawners.
I also think you're forgetting all those Dungeons and Dragons games they made before Warcraft as well, all of which were bad.
And Myst is considered by many to be the best game ever made. Of course next to non of the millenial gamers understand or care to appriciate that game for it's puzzled genius.
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
Yeah. I agree with that statement Dimebog made.
^Thank you.
Kenzai: Why yes, of course I agree with the point that I said I agree with!!
I'm just sad that so many people are so whiny about the graphics.(not flame, just my feeling) Good graphics in video games are awesome (I'm not saying D3's are bad at all) but what really makes the game is the game play, storyline, and re-playability. There is more to the experience than eye candy.
"Losers always whine about their best, winners go home and Fvck the prom queen."
Thank you.
"Losers always whine about their best, winners go home and Fvck the prom queen."
That's a load of crap in what was otherwise a thoughtful post.
The original "Orcs and Humans" was actually quite fun, while "Rock and Roll Racing" and "The Lost Vikings" were both generally well-received.
You need to put this in context - back in the mid nineties, FMV garbage like "Seventh Guest" and incredibly boring non-games like "Myst" dominated the PC. The sad and ironic thing about Bliz's current focus on cinematics, card games, flashy animations, conventions, collectors' editions, etc, and full decade of releasing nothing but WoW iterations is that their initial success was based on them being actual action-based game alternatives to these kinds of overhyped yawners.
Thanks for not getting your panties, er boxers.... whatev you wear, in a bunch. It's nice to discuss things with people who are open minded and don't retaliate to an opinion with "yer stupid you don't even know anything about Diablo, noob!" lol k maybe a lil dramatic, but not in some cases
I think it all comes down to opinion. For me the "spirit" of diablo was the gameplay, and other stuff i mentioned, but for others different things "made" the game for them. When those things get changed, sometimes it's hard to accept that with open arms. Maybe it'll grow on people just like XP did, and Vista will.
"Losers always whine about their best, winners go home and Fvck the prom queen."
I think I made it clear that my response was to the statement, not the poster him/herself, and that I thought the rest of the post was quite good.
I try to stick to the substance of the post, and really don't hold it against folks when they make mistakes. But calling those games "terrible" really is way off-base, and much more of a flame than my response to it. I think the fact that someone bothered to port LV to GBA a decade later says it all:
http://www.mobygames.com/game/lost-vikings
Of course, the exception to the above is Dimebog. Asking any intelligent poster here not to instinctively flame him is like asking a true Diablo player to let Garbad live. Almost impossible.
With Diablo III, I like the more colorful lighter style, something I might actually play single player (although I'll probably just play multiplayer anways), and I've never been a fan of dark games anyways.
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
Yes, I have played it. And also, saying they're the same is mostly true but can also be a matter of opinion. Playing with others has a lot different of a feel than playing by myself, at least in D2. It's weird, I know, but it's me, so I don't really see the point in arguing this
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
I don't think Bill Roper said something different." It's great but the style is different" is the summary of his words.
I agree with both of them too. Maybe D3 team can add a little bit darkness here and there, some light radius effect and it's done.
More importantly they have to make the game gritty. D3 at least has to be deteailed like Diablo 2 in 3D.
BTW health-orb mechanic is good but it adds arcade feel to the game. I have a great idea for that. Every fallen mob with soul give you soul power (with very small animation) that slowly translates to health if you could spare some soul power to heal your buddy. So what is the purpose of soul power then? It makes your skills and stats stronger... I think this is more gothic and i call this a feature
Think about it... Targeted unique mob has less health and you have really less health. What are you going to do? Do you want to increase your damage using soul power or do you want to heal? If you increase your damage you could kill the mob before it would or otherway it could kill you before. If you gain health, the fight could be longer and you would have more time.
The balance is Blizzard's business but i think this fits with Diablo universe. If you read the books also you could see something like soul power.
I agree with Bill Roper because I don't really like Diablo II's color palette that much, and I would prefer DIII to be closer to DI... so, I am pretty happy with him saying they're different. I still think the "spirit" may remain there.
I don't really understand why did DIII do this to its visuals. There are many paths they could have gone (heXen II style, for example, fantasy gothic, or even Nox style) that were not any more graphically demanding, but they do seem to be leaning towards WarCraft. It's like middle ground between DI and WarCraft, I'd say. I honestly belive Sacred II dungeouns (albeit rare, S2 is not a dungeon game) look darker and more Diabloish than DIII's do.
Yes, we didn't see the rest of the game, but I can make out the style already, and while I am happy it's not as dark and desaturated as DII was, I wouldn't mind if they removed a few blurred lines. Considering where SCII started and where SCII ended up, I have quite some hope for DIII, and I think it will end up looking very heXen-like.
I second that statement.
Please explain.
they'll never see me coming..
life is a sequence of tragedies, inconsistent only by fleeting, elusive moments of pleasure,
serving only to ensure absolute vulnerability to the pain of their inevitable absence.