1) Diablo has been in development for about 4 years, 2 of which have taken place during the merger of Blizzard North to their Irvine location. I'm not sure if it will be DX10 compatible and I don't think they'll go to any lengths to make it so.
2) That license to use DX10.1 would most likely be for their Top Secret Next-Gen MMO. I think this secret project isn't too far along considering the amount of positions they have open and are willing to hire for. Especially since they label it next-gen, I'm assuming this MMO is going to be the first of Blizzard's games that pushes technology/graphical achievement to some level.
3) DX10, at least so far, hasn't proved to be the monumental new architecture it was touted as prior to its release. I saw the link somebody posted in this thread with screenshots comparing the two (http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9550). Consider a few things:
a) The biggest difference is on Flight Simulator, a MICROSOFT game. Crysis was also notorious for disabling Ultra High because it, in their words, was "DX10 options only", thus XP users couldn't click on Ultra High. Someone ended up hacking the graphics menu to enable Ultra High. They compared Ultra High on DX9 XP versus DX10 Vista and the difference was so negligable that the much smoother game experience on XP would EASILY oust the EXTREMELY SLIGHT difference for DX10 which would invariably run slower because of Vista.
Look at the Age of Conan Screenshot #2. It seems to me some of these screenshots are taken on lower than max settings for XP because the draw distance for AoC #2's XP screenshot is extremely low while the DX10 one is maxed out, creating an illusion that DX10 actually allows for greater draw distancing.
c) The final two screenshots are of Halo and Crysis, Halo with DX9 and Crysis with DX10. Uhmm, WHAT? Two different games. Same genre, sure, but what the hell does that mean? You took Halo 1 from computer, released ages ago, and compared it to Crysis, currently the best looking PC game on the market? Biased much?
DX10, at least for now, has not been utiilized by developers to the max. It has promising features but it will take time for developers to learn to use it. Vista's massive resource requirements don't help either - partly the reason they are pretty much abandoning Vista and will kill support to it when the new Windows comes out. Server 2003 is the best Windows platform thus far. I have Vista and although I can run any game with it, including Crysis and its "DX10 Glory", I still prefer 2003 server. Perhaps the Vista Server, with DX10, will run better than these home versions of Vista.
People think DX10 and have orgasms imagining it will just make everything look super-duper-amazing and it's the wrong assumption. At this point in development, DX10 doesn't do enough to justify changing over to Vista and sacrificing tons of FPS from your games.
The main point is that Diablo is too far into development to actually have been able to take advantage of DirectX 10. Not to mention the fact, like it has been stated before, that it doesn't need it.
not precisely, it could have dx10 version along with dx9 like most games today, but it would take longer to develop that, and by only having dx9 we can be sure they are giving 100% of their attention to it to make it as good as they can.
Vista is bad, thats right it reduces performance dramaticaly even with 8gb ddr 1066 and quad core processor in combination with vista 64bit
The devs at WWI said it would not require DX10, but they never said they were not going to use it.
Also, DX10(.1) doesn't make games slower, Vista is doing that. DX10 actually has some pretty nice features to render more efficient, like Instancing 2.0. (could be useful in Diablo3 because of the many monsters on screen) So DX10 is not only for rendering 'better' graphics, but also faster. More info on Direct3D 10 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D#Direct3D_10
So are they going to use it? Who knows, it's a nice plus for Vista users, but I rather have them spend more time on the visual effects and content
The devs at WWI said it would not require DX10, but they never said they were not going to use it.
Also, DX10(.1) doesn't make games slower, Vista is doing that. DX10 actually has some pretty nice features to render more efficient, like Instancing 2.0. (could be useful in Diablo3 because of the many monsters on screen) So DX10 is not only for rendering 'better' graphics, but also faster. More info on Direct3D 10 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D#Direct3D_10
So are they going to use it? Who knows, it's a nice plus for Vista users, but I rather have them spend more time on the visual effects and content
I think they will add some dx10 effect which you could enable as an option would be cool.
The game's been in development for too long to have dx10
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
"Something that hasn't been noted yet is that EA and SEGA are signed on with us for DX10.1 titles, we've also signed a fairly major deal with Blizzard."
You can find all Diablo 3 developer panels for example at gamespot
Maybe, that some graphic improvements, like dx10, or dx10.1 (maybe dx11?), will came up with some patch(as in Company of Heroes), or expansion, but I don't think so. As we know, Blizzard isn't company that develops games that are about perfect graphic, but perfect gameplay.
Thanks i will look at it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Quality post.
Too bad I cant say the same for yours...
The main point is that Diablo is too far into development to actually have been able to take advantage of DirectX 10. Not to mention the fact, like it has been stated before, that it doesn't need it.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a option to enable some DX10 :P. And from where you've got that?
Vista is bad, thats right it reduces performance dramaticaly even with 8gb ddr 1066 and quad core processor in combination with vista 64bit
Also, DX10(.1) doesn't make games slower, Vista is doing that. DX10 actually has some pretty nice features to render more efficient, like Instancing 2.0. (could be useful in Diablo3 because of the many monsters on screen) So DX10 is not only for rendering 'better' graphics, but also faster. More info on Direct3D 10 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D#Direct3D_10
So are they going to use it? Who knows, it's a nice plus for Vista users, but I rather have them spend more time on the visual effects and content
I think they will add some dx10 effect which you could enable as an option
Where is that QnA pannel located?
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
they stated in 1 of the movies it will not be DX10 sorry to let you down but graphics are still good
Thanks i will look at it.