It would be monumental to reverse engineer the client from the x86 architecture to the RISC architexture the PSP uses. Disassembly of minor applications with hopes of porting them is hard in itself, let alone an entire game.
Besides, there's no real point. The PSP market isn't large enough to make the effort a viable choice of investment.
I think many game companies outsource their CG/Cinematic production to studios more apt to handle it (Warhammer did this). It takes an incredible amount of resources to produce a cinematic like that, and even Blizzard may not have them.
Damn that was energetic. Fine and perfectly fitting for the bigger battles, but just for walking around and slicing up smaller baddies, not fitting in the slightest (like Duckman said).
The goal, it seems, is to create heroic characters with making them appear cartoony, behaving in a world that acts realistically (thanks to the addition of destructible environments to the gameplay) while maintaining a fantasy feel.
While I agree the skinning and low-poly model aren't particularly attractive, the physical age of the barbarian is meant to be older (since the game takes place 20 years later).
You've got to be kidding me? Is this thread serious? Sorry, but i'm going to have to rant! The game was only announced on saturday, and we know very little about it. To those that aren't satisfied with what they have seen, you don't have to buy it, continue to play the Diablo games that you prefer. On a side note, nothing in the Starcraft 2 graphics department has changed, the only thing different is that more content was released, making the game seem more natural. Give it time, i'm positive Blizzard has cooked up an ample amount of different zones, all with different feels and influences. It's the Diablo franchise, the name alone promises (no pun intended) one hell of a game!
Like I said earlier, the first part of the demo was of a place called "Forgotten Tombs", clearly a place that needs an aged, worn, and dark atmosphere, and not the clean-edged, washed out, water-color appearance it currently has.
And we all realize it's a very early release. It's just important for Blizzard's target audience and major player demographic to get their opinions out earlier so (if they choose), they can modify the game easier.
If anyone pays close attention to textures in game, you'll notice the floor textures of "Forgotten Tomb" (the first part of the D3 Demo) are nearly identical to the floor textures of many places in WoW, like older buildings or even places like Ironforge.
Anyone know if the texture artist is the same guy? Perhaps they're just rehashing similar resources. Kinda disappointing.
man you guys need to put down your lost vikings cereal bowls and WoW noob bashing gear and enjoy the announcement for a second before you start complaining. I think it looks awesome. It still looks like diablo to me. besides there are like 20 screenshots and a gameplay video that shows part of one little dungeon and a little grassy area right outside that dungeon. I like the art style a lot, I don't think it looks like wow at all. just accept the fact that it's not a diablo ii expansion pack and I think you'll start to feel a little better about it.
The argument of "only having seen two-zones" is fairly moot. One of the zones was called "Forgotten Tombs", a place which should look aged, dark, and creepy. The screens show an all-too-familiar clean-edged, washed-out, almost water-color style that is highly reminiscent of other Blizzard-produced games.
And it's generally better for the target audience to voice opinions at an earlier stage of development to allow for easier modification.
It's not that any of us don't appreciate Blizzard's work. On the contrary, virtually all of us would gladly give a hefty-hug to each of the developers. Many of us are just concerned about the direction the graphical aspect of the game is taking, and would like Blizzard to know that a large portion of their original player demographic has reservations about it.
Staggering. We all wait quite literally years for this game to be announced, and when it finally does, the overwhelming whinging about graphics defies belief. A Blizzard developer could be forgiven for wanting to throw in the towel right now, since it seems that nothing would ever be good enough? I imagine the majority of fans have watched the 20 min gameplay video, and yet so little praise for what we've seen? Such a shame that so many would choose to bitch and moan to such an extent that it overshadows what promises to be a great game.
...
The graphical aspect of the game (as far as textures, models, and post-processing fx & plugins are concerned) is not, in any sense, the biggest hurdle in producing a game, and can easily be interchanged with little modification of the actual game engine.
It's the game's engine, design, and game-play elements which take so long to develop and perfect. I'm sure 99% of the people complaining about the "fluffy" or "clean" ambiance are perfectly fine with the game-play design elements. It wouldn't be too hard for blizzard to substitute some textures, develop some post-processing filters (for contrast, HDR, etc. -- not necessary however), and re-reduce the high-res character/armor models to something a little less polygonal.
0
Besides, there's no real point. The PSP market isn't large enough to make the effort a viable choice of investment.
0
0
0
http://www.gamespot.com/news/blogs/preview-blog/909185203/26460025/blizzard-invitational-08-diablo-iii-lore-and-art-panel.html
Quote from the article:
What the hell, heroic!=cartoony.
0
While I agree the skinning and low-poly model aren't particularly attractive, the physical age of the barbarian is meant to be older (since the game takes place 20 years later).
0
Like I said earlier, the first part of the demo was of a place called "Forgotten Tombs", clearly a place that needs an aged, worn, and dark atmosphere, and not the clean-edged, washed out, water-color appearance it currently has.
And we all realize it's a very early release. It's just important for Blizzard's target audience and major player demographic to get their opinions out earlier so (if they choose), they can modify the game easier.
0
Anyone know if the texture artist is the same guy? Perhaps they're just rehashing similar resources. Kinda disappointing.
0
The argument of "only having seen two-zones" is fairly moot. One of the zones was called "Forgotten Tombs", a place which should look aged, dark, and creepy. The screens show an all-too-familiar clean-edged, washed-out, almost water-color style that is highly reminiscent of other Blizzard-produced games.
And it's generally better for the target audience to voice opinions at an earlier stage of development to allow for easier modification.
It's not that any of us don't appreciate Blizzard's work. On the contrary, virtually all of us would gladly give a hefty-hug to each of the developers. Many of us are just concerned about the direction the graphical aspect of the game is taking, and would like Blizzard to know that a large portion of their original player demographic has reservations about it.
0
The graphical aspect of the game (as far as textures, models, and post-processing fx & plugins are concerned) is not, in any sense, the biggest hurdle in producing a game, and can easily be interchanged with little modification of the actual game engine.
It's the game's engine, design, and game-play elements which take so long to develop and perfect. I'm sure 99% of the people complaining about the "fluffy" or "clean" ambiance are perfectly fine with the game-play design elements. It wouldn't be too hard for blizzard to substitute some textures, develop some post-processing filters (for contrast, HDR, etc. -- not necessary however), and re-reduce the high-res character/armor models to something a little less polygonal.