I don't think Blizzard would ever do a live-action movie about one of their games.
Maybe if it was full-CG, then it would be possible. But, even then, I don't see it happening for any game from Blizzard to become a movie. It's just not their kind of market.
Actually Blizzard stated for their WoW movie, it would def. be live-action with real actors and everything.
Not sure but my computers card GT525M was not on their list and the beta ran at almost maximum fairly well.
Just because its not on the list, doesn't mean it won't run it. Some cards, like the one you have,. just aren't that common so you have to kind of look in between the cracks to see where your card fits in. A GT5xx series obviously shouldn't have any issues.
If they made them the same as generators go, then it would be the same exact mechanic minus the degrade on the barb (without the passive)
The barb has more generators because his fury attacks are meant to be used more often, while the Monks' spirit attacks are meant to be used less often and in more specific instances. They aren't necessarily more powerful, but more useful at certain times.
If you want a Barb play one, but they both have different play styles, right down to how they generate their resource and how they spend it. It would be boring if they were the same.
But that means the spenders should be better, and I don't really see that.
They just seem more expensive...
You're not taking into account the Monk's attack speed. He attacks really fast, the difference for me when playing the beta was huge. Monk with Fists of Thunder felt faster than a Barb on 6 stacks of Frenzy, and it's permanent, i.e. you don't lose stacks and then slow down. That's what I liked most about the Monk in the beta, really fast attacks and high mobility.
Everyone says the monk attacks faster...
How is the monk faster though? Does he have a hidden attack speed buff somewhere?
I think the jump from D2 to D3 is closer than the jump from D1 to D2. So to answer your question... yes?
That wasn't the question.
He asked if the transition from D1 -> D3 would have been more seamless, than D1->D2
I never played D1, so I have no idea. I thought about playing it once, but the graphics were so terrible I instantly turned it off.
Diablo 1 was one of the best looking games when it came out, absolutely stunning to look at. I'm playing an old game now called Grim Fandango, sure it looks like crap by today's standards but it is still a great game.
Well when I thought about playing D1, it was a good a year or more after D2 LoD came out, so it was quite old by then. I never even played the original D2, I started off with LoD.
I just looked it up and D2 LoD came out almost exactly 3 years after D1. So I was looking at the game about 4-5 years after it was released. The thing is that computing power increases exponentially, and at the time of D1 graphics were still in their infancy. In contrast, I can play D2 LoD now, nearly a decade after its release and although the graphics are bad its still quite playable. Eventually games will get to the point where years won't seem to make much improvements graphically speaking.
Would likely make for a great movie if they didn't try to use real actors. I have never seen a good fantasy type show done with real actors, and be anything other than a pile of shit.
Dragonball Z evolution
The Last Airbender (Avatar)
0
0
0
0x1002|0x6760|Low|ATI Radeon HD 6490
Low setting on the desktop version clearly suggests that the mobile series will be on low..
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6470M.43075.0.html
0
0
0
As for the OP, I have no idea.
0
0
But that means the spenders should be better, and I don't really see that.
They just seem more expensive...
Everyone says the monk attacks faster...
How is the monk faster though? Does he have a hidden attack speed buff somewhere?
0
0
I vote, Wizard.
Even with gear she shows the goods off, and has a sexy schoolgirl voice going on.
0
Well when I thought about playing D1, it was a good a year or more after D2 LoD came out, so it was quite old by then. I never even played the original D2, I started off with LoD.
I just looked it up and D2 LoD came out almost exactly 3 years after D1. So I was looking at the game about 4-5 years after it was released. The thing is that computing power increases exponentially, and at the time of D1 graphics were still in their infancy. In contrast, I can play D2 LoD now, nearly a decade after its release and although the graphics are bad its still quite playable. Eventually games will get to the point where years won't seem to make much improvements graphically speaking.
0
Holy shit sandwich
0
He asked if the transition from D1 -> D3 would have been more seamless, than D1->D2
I never played D1, so I have no idea. I thought about playing it once, but the graphics were so terrible I instantly turned it off.
0
0
Dragonball Z evolution
The Last Airbender (Avatar)
Both just epic failures.