- Diablo 3 engine was developed in the year 2004, when they started from scratch.
- The graphics and the game mechanics is limited to what they've allowed the engine to handle.
- Problems: Dull Game mechanics that is already out-dated.
- Auction house, Basic skill tree, Dull skill animation (Chain Lighting, Fireball, Whirlwind, Meteor) The graphics is not at its top notch.
- Characters look exactly like what they've put out in the year 2004. That is 7 year difference from
then to now. SC2 has re-modeled everything, added new lightings with the enhancement of their engine.
But we have yet to see anything of this sort for Diablo 3. (Chances are, highly unlikely)
(Everyout is related to graphics, your animation, your character, the scenery. This means we'll
be seeing less attractive, and less clearer images. Something that will hunt down Diablo 3 for
years to come after release.)
Conclusion
You can't expect to release a game with an out-dated engine. The game just feels like a do-over from many of other previous RPG games we've played in the past. The skills, mechanics and graphics are similar to what we've experienced in the year 2004~2008. In my opinion, as much as I've wanted to play Diablo 3, the game will be somewhat "dull". Maybe, because we've played Diablo 2 for such a long time, and the graphic improvement has actually backfired, due to being less realistic. (Diablo 3 is meant to be gory, hell-like, but with WoW graphics implemented, it makes it much less attractive.)
Diablo 3 would have created a big sensation to gaming market if it released somewhere in 2008. The time difference between the year you make your engine and the release of the game has to be somewhat reasonable. This is a common problem why game looks so unattractive by the release date. Our expectation for games increase every year. In the year 2007, our expectation was lower than 2008, and same for the year 2009. Now we're finally go to a point where Diablo 3 just doesn't seem all that special in the year of 2011.
In my opinion, here is a good example of "work in time-line" game.
Game: Blade & Soul by NCSOFT.
See here. From what we've seen across the builds in D3 and what's happening for SC2, their constantly updating the graphics. If you really think that the game still looks the same then you should go back and watch the WWI gameplay video and then look at 2010 Blizzcon footage. And keep in mind that the differences would be even more apparent if you were the one playing the game.
If you've played SC2 you'd see that the graphics are at least passable. D3, from what people who have played the demo's say, looks about the same and maybe a bit better.
Characters look exactly like what they've put out in the year 2004. That is 7 year difference from then to now. SC2 has re-modeled everything, added new lightings with the enhancement of their engine. But we have yet to see anything of this sort for Diablo 3. (Chances are, highly unlikely)
If this part were true you'd have a point. But its not. So you don't.
See here. From what we've seen across the builds in D3 and what's happening for SC2, their constantly updating the graphics. If you really think that the game still looks the same then you should go back and watch the WWI gameplay video and then look at 2010 Blizzcon footage. And keep in mind that the differences would be even more apparent if you were the one playing the game.
If you've played SC2 you'd see that the graphics are at least passable. D3, from what people who have played the demo's say, looks about the same and maybe a bit better.
Characters look exactly like what they've put out in the year 2004. That is 7 year difference from then to now. SC2 has re-modeled everything, added new lightings with the enhancement of their engine. But we have yet to see anything of this sort for Diablo 3. (Chances are, highly unlikely)
If this part were true you'd have a point. But its not. So you don't.
The final graphics improvement on SC2 using the old engine is what caused the high requirement for their game.
No one is able to play at high setting without experiencing a big drop in their fps, to a point where its almost impossible to play 2v2 and beyond. Improving graphics and putting strain on the old engine is only going to get worse in terms of game play and system requirement.
If you know, all the pros play SC2 at lowest setting possible. Which is the same as the original graphics they've allowed the engine to handle way back when they developed their engine.
I didn't bother to read the rest of the "graphics sux" bcause your first statement is already incorrect. When the game was first being made it used a different engine. Then when the project was restarted they used the havok engine. Since then, they created their own engine to get even better quality.
If you are going to start another one of these threads, at least get the info correct instead of trying to make it seem worse then it actually is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Man. By any standards as bad as this, then retro games like Super Meat Boy or Minecraft are so outdated its so funny. Which is true in a certain way, but certainly not important.
Since when was it about that? Dull game mechanics that are outdated includes the AH? Skill trees? What, do you just expect everything to be different otherwise its dull? Or weren't you one I saw whine because all you wanted is good old person-to-person trading? I apologize if that wasn't you. But if it was, then that is way more outdated than the AH, if you want to look at it that way.
The game mechanics are not all suddenly limited by the Engine. What, a new engine could handle 3D gimmicks and motion control? Bad jokes, but in all seriousness, the point is just because an engine would be made 6 years later, doesn't mean it would handle more gameplay mechanics. It was designed for D3 in mind. Thus it doesn't need more than they wanted, and besides, I really don't see how gameplay is limited to an engine except for excessive features such as shifting terrain or the likes, which would have no proper use in D3.
Graphics are good enough. Graphics don't need to go forward all the time. Not everybody cares (see Minecraft). We reached a point where trying to go higher doesn't mean better all the time, and the style is a lot more important than the actual graphic engine.
The final graphics improvement on SC2 using the old engine is what caused the high requirement for their game.
No one is able to play at high setting without experiencing a big drop in their fps, to a point where its almost impossible to play 2v2 and beyond. Improving graphics and putting strain on the old engine is only going to get worse in terms of game play and system requirement.
If you know, all the pros play SC2 at lowest setting possible. Which is the same as the original graphics they've allowed the engine to handle way back when they developed their engine.
Lies aren't getting you anywhere. A common dual core can run SC2 at very high with little problem. A single core can handle it on medium. And I'm talking about good FPS here, unless a drop from 120 to 80 is inexcusable for you, or some non sense like that.
We really don't need that kind of topics. They make me cry, too.
I didn't bother to read the rest of the "graphics sux" bcause your first statement is already incorrect. When the game was first being made it used a different engine. Then when the project was restarted they used the havok engine. Since then, they created their own engine to get even better quality.
If you are going to start another one of these threads, at least get the info correct instead of trying to make it seem worse then it actually is.
That just enhances my point even to a greater extent. Blizzard worked on top of an existing engine and yet they failed to deliver a product within a time frame. (Which makes 8 year development time even harder to understand)
Wait, Blizzard takes a long time to make games? Call the cops! Not to mention that when development was going on in 2004 it looked like a completely different game and a different team was working on it. And they didn't work on top of an existing engine. For a period of time they used Havok for their physics and then they built their own.
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
What kind of consequences will they be facing if they delayed another year? to 2012 ?
I think consequences will be dire if the game comes in 2012. I mean by then you will have swarmed the forums with countless threads of why D3 is great but will suck.
As for Blizzard, I think they may not be too worried. But who knows, you might be on to something.
From what we've heard recently, which is coming from people pretty high up in Blizzard, the latest D3 will come out is early 2012. I don't know why they'd say things like "We hope to get it out in 2011" and "Our goal is to get it out in 2011" if they didn't care when it came out. Obviously Blizzard will delay it until it meets their quality standards no matter what.
I didn't bother to read the rest of the "graphics sux" bcause your first statement is already incorrect. When the game was first being made it used a different engine. Then when the project was restarted they used the havok engine. Since then, they created their own engine to get even better quality.
If you are going to start another one of these threads, at least get the info correct instead of trying to make it seem worse then it actually is.
That just enhances my point even to a greater extent. Blizzard worked on top of an existing engine and yet they failed to deliver a product within a time frame. (Which makes 8 year development time even harder to understand)
What!? The title of your thread is
Why D3 Engine is already out-dated
Then, your firs comment is:
I'll get straight to the point.
- Diablo 3 engine was developed in the year 2004, when they started from scratch.
- The graphics and the game mechanics is limited to what they've allowed the engine to handle.
Which I assume is the topic of this thread. I discredit all of this and then you say that proves your point further? If you want to discuss the game's development length, you can but that is not the topic of this thread. So, how did I prove your point by discrediting your point of topic?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Gameplay = D2 (What do you mean by gameplay?)
Graphics = Similar to WoW
Wrong, the graphics are not similar to WoW. Have you played WoW?
By the way, IMO Diablo 3 has the best graphics of any video game I have ever seen. And by good graphics I'm not talking about photo-realism, which is only important to shallow chumps.
As far as gameplay goes, I don't know how you can say that Diablo 3 hasn't evolved the gameplay of the genre. The original D3 gameplay video was the most influential force on the entire hack n slash genre when it came out. Now every hack and slash game is trying to copy the apparent style of Diablo 3 (even Torchlight, which was announced AFTER the Diablo 3 gameplay video came out. It shows too, most notably the undead city in Torchlight looks like a complete ripoff of the Tristram Cathedral in D3 except not as good).
- Problems: Dull Game mechanics that is already out-dated.
If you consider:
a)Diablo is a point n' click ARPG, movement and attack can´t be complex in this kind of game. I don´t expect to need much keyboard as I do in Starcraft;
b)Destructible objects and environments;
c)No more Passive skills (only traits now), only interesting skills (gameplay wise);
d)Lots of skill runes and still unknown quantity of really usefull skills and builds;
e)Craft system, upgradeable merchants, end of potions spamming;
If you know, all the pros play SC2 at lowest setting possible. Which is the same as the original graphics they've allowed the engine to handle way back when they developed their engine.
This has nothing to do with Diablo´s engine. You can´t compare completely different gameplay, amount and size of units on screen. Don´t know about SC2 engine but, they did make a new one for D3, and they wouldn´t be stupid to do engine that can´t support the final product. Besides, on competitive play one should always value gameplay over graphics, and I also heard that playing the game on minimum settings but with max on lights or something, makes cloaked units way more visible.(?)
Gameplay = D2 (What do you mean by gameplay?)
Graphics = Similar to WoW
D2 had broken runewords, ridiculous shortcuts (like skipping the whole act 3), bosses/drops farming, unlimited Portals, and 95% of useless junk so players had to wear basically the same gear. They want to change this.
The part about graphics ... you wrong man. But that´s all Blizzard´s fault. They picked the birghtest and happyest screenshots they had. If those were wastelands or dark dungeons (like in DH videos) screenshots instead of a barbarian on a field in a sunny day, there would be no such talk.
I didn't bother to read the rest of the "graphics sux" bcause your first statement is already incorrect. When the game was first being made it used a different engine. Then when the project was restarted they used the havok engine. Since then, they created their own engine to get even better quality. If you are going to start another one of these threads, at least get the info correct instead of trying to make it seem worse then it actually is.
You always beat me to the punch Scyber.. Come'on man :tongue:.
"The proprietary engine will incorporate Blizzard's custom in-house physics, a change from the original usage of Havok's physics engine,[9] and feature destructible environments with an in-game damage effect. The developers are aiming to make the game run on a wide range of systems, and have stated that DirectX 10 will not be required.[8] Diablo III will use a custom 3D game engine[10] in order to present an overhead view to the player, in a somewhat similar way to the isometric view used in previous games in the series.[8] Enemies will utilize the 3D environment as well, in ways such as crawling up the side of a wall from the depths into the combat area.[5]"
What kind of consequences will they be facing if they delayed another year? to 2012 ?
I think consequences will be dire if the game comes in 2012. I mean by then you will have swarmed the forums with countless threads of why D3 is great but will suck.As for Blizzard, I think they may not be too worried. But who knows, you might be on to something.
Chances are the game will come out Q1-Q2 2012.. Will it make a difference? No.. While it's true that technology moves quickly, as known since Moore's Law; that doesn't directly correlate to graphics as you always rest your opinion on. Take Crysis for example, came out November 16, 2007 and is still the standard for hyper realism.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
Last week I spent 15 hours on Crysis 2. The graphics were on extreme, and the game really fast paced and enjoyable. The thing though for me is that I play it once and then shelve it for a year. Unless you like Multi-Player.... which is still not working for me...so I only played single player - Crysis 2 is still bug ridden... no polishing I guess.
So these days I play Diablo 2 ... not for graphics but for enjoyment. If Diablo 3 has the same enjoyment factor that diablo 2 has... I dont care about the graphics... although I know that it will be good.
It´s like going to the cinema...you dont go to see the VFX but the story.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
- Diablo 3 engine was developed in the year 2004, when they started from scratch.
- The graphics and the game mechanics is limited to what they've allowed the engine to handle.
- Problems:
Dull Game mechanics that is already out-dated.
- Auction house, Basic skill tree, Dull skill animation (Chain Lighting, Fireball, Whirlwind, Meteor)
The graphics is not at its top notch.
- Characters look exactly like what they've put out in the year 2004. That is 7 year difference from
then to now. SC2 has re-modeled everything, added new lightings with the enhancement of their engine.
But we have yet to see anything of this sort for Diablo 3. (Chances are, highly unlikely)
(Everyout is related to graphics, your animation, your character, the scenery. This means we'll
be seeing less attractive, and less clearer images. Something that will hunt down Diablo 3 for
years to come after release.)
Conclusion
You can't expect to release a game with an out-dated engine. The game just feels like a do-over from many of other previous RPG games we've played in the past. The skills, mechanics and graphics are similar to what we've experienced in the year 2004~2008. In my opinion, as much as I've wanted to play Diablo 3, the game will be somewhat "dull". Maybe, because we've played Diablo 2 for such a long time, and the graphic improvement has actually backfired, due to being less realistic. (Diablo 3 is meant to be gory, hell-like, but with WoW graphics implemented, it makes it much less attractive.)
Diablo 3 would have created a big sensation to gaming market if it released somewhere in 2008. The time difference between the year you make your engine and the release of the game has to be somewhat reasonable. This is a common problem why game looks so unattractive by the release date. Our expectation for games increase every year. In the year 2007, our expectation was lower than 2008, and same for the year 2009. Now we're finally go to a point where Diablo 3 just doesn't seem all that special in the year of 2011.
In my opinion, here is a good example of "work in time-line" game.
Game: Blade & Soul by NCSOFT.
The project began on 2007, and the release date is 4Q 2011. That is 4 year development.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_&_Soul
You cant help but to accept that this game looks "revolutionary" and "eye-appealing".
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvRh3PvrRWk
My ultimate question is, will Diablo 3 live up to our standards? What kind of consequences will they be facing if they delayed another year? to 2012 ?
If you've played SC2 you'd see that the graphics are at least passable. D3, from what people who have played the demo's say, looks about the same and maybe a bit better.
If this part were true you'd have a point. But its not. So you don't.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
The final graphics improvement on SC2 using the old engine is what caused the high requirement for their game.
No one is able to play at high setting without experiencing a big drop in their fps, to a point where its almost impossible to play 2v2 and beyond. Improving graphics and putting strain on the old engine is only going to get worse in terms of game play and system requirement.
If you know, all the pros play SC2 at lowest setting possible. Which is the same as the original graphics they've allowed the engine to handle way back when they developed their engine.
If you are going to start another one of these threads, at least get the info correct instead of trying to make it seem worse then it actually is.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Since when was it about that? Dull game mechanics that are outdated includes the AH? Skill trees? What, do you just expect everything to be different otherwise its dull? Or weren't you one I saw whine because all you wanted is good old person-to-person trading? I apologize if that wasn't you. But if it was, then that is way more outdated than the AH, if you want to look at it that way.
The game mechanics are not all suddenly limited by the Engine. What, a new engine could handle 3D gimmicks and motion control? Bad jokes, but in all seriousness, the point is just because an engine would be made 6 years later, doesn't mean it would handle more gameplay mechanics. It was designed for D3 in mind. Thus it doesn't need more than they wanted, and besides, I really don't see how gameplay is limited to an engine except for excessive features such as shifting terrain or the likes, which would have no proper use in D3.
Graphics are good enough. Graphics don't need to go forward all the time. Not everybody cares (see Minecraft). We reached a point where trying to go higher doesn't mean better all the time, and the style is a lot more important than the actual graphic engine.
Lies aren't getting you anywhere. A common dual core can run SC2 at very high with little problem. A single core can handle it on medium. And I'm talking about good FPS here, unless a drop from 120 to 80 is inexcusable for you, or some non sense like that.
We really don't need that kind of topics. They make me cry, too.
That just enhances my point even to a greater extent. Blizzard worked on top of an existing engine and yet they failed to deliver a product within a time frame. (Which makes 8 year development time even harder to understand)
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
Gameplay = D2 (What do you mean by gameplay?)
Graphics = Similar to WoW
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
And Gameplay First is Blizzard's motto.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
As for Blizzard, I think they may not be too worried. But who knows, you might be on to something.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
What!? The title of your thread is
Why D3 Engine is already out-dated
Then, your firs comment is:
I'll get straight to the point.
- Diablo 3 engine was developed in the year 2004, when they started from scratch.
- The graphics and the game mechanics is limited to what they've allowed the engine to handle.
Which I assume is the topic of this thread. I discredit all of this and then you say that proves your point further? If you want to discuss the game's development length, you can but that is not the topic of this thread. So, how did I prove your point by discrediting your point of topic?
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
I believe you meant to say "my" here.
Wrong, the graphics are not similar to WoW. Have you played WoW?
By the way, IMO Diablo 3 has the best graphics of any video game I have ever seen. And by good graphics I'm not talking about photo-realism, which is only important to shallow chumps.
As far as gameplay goes, I don't know how you can say that Diablo 3 hasn't evolved the gameplay of the genre. The original D3 gameplay video was the most influential force on the entire hack n slash genre when it came out. Now every hack and slash game is trying to copy the apparent style of Diablo 3 (even Torchlight, which was announced AFTER the Diablo 3 gameplay video came out. It shows too, most notably the undead city in Torchlight looks like a complete ripoff of the Tristram Cathedral in D3 except not as good).
a)Diablo is a point n' click ARPG, movement and attack can´t be complex in this kind of game. I don´t expect to need much keyboard as I do in Starcraft;
b)Destructible objects and environments;
c)No more Passive skills (only traits now), only interesting skills (gameplay wise);
d)Lots of skill runes and still unknown quantity of really usefull skills and builds;
e)Craft system, upgradeable merchants, end of potions spamming;
that´s not dull.
This has nothing to do with Diablo´s engine. You can´t compare completely different gameplay, amount and size of units on screen. Don´t know about SC2 engine but, they did make a new one for D3, and they wouldn´t be stupid to do engine that can´t support the final product. Besides, on competitive play one should always value gameplay over graphics, and I also heard that playing the game on minimum settings but with max on lights or something, makes cloaked units way more visible.(?)
D2 had broken runewords, ridiculous shortcuts (like skipping the whole act 3), bosses/drops farming, unlimited Portals, and 95% of useless junk so players had to wear basically the same gear. They want to change this.
The part about graphics ... you wrong man. But that´s all Blizzard´s fault. They picked the birghtest and happyest screenshots they had. If those were wastelands or dark dungeons (like in DH videos) screenshots instead of a barbarian on a field in a sunny day, there would be no such talk.
/off topic: why there´s no facepalm emoticon?
Oh man, zergy is gonna get swamped trying to reason with all you irrational people.
Don't worry mate. I got your back. We'll get them in the next thread.
In the next thread.
You always beat me to the punch Scyber.. Come'on man :tongue:.
Quote taken form Diablo 3 Wiki.
"The proprietary engine will incorporate Blizzard's custom in-house physics, a change from the original usage of Havok's physics engine,[9] and feature destructible environments with an in-game damage effect. The developers are aiming to make the game run on a wide range of systems, and have stated that DirectX 10 will not be required.[8] Diablo III will use a custom 3D game engine[10] in order to present an overhead view to the player, in a somewhat similar way to the isometric view used in previous games in the series.[8] Enemies will utilize the 3D environment as well, in ways such as crawling up the side of a wall from the depths into the combat area.[5]"
That picture is truly is worth 1000 words in this thread. It looks outstanding, even in the state of completion the game was in back than.
Chances are the game will come out Q1-Q2 2012.. Will it make a difference? No.. While it's true that technology moves quickly, as known since Moore's Law; that doesn't directly correlate to graphics as you always rest your opinion on. Take Crysis for example, came out November 16, 2007 and is still the standard for hyper realism.
So these days I play Diablo 2 ... not for graphics but for enjoyment. If Diablo 3 has the same enjoyment factor that diablo 2 has... I dont care about the graphics... although I know that it will be good.
It´s like going to the cinema...you dont go to see the VFX but the story.