yea i agree with u i would like to look forward to a WoW style Diablo with it being able to pick your class and your gender because i think that there would be a better diverse game that way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
someone once said "Corruption has spread, even to mans best friend"
I voted for Oblivion and Twilight Princess, both are darker graphics and not cartoony, i would prefer the normal diablo camera angle, but with more animated characters
I voted Diablo 2, Dungeon Siege and Oblivion. The reason for these 3 are, I love the top down view of Diablo 2. I love the world type that Dungeon Siege offered, and I loved the graphics that Oblivion had. I would love to see a Diablo 3 game that implimented a world that was all 1 piece. As in no loading screends like Oblivions entering town type of deal. I hope for an experience that is more on par with what Diablo 2 was about. I loved the game. It was the number 1 game I played for the longest time.
While I enjoy the angle and graphics that we have in the first 2 games. These days there really isn't an excuse not to be making full 3D rooms and characters and environments. Using things like the Unreal Engine and Havok Physics, for example, should be just normal things to have. I understand Blizzard builds there own games from scratch normally but I would like to see them take a step in the games we see coming out today. World of Warcraft is beautiful and StarCraft 2 looks spectacular. Let's hope Diablo 3 will go even further.
While I enjoy the angle and graphics that we have in the first 2 games. These days there really isn't an excuse not to be making full 3D rooms and characters and environments. Using things like the Unreal Engine and Havok Physics, for example, should be just normal things to have. I understand Blizzard builds there own games from scratch normally but I would like to see them take a step in the games we see coming out today. World of Warcraft is beautiful and StarCraft 2 looks spectacular. Let's hope Diablo 3 will go even further.
See, now thats based on personal preference, not just the fact that every game should be made in 3D. A lot of people don't like the look of WoW or Starcraft II at all and would hate a Diablo game in the same 3D style. Blizzard's 3D graphics so far aren't good enough for serious games like Diablo, so they either have to put a hell of a lot of effort into improving their graphics or go back to the traditional pre-rendered style.
See, now thats based on personal preference, not just the fact that every game should be made in 3D. A lot of people don't like the look of WoW or Starcraft II at all and would hate a Diablo game in the same 3D style. Blizzard's 3D graphics so far aren't good enough for serious games like Diablo, so they either have to put a hell of a lot of effort into improving their graphics or go back to the traditional pre-rendered style.
They could purchase the rights to use someone elses engine...
And Diablo III won't use Unreal Engine and Havok physics... why do people keep trying to cram FPS technology into a mass game of a company that always tried to make games accessible?
And Diablo III won't use Unreal Engine and Havok physics... why do people keep trying to cram FPS technology into a mass game of a company that always tried to make games accessible?
What do you mean by always trying to make games 'accessible'?
If your saying that using an advanced engine will make the game useless to people who do not own powerful PC's, think again. UE3 is probably the most balanced (performance vs quality), stable and compatible engine there is at the moment. Even when set to medium detail, it still looks great. Sure, the Crysis engine looks better - but at a huge performance cost. Sure, the engine used in WoW performs well on just about anyones PC - but it looks unrealistic and cartoon-like.
I believe Blizzard did not use the simplified pre rendered engines in D1/D2 because they wanted to make the game accessible. They were simply limited by the technology they had, and that has always been the biggest flaw in the Diablo series: the graphical engine.
They have a series with an outstanding history of detailed storylines, flawless soundtracks, decent gameplay (which I am sure they will improve this time around), so why not go one step further and make the game beautiful with the use of a quality engine.
Unreal engine is not the only option out there, but it is one of the best - if not the best - available.
And Diablo III won't use Unreal Engine and Havok physics... why do people keep trying to cram FPS technology into a mass game of a company that always tried to make games accessible?
Blizzard is using Havok in StarCraft 2. So I don't see it impossible for them to use it in another platform.
To Snarf
First of all. I already said in the deleted post that UE is not a mass engine. You can try using SS engine, but not UE, it's going to be pointless. You don't see Witcher using UE, do you? They are using Aurora, and for a reason.
Second of all. It's merely your opinion that Diablo I and II have bad graphics. My opinion is their graphics are much better than Diablo III ever will be because Diablo III will be 3D, and 3D at this point has pretty low quality, especially in games with a lot of monsters. I don't like 3D, so keep that "bad graphics" to yourself, please. Or I'll just say you are chasing after technology without knowing anything about it.
Making the game "beautiful" will make it unplayable for me and a ton of other people. So I won't support you here. I am annoyed at having to buy a new computer each year. I'd rather play Diablo II and StarCraft instead, they'd always be the best.
To Karrian
It's always a different version of Havok. Havok is a general name for physics, just as Ragdoll or whatever. But it doesn't use Havok on the same level as UT does. More like a generally simulated version of the real physics.
To Snarf
First of all. I already said in the deleted post that UE is not a mass engine. You can try using SS engine, but not UE, it's going to be pointless. You don't see Witcher using UE, do you? They are using Aurora, and for a reason.
Second of all. It's merely your opinion that Diablo I and II have bad graphics. My opinion is their graphics are much better than Diablo III ever will be because Diablo III will be 3D, and 3D at this point has pretty low quality, especially in games with a lot of monsters. I don't like 3D, so keep that "bad graphics" to yourself, please. Or I'll just say you are chasing after technology without knowing anything about it.
Making the game "beautiful" will make it unplayable for me and a ton of other people. So I won't support you here. I am annoyed at having to buy a new computer each year. I'd rather play Diablo II and StarCraft instead, they'd always be the best.
You don't have to buy a new computer every year - games have texture, filter, physics, etc. control menus for a reason. But, you are most definitely correct that 2D engines can be highly detailed, and that they have been better suited to mass-character games so far, however I would suggest that they perhaps reduce the numbers of monsters in Diablo III.
Yes, Diablo has always involved fighting of wave apon unrelenting wave of demons, and the sheer mass of enemies is a key part of the game, but don't you think that reducing this number might actually be benificial to gameplay? Do you really think the 'click-click-click' gameplay of the last two Diablo games is the most exiting form of combat possible? It gets rather repetitive, fighting all tose identical mosters, you have to agree? Sure, keep the numbers sufficient to give a sense of mass, but dont have them so high they get boring. Less overall characters on screen would prove benificial to gameplay and allow the use of a detailed 3D engine.
I would have to go with GoW, and GW mostly. I don't feel that the Cartoonish WoW style does D3 right since it is an evil atmosphere. The GW style makes dark evil places that much more effective as does the GoW but not as good as GW. An ISO Game style is always fun but thats not something most people like nowadays. As I said, the WoW style doesn't seem to give Diablo the Dark and Unholy effect it should have. Some of the others are pretty nice but I still think the GW style would be the best for Diablo 3.
It's hard to choose, I'd personally love to see a Diablo with the graphic qualities of FF or TLoZ:TP, but if that actually influences the gameplay, I'd stick with old Diablo I and II upgraded graphs. To be honest, I loved the gameplay from fable, but preferred a darker style of graphics, I know GoW would be a nice option but there's something about it that tells me it only works for that game...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Amen. I agree completely with this.
I liked Diablo I and II, and experienced a great deal of immersion in those games, but think how much more immersing Diablo could be in first person!
See, now thats based on personal preference, not just the fact that every game should be made in 3D. A lot of people don't like the look of WoW or Starcraft II at all and would hate a Diablo game in the same 3D style. Blizzard's 3D graphics so far aren't good enough for serious games like Diablo, so they either have to put a hell of a lot of effort into improving their graphics or go back to the traditional pre-rendered style.
They could purchase the rights to use someone elses engine...
What do you mean by always trying to make games 'accessible'?
If your saying that using an advanced engine will make the game useless to people who do not own powerful PC's, think again. UE3 is probably the most balanced (performance vs quality), stable and compatible engine there is at the moment. Even when set to medium detail, it still looks great. Sure, the Crysis engine looks better - but at a huge performance cost. Sure, the engine used in WoW performs well on just about anyones PC - but it looks unrealistic and cartoon-like.
I believe Blizzard did not use the simplified pre rendered engines in D1/D2 because they wanted to make the game accessible. They were simply limited by the technology they had, and that has always been the biggest flaw in the Diablo series: the graphical engine.
They have a series with an outstanding history of detailed storylines, flawless soundtracks, decent gameplay (which I am sure they will improve this time around), so why not go one step further and make the game beautiful with the use of a quality engine.
Unreal engine is not the only option out there, but it is one of the best - if not the best - available.
Blizzard is using Havok in StarCraft 2. So I don't see it impossible for them to use it in another platform.
First of all. I already said in the deleted post that UE is not a mass engine. You can try using SS engine, but not UE, it's going to be pointless. You don't see Witcher using UE, do you? They are using Aurora, and for a reason.
Second of all. It's merely your opinion that Diablo I and II have bad graphics. My opinion is their graphics are much better than Diablo III ever will be because Diablo III will be 3D, and 3D at this point has pretty low quality, especially in games with a lot of monsters. I don't like 3D, so keep that "bad graphics" to yourself, please. Or I'll just say you are chasing after technology without knowing anything about it.
Making the game "beautiful" will make it unplayable for me and a ton of other people. So I won't support you here. I am annoyed at having to buy a new computer each year. I'd rather play Diablo II and StarCraft instead, they'd always be the best.
To Karrian
It's always a different version of Havok. Havok is a general name for physics, just as Ragdoll or whatever. But it doesn't use Havok on the same level as UT does. More like a generally simulated version of the real physics.
You don't have to buy a new computer every year - games have texture, filter, physics, etc. control menus for a reason. But, you are most definitely correct that 2D engines can be highly detailed, and that they have been better suited to mass-character games so far, however I would suggest that they perhaps reduce the numbers of monsters in Diablo III.
Yes, Diablo has always involved fighting of wave apon unrelenting wave of demons, and the sheer mass of enemies is a key part of the game, but don't you think that reducing this number might actually be benificial to gameplay? Do you really think the 'click-click-click' gameplay of the last two Diablo games is the most exiting form of combat possible? It gets rather repetitive, fighting all tose identical mosters, you have to agree? Sure, keep the numbers sufficient to give a sense of mass, but dont have them so high they get boring. Less overall characters on screen would prove benificial to gameplay and allow the use of a detailed 3D engine.