Yeah the red crack in the ground is a great detail. However, at least for me, the crack has this conical type bean of light rather than the entire crack being filled with light. Anyone else have it like this? It kinda kills the effect when there is just a single, weird beam of light pouring out :/
Yeah, that's one of the things I was talking about. It looks goofy. I thought it was a glitch at first.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"When men are most sure and arrogant, they are commonly the most mistaken, and have then given views to passion, without that proper deliberation and suspense which can alone secure them from the grossest absurdities"
@LordRayken
I see. Well, we obviously look at the situation from different angles. I'm satisfied with the new old Tristram as it feels more alive than ever. I can actually imagine the place and people who lived there. The size and offset of the well don't bother me at all, the stony ractangle in the northern part of D2 Tristram bothered me much much more (I still don't know whether it was supposed to represent the cathedral or not). I'm just happy with this new "realistic" version of the town and don't want to see those rectangles in the open field ever again. The D2 version was too sketchy and lifeless IMO.
Yeah the red crack in the ground is a great detail. However, at least for me, the crack has this conical type bean of light rather than the entire crack being filled with light. Anyone else have it like this? It kinda kills the effect when there is just a single, weird beam of light pouring out :/
It is a bug, Molster was kind enough to point out, that the light itself isn't the bug but rather the scale of it.
Wow this discussion has gone overboard. I was just making a clear observation that Old Tristram in Diablo 3 is very similar to the one in Diablo 1, I wasn't analyzing every small detail and insinuating that they match perfecting. I thought that people would find it cool that Blizzard would make it like this, compared to throwing the town in a "square box".
Wow this discussion has gone overboard. I was just making a clear observation that Old Tristram in Diablo 3 is very similar to the one in Diablo 1, I wasn't analyzing every small detail and insinuating that they match perfecting. I thought that people would find it cool that Blizzard would make it like this, compared to throwing the town in a "square box".
the bottom line is that tristram looks remarkably similar in all 3 games. are any 2 comparisons the EXACT same? no.
-diablo 1 was the base, nothing to say here
-diablo 2 had the map squared off. removing the cathedral and adrias hut. the river was also moved closer due to the fact they wanted that side of the 'square' to represent a river actually ran through tristram. the left side wall is also a lot farther from the buildings, allowing them to place more enemy mobs to fight.
-diablo 3 (note i dont have the beta myself, just going by videos and lots of searching) is slightly larger than the original. the path to adrias hut and the cathedral is different. alot of the buildings look a bit different. the archway to griswolds weapons miraculously re-appeared after being 'destroyed' in diablo 2. theres probably a few other differences but like i said, no beta.
keep in mind diablo3 takes place 20 years after diablo 2, so of course it will look different. father time on an abandoned burned town. i think people should be happy tristram made it into d2 or d3. cain could made it out of town and been captured elsewhere where we would have saved him there. the 'old tristram' didnt even have to be incorporated because the questline never takes you through it, just near the waypoint then out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(this build was before D3 launched... looking back on it now - i had no idea what i was doing)
I would have liked it if Tristram was used later on, like having to go back to the source of everything, which honestly is still a possiblity, instead of being in the first act of the last 2 games.
I would have liked it if Tristram was used later on, like having to go back to the source of everything, which honestly is still a possiblity, instead of being in the first act of the last 2 games.
I agree it would have been cool. But still a possibility.
EDIT: O hai! I didn't even see this topic! Cool beans! 8)
I also made a video of the three versions of Tristram! Cool!
This video shows how off Diablo 3 is in comparison to Diablo 1 and Diablo 2.
They blatantly changed and added things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"When men are most sure and arrogant, they are commonly the most mistaken, and have then given views to passion, without that proper deliberation and suspense which can alone secure them from the grossest absurdities"
I think you can also find the corpse of the exploding cow from d2's Tristram in the beta hahah.
Also, who cares if d3's Tristram isn't a 100% carbon copy. Seriously, this isn't Diablo 1.5... or 2.5 for that matter...
Absolutely. The new Tristram looks great and close enough that it's clear what it is. Arguing about how different it is would be pointless. I would have been disappointed with a 100% exact copy. Part of the fun in a sequel is seeing what's changed.
And I shouldn't do this, but I'm going to anyway. Rayken, you're the only one in here that thinks you aren't complaining. I don't need hundreds of posts to see that.
There are very minor differences between D1 and D3's tristram, the biggest difference is Adria's hut, which in all honesty is right where its suppose to be, just scaled out so it takes a little bit longer to get there, in the D1 video the player goes to the far bridge and comes down to Adria's hut, in the D3 video the player exits across that bridge to the cathedral, but after 20 years, tree's and shit have poped up blocking the paths, its very acurate imo, they could have been a little bit longer walk to the Cathedral, I admit that, but players don't like to run forever...so I think its ok.
There are very minor differences between D1 and D3's tristram, the biggest difference is Adria's hut, which in all honesty is right where its suppose to be, just scaled out so it takes a little bit longer to get there, in the D1 video the player goes to the far bridge and comes down to Adria's hut, in the D3 video the player exits across that bridge to the cathedral, but after 20 years, tree's and shit have poped up blocking the paths, its very acurate imo, they could have been a little bit longer walk to the Cathedral, I admit that, but players don't like to run forever...so I think its ok.
Yeah a lot of things could have changed over ... was it 20 years?
I don't really mind much if you guys think I'm mad, or think insulting someone for having 3 posts is lame. It doesn't make a difference to me.
The facts are: Tristram is blatantly changed from the way it was presented to us in Diablo 1 and Diablo 2. It's not just Adria's Hut, that was one of the locations I actually appreciated.
It's the random buildings in Old Tristram and the placement of those odd stone walls that seem to suffocate and close the town in so you move right through it and can't look around it. There's even an additional water well and some other buildings that were never there. I don't even know what the point of that is when they didn't get the main town correct in the first place.
I'd go through and show you picture by picture, but I don't think anyone cares as much as I do. Even in that comparison video posted above, you can clearly see that Gillian's house is turned... Sideways? I don't even know what the point of changing that was - most likely because they wanted to cram Old Tristram in that tiny stone wall box I mentioned, and they had to smoosh shit in. So it's things like that that irritate me.
Things are added, moved, or changed in ways that are immediately apparent to someone who played Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 as long as I did. I was essentially raised off the Tristram in Diablo 1, that was my childhood. I walked into the Old Tristram in Diablo 3 and got chills at the reminders - And then I started seeing all the random shit that wasn't there before or left out. That's all I'm saying.
"Close Enough" isn't good enough for me. But I'll have to get over it.
Bottom line - If you plan to revisit a major area of the first game, copy it brick by brick next time, then age it 20 years. Tristram is one of the most iconic video game locations.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"When men are most sure and arrogant, they are commonly the most mistaken, and have then given views to passion, without that proper deliberation and suspense which can alone secure them from the grossest absurdities"
Yeah, that's one of the things I was talking about. It looks goofy. I thought it was a glitch at first.
I see. Well, we obviously look at the situation from different angles. I'm satisfied with the new old Tristram as it feels more alive than ever. I can actually imagine the place and people who lived there. The size and offset of the well don't bother me at all, the stony ractangle in the northern part of D2 Tristram bothered me much much more (I still don't know whether it was supposed to represent the cathedral or not). I'm just happy with this new "realistic" version of the town and don't want to see those rectangles in the open field ever again. The D2 version was too sketchy and lifeless IMO.
It is a bug, Molster was kind enough to point out, that the light itself isn't the bug but rather the scale of it.
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/3196340821
https://www.deviantart.com/aerisot
forums are funny that way.
https://www.deviantart.com/aerisot
-diablo 1 was the base, nothing to say here
-diablo 2 had the map squared off. removing the cathedral and adrias hut. the river was also moved closer due to the fact they wanted that side of the 'square' to represent a river actually ran through tristram. the left side wall is also a lot farther from the buildings, allowing them to place more enemy mobs to fight.
-diablo 3 (note i dont have the beta myself, just going by videos and lots of searching) is slightly larger than the original. the path to adrias hut and the cathedral is different. alot of the buildings look a bit different. the archway to griswolds weapons miraculously re-appeared after being 'destroyed' in diablo 2. theres probably a few other differences but like i said, no beta.
keep in mind diablo3 takes place 20 years after diablo 2, so of course it will look different. father time on an abandoned burned town. i think people should be happy tristram made it into d2 or d3. cain could made it out of town and been captured elsewhere where we would have saved him there. the 'old tristram' didnt even have to be incorporated because the questline never takes you through it, just near the waypoint then out.
https://www.deviantart.com/aerisot
This video shows how off Diablo 3 is in comparison to Diablo 1 and Diablo 2.
They blatantly changed and added things.
you seem really upset its not an exact representation
Also, who cares if d3's Tristram isn't a 100% carbon copy. Seriously, this isn't Diablo 1.5... or 2.5 for that matter...
Absolutely. The new Tristram looks great and close enough that it's clear what it is. Arguing about how different it is would be pointless. I would have been disappointed with a 100% exact copy. Part of the fun in a sequel is seeing what's changed.
And I shouldn't do this, but I'm going to anyway. Rayken, you're the only one in here that thinks you aren't complaining. I don't need hundreds of posts to see that.
Also, insulting one's post count is the lamest thing on the internet. Please get a life LOLOLOL (<-- Also lame, but I don't care HAHAHAH)
https://www.deviantart.com/aerisot
D1, D2, & D3 Tristam similarity = Close Enough
The facts are: Tristram is blatantly changed from the way it was presented to us in Diablo 1 and Diablo 2. It's not just Adria's Hut, that was one of the locations I actually appreciated.
It's the random buildings in Old Tristram and the placement of those odd stone walls that seem to suffocate and close the town in so you move right through it and can't look around it. There's even an additional water well and some other buildings that were never there. I don't even know what the point of that is when they didn't get the main town correct in the first place.
I'd go through and show you picture by picture, but I don't think anyone cares as much as I do. Even in that comparison video posted above, you can clearly see that Gillian's house is turned... Sideways? I don't even know what the point of changing that was - most likely because they wanted to cram Old Tristram in that tiny stone wall box I mentioned, and they had to smoosh shit in. So it's things like that that irritate me.
Things are added, moved, or changed in ways that are immediately apparent to someone who played Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 as long as I did. I was essentially raised off the Tristram in Diablo 1, that was my childhood. I walked into the Old Tristram in Diablo 3 and got chills at the reminders - And then I started seeing all the random shit that wasn't there before or left out. That's all I'm saying.
"Close Enough" isn't good enough for me. But I'll have to get over it.
Bottom line - If you plan to revisit a major area of the first game, copy it brick by brick next time, then age it 20 years. Tristram is one of the most iconic video game locations.
The uber bosses did a great job on destroying it too... but anyway.