Looks awesome to be sure. But I wonder what kind of rig you need to maintain that detail level at 60FPS. Lost Ark looks like the Crysis of ARPGS.
I think Blizzard could design higher resolution textures. But I get the sense they're not going to devote resources towards something that only a small fraction of the player base can realistically enjoy.
1) Blizzard *never* created a game with top-notch graphics, due to two reasons: first, they want to ensure that many people can play a game, and sometimes FPS shooters with crazy new graphics engines require you to buy a $400 graphics card; second, there are more important things than graphics.
2) Almost all Blizzard games in the past had competitors that were released at the same time and had better graphics, but the Blizzard games succeeded in the long-term and were the ones that not only "won" the competition but oftentimes went on to re-define the genre. You know why this is? Good graphics keep you engaged for a week, or maybe a months. Good gameplay keeps you engaged for years.
3) After over 20 years of playing computer games I've noticed (well, not just recently but a long time ago) that my favorite games were never the ones with superior graphics, but those that kept me engaged in terms of mechanics, depth, story, atmosphere, gameplay. For example, Fallout (1+2) is probably my all-time favorite game - although it looked like "shit" from day 1 and got bad ratings because its graphics were not superior. For me, the atmosphere of this game is unmatched. Same applies to D2 that some people still play today. If graphics are your only "selling point", your game is obsolete and forgotten in one year due to the rapid technological development.
As ruksak said, I'm very disappointed to see this coming from you, and I strongly disagree with your thread title - if Blizzard would design a game like this, they could not invest the time and resources into the departments that really matter to make games as successful and awesome as Blizzard games to date have been. I've watched the trailers and was like "yeah, graphics looks awesome, but that gameplay looks like crap and the constant screen shaking, effect overload, and slow fight mechanics would let me uninstall after one hour".
Games with 2 times better graphics than D3 have at least 2 times lower requirements dude. Blizz is just TERRIBLE at optimalisation. They could easily make much better graphics with the same requirements on other engine than their failed abomination. But it is too hard to buy damn source or ue4 >.>
3) After over 20 years of playing computer games I've noticed (well, not just recently but a long time ago) that my favorite games were never the ones with superior graphics, but those that kept me engaged in terms of mechanics, depth, story, atmosphere, gameplay. For example, Fallout (1+2) is probably my all-time favorite game - although it looked like "shit" from day 1 and got bad ratings because its graphics were not superior. For me, the atmosphere of this game is unmatched. Same applies to D2 that some people still play today. If graphics are your only "selling point", your game is obsolete and forgotten in one year due to the rapid technological development.
TL;DR: No, thanks.
Could not agree with this point more. A track record of visually beautiful but mechanically awful games that have come out of Korea has proven that really what beats all is gameplay/story when it comes down to it.
1) Blizzard *never* created a game with top-notch graphics, due to two reasons: first, they want to ensure that many people can play a game, and sometimes FPS shooters with crazy new graphics engines require you to buy a $400 graphics card; second, there are more important things than graphics.
2) Almost all Blizzard games in the past had competitors that were released at the same time and had better graphics, but the Blizzard games succeeded in the long-term and were the ones that not only "won" the competition but oftentimes went on to re-define the genre. You know why this is? Good graphics keep you engaged for a week, or maybe a months. Good gameplay keeps you engaged for years.
3) After over 20 years of playing computer games I've noticed (well, not just recently but a long time ago) that my favorite games were never the ones with superior graphics, but those that kept me engaged in terms of mechanics, depth, story, atmosphere, gameplay. For example, Fallout (1+2) is probably my all-time favorite game - although it looked like "shit" from day 1 and got bad ratings because its graphics were not superior. For me, the atmosphere of this game is unmatched. Same applies to D2 that some people still play today. If graphics are your only "selling point", your game is obsolete and forgotten in one year due to the rapid technological development.
As ruksak said, I'm very disappointed to see this coming from you, and I strongly disagree with your thread title - if Blizzard would design a game like this, they could not invest the time and resources into the departments that really matter to make games as successful and awesome as Blizzard games to date have been. I've watched the trailers and was like "yeah, graphics looks awesome, but that gameplay looks like crap and the constant screen shaking, effect overload, and slow fight mechanics would let me uninstall after one hour".
TL;DR: No, thanks.
I was specifically referring to the graphics and physics, not necessarily the gameplay. Again, we don't know much about it.
1) I'm well aware. I also think they're selling themselves short. I do believe the SC2 engine that keeps being developed (take a look at some of the real-time rendered content in Legacy of the Void 'armory' zone) will be the basis for the next MMO, but as it stands blizz could optimize better. You can make a graphics-heavy game accessible to those with lower end systems by allowing for specific setting to be turned on/off, including things like polygon count.
2) I agree. it would just be nice if they could take their amazing gameplay and release something up to date in terms of graphics. I understand WoW is based on an engine that's what like 15 years old?
3) To an extent. A forward-enough graphics engine will keep a game looking fresh for many years. They don't get outdated THAT fast.
And I'm disappointed to see a complete lack of realism in most of the games (from a visual standpoint only), especially when there are plenty of smaller companies who - to be fair - have inferior gameplay but far superior visuals. I think Overwatch is going to have phenomenal gameplay, but it looks like another cartoony kid game. I guess part of me just wants something looks believable.
That said, I think Legacy of the Void will be Blizzard's masterpiece to date graphically. My jaw dropped during the panels at Blizzcon and I really hope they take this engine and use it in future titles.
Games with 2 times better graphics than D3 have at least 2 times lower requirements dude. Blizz is just TERRIBLE at optimalisation. They could easily make much better graphics with the same requirements on other engine than their failed abomination. But it is too hard to buy damn source or ue4 >.>
[quote=Shiroiro;/members/243558-shiroiro;/forums/diablo-iii-general-forums/diablo-iii-general-discussion/97517-wtb-blizz-game-that-looks-like-this?comment=10]Games with 2 times better graphics than D3 have at least 2 times lower requirements dude. Blizz is just TERRIBLE at optimalisation. They could easily make much better graphics with the same requirements on other engine than their failed abomination. But it is too hard to buy damn source or ue4 >.>
Source or I don't believe you...
Source? Run d3 on lowest. Run far cry 4 on medium. Fps is more stable and HIGHER in fc4 for me. And im on lenovo y580. Ok actually its not 2 times better its infinitely better. But whatever. This whole talk about bad graphics like "they want to ensure that many people can play a game" is complete bullshit. It looks bad and it has high requirements.
Oh my god, this site has best quoting system ever created. Kappa.
Even though my PC runs D3 on max settings in an acceptable manner, I turn my graphics all the way down to give me the smoothest performance at the highest FPS rate I can muster.
I don't need eye candy. I need a game with depth, support and long term playability. I certainly don't need to be nickle 'n' dimed by some Korean knockoff with beautiful graphics.
Even though my PC runs D3 on max settings in an acceptable manner, I turn my graphics all the way down to give me the smoothest performance at the highest FPS rate I can muster.
I don't need eye candy. I need a game with depth, support and long term playability. I certainly don't need to be nickle 'n' dimed by some Korean knockoff with beautiful graphics.
But it would be quite nice if game would have appropirate requirements to the graphics, isn't it?
3) To an extent. A forward-enough graphics engine will keep a game looking fresh for many years. They don't get outdated THAT fast.
And I'm disappointed to see a complete lack of realism in most of the games (from a visual standpoint only), especially when there are plenty of smaller companies who - to be fair - have inferior gameplay but far superior visuals. I think Overwatch is going to have phenomenal gameplay, but it looks like another cartoony kid game. I guess part of me just wants something looks believable.
That said, I think Legacy of the Void will be Blizzard's masterpiece to date graphically. My jaw dropped during the panels at Blizzcon and I really hope they take this engine and use it in future titles.
It's still the Crysis affect. If you hype the game on superb graphics and then don't deliver superb graphics (because even mid-level gaming rigs can't handle it), you're asking for negative reviews. And worse, you probably sacrificed content to make a graphics experience inaccessible to most people. And while graphics aren't nearly as important as gameplay, I'm never going to buy a game knowing I can only play it on "Low". Maybe I've not played enough PC games but I've just never been impressed with any game that has to be cranked way way down just to play. For example, game play can suffer when low graphics settings force you to reduce your draw distance. Hard to be immersed in an open world when all you see in the distance is fog.
Also, we can't confuse art style with graphical quality. Yes, I'm not exactly the biggest fan of Blizzard's cartoony style. But I think games shy away from "realism" because if you go for realism and fail (or just reduce the polygon count), it looks awful. But if you go for cartoony and then reduce the polygon count, it still just looks cartoony. No big loss.
I've never liked Blizzard's cartoony graphics. It would be my number once complaint across their amazing line up of titles. A few people in this thread have said that the important thing is gameplay. This is very much true. But why can't you have both? I would kill for a game with Blizzard's superior gameplay AND stunning visuals.
Currently Blizzard's great aptitude for creating an awesome game keeps me coming back in spite of their lackluster graphics. How cool would it be to have amazing graphics and a great game from them?
How come you people are talking like this is an either/or proposition?
Yeah, since they have no idea about balancing and creating diversity they could put some resources into better graphic effects. For example same images for travellers pledge/mara amulet or helltooth/jearam it is quite pathetic. And I can recall that hey said that legendary items will have unique models unlike in d2, despite that few weapons and MOST of chests are just reskinned white items >.>
for me, i have both nice graphics and stunning gameplay.
i don't play D3 on max graphics, because machine is old, but i think it's time to buy new one, then i'll go max detail and enjoy.
Same with SC2: when i saw the graphics, it was just like another dimension. and i don't think there's much more to get from the engine and to put into the game, because i'm really fine for graphics like these for this type of game (D3, SC2, ..)
this korean game looks nice from the first view, but everything else .. come on ... swords 5x as big as char and demons big as mountains slowly spitting fire just from the bottom of the stairs or smashing 500 enemies with 1 hit .. "too fancy/crazy" for me, as they tend to make things unnecessarily much much bigger than others (giant heads,weapons,eyes,bewbs, etc.). somehow can't take that seriously
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV0wWzDAwJU
MeatHeadGaming - YouTube - Twitch - Facebook - Web
Fucking micropay bullshit is what I hear.
D3 has it's share of issues, and graphics sure ain't one of them.
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC) Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
Game looks impressive, graphically. But nobody knows anything about it other than (from what I've heard) it's free to play, micropay based.
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC) Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/profile/iGGi-2191/hero/87768679
I think Blizzard could design higher resolution textures. But I get the sense they're not going to devote resources towards something that only a small fraction of the player base can realistically enjoy.
2) Almost all Blizzard games in the past had competitors that were released at the same time and had better graphics, but the Blizzard games succeeded in the long-term and were the ones that not only "won" the competition but oftentimes went on to re-define the genre. You know why this is? Good graphics keep you engaged for a week, or maybe a months. Good gameplay keeps you engaged for years.
3) After over 20 years of playing computer games I've noticed (well, not just recently but a long time ago) that my favorite games were never the ones with superior graphics, but those that kept me engaged in terms of mechanics, depth, story, atmosphere, gameplay. For example, Fallout (1+2) is probably my all-time favorite game - although it looked like "shit" from day 1 and got bad ratings because its graphics were not superior. For me, the atmosphere of this game is unmatched. Same applies to D2 that some people still play today. If graphics are your only "selling point", your game is obsolete and forgotten in one year due to the rapid technological development.
As ruksak said, I'm very disappointed to see this coming from you, and I strongly disagree with your thread title - if Blizzard would design a game like this, they could not invest the time and resources into the departments that really matter to make games as successful and awesome as Blizzard games to date have been. I've watched the trailers and was like "yeah, graphics looks awesome, but that gameplay looks like crap and the constant screen shaking, effect overload, and slow fight mechanics would let me uninstall after one hour".
TL;DR: No, thanks.
1) I'm well aware. I also think they're selling themselves short. I do believe the SC2 engine that keeps being developed (take a look at some of the real-time rendered content in Legacy of the Void 'armory' zone) will be the basis for the next MMO, but as it stands blizz could optimize better. You can make a graphics-heavy game accessible to those with lower end systems by allowing for specific setting to be turned on/off, including things like polygon count.
2) I agree. it would just be nice if they could take their amazing gameplay and release something up to date in terms of graphics. I understand WoW is based on an engine that's what like 15 years old?
3) To an extent. A forward-enough graphics engine will keep a game looking fresh for many years. They don't get outdated THAT fast.
And I'm disappointed to see a complete lack of realism in most of the games (from a visual standpoint only), especially when there are plenty of smaller companies who - to be fair - have inferior gameplay but far superior visuals. I think Overwatch is going to have phenomenal gameplay, but it looks like another cartoony kid game. I guess part of me just wants something looks believable.
That said, I think Legacy of the Void will be Blizzard's masterpiece to date graphically. My jaw dropped during the panels at Blizzcon and I really hope they take this engine and use it in future titles.
MeatHeadGaming - YouTube - Twitch - Facebook - Web
Source? Run d3 on lowest. Run far cry 4 on medium. Fps is more stable and HIGHER in fc4 for me. And im on lenovo y580. Ok actually its not 2 times better its infinitely better. But whatever. This whole talk about bad graphics like "they want to ensure that many people can play a game" is complete bullshit. It looks bad and it has high requirements.
Oh my god, this site has best quoting system ever created. Kappa.
I don't need eye candy. I need a game with depth, support and long term playability. I certainly don't need to be nickle 'n' dimed by some Korean knockoff with beautiful graphics.
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC) Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
Also, we can't confuse art style with graphical quality. Yes, I'm not exactly the biggest fan of Blizzard's cartoony style. But I think games shy away from "realism" because if you go for realism and fail (or just reduce the polygon count), it looks awful. But if you go for cartoony and then reduce the polygon count, it still just looks cartoony. No big loss.
Currently Blizzard's great aptitude for creating an awesome game keeps me coming back in spite of their lackluster graphics. How cool would it be to have amazing graphics and a great game from them?
How come you people are talking like this is an either/or proposition?
i don't play D3 on max graphics, because machine is old, but i think it's time to buy new one, then i'll go max detail and enjoy.
Same with SC2: when i saw the graphics, it was just like another dimension. and i don't think there's much more to get from the engine and to put into the game, because i'm really fine for graphics like these for this type of game (D3, SC2, ..)
this korean game looks nice from the first view, but everything else .. come on ... swords 5x as big as char and demons big as mountains slowly spitting fire just from the bottom of the stairs or smashing 500 enemies with 1 hit .. "too fancy/crazy" for me, as they tend to make things unnecessarily much much bigger than others (giant heads,weapons,eyes,bewbs, etc.). somehow can't take that seriously