I did think that that video was a pretty damn good alteration. I like that the brightness wasn't cut too drastically since it's an early dungeon. It's still a tad bit too gray though, perhaps. The color scheme should just shift to include less color on one side of the color wheel. If you chose to exclude green, then keep the oranges and blues a tad more vibrant but not eye-popping. The important thing to keep in mind is that it's a dungeon that will probably resemble more of what you might expect early on so I would be okay with more calming, vibrant tones ( blues and yellows ). I don't see the need for an explosion of color, though. A stone dungeon, especially early in the game need not be so wild and extravagant with color but not completely devoid of it either. Vegas, your edit would be better for a later dungeon and I'm sure you'll see more of that sort of lighting later on.
The biggest thing that threw me off about D3 is that I was expecting a sharper, slimmer, more contrast driven and sophisticated look to the game. Not to an extreme, but more so than what we saw in the demo. I.E. Some bulk to the armor, but some tapering as well. More mature looking anatomy to the characters and sleek shiny armors and weapons without the crazy glow.
-
- cycloverid
- Registered User
-
Member for 15 years, 9 months, and 26 days
Last active Sat, Apr, 4 2009 21:29:26
- 0 Followers
- 196 Total Posts
- 1 Thank
0
Yeah, imagine if they dumbed it down even more!
0
Putting together your personal inventory with charms and the like was a ton of fun. You always needed to manage your space so that you'd have enough room just in case a unique armor dropped on the ground randomly! You always had to be on your toes!
What made it kinda slow, and what would really speed up the process is to have quick commands, like mouse dragging ( to select multiple items ) and maybe some "auto sort' features. Oh well, I can dream.
I agree, that it was much more hands on and the item graphics were much larger so you could really see your precious goods.
dunhac82, I hope your post gets deleted because it is not constructive nor is it intelligent.
0
Actually I have never found an SOJ in all my years of playing D2 ( and I have found hundreds of unique rings ), so I don't think it was ever currency except when the economy went to ass and it was duped 1000 times. Runes were a better (higher) currency by far than this mystical SOJ you speak of!
0
Actually, EA is a publisher and a developer.
Edit: And Blizzard will most likely make some serious graphical improvements by release, as we have seen many times in their dev cycles. Hopefully this will mean more next-gen effects, but we can't bank on that one.
0
I never said TF2 was a bad game, in fact it is a good game. I'm just saying that it's not a classic. If they had left it the way it was during its release, it would have just been mulled over because it had some serious faults ( extremely basic abilities and the initial maps weren't the greatest ). With enough patches ( and they have been doing a great job ), all that work may pay off - because it was seriously second to Duke Nukem as being one of the biggest vaporware game titles of the last 10 years. And the moral of the story is, it doesn't matter how long something takes, just so long as you follow through and keep improving the original idea - which I think we both wholeheartedly agree on.
One thing I have to correct you on is, yes, to a large degree they did "sit on their butts" and redesign the game over and over. They admitted to totally reworking the entire game 3-4 times! Valve moved through drastically different styles and gameplay schemes and at one point were making it a BattleField style game.
0
No, I mean Team Fortress 2. Go read the wiki on it, you might learn something.
0
U must not follow games much lol. Do you have any idea how much time and money has gone into TF2? It's astronomical! Do you even know the story? Have you even followed it? It's okay, I forgive you.
0
TF2 is good, but it's no Half-Life.
0
Blizzard's 2D games marked the golden age of computer gaming. They were absolutely flawless 2D artists. It was an amazing time.
As true as this is, they haven't learned that yet
0
I share your sentiments exactly, but you have to consider the larger picture. Blizzard has always been graphically under-par. Think about the first release of StarCraft before they redid the engine ( you know the one built on the WC2 engine ), it looked awful ( seriously would have been a monumental disaster with those graphics ).
Blizzard will listen enough to those who have gripes with their art-style to save Diablo 3 from becoming a WC clone, I have faith in that. Sure it won't be what Diablo 2 was for its day, but you have to consider that Blizzard is trying to stay tight-knit with their vision and thus they reuse many employees. Hopefully from Diablo 3 they learn that it just needs a separate art team.
Valve is absolutely unstoppable right now. They are hands down the best company because they stick to what they know ( FPSers ). And they have a damn good art and technical team! They have an oldschool Blizzardian philosophy of great gameplay, many patches, and perfect execution.
0
It seems that Blizzard is fearful of expansion. They closed down North because of their lack of ability to communicate, not because they didn't have the money. That's a big reason they are as successful as they are, they haven't lost their vision due to corporate expansion and economic interests. Their interests have always been in making great games ( a bit hypocritical when you think about the in-game art direction of Diablo 3, but nothing comes without sacrifice ). Sure EA can pump out the exact art style they want and make many titles in the same time frame as Blizzard, but the quality of the gameplay is not even comparable to Blizzard titles.
0
Yes, but WoW was a necessary stepping stone for Blizzard. You have to look at it that way. It is unfortunate that WoW must be rub off onto Diablo, but it is unavoidable.
0
It's good that the cinematic and concept direction is still so intact with the original Diablo direction. I think that by Diablo IV they'll have it nailed. Blizzard is just too small of a developer to jump from one unique style to the next at the moment. Once they expand more they can dedicate separate artists or perhaps different studios to their various franchises. I hope they come back to norcal (crosses fingers)!
0
0
You actually have no idea what you're talking about do you? Well, since I do programming for a living let me enlighten you. First of all, I never said Crysis-like graphics. I merely mentioned that they shouldn't use ridiculously low specs, especially since it will probably be OVER a year until they release D3. Not only that but Crysis far from flopped and it has already been released! ( to queue you in it did QUITE well ) In a year, an X1800 or 7800 model video card will be DIRT cheap, if they aren't cheap enough ALREADY. In fact, even right now a 4850 is $160-170 on newegg! Those should be more than sufficient to run the game on minimal to average settings and moderate to high settings with the 4850. Secondly, Crysis programmers didn't invent the algorithms they used for the game! Therefore there would be no lawsuits. The technology in Crysis has been available to the public in publications for some time now. At least 5 years on most of the complex algorithms present in the game and 10 or more years for the more basic. Most of all, we're not talking about volumetric fog or water shaders, which consume the most processes on your video card. Normal maps, spec maps, static AO maps, and Dynamic Ambient Occlusion are all very simple GPU algorithms ( since 3 out of 4 of those are simple texture fetches LOL ) that could REALLY add some realism to the game. These are things present in all modern games. Hell, they could even throw in some Deferred Shading for higher end cards! <-- that would look great for dynamic light sources on spells!