How the hell was my post 'trolling'? I had my opinion about the subject and I posted it. I don't see how the lack of LAN is in any way connected to paying for playing, and I never really played LAN anyway. So just because I take a dig at (way too) hardcore Diablo players suddenly it's trolling?!
not really nitpicky, considering you are looking at it 24/7 while playing the game. It is a big deal to me, considering I'll be looking at it, as everyone else will be also that thinks its annoying. If you dont like the thread then don't post in it ...
No, it's pretty nitpicky. And if you have any logic, you can safely assume it's not something that you can't turn off. It's Blizzard! These guys made WOW! You can turn stuff off in WOW, you know!
And don't tell me what thread I can or can't post in. If I have an opinion about the subject (that it's nitpicky) then I'll give it to you. If you don't like it, then don't bother responding.
No they're not. What you're basically doing is wishing Diablo III was more like Diablo II. It's a different game. A good sequel is supposed to take basic elements from the previous titles in the series and present them in a fresh and - in many cases - different fashion. What you want is Diablo II with 3-D graphics.
Petty and shallow. Once again, I ask you to grow up.
My reaction was one of pure shock and joy but the more info I got on the game the more bummed I became... because of..
1. I saw this stuff about "health orbs".
2. This dark cultist page here and it looking exactly like a WoW undead mage with the right gear, and it having the same exact spell casting animation as the WoW one also http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/world/bestiary/darkcultists.xml
3. good graphics but just weird cartoony stuff in there that... really didn't need to be added to it.
4. No necromancer, and this "witch doctor" having the same skills as him almost... cheap knockoff...
5. Barbarian and his HUGELY glow affected weapons. I was rather repulsed by it.
6. Weird spell affects from barbarian, I mean I know hes magical but damn... He is not a Mageknight or a paladin.
So my reaction when I actually went to the diablo 3 site and heard about this stuff, i was from 1-10 a 15 probably in joy. Right now I'm at like a 5.
OMG NO NECROMANCER.
Your reasons for not being as excited for the game are petty and shallow. Grow up.
Where in the world did this pay-to-play garbage begin? (I refuse to replace words with numbers, by the way. The 90s called, they want their schtick back.)
I understand that all you 'hardcore' fans who like to micromanage stats and basically make the game less fun might be a little fussy about the lack of LAN support (which I admit doesn't seem too difficult to implement) but I'm pretty sure most of my time playing D2 was spent on BattleNET, instead of a room with six other PCs. If anything, the only people who should be even mildly upset are the owners of PC-Baangs in America, where the broadband isn't as amazing as it is in Seoul.
Wow. How much more nitpicky can you get? Blizzard has had a recent history of making the UI in games highly customizable. I'm PRETTY SURE this won't be a big deal.
You may not see it as constructive criticism, but that's what it is. It's a bunch of suggestions with arguments supporting them and a proposals on how it might look better (obviously no one with some PS skills thinks he's better than blizz dev. team, but they just show what the end result MIGHT look like better, just to illustrate his opinion). It's not in any way disrespectful, bitchy or insulting.
Some people get all worked up because of rainbows, blur, green, blue (coming from nowhere, which is just odd), bunnies, WoW influenced modeling, etc. To each his own, the point is that the petition is not just about one color, one model, one area, it's about overall game/art style/feel. No one is against progress and evolution of the franchise to expand to new gamers (wow, imagine the loss they've suffered not playing D1 and D2 when they were new! i feel lucky!) but most people are against the game losing most of the artistic direction, the roots as some say, of the original games.
The roots of a brand are a very important thing. Every company has it, certain manufacturers make some elements of their cars similar, their new models are new but you can tell that they have the certain feel/look that resembles and reminds of the classic etc.
The low requirements argument is somewhat flawed, imo. Take a look at Half Life 2 engine. What a fantastic piece or art this is? Runs on GF 6150 with 128 ram (onboard v-card that is!) on high detail on 1024x768 resolution, and runs on high details on resolution of 1920x on 24" Widescreen DELL with GF 7300 SILENT with 512 ram and has FANTASTIC graphics.
You may not care if you wait a year more, but some people here are absolutely hysteric about this. I for one would love to see screenshots of earlier versions of the game, the darker ones they mentioned, the ones that resembled more the old art style, just for the sake of it(especially if there are such from when Blizzard North was doing the job).
So are you implying that the current state of the graphics engine DOESN'T look good? Because frankly, art direction concerns or no, I don't think anyone should be saying that.
And it's funny that you should mention 'one color, one model, one area' because it's basically all Blizzard showed us. I'm over-exaggerating, of course, but the point I've been trying to make this whole damn time is that considering how LITTLE we've seen of the game, and how FAR it is from its' eventual release, a lot of these comments are stupid and plain ridiculous.
I have spent 3 years at college doing graphic design, I have worked with people on retail games doing 3d and 2d graphics, I know 3d studio max and photoshop back to front and I undestand "contrast and color" and I STILL think they have gone about it totally wrong. using the full spectrum of colors does NOT make a good image, and color is definitely NOT always your friend. Using it wisely in a complimenting manner works, blasting multi colored imagery over other strongly colored imagery does not.
I, too, am a graphic design major, although I'm not as far along as you.
I can't agree more with what you said about the full spectrum of colors, but I fail to see the 'blasting multi colored imagery over other strongly colored imagery' that you mention. I see highlights and splashes of color, but it's definately not something that feels overbearing. Perhaps it's because of the softer palette?
Anyway, as it was countlessly stated before, gamma and contrast are all features that are easily manipulated to fit the individual user. Color-wise, I feel like it's a good balance. The hues of blue in the dungeon that everyone seems to love picking at gives the environment more depth than a simple black gradient would. It's also a feature that, if WoW is any indication, can be turned off.
Your hate for petitions is unreasonable. Think of this one as in term of polls. But this way you don't have to register in a separate forum to vote. It just shows a relative number of the people supporting an idea, critique, suggestion, etc.
I've looked at the comments and they are 90% pathetic and moronic. People calling us fanboys, emo, gothkids, idiots, whatnot (while kissing blizzards ass and not even daring to express a constructive critique, which is the only thing we're doing). If those low intelligent and pathetic excuses of a thinking human beings (more like human waste)are really the majority of the people supporting the idea... well, it's kind of sad that such great and smart people (blizzard) have these folks for support. And just so make myself clear - I don't think that everyone who likes this style is a moron, human waste etc., just those who insult us because they can't accept our opinion and are too insecure and think we might delay the game (and this way showing their distrust in Blizzard, which so comfortably blame on us.).
Ooo, finally someone who's willing to be a total asshat along with me.
Maybe in your eyes it's constructive criticism, but what I see from most of the forum posters is a total lack of understanding in both artistic concepts such as contrast and color, and game design. Anyone with half a brain can see the reasons behind the graphical choices are for accessibility to new users who aren't familiar with the franchise, and users who have lower end PCs. They want to make a game that looks great on the majority of computers. Crysis didn't do that, and look at the abysmal sales.
And to be quite honest, the fact that Blizzard might delay the game to make changes never really occurred to me, nor does it really motivate my reason for opposing this stupidity. I've waited 8 years just fine, a few more won't be a big deal.
Really? And where have they said that? What makes you think that only those who signed the petition don't like it? What if the people who don't know about the petition and don't take part in communities like that or those who don't even know the game is announced yet?
Do you think that those 10, 14 or 20 thousand people are the ONLY ones who think like that? Come on, you gotta be kidding me!
P.S. The petition approving the current artistic style have been on the same places the other petition is and has been signed barely 670 times (at this point) WITH the double votes!
Yeah, I didn't sign the 'approval petition' because frankly, online petitions are fucking useless, and I'd imagine that there are thousands upon thousands of people who didn't either.
In fact, this is the only website where I find the majority of people not liking how the game looks at the moment. Look at Gametrailers, Kotaku, Destructoid, etc. The comments sections are mainly filled with approval.
The whole "NO KIDS IN MY DIABLO RARRR" is the same retarded mindset that led to "NO WOW IN MY DIABLO RARRR".
Unless you're 45 or something, you were most likely a teenager when either Diablo 1 or Diablo 2 came out. No, don't give me that 'but I was a MATURE teenager!' bullshit. Shut up, you were a teenager. I know I was about 12 when D2 came out, and I know I played it like crazy. To deny teens today that same experience just because you 'don't want no kids to be messin up mah game' would be essentially spitting on the teenage gamer years that you enjoyed.
Grow up, and don't be a selfish little asshat with an elitist personality.
Once again, I wish I could reach through the internet and punch some of you punks in the face.
No one is complaining about the game itself. It sure seems to be a well done and fun game, so I understand that warcraft fans and maybe others like what they see.
But this game isnt Diablo. This could instead had been made under another name. We want a Diablo follow up that is true to the Diablo universe and cartoon looks doesnt fit there at all, so of course you become disappoited when you see that presentated. It also isnt just about colors, you can make the colors how dark you want, but in cartoonish graphics you will never get a real Diablo feel. Its just that simple.
deigaman said: "While there may be 10,000 of you who want change, the other 90,000 are wisely waiting to see Blizzard release more footage, and go farther down the development line."
Dont you think alot of those 90000 are warcraft fans? And the list has only been up for 3 days and have already around 30000 signatures now and will proberly keep raising. I comment what I see and will things be better at the future footage all is fine. But the graphics are basicly finished if we do not give them feedback.
Warcraft and Diablo is two entirely diffrent universes. Some like warcraft more and some like Diablo more. It is often also diffrent people who plays WoW hardcore and Diablo hardcore, maybe thats what this poll shows? Why make their other games more cartoon like WoW are (starcraft2 also is cartoon/muddish) and just target the group of players that like that kind of graphics?
If the story is Diablo, the gameplay is Diablo, and the name is Diablo, trust me, it's Diablo.
I still fail to see how this isn't a follow up to Diablo. Warcraft 3 looks VASTLY different from Warcraft 1, and people still consider them in the same series.
Another thing you have to consider is the fact that Diablo II was made up of pre-rendered models that were converted to 2-d sprites. Because of this, models were made up of an incredible amount of polygons, much higher than the models used in today's next-gen games, without fear of bogging down computers with lower than high-end capabilities. However, it usually results in choppy frames and wonky depth perception, but, hey, it was the late 90s, who really cared, right?
Well that sort of thing wouldn't do for a game today. And that's why, in order to accommodate those with lower-end computers but still look good, Blizzard has to go with a more distinct style. Because the character isn't presented very large on the screen, they decided to go with bulkier looking armor in order to differentiate classes and armor types. In order to make features stand out in the environment, they utilized relatively clean textures. It's all a part of creating a product that isn't taxing on many computers, but can still keep utility and eye-candy at a higher level.
Trust me, I'm pretty sure making the game dark and gritty was the FIRST thing Blizzard experimented with (they started working on this game about 4 or 5 years ago), but they decided to go in this direction for a reason.
And to TheBlackDragon:
This is what the skeleton looks like in Diablo III
0
Man the mods here suck.
0
No, it's pretty nitpicky. And if you have any logic, you can safely assume it's not something that you can't turn off. It's Blizzard! These guys made WOW! You can turn stuff off in WOW, you know!
And don't tell me what thread I can or can't post in. If I have an opinion about the subject (that it's nitpicky) then I'll give it to you. If you don't like it, then don't bother responding.
0
No they're not. What you're basically doing is wishing Diablo III was more like Diablo II. It's a different game. A good sequel is supposed to take basic elements from the previous titles in the series and present them in a fresh and - in many cases - different fashion. What you want is Diablo II with 3-D graphics.
Petty and shallow. Once again, I ask you to grow up.
0
OMG NO NECROMANCER.
Your reasons for not being as excited for the game are petty and shallow. Grow up.
0
Where in the world did this pay-to-play garbage begin? (I refuse to replace words with numbers, by the way. The 90s called, they want their schtick back.)
I understand that all you 'hardcore' fans who like to micromanage stats and basically make the game less fun might be a little fussy about the lack of LAN support (which I admit doesn't seem too difficult to implement) but I'm pretty sure most of my time playing D2 was spent on BattleNET, instead of a room with six other PCs. If anything, the only people who should be even mildly upset are the owners of PC-Baangs in America, where the broadband isn't as amazing as it is in Seoul.
Do you want to hate the game that badly?
0
0
Like I said, walk ANYWHERE outside of this website, and you'll see that the majority agrees with me.
Corwyn, liquid, I have some things to say, but I unfortunately don't have enough time to say it.
It's the Fourth of July, and I'm busy as hell!
0
So are you implying that the current state of the graphics engine DOESN'T look good? Because frankly, art direction concerns or no, I don't think anyone should be saying that.
And it's funny that you should mention 'one color, one model, one area' because it's basically all Blizzard showed us. I'm over-exaggerating, of course, but the point I've been trying to make this whole damn time is that considering how LITTLE we've seen of the game, and how FAR it is from its' eventual release, a lot of these comments are stupid and plain ridiculous.
It's the definition of 'jumping the gun'.
0
I, too, am a graphic design major, although I'm not as far along as you.
I can't agree more with what you said about the full spectrum of colors, but I fail to see the 'blasting multi colored imagery over other strongly colored imagery' that you mention. I see highlights and splashes of color, but it's definately not something that feels overbearing. Perhaps it's because of the softer palette?
Anyway, as it was countlessly stated before, gamma and contrast are all features that are easily manipulated to fit the individual user. Color-wise, I feel like it's a good balance. The hues of blue in the dungeon that everyone seems to love picking at gives the environment more depth than a simple black gradient would. It's also a feature that, if WoW is any indication, can be turned off.
0
Ooo, finally someone who's willing to be a total asshat along with me.
Maybe in your eyes it's constructive criticism, but what I see from most of the forum posters is a total lack of understanding in both artistic concepts such as contrast and color, and game design. Anyone with half a brain can see the reasons behind the graphical choices are for accessibility to new users who aren't familiar with the franchise, and users who have lower end PCs. They want to make a game that looks great on the majority of computers. Crysis didn't do that, and look at the abysmal sales.
And to be quite honest, the fact that Blizzard might delay the game to make changes never really occurred to me, nor does it really motivate my reason for opposing this stupidity. I've waited 8 years just fine, a few more won't be a big deal.
0
Yeah, I didn't sign the 'approval petition' because frankly, online petitions are fucking useless, and I'd imagine that there are thousands upon thousands of people who didn't either.
In fact, this is the only website where I find the majority of people not liking how the game looks at the moment. Look at Gametrailers, Kotaku, Destructoid, etc. The comments sections are mainly filled with approval.
0
It'll be an awesome game despite all the nerdrage.
0
It's probably more like 14 thousand if you don't count all the multiple signings.
Anyway the 80 or so thousand other D2 players stand for letting Blizzard do what it wants with its' IP and creating a quality product.
0
Unless you're 45 or something, you were most likely a teenager when either Diablo 1 or Diablo 2 came out. No, don't give me that 'but I was a MATURE teenager!' bullshit. Shut up, you were a teenager. I know I was about 12 when D2 came out, and I know I played it like crazy. To deny teens today that same experience just because you 'don't want no kids to be messin up mah game' would be essentially spitting on the teenage gamer years that you enjoyed.
Grow up, and don't be a selfish little asshat with an elitist personality.
Once again, I wish I could reach through the internet and punch some of you punks in the face.
0
If the story is Diablo, the gameplay is Diablo, and the name is Diablo, trust me, it's Diablo.
I still fail to see how this isn't a follow up to Diablo. Warcraft 3 looks VASTLY different from Warcraft 1, and people still consider them in the same series.
Another thing you have to consider is the fact that Diablo II was made up of pre-rendered models that were converted to 2-d sprites. Because of this, models were made up of an incredible amount of polygons, much higher than the models used in today's next-gen games, without fear of bogging down computers with lower than high-end capabilities. However, it usually results in choppy frames and wonky depth perception, but, hey, it was the late 90s, who really cared, right?
Well that sort of thing wouldn't do for a game today. And that's why, in order to accommodate those with lower-end computers but still look good, Blizzard has to go with a more distinct style. Because the character isn't presented very large on the screen, they decided to go with bulkier looking armor in order to differentiate classes and armor types. In order to make features stand out in the environment, they utilized relatively clean textures. It's all a part of creating a product that isn't taxing on many computers, but can still keep utility and eye-candy at a higher level.
Trust me, I'm pretty sure making the game dark and gritty was the FIRST thing Blizzard experimented with (they started working on this game about 4 or 5 years ago), but they decided to go in this direction for a reason.
And to TheBlackDragon:
This is what the skeleton looks like in Diablo III
Fluffy mushroom fungus thing? Hardly.