Saying that gothic architecture is gothic is like saying that an anteater is an ant.
That has to be one of the dumbest analogies I've ever seen. You are completely butchering the English language by suggesting that an adjective (gothic) is at all related to a noun (ant). Anteaters are creatures in and of themselves; they are not called "anteaters" because they happen to be ants that eat things, they are creatures that eat ants. "Gothic architecture" as a term would be better compared to "ant colony", whereas the noun "colony" is being modified by the word "ant", thereby making "ant" into an adjective.
By the way, learn it, live it, love it:
-- Please take note of how the first definition is far older than the 7th, which is the one so highly touted on this forum.
Cheers,
SmashBoy ("pwnt" isn't a word, but it sure feels great to think it aloud)
I agree that PK'ing isn't fun at all, but apparently alot of people seem to enjoy it. So what I don't get is why they don't just create seperate servers for people who want to PK.
By the way, how is this discussion on-topic? Someone care to explain?
The entire thread was a poorly veiled attempt at re-hashing the PK debate. So, though it is completely off-topic, it remains true to the underlying intent.
The looks of screen shots for Hellgate London actually feels more Diabl - esque as opposed to "WoW - esque" look of Diablo 3. I think it's the FPS perspective combined with modern weaponry and well... London is what made it suck, along with the reason from my previous post.
If you think a game that uses an FPS view and not an isometric view in any way, shape or form feels "Diablo-esque", then I seriously doubt you've ever played the original Diablo games.
Cheers,
SmashBoy (if it's not iso, it's not Diablo)
Maybe customizing the female barbarian and the rest of the characters would make some logical sense, as they are brand new characters to the game, but being able to customize the male barbarian would destroy the lore behind his character. Remember, he looked exactly that way in Diablo II. Only... you know... less old.
Cheers,
SmashBoy (mmm meatball hot pockets and jalapeno poppers)
Okay I can't even understand what this is all about anymore, how the hell did this get on the topic of breasts and whether or not men have them?
Of course men have them you can find that on just about any medical site. That's beside the point though. How did we get to this discussion? :confused:
Some nutty ladies getting offended that some of us Diablo fans like the female characters in our video game to look hot. There's absolutely no other way to describe it. lol
Cheers,
SmashBoy (today's horoscope: amused at the world)
Once again more misunderstanding from the mindless.
No one wants to keep the old graphics. Everyone is in full support of a next-gen game.
The problem is Blizzard isn't using next-gen. They're not even using last-gen. But that's okay, even with old engines you can still make a masterpiece. Games don't need to be photo-realistic.
The other problem is the flat texturing. Artists use perspective in order to make you visualise an object in the third-dimension and promote realism, Blizzard seems to deny that games should ever have a minute amount of realism and just does the thing they've done in WC3 and WoW. They tried to do it in SC2 but complaints from the community drove about change.
The final problem is the lighting, yes it is a problem. I want you to go into a stone cathedral at night, with only the candles lit. I then want you to come back and tell me if a blue light was magically in the building keeping everything illuminated.
I can understand a bit of brightness outside, but that was nearly as bright and vibrant as Act 2 which was in a sun-scorched desert! At least in Act 2, when you went underground, it was dark and the same familiar stuff we're used to in a Diablo game.
Evolution is great. But there's a difference between evolution and entirely recreating. Blizzard is entirely recreating Diablo in an image that is not familiar.
Every word was pure drivel. If the screen had been dark in the gameplay trailer, how in the hell would they have been able to make a demonstration?
They could have added a bright blue light filter back then too, but they didn't. They used a black shadowy one.
Edit:
I've worked in a restaurant before... Your little.. Story thing doesn't even make sense. You do what the customer asks you to do, no questions asked. You can bitch and moan about them making you do extra work, but you do it or get fired. Welcome to the introductory lesson on business. You do what your customers want, not what you think is a great idea.
They are doing what the customers want. They're making the next Diablo game.
to a point yes, and that picture does cross that point in comparison to the pally. things such as playboy exemplify provocative and tasteful (arguable) but that picture has no agenda other than to show a womans sexuality meant for men.
ok so on terms of sexier costume, who wins? amazon or barb
I can't objectively answer that, as I don't find men attractive. I could always ask my wife, she is attracted to both genders. Bisexuals would probably be the best people to ask for a truly balanced opinion.
Cheers,
SmashBoy (not that there's anything wrong with that)
0
Sure, until they climbed right over it?
Cheers,
SmashBoy (wants to cast a Wall of Excruciating Butthurt)
0
That has to be one of the dumbest analogies I've ever seen. You are completely butchering the English language by suggesting that an adjective (gothic) is at all related to a noun (ant). Anteaters are creatures in and of themselves; they are not called "anteaters" because they happen to be ants that eat things, they are creatures that eat ants. "Gothic architecture" as a term would be better compared to "ant colony", whereas the noun "colony" is being modified by the word "ant", thereby making "ant" into an adjective.
By the way, learn it, live it, love it:
-- Please take note of how the first definition is far older than the 7th, which is the one so highly touted on this forum.
Cheers,
SmashBoy ("pwnt" isn't a word, but it sure feels great to think it aloud)
0
Cheers,
SmashBoy (twiddles his thumbs in anticipation)
0
The entire thread was a poorly veiled attempt at re-hashing the PK debate. So, though it is completely off-topic, it remains true to the underlying intent.
Cheers,
SmashBoy (prefers to observe)
0
If you think a game that uses an FPS view and not an isometric view in any way, shape or form feels "Diablo-esque", then I seriously doubt you've ever played the original Diablo games.
Cheers,
SmashBoy (if it's not iso, it's not Diablo)
0
Cheers,
SmashBoy (can't get enough)
0
Not a thing.
Cheers,
SmashBoy (going back to bed)
0
But would you have to pay $3.99 per minute to use it?
Cheers,
SmashBoy (wants that skill in real life)
0
Cheers,
SmashBoy (mmm meatball hot pockets and jalapeno poppers)
0
Cheers,
SmashBoy (as for the name, take a wild guess)
0
There are laws against that in place for a reason, too.
You've said some pretty stupid, dishonest things, but this sure does shine as your pivotal moment.
Cheers,
SmashBoy (was labelled a PKer on MUDs before you were born)
0
Some nutty ladies getting offended that some of us Diablo fans like the female characters in our video game to look hot. There's absolutely no other way to describe it. lol
Cheers,
SmashBoy (today's horoscope: amused at the world)
0
Every word was pure drivel. If the screen had been dark in the gameplay trailer, how in the hell would they have been able to make a demonstration?
Cheers,
SmashBoy (stupid is as stupid does)
0
They are doing what the customers want. They're making the next Diablo game.
Cheers,
SmashBoy (will be pre-ordering it)
0
I can't objectively answer that, as I don't find men attractive. I could always ask my wife, she is attracted to both genders. Bisexuals would probably be the best people to ask for a truly balanced opinion.
Cheers,
SmashBoy (not that there's anything wrong with that)