The thing that bothers me is WHY do we need to know how much DPS a weapon can do?
In Diablo and Diablo 2, you were one shotting everything in massive waves up until Hell difficulty so that's a pretty good idea of how much damage I'm doing. Enough to kill whatever steps in front of me.
To clarify beforehand, because someone will get upset and claim that can't possibly be true.
By graphically I mean the 3d objects surrounded by flat textures.
The reason D3 looks so.. Meh, "pretty", is due to specular lighting, screen glow, and a sign that Blizzard is in fact getting better at doing their texturing.
Their version of the havok physics engine could have only been done recently, hardly "6-7 years behind." Im sorry, but you have failed greatly with that statement.
So according to you these graphics would have been common every-day PC graphics back in '01 when LOD came out?
Yeah......maybe in an alternate reality. :rolleyes:
Please realize that Diablo III is still in alpha stage, (meaning graphics will improve.) and still in my opinion, looks alot better than Diablo 2 looked for it's time.
Looks exactly the same as Warcraft 3, the only thing updated in the engine was physics other than that they just tossed on specular lighting, screen glow, more detail in shadows. They forgot all the good stuff again, like bumpmapping. Everything else is at the hands of the Blizzard art team. They've gotten better, but I know they can do far better judging by SC2.
How in the world do you think they're 6-7 years behind?
They're better than WoW, is WoW 6-7 years behind? They're better than Legend of Conan, is that 6-7 years behind.
I can't think of a similar game with much better graphics for the PC.
Yes WoW is 6-7 years behind. Legend of Conan? Do you mean Age of Conan? You're obviously blind... AoC is damn near photo-realistic on high settings.
You are the average gamer that doesn't understand what, graphically, next-gen really means.
Crysis has better graphics than D3, Half-Life 2 does as well. Team Fortress 2.
These are games that make use of the newest technologies to further enhance the graphics quality. Every edge, every leaf, every blade of grass is in perfect 3d view.
In the D3 trailer, you can clearly see some evidence of Blizzard's flat art work. As they exit the dungeon, the tree root is just flat and painted on. In a true game of current or next gen quality that root would be rendered in full 3d. This is only one example.
Yes, clearly GoW is using the same flat textures and lack of any sort of current gen technology.
Hate to inform you but the graphics they are using for D3 are at least 6-7 years behind in terms of development. This isn't a bad thing, but I have high hopes they will do to D3 what happened to SC2 when fans spoke out. A little extra work to give textures depth couldn't hurt Blizzard.
Just to keep this discussion on track, this thread is basically questioning the hatred people have for the art style, huge monsters, ranged magic for melee characters, strong player characters and health orbs, all things more likely borrowed from God of War, not from WoW, as many people have suggested.
Show me somebody who's seen God of War's look and thought "that's homosexual - where are the care bears?" and I'll show you a crazy person.
I actually don't see the similarities in art direction... Not even a little.
I don't like GoW, but let's be honest. It is a piece of eye-candy.
D3, on the other hand, is using flat textures and blocky, over-sized objects in a style Blizzard has seemed to adopt as their only artistic direction.
Wow so tell me diablo 1 graphics, lighting, design and color didn't change in diablo 2....seriously you gotta be blind. Improvements people; graphics evolve, lighting evolves, gameplay evolves. Why do people want to complain about making something better? Why willingly accept something new....hell lets just stick with the same old crap. Silly.
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.
If I had to unleash a tenth of the amount of attacks in a single chain from GoW, not only should a fallen be dead, but there should be a blackened scorched hole in the earth leading straight to hell where I can drop down and skip the majority of the game.
I like action gameplay, but I don't like to spin around slashing mindlessly so I can see myself do fancy moves for five minutes. Just put the damn axe through his head and move on.
D3 isn't an action game. It's still an action RPG. Its action elements borrow some elements from GoW, and that is great IMO. What better game to borrow action from than from GOW? No we want hellish violence and battles, not lovely and subtle character progression.
D1 and D2 action were the way they were because of technology restrictions of the time. If those games were made today, they would adopt GoW style simply because it's a superior action style for games.
If a normal fight in Diablo 3 (just minions) took near as long as a normal fight in GoW, I would take the game back.
Nothing is worth the amount of annoyance as having to kill something five times before seeing any experience or loot.
Legend of Zelda. if that in anyway is normal...heros arnt normal people...
Actually, Zelda is the best game to represent the Action game genre. Actual progression, you don't start out with all your best moves, tactical, difficult but still completable puzzles, a storyline that for something so simple outdoes most RPG games.
Games like God of War bore me to death. Oh, wow, all those super flashy moves and for some reason that guy still gets back up... You'd think after the first two or three spinning throw stab attacks you would kill a simple minion.
0
I use the Bat as sort of my "tag" in D2.
Orb_Bat, BO_Bat, Chippy_Bat, Mule_Bat, Hammer_Bat.
But Hairy_FruitBat is always my main name.
0
The thing that bothers me is WHY do we need to know how much DPS a weapon can do?
In Diablo and Diablo 2, you were one shotting everything in massive waves up until Hell difficulty so that's a pretty good idea of how much damage I'm doing. Enough to kill whatever steps in front of me.
0
Graphically, not gameplay.
Edit:
To clarify beforehand, because someone will get upset and claim that can't possibly be true.
By graphically I mean the 3d objects surrounded by flat textures.
The reason D3 looks so.. Meh, "pretty", is due to specular lighting, screen glow, and a sign that Blizzard is in fact getting better at doing their texturing.
0
Looks exactly the same as Warcraft 3, the only thing updated in the engine was physics other than that they just tossed on specular lighting, screen glow, more detail in shadows. They forgot all the good stuff again, like bumpmapping. Everything else is at the hands of the Blizzard art team. They've gotten better, but I know they can do far better judging by SC2.
0
Yes WoW is 6-7 years behind. Legend of Conan? Do you mean Age of Conan? You're obviously blind... AoC is damn near photo-realistic on high settings.
You are the average gamer that doesn't understand what, graphically, next-gen really means.
Crysis has better graphics than D3, Half-Life 2 does as well. Team Fortress 2.
These are games that make use of the newest technologies to further enhance the graphics quality. Every edge, every leaf, every blade of grass is in perfect 3d view.
In the D3 trailer, you can clearly see some evidence of Blizzard's flat art work. As they exit the dungeon, the tree root is just flat and painted on. In a true game of current or next gen quality that root would be rendered in full 3d. This is only one example.
0
Yes, clearly GoW is using the same flat textures and lack of any sort of current gen technology.
Hate to inform you but the graphics they are using for D3 are at least 6-7 years behind in terms of development. This isn't a bad thing, but I have high hopes they will do to D3 what happened to SC2 when fans spoke out. A little extra work to give textures depth couldn't hurt Blizzard.
0
I actually don't see the similarities in art direction... Not even a little.
I don't like GoW, but let's be honest. It is a piece of eye-candy.
D3, on the other hand, is using flat textures and blocky, over-sized objects in a style Blizzard has seemed to adopt as their only artistic direction.
0
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.
0
If I had to unleash a tenth of the amount of attacks in a single chain from GoW, not only should a fallen be dead, but there should be a blackened scorched hole in the earth leading straight to hell where I can drop down and skip the majority of the game.
I like action gameplay, but I don't like to spin around slashing mindlessly so I can see myself do fancy moves for five minutes. Just put the damn axe through his head and move on.
0
If a normal fight in Diablo 3 (just minions) took near as long as a normal fight in GoW, I would take the game back.
Nothing is worth the amount of annoyance as having to kill something five times before seeing any experience or loot.
0
What the hell would this accomplish?
0
Eh, besides Windwaker all the past games have been adventure only. Those wouldn't be in much support of my point.
0
Twilight Princess actually dove into the action game genre and told them how they're doing it wrong.
0
Actually, Zelda is the best game to represent the Action game genre. Actual progression, you don't start out with all your best moves, tactical, difficult but still completable puzzles, a storyline that for something so simple outdoes most RPG games.
Games like God of War bore me to death. Oh, wow, all those super flashy moves and for some reason that guy still gets back up... You'd think after the first two or three spinning throw stab attacks you would kill a simple minion.
0
That's what I read out of your anger rant..