Diablo 3

[MonsOlympus]

Sorry if I'm "too cheap" to afford a new pc for this game, but I've got more important things that take priority over pc gaming. Like tuition, books, a car, etc. So if my pc can't run the game, I won't be playing it. And that's how it's going to be for a lot of people who would otherwise be playing SC2 or D3. Many people that play blizzard's games don't otherwise play pc games, which means they probably don't have too powerful of a pc. Rember that.

The game has already been in development for 3 years, and it's still not close to release. It's definitely not being rushed. Even if it were... what do you expect, them to remake a good portion of the game so the polycounts can be increased just a little bit? Doesn't that seem like... I dunno, a waste of time? Especially since it won't make too noticeable of a difference anyway?

If you look at Blizzard's past titles, they have always done well, and have always been "subpar" in the graphics department. I've never talked to someone who stopped playing starcraft because it looked like poo. So I doubt the visual quality of their games has affected the success of their games negatively.

Actually yeah I agree that you shouldnt not play a game because it looks subpar but for me its only recently blizzard have really started taking the subpar route in full force.

Getting them to remake a portion of a game is just silly, all I was stating is what I would like to see and my concerns. You obviously dont agree that Blizzard have the potential to do much better, for me them pushing subpar graphics is like a ferrari with a 4 cylinder engine.


Also to clarify "rushed" alittle for people, now Im not sure how big Blizzard is anymore right but they have been maintaining WoW, working on starcraft 2 and now we get this so I very much doubt that Blizzard have had a full production team on Diablo 3 for a full 3 years and if you ask me it shows at this point. Maybe Im mistaken an blizzard now have Blizzard north, south, east and west now to work on all of these new titles at once as well as producing the high quality cinematics they do.

I agree with you TWD it would surprise me if this title isnt pushed from these q3-4 09 rumours to an early/mid 2010 so from now to then theres atleast 2 more generations of graphics card and it could be looking quite dated by the time its released already. Thats what Im getting at, Im not saying make it 2009's crysis or anything, just raise the bar a touch I mean this isnt just anyone we are talking about... Its Blizzard!

Id much rather have a higher quality title less often from them rather than cheese every year.


Im sure plenty of people have better things to do with their money but this is a "game" we are talking about so having a gaming PC no matter how powerful should be a pre-requisite for being a "gamer" right? I dunno about you but I think one area blizzard seems to hit at is mac gamers so dont limit it to the PC market. People who play these games might not be into the latest and greatest but I would sure as hell expect every person who wants to play a blizzard game to have more than a 6600 in 2010, especially since it'd cost you what? a pack of smokes or somethin... Honestly a school book will cost you more than a graphics card to run diablo 3!

What Im talking about though is quality, a bar blizzard set so long ago and has continued, if they dont raise it and get content at where they are... Well thats a recipe for disaster. The best thing out of all of this is that the money all those people paid for WoW is going back into bringing back the franchises some of us enjoyed more than Warcraft!

Thats about all I have to say on the topic

 

[The Dopefish]

Here's the thing: this "bar" you speak of that Blizzard has set has NEVER been a graphical one. Since graphics have been important (I would say since Diablo 2), Blizzard's games (D2, WoW, Ghost and SC2) haven't been designed with graphics as the priority. All of their games have been built so that they can be played on as many systems as possible. The most obvious purpose there is to get as many people to play their games. A solid business practice, no? Making a game LOOK impressive isn't as good as making a game PLAY impressive; tell me that's not true when you talk to some Koreans who are still playing Starcraft. If Blizzard's intention was to make all their games performance-demanding I assure you they would all be performance-demanding.

If I had to make a baseless assumption I'd say that the majority of people who say "I won't play a game that doesn't push my computer's limits or doesn't make me drop another $200+ on new hardware" have got too much money to blow, haven't experienced the days when graphics didn't make a difference (pre-SNES), and simply have no appreciation for games that look less than they are worth.

Its called constructive criticism hey, Im not bitching or moaning... If you dont understand what Im getting at then perhaps you should look up the affects of polycounts on framerates and tell me there isnt room for blizzard to improve while still running on a wider range of systems. Im not talking about running GPU benchmarks since we all know Shaders have alot more to do with that these days, Im not saying make it a Shader model 4 DX10 requirement!

The game does look good as I said but its got the potential to look excellent and look good for years to come, sorry if I want to see this game stand the test of time like previous games!~

In fairness, do you REALLY think Blizzard's games have lasted this long because they LOOK good? Are you kidding me? Have you LOOKED at a screen for Warcraft 3 and compared it to Command and Conquer 4? War3 came out 6 years ago and it looked dated 3 years ago.

As I just said, Blizzard's games haven't "[stood] the test of time" because they look good. It's because their gameplay is dominant to games in similar genres and it's so dominant you can go play Diablo II right now and ignore the low-ass resolution and ultra-pixelated everything because the gameplay is dynamite and the immersiveness is deep.

 

[Balton]

diablo3 looks like dungeon siege, a diablo clone...

 

[The Dopefish]

Dungeon Siege looks like Diablo 2 with Unreal graphics.

 

[Slainchild]

MGS4 looks like Splinter Cell with Call of Duty 4 graphics.

 

[Fuzzle]

Also to clarify "rushed" alittle for people, now Im not sure how big Blizzard is anymore right but they have been maintaining WoW, working on starcraft 2 and now we get this so I very much doubt that Blizzard have had a full production team on Diablo 3 for a full 3 years and if you ask me it shows at this point. Maybe Im mistaken an blizzard now have Blizzard north, south, east and west now to work on all of these new titles at once as well as producing the high quality cinematics they do.

Blizzard currently has "3 and a half" teams all working on their own project, and the D3 team has worked on nothing but D3 since blizzard north was shut down. They've revamped the visual style 3 or 4 times since it's conception, which isn't something I'd expect you do to a "rushed" product.

I don't see anything wrong with the technical aspect of the graphics at all. What I'm seeing is a fun game that I can run with 100 monsters on screen that won't bog down when I cast locust swarm on them all.
Let alone, "low poly" isn't even something I'd consider "less work". I'll bet you five bucks that they've put far more work into a D3 character than sony did in an EQ2 one.

I'm playing D2 right now and it takes about 5 minutes before I forget about the graphical quality alltogether, but what persists is the fun and addictive gameplay.
Crysis is a good example of the opposite. It was about 30 minutes before the graphical novelty wore off, but what persisted was the underlying sense of "just another fps" and the occasional dips in FPS because there were more than 8 bad guys on screen.

 

[MonsOlympus]

Here's the thing: this "bar" you speak of that Blizzard has set has NEVER been a graphical one. Since graphics have been important (I would say since Diablo 2), Blizzard's games (D2, WoW, Ghost and SC2) haven't been designed with graphics as the priority. All of their games have been built so that they can be played on as many systems as possible. The most obvious purpose there is to get as many people to play their games. A solid business practice, no? Making a game LOOK impressive isn't as good as making a game PLAY impressive; tell me that's not true when you talk to some Koreans who are still playing Starcraft. If Blizzard's intention was to make all their games performance-demanding I assure you they would all be performance-demanding.

If I had to make a baseless assumption I'd say that the majority of people who say "I won't play a game that doesn't push my computer's limits or doesn't make me drop another $200+ on new hardware" have got too much money to blow, haven't experienced the days when graphics didn't make a difference (pre-SNES), and simply have no appreciation for games that look less than they are worth.



In fairness, do you REALLY think Blizzard's games have lasted this long because they LOOK good? Are you kidding me? Have you LOOKED at a screen for Warcraft 3 and compared it to Command and Conquer 4? War3 came out 6 years ago and it looked dated 3 years ago.

As I just said, Blizzard's games haven't "[stood] the test of time" because they look good. It's because their gameplay is dominant to games in similar genres and it's so dominant you can go play Diablo II right now and ignore the low-ass resolution and ultra-pixelated everything because the gameplay is dynamite and the immersiveness is deep.

Gah and I said I wasnt going to go on about this topic!

Ive said I dont think they should aim that high people need to drop $200, didnt I say that 3 or 4 times now? What Im saying is blizzard shouldnt aim at people not willing to drop even $50 on a new graphics card if their voodoo 3 isnt up to the task.

Honestly I have been playing diablo 2, graphics dont matter that much to me that I wont play the game but who's to say how dated this game will look by the time its released. Most Blizzard games Ive seen atleast look current for a year or two! I mean in the end it is up to blizzard but I posted some diablo 2 screenshots so compare the environments yourself then think would diablo 2 look better if it was rendered at a higher res now!


Since when have I said I would not buy this game, play this game or the game doesnt look fun? You guys are certainly entilted to your opinion but you are blowing a simple paragraph a page or so back into a witchhunt... Seriously Im done with this, I cant say anything right so their no point...

Chop this post apart and have your fun meh, its not worth it.

Read my posts I said I can understand low poly counts on characters etc etc etc, just read them please and try to understand what Im saying.

What I think is blizzard is capable of more, they can push the environment detail up without any extra load on current system or systems from 2-3yrs back (by the time of release that could be 5yr old systems). Do I have to say anymore like seriously, do you not get it or do I have to draw some pictures.

 

[ShakeZula]

people need to start reading monsolympus's posts before typing gigantic replies to them

 

[Slainchild]

...do I have to draw some pictures.

Oooh that would be nice.

 

[Airmoran]

Koreans who are still playing Starcraft. If Blizzard's intention was to make all their games performance-demanding I assure you they would all be performance-demanding.

Yeah, it should be really noted that Blizzard has depended on an international market for their success.

This gaming PC culture represents a fairly niche market in NA and European countries, but in other nations the culture can be outright non-existent. If you want a graphical powerhouse, you bought a console. It makes sense. A console system is already a specialized device for playing games. Your PC, on the other hand, is useful for other stuff. Having specialized hardware for playing games on your PC is superfluous. A Voodoo 3 is perfectly fine for everyday tasks.

So if Blizzard wants to make a global game, then there's very little point in targeting computers with "enthusiast" hardware. There's simply no appeal on an international level. Ignoring this fact is, well, probably a sign that someone at Blizzard knows more about games than you do.

Domestically, Blizzard's games have done well by not pandering to a niche market. D3 does look fantastic. It always seemed a little silly when we're so easily impressed by buzzwords like "subsurface scattering" but show indifference to amazing artwork. Blizzard has always been amazing when it came to design. Each unit looks unique and easy to spot. Honestly, take a look at those screenshots. It really shows that they poured a lot of effort into the game's graphics, and that's very tough considering that, yes, they're targeting more limited hardware here.

Anyways, Mons, you have a knack for taking some minute details and then drawing some pretty uhh... interesting... conclusions in the face of more reasonable explanations. And oh, when you complain about people "not getting you", it pays to note that people have already addressed your concerns. "2-3 years back" is meaningless. Not everyone buys a "current" machine, especially if, for example, they plan on playing most of their games on their consoles. Maybe they use a laptop as their primary machine (which I already brought up but you seem to have missed the point). Blizzard knows there's a lot of people out there that fit these descriptions. You, on the other hand, seem to think they're stuff of myth and fantasies.

 

[The Dopefish]

Gah and I said I wasnt going to go on about this topic!

Sounds familiar.

Maybe I didn't get your message as your English is a tad off, but I want to respond to one thing:

Ive said I dont think they should aim that high people need to drop $200, didnt I say that 3 or 4 times now? What Im saying is blizzard shouldnt aim at people not willing to drop even $50 on a new graphics card if their voodoo 3 isnt up to the task.

Again, Blizzard's mission is to make the game as available to as many systems as possible. Blizzard, however, is probably the only major company that does this, as every other game developer out there are making games that increasingly push computers and force people to buy new hardware frequently. So a majority of those people who have been playing Diablo II since 2000 likely haven't just left their computers alone. If I were a betting man, I think most people would prefer to put down $50 on a new game that will run on their computer as it is than put down $50 plus the cost of an upgrade to play a game that will "force" them to upgrade.

@ Airmoran: :golfclap:

 

[MonsOlympus]

Oooh that would be nice.

Yeah I wouldnt use a ruler like blizzard have been


Airmoran, whats to get me to buy this game over diablo 2? Is it the gameplay, well perhaps but its certainly looking alittle better, I still think diablo2 shows more details in certain areas.

This isnt enthusiast hardware we are talking about, we are talking about a $50 graphics card if that you know if people dont already own a graphics card powerful enough. Im sure we can agree Blizzard is not support software rendering right?

It doesnt take buying a current machine, it takes owning a PC made in the last 4yrs since the game was released. I mean Ive had hardware that hasnt even lasted that long in regular use, it just died so Ive had to replace it to keep my PC running. If you dont understand that years back might include laptop hardware also then youre view is alot different than mine.

First look at what the camera is seeing at once, theres no horizon line right? try to do a wireframe in your head of what you are seeing on screen, compare that to diablo 2 in wireframe now sure its 2d but when has blizzard been about graphics right?

and again $50 is an outlay you should make around now to be able to play diablo 3 down the line, it isnt some mythical upgrade my comment suddenly brings into play!

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Again, Blizzard's mission is to make the game as available to as many systems as possible. Blizzard, however, is probably the only major company that does this, as every other game developer out there are making games that increasingly push computers and force people to buy new hardware frequently. So a majority of those people who have been playing Diablo II since 2000 likely haven't just left their computers alone. If I were a betting man, I think most people would prefer to put down $50 on a new game that will run on their computer as it is than put down $50 plus the cost of an upgrade to play a game that will "force" them to upgrade.

Then, frankly, they should be playing games on Consoles. There is really very little reason to be a PC gamer unless you are interested in sticking with the curve, so to speak.

 

[hilo_]

Im sure plenty of people have better things to do with their money but this is a "game" we are talking about so having a gaming PC no matter how powerful should be a pre-requisite for being a "gamer" right?

No. WoW ran on just about anything when it came out. Same with all other blizzard games. A "gaming pc" should be for people who want to play with all the eye-candy, make-the-game-look-as-pretty-as-possible-effects enabled in full force while playing at a high resolution with good framerates, not people who just want to play games period.

I could say the same about you, then. Glorified micromanaging or air-rushing isn't what I'd call "advanced", because that's basically what the game boils down to these days.

Sorry, but if you seriously think that war3 has devolved into nothing but micro and air-rushing, you definitely haven't gone played it enough to call it basic.

I mean... there aren't any tier1 air units... unless you're referring to a fast tech to tier 2, but that's not a rush. And an early scout + push solves that easily.

Then, frankly, they should be playing games on Consoles. There is really very little reason to be a PC gamer unless you are interested in sticking with the curve, so to speak.

...Unless they don't have to "stick with the curve" to play a game like WoW or Diablo 3. Most people's laptops should handle this game fine.

 

[MonsOlympus]

No. WoW ran on just about anything when it came out. Same with all other blizzard games. A "gaming pc" should be for people who want to play with all the eye-candy, make-the-game-look-as-pretty-as-possible-effects enabled in full force while playing at a high resolution with good framerates, not people who just want to play games period.

Youre view of a gaming PC and mine vary greatly then, for me a game which runs on just about anything is something like CS which doesnt require a 3d card at all or a higher end CPU for the software rendering option.

Pre-wow blizzard games were mostly 2d so that option was there, was it there for wow? was there software rendering in wow? because for me saying someone should own a 3dcard (made within the last few years or so) isnt saying people need an sli 9800gx2 system, its saying people could get away with a 7600gt or an 8300/8500. If you are wanting to play 3d games its a pretty common occurrence to have to buy a 3d card since onboard solutions generally wont hack it.

I have a hard time believing how diablo 3 is currently that it'll run great on all onboards, maybe newer ones will be okay or more gamer orientated ones but we are talking 3d. Thats one thing diablo 2 will probably have above diablo 3 is that its in 2d so you can run it on PC's without a 3d card entirely (like cs), onboard or off. The thing 3d will have going for it is options to turn down the graphics so it runs better on your system, as Ive said I dont think extra polys in the environment will add overhead and if they perhaps do by some freak of nature then theres nothing stopping you turning the details down.

I still think the effects are going to be the heaviest thing in this game then next to that AI, thats not including lighting though which could perhaps be ontop of all that.

If most people's laptops can handle this game fine how it is and I explained the performance hit of extra polycounts in the environment whats your problem with what I said?

 

[UnrealGrrl]

just watched all the DiabloIII media and it looks awesome. one of the few games i liked alot (1 not 2) besides Unreal titles...

 

[Armagon917]

Previously in this thread I backed the art direction and I now reverse that stance. After seeing the altered screenshots I have to say they are more to my liking. So I spoke too early just hyped up that it was finially announced.

With that said though I don't think Blizzard could screw up art in a game if they tried. I'm not complaining but the petition makes some good points and I found myself agreeing with almost every point. I have noticed that sites have labeled people who signed the petition as ungreatful or whiners. I just signed it in hopes that Blizzard may make the game a tad darker in terms of art style. Either way I'm very thankful to Blizzard and think this game will be great.

So don't jump the gun like I did on the whole petition thing. If you think petitions are stupid then thats cool. Its whatever. I just think maybe it might add a grungification mode to Blizzard's development process for the game if it gets enough signatures. I just think there should be a line drawn betweent he jerks who are freaking out on this and people like me who just think a darker theme would work a bit better. The current theme is still to my liking though. I really can't wait to see what Diablo looks like in this game.

Whatever art direction its going to be great! Diablo 3! **** yeah.

 

[Armagon917]

I do think that Diablo 3 should push hardware a bit more. I think the safe thing to do so that everyone can play it well is to include very high resolution textures available to people with 512mb GPUs. Don't make it a requirement of course but a character and world detail scale would be really nice.

That way people with newer cards can have a little more Clarity and crank up AA and AF with extremely high resolution textures. And older PCs can run the level of detail we currently see which obviously won't bother many people as gameplay is what this game is about. But I think Blizzard should add that but stick to their stance on being the developer we can all depend on when are wallets are empty for a kick ass gaming experience.

Also maybe have a world detail setting for maybe extra physics and things going on in the background but nothing huge that would effect gameplay or the overall experience. Things like adding a shader intensive waterfall in the background for world detail on extremely high but just stick with that. If people have machines that can't run that well then maybe swap that out for rolling fog or something impressive in a less demanding way on your system.
Just ideas here as I don't want to see Blizzard to into Crytek but would love to see them push things just a bit. I think theres some middleground to be found on this issue. But mainly high resoution textures is something I would like to see. Maybe even 2048X2048 seeing as that may be the standard when Diablo 3 comes out. It was supposed to be that way for UT3 I hope you guys know that. WTH ever happened to Mark Rein saying that PCs won't even be able to play UT3 at its highest until a few generations down the road. Oh that was before they started making Gears.

 

[Fuzzle]

I think it looks great, but I agree that it's a far cry from the 'feel of diablo 2'. But I'm cool with that as long as it's fun, and I think the visual style of D3 lends itself to the gameplay better.

I shall try to illustrate my point of view using Titan Quest.

Skeletons in a grassy field in D3.
http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/_images/screenshots/ss26-hires.jpg

Skeletons in a grassy field in TQ.
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/711/711179/titan-quest-20060602055705783.jpg

The former just looks more fun to play imo, due to the stylized and artsy look. The characters are so easily distinguishable, which suits the 'action' more than the 'rpg'. And I do want D3 to be primarily an action game.

This is my fave shot. Slap on some AA and get rid of the zambis, and it could pass for concept art.
http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/_images/screenshots/ss29-hires.jpg

But yeah I'm not gonna sue if they go ahead and change it, as long as it still plays great.

 

[Armagon917]

Yeah the art is incredible. I really like the trees and the little details like orange an brown leaves on the ground. As an artist I have always said that good art can best the most powerful game engines out there. I think realism for games is going to reach a certain point and then we will see more titles going for a stylized feel. Certainly Pixar could make almost completely relistic characters but their hyper realistic cartoon stuff for their films would be more enjoyable IMO.

I think Blizzard and Valve are two great examples of how you don't have to use game engines that practically require SLI and still have some of the best looking games out there. I would argue that this is as every bit impressive as Crysis. Obviously on a completely different level.

As for if they make the game darker themed that would be great IMO opinion but I agree either way its a win win with whatever Blizzard decides to do. But I think there are a lot of people in the petition who just would prefer something darker but aren't freaking out or anything. But thats whatever.

I am really interested in the story. Will we just fight Diablo? Mephisto and Baal could make a return which would be cool. Everyone's souldstone was destroyed in Diablo 2 so why not. I would like to see the story incomplete though. WHY? Expansion pack. As long as we get to fight Diablo of course. I'm looking forward to seeing some really evil sinister architecture along with other creepy areas. I really want to see a foggy cemetary in this game. Just excited about what is going to be delivered.