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?
Ok, I'll break this down even more. You made two assertions:
1) Diablo III is lacking graphically, even moreso than past blizzard titles were during their respective releases, and, because of this,
2) Diablo III's success will be hindered.
Here's what I'm getting at:
1) It's too late to "add polys" at this point, and even if they did it would hardly be noticeable, and (get ready, this is key) :
2)
No Blizzard game has ever bombed, or even performed poorly in any sense of the word for being "behind the times", graphically speaking. So... what are you basing that assertion off of?
Because I'm looking at the Blizzard's history... and your analysis doesn't match up with it too well. But maybe there's something I'm forgetting that makes it completely different this time around?
Oh, and I never said it would run "great" on onboards, but it will probably
run on most newer laptops, and pcs <6 years old or so. No need to raise the requirements in my opinion, the game already looks good and the fact that it runs on a wide range of systems is more important than blowing your mind with stunning visuals.
BTW, for all you people saying D3 looks too cartoony/WoWish... saw this on digg the other day:
