|
On August 05 2011 01:42 NotJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 01:36 TheGlassface wrote:On August 05 2011 01:30 NotJack wrote:On August 05 2011 01:25 TheGlassface wrote:On August 05 2011 01:19 SKC wrote:On August 05 2011 01:00 TheGlassface wrote:On August 05 2011 00:59 Seditary wrote:On August 05 2011 00:56 Gcubed wrote:
I agree with the atmosphere problem. I did expect the D3 art to be stylized but not completely cartooney. I was expecting a much more dark, and realistic style with extreme detail. You expected a non-blizzard game then? Diablo I certainly didn't have this issue. Diablo II sort of did. Diablo III clearly does. They *can* do it, they've chosen not to. You answered it yourself. As Blizzard evolved, all of their games started looking more like this. Warcraft 1 was diferent than Wacraft 2, that was diferent than Warcraft 3 . It was much easier to design realistic graphics on a 2D engine, specially if you want the graphics to endure the passage of time well. "Realistic" graphics get old very fast compared to the style Blizzard uses. It was expect from them to follow the style they have been doing since Warcraft 3. You can say you don't like it, but not expected? Seriously? OpioninssssActually, and sure...I can expect more out of game developers. I can expect an art team to try something new. I never said I wanted old D1 style but I also don't like this glossy, nicely lit romp through the killing fields either. Then, on top of porting abilities straight from WoW, a lot of these monsters are starting to look ported re skins. I honestly don't think it looks *that* bad, I'm just saying it's fine to expect something a little more immersing and "real." You're just looking for scraps to complain about, even though a second ago you were implying that you weren't going to play the game. We get it, for some reason there always has to be a person like you no matter how obviously good a game will be. Negative ghostrider. Just trying to be an interested person in a game. I didn't imply shit. I reiterated what someone said as he was trying to quote me and then misinterpreted my statement. And what the hell is this, "obviously good," shit? I get so tired of this. Just because Blizzard made it doesn't mean it can't be bad. WotLK was bad. Cata is bad. SCII is bad. <----these are all *my* opinions. As a player, a consumer and a forum member, that's what I'm saying. There doesn't have to always be someone like me (which, by the way, what is this...someone who is disappointed in the current state of design? Because that's all I am. I'm clearly still interested to see where it goes, or I wouldn't be typing into this thread. Though, hey, please keep labeling me that's pretty cool of you) there just always is one because...holy shit...hold the phone...not every single person thinks Blizzard is infallible. I really never talk to hipsters, but if you had reading comprehension you'd see I didn't say Blizzard was infallible. I said a sequel to Diablo 2 will obviously be good. I like how you can dance around the topic and make empty claims about how it won't be good, but you never actually say you think it won't be good. You're simply just mad people think it will be good, while you don't think otherwise. Definitely a waste of my time.
Ah, a sterotype attack and the ever present reading comprehension rebuttal. Damn man, you got this down to a T.
I'm saying a sequel to D2 isn't going to be obviously good. It *can* be. It also *can be bad.* Only one of us is making absolute statements here. Why don't you go ahead and use all that handy dandy reading comprehension I'm so clearly lacking and figure out which one is which
Then you tell me my emotions? Wow. I don't even know...I guess we're both just a waste of each others time then eh?
|
On August 05 2011 01:49 TheGlassface wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 01:42 NotJack wrote:On August 05 2011 01:36 TheGlassface wrote:On August 05 2011 01:30 NotJack wrote:On August 05 2011 01:25 TheGlassface wrote:On August 05 2011 01:19 SKC wrote:On August 05 2011 01:00 TheGlassface wrote:On August 05 2011 00:59 Seditary wrote:On August 05 2011 00:56 Gcubed wrote:
I agree with the atmosphere problem. I did expect the D3 art to be stylized but not completely cartooney. I was expecting a much more dark, and realistic style with extreme detail. You expected a non-blizzard game then? Diablo I certainly didn't have this issue. Diablo II sort of did. Diablo III clearly does. They *can* do it, they've chosen not to. You answered it yourself. As Blizzard evolved, all of their games started looking more like this. Warcraft 1 was diferent than Wacraft 2, that was diferent than Warcraft 3 . It was much easier to design realistic graphics on a 2D engine, specially if you want the graphics to endure the passage of time well. "Realistic" graphics get old very fast compared to the style Blizzard uses. It was expect from them to follow the style they have been doing since Warcraft 3. You can say you don't like it, but not expected? Seriously? OpioninssssActually, and sure...I can expect more out of game developers. I can expect an art team to try something new. I never said I wanted old D1 style but I also don't like this glossy, nicely lit romp through the killing fields either. Then, on top of porting abilities straight from WoW, a lot of these monsters are starting to look ported re skins. I honestly don't think it looks *that* bad, I'm just saying it's fine to expect something a little more immersing and "real." You're just looking for scraps to complain about, even though a second ago you were implying that you weren't going to play the game. We get it, for some reason there always has to be a person like you no matter how obviously good a game will be. Negative ghostrider. Just trying to be an interested person in a game. I didn't imply shit. I reiterated what someone said as he was trying to quote me and then misinterpreted my statement. And what the hell is this, "obviously good," shit? I get so tired of this. Just because Blizzard made it doesn't mean it can't be bad. WotLK was bad. Cata is bad. SCII is bad. <----these are all *my* opinions. As a player, a consumer and a forum member, that's what I'm saying. There doesn't have to always be someone like me (which, by the way, what is this...someone who is disappointed in the current state of design? Because that's all I am. I'm clearly still interested to see where it goes, or I wouldn't be typing into this thread. Though, hey, please keep labeling me that's pretty cool of you) there just always is one because...holy shit...hold the phone...not every single person thinks Blizzard is infallible. I really never talk to hipsters, but if you had reading comprehension you'd see I didn't say Blizzard was infallible. I said a sequel to Diablo 2 will obviously be good. I like how you can dance around the topic and make empty claims about how it won't be good, but you never actually say you think it won't be good. You're simply just mad people think it will be good, while you don't think otherwise. Definitely a waste of my time. Ah, a sterotype attack and the ever present reading comprehension rebuttal. Damn man, you got this down to a T. I'm saying a sequel to D2 isn't going to be obviously good. It *can* be. It also *can be bad.* Only one of us is making absolute statements here. Why don't you go ahead and use all that handy dandy reading comprehension I'm so clearly lacking and figure out which one is which Then you tell me my emotions? Wow. I don't even know...I guess we're both just a waste of each others time then eh?
It can be anything. Clearly blizzard isn't the same company anymore, so this can really go either way. I'm going to play the game, but I also think it is going to be 'meh', much like sc2 was just 'meh'. Not good, not bad.
On August 05 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
If its still got that spanish guitar, it's got all of the atmosphere it'll ever need.
haha, yessss.
|
If its still got that spanish guitar, it's got all of the atmosphere it'll ever need.
|
On August 05 2011 01:49 TheGlassface wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 01:42 NotJack wrote:On August 05 2011 01:36 TheGlassface wrote:On August 05 2011 01:30 NotJack wrote:On August 05 2011 01:25 TheGlassface wrote:On August 05 2011 01:19 SKC wrote:On August 05 2011 01:00 TheGlassface wrote:On August 05 2011 00:59 Seditary wrote:On August 05 2011 00:56 Gcubed wrote:
I agree with the atmosphere problem. I did expect the D3 art to be stylized but not completely cartooney. I was expecting a much more dark, and realistic style with extreme detail. You expected a non-blizzard game then? Diablo I certainly didn't have this issue. Diablo II sort of did. Diablo III clearly does. They *can* do it, they've chosen not to. You answered it yourself. As Blizzard evolved, all of their games started looking more like this. Warcraft 1 was diferent than Wacraft 2, that was diferent than Warcraft 3 . It was much easier to design realistic graphics on a 2D engine, specially if you want the graphics to endure the passage of time well. "Realistic" graphics get old very fast compared to the style Blizzard uses. It was expect from them to follow the style they have been doing since Warcraft 3. You can say you don't like it, but not expected? Seriously? OpioninssssActually, and sure...I can expect more out of game developers. I can expect an art team to try something new. I never said I wanted old D1 style but I also don't like this glossy, nicely lit romp through the killing fields either. Then, on top of porting abilities straight from WoW, a lot of these monsters are starting to look ported re skins. I honestly don't think it looks *that* bad, I'm just saying it's fine to expect something a little more immersing and "real." You're just looking for scraps to complain about, even though a second ago you were implying that you weren't going to play the game. We get it, for some reason there always has to be a person like you no matter how obviously good a game will be. Negative ghostrider. Just trying to be an interested person in a game. I didn't imply shit. I reiterated what someone said as he was trying to quote me and then misinterpreted my statement. And what the hell is this, "obviously good," shit? I get so tired of this. Just because Blizzard made it doesn't mean it can't be bad. WotLK was bad. Cata is bad. SCII is bad. <----these are all *my* opinions. As a player, a consumer and a forum member, that's what I'm saying. There doesn't have to always be someone like me (which, by the way, what is this...someone who is disappointed in the current state of design? Because that's all I am. I'm clearly still interested to see where it goes, or I wouldn't be typing into this thread. Though, hey, please keep labeling me that's pretty cool of you) there just always is one because...holy shit...hold the phone...not every single person thinks Blizzard is infallible. I really never talk to hipsters, but if you had reading comprehension you'd see I didn't say Blizzard was infallible. I said a sequel to Diablo 2 will obviously be good. I like how you can dance around the topic and make empty claims about how it won't be good, but you never actually say you think it won't be good. You're simply just mad people think it will be good, while you don't think otherwise. Definitely a waste of my time. Ah, a sterotype attack and the ever present reading comprehension rebuttal. Damn man, you got this down to a T. I'm saying a sequel to D2 isn't going to be obviously good. It *can* be. It also *can be bad.* Only one of us is making absolute statements here. Why don't you go ahead and use all that handy dandy reading comprehension I'm so clearly lacking and figure out which one is which Then you tell me my emotions? Wow. I don't even know...I guess we're both just a waste of each others time then eh?
By your logic there is a 100% chance it will be bad. At least for someone. As long as you take the position that a game you don't like is bad, that will always happen. If you take a more general view to say wether a game is good or bad, you could never say SC2 is a bad game. You probally also can't say WoW is a bad game recently. As long as you rely completelly on opinions to make your case, there is nothing to argue. It will a good game, a horrible game, an amazing game, but it won't really matter. I think it's hard to expect it won't be succesful.
|
Of course any changes that deviate from the 'classic' game are going to be met with criticism from the hardcore fans. It happens in every single popular game every single time there is a sequel.
As much as people want the same old game repackaged, that's not how things work.
|
So you should apparently update your beta profile with the system checking program. Thing is though, I'm away from home where my gaming desktop computer is (I've run the previous versions of beta profile system check on it) and all I have with me is my laptop. Should I update even if I don't plan to play on this computer?? Appreciate fast answers!
|
On August 05 2011 02:21 MagisterMan wrote:
So you should apparently update your beta profile with the system checking program. Thing is though, I'm away from home where my gaming desktop computer is (I've run the previous versions of beta profile system check on it) and all I have with me is my laptop. Should I update even if I don't plan to play on this computer?? Appreciate fast answers!
Just tell someone to do it for you,it isn't really complicated.
|
i did, i usally play on my mac, now im on vacations and i updated from the computer i have, wich is better than my mac, but i still think i had better chances of entering with my mini
|
On August 05 2011 02:24 TheKefka wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 02:21 MagisterMan wrote:
So you should apparently update your beta profile with the system checking program. Thing is though, I'm away from home where my gaming desktop computer is (I've run the previous versions of beta profile system check on it) and all I have with me is my laptop. Should I update even if I don't plan to play on this computer?? Appreciate fast answers! Just tell someone to do it for you,it isn't really complicated.
That sadly isn't a option 
|
On August 05 2011 02:21 MagisterMan wrote:
So you should apparently update your beta profile with the system checking program. Thing is though, I'm away from home where my gaming desktop computer is (I've run the previous versions of beta profile system check on it) and all I have with me is my laptop. Should I update even if I don't plan to play on this computer?? Appreciate fast answers!
I think you have a better chance of getting an invite updating your spec on your laptop, if doing it on your desktop in not an option. That said, we have no idea how the invites are handed out, so it's pure speculation.
|
On August 05 2011 02:25 MagisterMan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 02:24 TheKefka wrote:On August 05 2011 02:21 MagisterMan wrote:
So you should apparently update your beta profile with the system checking program. Thing is though, I'm away from home where my gaming desktop computer is (I've run the previous versions of beta profile system check on it) and all I have with me is my laptop. Should I update even if I don't plan to play on this computer?? Appreciate fast answers! Just tell someone to do it for you,it isn't really complicated. That sadly isn't a option
Well, you won't lose your chance of getting the invite as long as you have it updated. I'm pretty sure they will pick people who hasn't updated it with the new system checker.
I agree with this pretty much, even though you really can't know what Blizzard will be doing with this.
Blizzard CM Zarhym made a post on the D3 forum reminding everyone that they need to update their B.net profile and run the System Check program in it… but only if you want to (slightly improve your chance to) get into the Diablo 3 Beta.
http://diablo.incgamers.com/blog/comments/update-your-battle-net-profile-if-you-want-d3-beta
|
Thanks for the answers. I went ahead and updated :p. My specs on laptop are on the lower end (could run sc2 on lowest) so hopefully it will increase my chances of getting in!
edit: 500 posts!
|
Can people post their system specs in spoilers with posts?Just edit the last post in this thread so it doesn't clutter up.I'm really interested to see the machines people got and how old some are,I know mine is.
+ Show Spoiler +Nvidia6600 GT,Athlon 3000+,2G Ram,some ancient AGP motherboard,windows XP
|
|
|
I think they want people doing that just for the sake of being current. Also there is some info on the checker that they display (and probably collect as well), like the VGA RAM size and probably some inferred stuff.
|
On August 05 2011 02:38 TheKefka wrote:Can people post their system specs in spoilers with posts?Just edit the last post in this thread so it doesn't clutter up.I'm really interested to see the machines people got and how old some are,I know mine is. + Show Spoiler +Nvidia6600 GT,Athlon 3000+,2G Ram,some ancient AGP motherboard,windows XP
Do we really need this thread more cluttered now with 8000 people posting their computer specs -_________-
|
Do you think Blizzard looks at your history with then and beta testing history? If you're faithful maybe it helps your chances?
|
On August 05 2011 02:46 Pufftrees wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 02:38 TheKefka wrote:Can people post their system specs in spoilers with posts?Just edit the last post in this thread so it doesn't clutter up.I'm really interested to see the machines people got and how old some are,I know mine is. + Show Spoiler +Nvidia6600 GT,Athlon 3000+,2G Ram,some ancient AGP motherboard,windows XP Do we really need this thread more cluttered now with 8000 people posting their computer specs -_________-
Thats why i didn't say post your system specs.If you want,put them WITH your post in spoilers,don't post it individually.Its not my problem people can't read.
If a mod reads my edit history on this post,he'll think I'm retarded.No,I just didn't sleep for the past few days>_>.
|
On August 05 2011 02:46 Pufftrees wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 02:38 TheKefka wrote:Can people post their system specs in spoilers with posts?Just edit the last post in this thread so it doesn't clutter up.I'm really interested to see the machines people got and how old some are,I know mine is. + Show Spoiler +Nvidia6600 GT,Athlon 3000+,2G Ram,some ancient AGP motherboard,windows XP Do we really need this thread more cluttered now with 8000 people posting their computer specs -_________-
If this ends the "omg d3 looks like a disney movie blizz-activision sux", then yes.
my laptop:+ Show Spoiler +amd phenom ii 3 cores n830 2.1g
radeon hd 5730 1 gb
4 gb ram
15.6" 1366x768
|
+ Show Spoiler +I7-920 OC to 4GHZ
6GB DDR3 2000
XFire 5850 OC to 1GHZ 1200MEM
SATA6 SSD
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
