EPTDiablo III General Discussion - Page 190
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
HubertFelix
France631 Posts
| ||
|
NotJack
United States737 Posts
On August 06 2011 03:30 altec1011 wrote: This new "inferno" mode will make attempting Hardcore mode that much ballsier. I hope it actually is harder, I'm scared it might be justification for making all difficulties easier. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17872 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PVJoz.jpg) [/QUOTE]![[image loading]](http://img.jeuxvideo.fr/photo/00006732-photo-might-and-magic-ix-writ-of-fate.jpg) HoMM5 would fit here just as well but I'm too lazy to take a screenshot. Am I the only one here who can't shake the feeling of "I've seen that before"? | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
Some of you guys really need to go outside from time to time. Your concept of what is realistic is completely out of whack with what real life really is. The real world is colorful. Modern shooters like COD aren't realistic at all. The color brown is the only color that modern graphics can realistically portray so modern "realistic" games overuse the colors brown and gray. Just because D3 uses a lot of colors that are not brown and gray doesn't mean it's not realistic. Go outside, see the world under the light of the midday sun and you'll see all sorts colors other than brown and gray, even in highly urbanized cities. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On August 06 2011 03:34 Assault_1 wrote: here, eat this http://kotaku.com/5761172/this-is-what-diablo-iii-looked-like-a-long-time-ago/gallery/16 and this http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/08/04/diablo-iii-designer-turns-tables/ While I agree that the fan-edited screenshots look grittier and darker, and therefore cooler and more accurate to the world, it's not going to stop me purchasing the game. You're going to need some amazing persuasion skills to make me give enough of a shit about the art not to want to get my hands on great gameplay. I played single-player and the mini round-based arenas at Blizzcon 2010, until I had blisters from standing in line so much, and I want ![[image loading]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/000/574/moar-cat.jpg?1248987397){kind=icon} | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
HoMM5 would fit here just as well but I'm too lazy to take a screenshot. Am I the only one here who can't shake the feeling of "I've seen that before"? That's a common inventory/equipment design in most RPGs I've seen, I really don't think that's a problem. You could pick dozens of examples of similar inventory screens, including D2. I'm not sure exactly what's the problem with that, not everything has to be 100% groundbreaking, most of the shit D3 gets is actually from deviating from the norm. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
Since when was reality a priority for video games? Some people, I swear. | ||
|
DrBoo
Canada1177 Posts
On August 06 2011 03:34 Assault_1 wrote: here, eat this http://kotaku.com/5761172/this-is-what-diablo-iii-looked-like-a-long-time-ago/gallery/16 and this http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/08/04/diablo-iii-designer-turns-tables/ Holy shit those fan altered screenshots in the second link look A MILLION TIMES BETTER then the originals, all they have to do it simply tone down the lighting. Seriously that was an actually important stat in diablo 2 was your light radius (long as you're not using map hack) Looks like they just cranked up the light radius and made that stat obsolete. Overall I really appreciate the fan altered screenshots a lot more then the blizzard screenshots. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On August 06 2011 03:50 DrBoo wrote: Holy shit those fan altered screenshots in the second link look A MILLION TIMES BETTER then the originals, all they have to do it simply tone down the lighting. Seriously that was an actually important stat in diablo 2 was your light radius (long as you're not using map hack) Looks like they just cranked up the light radius and made that stat obsolete. Overall I really appreciate the fan altered screenshots a lot more then the blizzard screenshots. No, they don't. The second pics hurt my eyes. They're way too dark. I can barely see the staircases in the second one. It looks more like a medical hazard than a good time to me. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On August 06 2011 03:47 StorkHwaiting wrote: In reality, nobody would go into a dungeon alone to fight for months on end. In reality, nobody can swing a sword for hours and hours without fatigue. In reality, there is no such thing as magic. Since when was reality a priority for video games? Some people, I swear. It isn't. People on the internet always need something to cry about. Diablo III is looking to be a perfectly good game. Nothing in it is "ruining" it. While the RMT idea is a little scary (the entire industry going towards microtransactions), as of yet it won't seriously hurt the game in any way. It's not like making WoW or Starcraft letting you buy things that affect gameplay with real money. | ||
|
trainRiderJ
United States615 Posts
On August 06 2011 03:50 DrBoo wrote: Holy shit those fan altered screenshots in the second link look A MILLION TIMES BETTER then the originals, all they have to do it simply tone down the lighting. Seriously that was an actually important stat in diablo 2 was your light radius (long as you're not using map hack) Looks like they just cranked up the light radius and made that stat obsolete. Overall I really appreciate the fan altered screenshots a lot more then the blizzard screenshots. You should really read Jay Wilson's comments in that article. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
So, from top-left to bottom right, we have: 1: Pixelated interior. Unconvincing in every way. 2: Pixelated exterior. The lighting suggests that it's maybe twilight. Or the sky is overcast. It certainly doesn't look like any realistic portrayal of the outdoors. 3: Pixelated interior. The lighting looks godawful and completely unconvincing. Those torches on the floor don't even begin to look like light sources. The barrels are lit completely wrongly. 4: Now we're getting somewhere. The sunlit field actually looks like it might be outdoors. Because the sun is bright, and therefore the outdoors uses an actual color palette, not 3 dark shades of green. So the "Evolution of Graphics in The Diablo Series" seems to be getting better, not worse. While I agree that the fan-edited screenshots look grittier and darker, and therefore cooler and more accurate to the world Unless you are actually living in a cave or something, the world is not dark. It is a bright place. Go outside in the daytime, and you will see that D3 looks a hell of a lot more like that than D2. | ||
|
DrBoo
Canada1177 Posts
On August 06 2011 03:51 StorkHwaiting wrote: No, they don't. The second pics hurt my eyes. They're way too dark. I can barely see the staircases in the second one. It looks more like a medical hazard than a good time to me. You've clearly never played diablo 1 or 2 and if you did play diablo 2 it was probably with map hack so you had no light radius to worry about. For me personally its the fright factor of the dark as well, you don't know if there's a butcher hiding in that darkness in front of you, until you get there and actually illuminate it to see what's actually there. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On August 06 2011 03:51 trainRiderJ wrote: You should really read Jay Wilson's comments in that article. The hogwash concerning his idea that everything on screen should be crystal-clear to the player? The fact that zombies could actually sneak up to you in D2 was one of the more nifty things about that game, especially in single player if your light radius was rather small. Those photoshopped screenshots not only look better from a diablo point of view, but also from a technological point of view (but then again, Blizzard still thinks they should support people with ten-year-old hardware..) | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
I don't see how making the game acessible to people with old hardware is such a bad decision... | ||
|
trainRiderJ
United States615 Posts
On August 06 2011 03:55 DrBoo wrote: You've clearly never played diablo 1 or 2 and if you did play diablo 2 it was probably with map hack so you had no light radius to worry about. For me personally its the fright factor of the dark as well, you don't know if there's a butcher hiding in that darkness in front of you, until you get there and actually illuminate it to see what's actually there. The only areas in the entire game as dark as you are "remembering" are the various caves in Act 1. | ||
|
DrBoo
Canada1177 Posts
On August 06 2011 03:56 SKC wrote: It's easy to say something looks better, but their excuse was that it plays better, and it's too soon to deny that. Light radious was not a good stat, noone cared about it, it was not a good feature and was removed. Being able to see what's attacking you gives you room for better gameplay, it may lose some of the surprise effect, and it's really a debatable decision, but you can't just alter a few screens and say the whole game would play better with that system, it's not that simple. I don't see how making the game acessible to people with old hardware is such a bad decision... I cared about light radius, I liked to know if there was a pack of enemy's in front of me as compared to just an empty hallway. It added another level of depth into the game. It added that fear factor which helped you immerse your self further into the game. Diablo isn't about walking through candy cane lane. Its about fear and death and destruction. | ||
|
DrBoo
Canada1177 Posts
On August 06 2011 03:56 trainRiderJ wrote: The only areas in the entire game as dark as you are "remembering" are the various caves in Act 1. That's complete and totally bullshit and you know it. Go back and play diablo 2 without any map hack and then try walking through most of the game without any upgrades to your light radius and then tell me that the only times its dark is various caves. I think you're just remembering it completely wrong. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On August 06 2011 03:54 NicolBolas wrote: Unless you are actually living in a cave or something, the world is not dark. It is a bright place. Go outside in the daytime, and you will see that D3 looks a hell of a lot more like that than D2. Okay, I agree that the art isn't anywhere close to an iota as big of a deal as people are making it out to be, but are you freaking kidding me? I clearly meant the 'world of Diablo'. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
Diablo isn't about walking through candy cane lane. Its about fear and death and destruction. Obviously, being able to see something means that it's "candy cane land" and there's no "fear and death and destruction." Nope, there are no subtle gradations between Mario and GrimDarkWorld; it's just one or the other. And you wonder why Blizzard's art staff don't take internet comments seriously. In any case, if you want people to be able to sneak up on you, a top-down perspective is the wrong perspective to have. Use first-person. Or over-the-shoulder 3rd person. If you give people top-down, they expect to be able to see stuff. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38264000/jpg/_38264985_witch300.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1ho76.jpg)
