|
On August 06 2011 03:58 DrBoo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You would take an item with light radius over an items with any other combat modifier that actually helped you? If that's the case, I'm sure it was not common. I just can't see Light Radius as a modifier as a good stat in D2. How big the default light radius was is something completelly diferent, which I said was debatable, but it's not the same as LR as a stat.
|
On August 06 2011 03:55 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 03:51 trainRiderJ wrote: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. 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..)
Those photoshopped screenshots look like garbage. The same garbage that the current "realistic" games use. Go outside. The world is not brown and gray.
Ugh. Can somebody provide a link to that tv snopes article about the overuse of brown in modern shooters?
Found it! http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealIsBrown
|
I'm reading on gaf there's a LEVEL CAP ... is this true?
|
On August 06 2011 03:55 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 03:51 trainRiderJ wrote: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. 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..)
Look at every Blizzard game's level of graphical detail compared to other games of the same era. They're miles behind the technological curve, but they do it with the express purpose of being accessible to a wider audience.
The sheer audacity of giving them flak for following the exact same formula that has worked for megahit after megahit is unbelievable.
|
I think d3 is going to kick some major ass.
im uber pissed about, is no necromancer. This was the single most exciting thing to me when they first mentioned a d3, and im still upset about it. lol =\\
diablo and all its games were the first games i ever played. Of course im a hardcore fan, and still think they should follow everything to suit of how it used to be. Times change tho, and you cant deny they will release a stellar, addicting game. you say artwork? dont you fret. it will not disapoint.. hike up your settings, turn down your own lighting, and enjoy. it will not be a set thing, there will be settings like EVERY other online game.
|
On August 06 2011 03:59 DrBoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 03:56 trainRiderJ wrote:On August 06 2011 03:55 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 03:51 StorkHwaiting wrote: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. 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. 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.
Maybe you played on a really low gamma setting or something. I'm sure you'll be happy to know that a brightness/gamma adjustment feature should make it for launch.
|
On August 06 2011 04:03 a176 wrote:
I'm reading on gaf there's a LEVEL CAP ... is this true?
Yes, there has always been one. In Diablo 2 it was 99, in Diablo it was lower, I don't remember the exact number and in Diablo 3 it will also be lower, 60. Not having a level cap would mean infinite levels.
|
On August 06 2011 04:05 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 04:03 a176 wrote:
I'm reading on gaf there's a LEVEL CAP ... is this true? Yes, there has always been one. In Diablo 2 it was 99, in Diablo it was lower, I don't remember the exact number and in Diablo 3 it will also be lower, 60. Not having a level cap would mean infinite levels.
The level cap in Diablo 1 was 50.
|
On August 06 2011 04:02 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 03:58 DrBoo wrote: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. You would take an item with light radius over an items with any other combat modifier that actually helped you? If that's the case, I'm sure it was not common. I just can't see Light Radius as a modifier as a good stat in D2. How big the default light radius was is something completelly diferent, which I said was debatable, but it's not the same as LR as a stat.
That was the thing though it added another level of depth sure your added stats increased how much life or damage you did but the downside to that is you weren't able to see as far and thus were able to get snuck up on and attacked.
It was a trade off you had to decide if you wanted more vision or if you wanted more damage/life
Sure there was some enemy's that stood out specially the unique special monsters that practically glowed in the darkness but there was also the other side of it. Not knowing how many monsters there were or if you should engage head on or if you should pull stuff little by little.
It might be because I mostly only played the game on hardcore so I couldn't really "trade" for items and keep a ton of mules with super high level items and get rushed to the end game.
So I probably remember it differently then the people who just played softcore and didn't care if you died.
In hardcore light radius was something you'd actually have to think about because it made you a lot more safe because you could see what you were getting your self into.
|
On August 06 2011 04:00 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +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'.
Then you're saying that the "world of Diablo" is not realistic.
|
On August 06 2011 04:07 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 04:00 Bibdy wrote: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'. Then you're saying that the "world of Diablo" is not realistic.
...
|
You know, I'm ok with all the changes (for the most part), and I think that it will still be a fun game to play, but what pisses me off more than anything is the retconning on the dark wanderer. The story is going to suck. It's SC2 all over again. Except, for me, the story is much more important in a game like D3 than SC2.
What happened? Is Chris Metzen drunk when he comes with all these terrible ideas? And I really don't see how the retconning in these games really makes them more "noob-friendly" so I am soooo confused at why blizz is doing this...
|
On August 06 2011 04:05 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 03:59 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 03:56 trainRiderJ wrote:On August 06 2011 03:55 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 03:51 StorkHwaiting wrote: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. 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. 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. Maybe you played on a really low gamma setting or something. I'm sure you'll be happy to know that a brightness/gamma adjustment feature should make it for launch.
I played on the default gamma settings
|
On August 06 2011 03:20 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 03:14 maartendq wrote:On August 06 2011 02:37 DrBoo wrote:
I was sooo happy about Diablo 3 I was jacked, I was hype, I was going to spend a week locked in my room playing it... I don't feel that way anymore, I feel sad... and depressed. I want to lock my self in my room just so I don't have to play it.
All this new information about Diablo 3 and all this new screen and etc just makes me think, where did Blizzard go wrong... how could they possibly think this is in anyway an improvement over Diablo 2 except in graphics (not inventory screen graphics)
Blizzard games used to be something that was coveted and looked forward to for years, the hype slowly building up until finally that magical day came for the midnight release. Then you'd go home and play it all night without even realizing how much time has gone by.
Where is the magic now blizzard?! WHERE IS THAT MAGIC NOW?! They went wrong the moment they decided to make a new diablo game without having anyone of the lead people behind Diablo 2 still in the team. They went wrong the moment they decided to use happy-go-lucky cartoony graphics for the game instead of the gritty, depressing, oppressive, gothic style Diablo 2 used. They went wrong the moment they decided that forcing players to always be connected to the internet in order to play was a good idea. They went wrong the moment they decided to add Warcraft characters and spells to the game while removing the arguably most iconic character of the series: the paladin.They went wrong the moment they decided to add an auction house to a game that's about killing monsters and hunting for gear. Why they thought that Diablo 3 should be a business simulation game as well is beyond me. I never believed they'd pull it off but they have actually managed to completely alienate a huge part of the original Diablo fanbase. This game is aimed at the younger generation of MMORPG fans who've never played a Diablo game before. This is not a game for the fans. This doesn't even look like a game they've been working on for four or five years. Most companies would be able to throw this up in a year or two. Whatever iconic vision you had of the Paladin in how it relates only to Diablo 2, is a complete fabrication in your own head. Blizzard introduced Paladins in Warcraft 2. They became a hero unit in Warcraft 3 and eventually became an entire class in WoW. Meanwhile the Paladin just showed up in Diablo 2 as another melee guy; an offshoot from the original Warrior, much like the Barbarian. You had the Amazon as an offshoot of the Rogue, the Sorceress as an offshoot of the Wizard and the Necromancer who was pretty much unique to Diablo 2 (since there were no pets, and thus no equivalent/similar class in Diablo 1). Uhh did you play the original paladin? The main D2 paladin builds: conversion/thorns and hammer/HF played completely differently from anything made before. In fact conversion/thorns is such an efficient, yet bizarre and interesting build that it is one of the game-defining moments to any diablo-fan.
|
On August 06 2011 03:58 DrBoo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
you know that your light radius increases when u level up ? its no issue later in the game, as an item mod it was completely worthless
|
On August 06 2011 03:59 DrBoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 03:56 trainRiderJ wrote:On August 06 2011 03:55 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 03:51 StorkHwaiting wrote: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. 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. 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.
Eh, I'm not sure id agree with most of the game being dark. It is really about half and half at best.
Act 1: Caves, Jail, Catacombs. Barracks is somewhat dark, but everything else has high visibility. So rougly half the act, with many of the caves not necessary, is dark.
Act 2: Sewers, Tombs, Maggot lair, Lost City, Viper Temple. Again, it is around half, maybe a little more towards the dark side.
Act 3: Spider Lairs, Flayer Dungeon, Sewers, Temples, and Durance. Again, about half the act.
Act 4: City of the Damned to some extent? Visibility is pretty clear through out all of act 4 really.
Act 5: Pretty similar to act 4. Most of the act is well lit. Nihilithak's (probably butchered that) is really the only place where light radius is relevant. The ice cavern levels and worldstone keep are somewhat dark, but still visibility is still good for just about the entire screen.
Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but my memory seems to be that under half the game falls under dim settings where light radius was relevant. It certainly wasn't "most" though.
|
On August 06 2011 04:09 DrBoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 04:05 trainRiderJ wrote:On August 06 2011 03:59 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 03:56 trainRiderJ wrote:On August 06 2011 03:55 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 03:51 StorkHwaiting wrote: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. 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. 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. Maybe you played on a really low gamma setting or something. I'm sure you'll be happy to know that a brightness/gamma adjustment feature should make it for launch. I played on the default gamma settings
It depends on the monitor, some need a higher gamma setting for the same look as another, so it's not that simple. I remember switching from an old monitor and feeling the game a lot brigther. In a high gamma setting it was definatelly very bright.
|
On August 06 2011 04:08 happyness wrote:
You know, I'm ok with all the changes (for the most part), and I think that it will still be a fun game to play, but what pisses me off more than anything is the retconning on the dark wanderer. The story is going to suck. It's SC2 all over again. Except, for me, the story is much more important in a game like D3 than SC2.
What happened? Is Chris Metzen drunk when he comes with all these terrible ideas? And I really don't see how the retconning in these games really makes them more "noob-friendly" so I am soooo confused at why blizz is doing this...
Wait what? link!
|
Yeah I wish people would stop speaking for me when they say "blizzard is upsetting the oldschool hardcore d2 fans!" It's fine if you're upset at the game and don't like the look of it. You don't have to play, but when you start making ridiculous claims like "EVERYONE AGREES WITH ME BLIZZARD FUCKED UP" It makes you look a little desperate.
If you cant critically look back and D2 and see the flaws in that games design, then you're pretty much the archetype of a dribbling fanboy running entirely on nostalgia.
|
On August 06 2011 04:09 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 03:20 Bibdy wrote:On August 06 2011 03:14 maartendq wrote:On August 06 2011 02:37 DrBoo wrote:
I was sooo happy about Diablo 3 I was jacked, I was hype, I was going to spend a week locked in my room playing it... I don't feel that way anymore, I feel sad... and depressed. I want to lock my self in my room just so I don't have to play it.
All this new information about Diablo 3 and all this new screen and etc just makes me think, where did Blizzard go wrong... how could they possibly think this is in anyway an improvement over Diablo 2 except in graphics (not inventory screen graphics)
Blizzard games used to be something that was coveted and looked forward to for years, the hype slowly building up until finally that magical day came for the midnight release. Then you'd go home and play it all night without even realizing how much time has gone by.
Where is the magic now blizzard?! WHERE IS THAT MAGIC NOW?! They went wrong the moment they decided to make a new diablo game without having anyone of the lead people behind Diablo 2 still in the team. They went wrong the moment they decided to use happy-go-lucky cartoony graphics for the game instead of the gritty, depressing, oppressive, gothic style Diablo 2 used. They went wrong the moment they decided that forcing players to always be connected to the internet in order to play was a good idea. They went wrong the moment they decided to add Warcraft characters and spells to the game while removing the arguably most iconic character of the series: the paladin.They went wrong the moment they decided to add an auction house to a game that's about killing monsters and hunting for gear. Why they thought that Diablo 3 should be a business simulation game as well is beyond me. I never believed they'd pull it off but they have actually managed to completely alienate a huge part of the original Diablo fanbase. This game is aimed at the younger generation of MMORPG fans who've never played a Diablo game before. This is not a game for the fans. This doesn't even look like a game they've been working on for four or five years. Most companies would be able to throw this up in a year or two. Whatever iconic vision you had of the Paladin in how it relates only to Diablo 2, is a complete fabrication in your own head. Blizzard introduced Paladins in Warcraft 2. They became a hero unit in Warcraft 3 and eventually became an entire class in WoW. Meanwhile the Paladin just showed up in Diablo 2 as another melee guy; an offshoot from the original Warrior, much like the Barbarian. You had the Amazon as an offshoot of the Rogue, the Sorceress as an offshoot of the Wizard and the Necromancer who was pretty much unique to Diablo 2 (since there were no pets, and thus no equivalent/similar class in Diablo 1). Uhh did you play the original paladin? The main D2 paladin builds: conversion/thorns and hammer/HF played completely differently from anything made before. In fact conversion/thorns is such an efficient, yet bizarre and interesting build that it is one of the game-defining moments to any diablo-fan.
What on earth does a single build have to do with his iconic status? Using pets as meat shields and throwing Iron Maiden on a bunch of mobs was a similarly unique way of killing stuff, too. Doesn't mean it has a presence in the game to the level of using the word 'iconic'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38264000/jpg/_38264985_witch300.jpg)
