|
Yeah, I agree. Diablo 1 scared me because I was 12 at the time. And mostly because I saw my cousin playing a warrior so I tried the rogue. I was jumpy mostly because I was playing a fragile character that can die in a few hits.
On August 06 2011 04:54 FireBearHero wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 04:50 udgnim wrote:
the Butcher in Diablo 1 was scary
primarily because I didn't want to die and had to abuse his pathing to get him stuck on the stairs Or his inability to open doors and shoot him with a bow through the bars lol.
Open door, cast fire wall, close door.
|
On August 06 2011 04:49 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 04:26 howerpower wrote:On August 06 2011 04:08 Bibdy wrote:On August 06 2011 04:07 NicolBolas wrote: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. ... fucking pathetic...are you trying to get someone to say that diablo II was not realistic looking? No one is saying that, everyone that is complaining is saying they completely removed the atmosphere of Diablo I and II....If you don't think Diablo III looks just like WoW you are pretty blind. No one is saying that? Well, one person is: Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 03:18 Kairos~ wrote:
Diablo 1/2/3(blizzard north alpha) were all dark, gritty and they presented a certain amount of realism that isn't present in the current Diablo 3. And no, D3 doesn't look "just like WoW." It looks very different from WoW. Being run on a more advanced engine, it is capable of graphics that WoW isn't. Even in terms of character art design, the game doesn't really resemble WoW.
It doesnt even RESEMBLE it? That's a stretch at best imo. The lack of detail and water color art style can easily conjure up images of WoW.
|
On August 06 2011 04:38 crms wrote:DrbOo how old were you when you played diablo1/2? Your nostalgia classes are coke bottles. There was nothing in the 'atmosphere' that was SCARY or left you GUESSING WHAT COULD BE DOWN THAT HALLWAY. Each zone had its own theme and all the monsters were basically the same per quest/act. I'm not sure how you remember diablo but it's not an accurate representation. I feel everyone is bitching about really insignificant aspects of the game based on their childhood nostalgia. If you really want to bitch, bitch about the witch doctor replacing the Necromance. NOW THAT IS ABSURD! Witch Doc is lame compared to the mighty necro. 
I very recently played diablo 2 hell unleashed mod (its diablo 2 except harder and more party based) I'm talking from experience of playing it not too long ago honestly.
By fear I don't mean like stuff popping out at you and going boo I mean the atmosphere of the game in general feeling like its a dark, scary game.
|
I still stand by my earlier assertion; the atmosphere comes much more from the music, than the art. When they did the big reveal of D3, you knew exactly what it was the moment you heard that spanish guitar.
|
On August 06 2011 05:11 Bibdy wrote:
I still stand by my earlier assertion; the atmosphere comes much more from the music, than the art. When they did the big reveal of D3, you knew exactly what it was the moment you heard that spanish guitar.
A combination of both, of course
|
On August 06 2011 04:27 abominare wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 04:21 StorkHwaiting 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. I played Diablo 1 the day it came out. I just turned the gamma up so my eyes wouldn't die. And it was NOT that dark in D1. You're way off. Butcher was scary because you opened a door and he freaking charged u snorting like an oinker. But I do like the way you opened our dialogue with stupid accusations of my gaming history. For you, personally, I recommend Resident Evil. I concur the cathedral levels were not particularly darkly lit, the butcher was scary because of great story driven lead up to it (in context to how games were what 15 years ago?) Now if I remember correctly what got to me after playing for a while was the changes in music/noise potentially coming from albrecht that became more and more tortured as you went deeper and deeper in levels. It wasn't the typical jumped out at you shock effect but just the slowly building eerie and creepiness that eventually got you
Yes. Completely agree with this post. The story and sound contributed to the ambiance way more than the graphics. But of course in today's sorry world, people can only talk about gfx. The tortured screams were a great touch that accentuated the STORY of descending further into HELL through a freaking cathedral. The STORY is what made Diablo darkly glorious not freaking lighting.
D2 obv could not be as glorious because it was a different storyline.You can't have it dark when you're walking through freaking Egypt lol. Yah, dark ambiance in the sunny desert....
|
On August 06 2011 05:20 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 04:27 abominare wrote:On August 06 2011 04:21 StorkHwaiting 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. I played Diablo 1 the day it came out. I just turned the gamma up so my eyes wouldn't die. And it was NOT that dark in D1. You're way off. Butcher was scary because you opened a door and he freaking charged u snorting like an oinker. But I do like the way you opened our dialogue with stupid accusations of my gaming history. For you, personally, I recommend Resident Evil. I concur the cathedral levels were not particularly darkly lit, the butcher was scary because of great story driven lead up to it (in context to how games were what 15 years ago?) Now if I remember correctly what got to me after playing for a while was the changes in music/noise potentially coming from albrecht that became more and more tortured as you went deeper and deeper in levels. It wasn't the typical jumped out at you shock effect but just the slowly building eerie and creepiness that eventually got you Yes. Completely agree with this post. The story and sound contributed to the ambiance way more than the graphics. But of course in today's sorry world, people can only talk about gfx. The tortured screams were a great touch that accentuated the STORY of descending further into HELL through a freaking cathedral. The STORY is what made Diablo darkly glorious not freaking lighting. D2 obv could not be as glorious because it was a different storyline.You can't have it dark when you're walking through freaking Egypt lol. Yah, dark ambiance in the sunny desert....
Viper Temple? Of course it can be dark in the middle of a desert or do you not remember act 2?
The only time I could accept it being bright all the time was if It was taking place upon one of the poles and it was summer so the sun never actually set and just ran along the edge of the horizon.
Since we're getting all technical here talking about Egypt.
I just think it being bright and sunny ruins the atmosphere. It should be dark and gloomy
|
On August 06 2011 05:23 DrBoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 05:20 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 06 2011 04:27 abominare wrote:On August 06 2011 04:21 StorkHwaiting 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. I played Diablo 1 the day it came out. I just turned the gamma up so my eyes wouldn't die. And it was NOT that dark in D1. You're way off. Butcher was scary because you opened a door and he freaking charged u snorting like an oinker. But I do like the way you opened our dialogue with stupid accusations of my gaming history. For you, personally, I recommend Resident Evil. I concur the cathedral levels were not particularly darkly lit, the butcher was scary because of great story driven lead up to it (in context to how games were what 15 years ago?) Now if I remember correctly what got to me after playing for a while was the changes in music/noise potentially coming from albrecht that became more and more tortured as you went deeper and deeper in levels. It wasn't the typical jumped out at you shock effect but just the slowly building eerie and creepiness that eventually got you Yes. Completely agree with this post. The story and sound contributed to the ambiance way more than the graphics. But of course in today's sorry world, people can only talk about gfx. The tortured screams were a great touch that accentuated the STORY of descending further into HELL through a freaking cathedral. The STORY is what made Diablo darkly glorious not freaking lighting. D2 obv could not be as glorious because it was a different storyline.You can't have it dark when you're walking through freaking Egypt lol. Yah, dark ambiance in the sunny desert.... Viper Temple? Of course it can be dark in the middle of a desert or do you not remember act 2? The only time I could accept it being bright all the time was if It was taking place upon one of the poles and it was summer so the sun never actually set and just ran along the edge of the horizon. Since we're getting all technical here talking about Egypt.
I don't think you get what I'm saying. Either that or you're starting to just argue for argument's sake. If you want to play a dark game where you can't see anything, turn your gamma down. It's pretty ez.
|
On August 06 2011 05:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 05:23 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 05:20 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 06 2011 04:27 abominare wrote:On August 06 2011 04:21 StorkHwaiting 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. I played Diablo 1 the day it came out. I just turned the gamma up so my eyes wouldn't die. And it was NOT that dark in D1. You're way off. Butcher was scary because you opened a door and he freaking charged u snorting like an oinker. But I do like the way you opened our dialogue with stupid accusations of my gaming history. For you, personally, I recommend Resident Evil. I concur the cathedral levels were not particularly darkly lit, the butcher was scary because of great story driven lead up to it (in context to how games were what 15 years ago?) Now if I remember correctly what got to me after playing for a while was the changes in music/noise potentially coming from albrecht that became more and more tortured as you went deeper and deeper in levels. It wasn't the typical jumped out at you shock effect but just the slowly building eerie and creepiness that eventually got you Yes. Completely agree with this post. The story and sound contributed to the ambiance way more than the graphics. But of course in today's sorry world, people can only talk about gfx. The tortured screams were a great touch that accentuated the STORY of descending further into HELL through a freaking cathedral. The STORY is what made Diablo darkly glorious not freaking lighting. D2 obv could not be as glorious because it was a different storyline.You can't have it dark when you're walking through freaking Egypt lol. Yah, dark ambiance in the sunny desert.... Viper Temple? Of course it can be dark in the middle of a desert or do you not remember act 2? The only time I could accept it being bright all the time was if It was taking place upon one of the poles and it was summer so the sun never actually set and just ran along the edge of the horizon. Since we're getting all technical here talking about Egypt. I don't think you get what I'm saying. Either that or you're starting to just argue for argument's sake. If you want to play a dark game where you can't see anything, turn your gamma down. It's pretty ez.
I'm not trying to argue for the point of an argument I'm trying to make a point that having it bright and colourful ruins the dark and gloomy atmosphere they're "supposed" to be creating with the game.
|
On August 06 2011 05:26 DrBoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 05:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 06 2011 05:23 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 05:20 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 06 2011 04:27 abominare wrote:On August 06 2011 04:21 StorkHwaiting 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. I played Diablo 1 the day it came out. I just turned the gamma up so my eyes wouldn't die. And it was NOT that dark in D1. You're way off. Butcher was scary because you opened a door and he freaking charged u snorting like an oinker. But I do like the way you opened our dialogue with stupid accusations of my gaming history. For you, personally, I recommend Resident Evil. I concur the cathedral levels were not particularly darkly lit, the butcher was scary because of great story driven lead up to it (in context to how games were what 15 years ago?) Now if I remember correctly what got to me after playing for a while was the changes in music/noise potentially coming from albrecht that became more and more tortured as you went deeper and deeper in levels. It wasn't the typical jumped out at you shock effect but just the slowly building eerie and creepiness that eventually got you Yes. Completely agree with this post. The story and sound contributed to the ambiance way more than the graphics. But of course in today's sorry world, people can only talk about gfx. The tortured screams were a great touch that accentuated the STORY of descending further into HELL through a freaking cathedral. The STORY is what made Diablo darkly glorious not freaking lighting. D2 obv could not be as glorious because it was a different storyline.You can't have it dark when you're walking through freaking Egypt lol. Yah, dark ambiance in the sunny desert.... Viper Temple? Of course it can be dark in the middle of a desert or do you not remember act 2? The only time I could accept it being bright all the time was if It was taking place upon one of the poles and it was summer so the sun never actually set and just ran along the edge of the horizon. Since we're getting all technical here talking about Egypt. I don't think you get what I'm saying. Either that or you're starting to just argue for argument's sake. If you want to play a dark game where you can't see anything, turn your gamma down. It's pretty ez. I'm not trying to argue for the point of an argument I'm trying to make a point that having it bright and colourful ruins the dark and gloomy atmosphere they're "supposed" to be creating with the game.
I'm sorry, but if you think D3 looks bright and colorful... Oh hell, I give up lol. All I'm going to say is you're a strange fellow if D3's ambiance constitutes bright and colorful.
|
"As for the other two heroes, the Rogue and Sorcerer, they also become corrupted by the Tristram quest and become Blood Raven, and the Summoner, respectively."
Holy shit, mind = blown.
|
On August 06 2011 05:28 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 05:26 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 05:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 06 2011 05:23 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 05:20 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 06 2011 04:27 abominare wrote:On August 06 2011 04:21 StorkHwaiting 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:
[quote]
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. I played Diablo 1 the day it came out. I just turned the gamma up so my eyes wouldn't die. And it was NOT that dark in D1. You're way off. Butcher was scary because you opened a door and he freaking charged u snorting like an oinker. But I do like the way you opened our dialogue with stupid accusations of my gaming history. For you, personally, I recommend Resident Evil. I concur the cathedral levels were not particularly darkly lit, the butcher was scary because of great story driven lead up to it (in context to how games were what 15 years ago?) Now if I remember correctly what got to me after playing for a while was the changes in music/noise potentially coming from albrecht that became more and more tortured as you went deeper and deeper in levels. It wasn't the typical jumped out at you shock effect but just the slowly building eerie and creepiness that eventually got you Yes. Completely agree with this post. The story and sound contributed to the ambiance way more than the graphics. But of course in today's sorry world, people can only talk about gfx. The tortured screams were a great touch that accentuated the STORY of descending further into HELL through a freaking cathedral. The STORY is what made Diablo darkly glorious not freaking lighting. D2 obv could not be as glorious because it was a different storyline.You can't have it dark when you're walking through freaking Egypt lol. Yah, dark ambiance in the sunny desert.... Viper Temple? Of course it can be dark in the middle of a desert or do you not remember act 2? The only time I could accept it being bright all the time was if It was taking place upon one of the poles and it was summer so the sun never actually set and just ran along the edge of the horizon. Since we're getting all technical here talking about Egypt. I don't think you get what I'm saying. Either that or you're starting to just argue for argument's sake. If you want to play a dark game where you can't see anything, turn your gamma down. It's pretty ez. I'm not trying to argue for the point of an argument I'm trying to make a point that having it bright and colourful ruins the dark and gloomy atmosphere they're "supposed" to be creating with the game. I'm sorry, but if you think D3 looks bright and colorful... Oh hell, I give up lol. All I'm going to say is you're a strange fellow if D3's ambiance constitutes bright and colorful.
I think its a hell of a lot more bright and colourful then diablo 1 or 2 It isn't quite at the level of WoW bright and colourful (I actually enjoyed WoW but it wasn't ment to be dark and gloomy)
I just think that if they want to make the atmosphere dark and gloomy they can't have dungeons looking like they don't have roofs and its in the middle of the afternoon. (bit of an exaggeration but its how I feel about it)
|
On August 06 2011 04:46 SKC wrote:What was scary about D2 was turning around a corner and seeing 50 lightning bolts one shot you. Or those damn freaking dolls. I never felt a horror atmosphere about it, not even close to actuall horror games. The original was a little more scary when I first played it, but mainly because of how young and clueless I was. Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 04:45 happyness wrote:On August 06 2011 04:18 SKC wrote:On August 06 2011 04:14 trainRiderJ wrote:On August 06 2011 04:11 abominare wrote: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! The dark wanderer aka the diablo 1 hero is retconned to be a long-lost son of Leoric. http://diablo.incgamers.com/blog/comments/blizzard-on-this-and-that Not much has changed though, the whole D2 storyline is not affected, and I'm not even sure it does much to the original Diablo storyline. I won't say I remember too much from it, but I don't think adding that to the "Warrior" background does a lot. It's mostly just to fit into whatever they are doing to Leoric in this version. The link won't load for me, so I'm not sure what it says, but from what I've read and heard is that the Wanderer is back(somehow) and was never diablo to begin with(even though we saw the warrior jam the soulstone into his head at the end of Diablo 1, AND we saw the wanderer transform into Diablo in the D2 Act 3 cinematic). If it's true, it really just cheapens the whole wanderer storyline of Diablo 2 because it couldn't have really happened. I couldn't find a link(because the incgamers site is down) but I did find the podcast where I first heard it. They start talking about it at ~40:10 http://www.youtube.com/user/Diablo3Inc#p/a/u/2/D6Z8DlbmaC0 I can't look at the video now (work), but from what I've read about it, the only thing they did was say the original warrior was actually Leoric's son, nothing changed about D2 or how he was possessed after the end of the original game. Edit: Here's a quote from Bashiok: "The change, I believe (and I still need to follow up on this) is simply naming the Warrior character as Leoric's son. Which, lore-wise, isn't much of a retcon, just giving the Warrior a specific name and origin. "
Okay, that threw me for a loop for a while. I thought you meant he was Leoric's son, Albrecht, who was the kid we saved in the original which would have been one hell of a retcon. But, I've done a bunch of Googling and it seems they meant the Warrior was a long-lost, older brother of Albrecht, not Albrecht himself.
Guess we'll find out the reasons why that's so important, eventually. Apparently Leoric's family is cursed to all hell and back, if you pardon the pun.
|
So the retcon is that the warrior who killed Diablo(1), who had taken control of Leoric's son Albrecht via Archbishop Lazarus kidnapping him, and turned into Diablo(2), was actually Leoric's brother and Albrecht's uncle.
Eh, not a big deal I think. Blizzard's done worse.
|
On August 06 2011 05:31 DrBoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 05:28 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 06 2011 05:26 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 05:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 06 2011 05:23 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 05:20 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 06 2011 04:27 abominare wrote:On August 06 2011 04:21 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 06 2011 03:55 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 03:51 StorkHwaiting wrote:
[quote]
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. I played Diablo 1 the day it came out. I just turned the gamma up so my eyes wouldn't die. And it was NOT that dark in D1. You're way off. Butcher was scary because you opened a door and he freaking charged u snorting like an oinker. But I do like the way you opened our dialogue with stupid accusations of my gaming history. For you, personally, I recommend Resident Evil. I concur the cathedral levels were not particularly darkly lit, the butcher was scary because of great story driven lead up to it (in context to how games were what 15 years ago?) Now if I remember correctly what got to me after playing for a while was the changes in music/noise potentially coming from albrecht that became more and more tortured as you went deeper and deeper in levels. It wasn't the typical jumped out at you shock effect but just the slowly building eerie and creepiness that eventually got you Yes. Completely agree with this post. The story and sound contributed to the ambiance way more than the graphics. But of course in today's sorry world, people can only talk about gfx. The tortured screams were a great touch that accentuated the STORY of descending further into HELL through a freaking cathedral. The STORY is what made Diablo darkly glorious not freaking lighting. D2 obv could not be as glorious because it was a different storyline.You can't have it dark when you're walking through freaking Egypt lol. Yah, dark ambiance in the sunny desert.... Viper Temple? Of course it can be dark in the middle of a desert or do you not remember act 2? The only time I could accept it being bright all the time was if It was taking place upon one of the poles and it was summer so the sun never actually set and just ran along the edge of the horizon. Since we're getting all technical here talking about Egypt. I don't think you get what I'm saying. Either that or you're starting to just argue for argument's sake. If you want to play a dark game where you can't see anything, turn your gamma down. It's pretty ez. I'm not trying to argue for the point of an argument I'm trying to make a point that having it bright and colourful ruins the dark and gloomy atmosphere they're "supposed" to be creating with the game. I'm sorry, but if you think D3 looks bright and colorful... Oh hell, I give up lol. All I'm going to say is you're a strange fellow if D3's ambiance constitutes bright and colorful. I think its a hell of a lot more bright and colourful then diablo 1 or 2 It isn't quite at the level of WoW bright and colourful (I actually enjoyed WoW but it wasn't ment to be dark and gloomy) I just think that if they want to make the atmosphere dark and gloomy they can't have dungeons looking like they don't have roofs and its in the middle of the afternoon. (bit of an exaggeration but its how I feel about it)
Look, WoW looks arent a problem. If they are the looks of the right WoW area. Tirisfal Glades and Darkshore? Excellent areas for stuff like Diablo games to take place in. So using WoW is GOOD. WoW is GOOD game, let them use the content because its good.
|
On August 06 2011 05:26 DrBoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 05:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 06 2011 05:23 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 05:20 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 06 2011 04:27 abominare wrote:On August 06 2011 04:21 StorkHwaiting 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. I played Diablo 1 the day it came out. I just turned the gamma up so my eyes wouldn't die. And it was NOT that dark in D1. You're way off. Butcher was scary because you opened a door and he freaking charged u snorting like an oinker. But I do like the way you opened our dialogue with stupid accusations of my gaming history. For you, personally, I recommend Resident Evil. I concur the cathedral levels were not particularly darkly lit, the butcher was scary because of great story driven lead up to it (in context to how games were what 15 years ago?) Now if I remember correctly what got to me after playing for a while was the changes in music/noise potentially coming from albrecht that became more and more tortured as you went deeper and deeper in levels. It wasn't the typical jumped out at you shock effect but just the slowly building eerie and creepiness that eventually got you Yes. Completely agree with this post. The story and sound contributed to the ambiance way more than the graphics. But of course in today's sorry world, people can only talk about gfx. The tortured screams were a great touch that accentuated the STORY of descending further into HELL through a freaking cathedral. The STORY is what made Diablo darkly glorious not freaking lighting. D2 obv could not be as glorious because it was a different storyline.You can't have it dark when you're walking through freaking Egypt lol. Yah, dark ambiance in the sunny desert.... Viper Temple? Of course it can be dark in the middle of a desert or do you not remember act 2? The only time I could accept it being bright all the time was if It was taking place upon one of the poles and it was summer so the sun never actually set and just ran along the edge of the horizon. Since we're getting all technical here talking about Egypt. I don't think you get what I'm saying. Either that or you're starting to just argue for argument's sake. If you want to play a dark game where you can't see anything, turn your gamma down. It's pretty ez. I'm not trying to argue for the point of an argument I'm trying to make a point that having it bright and colourful ruins the dark and gloomy atmosphere they're "supposed" to be creating with the game.
You're arguing about completely irrelevant things. D2 would be really dark and fine if not for the atrocious outdoor levels, which I despise to this very day. Why the hell are they forcing me to run through utterly boring, uneventful and large open space before I can get to the next point of interest? Before you've reached the Barracks in D2 Act. 1 the only really interesting things were the caves, all the rest was like in a porn movie, where you have this super long and unimportant scene where a character travels from point A to point B shown in excruciating detail and real time before you get to the next scene.
I've tried to get back into D2 many times. Every single time I did the Den of Evil, entered Cold Plains and uninstalled the game.
And I'm still playing D1.
|
On August 06 2011 04:26 howerpower wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 04:08 Bibdy wrote:On August 06 2011 04:07 NicolBolas wrote: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. ... fucking pathetic...are you trying to get someone to say that diablo II was not realistic looking? No one is saying that, everyone that is complaining is saying they completely removed the atmosphere of Diablo I and II....If you don't think Diablo III looks just like WoW you are pretty blind.
Diablo 3 does not look just like WoW
Seriously, it does not look just like WoW. I played WoW for a while and I watched gameplay videos of Diablo 3. They do not look remotely alike
|
On August 06 2011 06:06 bonifaceviii wrote:
So the retcon is that the warrior who killed Diablo(1), who had taken control of Leoric's son Albrecht via Archbishop Lazarus kidnapping him, and turned into Diablo(2), was actually Leoric's brother and Albrecht's uncle.
Eh, not a big deal I think. Blizzard's done worse.
I'm pretty sure at this point that he is/was supposed to be Leoric's son and Albrecht's older brother.
|
On August 06 2011 06:29 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 04:26 howerpower wrote:On August 06 2011 04:08 Bibdy wrote:On August 06 2011 04:07 NicolBolas wrote: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. ... fucking pathetic...are you trying to get someone to say that diablo II was not realistic looking? No one is saying that, everyone that is complaining is saying they completely removed the atmosphere of Diablo I and II....If you don't think Diablo III looks just like WoW you are pretty blind. Diablo 3 does not look just like WoW Seriously, it does not look just like WoW. I played WoW for a while and I watched gameplay videos of Diablo 3. They do not look remotely alike
There's little point arguing with that level of fanaticism. The only convincing argument is going to be when they get their hands on it and see it for themselves. After I played it at Blizzcon, I was pretty convinced that I was playing a great successor to Diablo, than I was a baby version of WoW.
Yes, it might be a little more colourful, it might not be filled with 60 shades of black/grey/brown, but god damn is it fun.
|
On August 06 2011 06:14 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 05:26 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 05:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 06 2011 05:23 DrBoo wrote:On August 06 2011 05:20 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 06 2011 04:27 abominare wrote:On August 06 2011 04:21 StorkHwaiting 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:
[quote]
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. I played Diablo 1 the day it came out. I just turned the gamma up so my eyes wouldn't die. And it was NOT that dark in D1. You're way off. Butcher was scary because you opened a door and he freaking charged u snorting like an oinker. But I do like the way you opened our dialogue with stupid accusations of my gaming history. For you, personally, I recommend Resident Evil. I concur the cathedral levels were not particularly darkly lit, the butcher was scary because of great story driven lead up to it (in context to how games were what 15 years ago?) Now if I remember correctly what got to me after playing for a while was the changes in music/noise potentially coming from albrecht that became more and more tortured as you went deeper and deeper in levels. It wasn't the typical jumped out at you shock effect but just the slowly building eerie and creepiness that eventually got you Yes. Completely agree with this post. The story and sound contributed to the ambiance way more than the graphics. But of course in today's sorry world, people can only talk about gfx. The tortured screams were a great touch that accentuated the STORY of descending further into HELL through a freaking cathedral. The STORY is what made Diablo darkly glorious not freaking lighting. D2 obv could not be as glorious because it was a different storyline.You can't have it dark when you're walking through freaking Egypt lol. Yah, dark ambiance in the sunny desert.... Viper Temple? Of course it can be dark in the middle of a desert or do you not remember act 2? The only time I could accept it being bright all the time was if It was taking place upon one of the poles and it was summer so the sun never actually set and just ran along the edge of the horizon. Since we're getting all technical here talking about Egypt. I don't think you get what I'm saying. Either that or you're starting to just argue for argument's sake. If you want to play a dark game where you can't see anything, turn your gamma down. It's pretty ez. I'm not trying to argue for the point of an argument I'm trying to make a point that having it bright and colourful ruins the dark and gloomy atmosphere they're "supposed" to be creating with the game. You're arguing about completely irrelevant things. D2 would be really dark and fine if not for the atrocious outdoor levels, which I despise to this very day. Why the hell are they forcing me to run through utterly boring, uneventful and large open space before I can get to the next point of interest? Before you've reached the Barracks in D2 Act. 1 the only really interesting things were the caves, all the rest was like in a porn movie, where you have this super long and unimportant scene where a character travels from point A to point B shown in excruciating detail and real time before you get to the next scene. I've tried to get back into D2 many times. Every single time I did the Den of Evil, entered Cold Plains and uninstalled the game. And I'm still playing D1.
So...killing hordes of monsters outside didnt register at all to you? Just the fact that you stepped outside was so damn traumatizing that you could only think about going back indoors? I truly hope that this only happens for you while youre gaming lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38264000/jpg/_38264985_witch300.jpg)
