|
On August 06 2011 06:32 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 06:29 Supamang wrote: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.
Youre right. I tried this with all of the BW die hard fans, nothing mattered. In the end, all the whiny bitches who cant stand change will stay out of our game and people who will actually appreciate the game will join in. Win win situation I guess
|
On August 06 2011 06:36 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 06:32 Bibdy wrote:On August 06 2011 06:29 Supamang wrote: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. Youre right. I tried this with all of the BW die hard fans, nothing mattered. In the end, all the whiny bitches who cant stand change will stay out of our game and people who will actually appreciate the game will join in. Win win situation I guess
well its fine if they change things, but some changes are unequivocally bad. For instance, having no LAN can be bad or neutral, but I can't see it being a "good" thing. For me, my main worry is the leveling.. apparently if you beat the game once (normal, nightmare, hell) you'll end up at the max level 60. Leveling was one of the key things that kept you playing d2, especially since you could do MF runs and level at the same time. Now it seem's you'll just be mfing, which doesn't sound as appealing. any thoughts?
|
On August 06 2011 06:51 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 06:36 Supamang wrote:On August 06 2011 06:32 Bibdy wrote:On August 06 2011 06:29 Supamang wrote: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. Youre right. I tried this with all of the BW die hard fans, nothing mattered. In the end, all the whiny bitches who cant stand change will stay out of our game and people who will actually appreciate the game will join in. Win win situation I guess well its fine if they change things, but some changes are unequivocally bad. For instance, having no LAN can be bad or neutral, but I can't see it being a "good" thing. For me, my main worry is the leveling.. apparently if you beat the game once (normal, nightmare, hell) you'll end up at the max level 60. Leveling was one of the key things that kept you playing d2, especially since you could do MF runs and level at the same time. Now it seem's you'll just be mfing, which doesn't sound as appealing. any thoughts?
We still don't really know what the Inferno-mode is, that could be for lv60+ stuff.
|
On August 06 2011 06:54 JSHC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 06:51 Assault_1 wrote:On August 06 2011 06:36 Supamang wrote:On August 06 2011 06:32 Bibdy wrote:On August 06 2011 06:29 Supamang wrote: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. Youre right. I tried this with all of the BW die hard fans, nothing mattered. In the end, all the whiny bitches who cant stand change will stay out of our game and people who will actually appreciate the game will join in. Win win situation I guess well its fine if they change things, but some changes are unequivocally bad. For instance, having no LAN can be bad or neutral, but I can't see it being a "good" thing. For me, my main worry is the leveling.. apparently if you beat the game once (normal, nightmare, hell) you'll end up at the max level 60. Leveling was one of the key things that kept you playing d2, especially since you could do MF runs and level at the same time. Now it seem's you'll just be mfing, which doesn't sound as appealing. any thoughts? We still don't really know what the Inferno-mode is, that could be for lv60+ stuff.
whats infernal mode?
|
On August 06 2011 06:51 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 06:36 Supamang wrote:On August 06 2011 06:32 Bibdy wrote:On August 06 2011 06:29 Supamang wrote: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. Youre right. I tried this with all of the BW die hard fans, nothing mattered. In the end, all the whiny bitches who cant stand change will stay out of our game and people who will actually appreciate the game will join in. Win win situation I guess well its fine if they change things, but some changes are unequivocally bad. For instance, having no LAN can be bad or neutral, but I can't see it being a "good" thing. For me, my main worry is the leveling.. apparently if you beat the game once (normal, nightmare, hell) you'll end up at the max level 60. Leveling was one of the key things that kept you playing d2, especially since you could do MF runs and level at the same time. Now it seem's you'll just be mfing, which doesn't sound as appealing. any thoughts?
My thought is that's bogus. Where's the source?
|
On August 06 2011 06:56 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 06:54 JSHC wrote:On August 06 2011 06:51 Assault_1 wrote:On August 06 2011 06:36 Supamang wrote:On August 06 2011 06:32 Bibdy wrote:On August 06 2011 06:29 Supamang wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Youre right. I tried this with all of the BW die hard fans, nothing mattered. In the end, all the whiny bitches who cant stand change will stay out of our game and people who will actually appreciate the game will join in. Win win situation I guess well its fine if they change things, but some changes are unequivocally bad. For instance, having no LAN can be bad or neutral, but I can't see it being a "good" thing. For me, my main worry is the leveling.. apparently if you beat the game once (normal, nightmare, hell) you'll end up at the max level 60. Leveling was one of the key things that kept you playing d2, especially since you could do MF runs and level at the same time. Now it seem's you'll just be mfing, which doesn't sound as appealing. any thoughts? We still don't really know what the Inferno-mode is, that could be for lv60+ stuff. whats infernal mode?
As I wrote, we don't really know.
Beta Interview:
The expected damage is a starting point to balance from. Balance must be maintained for both players types, and everyone in between, which can be tricky. Ultimately, it’s going to take the game's harder difficulty modes -- Hell and Inferno -- to challenge the limits of the best Diablo III players.
|
Well they did mention the goal was 1-30 in Normal, 30-50 or so in Nightmare, 50-60 in Hell. They never mentioned Inferno (4th difficulty) before that (that I know of) so I'm guessing that the 4th level will be full difficulty MF/Item/Boss running mode so that everything from the first Act to the last can drop good stuff (and not just the last act bosses as with D2). The levels are based of an interview but everything after the first sentence is pure speculation on my end.
|
On August 06 2011 06:34 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 06:14 Manit0u 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. 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
Actually I forgot about this. I really, really disliked this aspect of Diablo 2 as well. I've since gotten used to it, but going back to playing Diablo 1 reminds me how scary being deep in a dungeon was. The outside environments of act 1/2 especially were really dull thematically.
Also, the music from Diablo 2 was more pompous and orchestral (Which is something I enjoy) than Diablo 1, which took away from the horror atmosphere. Diablo 1's music was very eerie - it was simple (at least compared to D2's) and its simplicity made it haunting.
An official said recently the music in 3 sounded very "Diablo" which makes me think its akin to diablo 2's music. Great music, but not really adding to a scary atmosphere. I wish Blizzard North still owned the Diablo franchise tbh.
|
Noone know what Inferno is, or even if it will be something. It was one word in an interview that could have been a mistake, or he actually said something he shouldn't have. But Blizzard said several times there would only be 3 difficulty levels, that could be something related to hardcore. Who knows, it wouldn't be the first time Blizzard has done something noone expected. Not even concerning D3.
|
On August 06 2011 07:08 Shai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 06:34 Supamang wrote:On August 06 2011 06:14 Manit0u 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:
[quote]
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 Actually I forgot about this. I really, really disliked this aspect of Diablo 2 as well. I've since gotten used to it, but going back to playing Diablo 1 reminds me how scary being deep in a dungeon was. The outside environments of act 1/2 especially were really dull thematically. Also, the music from Diablo 2 was more pompous and orchestral (Which is something I enjoy) than Diablo 1, which took away from the horror atmosphere. Diablo 1's music was very eerie - it was simple (at least compared to D2's) and its simplicity made it haunting. An official said recently the music in 3 sounded very "Diablo" which makes me think its akin to diablo 2's music. Great music, but not really adding to a scary atmosphere. I wish Blizzard North still owned the Diablo franchise tbh.
Ok nevermind I see where you guys are coming from now. I just never saw Diablo as a part of the horror genre so I didnt understand why indoors vs outdoors was such a huge deal.
|
On August 06 2011 07:11 SKC wrote:
Noone know what Inferno is, or even if it will be something. It was one word in an interview that could have been a mistake, or he actually said something he shouldn't have. But Blizzard said several times there would only be 3 difficulty levels, that could be something related to hardcore. Who knows, it wouldn't be the first time Blizzard has done something noone expected. Not even concerning D3.
It's on Blizzards official site, and they know that it's in that interview since it blew up on the forums. If it wasn't meant to be there it would've been edited out by now. It might not be an entire new difficulty level but it might be a new mode that springs off of the story or whatever. We don't know yet, but I'm pretty sure it's meant to be in that interview.
|
On August 06 2011 07:19 JSHC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 07:11 SKC wrote:
Noone know what Inferno is, or even if it will be something. It was one word in an interview that could have been a mistake, or he actually said something he shouldn't have. But Blizzard said several times there would only be 3 difficulty levels, that could be something related to hardcore. Who knows, it wouldn't be the first time Blizzard has done something noone expected. Not even concerning D3. It's on Blizzards official site, and they know that it's in that interview since it blew up on the forums. If it wasn't meant to be there it would've been edited out by now. It might not be an entire new difficulty level but it might be a new mode that springs off of the story or whatever. We don't know yet, but I'm pretty sure it's meant to be in that interview.
Still, several people have been talking like it's a 4th new difficulty setting, when it could actually just be a diferent name for something. I would be surprised even if the lack of information on it turned out to be Blizzard trolling everybody. It's just too soon to say there will be a 4th difficulty when every time someone asked about it before they were very sure about there being only 3.
|
|
|
I'm surprised people are still arguing about the Diablo-3-is-too-colorful deal - or at least they were a few pages ago. To them I say: Diablo 3, in my eyes, looks beautiful. I'd rather be playing a beautiful game over the next ten years, thank you very much.
@Diablo 1 versus the other games:
I think Diablo 2 was definitely the better game, but Diablo 1 had something Diablo 2 never did, which was the potential to be scary. Yeah we were younger then, but in Diablo 1 you go into the labyrinth and its dark with spooky music... and as soon as a skeleton or two appears, you're in danger of losing your life. Diablo 2, on the other hand, you're a superhero the entire way through. You walk out and you see a bunch of zombies screaming for you to kill them, because they can't hurt you. Sure maybe it's more casual friendly, but it's not the same
My hope for Diablo 3 is that they will have both types of segments. I prefer the Diablo 2 style most of the way through, but I want Diablo 3 to have the potential to be scary. I want Hell to live up to its name. ^^
|
|
|
Looks like Path of Exile.
|
|
|
On August 06 2011 07:43 Assault_1 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 06 2011 07:36 Boblion wrote:Wow diablo 3 looks so amazing o,o ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/O5P1s.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1ArJL.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/w4nba.jpg) + Show Spoiler +haha just kidding it is not D3 what game is that?
Seriously that game look good, what is it?
Updated: Oh path of exile, looks sick now to find a way into it's beta already more excited for it than d3
|
The first Path of Exile pic looks lame to me, and the last pic looks like they went crazy ballistic on HDI lighting.
The forest pic, on the other hand I think looks really pretty.
Just goes to show you can't please everyone all the time... even sometimes when it's only one person
|
Only someone with that kind of grammar would think it looks better than D3, but it will be fun before D3 comes out =P
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
