Decline Of Diablo III - Games

[QUOTE=Tillghast;17678006]I'm talking about how this isn't really part of the Diablo series[/QUOTE] shut up

No seriously dude just shut up.

best argument ever. get out of here.

oh, man i gotta do this [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z1SAu1PxTA[/media] [editline]01:18AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Tillghast;17678006]I'm talking about how this isn't really part of the Diablo series[/QUOTE] it's diablo 3, and btw diablo is no series it's just 2 games... that is not a serie.

[QUOTE=Christarp4;17681073]shut up[/QUOTE] Excellent arguement. I totally see your side. I see how dumb your side is.

Ok where does all this "Diablo 2 was scary" shit come from? I never saw one scary thing in it, but people talk about it in this thread like it should be placed in the horror genre. Were all these people 3 years old when they played it? Here's a bit to piss you off. I [b]like[/b] cartoony graphics. I think Diablo 3's art style looks [b]better[/b] than the past games. I don't like WoW's gameplay at all, but the graphical style works, and apparently some 10 million other people also find it at least tolerable. Dark, gritty, and gothic have been done to death, but it's not so common that we see a game that goes for colorful and violent at the same time. I honestly would not be any less excited for Diablo 3 if they gave it the same style of cel-shaded graphics as [b]Wind Waker[/b]. If everyone wants to keep crying, go ahead, but you don't have to play Diablo 3. There are other dungeon crawlers out there, nobody's twisting your arm to force you into buying this game, and it's not any kind of a slightly big deal if this [b]one[/b] video game isn't as dark and spooky as you want it to be, and I don't think you're going to devastate the market by electing not to buy this game, especially considering the massive fanbase Blizzard has garnered from WoW players and people like me who are fans of the old games and just don't give a shit about the different graphics.

[QUOTE=Loofiloo;17683688]Ok where does all this "Diablo 2 was scary" shit come from? I never saw one scary thing in it, but people talk about it in this thread like it should be placed in the horror genre. Were all these people 3 years old when they played it? Here's a bit to piss you off. I [b]like[/b] cartoony graphics. I think Diablo 3's art style looks [b]better[/b] than the past games. I don't like WoW's gameplay at all, but the graphical style works, and apparently some 10 million other people also find it at least tolerable. Dark, gritty, and gothic have been done to death, but it's not so common that we see a game that goes for colorful and violent at the same time. I honestly would not be any less excited for Diablo 3 if they gave it the same style of cel-shaded graphics as [b]Wind Waker[/b]. If everyone wants to keep crying, go ahead, but you don't have to play Diablo 3. There are other dungeon crawlers out there, nobody's twisting your arm to force you into buying this game, and it's not any kind of a slightly big deal if this [b]one[/b] video game isn't as dark and spooky as you want it to be, and I don't think you're going to devastate the market by electing not to buy this game, especially considering the massive fanbase Blizzard has garnered from WoW players and people like me who are fans of the old games and just don't give a shit about the different graphics.[/QUOTE] basically this if you dont agree youre a bad human being

[QUOTE=Christarp4;17686666]basically this if you dont agree youre a bad human being[/QUOTE] Uh, well some of it. I don't expect everyone to prefer cartoony graphics, but I do wish they'd stop crying about it and acting like it's going to make their life a swirling vortex of misery and pain if the graphics of Diablo 3 don't look like... A swirling vortex of misery and pain

[quote=loofiloo;17686971]uh, well some of it. I don't expect everyone to prefer cartoony graphics, but i do wish they'd stop crying about it and acting like it's going to make their life a swirling vortex of misery and pain if the graphics of diablo 3 don't look like... A swirling vortex of misery and pain[/quote] amen brother!

Ok, I like cheesecake and you like chocolate cake, people have different tastes. But if Blizzard wanted to make a game with cartoony graphics why did they use the Diablo franchise? That's not how the game's supposed to look like. The pentagons and the demons statues all over the place gave me chills, that can't be achieved with blue and green glows everywhere because it gives the feeling of a fantasy world.

That and the mutilated human corpses strewn throughout the levels.

I can't play games unless I'm swimming in pools of blood :downs:

Gore =/= Gothic.

When will the arguments ever end?

[QUOTE=Himmel;17696533]When will the arguments ever end?[/QUOTE] When Diablo 3 comes out in about 5 years.

[QUOTE=AlexH;17658377]For the most part you are correct. Company of Heroes isn't a large scale battle RTS like SC II which supports massive fights while maintaining a steady fps. You almost always hit the pop cap when playing games that last over 15 minutes in CoH. You can build a total of 5-6 buildings per game, it really doesn't support base building that much at all, its a very passive part of the strategy with little actual effect on your success where as SC II a strong foundation for your base and a good location of a building is almost as important as your main army.[/quote] You basically just admitted you've never played CoH for more than 10 minutes, or at least failed to understand the game. It's strengths lie in base building, cover, and the sheer flexibility of it's units and it's defensive elements. So basically base building and turtling are key elements in CoH. Another thing is that unless you're playing a game of 1 on 1 you end up with very large battles with hundreds and hundreds of units. Just because the population cap is 100 doesn't mean there's 100 people on the battlefield exactly. Most of the time a single squad will consist of 10 or so soldiers. Where as Starcraft's units are individually grouped, so 200 population cap means there's 200 or less units on the map for that given army. More so success in CoH is heavily reliant on base building and defending key structures. The only reason SC is so base focused is that it's main gamemode is to destroy your enemy's base. The rest of the map is a no man's land with loosely set resource occupied areas scattered about. So in terms of your argument that SC has too many units to focus on a really good and detailed game, CoH manages to have amazingly detailed units and environment all while still maintaining enourmous battles typical of the RTS genre. [quote]I don't play RTS games so I can take screen shots and show it to my friends in an attempt to impress them, I play RTS to be awed while playing the game. Oh and by the way, although you may not be able to take super high quality up close shots, the battle shots in SC II will be far more colorful and engaging than any Company of Heroes screen shot.[/quote] So far I've only seen the top down view of SC2 and I'll admit it looks good, but it doesn't look like classic Starcraft. It looks more like a Warcraft 3 take on SC. For instance the animations and model design and texture work all greatly resemble Warcraft and WoW's. Starcraft 2 was never about vibrant colors and fantastical environments. It was bleak and dirty with indications of past grandeur in the color of the armors and the buildings. It's a shitty place to live basically. Right now SC2 just doesn't represent that in terms of art design. [quote]Interesting, have you actually observed this or is this just how you feel. When I first saw SCII that last thing I thought was that it looked like WoW, because quite frankly, it doesn't. The first thing I thought was how awesome and well suited their art style choice was. I would probably have punched someone near me if it was overly graphic.[/quote] I have actually observed this, I didn't randomly wake up one morning and say to myself "STARCRAFT 2 ISNT VERY STARCRAFTY". Like I said before, the animations, models, and texture work are very reminiscent of Warcraft 3 with WoW's art team behind it. Maybe you don't notice things but I do, I do this for a living. So it's probably not a huge issue if the random person doesn't notice it, but it's there. [quote]In what respect, honestly? They will probably make more sales than their ancestors, have more players online, and provide a longer and more interesting game experience than their previous versions. I don't see how they are even one league below anything. I think you, and people like you, have a hard time adjusting to new things.[/quote] Of course it'll sell more and have more people online. You realize that the original Starcraft came out in 1997 right? The gaming industry has grown in leaps and bounds, and PC has seen a huge growth spurt thanks to WoW. So of course they'll sell more, but that's not the point. Blizzard's in a position that most people in a creative field only dream of. For the most part they're an independent company, there are no restraints put on them and all decisions are made by them. They're completely free to do whatever they want. So to simply throw that away, take the easy road, and milk their products, they're throwing away the creative freedom they've earned for themselves. [quote]Overall, you didn't care about graphics when Diablo was 2D and when starcraft was 2D and now all the sudden the graphics are totally ruining the franchise? The art style is what is important not how close to reality you can get your graphics. And, Diablo III and SC II do not use the same rendering engine as WoW, their poly counts at any given time, [b]have been proven[/b] to be higher at any given frame than in WoW. Their shader engine and rendering engine are better than industry standard, where as WoW in its current state is far below industry standards.[/QUOTE] At no point did I say they were ruining the franchises, and at no point did I say that realism should be their artistic goal. It's entirely the opposite. The three franchises have very distinct art directions. Starcraft: Gritty, dirty, bleak, with hints of vibrancy beneath the grime. Warcraft: Colorful, vibrant, cartoon like. Diablo: Dark, sinister, gothic. Their color pallets are unique, their art styles are unique. However with the current art direction of SC and Diablo that will no longer be the case. Which wouldn't normally be a problem, but WoW has such a large userbase and is so widely known as a product that making SC and Diablo homogeneous to WoW has the chance of taking the uniqueness out of all three games. Like I said, and like you failed to comprehend last time sir anon, the games will still be amazing. The products will live up to expectation, and there will be a huge wave of nostalgia and joy for those who buy them. However Blizzard is throwing away opportunities to make truly unique games, and if it doesn't watch itself will slip into the big fun pool of cashcow developers.

[QUOTE=-The_D-;17693757]Ok, I like cheesecake and you like chocolate cake, people have different tastes. But if Blizzard wanted to make a game with cartoony graphics why did they use the Diablo franchise? That's not how the game's supposed to look like. The pentagons and the demons statues all over the place gave me chills, that can't be achieved with blue and green glows everywhere because it gives the feeling of a fantasy world.[/QUOTE] Would it be any better if we just never had a Diablo 3, but Blizzard released a dungeon-crawler of a different title with this style of graphics? To me, it makes no difference.

It would be better if they started using the Gothic look form the start.

haha i think i'd buy diablo if it doesn't feel like i'm grinding past level 60 [editline]04:43PM[/editline] except diablo 1 that shit was mad tight and the game ended when it should have

Guys, have you ever thought that they went with this particular style / direction for game-play benefits? If you're looking at a screen filled with overly-dark and ghoulish demons crowded everywhere, how are you supposed to play? This style provides excellent, easy identifications for all of the characters, monsters and beasts. Not to mention that Diablo I and Diablo II [B]both[/B] were run on horrible (on today's standards, mind you) engines that have terrible graphics which [I]forces[/I] the dark and gritty environments. If you were to put everything in Diablo 2 [B]exactly[/B] how it is with a graphical update into Diablo 3, it would look terrible. If you don't like the game, that's fine with you, nobody if forcing you to buy this game. Please don't make a big upset about it, because it's just going to start flame-wars and (some) salty comments and arguments towards you and anybody that agrees with you. If you want to start an intelligent debate about the game's art style or any other complaints you have about it, I'm sure more than just myself would appreciate it if you approached it with some opinions / facts with evidence / examples to support them. Now, back on-topic, I agree some of the art [B][I]does[/I][/B] lean a bit more on the cartoon-ish side, but we'll see how Blizzard responds to some of the reactions from fans and beta/alpha testers. Besides, I'm all for the style as long as it doesn't hinder game-play at all and I'm enjoying it, but that's just me.

[QUOTE=cheesywlz;17700206]Guys, have you ever thought that they went with this particular style / direction for game-play benefits? If you're looking at a screen filled with overly-dark and ghoulish demons crowded everywhere, how are you supposed to play? This style provides excellent, easy identifications for all of the characters, monsters and beasts. Not to mention that Diablo I and Diablo II [B]both[/B] were run on horrible (on today's standards, mind you) engines that have terrible graphics which [I]forces[/I] the dark and gritty environments. If you were to put everything in Diablo 2 [B]exactly[/B] how it is with a graphical update into Diablo 3, it would look terrible. If you don't like the game, that's fine with you, nobody if forcing you to buy this game. Please don't make a big upset about it, because it's just going to start flame-wars and (some) salty comments and arguments towards you and anybody that agrees with you. If you want to start an intelligent debate about the game's art style or any other complaints you have about it, I'm sure more than just myself would appreciate it if you approached it with some opinions / facts with evidence / examples to support them. Now, back on-topic, I agree some of the art [B][I]does[/I][/B] lean a bit more on the cartoon-ish side, but we'll see how Blizzard responds to some of the reactions from fans and beta/alpha testers. Besides, I'm all for the style as long as it doesn't hinder game-play at all and I'm enjoying it, but that's just me.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't mind a colorful, but still fairly realistic style. Exaggerated proportions just don't do it for me.

Yeah, I won't enjoy the art style if it turns into over-sized armor / weapons. But I suppose anything is better than getting to the point of Final Fantasy sized weapons. :geno:

The main thing that bugs me is some suit of armor with ridiculously tremendously massive shoulders... Too bad something like that has already been shown in Diablo 3 screenshots

Really? I thought that was just on the barbarian's cause they have like [B]massive[/B] shoulders anyways. I'll look at some screen shots again.

ITT: war veterans baww about the internet and television

[quote] If you're looking at a screen filled with overly-dark and ghoulish demons crowded everywhere, how are you supposed to play? This style provides excellent, easy identifications for all of the characters, monsters and beasts.[/quote] I played just fine in Diablo II. I don't want them to make the game exactly like Diablo II, I just want them to lose those fucking glows and give the game a more gothic look overall. Also, in the dungeons, I wouldn't mind if they added that circle of light around you and make the rest around it pitch black [EDIT: o wait they weren't pitch black. nevermind]. Some parts of the dungeons look a bit blocky as well, from the screens I looked at.

[QUOTE=Loofiloo;17705580]The main thing that bugs me is some suit of armor with ridiculously tremendously massive shoulders... Too bad something like that has already been shown in Diablo 3 screenshots[/QUOTE] Enormous unrealistic shoulder pads are Blizzard's bread and butter!

Errr.....that would be Games Workshop's ><'

[QUOTE=Mesothere;17674861]This is actually Diablo 3[/QUOTE] Just because they can slap a name on it doesn't make it Diablo. [editline]06:45PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Loofiloo;17683688]Ok where does all this "Diablo 2 was scary" shit come from? I never saw one scary thing in it, but people talk about it in this thread like it should be placed in the horror genre. Were all these people 3 years old when they played it? Here's a bit to piss you off. I [b]like[/b] cartoony graphics. I think Diablo 3's art style looks [b]better[/b] than the past games. I don't like WoW's gameplay at all, but the graphical style works, and apparently some 10 million other people also find it at least tolerable. Dark, gritty, and gothic have been done to death, but it's not so common that we see a game that goes for colorful and violent at the same time. I honestly would not be any less excited for Diablo 3 if they gave it the same style of cel-shaded graphics as [b]Wind Waker[/b]. If everyone wants to keep crying, go ahead, but you don't have to play Diablo 3. There are other dungeon crawlers out there, nobody's twisting your arm to force you into buying this game, and it's not any kind of a slightly big deal if this [b]one[/b] video game isn't as dark and spooky as you want it to be, and I don't think you're going to devastate the market by electing not to buy this game, especially considering the massive fanbase Blizzard has garnered from WoW players and people like me who are fans of the old games and just don't give a shit about the different graphics.[/QUOTE] When they say scary, they probably mean morbid, dark, and bloody. It doesn't necessarily mean it makes you jump out of your seat. Dark, gritty, and Gothic have been done to death, but not in the same environment or way that Diablo did it. No one is twisting my arm, but I've been waiting for this game for fucking ages, and I expected it to actually be Diablo and GOOD. You obviously aren't a hardcore Diablo fan. You have the opinion of a consolefag. Also, it has different game-play, not just different graphics.

[QUOTE=DeathFang;17714944]Also, it has different game-play, not just different graphics.[/QUOTE] Right, everything should be exactly the same as the game before it with just a graphics update. :downs: