Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Diablo 3 looks like shit

Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
3,520
>HaLLuCinOgeN<< said:
Overweight Manatee said:
Blizzard is aiming firmly for the lowest common denominator on this one. D3 may be Blizzard's DA2.

I doubt that. It will be a massive hit no matter what and they will sell it for like a 60$. Because people are that stupid.

It is just unbelievable how poor, dumbed down and childish this game presents.

That is clearly what EA thought for DA2, and while DA2 still sold it was a huge black mark on what was up until then considered a "perfect" record for Bioware. Clearly there is some limit to the stupidity of gamers, though far be it from me to be able to figure out what that limit is. I think removing multiple central features for the genre on the pretense that they are too complicating or unwieldy may just be too far, especially compared with how nearly every other diablo clone has improved on those mechanics. Consider also that D3 is PC only (with whatever corresponding audience IQ advantage that brings over consoletards), and that plenty of people are already pissed off enough at the changes.

Awor Szurkrarz said:
It looks awful. Are these screenshots real? I don't recall trailers looking like this.

Has there been a trailer this century that has actually made a reasonably accurate depiction of the game featured?
 

DemonKing

Arcane
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
6,019
Blizzard games have never really had cutting edge graphics, so I don't know what the fuss is all about.

They do have reasonably good art design though, that helps.

My biggest complaint though is that the gameplay in their titles doesn't really evolve much - SC2 for example, played pretty much identically to SC with a graphics update. Maybe that's what the Koreans want but it was pretty disappointing to me.

I doubt D3 will fiddle much with the D2 formula either.
 

Ruprekt

Scholar
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
1,936
Location
Exploring small rings in 3D
The Blizzard dev model seems to be to make games that will run on the average shitty macbook, and then pile on the lighting options (shadows, ambient occlusion etc) hoping that'll appease the pc gamers.
 

Marobug

Newbie
Joined
Sep 2, 2010
Messages
566
Overweight Manatee said:
Has there been a trailer this century that has actually made a reasonably accurate depiction of the game featured?

Decent quality gameplay trailer > 1000 screenshots. So yes, at least more so than a screenshot or even a bunch of them.

DemonKing said:
I doubt D3 will fiddle much with the D2 formula either.

I really hope they do, the diablo games aged terribly gameplay wise imo. Also I smell auto health regeneration. Mark my words.
 

felipepepe

Codex's Heretic
Patron
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
17,278
Location
Terra da Garoa
Crispy said:
I don't think Diablo 3 looks all that bad, but Grim Dawn looks amazing.

It's all about gameplay, though.
:thumbsup:

And Blizzard always try to make game that can run on any computer, so graphics was never their focus.
 

sser

Arcane
Developer
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,866,689
I don't see anything wrong with the graphics. It looks good in motion from the videos I've seen. I am more interested in what the TQ guys are doing, though, as I liked it better than D2.
 

shihonage

Subscribe to my OnlyFans
Patron
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
7,163
Location
location, location
Bubbles In Memoria
Overweight Manatee said:
Looks much worse than D2 at a similar resolution. Factoring in art style then its even worse than D1.

Worse still than the graphics is just how dumbed down the game appears to be getting. Blizzard is aiming firmly for the lowest common denominator on this one. D3 may be Blizzard's DA2.

D3 smells like the most Kotick'd title of theirs to date.

I wouldn't be surprised if it launches with microtransactions and DLCs already primed (some pets, items, and a few side-dungeons), the main screen asks you to "Like" it on Facebook, and the first 1000 people to pass the game get a free copy of Modern Warfare 4 with COD Elite subscription for 1 year.
 

ArcturusXIV

Cipher
Joined
Mar 13, 2003
Messages
1,894
Location
Innsmouth
Diablo 3 looks great, and this thread is FA1L.

Art direction is not as dark as #1. Then again, D2 ruined everything for me, lacked focus, all of sudden we weren't focused on Christian mythology, but on Egyptian butthurt.

Not a bad game, just not as captivating atmosphere-wise...

People will disagree. Fine.

Blizzard has stated, and will, aim for low system requirements with this game. Fine. I am not a graphics whore. I picked up Dwarf Fortress today. You could still play Nethack and be impressed, this will please.

I am glad they are dumbing up, not dumbing down. Rune system, crafters, etc. Keep adding complexity! DA2, on the other hand, blatantly advertised three moron options for dialogue: poop, pooper, and "retard fest" i.e. snarky or something? Either way, didn't play it, didn't care, having a "badazz" dialogue option immediately turns me off, even if you want to add in emotions, DA2 felt cliched and not as good as Baldur's Gate, so I wasn't pleased, BioWAER has taken to ripping off mechanics of their old games, which is fine, if they can come up with an original concept like Planescape, or Alice, which I long for in an RPG...
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
3,520
ArcturusXIV said:
I am glad they are dumbing up, not dumbing down. Rune system, crafters, etc. Keep adding complexity! DA2, on the other hand, blatantly advertised three moron options for dialogue: poop, pooper, and "retard fest" i.e. snarky or something? Either way, didn't play it, didn't care, having a "badazz" dialogue option immediately turns me off, even if you want to add in emotions, DA2 felt cliched and not as good as Baldur's Gate, so I wasn't pleased, BioWAER has taken to ripping off mechanics of their old games, which is fine, if they can come up with an original concept like Planescape, or Alice, which I long for in an RPG...

D3 devs have been quoted saying that weapon switching is being removed because their players are too dumb to handle it. Thats a bit more insulting to players' intelligence than anything Bioware has done IMO.
 

ArcturusXIV

Cipher
Joined
Mar 13, 2003
Messages
1,894
Location
Innsmouth
Overweight Manatee said:
ArcturusXIV said:
I am glad they are dumbing up, not dumbing down. Rune system, crafters, etc. Keep adding complexity! DA2, on the other hand, blatantly advertised three moron options for dialogue: poop, pooper, and "retard fest" i.e. snarky or something? Either way, didn't play it, didn't care, having a "badazz" dialogue option immediately turns me off, even if you want to add in emotions, DA2 felt cliched and not as good as Baldur's Gate, so I wasn't pleased, BioWAER has taken to ripping off mechanics of their old games, which is fine, if they can come up with an original concept like Planescape, or Alice, which I long for in an RPG...

D3 devs have been quoted saying that weapon switching is being removed because their players are too dumb to handle it. Thats a bit more insulting to players' intelligence than anything Bioware has done IMO.

Ugh...that is insulting. That said, most of the other stuff, besides stats, which bothered me, looks to heighten strategic gameplay rather than remove brain, insert disc, play.
 

Teepo

Scholar
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Messages
892
It depends on how the complex the skill trees are. Odds are they will be simpler then D2. Outlook: bad.
 

sser

Arcane
Developer
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,866,689
I think the skill trees actually look much improved. D2 was pretty vanilla when it came to skill trees. You basically did something like 1-20-1-1-20/20 etc. everytime. I think this specific reason is why TQ kicked D2 in the balls. In TQ my characters had abilities filling up the action bar all necessary for fighting enemies. D2 had too many one-trick pony builds for me.
 

Pope Amole

Educated
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
138
Ah, c'mon, Blizzard games have shit graphics, news at eleven!!!

Though I must admit that what I really abhor in this one is the design of the characters. I mean, ugly monsters can still be tolerable - if they're that ugly, at least you compensate this by slaughtering them with maximal cruelty possible, but ugly looking PCs on the other hand... And boy, PCs are fugly in DIII.

First, we have asian looking sorceress (and her quite homosexual looking male counterpart) and she's asian in a bad way (I mean, c'mon, it's not like anime style has originated there for no reasons at all).
Second, we have voodoo power shaman and shamaness, looking completely ridiculous to the western eye (because, y'know, there were some valid reasons that made europeans think that they're no better than animals during the first cultural contacts) and embracing everything that can be bad with black race in them - look at their faces, just look at their fucking faces! Well, at least we can thank them that shamaness doesn't have her tits hanging down her belly. Next we have monks. Well, OK, female monk is actually quite pretty, especially since I've always had weakness for the white-haired (white, not blond, especially not perhydrol blond) girls, so no qualms there. On the other hand, male monk... Damn, Blizzard, you think that I want to play some bold, bearded middle-aged dude with two silly red dots on his forehead? You really thinks so? Fuck you!
The barbarians... Yeah, playing as a beefy gramps with degenerative face is what I've always dreamed of. No, really, who want to play as an old man in this kind of a game, especially on the role of mindless fighters? It has zero appeal! And barbarian woman is even worse - she's simply a cow! Now, I understand that that's what pretty much every warrior woman (with the exception of st. Joan, maybe) in history looked like, but fuck, send this huge-assed abomination to the barber shop or supermarket or wherever the fuck it originated from! Though, can we ask anything in that department from the studio that has invented tauren women? How can we?
Finally, daemon hunter. Male one is totally gay because of his miniscule beardie, the female one is way too gotish for her own good, but is more or less tolerable.

So, in the end, what do we have here? Out of 10 characters, we have like what, 1.5 tolerable? Way to go, Blizzard, way to go. Even in the first one we had whole two (warrior and rouge; and, perhaps, wizard could also be tolerated if you're into that kind of thing); and second part, whatever faults it may've had, had at least decent characters. I mean, large busted amazon, black leathered assassin, gaunty, tainted, creepy in the right way necromancer, hot-looking middle-eastern sorceress and an armor clad paladin. I've never had much love for barbarian and druid there, but at least they were not ridiculous as this multikult middle-aged sexually tolerant atrocity right here.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
17
It’s not that the graphics look shit from a technical point of view. I don’t really care about polycount or shading methods or realistic soft shadows and tessellation. No! Fuck that.

Although, technically speaking, Diablo 1 looked gorgeous for the time it was released and as far as I remember, was a pioneer in terms of graphics and sound quality, fully utilizing some new DirectX features that no game had done before. But that is irrelevant.

My main gripe is the fact that the art style has continually shifted from grimdark, gothic inspired, pseudo-realism (which fitted the game perfectly) to a WoW-looking cartoony crapfest with distorted character proportions and painted textures. And it’s not even the good type of stylized graphics, it just look like your average asian H&S.

Also, Grim Dawn looks great. And it’s quite tragic to see that the inventory system in a light, action-oriented hack and slash looks more complex than most modern day “serious” RPGs.
 

Jools

Eater of Apples
Patron
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
10,652
Location
Mêlée Island
Codex 2014 Make the Codex Great Again! Insert Title Here Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2
Konjad said:
DS3 or D3, which is bigger turd and why? Discuss!

Dunno. DS3 is a fairly big turd, borderline diarrhea, but for some reason they managed to polish the turd so well it, at least, looks beautiful.

D3 on the other hand looks like shit, a proper turd, with all the lumps and chunks and coarseness (eg undigested sweetcorn peels and raspberry pips), but it does seem to have some substance to it.

Probably DS3 wins, as I still believe D3 will at least be fun to play, which DS3 was not, after the first 10 minutes.
 

shihonage

Subscribe to my OnlyFans
Patron
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
7,163
Location
location, location
Bubbles In Memoria
Orgasmic ThoughtCrime said:
It’s not that the graphics look shit from a technical point of view. I don’t really care about polycount or shading methods or realistic soft shadows and tessellation. No! Fuck that.

Although, technically speaking, Diablo 1 looked gorgeous for the time it was released and as far as I remember, was a pioneer in terms of graphics and sound quality, fully utilizing some new DirectX features that no game had done before. But that is irrelevant.

My main gripe is the fact that the art style has continually shifted from grimdark, gothic inspired, pseudo-realism (which fitted the game perfectly) to a WoW-looking cartoony crapfest with distorted character proportions and painted textures. And it’s not even the good type of stylized graphics, it just look like your average asian H&S.

Agreed on all counts. Still proud to be part of the much-mocked 50,000 people who signed the graphics petition only to be mocked by Blizzard's lame T-shirts.

They listened to Starcraft 2 crowd over similar complaints. If they didn't, SC2 would've come out looking like WoW, too. I'd love to see how that would turn out.
 

ZbojLamignat

Educated
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
382
Wtf @ people who claim that shit graphics are OK because it's Blizzard?

1) The fact that someone makes shit all the time doesn't make it any less shitty. And it's still irrelevant, because...
2) Warcraft, Warcraft 2 and Diablo looked absolutely great for their time (Diablo still looks really good)
 

Konjad

Patron
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
4,098
Location
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
shihonage said:
Orgasmic ThoughtCrime said:
It’s not that the graphics look shit from a technical point of view. I don’t really care about polycount or shading methods or realistic soft shadows and tessellation. No! Fuck that.

Although, technically speaking, Diablo 1 looked gorgeous for the time it was released and as far as I remember, was a pioneer in terms of graphics and sound quality, fully utilizing some new DirectX features that no game had done before. But that is irrelevant.

My main gripe is the fact that the art style has continually shifted from grimdark, gothic inspired, pseudo-realism (which fitted the game perfectly) to a WoW-looking cartoony crapfest with distorted character proportions and painted textures. And it’s not even the good type of stylized graphics, it just look like your average asian H&S.

Agreed on all counts. Still proud to be part of the much-mocked 50,000 people who signed the graphics petition only to be mocked by Blizzard's lame T-shirts.

They listened to Starcraft 2 crowd over similar complaints. If they didn't, SC2 would've come out looking like WoW, too. I'd love to see how that would turn out.

what t-shirts? i signed the petition as well.
 

Suicidal

Arcane
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
2,224
sser said:
I think the skill trees actually look much improved. D2 was pretty vanilla when it came to skill trees. You basically did something like 1-20-1-1-20/20 etc. everytime. I think this specific reason is why TQ kicked D2 in the balls. In TQ my characters had abilities filling up the action bar all necessary for fighting enemies. D2 had too many one-trick pony builds for me.

When I played TQ I was only using, I think, 2 damage skills and a few buffs/auras during the entire game. Both of these abilities were AOE and could one/two-shot every group of identical mobs that kept charging at me. It was boring as shit.
 

Darth Roxor

Royal Dongsmith
Staff Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
1,878,494
Location
Djibouti
Titan Quest? Iron Lore?

More like, RIP Westwood :( :( :(

nox_790screen003.jpg


nox_790screen006.jpg


nox008_640w.jpg


nox-re-bs2.jpg
 

Zed

Codex Staff
Patron
Staff Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Messages
17,068
Codex USB, 2014
Diablo 3 looks great. It's 3D with backgrounds that look like paintings, with locked camera. What the fuck is wrong with you.
 

Teepo

Scholar
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Messages
892
Well that's good new about the skill trees. I think any modern RPG should have a minimum quantity of skills that D2 had. This is why Mass Effect fails so hard: the same boring ass force-rip off spells every time. Mass Effect pissed me off though because when I first read about Mass Effect it sounded like a revolutionary game. Revolutionary. Turned out to be a typical bioware game that was with dialogue straight out of KOTOR.

But if they even slightly improve the skill tree from D2, I will be happy. The character classes on the other hand seem a bit derp to me. Really, really derp actually. Haven't checked in awhile but I heard they're making some sort of assassin\necromancer class. Plus they removed necro, totally, and replaced him with the exotic voodoo master. Didn't know Jamaica exists in Diablo universe.

The classes might turn out alright, but I'm not digging the changes. Smells like some kind of executive decision to make the game MOAR AWESOME. Reading the manual to diablo to the lore behind every class was intriguing. I figure now it will be a lot of :retarded: .

What will get me to stop bitching is if they have a lot of classes to choose, and if the skill trees are good. I like the way the skills look, the dungeons, and the engine. I'm just worried something else might've been sacrificed to make it look cool.

edit spalling
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom