Diablo II's graphic is teh best...

[Jim Cojones]

BTW I can't recall any 2D iso game that incorporates parallax effect

That's because isometric projection is perspectiveless by definition while parallax is a perspective effect. Mixing them makes no god damn sense and cause confusion.

 

[SCO]

PST has the best graphics ever.

Fixed that for you.

Quick, name one bad thing about PST

anything will do

I guess if I wanted to be really critical, and I'm just harping on technicalities here, but I'd say there would've needed to be more steamy makeout sessions between TNO and Annah to raise the game to "best crpg of all time" status. And I don't think MCA was suggestive enough with the "tail squeezing TNO's leg" scene. Should've sodomized him with it.

Guys i just realized Annah can penetrate herself.
DP planescape style! Better than no balls touching.

 

[kingcomrade]

All women can penetrate themselves, unless they have no arms.

 

[SCO]

This is more exotic.

 

[relootz]

All women can penetrate themselves, unless they have no arms.

Women with no arms are very flexible with their feet.

 

[Carceri]

Yes, it looks cool alright

 

[DraQ]

BTW I can't recall any 2D iso game that incorporates parallax effect

That's because isometric projection is perspectiveless by definition while parallax is a perspective effect.

Correct.

Mixing them makes no god damn sense and cause confusion.

Bwuh?
How can it be confusing?

DII has an option of skewing the way it renders objects and backgrounds which turns its isometric view into something that is perceived as pretty convincing 3D without actually being 3D. It also has pretty spiffy lighting. If that's not the best you can achieve starting with 2D iso, I don't know what is.


BTW: I wonder what codex would think of actual 3D iso? A parallel projection of actual 3D model conforming to the rigour of isometric at least at particular angles, but with ability to rotate camera.

Personally it would be of no interest to me as I consider perspectivic 3D superior in every possible way barring resources used and small subset of Escher-esque eyefucks, but I know some codexians hold iso dear for other, rather irrational, luddite reasons.

 

[Felix]

If only Arcanum iin-game looks like the loading screens, Ugh.

 

[DraQ]

DII has pretty good visuals, but they don't jump out at you the way PST's exagerated art style does.

Art-wise it's completely true, but imagine PST content ported to DII-like engine. I would happily fap to PS:T with parallax and good lighting.

 

[ZbojLamignat]

Wtf? Is this thread for real?

D2, apart from the act V added in the expansion (in fact ToB is what actually made Diablo 2 a good game), is generally fugly (I mean look at the surroundings in Act I ffs) and some things, like character animations, are nothing short of absolutely pathetic.

Even D1 shits all over D2 presentation-wise (not only graphics, but also music and mood).

Unless you are talking about crpg-like games only and forgot shitloads of strategy/tactical games, though even then it would be pretty silly.

 

[Donkey Balls]

Yeah, the DII graphics were pretty much functional. Almost as hideous as Arcanum, but at least with better more animations. Also, terribly low res for its time, 640x480 was already old tech in 2000, but at least the expansion pack added support for 800x600.

Come on, guys, Blizzard has never been famous for making graphically stunning games.

 

[DraQ]

Wtf? Is this thread for real?

D2, apart from the act V added in the expansion (in fact ToB is what actually made Diablo 2 a good game), is generally fugly (I mean look at the surroundings in Act I ffs) and some things, like character animations, are nothing short of absolutely pathetic.

Even D1 shits all over D2 presentation-wise (not only graphics, but also music and mood).

Unless you are talking about crpg-like games only and forgot shitloads of strategy/tactical games, though even then it would be pretty silly.

[Reading Comprehension] Most of the people agreeing with the OP do so on the grounds of capabilities of the graphics engine, not art assets or atmosphere.
Certainly not music, which happens to not be a part of graphics.

 

[Paperclip]

Yes, what I consider superior from D2 graphical engine is mainly its apparent technical capabilities (in my eyes), especially the lighting which really shines (pun intended) when you're using glide wrapper.

Secondly Blizzard invested a lot to the playable chars, they have the most number of layers in a 2D game that I know of, except Nox perhaps. The chars animations are actually 3D snapshots (they made 3D models of the chars, animate them, then took some snapshots) - I know that this method is frequently used.

And about the "simulated" parallax effect, it indeed doesn't look really smooth on my PC if I pay attention but I like it. I understand that many DII players who play a lot prefer the no fuss simpler static isometric look.

I like IE too but how it handles the background doesn't permit a seamless world to be built, i.e. you can't enter a house without being transported to a different cell from the main map.

.... Also, terribly low res for its time, 640x480 was already old tech in 2000, but at least the expansion pack added support for 800x600.

Use glide wrapper or MultiRes to change the native res.

EDIT :
For a 2D artistic masterpiece, I consider Disciples II (the Elves expansion excluded) to be the king. The artist(s) really have style and imagination - where else can you find that veteran knights are old and have long beards and shit.

 

[ZbojLamignat]

[Reading Comprehension] Most of the people agreeing with the OP do so on the grounds of capabilities of the graphics engine, not art assets or atmosphere.
Certainly not music, which happens to not be a part of graphics.

[Actual reading comprehension and not using the term as one of the most worn-out Internet digs ever] Music and mood were just added in brackets for good measure and have nothing to do with the fact that, apart from act V and few spell effects, D2 looks passable at best.

Yeah, the DII graphics were pretty much functional. Almost as hideous as Arcanum, but at least with better more animations. Also, terribly low res for its time, 640x480 was already old tech in 2000, but at least the expansion pack added support for 800x600.

Come on, guys, Blizzard has never been famous for making graphically stunning games.

Diablo and Warcraft 2 looked pretty sweet, but it all took a nosedive from there and Starcraft, D2, W3 and Wow were all different degrees of ugly.

 

[Suchy]

Yes, it looks cool alright

unreadable shit

 

[Jim Cojones]

Bwuh?
How can it be confusing?

DII has an option of skewing the way it renders objects and backgrounds which turns its isometric view into something that is perceived as pretty convincing 3D without actually being 3D.

No, it doesn't. It looks nothing like 3D. Some objects act a bit like they were perceived in perspective, other don't. You will see the objects always from the same angle, no matter what is their position on the screen.

How can it be convincing?

Why is that confusing, you ask? With iso, it is extremely easy to estimate lengths and angles because the scale and relation between axis are the same no matter the position on the screen. With full 3D it is also easy because it is how we are used to perceive reality, although with an unnatural perspectives (i.e. observing characters you control from 10 meters above the ground) it may be a bit more tricky for some. 2D with parallax effect does neither. It doesn't keep the objets' proportions and relationships and it doesn't really look like anything you would see in real life thus making any estimations much more difficult.

 

[DraQ]

Bwuh?
How can it be confusing?

DII has an option of skewing the way it renders objects and backgrounds which turns its isometric view into something that is perceived as pretty convincing 3D without actually being 3D.

No, it doesn't. It looks nothing like 3D. Some objects act a bit like they were perceived in perspective, other don't. You will see the objects always from the same angle, no matter what is their position on the screen.

How can it be convincing?

Why is that confusing, you ask? With iso, it is extremely easy to estimate lengths and angles because the scale and relation between axis are the same no matter the position on the screen. With full 3D it is also easy because it is how we are used to perceive reality, although with an unnatural perspectives (i.e. observing characters you control from 10 meters above the ground) it may be a bit more tricky for some. 2D with parallax effect does neither. It doesn't keep the objets' proportions and relationships and it doesn't really look like anything you would see in real life thus making any estimations much more difficult.

So, you must find old (pre-Quake) FPS games confusing as hell.
Because IIRC (and I think I do) D2 scaled sprites with distance, and other problems, like sprites not obeying view angles, were present in all the 2.5D FPP games, except much more severe due to relatively large sprites and exacerbated by quirky stuff like simplified two- instead of three- point perspective used which was rather jarring when you tried to look up or down.