Diablo IV

[rusty_shackleford]

You guys are arguing about the attractiveness of a female with a gay man.

 

[hexer]

Why are sparks on hit a deal-breaker?
I'm looking at Duriel in gameplay trailer and he looks amazing, they stayed faithful to his D2 look.
So far it looks great but it's obvious the game mechanics are still barebones as the dev himself said ..
there's still lots of work to do

Also let's remind ourselves where the franchise was just a year ago, with nothing for PC on the horizon

 

[Lacrymas]

She doesn't. Even your own example of Aphrodite tells it.

I used Aphrodite as an example of a literal goddess of love and lust without huge tits to show that even if Lilith was a goddess/demon of lust she doesn't need to have big breasts. Lilith looks fine to me, I quite like her design and regal appearance, it befits a queen/ruler, people focusing on just her breasts is creepy, it feels like there is some kind of ulterior motive here.

 

[S.torch]

And the figure of Aphrodite in classical despictions doesn't look anything like the Lilith you're trying to defend here. Your own example invalidates your point.

This is "Lilith" in the trailer.

 

[Nortar]

Lilith on the other hand, is the Queen of the succubi.

Not to undermine your point, but comparison of sex-appeal between madam in charge of a brothel and her working girls more often then not won't be in favor of the madam.
Just saying.

 

[hexer]

where are the teets

I think they're there but since she's translucent so it's hard to see.
Anyway, she looks nightmare inducing , especially that "cape"

 

[Lacrymas]

And the figure of Aphrodite in classical despictions doesn't look anything like the Lilith you're trying to defend here. Your own example invalidates your point.

This is "Lilith" in the trailer.

That Aphrodite has big breasts? I might be confused about what big breasts look like then.

 

[Shadenuat]

Dude has problems.

First of all, if we compare her to other prime evils (yes I know she isn't one of 3 but she is daughter of one of them), mainly lizardman, spiderman and hydralisk with no flesh in fog machine man, she's definitely the least monstrous of them all.
Also, the art with humans and angels implies there is more nuance to her than just jumping on closest cock and sucking it of mana. She looks like some kind religious figure there.

She obviously has regal look and headress similar to other prime evils cause she's a qwan and shiet.

And as all prime evils she is supposed to be

nightmare inducing

not waifu kawai ok.

Tittie fucking is for lower rank demons and I think it makes sense.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

And here I am thinking Lilith looks like a Diablo version of Maleficent from Disney.

 

[hexer]

And as all prime evils she is supposed to be

nightmare inducing

not waifu kawai ok.

Sure but it's not like other Prime Evils from previous games ever left me disturbed.
For some reason this trailer did

 

[Shadenuat]

Vidya department is only one in Blizzard which does consistently ok job.

 

[Storyfag]

She is *not* a Prime Evil. Please stop phrasing it as if she was one.

 

[Shadenuat]

Ok she's saturday evening evil.

 

[Lacrymas]

If anyone is looking for the actual demon of lust, that's Cydaea.

 

[S.torch]

but comparison of sex-appeal between madam in charge of a brothel and her working girls more often then not won't be in favor of the madam.

Maybe you're right in some cases. But in their "days", the Madam of the Brother was maybe the most outstanding of the "working girls" and probably thats why she ended up like the Madam in the first place. In the case of demons, the Madam would always be in their "days" because she is an inmortal being always seeking to tempting men.

That Aphrodite has big breasts? I might be confused about what big breasts look like then.

Yes, maybe you're confused. Because you can't even tell the difference apart from these two bodies.

 

[Sentinel]

where are the teets

I think they're there but since she's translucent so it's hard to see.
Anyway, she looks nightmare inducing , especially that "cape"

I was talking about the painting Machocruz posted

 

[smaug]

You guys are arguing about the attractiveness of a female with a gay man.

^

 

[Machocruz]

I think I get it now. Since 70%+ of women in America are land whales, just being thin is enough to be considered hot. Having actual TnA automatically puts a woman in the 9+ range even if she has a face like a buffalo.

 

[Machocruz]

where are the teets

I think they're there but since she's translucent so it's hard to see.
Anyway, she looks nightmare inducing , especially that "cape"

I was talking about the painting Machocruz posted

Classical is all about them bee stings breh.

 

[ItsChon]

Game didn't look bad, but to be honest, it just made me want to redownload Path of Exile. It's hard to imagine Diablo 4 matching PoE's complexity and variety.

 

[Artyoan]

I also love the fact that some ppl critique the game for being grindy and "mindless" killing and clicking. Dude it's a fucking ARPG, its literally the core of the game.

And that's the central problem. Rather than focus on so much of what can make a memorable experience they opt for the easy, cheap way out. All these games come down to is the "loot loot loot" mentality, it's a game for packrats when it could be a lot more. D1 showed a great, honest glimpse of what you can make out of an ARPG like this and it's a widely regarded classic because of that. We know a Diablo game will have items in it, they don't need to hammer that point home, the demo should have restored faith by showing off some great atmosphere and environments. Instead it looks like the same old shit D3 was only a bit darker. Nothing they showed made me think of it as anything more than a by-the-book ARPG you have played numerous times before.

Diablo as a franchise is pretty much on that horror movie trajectory. The first entry was really good, possibly a classic, left a great impression and stuck with you. The second entry did some weird things you don't agree with, but it was still good and you can respect it/enjoy it. Then they go full dipshit and soon all you have is mindless blood and gore replacing mood and dread.

That is why I advocate moving to a different camera angle. Diablo 1 remains one of the most immersive games I've played but the top-down isometric viewpoint was a limitation back then. It doesn't need to be now with the resources and capabilities of today. I was sad to hear the 'Diablo Souls' attempt had been abandoned. If done right, it could have been something great.

Imagine breaking into Tal Rasha's tomb and running into Duriel in a third or first person viewpoint. No cutscene. No distance via the camera angle. He's on you, in a low lit cave, with no chance to catch your breath. Instead of crafting a constant sense of foreboding and tension, they seem keen on letting dark lighting and graphics be enough but the rest of the game will be MMO-lite currency incentives and radiant quests undercutting the tone.

 

[ItsChon]

Imagine breaking into Tal Rasha's tomb and running into Duriel in a third or first person viewpoint. No cutscene. No distance via the camera angle.

Why the fuck would I want to imagine something as stupid as this...

 

[Artyoan]

Imagine breaking into Tal Rasha's tomb and running into Duriel in a third or first person viewpoint. No cutscene. No distance via the camera angle.

Why the fuck would I want to imagine something as stupid as this...

Because it would be able to add more tactical depth and complexity to combat while also greatly increasing immersion on top of being fully capable of maintaining a deep loot drop system. It would be better in every way if they had the stones to follow through.

 

[Zeriel]

So many arm-chair developers in this thread. You clearly haven't even watched the panels and the Q&A. Blizzard seems very aware of the problems with D3 and how to fix, and how to build on what made D2 great.

I will quote Blizzard here, "We don't know." and "We want to know what the community wants."

They are fucking clueless. Asking the community for advice is nice in a vacuum, but after 12 years of the community telling them it comes across as a bit disingenuous. Either they know exactly what they're going to do, and know it isn't what we want, and just want to build up PR goodwill, or they have no idea what they are doing, which is even worse.

 

[Zeriel]

All of this made me play D1. In first few levels I found 2 handed axe and it's double damage.
it's not magical
it's not set piece
it doesn't proc lighting when I use health potion
it just does more damage than sword and so I used it and it felt like progression.

then I found Butcher and he killed me twice. but I found a bunch of magical staves and that helped. then I switched to axe.
First boss in game killed me. Twice.

but then in Leoric tomb many skeletons shot me, so I switched back to sword and shield. then I found relic mace against skeletons, and it was good. I also learned how to use healing spell and town portal. had to ration scrolls before it.
I also bought leather armor. A white item for 350 gold. Since i only had cloaks and rags.

Neat that Leoric had crown Griswold said he maid for him; too bad no mithral sword.

I think action RPGs went into wrong direction. They need to scrap everything and begin from the basics. Because their basic gameplay lost appeal.

Yeah, starting as a hopeless hobo is something old games did a lot, and it's something that was way better. Can't get that back, though. It might confuse people. Modern games are like liquid food replacement that is pumped into your veins by IV--it will keep you alive, but you won't even get to taste it.