|
|
| Page 56 of 512 |
|
|
 Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 12:40 Post subject: |
|
 |
Well only good thing is that it will run on my ancient PC. Other then that. Ugh... over-hyped much?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
locke89
Posts: 2812
Location: Poland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ixigia
[Moderator] Consigliere
Posts: 65078
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 13:02 Post subject: |
|
|
Personally I prefer Path of Exile's realistic look, but D3 looks pretty good to me in terms of visuals/art style; it's a bit more "stereotyped" and colorful than before but as Werelds said it's still incredibly far from Blizzard's super cartoon'ish look, which I don't like 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 13:11 Post subject: |
|
|
It really isn't cartoony. Fantasy would be the term, but not fucking cartoony.
It still looks a lot darker and grimmer than Titan Quest or Sacred 2 by miles. Like I said before, did people honestly expect D1/D2 in this day and age? When they did those two, they simply couldn't do the lighting they can do now.
I'll reserve my judgement on the game itself until I can play it; what I've seen so far looks fine, addressing a lot of the issues the previous ones had (<3 my precious Barbarian). The AH crap doesn't bother me, I'll be playing HC anyway. At any rate, I bet a lot of the whiners liked or even loved Fallout 3. If you're in that group, piss off please, you really can't complain about this one. This is much closer to D1/2 than FO3 ever was to FO1/2. Hating just because you can is cool. I'm no fan of Blizzard, I think what they did with SC2 is disgusting, they fucked WoW up completely and I still prefer WC1/2 over WC3 - but D3 looks like a fine game and sequel so far.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 13:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Better than before certainly, but still far from actually being good. No real sense of atmosphere and generally just looks boring.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
russ80
Posts: 4679
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 14:35 Post subject: |
|
|
The atmosphere is anything but boring. It's got a painted look feel to it, not cartoony at all. Also they clearly stated that they want you to go through many emotional states while going to different parts of the world.
Like say you're now in town or in the area sorrounding the town. Stuff is colored lively with green/blue etc, once you enter a dungeon the contrast will be more powerful with the dark tones like red,black etc.
I got no doubt they'll create a masterpiece just like every other game they've made. Beta should hit soon too so a shitton of new info/screens/streams is about to hit the interwebz.
Main PC : I7 12700, MSI Ventus RTX 4090 24gb, Alienware AW3423DW QD-OLED
Laptop : I5 4200H @ 3400mhz boost, GTX 850m 2gb Vram DDR3, 4gb RAM DDR3
Derpsole : Playstation 5 disc edition, Ninty Switcherino
TV+audio: LG CX 65" / Sonos ARC + SL ones + Sonos sub 3
VR Headset: Meta quest 2 airlinked
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 14:54 Post subject: |
|
|
Uh, they haven't released a masterpiece since june 29, 2000, 11 years ago. A lot has changed in that time and Blizzaard isn't the same as it was. As for atmosphere, that too has been practically non-existent in their games the last 11 years. So yeah, not holding my breath on those accounts. Right now Grim Dawn looks both a better and more atmospheric game. Time will tell though.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 15:05 Post subject: |
|
|
In a way i wish they would keep the old D2 engine, upgrade it abit.. but keep the classic style <3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 15:09 Post subject: |
|
|
Nah, that would be a dream come true, thus never gonna happen.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 16:04 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 16:07 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 17:14 Post subject: |
|
|
Blizzard and masterpieces? Puhlease mister! They create overhyped pieces of mediocreness.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 17:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| Radicalus wrote: | | Blizzard and masterpieces? Puhlease mister! They create overhyped pieces of mediocreness. |
I'm gonna bite. So starcraft, warcraft and diablo are just crap 'cause people in the 90's were tards that swallowed every piece of crap game as opposed to now?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 17:50 Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't go as far as to call them crap, not by a long shot, but they were overhyped to levels they simply do not live up to. To me at least =)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 18:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| Pl@tinum wrote: | | Radicalus wrote: | | Blizzard and masterpieces? Puhlease mister! They create overhyped pieces of mediocreness. |
I'm gonna bite. So starcraft, warcraft and diablo are just crap 'cause people in the 90's were tards that swallowed every piece of crap game as opposed to now? |
I don't know, where you took a bite from, but it certainly wasn't from my post, and I do hate strawmen, I thought people here are above that. I didn't call them crap (well, I'd call WoW crap - though brilliantly designed crap for the weak), I called them mediocre and overhyped. I don't think anyone will argue with the overhyped part, because that is pretty much fact, I'll just concentrate on why it's mediocre:
They are not innovators, never have been, and every time they released a strategy game, there were more complex/better ones out there - or at least as good as those. The age series was always better than the warcraft series, mythology was a way more complex and more layered strategy than war3, and age2 was on level with starcraft, but starcraft was more technical and more balanced, age2 instead was more complex and harbored more play-syles. As far as strategies go, they have never been even one inch above the competition, except for battle.net, which was a great initiative back then.
The diablo series are, I think, the only thing they did, which was slightly better than mediocre.
And then, there's WoW - which I honestly believe exists today (alongside the CoD franchise) to suck all derps in one neat place, so the rest of our gaming experience can be free of them  Jokes aside though, I don't have to convince anyone either, that WoW practically plays itself. Also, it didn't innovate at all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 19:25 Post subject: |
|
|
| Radicalus wrote: | | Pl@tinum wrote: | | Radicalus wrote: | | Blizzard and masterpieces? Puhlease mister! They create overhyped pieces of mediocreness. |
I'm gonna bite. So starcraft, warcraft and diablo are just crap 'cause people in the 90's were tards that swallowed every piece of crap game as opposed to now? |
I don't know, where you took a bite from, but it certainly wasn't from my post, and I do hate strawmen, I thought people here are above that. I didn't call them crap (well, I'd call WoW crap - though brilliantly designed crap for the weak), I called them mediocre and overhyped. I don't think anyone will argue with the overhyped part, because that is pretty much fact, I'll just concentrate on why it's mediocre:
They are not innovators, never have been, and every time they released a strategy game, there were more complex/better ones out there - or at least as good as those. The age series was always better than the warcraft series, mythology was a way more complex and more layered strategy than war3, and age2 was on level with starcraft, but starcraft was more technical and more balanced, age2 instead was more complex and harbored more play-syles. As far as strategies go, they have never been even one inch above the competition, except for battle.net, which was a great initiative back then.
The diablo series are, I think, the only thing they did, which was slightly better than mediocre.
And then, there's WoW - which I honestly believe exists today (alongside the CoD franchise) to suck all derps in one neat place, so the rest of our gaming experience can be free of them Jokes aside though, I don't have to convince anyone either, that WoW practically plays itself. Also, it didn't innovate at all. |
Mediocre and crap are the same thing for me and Overhype exists in everything, it's part of being human i guess.
Ii do agree Blizzard and Valve, are sometimes overhyped (Starcraft 2 and Left 4 Dead are good examples). But you can't deny Starcraft and Warcraft were great rts's back in the day. Sure there were other great rts's, like Total Anihilation, Age of Empires, Command & Conquer, Homeworld, but just because in your opinion those games were better (i think TA is still the best from that time), that doesn't make the rest mediocre. It doesn't need to be 8 or 80.
Diablo is genre defining with many clones following its success, i don't think i need to say more about it, except it goes against your statement about them not being innovators.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 19:39 Post subject: |
|
|
Diablo was a roguelike, so it was hardly genre defining. It just put a prettier picture on top. Dune 2 obviously did the RTS thing long before Warcraft1&2, arguably in better style even. Starcraft took it a bit further with the whole sci-fi stuff and completely unique factions, but that too had been done before at that time.
So yeah, what Blizzard was good at was to take other people's good ideas and polish them up to a level where they were, in some cases, better than the originals. They also used to have a knack which they, in my eyes, don't have anymore; creating excellent music and atmosphere. Warcraft 1&2, Starcraft and Diablo 1 all did that part well.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 19:43 Post subject: |
|
|
L4D isn't overhyped. Nobody considers it "teh best game ever made", just a very good 4 player co-op.
The metacritic score of the two L4D games is the lowest of the "big" releases of Valve (HL1, HL2, Orange Box, L4D1&2, Portal 2) but obviously still very good (89%).
And each of the two counterstrikes has 5 times more players than L4D2.
^ It hasn't been overhyped by the journos or the players.
/offtopic
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
~ WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY CAN ONLY BE SEEN ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHTUOgYNRzY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 19:48 Post subject: |
|
|
Everyone and their grandmother knows Blizzard does not invent new genres or gameplay mechanics. The point you're making is totally void since that is not why Blizzard games are so hyped. Their games, especially their older works, had the amount of detail and finework that would boggle your mind. Even SC2, which is only good by old Blizzard standards, has a lot of detail and polish. The problem is that many gamers don't even notice such detail, I doubt all of the gamers even zoomed in once when playing SC2.
If one should have to name a single thing to define the Blizzard of ye olde days, when they were at their best, it should be dedication. You know what I felt when I played the Warcraft games for teh first time? The love of the developer for his game.
Even WoW, which many "true" gamers call crap, has an imense amount of detail. Compared to other MMOs, WoW was a piece of brilliant gem in its time. I played it for a month and was very impressed even though it's not even close to my taste (I don't do online games).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 20:50 Post subject: |
|
|
I think the Diablo series were the most innovative, that Blizzard have ever been, I'll give you that much, but they are still not innovators. There is a difference.
I think, compared strictly to competition, that SC2 is Blizzard's best title, because old-school RTSes are all but gone, yet here is Blizzard with a 90's formula, in 2010, and in comparison to all the derped down experiences, for the first time, a Blizzard game looks complex.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 20:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| Raap wrote: | Diablo was a roguelike, so it was hardly genre defining. It just put a prettier picture on top. Dune 2 obviously did the RTS thing long before Warcraft1&2, arguably in better style even. Starcraft took it a bit further with the whole sci-fi stuff and completely unique factions, but that too had been done before at that time.
So yeah, what Blizzard was good at was to take other people's good ideas and polish them up to a level where they were, in some cases, better than the originals. They also used to have a knack which they, in my eyes, don't have anymore; creating excellent music and atmosphere. Warcraft 1&2, Starcraft and Diablo 1 all did that part well. |
When i say genre defining i mean that every game after mimicked the most important concepts they introduced, like the point and click for example. I could also say that Dune 2 was just another rts, but that would be wrong, since every rts copied their resource gathering system. I don't' think Starcraft or Warcraft are genre defining, they're just great rts's, like the ones i mentioned earlier.
It's not just Blizzard that goes and "steals" great ideas, polishes them and makes a buck. It's everyone everywhere.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 20:54 Post subject: |
|
|
WoW was never good. It was always simplistic and dumbed down from the very start. Now Anarchy Online, that was a brilliant gem. So was Star Wars, once upon a time...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 21:00 Post subject: |
|
|
| Raap wrote: | | WoW was never good. It was always simplistic and dumbed down from the very start. Now Anarchy Online, that was a brilliant gem. So was Star Wars, once upon a time... |
There was nothing simplistic and dumbed down about vanilla wow. It's not the same now, but how the hell do you milk a 8 year 11 million users cow?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 21:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| Raap wrote: | | WoW was never good. It was always simplistic and dumbed down from the very start. Now Anarchy Online, that was a brilliant gem. So was Star Wars, once upon a time... |
You should try raiding on heroic difficulty, far from simplistic. Game itself maybe is "simplistic" but its very hard on endgame content at heroic difficulty. Tho community itself is killing the game, so much assholes in the game now.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 3rd Sep 2011 21:06 Post subject: |
|
|
| Pl@tinum wrote: |
It's not just Blizzard that goes and "steals" great ideas, polishes them and makes a buck. It's everyone everywhere. |
Blizzard does nothing else, though. Others actually innovate every now and then.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 56 of 512 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
The condition which the graphics are now in is a lot better than before.
