xkcd

by **henre** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:58 am UTC

OH MY JESUS FUCK SHIT

ADLGJFHKDSGLKgjh

yes.

Trying to stream the gameplay video right now. About halfway through, but my connection isn't too fast.

by **Jebobek** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:18 pm UTC

Amnesiasoft wrote:
Kerberos wrote:Is there some good reason for that that people can think of? Is it too processor intensive, and if so, why?

I would certainly say it's not too processor intensive, I'd go with the whole "This game needs to be more realistic" crowd, you know, the same group of people complaining about games not being fun, complaining that they're only focusing on graphics, and that complain when a game has bad graphics. Basically, the excessively vocal crowd that game developers need to stop listening to.

That damn "Battle for middle earth" (insert your hated over-graphic'd game here) crowd which buys something that looks good or nothing at all, then with multiplayer the game runs in slow motion the whole time. Gawd I always hated that.

The more I think about it, the more I believe this game will be playable on the computers when it comes out, as long as they don't turn up the graphics anywhere past that.

by **hipp5** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:49 pm UTC

Jebobek wrote:The more I think about it, the more I believe this game will be playable on the computers when it comes out, as long as they don't turn up the graphics anywhere past that.

I'm sure Blizzard must gets tons and tons of data about their clients' computers from World of Warcraft. They'll use that data to ensure that a good percentage of people buying the game will be able to play it.

by **Axman** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:17 pm UTC

hipp5 wrote:
Jebobek wrote:The more I think about it, the more I believe this game will be playable on the computers when it comes out, as long as they don't turn up the graphics anywhere past that.

I'm sure Blizzard must gets tons and tons of data about their clients' computers from World of Warcraft. They'll use that data to ensure that a good percentage of people buying the game will be able to play it.

I think that fact is going to make it so that this game will run on the WoW-class hardware out there, which is dated and weak. Diablo II was the catalyst for a lot of upgrades, it pushed the then-current hardware with it's crazy lighting and rectilinear distorion. The videos I'm looking at are about as graphically intensive as WoW, Neverwinter Nights, Warcraft III... with a little physics thrown in. I'm not seeing any specular lighting, and for fuck's sake, the shadows in DII look better.

If it looks bad, I dunno. Hey, all you WoW jerks--everyone who doesn't play MMORPGs can afford to upgrade!

by **Kerberos** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:13 pm UTC

Maybe familiarity is breeding contempt, since I play WC3 a lot, but I'm pretty sure that D3's graphics are far superior to WC3's. The lightning coming off of the axes, the summoning of the first boss, and the second boss all look much better to me than anything I've seen in WC3.

by **Gelsamel** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:07 pm UTC

Hell it looks smoother and better than when I run NWN2:MotB in max settings..

by **pseudoidiot** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:57 pm UTC

a) Who gives a shit about the graphics? As long as I can tell where my character is and where to click so I can create carnage, everything else is bonus.
b) This is Blizzard. Seeing as how there's not a release date yet (at least, not that I saw) there's likely still a lot of work and polishing to be done.

by **Kerberos** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:05 pm UTC

pseudoidiot wrote:a) Who gives a shit about the graphics? As long as I can tell where my character is and where to click so I can create carnage, everything else is bonus.

But I want my carnage to look spectacular! Gore flying and splattering other monsters! Buffalo that I kill with a powerful spell being ragdolled off cliffs! My enemies writhing in agony after I knock them into the lava!

(Heck, if you don't care about graphics, I can write a program where you're a blue square and when you click on a nearby red square some number of times, it vanishes! Pay me 30 bucks!)

(If hardware requirements are necessary too, I can throw in random useless calculations and draw the squares with the hardestcore graphics software out there, as well.)

by **Jebobek** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:12 pm UTC

A. Agreed, I'm all performance over graphics, and I'll turn it down until I can move smoothly without any choppiness. Of course, theres a limit to everything. I don't want stick figures duking it out, we have XKCD compiling for that.

B. Whats funny is that Nvidia and ATI will be sure to make graphics cards+drivers and test it on D3's alpha/beta, making sure it looks good. They'll probably release their new lines in conjuction with the game release. Which will also be my week to buy a new computer. I know it sounds cocky for me to say that but thats what they do for massive game releases. Starcraft 2 would be another good example.

by **Gunfingers** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:03 pm UTC

Turns out the game isn't "dark" enough. So sayeth a bunch of tools on the internet who have started a petition. Bullshits?

last.fm · by **Aethernox** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:10 pm UTC

Uh, light radius? I thought we all maphacked that away.

by **hipp5** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:41 pm UTC

Gunfingers wrote:Turns out the game isn't "dark" enough. So sayeth a bunch of tools on the internet who have started a petition. Bullshits?

WTF?

What we got in DIII:

well apparently 39000 people have somehow got their hands on Diablo 3... (before someone calls me on it - yes I do realize they're referring to the video)

by **Axman** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:32 am UTC

I agree with that petition entirely, and no, I didn't hack shit.

by **Aluminus** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:07 am UTC

I have never played Diablo in my life, and I think that petition is a crock. No one pays any attention to those anyway.

by **Kerberos** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:01 am UTC

Y'know, I think I do actually prefer the redone environment. I'm not saying that Blizzard has no right to do anything it wants; heck, if it wanted to make it Diablo 3: War of the Teddy Bears, I wouldn't say Blizzard shouldn't have been allowed to. I'd buy it either way. I'd just like it more if they did make it darker.

Hm... maybe they could include a lighting option. That would be nice.

(P.S.: note to everyone: if you're going to put a petition on the Internet and hope for important people (e.g. the Diablo 3 team) to take you seriously, don't make run on sentences, otherwise you'll end up sounding stupid, you don't want that.)

by **Themata** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:41 pm UTC

How can they even judge the DIII environment? So far we've seen two TEST areas, barely anything to base a huge disappointment off of.

- Realistic armory and weaponry without over-sized and exaggerated proportions like big shoulder guards

Hahahahahahah. Did the people who wrote this ever PLAY the last two games? Shit, realism in a game where you spawn undead, cast spells and take on hordes of demons alone is quite non-existant. And on the topic of not wanting over-sized proportions in armour and weapons, just look at the Barbarian in D2

Edit: After pushing myself to read through the stupidity I did find some decent points, such as the graphics do look a bit like WoW. I'll admit the darker environment from previous games does look cooler but that doesn't change the fact that I still have a lot of hope in D3

by **SecondTalon** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:50 pm UTC

Kerberos wrote:(Heck, if you don't care about graphics, I can write a program where you're a blue square and when you click on a nearby red square some number of times, it vanishes! Pay me 30 bucks!)

If your story kicks ass, I'll be interested.

Kerberos wrote:(P.S.: note to everyone: if you're going to put a petition on the Internet and hope for important people (e.g. the Diablo 3 team) to take you seriously, don't make run on sentences, otherwise you'll end up sounding stupid, you don't want that.)

I agree. I read part of the petition and gave up when the misspelling and horrific grammar got to me.

by **Jebobek** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:48 pm UTC

They really, REALLY need to wait until they develop the game further to start petitioning. People say the shadows are worse, theres no lighting effects. Something tells me that lighting and shadows are done when all the player/enemy models are designed, to develop a system where all the shadows are casted properly per model. I think those things are done last. Again they should wait till its a bit closer to release date. Its not gonna look like what we just saw on the demo.

by **Narsil** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:51 pm UTC

I kind of like the art direction. I think Blizzard has made a few good games before and knows what Diablo is about, and I have faith they'll make something good. I think the fields should be sunny and rainbow filled; that will make it all the more shocking when you have to go into a dungeon and step through entrails on the floor.

And it's really a moot point because I doubt more than one or two acts are going to even have those bright areas. By late game you'll be in temples and mountains and Hell and it will all look the same, and you'll want the contrast back.

by **Delbin** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:47 am UTC

CogDissident wrote:
Jebobek wrote:Rock and Roll Racing

Blizz made that game?! I played that so much as a kid.

by **Gelsamel** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:17 am UTC

Delbin wrote:
CogDissident wrote:
Jebobek wrote:Rock and Roll Racing

Blizz made that game?! I played that so much as a kid.

HOLY SHIT YOU SERIOUS!? THAT GAME WAS SO AWESOME!

by **henre** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:13 am UTC

Narsil wrote:contrast

quoted for emphasis

srs, contrast is a huge element in any art form. Dropping chuggachugga guitars and blastbeats is so much more effective when a listener has been fed ambient trip-hop for five minutes. In the same way, if you're adventuring your way through some grassy, sunshiney hills, the siegebreaker appearing at the end only becomes fifteen times more terrifying.

by **CogDissident** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC

Yeah, blizzard used to make a ton of odd-ball games. Some of them were hit-or-miss: Lost vikings 2 was pretty crap, and they made two beat-em-up games that were generically awful.

by **Berni** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:50 pm UTC

I find it amazing that after all these years people can't trust Blizzard to develop a Diablo game without starting a petition.

by **CogDissident** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:23 pm UTC

I find it amazing that after all these years, people start stupid petitions with poor grammar and expect people to listen to them.

by **L0LiBuNNaH** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:40 am UTC

i just saw the video for the diablo petition.

it sorta made me sad. i like the bright colors. i mean SURE, i loved the old diablo... but this is so pretty. i understand what they are trying to say. when i was watching the video it more or less seemed like a group of high school kids that are still in that whole "teen angst-y" phase and just want to bitch about something. im all for "accuracy" but its not like they changed the "world"... they just mad it more... shiny. ~.^

by **pollywog** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:11 am UTC

From what I've seen, it does look better. Although I did really enjoy the gothic feel of D2, trying to play on a laptop outside meant that I couldn't see a damn thing.

by **mosc** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:18 pm UTC

light radius being removed is a GOOD thing. Those kids are nuts. I don't want torches dropping. You'd accidentally pick them up all the time and they just filled your screen with crap.

by **Tyrrlan** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:28 am UTC

Kerberos wrote:Hey, when you're in danger, sometimes you really do need to cover your ass.

Also, I realize that I've never actually seen any truly gargantuan creatures (like the Siegebreaker) in any 3-D computer games, ever. Is there some good reason for that that people can think of? Is it too processor intensive, and if so, why?

If you're fiending for massive...uh...fiends, then Painkiller is the solution to all your demon-destroying needs. Seriously, bosses in that game and its expansion (Battle out of Hell) were so goddamn big their pubic lice were probably the size of Clydesdale horses. And is there anything manlier than taking out a skyscraper-sized Prince of Hell with naught but a pair of epic-sized cojones and a giant, razor-bladed weedwhacker spinning at 150,000 RPM?! I THINK NOT.

by **Amnesiasoft** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:34 am UTC

Tyrrlan wrote:And is there anything manlier than taking out a skyscraper-sized Prince of Hell with naught but a pair of epic-sized cojones and a giant, razor-bladed weedwhacker spinning at 150,000 RPM?! I THINK NOT.

How about destroying an entire plane of existance with a cheese grater?

by **aion7** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:00 am UTC

Amnesiasoft wrote:
Tyrrlan wrote:And is there anything manlier than taking out a skyscraper-sized Prince of Hell with naught but a pair of epic-sized cojones and a giant, razor-bladed weedwhacker spinning at 150,000 RPM?! I THINK NOT.

How about destroying an entire plane of existance with a cheese grater?

How about understanding the plot of the Metal Gear series...

...When you've got ADD?

by **Amnesiasoft** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:44 am UTC

aion7 wrote:How about understanding the plot of the Metal Gear series...

...When you've got ADD?

Pfft, Manliness is about destroying stuff, not understanding!

by **Master Gunner** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:41 am UTC

mosc wrote:light radius being removed is a GOOD thing. Those kids are nuts. I don't want torches dropping. You'd accidentally pick them up all the time and they just filled your screen with crap.

Maybe I'm just forgetting something, since it's been a couple years since I last played D2, but I don't recall seeing any torches drop, and I just finished D1, and found no torches at all. The most I got were items that were imbued with an increased light radius in addition to other attributes. I liked the light radius (at least in dungeons, or when it takes place at night), because it give the feeling of, well, been in a dungeon. I don't want the environment to glow in a way that should cause my character to die from radiation poisoning, if I'm crawling through catacombs, the only light I want to see is in the area immediately around me, and from the few torches on the wall.

by **Kerberos** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:30 am UTC

Yeah, I agree. If there's no reason for my dungeon to be glowing, I want it to not.

by **Azrael001** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:37 am UTC

I seem to remember turning up the brightness on both Diablo Games so that I could actually see what the heck was going on.

by **aion7** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:07 am UTC

Azrael001 wrote:I seem to remember turning up the brightness on both Diablo Games so that I could actually see what the heck was going on.

That was a key element of gameplay. Bring it back or u r stupied blizz!!!!1111!!1

by **Jebobek** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:12 pm UTC

pollywog wrote:From what I've seen, it does look better. Although I did really enjoy the gothic feel of D2, trying to play on a laptop outside meant that I couldn't see a damn thing.

This. These days, Blizz is all about making sure everyone can play anywhere. If you look at WoW the zones has just about the same brightness day or night. Whether its right or wrong, its the step Blizz is going in.

I'm a PC-guy so personally I hope they do both: dark in some dungeons, but brighter zones with some nice bloom lighting that shifts over the floors as you move your camera. Light radius is (graphically) unrealistic if you're just holding weapons without a glow. I always thought that you're not a light source; light should be pouring in from a window. Lighting from a 3rd person game will always be in dispute because its how much the gamer should see vs how much the character should see.

by **CogDissident** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:48 pm UTC

I've seen 3rd person games that have a moving light radius, where the player cannot see what is outside their field of vision, and it "fog of war" greys out those areas. Infantry Online is a good instance of this. Though D3 will never implement it.

In one game, they explained the light source on the main character by having a lantern that hung off his backpack, giving a good radius of light and a reason for it to be there. I mean, if you're delving into some dark dungeon, you want both hands free, so why not carry a lantern slung off your backpack (hooded, of course, so you don't light yourself on fire).

by **Azrael001** » Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:12 am UTC

If it was animated, it could add some interesting gameplay elements. Hit in the back? Lantern might break and, OHMYGODFIRE!

Or the lights could go out.

I for one wouldn't mind seeing Diablo3 with light sources a la Angband.

by **mosc** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:41 pm UTC

Master Gunner wrote:
mosc wrote:light radius being removed is a GOOD thing. Those kids are nuts. I don't want torches dropping. You'd accidentally pick them up all the time and they just filled your screen with crap.

Maybe I'm just forgetting something, since it's been a couple years since I last played D2, but I don't recall seeing any torches drop, and I just finished D1, and found no torches at all. The most I got were items that were imbued with an increased light radius in addition to other attributes. I liked the light radius (at least in dungeons, or when it takes place at night), because it give the feeling of, well, been in a dungeon. I don't want the environment to glow in a way that should cause my character to die from radiation poisoning, if I'm crawling through catacombs, the only light I want to see is in the area immediately around me, and from the few torches on the wall.

I think it's something from Diablo 2 "Classic" (meaning no expansion). I think the expansion removed torches.

Who is online