ciortas1 said:
drunken_munki said:
"Wilson also addressed a few of the concerns that critics of the new art direction had. Many blamed "World of Warcraft" for the change and the influence. But Wilson didn't see that as a bad thing. "I think it's impossible for us to not be influenced by our other creations," he said. "
Holy shit, he actually said that? Perfect example of their lead art designed working on all their games instead of hiring someone more fitting for the universe.
And at this point, who the hell can even try to argue the graphics haven't been WoW'ified?
I mean, I've made my case long ago (post 166 go), but this is just icing on the cake.
Alar said:
Advertisements must work pretty well on you.
BloodyThoughts said:
I'm sorry, could we cut the bullshit "sell a soul to get a computer that can run things" and misconceptions like gaming PCs costing an upwards of 1000 dollars? It's been established on this forum a million times over, you can get a 300-400 dollar PC that can run
everything on the market. So quit being ignorant and talking out your ass.
Furthermore, it's like if Sony only made PS2 games (and PS3 had backwards compatibility) because lots of people still haven't made the switch. The potential of the PS3 is ruined for the publisher to get higher profits for a bigger audience, and frankly, the PS3 audience suffers. Same here. This game looks, from a technical standpoint, worse than a 2006 game made by a comparably tiny studio. Let's not have fucking technological regress made by the most well funded developer out there.
Dude. You're ranting, raving, and double posing like a bro. If you want to make a compelling argument your first step is at least looking like you're trying to acknowledge the other side of the argument rather than simply seeing everything as something that can be integrated into your own argument.
You'd have to find some pretty damn good deals and just flat out be lucky to be able to assemble an entire computer for under 600 bucks that'd be able to run
everything. Quality of graphics not withstanding.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference between the art style of Diablo 2 and Diablo 3. Of course I also recognize that one is 2D and one is 3D. I also recognize that Blizzard's notorious for having their games look utterly different from their initial builds to their late releases.
Then again, they're not worried about your purchase. It's already guaranteed, or at least guaranteed enough that they won't need to care. They're going to scare away those potential sales with overly stylized graphics.
And no, Blizzard's about as far away from the cutting edge in terms of graphics as you can get. SC1 was still 2D when it's competition was in 3D. As was Diablo 2. Starcraft 2 graphically is inferior to games that came out 4 years ago. When World of Warcraft came out it was obsolete graphically by about 4-5 years. Blizzard games look good, but they're not interested in catering to that 1% of their demographic that builds bruiser rigs that can run the industry's roughest games at the highest settings and not have their computers die in the process, or have them running hot enough to cook dinner while they're at it.
When you get right down to it, superior graphics don't sell. It's why every technologically superior system has
never done well. No one remembers the Atari Jaguar. No one remembers Hudsonsoft's foray into console gaming. No one remembers the Dreamcast or the Saturn. Even the PS3 is struggling to keep relevant. NeoGeo? What's that? Sega Gamegear? Even the Nintendo 64 is remembered as, "That first system that signaled Nintendo's folding as being a defacto tyrant of the industry" despite being an all around superior system to the PlayStation.
Still don't believe me? Look at the top selling video games of all time. Even on the PC the highest selling game that sold well and was pitched partially because of breath taking graphics was Myst, and that figured into the game pretty damn importantly all things considered. And the actual sales? Factoring out bundled games the 15 best selling games ever are...
1. Pokémon Red, Blue and Green (Gameboy) - 20.08 Million Copies Sold
2. Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES) - 18 Million Copies Sold
3. The Sims (PC) - 16 Million Copies Sold
4. Nintendogs (Nintendo DS) - 14.75 Million Copies Sold
5. Pokémon Gold and Silver (Gameboy) - 14.1 Million Copies Sold
6. Super Mario Land (Gameboy) - 14 Million Copies Sold
7-tie. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (Playstation 2) - 13 Million Copies Sold
7-tie. Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire (Game Boy Advance) - 13 Million Copies Sold
7-tie. The Sims2 (PC) - 13 Million Copies Sold
10. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (Playstation 2) - 12 Million Copies Sold
11-tie. Super Mario 64 (Nintendo 64) - 11 Million Copies Sold
11-tie. Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec (Playstation 2) - 11 Million Copies Sold
11-tie. Grand Theft Auto III (Playstation 2) - 11 Million Copies Sold
14. Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen (Game Boy Advance) - 10.66 Million Copies Sold
15. New Super Mario Bros. (Nintendo DS) - 10.52 Million Copies Sold
A whopping 2 games are on there based on high quality graphics that also happened to have these so called, "Good" graphics.