Menu Loving Diablo 3 Fan Leaks Beta Footage

[thirion1850]

And then I played some Torchlight. Man, these mods sure rock!

 

[00slash00]

probably gonna have to upgrade my wireless card for this, but ive been meaning to do that for a long time anyway. i have no problem admitting that im a diablo fanboy. really excited for this game!

 

[BabyRaptor]

That looks like my WoW UI, except that it has fewer bars and the orbs are different colors.

Yay, I guess? Still not buying it.

 

[winter2]

I like to think that I am mostly a reasonably guy, but I couldn't finish watching that video because of that guys annoying voice.. omg.. dude... just.. don't talk.. ever!

 

[EvilScoop]

That looks like my WoW UI, except that it has fewer bars and the orbs are different colors.

It's the same! But Different!

 

[BabyRaptor]

That looks like my WoW UI, except that it has fewer bars and the orbs are different colors.

It's the same! But Different!

No, it really looks like that.

Spoiler

 

[somonels]

There is a few hours of beta gameplay video available but who cares.

 

[SonofSeth]

As for Hammeroj, yes, you are correct, it could look better, every Blizzard game released could have looked better when it was released, and it was always the same thing, style trumps detail. You might not like their choice of style but you can't really argue that's somehow a wrong decision.

"As for"? Now that doesn't sound nice, does it? I'll ask you one thing and one thing only. I try to put my posts together as comprehensively as possible, so stop misrepresenting them, especially if you don't have the courtesy to quote me.

First, I go out of my way to point out that Diablo 3 by all accounts could and should look miles better. This isn't me whining about Diablo 3 not sporting all the modern techniques like deferred lighting, image based lighting or some other mumbo jumbo. None of their previous games have been more than 5 years behind in terms of technology, either.

Second, I don't think I said I don't like the style. I said it doesn't adhere to what Diablo and Diablo 2 set up in any aspect of it. The textures - painted, the models - blocky, the animations - stupidly overblown, the design in and of istelf goes against everything gothic means. It's not a proper sequel. And now I'll say I don't like the style - because it doesn't look like a sequel.

Furthermore, it's fallacious and disingenuous at best to even imply that style and detail are mutually exclusive.

True, I should have said realism, not detail. Like I said, it could look better, but your argument that it should look better is just silly at best. It's "game play first", remember?

It is a sequel, and all that means is that there was a game before it with a different art style, different technology and different mechanics. It's still just matter of taste, if you liked the new style you wouldn't be here trying to rationalize your point of view. Only thing that can be considered wrong is game play, the Oomph, as you put it. If nothing else, this game looks like it's got Oomph.

As for realistic blood effects, you should maybe look at some Barbarian skill demonstration videos if you're into that sort of thing.

What I meant was - blood splattering all over the floor and the characters, for instance.

I've seen pretty much every Diablo 3 gameplay video that there is, and I have to say, I can't think of what I could possibly have missed. Are you by any chance referring to the way the enemies burst into chunks of flesh after getting killed and the blood that follows it? Because that's nothing impressive on any level.

I even rewatched some of the barbarian gameplay just now, still can't see anything. Could you by any chance link the video you're referring to and point out what you meant exactly?

That's pretty much what i was talking about, I thought it was a neat touch, I really can't say how impressive is impressive enough, obviously.


Using terms like "stupidly overblown" and "5 years behind in terms of technology" show you have a really strong need to paint this game in a specific light, even though we haven't even seen it in all it's glory with all the bells and whistles turned on. It really shows how much you try to put your posts together as comprehensively as possible.

 

[Smooth Operator]

It's quite odd, the game seems to look worse with every video I see...

Maybe it was under development for too long and now they just don't know which way to take it.

 

[SonofSeth]

And it's silly because... It's unreasonable to expect games to look good? Games developed by the most well funded development studio out there? Sorry for expecting effort.

And believe it or not, having great (hell, decent graphics) would not do the game a disservice.

You are free to expect whatever would make you happy, what is unreasonable is to demand it. Game play first, that's where the money goes, on constant and to a point of flaw iteration. Because you choose to ignore it, I'll repeat it again, this time with a slightly different spin. Blizzard cares more for keeping the hardware requirements low than it cares for advancing the visual rendering technology. They like their games to be played and enjoyed by a large amount of people from the get go, without them having to invest in new hardware. What they lack in detail and realism, they compensate with art style which has been proven to last longer than any attempt of realistic art style. This is due to an effect called Uncanny Valley.

What you consider not even decent graphics is considered by me and many others as looking lush and interesting.

No. Wrong. A sequel by definition is something that expands upon its predecessors. Changing the art style - in practically every single capacity within reason - is not what a sequel, a proper one, anyway, does. In terms of visuals, Diablo 3 is not a sequel.

Don't throw in words like technology and mechanics in there because that's bologne. You damn well know the switch to 3-D had nothing to do with Blizzard's capacity to stay true to the art style of the franchise. My little theory for them doing that? They're going to shoot for a Teen rating, as opposed to Mature. You wait and see.

The game has less of an oomph than Diablo 2 had, too, I'm sure I could argue that pretty easily. The slow motion ragdoll effects, evaporating corpses and hit effects that literally sound like it came from someone's mouth don't work in favour of it at all.

By that definition Diablo does exactly what you claim a sequel should do, expands upon it's predecessor. Everything else you said here is just more attempts to try to pass off your opinion as an objective fact. Also corpses disappeared completely in the early videos, later they confirmed that there will always be a minimum amount of corpses remaining, one more thing to keep the requirements lower.

It sure goes along with the cartoony style Blizzard went with for Diablo 3, so I guess I can agree to it being a neat touch. Especially since they didn't go completely pants on head retarded like Bioware did with Dragon Age 2. Impressive, though? No, be serious. Unless this is the first game you're seeing dismemberment in, it can not possibly be impressive.

To be honest, didn't even think about the blood splatter patterns in Diablo 3 before this thread, I just thought it was neat when i saw it, I also think it's neat that every unique spell critical has a unique death animation that goes with it, what i thought was impressive was when in the first demo the end boss grabbed the barbarian bit off his upper half of the body and threw away the legs, while barbs giblets still dangled from monsters mouth, you know, like in all other teen rated dungeon crawling hack and slash games.

There's a reason I use them. It's because what I'm saying is either true or grounded really well in objective truth. The witch doctor standing animation? Stupidly overblown. Who the fuck stands like that?

Speaking of retarded, have you seen the tower of ghouls[footnote]Involves 4 ghouls climbing on top of each other and then falling sideways to deal damage to enemies.[/footnote] spell? This is one of the things that - if it makes it to the full game - would be a warrant to call everyone at Diablo 3's dev team a drooling retard. I can't link you to a video, but it was in one of the fairly recent ones.

I think it's best to leave this part to speak for itself.

That's my fault, though. I meant comprehensible, damn suffixes.

But speaking of comprehensive, I will be the first to say that the gameplay, apart from looking like the most forgiving hack'n'slash ever conceived, looks solid. Certainly the best since D2. This is just not something I have an interest in arguing, nor do I feel the inclination to put a disclaimer every time I diss the visuals.

I think it's safe to assume that the game gets more difficult on higher difficulties.

 

[SonofSeth]

You are wrong in claiming that what they did is somehow wrong. You are wrong in claiming they changed the art style to the point of it not being a sequel to Diablo 2.

You are not trying to open peoples minds to anything but your own opinion. Blizzard never focused their effort in the graphics department, it was always gameplay gameplay gameplay and as a result their games are always polished, only Valve can claim the same, and for some reason their games never pushed graphics forward either, maybe they know something you don't.