Blizzard's Recent Games are Lacking Visually To Me

Most of the recent games they made have outdated graphic engines. Wow Is loosing popularity and is outdated now, Starcraft 2 wasn't much of an improvment graphically. The upcomming Diablo 3 looks like it is from 2005(and also I don't feel interested enough to buy it) I wonder how long this company is going to survive? After Diablo 3 what else do they really have?

2 Things about ur post:

1) Get some glasses if you think Diablo 3 looks from 2005 or if WoW/SC2 look bad graphically.

2) Graphics don't make a game.

WoW actually looks pretty good for an MMO, it has a very unique and pretty art style that has held up over the years. It's not dropping subs due to the graphics either, but due to the gameplay changes (world of quecraft/citycraft) but apparently Mists of Pandaria is going to get the players back into the world so expect the subscribers to rise again, maybe not peak at a all time high but who knows.

as for diablo 3...it looks good.

WoW actually looks pretty good for an MMO, it has a very unique and pretty art style that has held up over the years. It's not dropping subs due to the graphics either, but due to the gameplay changes (world of quecraft/citycraft) but apparently Mists of Pandaria is going to get the players back into the world so expect the subscribers to rise again, maybe not peak at a all time high but who knows.

as for diablo 3...it looks good.

XileLord

Whatcha mean?

I really feel like subscribing again to check out this expansion. It seems it's trying to bring back the mystical feel and exploration of Vanilla WoW.

They are primarly a PC developer, and if they make a game that only people with high end PCs can run, they will miss a lot of potential money.

And so what if the graphics aren't impressive? Games like Metro 2033 and Crysis 2 look phenomenal but are incredibly boring (to me).

What else do they have left? Titan, Diablo expansions, SC expansions...future WC titles...

2 Things about ur post:

1) Get some glasses if you think Diablo 3 looks from 2005 or if WoW/SC2 look bad graphically.

2) Graphics don't make a game.

FelipeInside

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

2 Things about ur post:

1) Get some glasses if you think Diablo 3 looks from 2005 or if WoW/SC2 look bad graphically.

2) Graphics don't make a game.

WizardGlass

Really? I've seen HD gameplay videos and it looks great. (imo)

PS: Sacred 2 is 4 years old. Time flies, lol...

[QUOTE="XileLord"]

WoW actually looks pretty good for an MMO, it has a very unique and pretty art style that has held up over the years. It's not dropping subs due to the graphics either, but due to the gameplay changes (world of quecraft/citycraft) but apparently Mists of Pandaria is going to get the players back into the world so expect the subscribers to rise again, maybe not peak at a all time high but who knows.

as for diablo 3...it looks good.

FelipeInside

Whatcha mean?

I really feel like subscribing again to check out this expansion. It seems it's trying to bring back the mystical feel and exploration of Vanilla WoW.

during catacylsm no one leaves the capital cities because they just insta queue for everything.

WoW actually looks pretty good for an MMO, it has a very unique and pretty art style that has held up over the years. It's not dropping subs due to the graphics either, but due to the gameplay changes (world of quecraft/citycraft) but apparently Mists of Pandaria is going to get the players back into the world so expect the subscribers to rise again, maybe not peak at a all time high but who knows.

as for diablo 3...it looks good.

XileLord

[QUOTE="XileLord"]

WoW actually looks pretty good for an MMO, it has a very unique and pretty art style that has held up over the years. It's not dropping subs due to the graphics either, but due to the gameplay changes (world of quecraft/citycraft) but apparently Mists of Pandaria is going to get the players back into the world so expect the subscribers to rise again, maybe not peak at a all time high but who knows.

as for diablo 3...it looks good.

Meinhard1

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"][QUOTE="XileLord"]

WoW actually looks pretty good for an MMO, it has a very unique and pretty art style that has held up over the years. It's not dropping subs due to the graphics either, but due to the gameplay changes (world of quecraft/citycraft) but apparently Mists of Pandaria is going to get the players back into the world so expect the subscribers to rise again, maybe not peak at a all time high but who knows.

as for diablo 3...it looks good.

FelipeInside

not a guess, the developers spoke about doing away with queues because it took all of the mmo out of mmo-rpg.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="Meinhard1"] Where did you hear that Panderia is is going to get players back into the world?GummiRaccoon

not a guess, the developers spoke about doing away with queues because it took all of the mmo out of mmo-rpg.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] It's his assumption/guess, which I agree with.FelipeInside

not a guess, the developers spoke about doing away with queues because it took all of the mmo out of mmo-rpg.

QUEUES

Not quests

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

not a guess, the developers spoke about doing away with queues because it took all of the mmo out of mmo-rpg.

GummiRaccoon

QUEUES

Not quests

They scale back graphics to make the games more accessible.

Crysis sold horribly NAPK1NS

3.5 million sales is horrible??

Also Blizzard's games look great. Diablo 3 looks fantastic and so does SC2. MoP is bringing in new visuals for WoW. I'd like it to not perform like sh*t for high end machines though. Only time I'll get near 60FPS with my setup is when I'm staring at a damn wall. Had better performance with a weaker machine back during WotLK and TBC.

[QUOTE="NAPK1NS"]Crysis sold horribly ChubbyGuy40

3.5 million sales is horrible??

Also Blizzard's games look great. Diablo 3 looks fantastic and so does SC2. MoP is bringing in new visuals for WoW. I'd like it to not perform like sh*t for high end machines though. Only time I'll get near 60FPS with my setup is when I'm staring at a damn wall. Had better performance with a weaker machine back during WotLK and TBC.

That's cause WoW had less graphics back then. It has been updated heaps with Cataclysm.

Starcraft 2 looks fantastic in my opinion, specially if you enable SSAO. I haven't played Diablo III but the game looks pretty good on videos.

I think Blizzard games maxed out look awesome. On low they look bad, but that's how they make the game run on such low spec pcs.

They aren't technical graphic games, but they more make up for it with the art design and im very fine with that.

They certaintly aren't that realistic but I find their games to be "pretty". It's not like they're bad looking games.

Blizzard games are never tech powerhouses. They aren't meant to be. They are meant to run smooth on a wide range of different machines. Also, Blizzard games go for a specific style in their graphics, that makes them look good even 10 years later (WC3 still looks great in my eyes for example). Starcraft 2 boasts some good effects and detail, but anyone who sais it looks better than other RTS powerhouse games, needs a new pair of glasses.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

[QUOTE="XileLord"]

WoW actually looks pretty good for an MMO, it has a very unique and pretty art style that has held up over the years. It's not dropping subs due to the graphics either, but due to the gameplay changes (world of quecraft/citycraft) but apparently Mists of Pandaria is going to get the players back into the world so expect the subscribers to rise again, maybe not peak at a all time high but who knows.

as for diablo 3...it looks good.

GummiRaccoon

Whatcha mean?

I really feel like subscribing again to check out this expansion. It seems it's trying to bring back the mystical feel and exploration of Vanilla WoW.

during catacylsm no one leaves the capital cities because they just insta queue for everything.

They look fine, SC 2 looks way better than you're giving it credit and Diablo 3 is quite visually pleasing, effects are better than some of the names thrown around here, like Sacred 2 and especially CoH, they're beautiful.

2 Things about ur post:

1) Get some glasses if you think Diablo 3 looks from 2005 or if WoW/SC2 look bad graphically.

2) Graphics don't make a game.

FelipeInside

meanwhile d3 looks to be borrowing d2's engine XD

From the footage I've seen of Diablo III, it's a pretty good-looking game. Very nice effects and environments.

Blizzard games were never visually stunning, they had really good art styles to cover up the lack of details. WC3 or WoW is probably their best looking game (when it launched) all things considered. D1 + D2 were actually visually behind when they dropped.

I think WoW looks great. Every expansion it's gradually been updated visually. Some of the older textures and models could do with updating but other than that I think it still looks good.

I can't agree simply from the standpoint that blizzard has never let me down.

Diablo 3 looks pretty sweet to me. Starcraft 2 looks very dated giving that it is less than a year old. WoW is an old game and it shows.

Diablo 3 looks pretty sweet to me. Starcraft 2 looks very dated giving that it is less than a year old. WoW is an old game and it shows.

fenriz275

I don't think starcraft 2 looks bad. I think it just has questionable art direction. The bad unit scale gives it a sort of cartoony feeling.

[QUOTE="fenriz275"]

Diablo 3 looks pretty sweet to me. Starcraft 2 looks very dated giving that it is less than a year old. WoW is an old game and it shows.

xLittlekillx

I don't think starcraft 2 looks bad. I think it just has questionable art direction. The bad unit scale gives it a sort of cartoony feeling.

You can attribute that to blizzard's decision to cater to esports, every aspect of the visual design was geared towards better servicing that crowd.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

2 Things about ur post:

1) Get some glasses if you think Diablo 3 looks from 2005 or if WoW/SC2 look bad graphically.

2) Graphics don't make a game.

ionusX

meanwhile d3 looks to be borrowing d2's engine XD

Yup. I take back about Starcraft 2 it is their best looking game when maxed, but why do they wait so long to release these? Starcraft 2 12 years after 1, Diablo 3 same thing.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

2 Things about ur post:

1) Get some glasses if you think Diablo 3 looks from 2005 or if WoW/SC2 look bad graphically.

2) Graphics don't make a game.

LeadnSteel

meanwhile d3 looks to be borrowing d2's engine XD

Yup. I take back about Starcraft 2 it is their best looking game when maxed, but why do they wait so long to release these? Starcraft 2 12 years after 1, Diablo 3 same thing. I know graphics don't make a game, but both my friend and I just don't like the way Diablo 3 looks.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

Whatcha mean?

I really feel like subscribing again to check out this expansion. It seems it's trying to bring back the mystical feel and exploration of Vanilla WoW.

DanielDust

during catacylsm no one leaves the capital cities because they just insta queue for everything.

They look fine, SC 2 looks way better than you're giving it credit and Diablo 3 is quite visually pleasing, effects are better than some of the names thrown around here, like Sacred 2 and especially CoH, they're beautiful.

You must not have played vanilla or BC. Lowbies leveling is not the same thing as people being out in the world.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

2 Things about ur post:

1) Get some glasses if you think Diablo 3 looks from 2005 or if WoW/SC2 look bad graphically.

2) Graphics don't make a game.

LeadnSteel

meanwhile d3 looks to be borrowing d2's engine XD

Yup. I take back about Starcraft 2 it is their best looking game when maxed, but why do they wait so long to release these? Starcraft 2 12 years after 1, Diablo 3 same thing.

Because they didn't use to have different development teams, now they do. Well other than blizzard north doing diablo 2.

The guys that worked on warcraft worked on warcraft 2, who worked on starcraft who worked on WoW and then were going to work on diablo 3

Now they have a team for RTS, RPG and MMO.

So you can expect to see more games from them in the future instead of only WoW for 6 consecutive years.

Obviously they will have some guys work on mutliple genres like the higher ups.

[QUOTE="DanielDust"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

during catacylsm no one leaves the capital cities because they just insta queue for everything.

GummiRaccoon

They look fine, SC 2 looks way better than you're giving it credit and Diablo 3 is quite visually pleasing, effects are better than some of the names thrown around here, like Sacred 2 and especially CoH, they're beautiful.

You must not have played vanilla or BC. Lowbies leveling is not the same thing as people being out in the world.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="DanielDust"] Cataclysm is what made people go into the world actually, what you're talking about is WotlK where 3-4 people at most were in every region and the rest were in Dalaran, Orgrimmar or Stormwind, now on two realms that I have characters there are about 12-25 players in each zone and of course the rest where you'd expect them, except Dalaran.

They look fine, SC 2 looks way better than you're giving it credit and Diablo 3 is quite visually pleasing, effects are better than some of the names thrown around here, like Sacred 2 and especially CoH, they're beautiful.

DanielDust

You must not have played vanilla or BC. Lowbies leveling is not the same thing as people being out in the world.

How is LK a contradiction of my statement?

WotlK is what made people stay in 3 places, Orgrimmar, Stormwind and Dalaran, Cataclysm i what made people actually go around (which you say it didn't and even if they did they're just leveling), since you had to cover your arse with something you went "oh yeah? yeah? well you haven't played vanilla or TBC then", in case you haven't noticed it's been quite a while since those days, the world actually moved on (besides Cataclysm is more "spread out" than on TBC).

Well it makes up for it in gameplay and being well optimize.

Well it makes up for it in gameplay and being well optimize.

klusps

WotlK is what made people stay in 3 places, Orgrimmar, Stormwind and Dalaran, Cataclysm i what made people actually go around (which you say it didn't and even if they did they're just leveling), since you had to cover your arse with something you went "oh yeah? yeah? well you haven't played vanilla or TBC then", in case you haven't noticed it's been quite a while since those days, the world actually moved on (besides Cataclysm is more "spread out" than on TBC).

DanielDust

You know that blizzard has publicly stated that LK and cataclysm has ruined world exploration right? Flying mounts and insta-queues to everything someone wants made it so that no one ever had to interact with the opposing faction.

More people ARE NOT out in the world with cataclysm, stated by blizzard themselves, who has access to all the data. They attribute this to queueing. They also have stated that flying mounts everywhere has decreased world pvp significantly.

THey are not impressive, but they look good and the games are optimized.

[QUOTE="klusps"]

Well it makes up for it in gameplay and being well optimize.

ionusX