Blizzard's Recent Games are Lacking Visually To Me

Im in the D3 beta and it looks far better then a game made in 2005 for sure. Imo Blizzard has an impressive art team for all there PC games. Even watching some Mist of Pandaria streams on Twitch.tv you can see the difference in graphics if you have played WoW prior to Cata.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="klusps"]

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

Am_Confucius

Blizzard games always have reduced graphics quality compared to other games released in the same year. However, I always love the gameplay in their games, so I don't mind. It is nice having some games you can play on a laptop or older desktop. One of the reasons I was a fan of Blizzard was because I usually didn't have to get a new computer to play them. Under 16 I couldn't get a job, so I couldn't upgrade or buy a new PC myself. I couldn't convince my parents to buy a new PC either, but Blizzard games always ran well.

They make a game with mediocre graphics that will run on most PCs so that more people buy. It ain't rocket science.

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.

Beetroot502

They might lose a lot of money because gamers will take a look at the screenshots and videos, not be impressed, and just skip the game. Potential money is not money.

I just played the Diablo 3 beta and I find it incredibly pretty and the physics are awesome.

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

You are the one need better glasses if you think Dialbo3/SC2/WOW looked like anything to compare to any good 2008 titles. graphic doesn't make a game but it certainly empowers gameplay and overall design significantly. not to mention all Blizzard games play like 2005 titles, these guys got their heads stuck in 2002 and can't hope to catch today's game developing pace.

[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.

GameFan1983

You are the one need better glasses if you think Dialbo3/SC2/WOW looked like anything to compare to any good 2008 titles. graphic doesn't make a game but it certainly empowers gameplay and overall design significantly. not to mention all Blizzard games play like 2005 titles, these guys got their heads stuck in 2002 and can't hope to catch today's game developing pace.

Their MMO controls like 60% of the entire market...

No other developer to date has been able to create a RTS that can even touch Starcraft 1/2...

Almost every ARPG released to date has just been a Diablo 1/2 clone (not that this is a bad thing)...

[QUOTE="Beetroot502"]

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.

Falconoffury

They might lose a lot of money because gamers will take a look at the screenshots and videos, not be impressed, and just skip the game. Potential money is not money.

>Has never played a blizzard game.

[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.

GameFan1983

You are the one need better glasses if you think Dialbo3/SC2/WOW looked like anything to compare to any good 2008 titles. graphic doesn't make a game but it certainly empowers gameplay and overall design significantly. not to mention all Blizzard games play like 2005 titles, these guys got their heads stuck in 2002 and can't hope to catch today's game developing pace.

1) MMOs can't be top of the line graphics because of the nature of the genre, and in 2004 when WoW came out it was better looking than othe MMOs at the time.

2) Starcraft II looks great, stop playing it on low settings.

3) Diablo 3 looks pretty good too.

Blizzard games are meant to be played on a wide range of systems. In order to do this they enable you to vary the graphics quality more widely than pretty much any other game.

u are totally right tc, i bet they lie about their huge sales or being one of the bigges gaming companies around, they should just close.

This thread deserves:

I have the same idea with you about Diablo3 but WoW looks pretty good for a game came out in 2005. Also it looks waay too good compared to SW: Tor.murekkep

2004

Blizzard's recent games are lacking EVERYWHERE to me. They once thought outside the box and brought us very unique experiences that represented perfection in their respective genres (RTS, RPG, MMO). Now, they're just another company regurgitating one sequel after another and doing nothing interesting at all. I miss the "old" Blizzard, especially the one around 2002/2003 that took risks with Warcraft 3 by doing something familiar, yet oh-so different and fresh. Starcraft 2 was anything but that and Diablo 3 looks to be following the same path. They no longer take risks or chances like they used to, and that really bothers me.

Blizzard's recent games are lacking EVERYWHERE to me. They once thought outside the box and brought us very unique experiences that represented perfection in their respective genres (RTS, RPG, MMO). Now, they're just another company regurgitating one sequel after another and doing nothing interesting at all. I miss the "old" Blizzard, especially the one around 2002/2003 that took risks with Warcraft 3 by doing something familiar, yet oh-so different and fresh. Starcraft 2 was anything but that and Diablo 3 looks to be following the same path. They no longer take risks or chances like they used to, and that really bothers me.

THA-TODD-BEAST

Doing one after the other? wtf! the last Diablo Game came out in 2001! D3 is coming 2012. Doing one after the other is more like Activision and EA.

D3 doesn't look bad but for some reason I find SC2 to have better graphics

[QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

Blizzard's recent games are lacking EVERYWHERE to me. They once thought outside the box and brought us very unique experiences that represented perfection in their respective genres (RTS, RPG, MMO). Now, they're just another company regurgitating one sequel after another and doing nothing interesting at all. I miss the "old" Blizzard, especially the one around 2002/2003 that took risks with Warcraft 3 by doing something familiar, yet oh-so different and fresh. Starcraft 2 was anything but that and Diablo 3 looks to be following the same path. They no longer take risks or chances like they used to, and that really bothers me.

Tuzolord

Doing one after the other? wtf! the last Diablo Game came out in 2001! D3 is coming 2012. Doing one after the other is more like Activision and EA.

I mean that's what they're doing now. Starcraft 2 wasn't very long ago, now we have Diablo 3, and there are also the numerous World of Warcraft expansion packs.

[QUOTE="Tuzolord"]

[QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

Blizzard's recent games are lacking EVERYWHERE to me. They once thought outside the box and brought us very unique experiences that represented perfection in their respective genres (RTS, RPG, MMO). Now, they're just another company regurgitating one sequel after another and doing nothing interesting at all. I miss the "old" Blizzard, especially the one around 2002/2003 that took risks with Warcraft 3 by doing something familiar, yet oh-so different and fresh. Starcraft 2 was anything but that and Diablo 3 looks to be following the same path. They no longer take risks or chances like they used to, and that really bothers me.

THA-TODD-BEAST

Doing one after the other? wtf! the last Diablo Game came out in 2001! D3 is coming 2012. Doing one after the other is more like Activision and EA.

I mean that's what they're doing now. Starcraft 2 wasn't very long ago, now we have Diablo 3, and there are also the numerous World of Warcraft expansion packs.

And project Titan and the f2p game they're working on? The fans asked for these sequels and they gave it to them, i don't see anything wrong with it. It's not like they're already working on Diablo 4 now like other companies would.

To be honest, I never thought of Blizzard games as being known for their graphics.

u are totally right tc, i bet they lie about their huge sales or being one of the bigges gaming companies around, they should just close.

This thread deserves:

Krelian-co

[QUOTE="LeadnSteel"]

Most of the recent games they made have outdated graphic engines. Starcraft 2 wasn't much of an improvment graphically. Vuurk

Uhhh...no. Starcraft 2 does not have the best gameplay of any RTS on the market.

Blizzard's recent games are lacking EVERYWHERE to me. They once thought outside the box and brought us very unique experiences that represented perfection in their respective genres (RTS, RPG, MMO). Now, they're just another company regurgitating one sequel after another and doing nothing interesting at all. I miss the "old" Blizzard, especially the one around 2002/2003 that took risks with Warcraft 3 by doing something familiar, yet oh-so different and fresh. Starcraft 2 was anything but that and Diablo 3 looks to be following the same path. They no longer take risks or chances like they used to, and that really bothers me.

THA-TODD-BEAST

...I just can't understand this.

Blizzard is actually changing A TON with Diablo 3 in comparison to the sequels.

Just a few examples:

Brand new skill system and rune system, which I don't think has ever been in a game previously

Inferno difficulty end game, where every mob out levels you permanently

PVP arena system

Artisan and follower/companion system

etc...

I'm not sure how much more they could possibly change and have it still even be a "Diablo" game

Have you been on their forums? The few people that are whining are complaining that the game is "too different" from the prequels...

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]

[QUOTE="LeadnSteel"]

Most of the recent games they made have outdated graphic engines. Starcraft 2 wasn't much of an improvment graphically. xLittlekillx

Uhhh...no. Starcraft 2 does not have the best gameplay of any RTS on the market.

That's why it's used as the gold-standard e-sports title...because the skill cap is practically limitless

Care to enlighten us what RTS the professional community has apparently overlooked?

[QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

Blizzard's recent games are lacking EVERYWHERE to me. They once thought outside the box and brought us very unique experiences that represented perfection in their respective genres (RTS, RPG, MMO). Now, they're just another company regurgitating one sequel after another and doing nothing interesting at all. I miss the "old" Blizzard, especially the one around 2002/2003 that took risks with Warcraft 3 by doing something familiar, yet oh-so different and fresh. Starcraft 2 was anything but that and Diablo 3 looks to be following the same path. They no longer take risks or chances like they used to, and that really bothers me.

Bruin1986

...I just can't understand this.

Blizzard is actually changing A TON with Diablo 3 in comparison to the sequels.

Just a few examples:

Brand new skill system and rune system, which I don't think has ever been in a game previously

Inferno difficulty end game, where every mob out levels you permanently

PVP arena system

Artisan and follower/companion system

etc...

I'm not sure how much more they could possibly change and have it still even be a "Diablo" game

Have you been on their forums? The few people that are whining are complaining that the game is "too different" from the prequels...

"Brand new skill system." It's still a skill system.

"Inferno difficulty." Yeah, it's just another difficulty level.

"PvP arena system." It's just another way to do PvP.

"Artisan and companion system." Could be cool, but nothing really groundbreaking or unique.

Take Warcraft 3, for example. It was a standard RTS in multiple ways but played way differently than any before it, especially Starcraft and Warcraft 2. It focused much more in micro with smaller unit counts and heroes that had their own inventories. It was so much different than Blizzard's previous RTSs, it almost felt like it belonged to an entirely different genre, especially with the hero system, creeps scattered around maps, shops you could visit, etc. Diablo 3 might have a bunch of new features and changes that you mentioned, but I've seen nothing -- absolutely NOTHING -- that will change it to the point of making it feel nothing like a Diablo game or as though it could possibly cross over into other genres. None of the features you even mentioned would be "taking risks" to me. I can see why the new skill system could turn off Diablo veterans, but in the end it's still a skill system. Starcraft 2 was the same way. It, too, introduced a bunch of new features that I could tout, but it was still another Starcraft game. And Diablo 3 looks to be another Diablo game. Warcraft 3, to me, was absolutely not just another Warcraft game. It was an entirely different animal and felt like nothing I'd ever played before.

You are the one need better glasses if you think Dialbo3/SC2/WOW looked like anything to compare to any good 2008 titles. graphic doesn't make a game but it certainly empowers gameplay and overall design significantly. not to mention all Blizzard games play like 2005 titles, these guys got their heads stuck in 2002 and can't hope to catch today's game developing pace.

GameFan1983

Wat were you saying? It's missing a few features that UE3, CE3 and FB2 have, but those features are newer than SC2 is anyway.

And @'empowers gameplay' SC2's graphics were tailored specifically with pro-gamers in mind that's why it looks the way it does in gameplay, it had to be extremely easy to 'read' very quickly.

And Diablo3 looks flippin' amazing, it's soo pretty. Not very technically impressive, but the art ****is drewl worthy.

D3 doesn't look bad but for some reason I find SC2 to have better graphics

lulmont

[QUOTE="Bruin1986"]

[QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

Blizzard's recent games are lacking EVERYWHERE to me. They once thought outside the box and brought us very unique experiences that represented perfection in their respective genres (RTS, RPG, MMO). Now, they're just another company regurgitating one sequel after another and doing nothing interesting at all. I miss the "old" Blizzard, especially the one around 2002/2003 that took risks with Warcraft 3 by doing something familiar, yet oh-so different and fresh. Starcraft 2 was anything but that and Diablo 3 looks to be following the same path. They no longer take risks or chances like they used to, and that really bothers me.

THA-TODD-BEAST

...I just can't understand this.

Blizzard is actually changing A TON with Diablo 3 in comparison to the sequels.

Just a few examples:

Brand new skill system and rune system, which I don't think has ever been in a game previously

Inferno difficulty end game, where every mob out levels you permanently

PVP arena system

Artisan and follower/companion system

etc...

I'm not sure how much more they could possibly change and have it still even be a "Diablo" game

Have you been on their forums? The few people that are whining are complaining that the game is "too different" from the prequels...

"Brand new skill system." It's still a skill system.

"Inferno difficulty." Yeah, it's just another difficulty level.

"PvP arena system." It's just another way to do PvP.

"Artisan and companion system." Could be cool, but nothing really groundbreaking or unique.

Take Warcraft 3, for example. It was a standard RTS in multiple ways but played way differently than any before it, especially Starcraft and Warcraft 2. It focused much more in micro with smaller unit counts and heroes that had their own inventories. It was so much different than Blizzard's previous RTSs, it almost felt like it belonged to an entirely different genre, especially with the hero system, creeps scattered around maps, shops you could visit, etc. Diablo 3 might have a bunch of new features and changes that you mentioned, but I've seen nothing -- absolutely NOTHING -- that will change it to the point of making it feel nothing like a Diablo game or as though it could possibly cross over into other genres. None of the features you even mentioned would be "taking risks" to me. I can see why the new skill system could turn off Diablo veterans, but in the end it's still a skill system. Starcraft 2 was the same way. It, too, introduced a bunch of new features that I could tout, but it was still another Starcraft game. And Diablo 3 looks to be another Diablo game. Warcraft 3, to me, was absolutely not just another Warcraft game. It was an entirely different animal and felt like nothing I'd ever played before.

What you want is blizzard to create a new genre.

They aren't.

Deal with it.

[QUOTE="xLittlekillx"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Stopped reading at this point. You have never played SC1 or SC2 if you think SC2 wasn't much of an improvement. Also, graphics are very minimally important for games like SC2. That game has by far the best gameplay out of any RTS on the market.

Bruin1986

Uhhh...no. Starcraft 2 does not have the best gameplay of any RTS on the market.

That's why it's used as the gold-standard e-sports title...because the skill cap is practically limitless

Care to enlighten us what RTS the professional community has apparently overlooked?

No, it's the most popular competitive RTS because the games are quick, it's accessible for people of all skill levels, the matches are frantically paced, everything is really well balanced, and of course there's the franchise popularity. As far as skill levels are concerned, the game is very focused on actions per minute and executing build orders. It does both of these things probably to extent that does go beyond any RTS that I can think of. But I don't personally find much value in clicks per minute and memorizing precisely timed build orders in my strategy games. That's my preference, of course.

I like games with ballistics physics, terrain consideration, management of intel and technology, long games involving multiple battles across a large landscape, good unit scaling, that sort of stuff.

I consider Wargame: European Escalation to have better gameplay, as well as other games like SupCom: FA, CoH, Dawn of War (though it is pretty similar), Sins of a Solar Empire, the Total War games, Star Ruler, Men of War (when it's not making me cry), Hegemony Gold, and...I think that's it. Oh, I think the Paradox grand strategy games are much better, but those are only really RTS because they take place in real time.

I guess it's all a matter of opinion, but can you understand why I take umbrage when people say things like "starcraft 2 has the best gameplay of any RTS by far!!!1!!"? It's like when somebody says that Halo is the greatest FPS ever made.

SC2 goes after clarity, and in that regard the game's visuals clearly do a great job.
Diablo 3's visuals are pretty lackluster and I honestly prefer D2's visuals
WoW's visuals has its charm, and have been updating it with every expansion. My only issue here is some of the character design really irks me.

What you want is blizzard to create a new genre.

They aren't.

Deal with it.

GummiRaccoon

What I want is for Blizzard to do something new, period.

That's what I want.

If you don't like it, deal with it.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

What you want is blizzard to create a new genre.

They aren't.

Deal with it.

THA-TODD-BEAST

What I want is for Blizzard to do something new, period.

That's what I want.

If you don't like it, deal with it.

Clearly they don't hold a lot of value in your opinion.

The quality gap between Diablo 3 any other game in its genre is measured in light years.

Also it's a very pretty game with awesome physics and gore (which make the combat feedback amazing).

Diablo 3 looks okay. I am very much looking forward to it. Diablo 2 was not good looking at all for it's time.

Starcraft 1 looked pretty good in my opinion.

Warcraft 1 and 2 were both average. Never liked Warcraft 3 for graphics or gameplay.

as I said in another topic WoW's graphics have done very well for 7+ year old game. There are minor upgrades with every expansion. The only thing that is holding back are the original models. Things like weapons, armor, water, and cities have improved.

The quality gap between Diablo 3 any other game in its genre is measured in light years.

Also it's a very pretty game with awesome physics and gore (which make the combat feedback amazing).

Baranga

Are you including Torchlight 2 in there? Because Torchlight 2 is looking like it might be really, really awesome.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

What you want is blizzard to create a new genre.

They aren't.

Deal with it.

THA-TODD-BEAST

What I want is for Blizzard to do something new, period.

That's what I want.

If you don't like it, deal with it.

You for some reason tried to casually dismiss massive gameplay and end-game paradigm differences Blizzard is implementing in the game...changes a lot of their fan base was initially rabidly against but is slowly growing on them as they learn more about them.

I mean...they completely changed the skill system...you know, the primary method of building your character in Diablo...and every other RPG for that matter. No game, as far as I am aware, has had a skill system like Diablo 3 is using.

Has there even been an ARPG game with endgame like Inferno difficulty, where you are permanently out gunned by all the mobs?

I mean...if they made it a 1st person, Sci Fi game would that be "new" enough for you?

Blizzard focuses on creating amazing gameplay, with stylistic and scalable graphics. It's why their games are insanely popular. Not only are they good, but it doesn't take a super computer to run it.

No, Blizzard games don't have Crysis level of graphics. But then again, only about what, 10 or 12 players actually get to experience "Teh Foliage" of Crysis, while TENS OF MILLIONS of players are having a blast on Blizzard games servers.

[QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

What you want is blizzard to create a new genre.

They aren't.

Deal with it.

GummiRaccoon

What I want is for Blizzard to do something new, period.

That's what I want.

If you don't like it, deal with it.

Clearly they don't hold a lot of value in your opinion.

That's cute.

More like they clearly don't develop games based on what one or two Gamespot forum users have to say. Money talks and by not taking risks and sticking to what works, they're guaranteed plenty of it. I wouldn't expect anything less from a company partnered with Activision. But hey, one can dream.

[QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

What you want is blizzard to create a new genre.

They aren't.

Deal with it.

Bruin1986

What I want is for Blizzard to do something new, period.

That's what I want.

If you don't like it, deal with it.

You for some reason tried to casually dismiss massive gameplay and end-game paradigm differences Blizzard is implementing in the game...changes a lot of their fan base was initially rabidly against but is slowly growing on them as they learn more about them.

I mean...they completely changed the skill system...you know, the primary method of building your character in Diablo...and every other RPG for that matter. No game, as far as I am aware, has had a skill system like Diablo 3 is using.

Has there even been an ARPG game with endgame like Inferno difficulty, where you are permanently out gunned by all the mobs?

I mean...if they made it a 1st person, Sci Fi game would that be "new" enough for you?

I understand what you're saying about changes with a new style of difficulty and skill system, but I'm afraid you still simply don't understand what I'm looking for. I'm not going to bother elaborating much further because it would probably take multiple paragraphs to do so and I'd rather not waste my time. Just understand that Diablo 3 is absolutely not even close to what I'm looking for from a company with as much talent as Blizzard. For many years now their talent has gone down the drain in my opinion on samey-samey experiences that have been very unlike the ones they used to deliver. Following World of Warcraft, it's been a downward spiral from my perspective.