Blizzard ‘not interested’ in pushing graphical limits with Diablo 3

LifesAnRPG writes, "As most of you Blizzard fans probably know by now, the company ran a free open beta weekend for the highly anticipated Diablo 3 (still running it for those of you still interested). For many, who had not had access to beta before this weekend, this was their first time hands-on with Diablo 3. Now, they’ve had a time to test it on their own PC and see for themselves. Unfortunately, it looks like some people aren’t too impressed, at least with the graphic portion of the game."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
mynameisEvil2066d ago

That much was obvious in the beta.

Then again, Blizard was never one to innovate in the realm of graphical technology. WarCraft II, Diablo II, etc. weren't prime examples of uber-amazing graphical fidelity. It's the visual style that's appealing with Blizzard games, though, I have to say, I'm not all that impressed with Diablo III's style. It's unique, though I personally don't care much for it.

reynod2065d ago

Personally i dont care about graphics when it comes to Blizzard games. What i do care about is complexity and fun to play.

I still play a ton of Warcraft 3 and Dota. As of late what i have been seeing is that Blizzard has been dumbing their games down to reach a wider audience. I think its the Activision effect.

I hope they wont be dumbing Diablo down just like what they did with Wow. Though with rumors of a console launch i think that is exactly what may happen. The console crowd wants to press one button and see big explosions happen, i hope it wont go that way.

Si-Fly2065d ago

@Reynod : have you played Diablo before??? It's always been incredibly simple to play "click click click", Blizzard would be hard pushed to dumb it down lol! The depth comes from the combination of skills and tactics the player uses.

Baka-akaB2065d ago (Edited 2065d ago )

yet they did dumb it down . You cant even craft your character via stats anymore , instead we got a system like wow , adding skills points on trees and mostly runes left as a mean to differenciate yourself .

Imalwaysright2065d ago

"The console crowd wants to press one button and see big explosions happen" Ahhh the elitist PC fanboy... Probably the most hardcore game of the generation: Dark Souls was picked apart and dismissed by the PC community because there are rumours that it will be locked at 30fps and you speak about dumbing down games? LMAO double standards and mindless fanboys FTW.

Voxelman2065d ago

Blizzard's moto has always been "Easy to learn, impossible to master" They are just better at the easy to learn part these days.

A lot of the "complex" or "hardcore" elements in their older games are actually technical limitations or glitches. Things like autocast, better grouping. and caster management, auto splitting workers etc in Starcraft 2 just weren't really possible back when they made their early games.

Diablo has always been their most accessible franchise with it's super simple gameplay, but with a super hardcore level with Hardcore mode, builds, replaying the game on progressively harder level, rare drops etc.

These are quotes for Diablo 2 reviews
"With appealing graphics, extremely challenging gameplay, along with keen sounds, and a two second learning curve"

"the first day that the game was released, there was a patch out for the game. Ummm... yeah. You shouldn't need to download a patch right off the bat. And there is already another patch on the way"

"But after people are paying anywhere from 55-70 dollars for the game, you would imagine that it would be a bug free, finished product. Oops."

"While the graphics and environments are rich, they are stuck in 640x480 resolution, making them appear slightly clunky, especially on larger monitors. One can only imagine how gorgeous this game would look if it could be run at 1024x768 or higher."

"All the major landmarks and NPCs are marked on the map as you see them, so there is little chance of becoming disorientated. Of course, some may argue that this presents little real challenge, and that it cements Diablo 2's role as an "RPG-Lite"."

"Diablo II is really a meld of an action game and an RPG. The wealth of NPCs, settings and items make it comparable to a role-playing game, but the hack-n-slash combat system owes more to Gauntlet than Ultima."

"It's high degree of replayability and pure adrenaline pumping action will keep you coming back for more"

"It is also very clear that, as scary as it sounds, the release was rushed in the end. Blizzard was clearly not prepared for the sheer volume of people who would be flooding and their service was woefully ill equipped to handle the onslaught."

"If it wasn't a Blizzard title, Diablo II would be dismissed as the bimboesque bit of frippery it actually is, and gain no more than a passing interest from most folk. Be warned."

As you can see past titles were hardly lorded for their complexity or deep RPG mechanics. But actually lorded as a action game, that takes 2 seconds to play. Blizzard have not gotten more casual, but you don't have to like their games ether. No blizzard game has launched in a perfect state ether, all those memories you have are after years of constant patching.

kevnb2065d ago

people just complain for no reason.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2065d ago
Saladfax2065d ago (Edited 2065d ago )

A specific aesthetic choice often trumps pure graphical fidelity and attempts at approaching realism. It also gives the product better longevity in the end, since improvements in visual technology render "top-tier" graphics obsolete in just a few years*.

Obviously film and video game is different in terms of comparison, but take two CGI film in The Incredibles and Polar Express.

One has an overt visual style with less emphasis and attempt at reality. The other moved towards realism. Whereas The Incredibles will pretty much appear visually appealing for all eternity, 8 years of improvements renders the Polar Express CGI pretty much obsolete.

Plus it has that whole creepy, uncanny valley effect going on, but, erm...

Since Blizzard seems to be more about sustaining individual franchises (and with their sparse release schedule, who can blame them), it's honestly a much better idea for them to utilize a very specific aesthetic style than to push the limits of graphical fidelity.

*notable exceptions being those which go batshit crazy in this department (Crysis...), but in the end it only buys them an extra few years.

lelo2play2065d ago

I tried the beta, and i was kind of disappointed with it. I was going to buy it when released, now i'm waiting a bit longer... maybe when it's cheaper!

15 May I'll go with Max Payne 3 instead.

grahf2065d ago

I was in the same camp, and am also a recovering WoW addict. I tried the Beta and felt every single one of my WoW buttons being pushed. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was The same engine, just tweaked. Achievements for doing the mundane to the insane, skill tree, crafting tree is similar, big dungeon boss battles (yes, not the same, but "Whelps!" ie adds are pretty much coined by Bliz)

I was drooling at the end, ready to throw my money at Blizzard.
Then I snapped out of it.

catfrog2065d ago (Edited 2065d ago )

none of blizzards games push graphics lol, theyre all meant to be accessible to the majority of computers. its kind of how blizzard works, i dont know why anyone would think differently after all these years

Psychonaughty2065d ago

Agreed, technically they always do this, their games have the best artstyle in the business though, that is a fact.

come_at_me_bro2065d ago

From the company that brought you the graphical powerhouse "World of Warcraft"...

Psychotica2065d ago

Looked perfectly fine on my PC, more importantly I had a lot of fun with the open beta over the weekend..

CLOUD19832065d ago ShowReplies(2)
Show all comments (19)