Diablo 3 Hands-on Preview
Get a good look at what to expect from the imminent Diablo 3 beta in this hands-on report.
See the latest Diablo III screenshots
See the latest Diablo III screenshots
-
Garnett Lee posted a new article, Diablo 3 Hands-on Preview.
Get a good look at what to expect from the imminent Diablo 3 beta in this hands-on report.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
That's because console gamers don't mind being treat like mushrooms. Kept in the dark and fed shit. It's all they expect and/or want. Another clone of a game year after year after year after year...man, console gamers are just so, basic.
I'm not saying you don't get stand-out console games, hey, Metal Gear Solid was amazing! I'm hard pressed to think of any console exclusive since then I've been envious over.
Excuse the PC Gamers here from actually wanting a worthy sequel.
-
-
-
-
-
Well, if they are smart, and I think we both know they are, they will make an improved iteration of the classic, and then tinker/improve it over time, trying new things, removing things that don't work, and making sure that interest for the first expansion stays high. WoW is a very different animal from day one. Now, WoW has more impetus to stay fresh, since it's pay-to-play, but I am confident that Blizzard know's what's up.
-
why would you take chances? we see what happens in the FPS world, they tank horribly.
gotta be careful what you wish for in terms of "FRESH IP" stuff. diablo 3 shouldn't be too innovative or fresh. it's a sequel.
plus it's clear they are shaking up a LOT, given that real money can change hands through the game... -
-
-
-
-
Take your concerns in another light: Anyone who expects crazy innovation and cutting edge graphics out of Blizzard is unfamiliar with the company and why so many people like their games.
Blizzard always tends to emphasize polishing proven gameplay and removing components of negligible value over heavy innovation. Graphics wise they always tend to favor art direction and scalability over high-end wow-factor.-
You're right, except I disagree about the scalable part. Blizzard games tend not to scale; scalability implies that it runs on an average machine but you can crank various settings up to maximum and get a vastly better visual experience out of it on a higher end rig. Their games have always had average-below average graphics even on maximum, in part because they are always delayed. The exception is SC2, while the graphics are not amazing, we have reached a point where "average" looks pretty damn good.
-
Scalability implies that it can run on a range of hardware, with graphical improvements on better hardware.
It does not, however, imply that the range starts at average and goes up to high-end -- this is just the most typical approach you see with AAA PC games.
It seems Blizzard's approach has typically been to set the range start at the low-end go up to slightly-above-average... with hardware beyond that having negligible difference.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The article was poorly written. I think he rushed it. It didn't even really have a structure to it.
How 'bout these lines:
The secret lies in the balance of rhythm of adventuring in the game. Encounter areas frequently feature large groups, yet never quite so many that I would get overwhelmed.
Uhh...what?
-
-
-
-
-