Diablo 3 - Followers System Presentation-Trailer (Gameplay)

[Wargasm]

Looks like Blizz expanded on the merc feature they had in D2. Looks pretty awesome also. The only thing that starts to worry me is the graphics. They start to look rather old and not up to par with current games.

[YOUTUBE]53H0FF7_j6k[/YOUTUBE]

 

[FireCat]

Hmm no comment

The only thing that starts to worry me is that graphics. They start to look rather old and not up to par with current games.

Laziness Syndrome?

 

[Hatebreeder]

I don't think that one can keep up the Graphic standards to date when one is developing over a few years.

 

[Wargasm]

Hmm no comment

Laziness Syndrome?

Hmmm more like eye strain

 

[FireCat]

Hmmm more like eye strain

Yeah, I kinda agree.

typically only appear during a visually intensive task.

That's so hilarious isn't it?

 

[NoobImbaPro]

what about graphics???? Warcraft 3 is still playable even when portal 2 and need for speed undercover 2 graphics beat it to unlimited.

 

[seph ir oth]

I thought the graphics are fine. I'm sure they look better in full screen detail. Perhaps some of the effects are just filler.

 

[Vestras]

I quite like the look of this. I also don't really mind the graphics. That being said, the graphics of SC2 in the beta weren't that amazing either (at least in the early beta) - that was certainly "fixed".

 

[HappyPeasant]

Or it could be that the graphics are turned down so they don't reveal all of it. Go look at starcraft2's lowest settings and bump it up to medium and the difference is drastic.

 

[Dan]

In my humble opinion: Gaming is about GAMEPLAY. If you are a gamer, first and foremost, you should care about gameplay. After that comes atmosphere, theme, story, graphics, rewards, etc.

Of you who complain about the graphics, which of you would bash mario? Which of you would dare to bash the classics? They were good because they had revolutionary gameplay. Their graphics were nothing special. Pixels were fine for the time, and we have come a long way for sure. If your game is running slowly today, which of you wouldn't turn your settings down to 0 in order to play the game and have fun? The mass amount of people out there do not have the perfect computer setup. The masses do not have i7 + setups...

The diablo 3 engine is nicer than the d2 engine. People still play and enjoy the shit out of d2 today. I don't think that graphics should even be a point to speak of. The game will be amazing. end of story.

 

[Ioannes]

The graphics aren't important as long as you can make the difference between the body parts and the items on screen. See: Minecraft.


Ceterum censeo the design is not European-Medieval-Satanic any more and that's a huge failure of the game. This one might as well be called Isometric Sacred2 and no one's going to know the difference. :C

 

[Jedimindtrixxx]

I don't think that graphics should even be a point to speak of. The game will be amazing. end of story.

I see what your getting at and i agree but at the same time if people didnt complain about shit graphics and the consumer population wasnt pushing for good graphics we'd still be having the graphics of the 1990s and early 2000's
people need to bitch for shit to get done

 

[tommerbob]

I was excited about this new Follower system up until the moment I learned that the only reason they are using it is to convert single-player players into online players. You can't use a Follower if other people are in the game, and the Followers become completely useless in Nightmare and Hell difficulties. We'll see what happens with it, but right now I'm wondering why the hell they are including this system at all.

 

[xPass]

Wow this is freakin' cool! Sad thing is it's not Free2Play uh...

 

[Bloodcount]

>European-Medieval-Satanic

What makes you say that it isn't the same ?

 

[Ioannes]

>European-Medieval-Satanic

What makes you say that it isn't the same ?

The fact that there's a Witch Doctor class. to begin with... I've already argued for that, I don't want to spam now, I've bitched about the issue enough

 

[Bloodcount]

Well if you ask me it is a good thing to discuss.

I kinda see what you mean here- the witchdoctor should have been a priest or something... well we still have a monk (even though he looks like he is comming from asia)


well, to be honest, only act 1 and 5 were christianic in DII if you ask me- hell and the monastary forest thingy (act 1). The dessert and swamp acts were made in classical fairytale style- there were traps, tombs, swamp monsters and so on.

I agree that the more medieval-christianity elements it has the better.

What else have you seen that was changed ?

 

[Dan]

People tend to forget that even though a specific time might have had it's highlights in one area of the world (your Euro-Christian dark ages or whatever) there were still other areas of the world that were developing in their own ways (Tibetan Monks for example).

I believe the world of Sanctuary blends together a really unique and interesting society and that the witch doctor class and monk fit really well, while still staying true to the same Sanctuary feel we had in D2. I'm a big fan of the style that they bring out with Diablo.

I see what your getting at and i agree but at the same time if people didnt complain about shit graphics and the consumer population wasnt pushing for good graphics we'd still be having the graphics of the 1990s and early 2000's
people need to bitch for shit to get done

This really isn't that true. IN GENERAL, the consumer will always buy the most shiny toy out there. Developers as a WHOLE have to compete with each other in the areas of gameplay / content / tech / etc. As a WHOLE, technology is being developed over time and our game systems and computers are paving the way for newer more resource intesive, visually stunning, and creativity bearing games. That is all fine and dandy, but how does this reflect on Diablo 3?

The reason why Diablo 3 will be amazing is that they took their time (maybe missing out on some of the latest tech in doing so) in order to make a game that is extremely enjoyable. In fact, missing out on the latest most resource intesive engines actually helps Blizzard to get their games out to more people. (because like I said before, the majority of people playing their games are not going to be running on this years newest $2000 computer setup). I want to give you an example: My computer plays WoW without ANY issue whatsoever. I can play most games without any problems... I can play Starcraft 2 only 2v2 though... because anything more will destroy my processor. Newest coolest engine ever! But... SC2 is kind of unaccessible to a lot of people because of the stress it puts out. Want to beat me? Just mass ANYTHING.... I lose.

That being said... The new engine is better and nicer than diablo 2's now isn't it?

 

[GooS]

Awesome, regarding the complaints in graphics, I think it looked like shadows were set to very low during many of the scenes, featuring no player nor monster shadows. Compared to other videos it also seemed as this one lacked a lot of the 'smoke' effects we saw in earlier videos.

No matter, if this is what it will look like I'll still buy it since I think the game will be great.

 

[YourFace]

Wow this is freakin' cool! Sad thing is it's not Free2Play uh...

Blizzard games, to me, are one of the few that I wouldn't mind spending the sixty dollars on.

OT: The trailers look cool, but the skills/spells don't see all that cool. Maybe it's because of the graphics.