Improved graphics

[:1]My suggestions nature lies in the improvement of the iablo III graphics...i mean, the ones that really want to play Diablo III but do�nt have a computer good enough should get a new one, besides Diablo is�nt nearly as good looking as crysis but crysis is fantasticly optimzed so that you can play it on a regular/half-old computer. I absolutely do�nt mean D3 looks bad but it would be awsome if they could pump up the graphics a few levels. They make it easily playable for old computers with these graphics (except the Havok physics) so that more people will play the game, but if the buff up the graphics i think more ppl will want to play the game anyway and the majority of these ppl have computers that can manage high quality games. No offense, i luv D3 but i�d like a graphics improvement. But maybe all this is unnecessary and they will do it anyway, like the improvements in Diablo II from the first gameplay trailer to what it is now.|||Quote:








My suggestions nature lies in the improvement of the iablo III graphics...i mean, the ones that really want to play Diablo III but do�nt have a computer good enough should get a new one, besides Diablo is�nt nearly as good looking as crysis but crysis is fantasticly optimzed so that you can play it on a regular/half-old computer. I absolutely do�nt mean D3 looks bad but it would be awsome if they could pump up the graphics a few levels. They make it easily playable for old computers with these graphics (except the Havok physics) so that more people will play the game, but if the buff up the graphics i think more ppl will want to play the game anyway and the majority of these ppl have computers that can manage high quality games. No offense, i luv D3 but i�d like a graphics improvement. But maybe all this is unnecessary and they will do it anyway, like the improvements in Diablo II from the first gameplay trailer to what it is now.




Actually, the Crysis engine is horribly written, and far from optimized. The Warhead team optimized it, but by increasing the amount of explosions etc you don't really notice it. You can play it on a "regular" computer because it's from Oct. 2007.

Other than that; I bet D3 will look just fine. A return of investment is always nice, though; Maybe a huge settings slider? :P|||i agree. They should incorporate high graphic settings for those who made a point in spending money on power-gaming rigs, like mine. I feel bad for those that want that but can't afford it, but that shouldn't mean that everyone else gets dinged for that. having said that, it should encourage people to upgrade, when they can. If D3 doesn't give you motivation to do so, I don't know what would. Their goal is to appeal to the majority of gamers, which is fine. but they can still allow for big rig settings for those that can, and for those who will..eventually have one anyway. Also, Computers (and parts) are getting cheaper all the time. so there is less and less chances of not being able to afford a decent machine. at the same time, giving game companies a lot fewer excuses for numbing down gfx for the masses.

In fact, if anything. if they DON'T do this. they are actually punishing those with big rigs saying.."you just wasted your money because we aren't going to support you, only because..we don't want to. despite the fact we are more than capable of doing so".

lower settings will ALWAYS be there for everyone with low end computers. its the high end stuff that needs to be supported more.

That's just my opinion though.|||Also, would you mind explaining the last sentence in your post.

"like the improvements in Diablo II from the first gameplay trailer to what it is now"

If you don't mind that is. I don't quite understand what you are referring to.|||http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol4HAS9EoaE

the graphics have improved (slightly) and the sounds have been exchanged for new ones|||Seems blizzard doesn't learn their lesson (or mistake)

They look into todays most common hardware setup

then base around it make a game

while it took a decade to do so

eg. starcraft 2

while in that 10 years those hardware have become extremely low end , archaic and ancient

in the end we end up having a new game with graphic that is 5 to 10 years back

just pump it up to the highest level man! by the time diablo3 is up

there will be octo cores cpu. while quad will be mainstream

and nvidia GTX 300 gonna go down in price with the 40nm

so will AMD ATI HD 5000 series

look at diablo 2 even my ancient p4 400Mhz with integrated chipset is able to run it albeit

slow.|||There are parts of the game that do look low-poly to me which I find quite sickening. I hope that the visual effects from skills are a greater enough distraction for me. It will be weird playing with larger characters considering how small they are currently in D2 by comparison.|||I don't have now -- and won't be having then -- a high end machine. But as long I'm given sliders for graphics customization, I'm fine. I only see one problem here though:

3D is unfortunately very taxing on high resolutions. Graphics customization would have to be more than just the typical settings seen in many other games that really don't address the problem that even on the lowest setting, anything above 800x600 is a fun killer on... say, my Dual Core with a 256Mb graphics card (possibly upgraded to a i7 and 512Mb by the time Diablo ships).

On a game the likes of Diablo, resolution is a determining factor while teaming up with friends or PVPing. So, while I do agree players owning high end specs should have a chance to see the game in all its glory, lower specs have to allow for high resolutions by a significant reduction in poly count. Problem is that this is difficult to program right...

...

On a related note, I'm not very sympathizing of the positions here. I do understand the points, and I do partially agree with them to the point of understanding the need for a player to play the game in all its glory. But that's the extent of my sympathy. I couldn't give a damn about the game graphics. I'm only interested in gameplay. The Graphics Tyranny of modern games has been responsible for some of the most beautiful games we have ever seen that are at the same time absolute crap.|||Quote:




just pump it up to the highest level man! by the time diablo3 is up

there will be octo cores cpu. while quad will be mainstream




I think you might be overestimating what mainstream is. Lets take a brief look at the Steam Hardware Survey* - this is probably the best indication of what many gamers are running at the moment.

It shows that more than 50% of gamers have 2GB RAM or less.

It shows that many gamers still have 7-series or 6-series Nvidia graphics, and Ati is similarly antiquated.

It shows that 28% of gamers still have 1 CPU only.

I understand that many people will update their systems between now and when Diablo 3 is released, but lets say they released it tomorrow and prepared it for the most common hardware setup at the moment (2CPUs, 2GB RAM, Nvidia 8800) because its mainstream. That means that the 26% (ish) gamers with less than 2GB RAM are out. The 28% of gamers with 1 CPU are out (given, there is likely a lot of overlap there), and probably a similar statistic for the graphics.

Essentially 25%-30% of the potential market is immediately gone. Why would a game developer drop their potential sales so much?

*The link won't show these numbers in the future, as the survey is monthly.|||i do�nt know **** about steam but is�nt steam only used by cs palyers or something more maybe...and cs is low end...that�s why every1 has lowend computers...??