Get the Desktop App for Battle.net Now
- All your games in 1 place
- Log in once
- Automatic game updates
One of two things happened:
1. Blizzard is more concerned with the game being accessible to a wider range of the population and designed it as such, or
2. Blizzard thought D3 would take them 3 years to develop but it took them 6.5 (per Developer Diary).
What do YOU think happened?
I hope they improve some of the graphics post release, i.e. the spider jars that the WD throws, or the giant toad that is summoned. Some skills look amazing (many of the monk skills), but several look pretty sub par.
Edited by elmo#1486 on 4/29/2012 11:44 PM PDT
3. Blizzard knew the game would probably take a long time and decided to go with a graphics style that was stylized, beautiful, and allowed lots of people to enjoy it.
I'm going to go with #3.
They're not graphics obsessed. They spend their time on gameplay, because that's what makes you play a game for years. If graphics are your thing, play Crytek games.
They had stated that they were going for a style that looked more along the lines of a moving painting rather than blowing up CPUs with intense graphics. With the gamma all of the way down the game looks like it pulls off the dreary painting look pretty well to me.
Each has its place. Intense graphics of games like Crysis/Crysis 2 are of course amazing, but then you have games like Borderlands, which while much less graphically intense, is still a decent looking game because of its style.
Here we go again...
Herp derp, can't have timeless, stylized graphics with a better graphical engine, just impossible!
We should all just settle for Windwaker graphics because they are "timeless", why use better graphical engines? I wish people would stop spouting this bullcrap.
Yes, Blizzard has always focused on a pleasing aesthetic and highly stylized graphics because they last longer. However, that does not mean they can't use a better graphical engine. There is no mutual exclusivity here.
The most likely reasons DIII has such outdated graphics (Direct X9? rofl) is they probably did not realize how long it was going to take them to develop the game. Also, they wanted to ensure everyone with their 10 year old computers could still play.
That's really it. Stop buying their garbage about stylization. You can have stylized graphics with a better engine.
I personally like the visuals of the game. It's a personal preference. However, some people for some reason seem to be expecting Crysis 2 quality graphics. Why? I have no idea.
As others have pointed out, Blizzard is not a developer that focuses on 'ultra, mega, gfx card melting' visuals. They focus on making the game aesthetically pleasing and fun. I believe they succeeded.
IMO, the game doesn't look 'bad' by any stretch. However, it's also not going to be face melting ZOMG awesome either. That emotion will be reserved for the actual gameplay, just the way I like it.
That being said, I believe that we can probably see some graphical improvements at some point. Most likely for expansion content over anything already developed.
Revamping content that's already been designed (visually) would be a colossal waste of time IMO, the game looks fine as is. If you want to play a game more visually mind-blowing that will push your gfx card to it's limits, there's lots of games out there that already do that.
Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.
Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.
Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.