How can someone seriously say the graphics of Torch Light 2 are better than D3?

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Edit: totally forgot I was not in D3 thread.

I think D3s graphics are fine for what it's worth.

 

[KaOTiK]

I can't recall anyone saying TL2's graphics were any better than D3's. I've seen plenty of people say TL/TL2 is better in general than D3 though.

 

[Grooveriding]

D3 looks better, but the game is plain bad in terms of replay value after you've gotten to the final difficulty. Not to mention all the depth and complexity of items and characters is gutted. It's like an FPS game. If I want FPS, I'll play BF3, and that's what I'm doing instead of playing D3.

Biggest let down ever for me personally. Done with Blizzard games.

 

[Zenoth]

This is too subjective to merit a debate, or its own thread, in my opinion. It's a question of personal preferences, even if on paper you can say "the textures in D3 are technically more complex, the guys making those D3 textures spent more time working with Photoshop!", or again if on paper you can say "character models have more polygons on them, which makes them look less like a bunch of bricks put together".

There's always a technical "on paper" side to graphics, textures, polygons count and animations, etc. But ultimately it's a question of preferences and tolerance as well. I for one think that D3's graphics are spectacular and very detailed, and I think that TL2's graphics are good as well, but not "as good as" or "better than" D3's, but that's my conclusion based on my preferences beyond the technical aspect and the "work" that has been put on that aspect of both games by different teams with different budgets and artistic visions.

Some people don't like Crysis 2 or BF3's graphics, some people like Borderlands' graphics, some people still play Atari 2600 games and they don't give a rat's ass about old graphics. All of this reminds me of the 16-bit era, I still think that Mortal Kombat looked horrible on the Genesis and it looked better on the SNES, but the Genesis version had blood! Game-play, or graphics? You decide! SEGA does what Nintendon't!

C'mon guys... just play the game if you like it, don't, if you don't like it (whatever the reasons are including graphics), pretty simple.

 

[flexy]

Yes, this was not meant as a D3 thread and is none.
It's merely a thread about the odd criteria people use to "review" games, with arguments which don't make any sense! D3 just the prime example.

I've seen people saying how awful the graphics are supposed to be and then in the same sentence recommended TL2.

And the LAN capability (IMO) only has merit for games where the low ping for LAN games really counts, but i played a bunch of games where this really didn't matter.

I remember actually, playing Borderlands via LAN a little laggy as i could see my mate "jumping" due to how they implemented the game.

 

[Rhezuss]

...with arguments which don't make any sense!

For you...

 

[NoSoup4You]

The mod to make Diablo 3 look darker is an absolute must, the impact goes beyond just changing the shading/colors but actually sharpens the image.

As for asthetics, I vastly prefer D3's darker world and atmosphere for these type of games. TL2 looks really awesome and it's almost hard to believe it's only $20, I'll buy it for sure but I didn't get much futher than a couple hours into TL1 before giving up from boredom.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I am enjoying D3, but I have to say that to me the graphics is the worst part of the game. I have not played Torchlight 2, but to me the graphics in D3 look no better than Torchlight 1. I dont know, maybe I am missing something in the settings, but the graphics to me just look terrible for a 60.00 game that was years and years in development.

The other thing I am disappointed with, but I knew would be the case, is the lack of a save anywhere function, along with the always online requirement. My DSL wireless has been dropping me from the network quite often lately, and the constant nagging thought in the back of my mind is, "I hope my internet does not go out before the next save point."

 

[RPD]

I didn't realize good graphics meant a good game.

Graphics are in no way shape or form a representation of an enjoyable game.

 

[Clinkster]

It's merely a thread about the odd criteria people use to "review" games, with arguments which don't make any sense! D3 just the prime example.

Coming from the guy who looked only in the graphics in deciding the worth of a game.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Path of Exile looks better than both imo.

FWIW, I'm enjoying Diablo 3. I just hate the DRM. It offends me.

 

[thejunglegod]

The only problems i had with D3 was the fact that Act I was boring as shit and my crappy internet DCs all the time, so have to replay entire sections. However, the game picks up so much after ACT I. And you gradually train yourselves to ignore the sudden lag spikes and jittery framerates. Can't wait to finish nightmare and hop on to the next difficulty.

 

[Ancalagon44]

The only problems i had with D3 was the fact that Act I was boring as shit and my crappy internet DCs all the time, so have to replay entire sections. However, the game picks up so much after ACT I. And you gradually train yourselves to ignore the sudden lag spikes and jittery framerates. Can't wait to finish nightmare and hop on to the next difficulty.

you have to train yourself... to enjoy a game you paid money for? Really?

So glad I didnt buy it!

 

[thejunglegod]

you have to train yourself... to enjoy a game you paid money for? Really? So glad I didnt buy it!

Good for you man. I, on the other hand, have no gripes about the fact that i bought the game. "Training" yourself to ignore something is not that hard really btw. If the gameplay is good enough, u tend to forget all that.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I didn't realize good graphics meant a good game.

Graphics are in no way shape or form a representation of an enjoyable game.

Good graphics alone dont make a good game. That I would agree with. However, good graphics can make a good game more enjoyable. It definitely would not be as enjoyable to wander around Skyrim if the graphics were terrible. I even have a low end system, so I am definitely not a graphics nut. However, after so many years of development, seems like D3 could have been better. I know they want it to run on low end IGPs, but they could have made it scale better to high end equipment.

Anyway, the online drm is still my biggest gripe though. Thought I would play a bit while getting ready for work this morning. Cant connect. Dont know why. My internet is working. Curse you Blizzard.

Edit: guess I should have read closer. Servers are down for maintainance. Curse you Blizzard still applies for requiring you to be online to play single player.

 

[Lepton87]

I get the whole "the game is better at harder difficulties" thing. I can appreciate the fun of getting better gear and ultimately going toe to toe with other players. I agree that those aspects are fun, but if the base game is mind numbingly boring, longeveity will be compromised. .

Not with D3, the game gets totally absurd and unplayable by normal means in inferno. Unless kiting is your normal play style. Also they should have just axed monk and barbarian and saved development time since those classes are utterly useless on inferno.

 

[darkewaffle]

The graphics are not stunning but certainly get the job done, and if you bother to look at the environments and textures the direction and detail are usually quite good. I have also switched to a version of the 'dark filter' however, I quite like the "pixelated" edges from the previous games and how it removes the slight 'blur' effect used.

The series (and genre for that matter) have never been about looking great, expecting it to start doing so now is just silly.

 

[thespyder]

I got "permission" the second i bought the game, and so got my wife and our guild mates from WoW. Aside from VERY few issues, we can play the game any time we want.

I think you are confused. You PAID for permission the second you bought the game. But having paid for permission, does not guarantee that you will actually be able to PLAY the game. A lot of people have paid for permission, yet still been unable to play the game due to server issues, latency and connectivity/password issues. Not to mention hacked accounts and troubles surrounding them. Just because YOU have had very few issues, it doesn't follow that EVERYONE has had very few issues. For some the issues have been both extensive and pervasive.

I myself am a HUGE co-cop play fan, but lack of LAN play is only a technical matter - it's utterly and entirely irrelevant HOW you play a game in co-op, whether via LAN or other means.

Um…. This statement is utterly wrong on so many levels. I can play a LAN game with no external connectivity. Not so with Always online. That is why it is called Always online. With Diablo 1 & 2, I could set up a local area network and play with 5 guys in my apartment. We could do it when the cable lines were down. We could do it when the Blizzard servers were down. We could do it without having to worry about authentication on any external server. And we could do it with zero fear of being intruded upon by external gamers. I could have a friend come over and play on my game without registering his/her id and information with Blizzard merely for a one off game. And I could play a lan game with a bunch of guys in the middle of the friggin woods with no internet connection what so ever. I could pick whatever name I chose, regardless of it's 'Appropriateness'. I wouldn't have to deal with 'Battle Tag' names with digits on the end of it. And 10 years from now, I can go back and play even if Blizzard is long gone the way of the Dodo. This is more than ‘a Technical matter’.

(Do people complain about lack of LAN play for BF3??? Oh wait..no!)

Which is funny, because I have seen people complain about BF3 being always online.

In fact, many newer games do not offer LAN anymore but other ways where people connect via a server or similar...but then still being able to play co-op with others.

The few real "LAN" games we have are actually all weird in terms how to connect to your mates...eg. borderlands and some others, you need to specify the IP address and other shenanigans...while there are better ways where people connect centralized and then to each other. In terms of game play..again its not relevant really.

I am guessing you are a younger player. For those of us who have been around for a while (say anyone who has played games for more than the last two years or so), these ‘Shenanigans’ are very easy to handle and are not a problem to deal with. And are usually cake. But maybe I am jaded because I used to have to deal with BBS and the like.

Back on topic, ‘Better’ is a subjective term. Some people happen to like the cell shaded look. Others don’t. If people are judging the difference between TL2 and D3 exclusively on looks (which I highly doubt) then they probably just like the cell shaded look more (art being subjective and all). But I suspect that people are factoring in things about D3 that they don’t like into their evaluation. Just a guess on my part.

 

[xSkyDrAx]

Diablo III does take a little while before it start's to shine. Things really don't start to happen till you hit lvl 60/ beat hell mode. Everything up to it is a bit of a grind. Playing with some friends can take the monotony out of it between that time and will help you push through the lower difficulties more easily.

The reason is that the best loot is in infernal difficulty and after you're lvl 60 you get a special loot bonus/modifier that increases as you kill special mobs (in the same game i.e it doesn't carry over when you quit).

At that point thing's are very difficult to kill and you have to really work together to get past them.

And yes I really hate those loot goblins. They're so tough to kill and they love to run into big ass mobs while you're chasing them.

 

[Nintendesert]

I'm sorry but the loot is so annoying in Diablo 3 that I don't feel compelled to keep playing the same content over and over again to get to the real game... I just don't like the loot in the game. There is something off about it. I find Titan Quest to have a better loot system.

The AH also takes something away from it since it's cheaper and easier to upgrade yourself that way instead of grinding out new items for your characters.

I'm looking forward to Torchlight 2 because I like supporting smaller developers that give us great products, just like I will buy Sins of a Solar Empire. I like that they don't charge a ton like the big developers and publishers and they don't put in all the BS DRM schemes that the big boys do now.

 

[Anteaus]

Diablo III does take a little while before it start's to shine. Things really don't start to happen till you hit lvl 60/ beat hell mode. Everything up to it is a bit of a grind. Playing with some friends can take the monotony out of it between that time and will help you push through the lower difficulties more easily.

My question is, why couldn't Blizzard have created that sort of "shine" on the first playthrough? Why should I have to subject myself to hours and hours of grindy gameplay before strategy starts to take a larger roll? Shouldn't the first playthrough have been the most dynamic from a singleplayer gameplay aspect, with successive playthroughs the venue of advanced players and completionists?

This reminds me of Ghost'n Goblins where once you beat the game, you found out you had to play through the entire game again just to get to the "final" boss.

It makes me think that Blizzard, knowing how short the story game is, purposely held back early progression in order to convince people that multiple playthroughs are intended and that one playthrough is not nearly enough to see the content (gear, abilities, etc) they held back. I think Diablo 3 has become the "Call of Duty" of action RPGs, and people are eating it up. Considering D3 sales, I guess it all sort of makes sense.

Had any other developer told people that they needed to play through their game 2-3 times before getting to the good stuff, there would be an uproar.

Anyways, this is just an opinion. I'm not trying to disuade people from enjoying it.

 

[Grooveriding]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/28/the-diablo-iii-that-never-was/

 

[Yreka]

I'm actually kinda looking forward to TL2 because of the fun I'm having in D3..

Gonna pick up the 4x4 pack so the kids can play as well. Anyone know of a more accurate release date than "mid 2012"?

 

[darkewaffle]

My question is, why couldn't Blizzard have created that sort of "shine" on the first playthrough? Why should I have to subject myself to hours and hours of grindy gameplay before strategy starts to take a larger roll? Shouldn't the first playthrough have been the most dynamic from a singleplayer gameplay aspect, with successive playthroughs the venue of advanced players and completionists?

It makes me think that Blizzard, knowing how short the story game is, purposely held back early progression in order to convince people that multiple playthroughs are intended and that one playthrough is not nearly enough to see the content (gear, abilities, etc) they held back. I think Diablo 3 has become the "Call of Duty" of action RPGs, and people are eating it up. Considering D3 sales, I guess it all sort of makes sense.

Had any other developer told people that they needed to play through their game 2-3 times before getting to the good stuff, there would be an uproar.

Diablo 2 was the exact same, the game didn't really begin until you got to Hell if you were in it for the loot and lots of builds simply weren't viable until later difficulties due to the sheer number of skill points required.

It was tiresome plowing through to Hell/Inferno but I would hardly say if all you wanted to play was normal that you were missing out on much of anything. You gain all of your character abilities by level 30 (typical end to normal) and they come at a much quicker rate than the remaining passives/glyphs from 30-60. It's easily the most fulfilling playthrough with the tangible character growth and encountering the story and cutscenes for the first time, though they did make it too easy.

Really, in theory, just about any game with 'levels' doesn't actually 'begin' until you reach max level. Whether you find the process of getting there to be a journey or simply a means to an end is a matter of perspective.

 

[terry107]

I'm actually kinda looking forward to TL2 because of the fun I'm having in D3..

Gonna pick up the 4x4 pack so the kids can play as well. Anyone know of a more accurate release date than "mid 2012"?

The article in Grooveriding's post stated July 2012, which seems reasonable.