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

[flexy]

(I didn't know whether to put this in the D3 thread or Torch light thread, really)


I am just AMAZED how people continue to complain about how awful the D3 graphics supposedly are (which, of course, is entirely not true, i think the D3 graphics, spells, animations etc. are excellent).

Then they say "Pre-order Torchlight 2 instead, it's so much better than D3"

Have you ever looked at screens from TL2? This game looks...AWFUL...it looks so awful and dated...when i look at TL2 images i see very ugly/lack of textures...and a very, very low polygon count, it even makes WoW look better in comparison.

 

[Ancalagon44]

yeah but it has LAN play and I dont have to ask permission from Blizzard to play my game. I can just, you know, play the damn game.

 

[Baptismbyfire]

What's with games nowadays all going cartoony while dealing with themes of hell and damnation?

 

[-Slacker-]

Cell shaded graphics are rendered faster and run on the crappiest pcs.

 

[flexy]

yeah but it has LAN play and I dont have to ask permission from Blizzard to play my game. I can just, you know, play the damn game.

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 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.

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

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.

 

[flexy]

Cell shaded graphics are rendered faster and run on the crappiest pcs.

Funny, when blizzard does it it's a negative and 1000s complain about the "horrible" graphics - but when torch light uses crap graphics then it's a plus?

seems legit...

 

[CPA]

graphic differences or not, when I beta tested TLII, I kept getting the "just push a little further" feeling. I didn't get that same feeling from DIII. And it will help come purchase time, when all other things equal, TLII kills DIII in price.

 

[Zeze]

graphic differences or not, when I beta tested TLII, I kept getting the "just push a little further" feeling. I didn't get that same feeling from DIII. And it will help come purchase time, when all other things equal, TLII kills DIII in price.

I'm a HUGE Diablo I & II fan and anticipated III so much. Your phrase captured my sentiments perfectly.

I beat the game on normal with Barb. Then about level 35~, I lost all urge to play.

It's so boring now, I haven't touched it in 4 days. I tried different classes, but early game is such a chore + too damn easy, I can't go through it.

 

[pontifex]

graphics in TL2 look fine to me.
graphics in the D3 beta looked fine to me

 

[GaiaHunter]

(I didn't know whether to put this in the D3 thread or Torch light thread, really)


I am just AMAZED how people continue to complain about how awful the D3 graphics supposedly are (which, of course, is entirely not true, i think the D3 graphics, spells, animations etc. are excellent).

Then they say "Pre-order Torchlight 2 instead, it's so much better than D3"

Have you ever looked at screens from TL2? This game looks...AWFUL...it looks so awful and dated...when i look at TL2 images i see very ugly/lack of textures...and a very, very low polygon count, it even makes WoW look better in comparison.

Have you considered that maybe the recommendations aren't based on graphics?

(Disclaimer: haven't played either game)

 

[Baptismbyfire]

Played Diablo 3 for a hour. Might not be enough to make an informed decision, but honestly felt it had nothing going for it either in terms of graphics or gameplay. Given Blizzard's stellar record in the past (even though Blizzard has been going the way of Bioware ever since Starcraft 2) and the amount of money they must have invested into the thing, I would go so far as to say that Diablo 3 is a failed product, and is a sign of bad things to come.

Played Torchlight 1 for a few hours. Graphics and gameplay not that good, but I did not have high expectations from a $20 game.

If you ask me to choose between the two abovementioned games of equally poor graphics and boring gameplay, I would choose Torchlight 2 (or in this case 1) over Diablo 3 any day. The reason being that Torchlight is cheaper, it doesn't force me to be online for single-play, and it doesn't try to profit through selling of in-game items.

Now, I went back a decade and got Divine Divinity from GOG expecting no more than a poor Diablo 1 or 2 clone. On the surface, your typical click-and-slash game. But somehow the game manages to draw you in from the beginning with its crisp 2D graphics, interesting quests, and haunting music, all of which neither Torchlight or Diablo 3 has.

It's sad when you compare two games from the same genre ten years apart, and you find that the newer game pale in comparison to the older game.

 

[Rhezuss]

Funny, when blizzard does it it's a negative and 1000s complain about the "horrible" graphics - but when torch light uses crap graphics then it's a plus?

seems legit...

Dude...Blizzard budget vs Runic budget!?!!??!
Think about it for a sec, Runic must have not much over 1/10th of what Blizz have ($$$ and workers) but manage to deliver great games that sell pretty well.

D3 graphics, for me, are not 2012. Damn even Titan Quest look better imo. TL2 will not look good either but will be fun as hell. TL2 will be a better experience than D3 (again, it's my opinion) and for 1/3rd of the price.

Better game =/= Better graphics

 

[Ashenor]

I'm a HUGE Diablo I & II fan and anticipated III so much. Your phrase captured my sentiments perfectly.

I beat the game on normal with Barb. Then about level 35~, I lost all urge to play.

It's so boring now, I haven't touched it in 4 days. I tried different classes, but early game is such a chore + too damn easy, I can't go through it.

If you beat it at lvl 35 you were about 4 lvls over leveled for it. Not to sound cliche but the real game does not start until the harder modes.

 

[Rhezuss]

If you beat it at lvl 35 you were about 4 lvls over leveled for it. Not to sound cliche but the real game does not start until the harder modes.

That is if you don't get bored before the end of Normal
I have a gard time continue playing on Nightmare Act 2 now...even though it's a bit more difficult and the loot have better stats...nothing changes and it's still the same game despite the difficulty.

 

[imaheadcase]

The whole point is torchlight graphics, even torchlight 1 graphics are better in lots of ways than D3 graphics. Given the fact D3 offers nothing more than Torchlight ONE already had. The price tag Blizzard tagged onto it was not even close to worth it for a lot of people.

If D3 had lots of other superior things it would be a different story, but the time, effort put into the game it clearly did not live up to the hype of what was expected.

 

[borisvodofsky]

What's with games nowadays all going cartoony while dealing with themes of hell and damnation?

jesus is not coming back, deal with it. :twisted:

 

[borisvodofsky]

Dude...Blizzard budget vs Runic budget!?!!??!
Think about it for a sec, Runic must have not much over 1/10th of what Blizz have ($$$ and workers) but manage to deliver great games that sell pretty well.

D3 graphics, for me, are not 2012. Damn even Titan Quest look better imo. TL2 will not look good either but will be fun as hell. TL2 will be a better experience than D3 (again, it's my opinion) and for 1/3rd of the price.

Better game =/= Better graphics

1 /10???

Try 1/1000 :whiste:

 

[borisvodofsky]

I'm a HUGE Diablo I & II fan and anticipated III so much. Your phrase captured my sentiments perfectly.

I beat the game on normal with Barb. Then about level 35~, I lost all urge to play.

It's so boring now, I haven't touched it in 4 days. I tried different classes, but early game is such a chore + too damn easy, I can't go through it.

Isn't it obvious why people feel this way??

These games are all about the "progress bar" you get instant rewards for your hard work and it's posted in the stats chart.

In D3, they took that away, now this game no longer rewards you nearly as quickly as it used to.

That initial addictive gameplay is removed.


good/bad, time will tell.

 

[shadow9d9]

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 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.

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

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.

LAN for BF3? You are going to have 32 people on your lan? Not often.. 2-3 players? Quite often. Lan= no lag. online with blizzard? Could be lots or you may not even be able to log in at all.

 

[Anteaus]

I think some people are surviving on nostalgia alone. I played through the starter edition (Act I) and was bored to tears. I pushed through because I thought I must have been missing something, but at the end I was mystified how Blizzard allowed this to happen. The storyline is so generic it even makes fun of itself via the voice acting, and the gameplay is basically comprised of clicking on stuff until it stops moving. I'm especially confused as to why I couldn't zoom the camera or why autoloot wasn't put in. I guess removing the need for me to pick up gear would be equivilent to "keeping my arms and hands in the ride" and make it even more on rails. It seems like Blizzard made a design decision to keep the game as a Diablo museum circa 2000, with the only advances being with online connectivity and auction house. After all, they only wanted to keep the game outdated, not the methods they would use to make money. This whole game is about "playing it safe." Of course it's Blizzard so their "playing it safe" is still better than many developers "best try", but still I'm underwhelmed.

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. People tell me this is a multiplayer game and that I'm judging the game to hard based on the single player side, but the bottom line is that the single player experience is REQUIRED to enjoy the multiplayer side. Not only that, I'm required to play through the boring single player game multiple times....for what? There should have been alternate ways to level that were mutliplayer specific. Plus, any real competition will be tainted by pay to win. It feels like Blizzard phoned in the storyline while having meetings on making money via AH.

I'm not saying it's a bad game, because based on the sum of its parts it's quite good. My point is that is if you remove the AH amd multiplayer, this game is mediocre at best. Perhaps time and and an expansion will improve D3 much the way LOD improved D2, but for now I'm done with it.

 

[EDUSAN]

when people tells you that D3 gets better at harder difficulties they are not saying it because of the pvp aspect, they are saying it because the enemies and bosses and elite mobs get really hard no harder difficulties, hence making more fun because you will really need to fight them instead of "hold right click aiming at it for 3 seconds"

 

[ockky]

when people tells you that D3 gets better at harder difficulties they are not saying it because of the pvp aspect, they are saying it because the enemies and bosses and elite mobs get really hard no harder difficulties, hence making more fun because you will really need to fight them instead of "hold right click aiming at it for 3 seconds"

I totally agree. Because of this, I've been telling a friend 'it gets better, trust me'. Another thing that i really like about the game that I dind't see mentioned are teh damn treasure goblins! There's nothing better than playing with a couple of buds and hearing someone scream out "TREASURE GOBLIN!!!!" and then go running thru hoards of monsters to prevent him from escaping. It always leads to some damn fun encounters

 

[Annisman*]

Graphics in both games looks good, for their genre. I have already purchased D3 and are enjoying it, and will do the exact same for TL2.

 

[EDUSAN]

yes, the treasure goblins rock so much! i have died so many times trying to get them lol

although now in nightmare i dont seem to have enough damage to take them by myself fast enough, they always escape!

 

[gorcorps]

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

Actually, they did. A lot of people have been complaining about this in PC shooters but it's been so long since any of them have bothered that it doesn't help to complain anymore. Some thought it was mainly due to developing the console version side by side, so it's especially frustrating to see a PC only game get rid of PC centric features the old one had.