Sure, I wish there were higher resolution textures here and there, but judging a games graphics on one poorly done texture is pretty superficial.
The worst element determines the perceived quality of the whole. This is why minimum framerate is important in games.
Sure, but that's minimum framerate (and besides, that doesn't take into account things like complexity of the games graphics, calculations being done, response time needed - ie. a game like Shogun 2 has much more leeway for minimum framerate than say Call of Duty), we're talking about a single texture, that's one freaking texture, I've yet to notice one texture with the blurriness of that shield, so again, it is a pretty ludicrous metric to judge a games graphics on.
The reason you haven't seen it is because they expect you to not see it. Looks "fine" (though I mean let's be real, it's 2012 here and it shouldn't look like this) when you're far away but once you're zoomed in GG.
Not sure if wasted 60 dollars yet, only on beginning of hell, but the graphics sure are mehhhhh.
Now that I think about it, I don't know why I bother posting. If you defend the game, you're a fanboy.. If you dislike something about the game.. You're a troll. It makes no sense. Apparently opinions are irrelevant.
The graphics look fine to me and I'm usually a graphics whore. O.o; Can't even go back to Diablo 2 because of how horribly it aged..
I mean.. It's not anything great, but it's not like it feels like a PSone port or anything like that. You guys seem like you're hating just to hate at this point.
I'm sorry Diablo 3 wasn't everything you had dreamt of and doesn't tuck you in at night, but I'm having fun with it. :\
Precisely, the graphics are not phenomenal on a technical level, but there are some great monster and environment designs, and some very cool particle effects - art design trumps raw polygons on screen IMO, and not completing a game because a few textures are a bit blurry is incredibly shallow, have fun sitting on a collection of incomplete games.
Theres no excuse for low texture resolution though, especially since its a PC exclusive. Plus, it doesn't take any extra effort to release a higher texture resolution pack unless they made the textures at a low resolution in the first place.
As a whole, Diablo 3 is pretty nice looking, it's a typical Blizzard game: art design trumping technicality.
Yeah, if you like that graphical design. I respect your opinion, but not everyone likes it.
Personally, I really dislike Blizzard's modern graphics designs. Looks too cartoony to me. I prefer a more realistic art style, such as in unmodded Morrowind.
I can tolerate Starcraft II's graphics design (although that doesn't help since I greatly prefer BW/WC3's gameplay), but I still prefer Brood War's art style for trying to have a more realistic style, even if it was only sprites.
World of Warcraft and Diablo 3, though, I couldn't stand. I'm almost never a graphics whore (I still sometimes play games from the DOS era), but art style is personal preference and nothing else.
"i see a few maggots came to feed on this topic's corpse." - Fony