Diablo rip offs

Printable View

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-10-2010, 07:12 PM
vrao81

Also since D3 isn't going to be released until 2011, you have plenty of time to replay D2, plus play Sacred 1/2, Dungeon Siege 1/2, Torchlight, etc ;)
03-10-2010, 07:20 PM
Timman_24

Eh, Torchlight is okay. It is very simple and gets repetitive after a few hours. I would say it is good for one play through which takes around 8-10 hours.

I'm surprised no one said Dungeon Siege. DS1 and 2 are pretty fun games although you command an entire party instead of a single guy. I thought they were fun at the time.
03-10-2010, 07:53 PM
PriMaTe

Quote:

Originally Posted by vrao81

Those graphics look really dated - they would be fine for 2001/02, but in 2010 they are really lacking, especially compared to the modern games such as Crysis.

True, diablo 2 was like that too, by the time it came out the graphics were dated. The res was 640 X 480 and the game still had glidegl support when 3dfx was on its way down, it actually ran better under glide than d3d. Then the expansion upped the res to 800X600 which is still small. I guess that's what you get when it takes forever to release a game. Hopefully d3 has higher resolutions :D
03-10-2010, 08:05 PM
kent1146

Quote:

Originally Posted by vrao81

Those graphics look really dated - they would be fine for 2001/02, but in 2010 they are really lacking, especially compared to the modern games such as Crysis.

Blizzard never tried to use cutting-edge graphics in their games, and it has worked for them. When you use cutting-edge graphics, then your only customers are people with cutting-edge hardware.

This is why games like World of Warcraft and Starcraft can be run on every internet cafe computer across the entire world, on launch day. When those two games came out in 2004 and 1999 respectively, they could be run on machines with integrated graphics. Granted, integrated graphics required you to run on low detail. But it ran, and you could have an enjoyable gaming experience.

Every single game Blizzard has released has been an absolute blockbuster smash since the release of Warcraft 1/2 in 1994/1995. I think they know what they are doing.
03-10-2010, 08:07 PM
kent1146

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timman_24

Eh, Torchlight is okay. It is very simple and gets repetitive after a few hours. I would say it is good for one play through which takes around 8-10 hours.

Actually, if people are in the mood for being a loot whore, check out Borderlands.

It's 1st person sci-fi shooter instead of 3rd person isometric fantasy game. But they totally nailed the loot whore game mechanic, if that is what people are in the mood for.
03-10-2010, 08:11 PM
Wurm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vrao81

Those graphics look really dated - they would be fine for 2001/02, but in 2010 they are really lacking, especially compared to the modern games such as Crysis.

God no. Diablo is meant to have top down graphics. There is no comparison nor should there be.
03-10-2010, 08:34 PM
Kamakazie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timman_24

Eh, Torchlight is okay. It is very simple and gets repetitive after a few hours. I would say it is good for one play through which takes around 8-10 hours.

I'm surprised no one said Dungeon Siege. DS1 and 2 are pretty fun games although you command an entire party instead of a single guy. I thought they were fun at the time.

I didn't get into the second one as much, but Dungeon Siege 1 was an excellent game and extremely fun in multiplayer.
03-10-2010, 09:58 PM
Nabby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wurm

God no. Diablo is meant to have top down graphics. There is no comparison nor should there be.

I agree. Comparing Diablo 3 to Crysis in terms of graphics is dumb.

As for it looking bad, I think it looks great. Best of all I'm not going to need 15 video cards and 45 cpus to play it. Hell I'm about the content more then anything anyways. So much so that I actually jumped on an emulated EQ server that runs True classic EQ, pre-exapnsions of any kind. I'm talking 1999 baby ;). Graphics and all. The game looks terrible but the memories it brings are timeless.

Anyways, most companies today focus too much on the Graphical aspect of games and don't do enough gameplay wise. Blizzard has always been the opposite. I'm sure if you asked any video game developing companies out there they would tell you that they would give almost anything to own any number of blizzards franchises.
03-10-2010, 10:35 PM
Astros Fan

+1 for Torchlight! great little game. Having a spellcasting pet who sells junk for you is great.
03-11-2010, 05:12 AM
jman0war

Quote:

Originally Posted by kent1146

No, seriously, look into Torchlight. Here is why:

Torchlight is a game made by Runic Games. Runic Games was founded by Travis Baldree, Max Schaefer, Eric Schaefer, Bill Roper, and David Brevik. Max and Eric Shaefer, Roper, and Brevik were all from Blizzard North, the division of Blizzard that creates the Diablo franchise. Torchlight is as close to a “Diablo clone” as you can get.

And BTW – Diablo 3 will have a “Nintendo” look, or “World of Warcraft” art style.

I respectfully disagree.
D3 just doesn't have the same out-of-proportioned bodies with huge bobble-heads and massive feet.

Nevertheless I do take the point, there certainly IS something of a corrupting influence of WoW in there alright. Albeit toned-down a notch or three.
03-11-2010, 04:48 PM
Geforce255

Quote:

Originally Posted by vrao81

Those graphics look really dated - they would be fine for 2001/02, but in 2010 they are really lacking, especially compared to the modern games such as Crysis.

The graphics are actually quite good. They have gone for a "Cartoon" look to the game rather than photo-realism, but textures, lighting and what have you are all well done.

For the record, I don't like the cartoon look, but they achieved what they aimed for.
03-13-2010, 07:01 AM
Skywize

Quote:

Originally Posted by PriMaTe

True, diablo 2 was like that too, by the time it came out the graphics were dated. The res was 640 X 480 and the game still had glidegl support when 3dfx was on its way down, it actually ran better under glide than d3d. Then the expansion upped the res to 800X600 which is still small. I guess that's what you get when it takes forever to release a game. Hopefully d3 has higher resolutions :D

The real problem is with replayability these days...640x480 on a 15 inch monitor was ok when Diablo was released...but if you get nostalgic and want to replay the original Diablo you are looking at 640x480 on a 19-30 inch monitor...UGLY :)
03-14-2010, 03:46 PM
Adisharr

Please Blizzard - no more WoW graphics. The look is done.
03-14-2010, 04:00 PM
Kung_Fu_Fighter

Quote:

Originally Posted by kent1146

Torchlight is as close to a “Diablo clone” as you can get.

I'll check it out but right now that crown belongs to NOX.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoaConstrictor

I dunno. I only enjoyed Diablo II because of the trading/item hoarding in multiplayer. Single Player did not hold my interest, so these Diablo clones really cant hold my attention for long since there's no "Battle.net" for them.
Titan Quest was unique enough and I got it for $20 but still have not finished it because its just hard to hold my interest unless Im looking for rare items in these types of games...

Ever since the first Tomb Raider game the moment I start to get bored or frustrated I go for the guide and then the cheats. Grinding levels was just no fun with Titan Quest so I cheated and just played the game all the way through with max gold and some creative use of the skill points. Thus I finish games I otherwise would not. On Tomb Raider I burned myself out on the first levels by refusing to use a guide and never finished the game.
03-14-2010, 04:31 PM
Snakespy

Are torchlight and NOX multiplayer at all or just single? The main reason I loved Diablo so much was going around with friends to level and loot. A nice fill in would be very nice until D3. Borderlands is close but just not the same.

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page