I think a lot of people who complain about the graphics must be people with ATI cards and so have trouble to get AA to work properly.

I think D3 graphics look pretty decent (nothing like Skyrim or the like), but decent. I run on max settings and have a NVIDIA card.

Originally posted by JeroKane

I think a lot of people who complain about the graphics must be people with ATI cards and so have trouble to get AA to work properly.

I think D3 graphics look pretty decent (nothing like Skyrim or the like), but decent. I run on max settings and have a NVIDIA card.

 

Are there known issues with ATI cards running this game?

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by JeroKane

I think a lot of people who complain about the graphics must be people with ATI cards and so have trouble to get AA to work properly.

I think D3 graphics look pretty decent (nothing like Skyrim or the like), but decent. I run on max settings and have a NVIDIA card.

 

Are there known issues with ATI cards running this game?

In wich game aren't there known issues with ATI cards? lol.

I have always been a dedicated fan of ATI cards, but ever since after the Radion 9xxx series it has gone steep downhill with ATI, specifically with their Catalyst drivers.

I am not saying NVidia has no driver issues, but those are far and few between compared to the issues with ATI cards each and every time!

Last year I tried to buy an ATI card again, just to check it out if things had improved, within 2 days I returned it and exchanged it for a NVidia card again!

Never ever will I buy an ATI card again.

Originally posted by JeroKane

In wich game aren't there known issues with ATI cards? lol.

I have always been a dedicated fan of ATI cards, but ever since after the Radion 9xxx series it has gone steep downhill with ATI, specifically with their Catalyst drivers.

I am not saying NVidia has no driver issues, but those are far and few between compared to the issues with ATI cards each and every time!

Last year I tried to buy an ATI card again, just to check it out if things had improved, within 2 days I returned it and exchanged it for a NVidia card again!

Never ever will I buy an ATI card again.

Interesting.  I've had the exact opposite experience since going to ATI.  Unless there is a known issue with the card running this game, it doesn't really help to speculate with such little info to go on.

Originally posted by TurkeyBurger

Path of Exile looks 100% better graphically than Diablow. It looks like Blizz put their C team on diablow and just said screw it, ship it as is, these plebians will eat anything we shit onto their plate.

you 'piece of excrement' fanboys need to go away seriously.  I've seen PoE, and it looks like sacred 1.

i also wouldl ike to note  with its low graphics it  wont even run too well on  lower end machines. not only does it not look all that great, it also is optimized badly. from what i have seen running it should be running   60+ on laptops with newer APU's but it hardly breaks 45

<blockquote><i>Originally posted by Dameonk</i>
<br><b><blockquote>
<i>Originally posted by fascism</i><br />
<br />
<p><b>I understand and agree with the point you are making but saying EQ2 looks like a PS3 game is just blatently wrong.</b></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I didn't literally mean EQ2 is on par with PS3 games, it was an analogy.</p>
</b></blockquote>
<p> </p>

EQ2 looked amazing for its day...at least the screenshots did. Once you actually saw those awesome images start moving, I wanted to vomit. The animations were just god-awful stiff and painful to watch. The griffin taxi was especially painful. Literally looked like someone took a stuffed, dead griffin and only made its wings flap up and down.

On the other hand, WoW looked like a cartoon in pictures. But when you actually played it, the world felt far more alive and interesting to me. Characters moved fluidly with good secondary motion...the animation for the flying taxis looked so good. Repetitive, to be sure, but the whole animal moved in response to flight...it looks alive..not like a stuffed parakeet.

Add to that that each zone had such an individualized look, cartoonish but interesting. I remember the first time I visited the second night elf region (across the water) with its black sky dispute the apparent sun...just really a cool place t visit. This abilit to take concept art by great artists and really capture the feel of that work and get into a games pace is such a rare ability, IMHO. So few companies pull it off (Okami comes to mind).

I like cartoons, I like realism. I like both as long as they are well done. Vanilla WoW was extremely well done. Everquest was built to take good screenshots, but that's as far as its visual quality went.

Diablo III's painterly feel is really growing on me. I think I like it a long. But to be honest, I am not feeling the lighting all that much. I would have liked to see the darker areas darker, and flame lit regions to be brighter and perhaps more color saturated...really put the light and heat in that area. Overall, the lighting just feels flat.

Look up paintings by Caravaggio and others from the baroque period, painterly but with very dynamic lighting themes. I think this would have been a great visual look for D3.....and while they got the painterly part perfect...not so much on the dynamic lighting aspect.

Originally posted by Dameonk

Originally posted by Creslin321

The graphics really aren't that good...they seriously look just marginaly better than Torchlight 1 and basically on par with Torchlight 2.  I was pretty shocked by this because you really expect a top quality product from Blizzard especially considering how long this game has been worked on.

I have to agree with you, the UI options do sound weird.

But I have to question the quoted text above.  Really?  You thought the graphics would be better?

Everquest II, Release Date: 11/8/04:

WoW, Release Date: 11/23/04:

 

Note: I'm not talking asthetics here, that is subjective.  In a purely graphics comparison, WoW looks like a PS1 game while EQ2 looks like a PS3 game.  I guess my point is Blizzard's never been much for cutting edge graphics :)

Pretty sure WoW's on low settings there

Originally posted by adam_nox

Originally posted by TurkeyBurger

Path of Exile looks 100% better graphically than Diablow. It looks like Blizz put their C team on diablow and just said screw it, ship it as is, these plebians will eat anything we shit onto their plate.

you 'piece of excrement' fanboys need to go away seriously.  I've seen PoE, and it looks like sacred 1.

Lol. Sacred 1? Hahaha.

Perhaps you're the fanboi. 

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by JeroKane

In wich game aren't there known issues with ATI cards? lol.

I have always been a dedicated fan of ATI cards, but ever since after the Radion 9xxx series it has gone steep downhill with ATI, specifically with their Catalyst drivers.

I am not saying NVidia has no driver issues, but those are far and few between compared to the issues with ATI cards each and every time!

Last year I tried to buy an ATI card again, just to check it out if things had improved, within 2 days I returned it and exchanged it for a NVidia card again!

Never ever will I buy an ATI card again.

Interesting.  I've had the exact opposite experience since going to ATI.  Unless there is a known issue with the card running this game, it doesn't really help to speculate with such little info to go on.

I may be using an nVidia card at the moment, but I have nothing but luck with ATI. The only issue I can remember having in the past few years was in Oblivion. And that was AA with HDR turned on. Otherwise, its been a flawless experience. Back in the Radeon 9XXX series and earlier I do remember there being driver issues though. Since then, smooth sailing for me and the people I know.

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by JeroKane

In wich game aren't there known issues with ATI cards? lol.

I have always been a dedicated fan of ATI cards, but ever since after the Radion 9xxx series it has gone steep downhill with ATI, specifically with their Catalyst drivers.

I am not saying NVidia has no driver issues, but those are far and few between compared to the issues with ATI cards each and every time!

Last year I tried to buy an ATI card again, just to check it out if things had improved, within 2 days I returned it and exchanged it for a NVidia card again!

Never ever will I buy an ATI card again.

Interesting.  I've had the exact opposite experience since going to ATI.  Unless there is a known issue with the card running this game, it doesn't really help to speculate with such little info to go on.

I may be using an nVidia card at the moment, but I have nothing but luck with ATI. The only issue I can remember having in the past few years was in Oblivion. And that was AA with HDR turned on. Otherwise, its been a flawless experience. Back in the Radeon 9XXX series and earlier I do remember there being driver issues though. Since then, smooth sailing for me and the people I know.

ATIs drivers are rather famous for not being trustworthy. It is not really fair since they have made a huge effort the last 5 years and improved reliability a lot. I still think Nvidias drivers generally are somewhat more reliable, but not that much.

Some games do run better in Nvidia and others in ATI, and fans of one or the other type of cards like to point out a specific benchmark where their favorite do better.

It is very possible that D3 do better with one type of card, or that some driver is not working as it should.

It is also possible that many people who complain don´t use the latest drivers, that can create issues as well.

Nothing wrong with either NVidia or ATI, exactly which card anyone should get is depending on a lot of factors...

Originally posted by adam_nox

Originally posted by TurkeyBurger

Path of Exile looks 100% better graphically than Diablow. It looks like Blizz put their C team on diablow and just said screw it, ship it as is, these plebians will eat anything we shit onto their plate.

you 'piece of excrement' fanboys need to go away seriously.  I've seen PoE, and it looks like sacred 1.

I did not get a chance to beta test Path of Exile. I am not really a fanboy of it but it looks graphically superior to Diablo 3 IMO. I never heard of Sacred but it looked pretty decent. I looked it up and it said it sold 1.8 million boxes back in 2004. Not too shabby. I bet it was a fun game.

Originally posted by TurkeyBurger

Originally posted by adam_nox

Originally posted by TurkeyBurger

Path of Exile looks 100% better graphically than Diablow. It looks like Blizz put their C team on diablow and just said screw it, ship it as is, these plebians will eat anything we shit onto their plate.

you 'piece of excrement' fanboys need to go away seriously.  I've seen PoE, and it looks like sacred 1.

I did not get a chance to beta test Path of Exile. I am not really a fanboy of it but it looks graphically superior to Diablo 3 IMO. I never heard of Sacred but it looked pretty decent. I looked it up and it said it sold 1.8 million boxes back in 2004. Not too shabby. I bet it was a fun game.

It is superior, not to mention more in line with the old Diablo-esq feel. They added a zoom-in feature that really shows off the graphics. D3 graphics are WoWish in comparison to PoE.

Originally posted by TurkeyBurger

Path of Exile looks 100% better graphically than Diablow. It looks like Blizz put their C team on diablow and just said screw it, ship it as is, these plebians will eat anything we shit onto their plate.

Blizzard no longer puts any team on anything. A bunch of million dollar Activision executives who probably don't even play computer games make all the decisions.

And they have one criteria - what is the cheapest way to maximize profits. 

Great games are made by small teams of fanatic gamers. Hence Path Of Exile looks like a great game. Crap games are made when big corporations buy out small teams of fanatic gamers and proceed to churn out corporatized sequels. Hence Diablo3 looks like a short, cheap and dumbed down game. 

To me the overall art design is just beautiful, as is the sound design and music. I'd even say artistically it's at the very top of what you get in isometric games. The graphics technically are not that advanced, but I've found the overall visual feel utterly satisfactory. 

Also, every little bit of animation, how your character moves, how the blows impact, how mobs and objects react, are in my opinion top notch. To me, everything feels so right and natural that dungeon crawling itself becomes an immersive experience.

And I'm saying this as someone who really finds this genre of games boring at their core gameplay ideas (yeah, this one, too). It's just the viscera of this game keeping me playing; I don't care about the numbers, I don't care about the loot and I don't care about doing hardcore runs or anything.... In contrast, to me the first Torchlight game just lacked this sort of viscera, though I haven't been able to play Torchlight 2 and am hoping it will be good. 

As for your point on the interface, I have to agree. The fact that you have to select Elective to really use your skill bar as you like has reminded me of the Cataclysm maxim of "We won't let you do wrong!"... Developers; please just let us make our "mistakes", OK?  :) 

I really do not understand the graphics complaints. The game looks absolutely gorgeous. And I'm not sure how you can compare it to Torchlight since TL has that whole hyper-cartoony style to it which is really aggravating.

The graphics are awesome , you need speed in this sort of game and with better graphics I think most peoples computers would fall over .

I would rather have nice graphics and 120+ FPS than  super realistic graphics and 10 FPS

After all the complaints about D3's low quality graphics,  I'm assuming you're all getting upwards of 120 FPS when the screen fills with mobs and the spell effects start flying.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgRJeD2IkNs

Max settings 1080P video.

It's obvious to me the characters don't have a lot of details and are low polygon. Check out 5:33 when he zooms in on the character. In my opinion this does not belong in a full price 2012 game.

I find the environment pretty good, everything looks smooth (no jaggies) and  lots of details. But I can't put my finger on it but something is missing. The environment looks like a background instead of a world the player lives in aka flat.

Perhaps some technical lighting stuff is missing I'm used to seeing in other games?