Blizzard: We're a Games Developer, Not PC Developer

[mortsmi7]

[citation][nom]Energy96[/nom]Everything looks massively better on a PC if you are playing at real Hi-res, like 2560x1440 or 2560x1600. People need to stop thinking that 1080p is the best. It is if you are talking T.V.s, but it has nothing on a good high res PC monitor. It's this general lack of understanding that is responsible for the proliferation of low res "1080p hi-def" monitors on the market that we see today. It's a total step backwards from what we had years earlier. Its all due to marketing ploys to fool the masses that are clueless into thinking they are getting great value when they are actually being sold a crappy low res monitor. Unfortunately because so many are so uninformed they buy right into it and companies roll in the profits.[/citation]
Not all of us can afford the latest quad sli/crossfire setup needed to play games at a decent frame-rate and quality at such high resolutions. I'll stick to 1080p for right now. Anything less than 60 fps kills my eyes.

 

[shin0bi272]

"It’s unfortunate that the illusion that the PC is dying has been propagating for so long and that people have bought into it,"

so the death of the PC gamer is sort of like global warming? If enough people claim its happening it will happen?

Look the only thing blizzard does is create a concept world and fills it with different classes and fleshes the game out from there. They start with a skeleton which is the concept lands/classes and add to those. The only thing that looks spectacular in their games is the cutscenes. Thinking back to warcraft 1 and 2 the ending tally screen was all raytraced and cool looking. The movie to intro a new character was the same way. Then the actual game was full of 256color 2d sprites. Dont get me wrong the games were fun but the stark difference between the cutscenes and the gameplay makes you wonder why they dont just release all their games on consoles too. Its not like you cant play those movies on a console... and the games themselves arent graphically demanding so why the hell not? go for it blizzard. enjoy!

 

[Energy96]

Not all of us can afford the latest quad sli/crossfire setup needed to play games at a decent frame-rate and quality at such high resolutions. I'll stick to 1080p for right now. Anything less than 60 fps kills my eyes.

Most games play fine even on max at that resolution on just a single GTX 580. The few that are really hardcore when at max only require "dual" SLI. Any more than 2 higher end cards is just wasted power, especially with the diminishing returns beyond 2 card setups. Sure, it does cost a little more but that wasn't my point, the point was that any PC game will always be better than a console version if you are playing it on anything beyond low to medium settings.

 

[rantoc]

[citation][nom]Energy96[/nom]Most games play fine even on max at that resolution on just a single GTX 580. The few that are really hardcore when at max only require "dual" SLI. Any more than 2 higher end cards is just wasted power, especially with the diminishing returns beyond 2 card setups. Sure, it does cost a little more but that wasn't my point, the point was that any PC game will always be better than a console version if you are playing it on anything beyond low to medium settings.[/citation]

The biggest issue with 2+ cards setup imo is the video lag it produces, most game profiles today use a AFR (Alternate Frame Rendering) approach making the cards render frames in turn and not working on the same frame (would be hard not to due to frame buffer effects/reflections and the like). With 4 cards thats a 4 video frame behind and with say vsync on and 60 hz monitor thats almost 1/10 of a second lost. Kinda fun to hear that the mouse should have 1000hz polling instead of 500hz polling since its "day and night" in difference (1ms vs 2ms) while 100ms video lag seems ok.

 

[Rizlla]

[citation][nom]RADIO_ACTIVE[/nom]Blizzard's games don't use top of the line graphics....[/citation]

I am not saying that they are using top of the range graphics, not by far, but I am saying that they must not do it or things could get worse.

 

[cats_Paw]

Oh well, guess who has got 2 thumbs and is "not" getting diablo 3 for pc, "this guy" (thumbs pointing at me).
I have to admit that Blizzard did stay at least partially on pc, but come on, Broodwar to sc2 -->11 years
Diablo 2 to diablo 3 --> 10? years

And both sc2 and diablo 3 feel "cheap". Let me explain:
Blizzard had the most incredible ideas and well thought games back in the day.

I still remmber when i first tried diablo 2 at my local store on a computer they ahd for testing. I got home 5 hours later, and 2 days later, i had 3 copies of diablo 2 (in 3 laguages, to get the best one).

Till today i bought 7+ diablo 2+expansion diablo 2 copies. Last one about a year ago. And the game has been almost dead for a long time.

Broodwar i love even more.

Now, after so many years of grapical improvemnt, so much time to even study the trends of the games, what went wrong initially and what went right, we get 2 rushed games.

Grapicly sc2 is from ridiculous (low quality) to very nice looking (extreme). Certainly here i have no complains. However, the units models..., some look like... toys... for a 3 year old so he dont swallow them.

Stalkers, tanks, carriers, interceptors, factory, roach warren... dont know, they really look stupid.
Once you combine that with some noob friendly game AI, it gets too much to handle for me. I understand that the skill can be then focused on something else, but for me the beauty of broodwar was, that noone was unbeatable, and there would never be someone like that, since it was impossible to play the game perfectly.

Now, on to diablo 3. First, its a console game. The requirements are so low, that it could perfectly be a 4 year game.... perhaps even more.
This looks like a duke nuke forever thing...
Times went away from when Blizzard was so good with its stories that the graphics could be forgotten a bit.
Anyone who see some of the diablo 3 first hand (streaming for example) will surely wonder how is it worth to play a game so arcaic.
I think its even better to play something like guild wars, hell, guild wars 2 come out soon.

Well, everyone will decide himself ofc, but i still dont understand how blizzard can say things like "Pc still has more than consoles togheter", and then make a console based game... some logic blizzard?

 

[Mystre316]

@WhysoBluepandabear Skipped all other comments just to reply to your stupid post.

You realize that Activision is no longer what it once was? since 2007. Trey arch and IFward are the devils. Activision is just a husk of its former else.

 

[Guest]

Wow all these comments about how PC is better than consoles is just dumb. Really and the piracy thing is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. I downloaded a pirated copy of Dragon Age for PC, Diablo 2 for PC, Everquest for PC. So um yea piracy on PC is possible and there are people out there who will figure out how to crack Diablo 3 just like any other game out there on the market. Oh yea and never winter nights 1&2 I also downloaded. SO the piracy thing is bullshit. Also think about this um when did blizzard mention diablo 3? like 3 or 4 years ago?? The game is completed I have seen videos of the devs playing it. Also there is a video of one dev playing with a CONTROLLER. So Yea if it was a PC release only game it would have been out by now. The reason I believe it is taking them so long to release it is because they are currently working on a console version of the game. I even seen things on the blizz web site talking about how they are looking for people to help them get into help them make games for consoles. I hope the game comes out on 360. I use to play WoW that game sux ass now. It got boring after doing the same old shit and end game. And even if it does come out on consoles i dont know why you pc gamers are bitching about it because they are going to release it on PC.