Along with the title of a game comes tradition, so if the developers are going to set forth on some project to develop DIABLO 3, then they should follow tradition. If this game ends up being completely different, then they should have just announced some other new series, not a new Diablo.

Secondly: That screenshot was obviously taken with the lowest visual settings (seriously, no shadows for the skeletons? Really?). I can easily find a better example, and I’ve done exactly that for you: http://www.cheats.ru/uploaded/d/diablo2-02325.jpg

Lastly: Diablo 3 is barely more technically advanced than Diablo 2. In fact, in some ways it’s inferior. The only major advances Diablo 3 brings are 3D models and better animations. That, and higher resolutions. The shading is actually inferior to the pre-rendered 2d sprites Diablo 2 uses – for that matter, there’s not much in the way of shading in the game at all. No normal mapping? Really? In a game set to be released in 2010/2011? For that matter, texture resolutions that would have been appropriate well over five years ago? Really? I just can’t understand why anyone would defend that. At the very least, have options for those of us whose computers were actually updated within the last 18 months! It’s very easy to argue that the polygon counts of the pre-rendered models in Diablo 2 are much, much higher than that of Diablo 3’s models. And that’s bad. At least Starcraft 2 makes an effort, at that!

is this somehow more realistic, and ‘better looking’ than this? Come on.

This is like reading a forum where people complain that a PS3 game looks ‘worse’ than a PS2 game. Are we even looking at the same stuff, here?

Stylistically, as compared to the cartoonish graphics of WC3 or (to a lesser extent) WOW, yes, your picture still supports it. Both of the earlier Diablos, while portraying fantastic material (realistic isn’t referring to the actual plausibility of fighting hordes of bipedal cow-demons), used a style that leaned toward faux-photorealistic versus obviously stylized. Now Blizzard apparently wants to have a signature style — which is their prerogative, but may disappoint fans, who are more likely to expect stylistic cohesion from a series rather from a company.

It’s not necessarily that a less realistic style can’t convey the unease and ‘wrongness’ that psychologically evokes horror (or Tim Burton would be a sad, sad man). It’s just that we haven’t seen Blizzard do it, that their efforts thus far aren’t especially convincing, and that the evolution from Diablo 1 through LOD (not even considering D3) has been from gothic horror to heroic fantasy.

Obviously, none of this has any bearing on gameplay, and I for one won’t miss inventory tetris and think they found a workable compromise. Honestly, if it was up to me I would just drop selling items to shops altogether, let monsters drop gold, and use gold for minor services (scrolls, potions, repairs, basic level weapons and armor, etc). If you need an item or want to trade with other players, pick it up. Otherwise, ignore it and get back to killing monsters. Inventory management is compulsive, but not fun, not unlike any number of basic biological needs.

Sigh

Because no game could possibly have a *few* of the abilities from an earlier game without possibly not being based on it in some way?

Considering how many abilities there are in Warcraft 3 that match up with those from Diablo 2, is there any reason to not make the same claim regarding them? It would seem ridiculous to do so.

*No one* is saying Diablo 2 doesn’t have bright bits, but you will be hard pressed to get a majority of people to agree that the game was not dark overall.