I've been playing Titan Quest for the first time, picked up the combo pack on steam. After watching the game play video for Diablo III and then playing this I just feel like Diablo III will be graphics downgrade. I hope that's not all of the juice they have in that game, because I feel like it will be a graphics downgrade from Titan Quest. I'm sure it will be a better game overall and the game play had me swooning, I just want a little more love in the environments and overall texturing. The grass and trees in Titan Quest really have me going, especially the way monsters fall into the tall grass, I love it. Cheers.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Titan Quest has better graphics than Diablo III
- Thread starter Decko87
- Start date
Michaelius
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,684
I hope you understand that D III was still in unknown production stage (most probably early one) so they have plenty time to improve.
jester1176
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2002
- Messages
- 1,553
Threads like this make me throw up in my mouth a little.
Stop being a twat and wait a few years until the game comes out before you pass judgment based on 20 minutes of *EARLY* gameplay footage.
Stop being a twat and wait a few years until the game comes out before you pass judgment based on 20 minutes of *EARLY* gameplay footage.
NoxTek
The Geek Redneck
- Joined
- May 27, 2002
- Messages
- 9,300
I'm getting so tired of these damn Diablo III posts... for fuck's sake not only is it low quality streaming video, but it's of a very early build of the game!
With that said I totally agree that TQ is an awesome game. I've always referred to it as a true Diablo sequel... as close as we will get until Diablo III anyway. And the game is simply gorgeous on the eye candy front - it's been out for what like 2 years now? And it's still one of the most awesome looking games around.
With that said I totally agree that TQ is an awesome game. I've always referred to it as a true Diablo sequel... as close as we will get until Diablo III anyway. And the game is simply gorgeous on the eye candy front - it's been out for what like 2 years now? And it's still one of the most awesome looking games around.
QFT Kyle should ban people who start these asinine threads.
pigwalk
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 8,396
I expect that we'll be seeing ALOT of D3 vs TQ threads over the coming months.
That being said, after TQ having so many classes, how is D3 going to get away with only 4-5 or however many they're having?
That being said, after TQ having so many classes, how is D3 going to get away with only 4-5 or however many they're having?
these kinds of threads annoy me. As stated already, D3 is early in development. BUT if it looks great but might not be "groundbreakingly amazing" graphics, the gameplay matters more than the bells and whistles on the graphics standpoint.. look at crysis for example.
DemonDiablo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,767
I wouldnt be so sure about that. There are rts games from 5 yrs ago that look better than SC 2. Blizzard isnt about the graphics in the slightest.
DemonDiablo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,767
Well I'm getting tired of people who dl below low quality streaming video's and then turn around and complain about the quality of it. Heres a hint: if you want to be able to actually see what you're watching then how about you dl a high quality version of it. Not like you didnt have a choice when you went to watch it. Instant gratification with shitty quality or wait a few minutes and get quality worth a damn. hmmmmm
That said no ones got a gun to your head forcing you to read these diablo 3 posts. Hell the only reason why I'm in this section of the forums after a year or two is so I can read diablo 3 posts. To you I say fuck off and to the OP and others I say bring me some more discussion on this topic.
Archaea
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 11,837
don't read these threads if they annoy you...
I was thinking the same thing as the OP.
I played Titan Quest all day yesterday. Now that I have a PC that can handle everything maxed at 1920x1200 resolution it's absolutely georgous. I played it a ton when it first came out and can see myself playing a bit more now.
Diablo three looked worse than titan quest to me ---- But as another poster above said. Blizzard is more about gameplay than graphics. Their games have never been bleeding edge on the graphics front by anymeans. I think D3 will be worthwhile pretty much regardless. What Blizzard game has not been?
I was thinking the same thing as the OP.
I played Titan Quest all day yesterday. Now that I have a PC that can handle everything maxed at 1920x1200 resolution it's absolutely georgous. I played it a ton when it first came out and can see myself playing a bit more now.
Diablo three looked worse than titan quest to me ---- But as another poster above said. Blizzard is more about gameplay than graphics. Their games have never been bleeding edge on the graphics front by anymeans. I think D3 will be worthwhile pretty much regardless. What Blizzard game has not been?
Titan Quest still looks great technically, I'm surprised how beautiful it looks after I upgraded my computer.
BUT...when it comes to graphics, Blizzard has always focused more on the art style than having high polygons/normal mapping/bump mapping. I'll take D3's current stylized look over TQ any day of the week.
ROFL. Bullshit.
No RTS game in existence looks more appealing than SC2.
Go ahead, prove me wrong.
BUT...when it comes to graphics, Blizzard has always focused more on the art style than having high polygons/normal mapping/bump mapping. I'll take D3's current stylized look over TQ any day of the week.
ROFL. Bullshit.
No RTS game in existence looks more appealing than SC2.
Go ahead, prove me wrong.
FallenMystic
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 894
Appealing and and 'look better' denote 2 different things. Personally a good steak is more appealing than SC2, but it doesn't look better....
SC2, (from the screens we have,) does have a style to it, (specifically the same style as in WoW,) so there will always be people that like/dislike that.
To me, Sins of a Solar Empire and Supreme Commander look better. Based on the screens you've attached, the water looks like plastic, ground textures look flat and basic etc...
Granted we are also basing any comparasons off from a set of screens that are not necessarily high rez, and at an unknown build point...
DemonDiablo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,767
Oh please get over it, but for starters Ground Control 2 looks better imo. But saying that SC2 is the most grapically amazing rts on the block is definitely a comment thats going to put you in the minority opinion.
And just for the record, just like D3, I'm not interested in SC2 b/c of the graphics (if that were the case I wouldnt be buying either of the two). No im interested in the both of them because of the continuation of the storyline and thats basically it. Thing could look like ass (which by current graphical standards I suppose it does) and I would still be waiting in line to buy it on launch day and calling out of work to play it (along with my boss, boy thats going to be an interesting phone call lol).
You people need to GTFO more.
Archaea
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 11,837
Nearly 3 year old RTS that looks better than SC2
Age of Empires III
Or do a google image search and choose your own.
And definately Company of heroes looks 100% better than SC2.
also 2005.
Heck I think I even prefer Age of Mythology's graphics --- but that just is probably style choice over actual quality.
Age of Empires III
Or do a google image search and choose your own.
And definately Company of heroes looks 100% better than SC2.
also 2005.
Heck I think I even prefer Age of Mythology's graphics --- but that just is probably style choice over actual quality.
I understand blizzard isn't all about graphics and I've enjoyed mostly all of their games(WoW being the exception). I don't think Titan Quest is a great game and will be superior to Diablo III as far as game play and community goes. Diablo III will far surpass it in that category, and for me that's what counts. I was just merely stating that Titan Quest looks a lot better than the HD version of the 19 minute game play video we've been given access to.
legendz411
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 3,534
I want to play titan quest..
Is it any good to fill my aching D2 hole?
Is it any good to fill my aching D2 hole?
FallenMystic
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 894
I'm enjoying it quite a bit; only drawback is the limited number of players in multiplayer, (limited to 6 i believe.)
TQ and the expansion can be found for $20 I believe.
Water in screenshots always looks like crap. This will probably never change until water is photo-realistic against a shoreline.
I enjoyed Titan Quest for a short period of time...
too bad the online play sucks because everyone hacks their characters(they are stored on your local drive).
But seriously, there's a reason that more people play Diablo 2 now than play Titan Quest, and it's not the graphics.
too bad the online play sucks because everyone hacks their characters(they are stored on your local drive).
But seriously, there's a reason that more people play Diablo 2 now than play Titan Quest, and it's not the graphics.
tickle_me_emo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,052
you can get titan quest and the xpac for $20 on steam
http://storefront.steampowered.com/v/index.php?AppId=4540&area=app
http://storefront.steampowered.com/v/index.php?AppId=4540&area=app
so you watched a video and now you know that the gameplay and community for Diablo III is gonna "far surpass" that of Titan Quest's?
ballsy claim.... and somewhat ignorant.
It's a BLIZZARD game, ofcourse the size of the community is going to far surpass that of Titan Quest, the gameplay, who knows, Titan Quest was extremely repetitive and Diablo 3 will probably be repetitive also, but its too early to know exactly which game will be better, though I'd expect Diablo 3 to be a marked improvement over Diablo 2 and Titan Quest, seeing as how its such a high profile game.
FallenMystic
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 894
no arguement there, as I also mentioned we have no idea what build this currenlty is; I was just pointing out what looks 'bad' in the screenie as the poster was requesting.
+1 to all those who are sick of these threads
+1 to all those who understand that D3's graphics will improve substantially during development (I think the D3 video looks damn good)
+1 to all those who judge a game by more than its graphics
I finished Titan Quest + Immortal Throne recently. The graphics are quite good, but I'm still playing D2 after all these years. TQ offers no replay value to me. I uninstalled it 10 minutes after beating the second level.
D2 is the first game I install on every new PC (desktop or laptop) I've had since 2001. It's become a sacred ritual for me as I christen each PC with my hallowed D2 CDs.
+1 to all those who understand that D3's graphics will improve substantially during development (I think the D3 video looks damn good)
+1 to all those who judge a game by more than its graphics
I finished Titan Quest + Immortal Throne recently. The graphics are quite good, but I'm still playing D2 after all these years. TQ offers no replay value to me. I uninstalled it 10 minutes after beating the second level.
D2 is the first game I install on every new PC (desktop or laptop) I've had since 2001. It's become a sacred ritual for me as I christen each PC with my hallowed D2 CDs.
Sheesh people get so touchy when it comes to D3 / SC2. I love all of blizzard's games - i've played nearly everything they've made including WoW for a long time. (boooo, i know, it's fun for what its worth). This is a message board about games so i'm not sure why some people are saying the OP should be banned. Pretty stupid imo.
Graphics of SC2? Well supreme commander comes to mind as a game that has better graphics, scale, and the zoom / combat map of that game is something I find hard to play without in other RTS now. With that said; c'mon, this is starcraft 2 we're talking about here! Is anyone seriously doubting this game? Regardless of graphics you're going to love every bit of it when you hit midway through the first campaign and i dare you to say otherwise!
Graphics of SC2? Well supreme commander comes to mind as a game that has better graphics, scale, and the zoom / combat map of that game is something I find hard to play without in other RTS now. With that said; c'mon, this is starcraft 2 we're talking about here! Is anyone seriously doubting this game? Regardless of graphics you're going to love every bit of it when you hit midway through the first campaign and i dare you to say otherwise!
Let me make a point here. Do you see millions of people playing Crysis? No. Because statistically those millions of people will look at the system requirements at Walmart and say, "I don't think my E-Machine can play that." Now you look at WoW. It's more lenient on the requirements. There is not a whole lot to the game graphically.
It will appeal to a greater audience. Those without SLI GTX280's. Those with 128MB onboard with DX9.1 support (or higher) will be appealed to it. We have the understanding enough to get a PC that can play games like Crysis. Those who don't end up looking at the requirements and don't think they have it. So they don't buy it. If D3 has low enough requirements, it won't turn down so many people.
We are [H]ard, the world is not.
It will appeal to a greater audience. Those without SLI GTX280's. Those with 128MB onboard with DX9.1 support (or higher) will be appealed to it. We have the understanding enough to get a PC that can play games like Crysis. Those who don't end up looking at the requirements and don't think they have it. So they don't buy it. If D3 has low enough requirements, it won't turn down so many people.
We are [H]ard, the world is not.
Archaea
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 11,837
The people I know that have e-machines don't even know what a graphics card is and wouldn't think to look at the graphics requirements of a game before buying it. They don't understand that 'tech talk' --- that's one reason they bought an e-machine in the first place. That's why Microsoft developed the Windows Vista Experience Index. People understand that on a 1.0 - 5.9 scale if their computer ranks a 2.3 and they want a game that requires a 5.2 -- it ain't gonna work!I'm looking at my retail boxed copy of Crysis right now -- They didn't even put the system requirements on the outside of the box (unless it was on the shrink wrap which I threw away)