No. I haven't seen any 3D games that looks/feels/plays better than 2D games yet.
Yes, I've noticed that too. It seems 2D games are more memorable and fun to play.
StarCraft II has gone to 3D, and I'm glad that Blizzard kept the fundamentals of StarCraft I in the game (units and tactics and such) and I think we have to pay attention to that. It's good news.
Blizzard is interested in keeping the memorable parts of the game solid, while attempting to bring it to a 3D world. Will it make it better? Probably. Will Blizzard keep the fundamentals of Diablo II in Diablo III with improved graphics? Probably. (IMO)
I want NO light radius. I want demons emerging from out of the dark shadows. Wouldn't it be sweet to have Diablo only 5 feet in front of you before you saw him?
No doubt in my mind that Blizzard will make us happy, but....
Didn't Diablo II come out after StarCraft? If so, it was in 2D - but they are going to have to step up the graphics sooner or later, you can't have a game in 2D forever.
Well, it's good to have another Diablo fan on the forums and your thoughts are very good!
I wouldn't mind having Diablo III in 3D, but the main thing it needs is strong and fun gameplay. I also wouldn't mind seeing a little more strategy and problem solving introduced. And when you say graphics similar to FEAR and Doom 3, I'm assuming you want the environment to be very eerie and creepy, as well as well detailed and crisp.
I can't remember who it was, but someone posted a 3D animated model of Duriel and it looked sweet as hell... I wouldn't mind playing Diablo III if it looked like that
They can continue with the Diablo franchise, but the remainder of the team has been moved to the Irvine headquarters so they can be more closely moderated. The original team was further north of Irvine, therefore having the division called Blizzard North.
That's also why they are hiring new "Lead" jobs for the team behind Diablo I and II because it's difficult to make a new game without solid execution and supervision.
The leaders of Blizzard North have gone on to form their own companies and make new games, such as Guild Wars and Hellgate: London.
People need to realize that Diablo isn't Warcraft (omg). Diablo is Diablo, and the only way it can remain Diablo, is to be Diablo. Know what I'm sayin'?
However...
Many of the lead designers and such are gone, so newer concepts and ideas from Warcraft might be used, but they probably won't be very large.
Yes, I've noticed that too. It seems 2D games are more memorable and fun to play.
StarCraft II has gone to 3D, and I'm glad that Blizzard kept the fundamentals of StarCraft I in the game (units and tactics and such) and I think we have to pay attention to that. It's good news.
Blizzard is interested in keeping the memorable parts of the game solid, while attempting to bring it to a 3D world. Will it make it better? Probably. Will Blizzard keep the fundamentals of Diablo II in Diablo III with improved graphics? Probably. (IMO)
Didn't Diablo II come out after StarCraft? If so, it was in 2D - but they are going to have to step up the graphics sooner or later, you can't have a game in 2D forever.
I wouldn't mind having Diablo III in 3D, but the main thing it needs is strong and fun gameplay. I also wouldn't mind seeing a little more strategy and problem solving introduced. And when you say graphics similar to FEAR and Doom 3, I'm assuming you want the environment to be very eerie and creepy, as well as well detailed and crisp.
That's also why they are hiring new "Lead" jobs for the team behind Diablo I and II because it's difficult to make a new game without solid execution and supervision.
The leaders of Blizzard North have gone on to form their own companies and make new games, such as Guild Wars and Hellgate: London.
However...
Many of the lead designers and such are gone, so newer concepts and ideas from Warcraft might be used, but they probably won't be very large.
Amazon - Demons - Barbarian