Diablo 2 in high resolution - 'ing finally! Page 3

  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

  • uiruki 9 Jun 2009 13:09:25 3,663 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    So it means that when you inevitably give up and buy LoD you'll have an excelletn expansion to play as well as the higher resolutions to enjoy :)
  • George-Roper 9 Jun 2009 13:27:23 704 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Bah, don't think I'll bother, given D3 is just around the corner. Sad, mind.
  • El_MUERkO 9 Jun 2009 13:29:49 16,956 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    i'm getting some graphical distortion and artifacts using D3D at 1920*1080, however it's playable, hopefully future versions will resolve it as the game looks lovely at high resolution :D
  • UncleLou Moderator 9 Jun 2009 13:30:43 35,433 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if D3 isn't out before 2011.
  • George-Roper 9 Jun 2009 13:39:01 704 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Oh that's it, just rub it in, Lou!
  • George-Roper 9 Jun 2009 14:08:36 704 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Fuckin' huge!
  • Feanor 9 Jun 2009 17:41:01 14,066 posts
    Seen 57 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    /waits for D3
  • Obiwanshinobi 10 Jun 2009 01:14:32 866 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    UncleLou wrote:
    Back to Diablo 2:

    In the middle of Act 2 now, and boy, the latest patch(es) have made this game a lot harder. I love how the skills now have synergy effects.

    It's when you play Diablo 2 again that you realise how superbly balanced and well thought out it all is. Where other games in this genre mostly throw just a bunch of monsters at you, Diablo requires you to make the best use of your skills to survive.

    Still a 10/10 after all these years.
    Just Like You Remember

    silentbob wrote:
    Are you seriously suggesting to me that you feel Diablo II has aged better than D3 will? It looks awful, this thread exists because of that fact (a way to bring it to a minimum level of accepted visual fidlity). Clunky animation, poor color depth and range limited fluidity in spellcasting. Not to mention the fact that there is zero dynamics lighting.
    Compromises were always there. Diablo II was never among the best looking 2D games. That said, it aged relatively well thanks to the 2D. Although I don't KNOW how Diablo III will age, I'm GUESSING it will be another Darkstone at the worst or something bearable yet obviously dated at the best. Playing Diablo II (provided it's not visually mutilated by the way low resolutions look on LCDs), however, I don't need rose-tinted spectacles at all.

    silentbob wrote:
    With vector based rendering you get enormous benefits from animation fluidity to full dynamic lighting to line anti-aliasing to unlimited scaling to unlimited scale of special effects. That's without touching upon texture and reality enhancing shader effects such as parrallax mapping and per pixel bump mapping which give the world textures and lit surfaces.
    Hear, hear. To tell you the truth, I'm not quite fond of 3D graphics trying to emulate live-action films, let alone reality. I don't swing that way. 3D tends to develop in the least inspiring direction, if you ask me.

    silentbob wrote:
    We're now at the point that you can't tell you're looking at polygons. There are so few benefits (in fact, I can think of none that are relevant today) in rendering a game with bitmaps other than some bizarre adherence to an inferred design ethic which was almost certainly only there becuase of technical limitations.
    I don't mind looking at polygons as such, especially when they are not ashamed of being just polygons. Aforementioned Homeworld and Rez are proudly polygonal and that's fine with me.
    Moreover, speaking of benefits and limitations, in my opinion Odin Sphere on a CRT via proper cable visually fucking owns just about everything I saw this gen. Technical limitations seem to be alive and kicking.

    silentbob wrote:
    Do put it another way, do you really believe Blizzard would have made the game with bitmaps unless they had to? And further, do you really believe you'd have enjoyed it any less because of it? I don't think so somehow.
    What's good for Blizzard won't necessarily make the game prettier from my point of view. The only undisputed aesthetical advantage 3D has over 2D in this case is the possibility of depicting enormous variety of equipment directly on a character model. I do believe polygonal Diablo III is overall easier to work on for Blizzard, yet I still generally prefer 2D to 3D. I'm neither surprised, nor disgusted it's polygonal. I just don't like the fact another venerable franchise turns 3D without really good REASON. Resolution, animation, lighting, bump-mapping, texturing, inventory etc. are just EXCUSES. Diablo III COULD be in 2D (in the sense I&II are), in high resolutions and totally own (in almost every goddamned aspect) not only its predecessors, but also all of its clones at the same time. Sadly, Blizzard doesn't have what it takes to develop such a flashy game. If developers of Blizzard's calibre are afraid of reinventing 2D in high resolution, then we're dealing with - perhaps irreversible - extinction of the most gorgeous form of gaming. That's my point, roughly.

    UncleLou wrote:
    silentbob wrote:
    Dude, you yourself said you couldn't bear it at lower resolutions. It took this mod to make it acceptable today.

    Not the least because TFTs are simply crap at displaying lower resolutions. On a CRT, the game doesn't look "awful" in my book even without the highres hack
    This is it. Low resolution itself isn't that bad. Modern displays are to blame for the barrier of awfulness. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, as pixellated as it is, on a TV CRT rocks through and through (okay, Richter's sprite straight from Castlevania: Dracula X Rondo of Blood isn't very well animated, but I take it for a tribute to that game).
  • Dirtbox 10 Jun 2009 01:22:51 77,480 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I get a really annoying problem with this, the game isn't finding any supported video modes, so I can't use the replacement exe. I can run the game normally just fine in a window, but it's butthurt.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • absolutezero 17 Jun 2009 22:42:02 7,956 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    :/ The filefront link has changed and I can't find the high res stuff to d-load.

    Just when I get the blasted thing from Blizzard through the downloader. Anyone know a different source?
  • UncleLou Moderator 17 Jun 2009 22:47:05 35,433 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Read my original post. Follow my advice.

    Working link at the bottom of the page I linked to.

    Dude. :)
  • absolutezero 17 Jun 2009 22:50:17 7,956 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    woo.
  • silentbob 17 Jun 2009 23:46:07 28,950 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Obiwanshinobi wrote:
    UncleLou wrote:
    Back to Diablo 2:

    In the middle of Act 2 now, and boy, the latest patch(es) have made this game a lot harder. I love how the skills now have synergy effects.

    It's when you play Diablo 2 again that you realise how superbly balanced and well thought out it all is. Where other games in this genre mostly throw just a bunch of monsters at you, Diablo requires you to make the best use of your skills to survive.

    Still a 10/10 after all these years.
    Just Like You Remember

    silentbob wrote:
    Are you seriously suggesting to me that you feel Diablo II has aged better than D3 will? It looks awful, this thread exists because of that fact (a way to bring it to a minimum level of accepted visual fidlity). Clunky animation, poor color depth and range limited fluidity in spellcasting. Not to mention the fact that there is zero dynamics lighting.
    Compromises were always there. Diablo II was never among the best looking 2D games. That said, it aged relatively well thanks to the 2D. Although I don't KNOW how Diablo III will age, I'm GUESSING it will be another Darkstone at the worst or something bearable yet obviously dated at the best. Playing Diablo II (provided it's not visually mutilated by the way low resolutions look on LCDs), however, I don't need rose-tinted spectacles at all.

    silentbob wrote:
    With vector based rendering you get enormous benefits from animation fluidity to full dynamic lighting to line anti-aliasing to unlimited scaling to unlimited scale of special effects. That's without touching upon texture and reality enhancing shader effects such as parrallax mapping and per pixel bump mapping which give the world textures and lit surfaces.
    Hear, hear. To tell you the truth, I'm not quite fond of 3D graphics trying to emulate live-action films, let alone reality. I don't swing that way. 3D tends to develop in the least inspiring direction, if you ask me.

    silentbob wrote:
    We're now at the point that you can't tell you're looking at polygons. There are so few benefits (in fact, I can think of none that are relevant today) in rendering a game with bitmaps other than some bizarre adherence to an inferred design ethic which was almost certainly only there becuase of technical limitations.
    I don't mind looking at polygons as such, especially when they are not ashamed of being just polygons. Aforementioned Homeworld and Rez are proudly polygonal and that's fine with me.
    Moreover, speaking of benefits and limitations, in my opinion Odin Sphere on a CRT via proper cable visually fucking owns just about everything I saw this gen. Technical limitations seem to be alive and kicking.

    silentbob wrote:
    Do put it another way, do you really believe Blizzard would have made the game with bitmaps unless they had to? And further, do you really believe you'd have enjoyed it any less because of it? I don't think so somehow.
    What's good for Blizzard won't necessarily make the game prettier from my point of view. The only undisputed aesthetical advantage 3D has over 2D in this case is the possibility of depicting enormous variety of equipment directly on a character model. I do believe polygonal Diablo III is overall easier to work on for Blizzard, yet I still generally prefer 2D to 3D. I'm neither surprised, nor disgusted it's polygonal. I just don't like the fact another venerable franchise turns 3D without really good REASON. Resolution, animation, lighting, bump-mapping, texturing, inventory etc. are just EXCUSES. Diablo III COULD be in 2D (in the sense I&II are), in high resolutions and totally own (in almost every goddamned aspect) not only its predecessors, but also all of its clones at the same time. Sadly, Blizzard doesn't have what it takes to develop such a flashy game. If developers of Blizzard's calibre are afraid of reinventing 2D in high resolution, then we're dealing with - perhaps irreversible - extinction of the most gorgeous form of gaming. That's my point, roughly.

    UncleLou wrote:
    silentbob wrote:
    Dude, you yourself said you couldn't bear it at lower resolutions. It took this mod to make it acceptable today.

    Not the least because TFTs are simply crap at displaying lower resolutions. On a CRT, the game doesn't look "awful" in my book even without the highres hack
    This is it. Low resolution itself isn't that bad. Modern displays are to blame for the barrier of awfulness. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, as pixellated as it is, on a TV CRT rocks through and through (okay, Richter's sprite straight from Castlevania: Dracula X Rondo of Blood isn't very well animated, but I take it for a tribute to that game).
    Holy fucking shit. You are an absolute nutter! :D

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • Xerx3s 18 Jun 2009 00:50:19 23,944 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    El_MUERkO wrote:
    i'm getting some graphical distortion and artifacts using D3D at 1920*1080, however it's playable, hopefully future versions will resolve it as the game looks lovely at high resolution :D

    It's caused by the 3d mode. Turn it off and the game will run silk smooth on max res.
  • johnlenham 20 Jul 2009 15:12:22 4,000 posts
    Seen 9 months ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    How bad is the slowdown on XP?
    Ive just got this and the xpack for 2.50 and remembered this thread.
  • OnlyMe 23 Aug 2009 13:22:36 3,104 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I installed and patched up this today, and then I installed the multires patch. The patch notes tells me to play the game in DDraw mode, but for some reason, my mouse just disappears and the game doesn't load at all, when I double click it. Now, I don't think the multires patch has anything to do with it, since it does the same without it. So I'm forced to load the game in Direct3D, and since that isn't supported at all by the multires patch, I'm still stuck in the past.

    Anyone had any ddraw issues with this game?
  • UncleLou Moderator 23 Aug 2009 13:29:34 35,433 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I had problems with DDraw as well - the high-res patch works fine for me with D3D though, despite what the readme says.
  • OnlyMe 23 Aug 2009 19:44:38 3,104 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Really? Unfortunately it doesn't work here, I don't get any resolution options in the game at all like the readme says I should.

    I only have the original DVD-box version on 3 CDs, are the new ones different? I also don't have the expansion pack.
  • silentbob 23 Aug 2009 20:04:58 28,950 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Heh! Forgot about that 2D vs 3D discussion.

    Watched the new Monk 'reveal' trailers or DIII. It is an order of magnitude more beautiful than any other 2D game there ever was, and it is entirely because working in a fully lit, 3D world allows Blizzard's exceptional artists teh freedom to really reach for the sky creatively and technically. It's a sight to behold and a level of quality that would be entirely unachievable in the 2D realm.

    I still chuckle when I hear bitmap limitations blamed almost soley on poor display scalers. Rose tinted corneas to the max!! :)

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • Obiwanshinobi 23 Aug 2009 21:40:13 866 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I played through the almost entire Diablo II+ LoD on an LCD and I don't blame LCDs for bitmap limitations. I blame LCDs for lo-res graphics looking awful on LCDs, whether it's polygonal graphics or bitmaps.
    Now I use a CRT monitor and CRT SDTV, hence I can enjoy my 2D games without any compromises.
  • silentbob 23 Aug 2009 22:24:34 28,950 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I'd roll all the way back to a green screen monitor if I were you. Colour CRT's can suffer hella bad colcour bleed not to mention dreadful geometry issues. Best be safe.

    ;)

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • warlockuk 23 Aug 2009 22:51:49 19,134 posts
    Seen 5 days ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    So there's STILL no way to play at, say, 1280x1024 on Battlenet...?

    Lame.

    I'm a grumpy bastard.

  • Hunam 23 Aug 2009 23:31:48 20,674 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Extra res gives you a PVP advantage so they banned it.
  • THFourteen 24 Aug 2009 06:24:42 32,884 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    had a quick blast before work this mroning, man this patch makes my netbook CHUG at just 1024x600, whereas its fine at 800x600!

    only tried on d3d, is it any faster on ddraw?

    xp :(
  • siro 24 Aug 2009 08:16:20 1,826 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    This looks nice. I had 2 level characters on Battle.net back then, but never actually played it further than second act in single player, so this sounds quite good.

    Still, I'd be more into replaying BG2 or trying Torment for the first time. Also, still got a wrapped special edition of Icewind Dale somewhere. Is there a high res patch for that?

    I wish I had much more gaming time. :)
  • UncleLou Moderator 24 Aug 2009 08:25:56 35,433 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    siro wrote:
    Also, still got a wrapped special edition of Icewind Dale somewhere. Is there a high res patch for that?

    Yup!
  • Xerx3s 24 Aug 2009 09:00:54 23,944 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    silentbob wrote:
    Heh! Forgot about that 2D vs 3D discussion.

    Watched the new Monk 'reveal' trailers or DIII. It is an order of magnitude more beautiful than any other 2D game there ever was, and it is entirely because working in a fully lit, 3D world allows Blizzard's exceptional artists teh freedom to really reach for the sky creatively and technically. It's a sight to behold and a level of quality that would be entirely unachievable in the 2D realm.

    I still chuckle when I hear bitmap limitations blamed almost soley on poor display scalers. Rose tinted corneas to the max!! :)

    I disagree, both 2D and 3D have their charm and weaknesses. I don't think that there is a right choice in general as they both lend themselves to different game scenario's. Imo, these days do 3D by default a bit too much (when it adds nothing).

    That said, D3 looks stunning.
  • THFourteen 24 Aug 2009 18:13:46 32,884 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    :-D

    switched back to the first video setting, now works a treat, playing in 1024x600 glory

    this game was designed for this netbook!
  • Deleted user 24 August 2009 18:58:36
    Doesn;t work for me. Gives an Ordinal Not Found Fog.dll error.
  • Deleted user 24 August 2009 19:10:08
    Got that fixed but it just doesn't work. Says there's supposed to be a bit in the options for Resolution but...
  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

Log in or register to reply