Our Xbox One videos of Diablo III

This message and account have been deleted at the user's request

Commented on 2014-09-02 09:58:43

Well thats that then, good thing PS4 has best of two worlds then.
Fantastic and addicting game though...with a controller lol (to me anyways).

In reply to

Masakari

Commented on 2014-09-02 10:53:05

lol why make it a catch 22 for them? 1080p wasn't important for them, the market said otherwise, so now they care. I don't see that as a bad thing, they changed their minds to something people actually want, no harm in that.

In reply to

scoobs0688

Commented on 2014-09-02 11:03:53 In reply to Masakari

Posted by Masakari

lol why make it a catch 22 for them? 1080p wasn't important for them, the market said otherwise, so now they care. I don't see that as a bad thing, they changed their minds to something people actually want, no harm in that.

Well there's harm in that its not always 60fps like they wanted

In reply to

Masakari

Commented on 2014-09-02 11:51:13 In reply to scoobs0688

Posted by scoobs0688

Well there's harm in that its not always 60fps like they wanted

Sure, but honestly, I doubt 50-60 is noticeable. If it was like some games where it dips to 30-40, sure, that's problematic, here it's not that important.

In reply to

Sath

Commented on 2014-09-02 15:17:07

Its almost noticeable, especially when you have like 50 or so enemies on screen coming and going with all its visual effects like D3 going off like fireworks then its noticeable.

In reply to

Sdarts

Commented on 2014-09-02 18:09:38

I didn't know Microsoft "forced" Blizzard to make Diablo 3 hit 1080p on Xbox One. I can see both sides in which it means Microsoft did it because they realised (finally admitted) that resolution actually matters, to which degree depends on tastes, just like how Forza Horizon 2 is 1080p.

But also the fact that this is probably the best option for most Xbox One's owners who decide to play Diablo 3. Plus 50-60fps isn't the same as 30-60fps or choosing between being 30fps or 60fps.

I play almost entirely on PC and have played games in all kinds of resolutions throughout the years, but for me, going below 1080p is almost unacceptable because when playing a game at 900p or 720p resolution, it looks like a really bad, really blurry Anti Aliasing is in place and the clarity, detail and sharpness I get at 1080p is too much of a deal for me, even if framerate suffers.

For some reason, framerate doesn't affect me, as in having headaches and uneasiness. Only experienced headache because of it 2 times in my entire life, both because of a character's ability in Warframe - which has long been fixed, it used to drop framerate from 60fps to 10-20fps and the ability could be stacked, so with multiple activations it would drop to 3-10fps and once I was playing for over 80 minutes at such a framerate, hence the headache.

So I'm biased on the resolution vs framerate debate, to me resolution (and visual quality) will almost always win if one has to be prioritised over the other. Still, Diablo 3 is a great game and plays almost flawlessly on PC, PS4 and XBO. And it's great to see MS is taking resolution into account enough to ask/demand developers hit a certain level.

Just saying the obvious, but PS4 will always have the best consoles' version of any third-party game as long as the developers actually use it and don't go for parity, the hardware is just more technically capable. Just like PC is more technically capable than PS4, and a high-end PC is more technically capable than a mid-range PC.

All I want is for developers to put more efforts in each version of a game so it uses the best each platform can offer, and by doing so, they will be respecting all the customers in all platforms.

In reply to

I didn't know Microsoft "forced" Blizzard to make Diablo 3 hit 1080p on Xbox One. I can see both sides in which it means Microsoft did it because they realised (finally admitted) that resolution actually matters, to which degree depends on tastes, just like how Forza Horizon 2 is 1080p.

But also the fact that this is probably the best option for most Xbox One's owners who decide to play Diablo 3. Plus 50-60fps isn't the same as 30-60fps or choosing between being 30fps or 60fps.

I play almost entirely on PC and have played games in all kinds of resolutions throughout the years, but for me, going below 1080p is almost unacceptable because when playing a game at 900p or 720p resolution, it looks like a really bad, really blurry Anti Aliasing is in place and the clarity, detail and sharpness I get at 1080p is too much of a deal for me, even if framerate suffers.

For some reason, framerate doesn't affect me, as in having headaches and uneasiness. Only experienced headache because of it 2 times in my entire life, both because of a character's ability in Warframe - which has long been fixed, it used to drop framerate from 60fps to 10-20fps and the ability could be stacked, so with multiple activations it would drop to 3-10fps and once I was playing for over 80 minutes at such a framerate, hence the headache.

So I'm biased on the resolution vs framerate debate, to me resolution (and visual quality) will almost always win if one has to be prioritised over the other. Still, Diablo 3 is a great game and plays almost flawlessly on PC, PS4 and XBO. And it's great to see MS is taking resolution into account enough to ask/demand developers hit a certain level.

Just saying the obvious, but PS4 will always have the best consoles' version of any third-party game as long as the developers actually use it and don't go for parity, the hardware is just more technically capable. Just like PC is more technically capable than PS4, and a high-end PC is more technically capable than a mid-range PC.

All I want is for developers to put more efforts in each version of a game so it uses the best each platform can offer, and by doing so, they will be respecting all the customers in all platforms.

bleachedsmiles

Commented on 2014-09-03 01:30:47

The difference between 900p and 1080p doesnt matter to the game, it's barely noticeable...especially when sat 3/6/8 foot away like most of us will be when we play games. It matters to the internet and the publicity that follows it. If they can reach 1080p it's worth pushing for it as it's another positive marketing box ticked. Is it worth occasionally dropping 10 frames? yes. Would it be worth offering it at 30fps rather than 60fps? no. You can't put a positive spin on such a framerate difference. But because it's in our sub-concious that 1080p equals a far better looking game than it in 900p we fool ourselves into believing there's a noticable difference there...when there isnt. The only people that will notice differences are the anal that scrutinise screen shots, and those that trick themselves into believing they're playing a superior version on their pc whilst playing it as a slide-show.

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2014-09-03 01:59:36 In reply to bleachedsmiles

Posted by bleachedsmiles

The only people that will notice differences are the anal that scrutinise screen shots, and those that trick themselves into believing they're playing a superior version on their pc whilst playing it as a slide-show.

Slide-show? Are they playing D3 on a 386 or something? This isn't a very demanding game.

As for this debate: Blizzard and Microsoft disagreed on what to prioritize here. I agree with Blizzard, in this case, but I'd usually opt for framerate. I don't think you really need special eyes to see the difference, anyway.

In reply to

scoobs0688

Commented on 2014-09-03 04:43:37

General public, meaning not hardcore gamers, don't even own these consoles yet, so the only people buying this game will be fairly avid gamers. So to that extent.. I agree with MSFT on asking for 1080p at the sacrifice of a few frames. It matters to most of us.

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2014-09-03 05:48:19 In reply to scoobs0688

Posted by scoobs0688

General public, meaning not hardcore gamers, don't even own these consoles yet, so the only people buying this game will be fairly avid gamers. So to that extent.. I agree with MSFT on asking for 1080p at the sacrifice of a few frames. It matters to most of us.

I think I can see it being less important in an isometric game, but it's just a thought. Poor image quality really hits you hardest when you're looking into the distance. A lot of games use post process AA (FXAA) too, and that just makes stuff even blurrier :D

In reply to

bleachedsmiles

Commented on 2014-09-03 06:54:45 In reply to GriftGFX

clearly i was referring to the comment above me and priorities when it comes to visuals over framerate

In reply to

gameover

Commented on 2014-09-04 08:15:02 In reply to bleachedsmiles

Posted by bleachedsmiles

The difference between 900p and 1080p doesnt matter to the game, it's barely noticeable...especially when sat 3/6/8 foot away like most of us will be when we play games. It matters to the internet and the publicity that follows it. If they can reach 1080p it's worth pushing for it as it's another positive marketing box ticked. Is it worth occasionally dropping 10 frames? yes. Would it be worth offering it at 30fps rather than 60fps? no. You can't put a positive spin on such a framerate difference. But because it's in our sub-concious that 1080p equals a far better looking game than it in 900p we fool ourselves into believing there's a noticable difference there...when there isnt. The only people that will notice differences are the anal that scrutinise screen shots, and those that trick themselves into believing they're playing a superior version on their pc whilst playing it as a slide-show.

Eurogamer started this and got lots of hits since last gen. So it does matter by the looks of it. IMHO 1080P should be standard now as it is default TV these days and for 7 or so years of console life cycle. Surely 720P won't cut it as by then even 4K TV will be more popular. Most people will go for gfx than fps which is the way to go. Online shooter, fighting and racing sim and may be sport games can be only exception

In reply to

[quote=bleachedsmiles]The difference between 900p and 1080p doesnt matter to the game, it's barely noticeable...especially when sat 3/6/8 foot away like most of us will be when we play games. It matters to the internet and the publicity that follows it. If they can reach 1080p it's worth pushing for it as it's another positive marketing box ticked. Is it worth occasionally dropping 10 frames? yes. Would it be worth offering it at 30fps rather than 60fps? no. You can't put a positive spin on such a framerate difference. But because it's in our sub-concious that 1080p equals a far better looking game than it in 900p we fool ourselves into believing there's a noticable difference there...when there isnt. The only people that will notice differences are the anal that scrutinise screen shots, and those that trick themselves into believing they're playing a superior version on their pc whilst playing it as a slide-show.[/quote]

Eurogamer started this and got lots of hits since last gen. So it does matter by the looks of it. IMHO 1080P should be standard now as it is default TV these days and for 7 or so years of console life cycle. Surely 720P won't cut it as by then even 4K TV will be more popular. Most people will go for gfx than fps which is the way to go. Online shooter, fighting and racing sim and may be sport games can be only exception