I like the new graphics, they are a step in the right direction. Diablo II was boring visually. Basically "Oh another room, it looks like the last 16000 I have been in". Diablo II lacked any variation at all and overall bored the hell out of you visually. Really no one played D2 for the visuals, they played for the fighting and engine. I mean online what do you hear, "How cool worldstone keep looks?" no, you hear "How fast can you teleport through that hell hole to the throne room?". Basically no one gives a dam about the graphics in D2.
D3's promises to be a great improvement. It still will not matter and will probably be ignored but as a player you yourself can say "How great the environment looks" and "How cool that statue looks" and "How great the random destroyables are". The rooms would be worth seing and not be exactly identical to other rooms you saw 10 rooms ago.
Basically this whole graphic's not being retarded enough is hype. Sprite games were easy to make look boring and dark with crap lighting and the same rooms, while full 3D games do not need to look bad. Yes, their textures do not look like they came from TES oblivion but that what will make it unique. The "crayoned" textures are probably more detailed than a whole area in D2 and will not date half as badly as D2 did in 7 years time.
The entire brightened idea is great, it enables you to see properly. Also I can assure you that D3 will preform better than D2 in direct X mode on new nvidia cards. Really the people who are saying it is bad are eithor RPG fanboys who never played online or people who think it is cool to hate.
Also WTF is the point of adding noise? This is 3D, noise is redundant unless its part of an ability or aura.
Realistic lighting is like 10000+ times more demanding than the crappy lighting D2 used. So unless you plan to buy 2000$ worth of PC or to have the same crappy lighting, do not expect them to add it.
![Dreadnought[dA]](/data/avatars/m/134/134647.jpg?1465504677){kind=avatar}
