Diablo 3 - It's here! (Unboxing pics)

[Pob255]

Only gripe is with the FOV. On 1920x1200, the FOV hor- compared to 1920x1080, rather than the vert+ that I was hoping for. This makes things a little cramped, though ticking the letterbox option gives you the full FOV with black bars.

Sorry that's not a gripe, that's something the should NOT exist on a pc game only on Console ports and older prewidescreen non-3d games.

There should be a 1920x1200 resolution option that uses the full screen on any current pc game, leaving it out is a total insult.

Shows how much of this was aimed at consoles

[jonathan_phang]

Sorry that's not a gripe, that's something the should NOT exist on a pc game only on Console ports and older prewidescreen non-3d games.

There should be a 1920x1200 resolution option that uses the full screen on any current pc game, leaving it out is a total insult.

Shows how much of this was aimed at consoles

Pob, there is and option to use all of the screen in 1920x1200, however, when you do, the FOV that you have is less than 1920x1080. I thnk that everything looks better to scale with the wider aspect, so have been toying with the letterbox option. To be fair, its not just them, there have been issues with hor and vert +/- for as long as widescreen monitors have existed. I still pop onto widescreengamingforum.com to check out their reviews for games as they rate how complete the games are in terms of FOV options etc for all the common resolutions.

If you go to their Diablo review then look at the 'In game shots' and you can see what I mean. Its not a major issue, just that I see this as the priority in terms of widescreen FOV 4:3, 16:9, 16:10 but not all games agree

On the plus side using full screen 16:10 means you get to see moar blood!!!

Right time to play a bit more before the wife gets home!

[Pob255]

ahh you're talking about a different issue here, that of scaling.

If you're going from 1920x1080 to 1920x1200 the scale of the image should not change, your vertical FOV should increase by 120 pixels.
So you should see just as much to left and right but more above and below.

If those screen shots are correct then what they are doing is scaling the image up and chopping off the ends, which is even worse, it would be better to stick black bars across the top and bottom.

This is the sort of that that should be beaten out of all UI designers with cricket bats.

We, thwack, buy, thwack, higher, thwack, resolution, thwack, monitors, thwack, so, thwack, we, thwack, can, thwack, have, thwack, more, thwack, stuff, thwack, on, thwack, the, thwack, screen, thwack, NOT, thwack, so, thwack, you, thwack, can, thwack, scale, thwack, your, thwack, , thwack, UI, thwack, up!
And then they should be put of the rack to give them an understanding of the difference between larger and stretched.

[kalniel]

ahh you're talking about a different issue here, that of scaling.

If you're going from 1920x1080 to 1920x1200 the scale of the image should not change, your vertical FOV should increase by 120 pixels.
So you should see just as much to left and right but more above and below.

That's an arbitrary choice though. Follow that through to it's logical conclusion and you end up saying the higher the resolution the more you should display, which obviously gives quite a performance differential across peoples affordability. Instead, they've gone with scaling so that increased resolution doesn't increase view distance, which then means they have to gain or loose a little vert or horizontal between different aspect ratios. Given the acceptability of horizontal black bars and the unacceptability of vertical ones, they've kept the vertical FOV the same and allowed expansion along the horizontal, which you can negate if you don't mind black bars.

So yes, they could have done it another way, but ultimately it's the most logical/fair choice.

If those screen shots are correct then what they are doing is scaling the image up and chopping off the ends, which is even worse, it would be better to stick black bars across the top and bottom.

You can - it's in the options menu.

[kalniel]

Whilst I don't delight in the suffering of others.. this is pretty funny:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...o/#more-112014

[pwnerman]

the pictures from the original post... packaging still impresses me tbh

[PartyPoison]

the pictures from the original post... packaging still impresses me tbh

True. It is one of the better looking box arts of late.

[MSIC]

And yet after 247 posts, not one 'Thanks' for the pics.... :/
(I'm messin' with ya, s'ok really)

[Pob255]

I just spotted this and thought I should share it.

[Bagnaj97]

Has anyone else had a look at the Real Money Auction House yet? So far I've sold 2 items for a grand total of £8.50

High end gear is listed for £30+ though. I wonder how many people will actually pay that?

[kalniel]

Has anyone else had a look at the Real Money Auction House yet? So far I've sold 2 items for a grand total of £8.50

So you're a third of the way through paying for the game already? Nice

[roachcoach]

I am not impressed by this patch. Not one little bit.

[Bagnaj97]

I am not impressed by this patch. Not one little bit.

For what reasons? I've not had a chance to play since the patch but from looking at the patch notes it seems quite promising.

[roachcoach]

For what reasons? I've not had a chance to play since the patch but from looking at the patch notes it seems quite promising.

I'll copy paste/edit my rant from the other boards


The 50% IAS nerf broke my old build (WD, splinter machine gun), however I knew this was coming so I began deprecating IAS gear when I heard about the datamined nerf.

I've actually netted a DPS increase since then (I had some seriously ghetto kit) but the lack of mobility is killer, the WD casting animations are farcical. More specifically, being rooted whilst shooting, with the speed of mobs in inferno despite having higher "DPS" I do less real world damage because I cannot apply my damage as effectively, I cannot afford to fire as often. It's bad enough I'm thinking about testing if flaming dart locks me for less time, albeit offering less damage (on paper).

As I switched gear around I tried various builds which would offer me stable act 1/2 farming and eventually I took to VQ/ZB as a stable, farming build. It worked well...until 1.03 knackered the bears.

Yes, 1.03 broke zombie bears into uselessness, blizzard response? "Oops, we'll fix it in 1.04".


So, then, you break my splinters IAS build and at the same time, gut its replacement and postpone correcting that screw up.

We are not amused by this.

I'll maybe try dire bats as a ghetto replacement for bears, but I'm pretty annoyed right now. Especially since they've jacked repair costs up so experimentation is going to hurt a lot.

[roachcoach]

Oh, and people reporting repair costs of ~100g....for simply smashing a vase....which have been nerfed into the dirt so are now worthless.

Forums also reporting Cyndea and Ghom are ludicrous now too.

I'm not looking forward to this at all, they've really screwed the pooch with this one


Caveat: I really hope its exaggeration, but there's one hell of a lot of corroboration happening

[Blett]

I got the game a few days ago, enjoying it so far, apart from the fact that myself and many others have a bug where we cant advance because we apparently have trial copies of the game. -.-
Thats £45 rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbished up the wall until blizzard pull their fingers out!