Screenshots of Diablo III in 2005

[sluggs]

Diablo III has been in development for a while and could have actually been released much earlier then 2011/2012.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...avenly-in-2005

Those are some screen shots from Diablo III in 2005 and was actually scrapped and redone afterwords.

Would you have prefered This Diablo III about five years ago or wait for the diablo III coming out in about a year or so?

[Gecko]

They could have released that version back in 2005 and we could be eagerly awaiting Diablo IV for this year... Blizzards quest for perfection is not always a good thing for the gamers.

[Herecius]

I much prefer the fresher style, rather than the deja vu of the older style.

[Plowed]

The 2011-12 looks tons better. I am glad they scrapped that old one it looks worse than D2

[Zorgen]

The shots from 2005 look like absolute shit compared to the 2011 ones. I have no problem waiting a year for a polished version of Diablo III.

[Kebab]

2005 looks like diablo 2, but probably in bigger resolution. I prefer Diablo 3

[THoyt]

How can you even compare that? 2005 looks like diablo 2, but probably in a bigger resolution.. Anyone who votes for 2005 is a troll

Cause graphics make a game, amirite?

I could care less which one they would have released, 05 or now... I'm still enjoying D1 and D2.

[Goldpaw]

The new graphics looks better, and this 2005 version looks like Diablo II in higher resolution, as pointed out by everybody else here.

And indeed, it isn't graphics that make the gameplay. It does count though. I actually loved the graphics in D2, even though they were pretty bad even back then. But the gameplay is always the winner. That is why we stick with WoW, isn't it?

And I doubt very much that graphics is the reason Blizzard has delayed Diablo III this much. They have a high standard of gameplay to live up to, and I'll rather wait 2 more years than get a half arsed game now. I love Diablo II, and I'm willing to wait for Diablo III until Blizzard says it's ready. I think they've proven they know what they're doing.

---------- Post added 2011-02-16 at 10:50 PM ----------

I'm still enjoying D1 and D2.

I too still play D2 from time to time. Not like I did in 2001, but still...

[Simca]

The new graphics looks better, and this 2005 version looks like Diablo II in higher resolution, as pointed out by everybody else here.

And indeed, it isn't graphics that make the gameplay. It does count though. I actually loved the graphics in D2, even though they were pretty bad even back then. But the gameplay is always the winner. That is why we stick with WoW, isn't it?

And I doubt very much that graphics is the reason Blizzard has delayed Diablo III this much. They have a high standard of gameplay to live up to, and I'll rather wait 2 more years than get a half arsed game now. I love Diablo II, and I'm willing to wait for Diablo III until Blizzard says it's ready. I think they've proven they know what they're doing.

Having been to and watched all of the lore panels at the last three BlizzCons, I can say that the abilities they are showing off in their talent trees look absolutely AMAZING.

When it releases, it will be worth every second.

Check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RFsEWrbZCE

The camera guy filming it was swinging the camera around like crazy, but it is still worth watching that amazing 40 minute panel.

[MunchiZe]

Blizzards quest for perfection is not always a good thing for the gamers.

Belive me, it is.

Or would you rather get a hasty made shit game a la every single EA-released game out there, and experience bugs/glitches/inbalance that needs multiple patches to fix?

[Simca]

Belive me, it is.

Or would you rather get a hasty made shit game a la every single EA-released game out there, and experience bugs/glitches/inbalance that needs multiple patches to fix?

I agree.

Warcraft 3, Starcraft 2, and Diablo 2 all lasted for years and years and years because they were freaking amazing.

If you want to still be having fun playing D3 five years from now, this is a good thing.