My take on the art direction: Good. More color, the better (of course there's a limit).

Nowadays too many games don't use color. Everything needs to be flat, drab, gray and boring. Halo is one of those rare series that use color effectively.

I admit that the "fan reaction" image looks pretty cool BUT i'd get bored with that sort of look quickly. Probably.

I don't think a dark atmosphere needs dark colors. Vibrant looks can... will create contrast with other stuff, possibly making that other stuff feel stronger. Of course it can balance things out... But i belive that will not happen.

Of course the best would be to have both dark and gloomy areas AND vibrant, colorful areas.

Biggest issue i have with D3 is that it will supposedly have higher system requirements than SC2. It runs fine with low-med settings... that is, with shadows disabled (needs to be done through .ini file).  I hope i get better PC/Laptop before D3 is launched.

Note that i'm not a HC Diablo fan. Actually, i'm not probably even classified as fan when it comes to Diablo. I sort of like it but it is too hard and boring as single player game. And it is not something i'd like to play online. Over LAN maybe. Maybe D3 will make me play online.

(PS. IMO fan bases go too often bananas when something is changed. Especially if anything other than graphics are changed. and even then people tend to complain. What, you want the same game with 2 in the name? And then you complain it is too similar? Not directed at people here, just some thoughts)

I still piddle around with D2 and Torchlight. But to be honest I have lost all interest in Diablo III. It will be a better D2 with super graphics. But there are other games coming out sooner and even if it does show up earlier than expected I will probably be immersed in something else.

Then too there is Kotick and Activision to think about. I never did buy StarCraft 2. Thought at first I might someday, but probably not.

I side with their mouthpiece Bashiok, over on the D3 forums, that levels are essentially just numbers. And I know I never got a character above....40 or so. So this is one place I'm not terribly worried or upset, because 60 is just as easily seen as 99, and whatever expansion packs they add could just as easily have risen the level cap from 99 in D2, to 120.

Depending on how much BS is included with D3 though, the Kotick/Activision argument may yet sway me. Hopefully we've seen the last of the big online paradigm shifts that Bnet 2.0 brought.

Well I don't know a whole lot about the activision thing, but I will very happily support Blizzard due to the quality of the games they produce. And I'd be very happy with four expansion packs if they were all of the same quality of the D2 expansion pack (although I think it's unlikely that will actually happen, as people said levels are just numbers).

Not to mention Catacylsm is capping at 85. OH NOES! ITS NOT TEN LEVELS!

I'm cool with potential DLC provided the base game is fully playable without, such as no critical skills being "extra cash only".

Added content - sure thing. There's no difference to an expansion there except for the name.
Who cares what the level number will be? It could be 20 and work just fine. D&D games typically had a max level of 10-20. Setting it to 100 wouldn't have made them any better.

Get a room Brad...

But seriously... I can't wait to click things to death with my Barbarian.

I'm kind of anoyed you posted that last screenshot actualy, i probably wouldnt have noticed, but now the blue tint will anoy me.

It's like how when you like a sitcom, then someone points out the recorded laughter, and then you cant help but notice it, and how anoying it is.

I've gotten the impression from D3 that they just care way more about that IP than SC2. I mean, with SC2, they just repeatedly kept saying 'we're doing what we know worked in the past.' With Diablo, they're saying much of less of that. It seems like just about every system in Diablo 3 has gone through one or more iterations, from it's base in D2, to the prototype, to the revised prototype.

So it's going to be different, and I think people that were disappointed because SC2 was more of the same will have a reaction on the other side of the scale to D3.

For me, despite all the gamey stuff they're doing that I'm not so much a fan of, there's lots they're doing that I am.

1) Randomly generated dungeons with more-fixed overworld maps, and feature placement.

2) The Assault Beast, the Thousand Pounder. Seriously those fights all just look delicious and fun to play with friends.

3) The rune system is going to be tits. Lots of fun just adding runes to your character and seeing how they change your attacks.

4) More to do in dungeons besides just kill. The mini-quests, the environmental hazards, the mini-bosses.....

So yeah. I think there's going to be a lot to sink one's teeth into in D3 that's new and worth trying, as opposed to SC2, where many people feel like all that time and effort could have been better spent making a more interesting product.

Seriously, you just made my day with that.  I was not aware of this yet and now... Well let's just say I'm happy (and that is a huge understatement).

Meh.

No sir. I think smaller pieces (of content) for a proportional larger price is not a good deal. It's not just the name it's an elaborate business model (mis)used for quicker cash. But if people like it the company is o.k. with that, sure.

Please take a look at the upcoming DLC for CiV. An extra leaderhead and two unique units for "just" 5 $? Buy four (nations) more and you're up to the price for an expansion pack just without extra content.