I've played Diablo II for a long time from classic to LOD patch 1.11 and I like the new art direction. I found the color palette of Diablo and Diablo II to be one of the weaker points of the game. In fact, I know a friend who never played the Diablo series because of the "grainy-looking graphics."
For those of you who would prefer a darker, more gothic feel, then I suggest you read Keith Lee's response to this issue:
I stress the word "variety." As this is still the Diablo universe, there is bound to be hellish and/or dark and gothic environments not shown in the gameplay video. Having variety makes for a more interesting and less monotonous gaming experience. If that's still not dark enough, just turn down the gamma, brightness and turn off the blur filter. I know I've found Diablo II still a tad bit hard to see even with the gamma turned all the way up. From what I've seen from the gameplay video, I'm glad this will not be an issue again.
And for those of you saying the graphics look "WoWish," the only thing that this game resembles World of Warcraft is the interface. It has a much higher poly count, much more destructible environment, and much more sophisticated lighting than World of Warcraft. If anything, it looks a lot like Starcraft 2 since it's probably using the same proprietary graphics engine.
Yeah, I should have mentioned that too with us seeing only 2 environments- but the problems I see are evident in every facet of D3, that being the very dated and sloppy look of so much of the game.
I am confused about where you are going with this, you did read it right? it says correctly that the rainbow should not be there?
Diablo in its clouds of mist should have twisting spooky fog, not rainbows =/ Horror movies and even low budget things like"Supernatural" have managed to get the style down right, it baffles me why blizzard can't.
I did. It's supposed to be a parody. That pic is going at the most minute details of the in-game physics while knocking on how so many people are having meltdowns by seeing one rainbow, when its just trying to be realistic.
I guess Blizzard can take pointers from that pic though.
One more thing. The fact that people seem to be demanding dramatic changes to the style this early on seems ridiculous to me. Why? because we really haven't seen anything yet except a damn gameplay trailer! Has anyone else looked at some of the concept art for the game? I bet we see more stuff like that soon from blizzard in game.
I am going to go over every one of your claims and proposition logically. My responses are in blue!
"First things first, Art and game design should never turn into some sort of pseudo democracy, this is not presidential elections, the only one who has the right to decide what Diablo 3 looks like is Blizzard, not mindless nostalgia fueled petitions or crazed hard-core fans."
In this first paragraph you claim Art and game design is not a pseudo democracy but offer no evidence to why it is not. So this is invalid due to lack of evidence. Second you use an ad hominem by calling people who want some graphic changes to be mindlessly nostalgic or a crazed hard-core fan. This is your reasoning for why the fans won’t have an affect on the graphics. But if you read this forum, you would have seen that the fans have in fact had an effect on the graphics with starcraft so there is evidence for the opposite.
"I have said countless time that Blizzard justified their changes in the game looks during their Art Panels in WWI, and it makes more sense than the mindless nostalgia fest going on here, anyone with even the slightest artistic sense could see how much hard work has been done on Diablo 3, so it is immature, implotie and rude to just ask them to change it all just because your nostlagia is hurting, if you don't like Diablo 3 as it is just don't buy it or play it, go play the countless gritty clones out there, or make your own company."
Once again you try to make your claim by not actually addressing evidence but call people immature, impolite and rude. You may feel that the population is being those things by suggesting changes but it is really up to blizzard to decide not you.
"Reasons for the changes:-
*it has been already 20 years since Diablo 2, more than enough to change the whole look of the world." True, but that doesn’t mean people can’t give constructive criticism of what they have seen in the demo. I could also say that during that 20 years more evil has spread make the world more corrupt. So the 20 years isn’t a very good reason for the whole game to be bright and happy.
"* Stylish, giving Diablo 3 its own character and personality, allowing it to stand out from the crowd of brown and grey games, or 'realistic' (e.g. boring) looking games." In my opinion the changes some ask for, will not take away the character and personality of the game at least the ones I have read.
"* Not monotonous. The use of inviting colours, contours, tones, vibrance, and animations are some of the game's major strengths. Makes the game accessible and playable for a long period of time. "
"* The use of colors allow for a wide variety of settings and locations, away from the mundane worlds of greys and browns."
Just because you say grey and brown worlds are mundane makes it so?
"* Vibrant colors and a wide variety of locations do not prohibit the game from having 'dark gothic' locations within the game. Diablo 2 consisted mainly of vibrant locations, but that didn't prevent the Durance of Hate from being a part of the game. " I agree, change is good and the points you bring make sence for the most part. Although, I don’t see why both the changes for a more gothic, darker, and scarier game and your points can’t both be implemented. "So to set things right i'll try to explain those changes and refute all the baseless nostalgia fueled claims that make no sense."
"1-claim one" "They say Diablo 3 is cartoony and colorful
nonsense, if Diablo 3 is cartoony then real life is loony toons, Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 were more much more colorful and cartoony than Diablo 3, which is 40 times more realistic than both of them."
"What I am just confused to what you are trying to prove? I personally don’t mind the rainbow as long as the game still has some scary dark stuff. Yeah, there was defiantly a lot of color used in D2 and I didn’t like it. (The bright prime colors that is.) -NATURE is VIVID and COLORFUL and that DOESN'T MAKE IT CARTOONY"
"2-claim two" "They say Diablo 3 looks like WoW Not true, Diablo 3 has a slightly stylish look that looks nothing like WoW, Team Fortress has a stylish look, does that mean it looks like WoW or Diablo 3, NO, and also in general not every fantasy stylized 3d game is WoW." Both sides bring up good evidence to support it either being like or not like Wow.
"Proofs: This is the very stylish and low poly look of WoW, you can see it's textures and details are greatly lacking and that the colors are not coherent, both hands and feet are large and anatomy in general is exaggerated."
"BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH FREAKING DARK AND BORING WITH NO MOOD OR AMBIENT COLORS, NO SANE DIABLO FAN WOULD WANT DIABLO 3 to look this GENERIC, BLAND AND SHITTY."
That is exactly why the games you showed are boring because they have no mood. If the mood is scary then the changes some want will defiantly work – in my opinion. 3-claim three "They say Diablo 3 Armor is spiky and large That's hilarious, did you even check how the armor wore by the Barbarian in D2 looked like, seriously !!!!!" I agree that is a good example of the parts of D3 that are not too cartoony or WoWish. "That's all for now"
"And remember i'm not the one how created the current look for Daiblo 3, it is BLIZZARD, the same company that made DIABLO 1 and DIABLO 2 that you keep whining about, THEY KNOW BETTER THAN YOU."
If you read through the thread you would have seen that the same people who created D1 and D2 are for the most part not in the team working on D3 so blizzard might need some criticism to help with keeping the game to its essence.
"THEY HAD VERY GOOD REASONS FOR THEIR CHANGES, and ALL you WHINE about IS NOSTALGIA, DARKNESS AND BLOOD, quite an argument, an perfectly EMO one."
I could call you names to does that make my points anymore valid? Why don’t you grow up and actually use constructive feedback instead of calling names.
I also don’t doubt that blizzard had good reasons for their changes. The problem is that more than half of this forum community and possibly the future D3 buys disagree with the graphics in some way or another.
One more thing. The fact that people seem to be demanding dramatic changes to the style this early on seems ridiculous to me. Why? because we really haven't seen anything yet except a damn gameplay trailer! Has anyone else looked at some of the concept art for the game? I bet we see more stuff like that soon from blizzard in game.
Like I said, it's damn distressing when what's supposed to be even just an initial build looks this sloppy. And the gameplay trailer was 20 minutes.
I really hope Blizzard listens this time. Starcraft 2 looks ridiculously cartoonish and heavily unchanged gameplay-wise from the first one despite it now being over a year since it was first announced.
I kind of agree with the disappointment. Especially with this picture http://i32.tinypic.com/2zqr9yx.jpg. I'd really like to see some decaying corpses laying around, some dude impaled on the wall, a bloody waterfall, stuff like that. It is Diablo after all so let's see some terror. Then again I was also impressed with most of the things I saw in the demo, so ya. o.O
By the way there were similar problems with the art direction when players first got their hands on SC2. People were saying it was too cartoonish and the colors too bright, and that it should look more grittier. It's like were getting the same reaction with the first eye candy from D3. So with that I'm pretty sure you guys will get something from Bliz, I mean from what I hear they really listened to what people had to say about SC2.
I can only assume they picked what they thought would be exciting to the fan base and was a good representation of the game. I cant imagine they decided to show only the brightest and most saturated and cheery parts of the game, if they did they are fools. So while you can say that we should "wait and see" because there may be darker sections I can equally say that there might be even more brightly colored fairytale settings than what we have already seen, in which case the earlier people say there is a problem the better.
And has been said before the saturation isn't the only problem anyway. The lack of detail and overall watercolor finish with the semi cell shading is also contributing to its look.
I can only assume they picked what they thought would be exciting to the fan base and was a good representation of the game. I cant imagine they decided to show only the brightest and most saturated and cheery parts of the game, if they did they are fools. So while you can say that we should "wait and see" because there may be darker sections I can equally say that there might be even more brightly colored fairytale settings than what we have already seen, in which case the earlier people say there is a problem the better.
And has been said before the saturation isn't the only problem anyway. The lack of detail and overall watercolor finish with the semi cell shading is also contributing to its look.
Yes I agree, why would they show the most brightest places of the game first. A good demo shows the over all general feeling of the game.
By the way there were similar problems with the art direction when players first got their hands on SC2. People were saying it was too cartoonish and the colors too bright, and that it should look more grittier. It's like were getting the same reaction with the first eye candy from D3. So with that I'm pretty sure you guys will get something from Bliz, I mean from what I hear they really listened to what people had to say about SC2.
But who sent out a survey or collection of critiques when SC2 was announced?
I'll be honest, I'm disgusted with what Blizzard has done with SC2. It's not just the style- no, it's the gameplay even moreso. SC2 looks and plays INCREDIBLY similarly to the first one. Things like the general scaling are exactly the same too. So many of the new features it boasts have been done just as well, or even better in many other RTS games that are currently out or coming up. These are all huge problems because it's been 10 YEARS since SC1 came out. I don't think SC2 is gonna turn out as a bad game, but it'll be way below what a franchise 10 years without a sequel deserves.
that being the very dated and sloppy look of so much of the game.
Dated? tell me... since when has blizzard made a game that was a graphics powerhouse? This is because they want to make sure a wide range of PC's can run the game. This has always been their philosophy for pretty much ever. That being said the game looks current gen, and I am more than happy with that since I know it will be an amazing experience.
Sloppy? I did not see any art that looked "sloppy" it looks like they have an art direction that is cohesive and well thought out. However you may feel about the art and graphics does not make them "sloppy." It just makes the fact that you don't like the graphics your opinion.
Also I do not agree with your opinion of the games current art direction and therefore have formed my own opinion. My opinion is that I happen to enjoy the color, and the out door environments we saw in the game play trailer. I do think though that the game could use more contrast than what we have seen so far. However this might be due to the compression of the video and or the screen settings the game was captured on.
Dated? tell me... since when has blizzard made a game that was a graphics powerhouse? This is because they want to make sure a wide range of PC's can run the game. This has always been their philosophy for pretty much ever. That being said the game looks current gen, and I am more than happy with that since I know it will be an amazing experience.
I know what you mean about Blizzard not always being on the cutting edge. But this looks too dated even for them. What we've seen in D3 would be considered high quality roughly 3 years ago.
Sloppy? I did not see any art that looked "sloppy" it looks like they have an art direction that is cohesive and well thought out. However you may feel about the art and graphics does not make them "sloppy." It just makes the fact that you don't like the graphics your opinion.
I explained why it looks sloppy, and I don't see how you can't agree somewhat on it. Look at how so much of the environments lack any actual textures or even have decent skins.
Also I do not agree with your opinion of the games current art direction and therefore have formed my own opinion. My opinion is that I happen to enjoy the color, and the out door environments we saw in the game play trailer. I do think though that the game could use more contrast than what we have seen so far. However this might be due to the compression of the video and or the screen settings the game was captured on.
Again, I don't see much wrong with the artsyle, but alot of D3 has a watercolor look that simply doesn't work for it. The swarms of pale, decaying zombies don't match well with the pastel hillsides and forests.
The dungeon in Tristram descended into hell it's self. Hmm... -_^
yeah in Diablo1, but I'm am going to make a wild assumption that this is simply not the case in this game. I'm also going to make the wild assumption that there will be areas far more sinister than what we were shown.
yeah in Diablo1, but I'm am going to make a wild assumption that this is simply not the case in this game. I'm also going to make the wild assumption that there will be areas far more sinister than what we were shown.
You assume one way I assume another. Isn't the mood of the game and the way it looks part of the game play?
I know what you mean about Blizzard not always being on the cutting edge. But this looks too dated even for them. What we've seen in D3 would be considered high quality roughly 3 years ago.
I explained why it looks sloppy, and I don't see how you can't agree somewhat on it. Look at how so much of the environments lack any actual textures or even have decent skins.
Again, I don't see much wrong with the artsyle, but alot of D3 has a watercolor look that simply doesn't work for it. The swarms of pale, decaying zombies don't match well with the pastel hillsides and forests.
Alright one by one.
1. Systems people will be using to play this are going to be 3 years old.
2. I think the textures look amazing. Unfortunately there is no bump or normal mapping which makes them look flat, because well they are. With shaders, bump mapping, and normal mapping you can add a lot of intricate detail to the base textures (the painted textures we see in the game now). These kinds of textures add depth and individuality to the materials in the game, whether it be armor, skin, stone, grass etc. Saddly because blizzard is going to keep the requirments low we may never see any of these things in game, but you never know. The textures themselves are incredible detailed and will painted though. I would hardly call these textures sloppy.
3. I don't really mind the contrast between the dead, and the bright colorful out-doors. I think its actually an interesting twist, but this is also my own opinion.
You assume one way I assume another. Isn't the mood of the game and the way it looks part of the game play?
It surely is, and I see so many people saying it looks fine and the gameplay is what matters. Oh how I would love to see them all get given a version of the game with fluffy bunnies and teletubbies to kill. Sadly they would probably be ok with it seeing as they are probably the same people who only play the game to get the "best" loot and not to actually enjoy it.
It surely is, and I see so many people saying it looks fine and the gameplay is what matters. Oh how I would love to see them all get given a version of the game with fluffy bunnies and teletubbies to kill. Sadly they would probably be ok with it seeing as they are probably the same people who only play the game to get the "best" loot and not to actually enjoy it.
No believe me, I care to much about this game to not enjoy it. However I do like the style of the game the way it is, and I've been playing Diablo games since 1997 with Diablo1.
Why dont they just come out and say what they are doing, kinda sad really.
what the hell are you comparing here? that both games are done in 3D and have color? or that one of the Death Knights new spells is to gorge himself to obesity so he can dual wield giant flanges.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
║ www.Vintenar.Net ║
╞╬╡Who Seeks the Waning Moon?╞╬╡
╨ ⊕░░░▒▒▓▓▓▓▒▒░░░⊕ ╨
Yeah, I should have mentioned that too with us seeing only 2 environments- but the problems I see are evident in every facet of D3, that being the very dated and sloppy look of so much of the game.
I did. It's supposed to be a parody. That pic is going at the most minute details of the in-game physics while knocking on how so many people are having meltdowns by seeing one rainbow, when its just trying to be realistic.
I guess Blizzard can take pointers from that pic though.
I am going to go over every one of your claims and proposition logically. My responses are in blue!
"First things first, Art and game design should never turn into some sort of pseudo democracy, this is not presidential elections, the only one who has the right to decide what Diablo 3 looks like is Blizzard, not mindless nostalgia fueled petitions or crazed hard-core fans."
In this first paragraph you claim Art and game design is not a pseudo democracy but offer no evidence to why it is not. So this is invalid due to lack of evidence. Second you use an ad hominem by calling people who want some graphic changes to be mindlessly nostalgic or a crazed hard-core fan. This is your reasoning for why the fans won’t have an affect on the graphics. But if you read this forum, you would have seen that the fans have in fact had an effect on the graphics with starcraft so there is evidence for the opposite.
"I have said countless time that Blizzard justified their changes in the game looks during their Art Panels in WWI, and it makes more sense than the mindless nostalgia fest going on here, anyone with even the slightest artistic sense could see how much hard work has been done on Diablo 3, so it is immature, implotie and rude to just ask them to change it all just because your nostlagia is hurting, if you don't like Diablo 3 as it is just don't buy it or play it, go play the countless gritty clones out there, or make your own company."
Once again you try to make your claim by not actually addressing evidence but call people immature, impolite and rude. You may feel that the population is being those things by suggesting changes but it is really up to blizzard to decide not you.
"Reasons for the changes:-
*it has been already 20 years since Diablo 2, more than enough to change the whole look of the world."
True, but that doesn’t mean people can’t give constructive criticism of what they have seen in the demo. I could also say that during that 20 years more evil has spread make the world more corrupt. So the 20 years isn’t a very good reason for the whole game to be bright and happy.
"* Stylish, giving Diablo 3 its own character and personality, allowing it to stand out from the crowd of brown and grey games, or 'realistic' (e.g. boring) looking games."
In my opinion the changes some ask for, will not take away the character and personality of the game at least the ones I have read.
"* Not monotonous. The use of inviting colours, contours, tones, vibrance, and animations are some of the game's major strengths. Makes the game accessible and playable for a long period of time. "
"* The use of colors allow for a wide variety of settings and locations, away from the mundane worlds of greys and browns."
Just because you say grey and brown worlds are mundane makes it so?
"* Vibrant colors and a wide variety of locations do not prohibit the game from having 'dark gothic' locations within the game. Diablo 2 consisted mainly of vibrant locations, but that didn't prevent the Durance of Hate from being a part of the game. "
I agree, change is good and the points you bring make sence for the most part. Although, I don’t see why both the changes for a more gothic, darker, and scarier game and your points can’t both be implemented.
"So to set things right i'll try to explain those changes and refute all the baseless nostalgia fueled claims that make no sense."
"1-claim one"
"They say Diablo 3 is cartoony and colorful
nonsense, if Diablo 3 is cartoony then real life is loony toons, Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 were more much more colorful and cartoony than Diablo 3, which is 40 times more realistic than both of them."
"What I am just confused to what you are trying to prove? I personally don’t mind the rainbow as long as the game still has some scary dark stuff. Yeah, there was defiantly a lot of color used in D2 and I didn’t like it. (The bright prime colors that is.) -NATURE is VIVID and COLORFUL and that DOESN'T MAKE IT CARTOONY"
"2-claim two"
"They say Diablo 3 looks like WoW
Not true, Diablo 3 has a slightly stylish look that looks nothing like WoW, Team Fortress has a stylish look, does that mean it looks like WoW or Diablo 3, NO, and also in general not every fantasy stylized 3d game is WoW."
Both sides bring up good evidence to support it either being like or not like Wow.
"Proofs:
This is the very stylish and low poly look of WoW, you can see it's textures and details are greatly lacking and that the colors are not coherent, both hands and feet are large and anatomy in general is exaggerated."
"BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH FREAKING DARK AND BORING WITH NO MOOD OR AMBIENT COLORS, NO SANE DIABLO FAN WOULD WANT DIABLO 3 to look this GENERIC, BLAND AND SHITTY."
That is exactly why the games you showed are boring because they have no mood. If the mood is scary then the changes some want will defiantly work – in my opinion.
3-claim three
"They say Diablo 3 Armor is spiky and large
That's hilarious, did you even check how the armor wore by the Barbarian in D2 looked like, seriously !!!!!"
I agree that is a good example of the parts of D3 that are not too cartoony or WoWish.
"That's all for now"
"And remember i'm not the one how created the current look for Daiblo 3, it is BLIZZARD, the same company that made DIABLO 1 and DIABLO 2 that you keep whining about, THEY KNOW BETTER THAN YOU."
If you read through the thread you would have seen that the same people who created D1 and D2 are for the most part not in the team working on D3 so blizzard might need some criticism to help with keeping the game to its essence.
"THEY HAD VERY GOOD REASONS FOR THEIR CHANGES, and ALL you WHINE about IS NOSTALGIA, DARKNESS AND BLOOD, quite an argument, an perfectly EMO one."
I could call you names to does that make my points anymore valid? Why don’t you grow up and actually use constructive feedback instead of calling names.
I also don’t doubt that blizzard had good reasons for their changes. The problem is that more than half of this forum community and possibly the future D3 buys disagree with the graphics in some way or another.
Like I said, it's damn distressing when what's supposed to be even just an initial build looks this sloppy. And the gameplay trailer was 20 minutes.
I really hope Blizzard listens this time. Starcraft 2 looks ridiculously cartoonish and heavily unchanged gameplay-wise from the first one despite it now being over a year since it was first announced.
By the way there were similar problems with the art direction when players first got their hands on SC2. People were saying it was too cartoonish and the colors too bright, and that it should look more grittier. It's like were getting the same reaction with the first eye candy from D3. So with that I'm pretty sure you guys will get something from Bliz, I mean from what I hear they really listened to what people had to say about SC2.
And has been said before the saturation isn't the only problem anyway. The lack of detail and overall watercolor finish with the semi cell shading is also contributing to its look.
Yes I agree, why would they show the most brightest places of the game first. A good demo shows the over all general feeling of the game.
But who sent out a survey or collection of critiques when SC2 was announced?
I'll be honest, I'm disgusted with what Blizzard has done with SC2. It's not just the style- no, it's the gameplay even moreso. SC2 looks and plays INCREDIBLY similarly to the first one. Things like the general scaling are exactly the same too. So many of the new features it boasts have been done just as well, or even better in many other RTS games that are currently out or coming up. These are all huge problems because it's been 10 YEARS since SC1 came out. I don't think SC2 is gonna turn out as a bad game, but it'll be way below what a franchise 10 years without a sequel deserves.
Dated? tell me... since when has blizzard made a game that was a graphics powerhouse? This is because they want to make sure a wide range of PC's can run the game. This has always been their philosophy for pretty much ever. That being said the game looks current gen, and I am more than happy with that since I know it will be an amazing experience.
Sloppy? I did not see any art that looked "sloppy" it looks like they have an art direction that is cohesive and well thought out. However you may feel about the art and graphics does not make them "sloppy." It just makes the fact that you don't like the graphics your opinion.
Also I do not agree with your opinion of the games current art direction and therefore have formed my own opinion. My opinion is that I happen to enjoy the color, and the out door environments we saw in the game play trailer. I do think though that the game could use more contrast than what we have seen so far. However this might be due to the compression of the video and or the screen settings the game was captured on.
This was a game play demo meant to show the game play.
I know what you mean about Blizzard not always being on the cutting edge. But this looks too dated even for them. What we've seen in D3 would be considered high quality roughly 3 years ago.
I explained why it looks sloppy, and I don't see how you can't agree somewhat on it. Look at how so much of the environments lack any actual textures or even have decent skins.
Again, I don't see much wrong with the artsyle, but alot of D3 has a watercolor look that simply doesn't work for it. The swarms of pale, decaying zombies don't match well with the pastel hillsides and forests.
yeah in Diablo1, but I'm am going to make a wild assumption that this is simply not the case in this game. I'm also going to make the wild assumption that there will be areas far more sinister than what we were shown.
You assume one way I assume another. Isn't the mood of the game and the way it looks part of the game play?
Alright one by one.
1. Systems people will be using to play this are going to be 3 years old.
2. I think the textures look amazing. Unfortunately there is no bump or normal mapping which makes them look flat, because well they are. With shaders, bump mapping, and normal mapping you can add a lot of intricate detail to the base textures (the painted textures we see in the game now). These kinds of textures add depth and individuality to the materials in the game, whether it be armor, skin, stone, grass etc. Saddly because blizzard is going to keep the requirments low we may never see any of these things in game, but you never know. The textures themselves are incredible detailed and will painted though. I would hardly call these textures sloppy.
3. I don't really mind the contrast between the dead, and the bright colorful out-doors. I think its actually an interesting twist, but this is also my own opinion.
It surely is, and I see so many people saying it looks fine and the gameplay is what matters. Oh how I would love to see them all get given a version of the game with fluffy bunnies and teletubbies to kill. Sadly they would probably be ok with it seeing as they are probably the same people who only play the game to get the "best" loot and not to actually enjoy it.
Yes in a way it is. However having the same mood conveyed through out the entire game does not seem appealing to me
Why dont they just come out and say what they are doing, kinda sad really.
No believe me, I care to much about this game to not enjoy it. However I do like the style of the game the way it is, and I've been playing Diablo games since 1997 with Diablo1.
what the hell are you comparing here? that both games are done in 3D and have color? or that one of the Death Knights new spells is to gorge himself to obesity so he can dual wield giant flanges.