I actually like the style because it brings back the Diablo 1 feel to the inventory. I think that's what they're trying to acheive. In fact in one of those screenshots, the armor AND the axes look JUST like Diablo 1 items if I'm not mistaken.
The only pic provided that looks greater than a lvl 10 item is this one, which I think looks fantastic (the picture quality is crappy).
The rest of the pics you provided are very low level and they look rather plain, but I think that's a good thing. Otherwise, our super shiny new Mephisto's Helm of Desolate Power legendary helmet won't be nearly as cool looking.
I'm really glad that the items will actually look the same as the do on the ragdoll. It's really rare you see that in any game.
I'm not going to be really judging these things till release. I've seen blizzard use placeholders for items already in there games, and functional. So I'm not one to go and say that these items are the final versions.
I read the first page, but nothing on the second. So sorry if I'm repeating anyone.
Anyways, OP, I can see your point to a degree. The art is flat and different. I think to me its just that though I favor it more then I dislike it. However, a better comparison may be to Diablo II's Beta paper doll.
Looking at the two, I prefer diablo 3's beta paper doll to Diablo II's beta. And personally I would take Diablo III's Paper doll over Diablo II's, I think the art has greater potential. But that's just preference.
I guess my question would be: If you don't like it, why focus in on it and make a thread about those things?
Probably because it's a discussion forum. We need to make up things to discuss while Blizzard keep drip feeding us like babes not long out of the womb. In 1 week, someone will start complaining about the mouse cursor. In 2 weeks, someone will complain that the letters 'W', 'o' and 'W' were spotted in a 10 min long beta preview and surely spell the end of the world as we know it.
For the people who are telling me to look at gameplay, as I said before in my 3rd or 4th post I wasn't talking about the way they look on the chatacter when they are wearing them. I was only talking about the way they looked when your in inventory. And for the people who are saying whats the point of this thread and that it's lame. Don't friggin post on it than and go hide under your bridge. It's a forum, how is Beta Beggers any different(this isn't a hit on you Doomscream).
I agree with what TheLeftMethod and Doomscream said about the "paper doll" beta drawings and the rendering. If the items had the visual detail like in the pictures of the Demon Hunters that Doomscream posted than I wouldn't have made this thread. Look at the pictures he posted and look at the one of the female DM with full armor compared to the female WD with full armor. That's what I'm talking about when I mean more detail. And the male DH looks crazy.
For games, I'm more of a rendering type art than a drawn type I guess. I'm sure the end product is going to be amazing anyways. Maybe I shouldn't have called it lame, instead visually lacking details...
At best you have seen about 5% of the items that will be in Diablo 3, maybe 1 higher-end set per class, and your already complaining about D3 items looking lame???? stupidity if you ask me
The sets that they have shown, for example, in the gameplay trailer with the barbarian? that might not even be a very high-end set, but that looks completely awesome, same as Witch Doctor, I can't really remember seeing any of the other's but you have to remember the game isn't even in beta yet, alot of the end-game sets are still being implemented and you have only witnessed about 5% of the items.
At best you have seen about 5% of the items that will be in Diablo 3, maybe 1 higher-end set per class, and your already complaining about D3 items looking lame???? stupidity if you ask me
The sets that they have shown, for example, in the gameplay trailer with the barbarian? that might not even be a very high-end set, but that looks completely awesome, same as Witch Doctor, I can't really remember seeing any of the other's but you have to remember the game isn't even in beta yet, alot of the end-game sets are still being implemented and you have only witnessed about 5% of the items.
Some people have a hard time reading.
I wasn't complaining, I was critiquing. Theres a difference.
Perhaps. I personally dislike it overall. NWN items were flat, as well, but I never had an issue with them (and they're cartoony). I think it's more the boring look of all the items. Lack of detail and definition. If anything, it's more about it being drawn fill-tool style than being flat.
The rest of the pics you provided are very low level and they look rather plain.
That's a fail argument. Just compare them to DII's low level items, or even DI's. Look at DII's clubs, axes, daggers, armors early game. They all had a very different style to them that I liked a lot better.
However, a better comparison may be to Diablo II's Beta paper doll.
Diablo II and Diablo III have very different development cycles, so comparing their betas is quite invalid. That's like saying that to discuss SCII's graphics, we have to compare SCII's beta to WarCraft in Space. It doesn't work like that. If you look at SCII's development, beta and release weren't that different. Furthermore, that DII screenshot is clearly Diablo I influenced, which is not the case for Diablo III, which isn't artistically influenced by anything.
When talking about aesthetics, there is no real possibility for consensus. However, there are two pieces of good news to consider:
1. These are pre-alpha renders. Not until Blizzard properly scale tests and optimizes their engine will they have the final graphics.
2. The importance of graphics absolutely pale in comparison to the actual gameplay.
Yes, graphical style is very important, especially in the Diablo franchise. Diablo relies heavily upon visual and musical style to create that vacillation between eerie gothic suspense, and sudden bouts of terror, that we all know and love. But here's a rhetorical question you may want to consider:
Diablo I was one of the most brilliant games ever made, and its graphics, my today's standards, are pathetic. But we still loved that game. Is it possible that the problems you see lie not in the graphics themselves, but your own expectations?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-Thomas Jefferson
I like the overall concept that they are going for. I think some of the items look pretty awesome.
I agree though that some of them are a little shoddy. This is definitely something I'm not going to judge until the release of the game though... Polishing stuff like that is what I imagine happens very, very late in the process.
2. The importance of graphics absolutely pale in comparison to the actual gameplay.
No, they don't. There are some people for whom they do (people who only care about numbers and PvP) but many of us prefer to take games as a whole not as an incomplete half-finished thing. If a game has bad graphics (by bad I mean really bad, DIII is not in that category), I'm not going to look at it for too long, and the game needs to be FREAKING INSANE (so far, I haven't seen many games with bad graphics and good gameplay).
Diablo I was one of the most brilliant games ever made, and its graphics, my today's standards, are pathetic. But we still loved that game. Is it possible that the problems you see lie not in the graphics themselves, but your own expectations?
I think Diablo I still looks great, because it's a 2D game, and 2D games are essentially immune to aging. The only thing DI needs is a higher resolution and maybe a better color palette. I still like the look of AoE games, SC. So, you argument, I neither understand nor agree.
"By today's standards" what are these standards, which version of shaders it's using? 2D = bad, 3D = good? Is that all you care about? Because that's not what I'm talking about, that's something I don't give a shit about, I don't care what technology it uses at all, only if it looks good or not. DII, for instance, looks horrible and very little could save it.
I don't see how "expectations" are a problem. I've played plenty of even recent games with good graphics styles that fit the game and work well. So far, most of what I have seen in DIII looks like a repeat of the 3D problem from way back, which time and time again proves Blizzard has a horrible graphics department that lags 5 years. I remember loading up WCIII when it came out "What is this crap???"
It's still an improvement over the graphical abomination that was Diablo II, and I'll still play it, but 10 years down the line, I expected better.
1. These are pre-alpha renders. Not until Blizzard properly scale tests and optimizes their engine will they have the final graphics.
I've seen in-development screens of SCII and the like. They didn't really change that much. We have an example of a Blizzard game in development, you can't fool us anymore. Maybe these are not final, but they definitely indicate where it's all going.
Off Topic: Why ppl degrade thenself so much to defend Blizz? Seriously i can't believe the amount of shit im reading here.
Gameplay ? Dude, whos talking about gameplay ??? The OP opened a discussion about graphics of itens in your inventory. He didn't mentioned gameplay anywhere. Now if don't want to talk aboout anything besides gameplay, don't go in a graphicsn thread and start a discussion about something totally irrelevant (to the topic).
We are discussing item icons. Any little thing that is not itens icon should not be mentioned in this thread.
On Topic: I like (most) of then to be honest. In D2 they itens were kind photorealistic because the game was. Since D3 looks stilyzed i believe the itens should also look that way. But i agree that monk's claw in the first video looks pretty bad.
And i don't think they are undetailed... Look the gloves, the scale mail. Pretty cool imo.
Is it me or do the items in D3 look really lame. They look like they spent no time in drawing them. The items look like they are from D1 in the way they are designed. They look so unrefined. The items from D2 look way better then what I've seen. You would think the time they took to make the game they would have made the items look better. Am I the only one who thinks this???
The Diablo I item icons were by far my favorite. They actually had character. Their only drawback was that they were image optimized to reduce disc space usage, so their color/resolution quality isn't the best.
The Diablo II ones were just like, yeah, we're items, and we're on your screen. Nothing to see here. Move along.
2. The importance of graphics absolutely pale in comparison to the actual gameplay.
No, they don't. There are some people for whom they do (people who only care about numbers and PvP) but many of us prefer to take games as a whole not as an incomplete half-finished thing. If a game has bad graphics (by bad I mean really bad, DIII is not in that category), I'm not going to look at it for too long, and the game needs to be FREAKING INSANE (so far, I haven't seen many games with bad graphics and good gameplay).
Maybe "absolutely pale" is strong language. What I mean is, the game is a whole thing, not just a painting, and should be judged in context. But I agree with you here, on two points. First, If a game has REALLY bad graphics, I just can't tolerate it. D3 is not in this category, as you said, so it's kind of moot, but a fair point given I was speaking generally.
Second, I agree I've played very few "great" games that didn't have great graphics. There is typically a correlation there.
Diablo I was one of the most brilliant games ever made, and its graphics, by today's standards, are pathetic. But we still loved that game. Is it possible that the problems you see lie not in the graphics themselves, but your own expectations?
I think Diablo I still looks great, because it's a 2D game, and 2D games are essentially immune to aging. The only thing DI needs is a higher resolution and maybe a better color palette. I still like the look of AoE games, SC. So, you argument, I neither understand nor agree.
"By today's standards" what are these standards, which version of shaders it's using? 2D = bad, 3D = good? Is that all you care about? Because that's not what I'm talking about, that's something I don't give a shit about, I don't care what technology it uses at all, only if it looks good or not. DII, for instance, looks horrible and very little could save it.
First off, if you don't understand my argument, it's kind of hard to disagree, no? And I make no distinction between 2D and 3D graphics. They should all be judged equally based on the fundamental principles of visual aesthetics. Anyway..
By today's standards? Here's an analogy. Joe Smith eats McDonalds hamburgers every day. It's the only kind of hamburger Joe has ever had. So the way it tastes, looks, smells, etc.. when Joe thinks hamburger, he thinks McDonalds hamburger. One day, Joe goes to the big city and eats at a 4-star restaurant. He orders a hamburger. It comes out, and he can hardly believe it. It tastes vastly better, looks better, smells better, etc. Now, every time Joe goes to McDonalds, THAT burger just doesn't seem as good. Why? Because he's had his consciousness raised. His perspective is forever changed by experiencing a better burger.
Apply this to computer graphics. GPU and vRAM have increased exponentially since D1. So has the ingenuity and available tools of graphic artists. So have the abilities of operating systems and driver APIs. So has monitor/display technology. That has allowed developers to deliver graphics with more resolution, colors, effects, etc than ever before. This raises the collective consciousness, and thus the collective standard, for what games can look like. This tends to inform the gamer's expectations.
But here's the thing.. I love the fact that you still think D1 looks great! And that's my whole point. I think it's really admirable that you are less affected by the impact of raised expectations. Good art is good art.
I don't see how "expectations" are a problem. I've played plenty of even recent games with good graphics styles that fit the game and work well. So far, most of what I have seen in DIII looks like a repeat of the 3D problem from way back, which time and time again proves Blizzard has a horrible graphics department that lags 5 years. I remember loading up WCIII when it came out "What is this crap???"
Expectations aren't a problem for you, which is great. Your problem with D3 seems to be the art direction and style. I totally understand. I personally think D3 looks a bit cartoony and does not seem to capture (on a purely visual level) the eerie, gloomy feel of D1. Thing is, I am keeping an open mind until I play the game, as I assume you are. Personally, I have to be there, touch the keyboard, control the characters, hear the music/sounds, and be fully immersed before I can adequately judge the game as a whole.
To re-phrase my original point, graphics are an element of a game, not the game itself. Should they be of quality? Absolutely. But the quality of the graphics do not, themselves, determine the quality of the game. I know quality is a difficult word to define, especially here. Though our taste may differ, I think we fundamentally agree about the part graphics play in games.
1. These are pre-alpha renders. Not until Blizzard properly scale tests and optimizes their engine will they have the final graphics.
I've seen in-development screens of SCII and the like. They didn't really change that much. We have an example of a Blizzard game in development, you can't fool us anymore. Maybe these are not final, but they definitely indicate where it's all going.
Agree. But as per my last point, I'm holding out final judgment until the game is playable and, more importantly, experienceable as a whole thing, not a graphical thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-Thomas Jefferson
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The rest of the pics you provided are very low level and they look rather plain, but I think that's a good thing. Otherwise, our super shiny new Mephisto's Helm of Desolate Power legendary helmet won't be nearly as cool looking.
I'm really glad that the items will actually look the same as the do on the ragdoll. It's really rare you see that in any game.
Anyways, OP, I can see your point to a degree. The art is flat and different. I think to me its just that though I favor it more then I dislike it. However, a better comparison may be to Diablo II's Beta paper doll.
http://diablo2.judgehype.com/screenshots/historiqued2/screenshots/acte1_avril99/Acte1409.jpg
Compared to there current. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://news.softpedia.com/images/reviews/large/diablo2lod_006-large.jpg&imgrefurl=http://m.softpedia.com/diablo-ii-lord-of-destruction-codes-and-secret-cow-level-pc-54893.html&usg=__0XIOZri4VxVZsIwsD_EV4dOSITU=&h=337&w=450&sz=120&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=oiKsJLIT3qdjsM:&tbnh=109&tbnw=158&ei=p1gdTsC4G5DXiALin-CZCQ&prev=/search?q=diablo+2&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1120&bih=541&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=643&vpy=240&dur=39&hovh=194&hovw=260&tx=152&ty=108&page=1&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0
Looking at the two, I prefer diablo 3's beta paper doll to Diablo II's beta. And personally I would take Diablo III's Paper doll over Diablo II's, I think the art has greater potential. But that's just preference.
Probably because it's a discussion forum. We need to make up things to discuss while Blizzard keep drip feeding us like babes not long out of the womb. In 1 week, someone will start complaining about the mouse cursor. In 2 weeks, someone will complain that the letters 'W', 'o' and 'W' were spotted in a 10 min long beta preview and surely spell the end of the world as we know it.
It looks ridiculous. Everything is else is awesome for just being unpolished samples!
I agree with what TheLeftMethod and Doomscream said about the "paper doll" beta drawings and the rendering. If the items had the visual detail like in the pictures of the Demon Hunters that Doomscream posted than I wouldn't have made this thread. Look at the pictures he posted and look at the one of the female DM with full armor compared to the female WD with full armor. That's what I'm talking about when I mean more detail. And the male DH looks crazy.
For games, I'm more of a rendering type art than a drawn type I guess. I'm sure the end product is going to be amazing anyways. Maybe I shouldn't have called it lame, instead visually lacking details...
The sets that they have shown, for example, in the gameplay trailer with the barbarian? that might not even be a very high-end set, but that looks completely awesome, same as Witch Doctor, I can't really remember seeing any of the other's but you have to remember the game isn't even in beta yet, alot of the end-game sets are still being implemented and you have only witnessed about 5% of the items.
Some people have a hard time reading.
I wasn't complaining, I was critiquing. Theres a difference.
That's a fail argument. Just compare them to DII's low level items, or even DI's. Look at DII's clubs, axes, daggers, armors early game. They all had a very different style to them that I liked a lot better.
Crap, I don't know, because this is a forum to discuss Diablo? What exactly is wrong about making a thread about something you dislike?
Diablo II and Diablo III have very different development cycles, so comparing their betas is quite invalid. That's like saying that to discuss SCII's graphics, we have to compare SCII's beta to WarCraft in Space. It doesn't work like that. If you look at SCII's development, beta and release weren't that different. Furthermore, that DII screenshot is clearly Diablo I influenced, which is not the case for Diablo III, which isn't artistically influenced by anything. And 5 other people.
There isn't even a lumberjack axe anywhere in the pictures.
At least the DII hand axe looked like a hand axe.
1. These are pre-alpha renders. Not until Blizzard properly scale tests and optimizes their engine will they have the final graphics.
2. The importance of graphics absolutely pale in comparison to the actual gameplay.
Yes, graphical style is very important, especially in the Diablo franchise. Diablo relies heavily upon visual and musical style to create that vacillation between eerie gothic suspense, and sudden bouts of terror, that we all know and love. But here's a rhetorical question you may want to consider:
Diablo I was one of the most brilliant games ever made, and its graphics, my today's standards, are pathetic. But we still loved that game. Is it possible that the problems you see lie not in the graphics themselves, but your own expectations?
-Thomas Jefferson
I agree though that some of them are a little shoddy. This is definitely something I'm not going to judge until the release of the game though... Polishing stuff like that is what I imagine happens very, very late in the process.
I think Diablo I still looks great, because it's a 2D game, and 2D games are essentially immune to aging. The only thing DI needs is a higher resolution and maybe a better color palette. I still like the look of AoE games, SC. So, you argument, I neither understand nor agree.
"By today's standards" what are these standards, which version of shaders it's using? 2D = bad, 3D = good? Is that all you care about? Because that's not what I'm talking about, that's something I don't give a shit about, I don't care what technology it uses at all, only if it looks good or not. DII, for instance, looks horrible and very little could save it.
I don't see how "expectations" are a problem. I've played plenty of even recent games with good graphics styles that fit the game and work well. So far, most of what I have seen in DIII looks like a repeat of the 3D problem from way back, which time and time again proves Blizzard has a horrible graphics department that lags 5 years. I remember loading up WCIII when it came out "What is this crap???"
It's still an improvement over the graphical abomination that was Diablo II, and I'll still play it, but 10 years down the line, I expected better. I've seen in-development screens of SCII and the like. They didn't really change that much. We have an example of a Blizzard game in development, you can't fool us anymore. Maybe these are not final, but they definitely indicate where it's all going.
Gameplay ? Dude, whos talking about gameplay ??? The OP opened a discussion about graphics of itens in your inventory. He didn't mentioned gameplay anywhere. Now if don't want to talk aboout anything besides gameplay, don't go in a graphicsn thread and start a discussion about something totally irrelevant (to the topic).
We are discussing item icons. Any little thing that is not itens icon should not be mentioned in this thread.
On Topic: I like (most) of then to be honest. In D2 they itens were kind photorealistic because the game was. Since D3 looks stilyzed i believe the itens should also look that way. But i agree that monk's claw in the first video looks pretty bad.
And i don't think they are undetailed... Look the gloves, the scale mail. Pretty cool imo.
Better example of bad graphics: http://nichm.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/runescape_great_war.png
http://www.atriarch.com/images/screenshots/screenshots/043002/AT_bolera_caverns_shot_0075.jpg
http://www.xsyon.com/components/com_joomgallery/img_originals/screenshots_1/xsyon_mmorpg_darkhand_20110118_08_20110119_1116930615.jpg
These are rather difficult to find, though, since they don't get far.
The Diablo I item icons were by far my favorite. They actually had character. Their only drawback was that they were image optimized to reduce disc space usage, so their color/resolution quality isn't the best.
The Diablo II ones were just like, yeah, we're items, and we're on your screen. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Maybe "absolutely pale" is strong language. What I mean is, the game is a whole thing, not just a painting, and should be judged in context. But I agree with you here, on two points. First, If a game has REALLY bad graphics, I just can't tolerate it. D3 is not in this category, as you said, so it's kind of moot, but a fair point given I was speaking generally.
Second, I agree I've played very few "great" games that didn't have great graphics. There is typically a correlation there.
First off, if you don't understand my argument, it's kind of hard to disagree, no? And I make no distinction between 2D and 3D graphics. They should all be judged equally based on the fundamental principles of visual aesthetics. Anyway..
By today's standards? Here's an analogy. Joe Smith eats McDonalds hamburgers every day. It's the only kind of hamburger Joe has ever had. So the way it tastes, looks, smells, etc.. when Joe thinks hamburger, he thinks McDonalds hamburger. One day, Joe goes to the big city and eats at a 4-star restaurant. He orders a hamburger. It comes out, and he can hardly believe it. It tastes vastly better, looks better, smells better, etc. Now, every time Joe goes to McDonalds, THAT burger just doesn't seem as good. Why? Because he's had his consciousness raised. His perspective is forever changed by experiencing a better burger.
Apply this to computer graphics. GPU and vRAM have increased exponentially since D1. So has the ingenuity and available tools of graphic artists. So have the abilities of operating systems and driver APIs. So has monitor/display technology. That has allowed developers to deliver graphics with more resolution, colors, effects, etc than ever before. This raises the collective consciousness, and thus the collective standard, for what games can look like. This tends to inform the gamer's expectations.
But here's the thing.. I love the fact that you still think D1 looks great! And that's my whole point. I think it's really admirable that you are less affected by the impact of raised expectations. Good art is good art.
Expectations aren't a problem for you, which is great. Your problem with D3 seems to be the art direction and style. I totally understand. I personally think D3 looks a bit cartoony and does not seem to capture (on a purely visual level) the eerie, gloomy feel of D1. Thing is, I am keeping an open mind until I play the game, as I assume you are. Personally, I have to be there, touch the keyboard, control the characters, hear the music/sounds, and be fully immersed before I can adequately judge the game as a whole.
To re-phrase my original point, graphics are an element of a game, not the game itself. Should they be of quality? Absolutely. But the quality of the graphics do not, themselves, determine the quality of the game. I know quality is a difficult word to define, especially here. Though our taste may differ, I think we fundamentally agree about the part graphics play in games.
Agree. But as per my last point, I'm holding out final judgment until the game is playable and, more importantly, experienceable as a whole thing, not a graphical thing.
-Thomas Jefferson