I'm not talking about D3 being colorful. I like the use of Color in D3 but where is the detail.
I would call D3 style '***-******' but '***-******' does mean 'to fill in'(or what people who made 3D renderers call shading) in the style used traditional 2D animation on the clear sheets of acetate(what they call a cel)
D2 has a unique style that gives you the impression that the world has more detail that the screen can display. compare Diablo 1 and 2 to Baldur's Gate. BG gives you the impression that it's showing all the detail the world has. in D2 when you look at the faces you get that feeling that you can't tell then apart. in BG you get the feeling that all look the same.
But look at the D3 screen shots and resize them to 640x480 of D2 and you don't loose any of the details of the objects, in fact D2 is still more detail.
What is this "blotchiness" you speak of? I do not see it.
I can only presume that you are whining about the fact that D3 is a 3D world which inherently requires a lack of apparent detail compared to a 2D sprite based engine, simply due to the fact that you can't expect all the geometry to be as detailed as all the hand drawn or offline rendered sprites. Well, at least not without extensive use of real-time displacements via geometry shaders which are only supported by the most advanced hardware in combination with DirectX10 only available for windows Vista.
Blizzard has gone to a lot of work to make a cross platform game with relatively low system specs as always, which maximizes the availability of the game and is one reason why it has such a large and successful community. If they switched to being Vista + DirectX10 only, they would lose about 90% of the market and the online experience would be significantly smaller and worse. They wouldn't make as much money and wouldn't be able to take as good care of it with updates, etc.
Most people tend to agree that the benefits of 3D far outweigh the cons. The fact is that in this day and age, people would not be happy with a sprite-based 2D game anymore.
I think he has a point, however poorly he presented it.
The Diablo III graphics are high quality, colorful, and detailed, but it's missing a lot of feeling. For example, if you look at the stone (indoors, outdoors, doesn't matter), it all looks like some one has sanded it down to a smooth, almost marble like consistency. The boulders coming out of the ground in the outdoors area seem to be very loosely defined as where they start and stop, like they took a picture of a rock, then blurred the edges so it would mesh with the terrain.
Look at the stone formation right above the Barbarian. It has no angles to it. It's a smooth, raised lump in the ground with a rock texture painted onto it. See how there is no real starting and stopping point for the grass or rocks? They blend into each other.
I know this is part of the Blizzard "Living Oil Painting" style for Diablo 3, but one of their main art philosophies that Jay keeps talking about is "deeply defined silhouettes," yet they blend all the stuff together in a mesh of smooth textures.
While this isn't "worse" or "better" than a grittier feel, it's different, and people are going to compare ever change in D3 to D2, and if it isn't twice as good, they will complain.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D3 Pros: Outdoors environment, night time environment, female Barbarian, rune spell system, the Wizard class
D3 Cons: Fantasy architecture, fantasy armor, fanstasy weapons, no shaders.
I have to agree with Mahamoti on most of his stuff.
I don't see these differences. I think D3 looks great and can't wait. Unless there's some super crazy option that gives D3 a D2 interface it's something we'll have to live with.
But I can't wait for D3, just counting down the years.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel.
- Homer Simpson
Sargeant_Warden, thanks for making sense of his point for me.
Perhaps I was too harsh.
Although it is true that there will be some detail lost when going to 3D, a lot of this detail is usually brought back with per-pixel normal maps...a standard practice that goes an excellent job of adding fine level bumps and detail to objects without much computational expense, and this appears to be lacking -- at least from the terrain.
Also, a lot of the objects in the outdoor environment blend in so much with the background that it looks like one flat layer. This effect could be reduced by slightly increasing the contrast and accentuating edges..as I have done in this image:
yup, the low contrast / gaussian blur overlay style is part of the current "blizzard" style many people complained about seeing spread into Diablo 3. Completely agree with you.
The Diablo III graphics are high quality, colorful, and detailed, but it's missing a lot of feeling.
D3 isn't detailed, it has definition yes but it lacks minutiae.
Here is a ScreenShot to make biff exploder happy
Quote from name="biff exploder" »
still its amazing how i can see more detail on the D3 screenshot then the D2 screenshot without the filters. maybe my eyes are just better then yours. and i'm not even wearing my glasses...
Well the computer dosn't.
biff exploder, kiowa and mahamoti think Ad Hominem and Straw Man attacks make good argument. and they are right, thous attacks make a vary 'Oratorical Argument' just not a good 'Logical Argument'
Of course they don't want a Logical Argument becouse there is no way they could win one, which is why I said 'attacks' and not 'fallacies'. They aren't 'oratorical fallacies' becouse they are vary convincing. They weren't trying to be Logical so beinging up the point that they are 'logical fallacies' would just be Straw Man argument.
Quote from "Sargeant_Warden" »
While this isn't "worse" or "better" than a grittier feel, it's different, and people are going to compare ever change in D3 to D2, and if it isn't twice as good, they will complain.
No people are going to complain becouse thay can't tell if thay are running D3 fullscreen at 640x480 or at 1024x768.
seriously now, D3 detail is just fine, in D2 dungeons there was nothing except dunngeon walls, doors and monsters, then look at D3 dungeon, its a whoooooole new world of detail you can see the faces of the characters, you can even see dynamic blood on them.
Thats not the type of detail hes talking about. Hes talking about the lack of detail in the textures and graphics, not the number of doodads utilized in level design.
D3 isn't detailed, it has definition yes but it lacks minutiae.
Here is a ScreenShot to make biff exploder happy
Well the computer dosn't.
biff exploder, kiowa and mahamoti think Ad Hominem and Straw Man attacks make good argument. and they are right, thous attacks make a vary 'Oratorical Argument' just not a good 'Logical Argument'
Of course they don't want a Logical Argument becouse there is no way they could win one, which is why I said 'attacks' and not 'fallacies'. They aren't 'oratorical fallacies' becouse they are vary convincing. They weren't trying to be Logical so beinging up the point that they are 'logical fallacies' would just be Straw Man argument.
No people are going to complain becouse thay can't tell if thay are running D3 fullscreen at 640x480 or at 1024x768.
1st thing first, you're more or less pulling a 'straw man' with that post in your assumption that they consider it a valid argument.
2nd thing second, i applaud your efforts, more than anyone I can appreciate the tact of just trying to go over the other person's head
3 On the flipside of 2, it's very painful to read a post where someone wants to use rare words and misspell the common ones tragically.
I'd like to point out that this argument is not the same as the people who want a very dark and gloomy look. I don't mind the use of color much, but I do mind the lack of contrast in this woodland area.
I think the lack of detail is due to lacking of normal maps and low contrast diffuse maps.
How many of you prefer the original screenshot to this simple filtered version?
Also... Diablo 3 isn't done yet. They might add more details as the process goes on. But... Diablo 3 has sharper details than Diablo 2 has, even if there are more details in Diablo 2 *which I don't really agree with.*
They didn't say my Premises where untrue. they compleately ignored my premise "D2 screenshots are changed more than D3 screenshots by a gaussian blur."
and replaces them with "DrAltaica's eyes see let detail in the D3 screenshots."
there premise was "DrAltaica can't spell" and I showed that you can't infer how much detail is in the D3 by my ability to spell or not.
First of all, you used poor examples. It would have been more appropriate to use an outdoor screenie of D3 in comparison.
Here is a better comparison: D3 D2
And your whole resolution reduction is completely absurd. If the game developers were under resolution constraints I imagine that the would have approached the textures in a completely different way. As it stands now, D3 is in every way more detailed than D2.
Second of all, your theory that there is a gaussian blur is completely unsubstantiated. A gaussian blur would make the clearly defined edges of the stones well... blur, and you can see that that is clearly not the case.
Lastly, I would like to point out that most of our vision in real life is in fact gaussian, take a moment to focus on something that is in your perifrial vision. Does it seem blurry? Bingo! The art discussion always boils down to personal preferences, I, for one enjoy the painting-like effect that the D3 environments leave. If you were a fan of D2 then you should appreciate that.
Second of all, your theory that there is a gaussian blur is completely unsubstantiated. A gaussian blur would make the clearly defined edges of the stones well... blur, and you can see that that is clearly not the case.
He didn't say that it was gaussian blurred, he said that D3 screenshot is changed more by a gaussian blur than a D2 screenshot, which is a roundabout way of saying that D3 screenshot contains less high frequency information -- which is a technical way of saying it has less detail.
Secondly, and this is besides the point, the D3 screenshots DO contain gaussian blur, which is quite obvious by the presence of a slight bloom effect in the screenshot, which is accomplished by doing a screen-space gaussian blur in the pixel shader for bright pixels.
Finally, regardless of how the human visual system works, a Gaussian blur always removes detail.
He didn't say that it was gaussian blurred, he said that D3 screenshot is changed more by a gaussian blur than a D2 screenshot, which is a roundabout way of saying that D3 screenshot contains less high frequency information -- which is a technical way of saying it has less detail.
Secondly, and this is besides the point, the D3 screenshots DO contain gaussian blur, which is quite obvious by the presence of a slight bloom effect in the screenshot, which is accomplished by doing a screen-space gaussian blur in the pixel shader for bright pixels.
Finally, regardless of how the human visual system works, a Gaussian blur always removes detail.
He worded it weirdly.
If by that you mean more semi-random pixels that give the impression of detail, I would say yes.
The gaussian isn't substantial enough to produce any noticeable effects on the detail.
I find this thread to be nearly void of interest. I'm not sure what he expects them to do. Add more rough pixelation? That's like reversing technological advancments for the sake of nostalgia. Ridiculous.:confused:
Not necessarily Murderface.... Smart blur-filters are old technology.
You can say what you want about peripheral vision... but the fact of the matter remains, what you actually ARE looking at does not retain that same blurred look.
Upping the contrast would help reduce the blurred gaussian look.
Quote from "Ogen" »
Also... Diablo 3 isn't done yet. They might add more details as the process goes on. But... Diablo 3 has sharper details than Diablo 2 has, even if there are more details in Diablo 2 *which I don't really agree with.*
I would call D3 style '***-******' but '***-******' does mean 'to fill in'(or what people who made 3D renderers call shading) in the style used traditional 2D animation on the clear sheets of acetate(what they call a cel)
Toy quote Dmaster14@www.astahost.com/info.php/zelda-wind-waker_t3423.html
"The graphics are all colorful and bright, which people call ***-******"
Si I think I'll call it 'blotchy' because they reader everything as detailess blotches of color.
Here is screenshot of D2 in D3 style 'blotchy' graphics
http://img87.imageshack.us/my.php?image=diablo2d3stylepa5.jpg
D2 has a unique style that gives you the impression that the world has more detail that the screen can display. compare Diablo 1 and 2 to Baldur's Gate. BG gives you the impression that it's showing all the detail the world has. in D2 when you look at the faces you get that feeling that you can't tell then apart. in BG you get the feeling that all look the same.
But look at the D3 screen shots and resize them to 640x480 of D2 and you don't loose any of the details of the objects, in fact D2 is still more detail.
http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=diablo3hasnodetailyn1.jpg
What is this "blotchiness" you speak of? I do not see it.
I can only presume that you are whining about the fact that D3 is a 3D world which inherently requires a lack of apparent detail compared to a 2D sprite based engine, simply due to the fact that you can't expect all the geometry to be as detailed as all the hand drawn or offline rendered sprites. Well, at least not without extensive use of real-time displacements via geometry shaders which are only supported by the most advanced hardware in combination with DirectX10 only available for windows Vista.
Blizzard has gone to a lot of work to make a cross platform game with relatively low system specs as always, which maximizes the availability of the game and is one reason why it has such a large and successful community. If they switched to being Vista + DirectX10 only, they would lose about 90% of the market and the online experience would be significantly smaller and worse. They wouldn't make as much money and wouldn't be able to take as good care of it with updates, etc.
Most people tend to agree that the benefits of 3D far outweigh the cons. The fact is that in this day and age, people would not be happy with a sprite-based 2D game anymore.
The Diablo III graphics are high quality, colorful, and detailed, but it's missing a lot of feeling. For example, if you look at the stone (indoors, outdoors, doesn't matter), it all looks like some one has sanded it down to a smooth, almost marble like consistency. The boulders coming out of the ground in the outdoors area seem to be very loosely defined as where they start and stop, like they took a picture of a rock, then blurred the edges so it would mesh with the terrain.
Look at the stone formation right above the Barbarian. It has no angles to it. It's a smooth, raised lump in the ground with a rock texture painted onto it. See how there is no real starting and stopping point for the grass or rocks? They blend into each other.
I know this is part of the Blizzard "Living Oil Painting" style for Diablo 3, but one of their main art philosophies that Jay keeps talking about is "deeply defined silhouettes," yet they blend all the stuff together in a mesh of smooth textures.
While this isn't "worse" or "better" than a grittier feel, it's different, and people are going to compare ever change in D3 to D2, and if it isn't twice as good, they will complain.
D3 Pros: Outdoors environment, night time environment, female Barbarian, rune spell system, the Wizard class
D3 Cons: Fantasy architecture, fantasy armor, fanstasy weapons, no shaders.
I don't see these differences. I think D3 looks great and can't wait. Unless there's some super crazy option that gives D3 a D2 interface it's something we'll have to live with.
But I can't wait for D3, just counting down the years.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel.
- Homer Simpson
D3's textures look like thay were made for a cel-shaded game.
I expected D3 to look like this. http://www.sacred2.com/en/media/screenshots-pc.html
Not like this. http://media.cube.ign.com/media/017/017012/imgs_1.html
Perhaps I was too harsh.
Although it is true that there will be some detail lost when going to 3D, a lot of this detail is usually brought back with per-pixel normal maps...a standard practice that goes an excellent job of adding fine level bumps and detail to objects without much computational expense, and this appears to be lacking -- at least from the terrain.
Also, a lot of the objects in the outdoor environment blend in so much with the background that it looks like one flat layer. This effect could be reduced by slightly increasing the contrast and accentuating edges..as I have done in this image:
Old:
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/8035/diablo3screen3nm8.jpg
New:
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6829/postcn9.jpg
~not going to buy a wow-ish diablo 3~
~this is the petition you're looking for~
Yes. Blur is terrible. I hate playing a game that makes me think that I need glasses.
Here is a ScreenShot to make biff exploder happy
Well the computer dosn't.
biff exploder, kiowa and mahamoti think
Ad Hominem and Straw Man attacks make good argument. and they are right, thous attacks make a vary 'Oratorical Argument' just not a good 'Logical Argument'
Of course they don't want a Logical Argument becouse there is no way they could win one, which is why I said 'attacks' and not 'fallacies'. They aren't 'oratorical fallacies' becouse they are vary convincing. They weren't trying to be Logical so beinging up the point that they are 'logical fallacies' would just be Straw Man argument.
No people are going to complain becouse thay can't tell if thay are running D3 fullscreen at 640x480 or at 1024x768.
Thats not the type of detail hes talking about. Hes talking about the lack of detail in the textures and graphics, not the number of doodads utilized in level design.
~not going to buy a wow-ish diablo 3~
~this is the petition you're looking for~
1st thing first, you're more or less pulling a 'straw man' with that post in your assumption that they consider it a valid argument.
2nd thing second, i applaud your efforts, more than anyone I can appreciate the tact of just trying to go over the other person's head
3 On the flipside of 2, it's very painful to read a post where someone wants to use rare words and misspell the common ones tragically.
I think the lack of detail is due to lacking of normal maps and low contrast diffuse maps.
How many of you prefer the original screenshot to this simple filtered version?
Old:
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/803...screen3nm8.jpg
New:
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6829/postcn9.jpg
Go read this to find out what a logical argument is.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
They didn't say my Premises where untrue. they compleately ignored my premise "D2 screenshots are changed more than D3 screenshots by a gaussian blur."
and replaces them with "DrAltaica's eyes see let detail in the D3 screenshots."
there premise was "DrAltaica can't spell" and I showed that you can't infer how much detail is in the D3 by my ability to spell or not.
Here is a better comparison:
D3
D2
And your whole resolution reduction is completely absurd. If the game developers were under resolution constraints I imagine that the would have approached the textures in a completely different way. As it stands now, D3 is in every way more detailed than D2.
Second of all, your theory that there is a gaussian blur is completely unsubstantiated. A gaussian blur would make the clearly defined edges of the stones well... blur, and you can see that that is clearly not the case.
Lastly, I would like to point out that most of our vision in real life is in fact gaussian, take a moment to focus on something that is in your perifrial vision. Does it seem blurry? Bingo! The art discussion always boils down to personal preferences, I, for one enjoy the painting-like effect that the D3 environments leave. If you were a fan of D2 then you should appreciate that.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
He didn't say that it was gaussian blurred, he said that D3 screenshot is changed more by a gaussian blur than a D2 screenshot, which is a roundabout way of saying that D3 screenshot contains less high frequency information -- which is a technical way of saying it has less detail.
Secondly, and this is besides the point, the D3 screenshots DO contain gaussian blur, which is quite obvious by the presence of a slight bloom effect in the screenshot, which is accomplished by doing a screen-space gaussian blur in the pixel shader for bright pixels.
Finally, regardless of how the human visual system works, a Gaussian blur always removes detail.
If by that you mean more semi-random pixels that give the impression of detail, I would say yes.
The gaussian isn't substantial enough to produce any noticeable effects on the detail.
I find this thread to be nearly void of interest. I'm not sure what he expects them to do. Add more rough pixelation? That's like reversing technological advancments for the sake of nostalgia. Ridiculous.:confused:
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
You can say what you want about peripheral vision... but the fact of the matter remains, what you actually ARE looking at does not retain that same blurred look.
Upping the contrast would help reduce the blurred gaussian look.
Sharper? Im not seeing it.
~not going to buy a wow-ish diablo 3~
~this is the petition you're looking for~