you're oblivious to the fact that blizzard knows what theyre doing, in fact look at look at their job applications, if you read the environmental artist job, they want you to be able to create a DIVERSE range of environments, that bright artwork in the first act is nothing more than just the tip of the iceberg
personally with me, i got tired and bored with the constant darkness of each and every single act, the change to the snowy scenery in act 5 did wonders, act 3 especially was extremely annoying, always dark and a pain to be in
Stylized over realism...big mistake...someone should punch that guy to his balls to let him know what kind of *** is he doing (you can not always make atmosphere by story and things that are happening...I am going to kill you on the field filled with BUNNIES.. it looks like some kind of parody to Diablo)...and stylized doesn't mean cartoony that is truth as long as the world is not painted...
Hey, respect Blizzard.
You can voice your opinion but lets all respect the developer who created the franchise.
I think it was a huge mistake to show off a part of the game without showing us anything that resembles Diablo. For all I can tell, the respect they have from the franchise comes from their wallets and not from the game itself. This is why we see more of a Warcraft feel and look than a Diablo feel and look.
Instead of showing us, say, different areas. They showcased the beginning of Act 1. The release announcement wasn't doing anything but showing the direction they want to take the game and confirm that Hydra was, in fact, D3.
This was a huge mistake, at least for the fans. Cool. Diablo 3. This is what has taken 8 years? Eh...
To make it even worse they have said that this is the third, or that they have gone through three, art design(s). I'm pretty confident that it was much darker, grittier, and true to Diablo than what we see now.
To expand even further, Rob talked about using certain colors to enhance the horror aspect of it (specifically oranges and blues). The problem, though, is that the colors he specifically talked about were EVERYWHERE. There is a shade of blue or orange in every screenshot and in every second of that video. That isn't enhancing, that is saturating.
Those oranges need to be rarer and need to be darker, earthier. The water, if it is going to be bright, needs to react to the blood of your enemies. Things like that are possible without using much, or any, CPU power. Stuff like that makes it Diablo.
The violence was, simply put, O.K. There wasn't much to say about it besides "Oh, a gib." The physics stuff is expected and really isn't anything special. The highlight of the video, in regards to violence, was when the dragonspawn-look-alike ripped that player in half. When it happened, the blood was minimal. No spray. It simply looked 'meh'.
IF the art does get more gothic and dark as you play then GREAT! Amazing! The problem is that they didn't show us it. They showed us a place that, from past games, WAS VERY DARK AND GOTHIC. In D3, that place is NOT DARK AND GOTHIC!
That's the problem. That's the problem entirely.
If the dungeon was dark, cruel, and terrifying then I doubt as many people would be upset about it. I know I wouldn't.
Inside of the Cathedral, a place we know VERY WELL FROM DIABLO 1, we saw a blue-green mask on all of the shadows, a bunch of cartoony shaped furniture and scenery, and a general theme of... well... Warcraft. This is an issue. This is not respecting the franchise. In fact, it is throwing what is known about the franchise out of the window and replacing it.
To recap:
1. We know what the cathedral looks like. We know, to a lesser extent, what King Leorics woods looks like (the area outside of the cathedral).
2. They stated that they are respecting the franchise.
3. What we saw did not look like what the cathedral looks like.
hehe can I queue you in my sig? that was a good one. :rolleyes:
yea, sure.
Quote from "MagikOne" »
Lol, ok ill admit that statue makes me sick.
Makes me think im playing wow.
agreed, and making it black/darker won't fix the issue.
It's still blocky/cartoony. (and it's smiling haha)^_^
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
Hey, respect Blizzard.
You can voice your opinion but lets all respect the developer who created the franchise.
agree with you.
Don't bash Blizzard, even if you disagree with their cartoony art choice.
Keep this friendly. Maybe we'll even hear from Blizzard on this forum.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
I think it was a huge mistake to show off a part of the game without showing us anything that resembles Diablo. For all I can tell, the respect they have from the franchise comes from their wallets and not from the game itself. This is why we see more of a Warcraft feel and look than a Diablo feel and look.
Instead of showing us, say, different areas. They showcased the beginning of Act 1. The release announcement wasn't doing anything but showing the direction they want to take the game and confirm that Hydra was, in fact, D3.
This was a huge mistake, at least for the fans. Cool. Diablo 3. This is what has taken 8 years? Eh...
To make it even worse they have said that this is the third, or that they have gone through three, art design(s). I'm pretty confident that it was much darker, grittier, and true to Diablo than what we see now.
To expand even further, Rob talked about using certain colors to enhance the horror aspect of it (specifically oranges and blues). The problem, though, is that the colors he specifically talked about were EVERYWHERE. There is a shade of blue or orange in every screenshot and in every second of that video. That isn't enhancing, that is saturating.
Those oranges need to be rarer and need to be darker, earthier. The water, if it is going to be bright, needs to react to the blood of your enemies. Things like that are possible without using much, or any, CPU power. Stuff like that makes it Diablo.
The violence was, simply put, O.K. There wasn't much to say about it besides "Oh, a gib." The physics stuff is expected and really isn't anything special. The highlight of the video, in regards to violence, was when the dragonspawn-look-alike ripped that player in half. When it happened, the blood was minimal. No spray. It simply looked 'meh'.
IF the art does get more gothic and dark as you play then GREAT! Amazing! The problem is that they didn't show us it. They showed us a place that, from past games, WAS VERY DARK AND GOTHIC. In D3, that place is NOT DARK AND GOTHIC!
That's the problem. That's the problem entirely.
If the dungeon was dark, cruel, and terrifying then I doubt as many people would be upset about it. I know I wouldn't.
Inside of the Cathedral, a place we know VERY WELL FROM DIABLO 1, we saw a blue-green mask on all of the shadows, a bunch of cartoony shaped furniture and scenery, and a general theme of... well... Warcraft. This is an issue. This is not respecting the franchise. In fact, it is throwing what is known about the franchise out of the window and replacing it.
To recap:
1. We know what the cathedral looks like. We know, to a lesser extent, what King Leorics woods looks like (the area outside of the cathedral).
2. They stated that they are respecting the franchise.
3. What we saw did not look like what the cathedral looks like.
4. This is respect how?
did YOU create the diablo franchise? no
is diablo world of warcraft? no
why is it that you must complain, if you're so worried about it, dont play it, simple as that, you're just one of those guys joy killing what most of us have been waiting for, for years now
violence was simply okay? grab me a clip of a scene in diablo 1 or 2 where somone gets bitten in half
no?
exactly and the physics stuff wasn't expected, you can't say that it's not impressive on how they decide to implement all that
horror just isn't all black and white and grayness, if you were in central park and a zombie came out from under you, that still is considered horror, people are associating horror with color, not with emotion which is the road theyre attempting to take
violence was simply okay? grab me a clip of a scene in diablo 1 or 2 where somone gets bitten in half
People get cut in half even in Dragon Ball Z. --->A children's cartoon.
Does that make it less cartoony? NO, still a cartoon.
Have you seen some Japanese anime? That stuff is very bloody, violent, gory, but they're still cartoons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
I think it was a huge mistake to show off a part of the game without showing us anything that resembles Diablo. For all I can tell, the respect they have from the franchise comes from their wallets and not from the game itself. This is why we see more of a Warcraft feel and look than a Diablo feel and look.
Instead of showing us, say, different areas. They showcased the beginning of Act 1. The release announcement wasn't doing anything but showing the direction they want to take the game and confirm that Hydra was, in fact, D3.
This was a huge mistake, at least for the fans. Cool. Diablo 3. This is what has taken 8 years? Eh...
To make it even worse they have said that this is the third, or that they have gone through three, art design(s). I'm pretty confident that it was much darker, grittier, and true to Diablo than what we see now.
To expand even further, Rob talked about using certain colors to enhance the horror aspect of it (specifically oranges and blues). The problem, though, is that the colors he specifically talked about were EVERYWHERE. There is a shade of blue or orange in every screenshot and in every second of that video. That isn't enhancing, that is saturating.
Those oranges need to be rarer and need to be darker, earthier. The water, if it is going to be bright, needs to react to the blood of your enemies. Things like that are possible without using much, or any, CPU power. Stuff like that makes it Diablo.
The violence was, simply put, O.K. There wasn't much to say about it besides "Oh, a gib." The physics stuff is expected and really isn't anything special. The highlight of the video, in regards to violence, was when the dragonspawn-look-alike ripped that player in half. When it happened, the blood was minimal. No spray. It simply looked 'meh'.
IF the art does get more gothic and dark as you play then GREAT! Amazing! The problem is that they didn't show us it. They showed us a place that, from past games, WAS VERY DARK AND GOTHIC. In D3, that place is NOT DARK AND GOTHIC!
That's the problem. That's the problem entirely.
If the dungeon was dark, cruel, and terrifying then I doubt as many people would be upset about it. I know I wouldn't.
Inside of the Cathedral, a place we know VERY WELL FROM DIABLO 1, we saw a blue-green mask on all of the shadows, a bunch of cartoony shaped furniture and scenery, and a general theme of... well... Warcraft. This is an issue. This is not respecting the franchise. In fact, it is throwing what is known about the franchise out of the window and replacing it.
To recap:
1. We know what the cathedral looks like. We know, to a lesser extent, what King Leorics woods looks like (the area outside of the cathedral).
2. They stated that they are respecting the franchise.
3. What we saw did not look like what the cathedral looks like.
4. This is respect how?
Oh god, I didn't know that was supposed to be the cathedral... That's just straight up fucked.
you can't compare a video game to something completely irrelevant which is based solely on your perspective that it looks cartoony, does diablo look anything like dragon ball z? no, i dont see someone throwing a spirit bomb or something
complaining that it's too cartoony is not gonna stop you from playing the game anyway so why argue this
you can't compare a video game to something completely irrelevant which is based solely on your perspective that it looks cartoony, does diablo look anything like dragon ball z? no, i dont see someone throwing a spirit bomb or something
complaining that it's too cartoony is not gonna stop you from playing the game anyway so why argue this
They weren't saying it looked like Dragon Ball Z.
If the entire game looks similar to this, I probably will set it down and move on.
violence was simply okay? grab me a clip of a scene in diablo 1 or 2 where somone gets bitten in half
Violence is okay, because it's not realistic so there is no emotion towards it. I can watch anime violence all day and laugh. Watch Hostel 1 or 2, then you feel uneasy but you still enjoy it (unless you don't like horror).
Do see what I mean?
(some modern rpg's resemble Horror movies, D3 resembles a horror cartoon)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
did YOU create the diablo franchise? no
is diablo world of warcraft? no
Did Blizzard create Diablo? No, they did not. They bought the company that created Diablo a month or two before the game shipped.
Does Diablo 3 currently look like WoW? Yes, yes it does.
why is it that you must complain, if you're so worried about it, dont play it, simple as that, you're just one of those guys joy killing what most of us have been waiting for, for years now
Because I'm a fan. I've been waiting 8 years for this game.
violence was simply okay? grab me a clip of a scene in diablo 1 or 2 where somone gets bitten in half
no?
exactly and the physics stuff wasn't expected, you can't say that it's not impressive on how they decide to implement all that
Can you show me a clip of a scene from any game made in 2001 where comeone gets bitten in half? No, you can't. Can I get you one of someone being bitten in half post 2001? Yes.
Physics is expected in todays gaming market. Titan Quest set the bar here.
horror just isn't all black and white and grayness, if you were in central park and a zombie came out from under you, that still is considered horror, people are associating horror with color, not with emotion which is the road theyre attempting to take
And Diablo isn't about horror. Diablo is about a gothic look an appearance. You don't understand what I'm saying, and it shows. You're completely misunderstanding it.
What we saw are two places we know from Diablo 1. One we know VERY WELL, the other we can see while in town. They look nothing like that. 20 years? Sure. K. Blue-green doesn't replace black in 20 years. That doesn't even make sense.
The whole thing is that what they are attempting to do is not working, and it isn't working for a very large number of us. Bright vibrant colors have not fit anywhere into the world of Diablo. The only place they have fit has been in the spells and armor. This is what made the game. The contrast between the bleak world and the colors.
People don't get this.
If you have a bright and colorful world, your bright blues, greens, reds, purples, etc from your armors, spells, abilities, etc become lost. They are not brought out. They aren't the focal point. The combat loses a lot of attention because they want to bring attention to the world.
That's not the point of Diablo. The point of Diablo is to have impressive spell effects, abilities, auras, armor, and weaponry that is brought out by the bleak landscape. This also helps make you feel powerful by putting your character at the center of everything.
This is why your first encounter with the bosses was amazing and unique. They stood out from all of the normal bad guys and looked much stronger than you without making them GIGANTIC. There was no need for them to reach to the sky like what we saw with the dragonspawn because they contrasted well with the rest of the game by having a unique pallet of colors that played against the act you were in.
Andariel? The red on her body played well against the act as red wasn't used very often. Her bright green poison spell also contrasted against the dark dungeon floor so it was not only easy to see, but easy to kill. This act set the entire mood for the game and it did it very well.
That big slug thing from Act 2 (can't remember his name, I hated him)? Him being ice was no coincidence. Not only did the color choice for ice go completely against the desert theme, but it was very easy to see over the sandy textures of the encounter and act.
This act was very colorful while starting to become moody.
Mephisto? Surely this is easy to explain. The extreme dark of the act contrasted perfectly with his lightning. It made it easy to see and stuck out. Him being primarily blue also contrasted the blood-and-black of the Durance of Hate. It made him stick out and seem epic. This act was very colorful yet very dark and moody.
Diablo? Pretty self explanatory. His red fire not only works well because it is hell, but it stuck out because of the very dark floor. This act was very colorful yet very dark and moody.
Baal? Easy pie. His purple and red spells contrasted perfectly with the light-blue-almost-white look of the snow. His appearance not only made him look intimidating, but it fit perfectly with the act.
I can't see what could fit well within what was shown in Diablo 3 besides something not-so-intimidating... and that's pretty un-Diablo.
Stylized over realism...big mistake...someone should punch that guy to his balls to let him know what kind of *** is he doing (you can not always make atmosphere by story and things that are happening...I am going to kill you on the field filled with BUNNIES.. it looks like some kind of parody to Diablo)...and stylized doesn't mean cartoony that is truth as long as the world is not painted...
Honestly who cares? I doesn't take away from the epic storyline. Quit whining. Pathetic.
I think it was a huge mistake to show off a part of the game without showing us anything that resembles Diablo. For all I can tell, the respect they have from the franchise comes from their wallets and not from the game itself. This is why we see more of a Warcraft feel and look than a Diablo feel and look.
Instead of showing us, say, different areas. They showcased the beginning of Act 1. The release announcement wasn't doing anything but showing the direction they want to take the game and confirm that Hydra was, in fact, D3.
This was a huge mistake, at least for the fans. Cool. Diablo 3. This is what has taken 8 years? Eh...
To make it even worse they have said that this is the third, or that they have gone through three, art design(s). I'm pretty confident that it was much darker, grittier, and true to Diablo than what we see now.
To expand even further, Rob talked about using certain colors to enhance the horror aspect of it (specifically oranges and blues). The problem, though, is that the colors he specifically talked about were EVERYWHERE. There is a shade of blue or orange in every screenshot and in every second of that video. That isn't enhancing, that is saturating.
Those oranges need to be rarer and need to be darker, earthier. The water, if it is going to be bright, needs to react to the blood of your enemies. Things like that are possible without using much, or any, CPU power. Stuff like that makes it Diablo.
The violence was, simply put, O.K. There wasn't much to say about it besides "Oh, a gib." The physics stuff is expected and really isn't anything special. The highlight of the video, in regards to violence, was when the dragonspawn-look-alike ripped that player in half. When it happened, the blood was minimal. No spray. It simply looked 'meh'.
IF the art does get more gothic and dark as you play then GREAT! Amazing! The problem is that they didn't show us it. They showed us a place that, from past games, WAS VERY DARK AND GOTHIC. In D3, that place is NOT DARK AND GOTHIC!
That's the problem. That's the problem entirely.
If the dungeon was dark, cruel, and terrifying then I doubt as many people would be upset about it. I know I wouldn't.
Inside of the Cathedral, a place we know VERY WELL FROM DIABLO 1, we saw a blue-green mask on all of the shadows, a bunch of cartoony shaped furniture and scenery, and a general theme of... well... Warcraft. This is an issue. This is not respecting the franchise. In fact, it is throwing what is known about the franchise out of the window and replacing it.
To recap:
1. We know what the cathedral looks like. We know, to a lesser extent, what King Leorics woods looks like (the area outside of the cathedral).
2. They stated that they are respecting the franchise.
3. What we saw did not look like what the cathedral looks like.
4. This is respect how?
Hey I agree with you on the gothic graphics, but you can't say that nothing resembles Diablo. I mean, look at the skills, the action, the fighting, the intensity of it all. It's going to be a fun ROUGH ride. And the demon biting the barb in half?!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
personally with me, i got tired and bored with the constant darkness of each and every single act, the change to the snowy scenery in act 5 did wonders, act 3 especially was extremely annoying, always dark and a pain to be in
THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING
Lol, ok ill admit that statue makes me sick.
Makes me think im playing wow.
gg.
Hey, respect Blizzard.
You can voice your opinion but lets all respect the developer who created the franchise.
Instead of showing us, say, different areas. They showcased the beginning of Act 1. The release announcement wasn't doing anything but showing the direction they want to take the game and confirm that Hydra was, in fact, D3.
This was a huge mistake, at least for the fans. Cool. Diablo 3. This is what has taken 8 years? Eh...
To make it even worse they have said that this is the third, or that they have gone through three, art design(s). I'm pretty confident that it was much darker, grittier, and true to Diablo than what we see now.
To expand even further, Rob talked about using certain colors to enhance the horror aspect of it (specifically oranges and blues). The problem, though, is that the colors he specifically talked about were EVERYWHERE. There is a shade of blue or orange in every screenshot and in every second of that video. That isn't enhancing, that is saturating.
Those oranges need to be rarer and need to be darker, earthier. The water, if it is going to be bright, needs to react to the blood of your enemies. Things like that are possible without using much, or any, CPU power. Stuff like that makes it Diablo.
The violence was, simply put, O.K. There wasn't much to say about it besides "Oh, a gib." The physics stuff is expected and really isn't anything special. The highlight of the video, in regards to violence, was when the dragonspawn-look-alike ripped that player in half. When it happened, the blood was minimal. No spray. It simply looked 'meh'.
IF the art does get more gothic and dark as you play then GREAT! Amazing! The problem is that they didn't show us it. They showed us a place that, from past games, WAS VERY DARK AND GOTHIC. In D3, that place is NOT DARK AND GOTHIC!
That's the problem. That's the problem entirely.
If the dungeon was dark, cruel, and terrifying then I doubt as many people would be upset about it. I know I wouldn't.
Inside of the Cathedral, a place we know VERY WELL FROM DIABLO 1, we saw a blue-green mask on all of the shadows, a bunch of cartoony shaped furniture and scenery, and a general theme of... well... Warcraft. This is an issue. This is not respecting the franchise. In fact, it is throwing what is known about the franchise out of the window and replacing it.
To recap:
1. We know what the cathedral looks like. We know, to a lesser extent, what King Leorics woods looks like (the area outside of the cathedral).
2. They stated that they are respecting the franchise.
3. What we saw did not look like what the cathedral looks like.
4. This is respect how?
agreed, and making it black/darker won't fix the issue.
It's still blocky/cartoony. (and it's smiling haha)^_^
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
agree with you.
Don't bash Blizzard, even if you disagree with their cartoony art choice.
Keep this friendly. Maybe we'll even hear from Blizzard on this forum.
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
Blizzard owns the frachise but the people that created it left Blizzard long ago with the banishing of Blizzard North.
Some of you sound more like Blizzard fans then Diablo fans, which is not the same.
did YOU create the diablo franchise? no
is diablo world of warcraft? no
why is it that you must complain, if you're so worried about it, dont play it, simple as that, you're just one of those guys joy killing what most of us have been waiting for, for years now
violence was simply okay? grab me a clip of a scene in diablo 1 or 2 where somone gets bitten in half
no?
exactly and the physics stuff wasn't expected, you can't say that it's not impressive on how they decide to implement all that
horror just isn't all black and white and grayness, if you were in central park and a zombie came out from under you, that still is considered horror, people are associating horror with color, not with emotion which is the road theyre attempting to take
People get cut in half even in Dragon Ball Z. --->A children's cartoon.
Does that make it less cartoony? NO, still a cartoon.
Have you seen some Japanese anime? That stuff is very bloody, violent, gory, but they're still cartoons.
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
Oh god, I didn't know that was supposed to be the cathedral... That's just straight up fucked.
You sir, win.
Blizzard's philosophy is one GIANT oxymoron. And what a coincidence...that all blizz games have had this cartoony style when Blizzard North left.
What a coincidence...
complaining that it's too cartoony is not gonna stop you from playing the game anyway so why argue this
They weren't saying it looked like Dragon Ball Z.
If the entire game looks similar to this, I probably will set it down and move on.
Do see what I mean?
(some modern rpg's resemble Horror movies, D3 resembles a horror cartoon)
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
Did Blizzard create Diablo? No, they did not. They bought the company that created Diablo a month or two before the game shipped.
Does Diablo 3 currently look like WoW? Yes, yes it does.
Because I'm a fan. I've been waiting 8 years for this game.
Can you show me a clip of a scene from any game made in 2001 where comeone gets bitten in half? No, you can't. Can I get you one of someone being bitten in half post 2001? Yes.
Physics is expected in todays gaming market. Titan Quest set the bar here.
And Diablo isn't about horror. Diablo is about a gothic look an appearance. You don't understand what I'm saying, and it shows. You're completely misunderstanding it.
What we saw are two places we know from Diablo 1. One we know VERY WELL, the other we can see while in town. They look nothing like that. 20 years? Sure. K. Blue-green doesn't replace black in 20 years. That doesn't even make sense.
The whole thing is that what they are attempting to do is not working, and it isn't working for a very large number of us. Bright vibrant colors have not fit anywhere into the world of Diablo. The only place they have fit has been in the spells and armor. This is what made the game. The contrast between the bleak world and the colors.
People don't get this.
If you have a bright and colorful world, your bright blues, greens, reds, purples, etc from your armors, spells, abilities, etc become lost. They are not brought out. They aren't the focal point. The combat loses a lot of attention because they want to bring attention to the world.
That's not the point of Diablo. The point of Diablo is to have impressive spell effects, abilities, auras, armor, and weaponry that is brought out by the bleak landscape. This also helps make you feel powerful by putting your character at the center of everything.
This is why your first encounter with the bosses was amazing and unique. They stood out from all of the normal bad guys and looked much stronger than you without making them GIGANTIC. There was no need for them to reach to the sky like what we saw with the dragonspawn because they contrasted well with the rest of the game by having a unique pallet of colors that played against the act you were in.
Andariel? The red on her body played well against the act as red wasn't used very often. Her bright green poison spell also contrasted against the dark dungeon floor so it was not only easy to see, but easy to kill. This act set the entire mood for the game and it did it very well.
That big slug thing from Act 2 (can't remember his name, I hated him)? Him being ice was no coincidence. Not only did the color choice for ice go completely against the desert theme, but it was very easy to see over the sandy textures of the encounter and act.
This act was very colorful while starting to become moody.
Mephisto? Surely this is easy to explain. The extreme dark of the act contrasted perfectly with his lightning. It made it easy to see and stuck out. Him being primarily blue also contrasted the blood-and-black of the Durance of Hate. It made him stick out and seem epic. This act was very colorful yet very dark and moody.
Diablo? Pretty self explanatory. His red fire not only works well because it is hell, but it stuck out because of the very dark floor. This act was very colorful yet very dark and moody.
Baal? Easy pie. His purple and red spells contrasted perfectly with the light-blue-almost-white look of the snow. His appearance not only made him look intimidating, but it fit perfectly with the act.
I can't see what could fit well within what was shown in Diablo 3 besides something not-so-intimidating... and that's pretty un-Diablo.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
I do as well... it's just that it isn't Diablo. It's Warcraft.
Honestly who cares? I doesn't take away from the epic storyline. Quit whining. Pathetic.
The game looks fine.
Hey I agree with you on the gothic graphics, but you can't say that nothing resembles Diablo. I mean, look at the skills, the action, the fighting, the intensity of it all. It's going to be a fun ROUGH ride. And the demon biting the barb in half?!