LOOK AT THIS KOTAKU ARTICLE THAT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE GAME WAS ANNOUNCED:
Backtracking for a moment, it's in my humble opinion that Diablo III can't go 3D and maintain its trademark click to kill feel. But even giving the benefit of the doubt to Blizzard that they could deal with this issue (maybe by maintaining the same camera angle), it's hard to imagine such tiny characters on screen in 3D without becoming cartoony.
Picture the units in Warcraft 3—there's a reason that the chunky style works for this world—the eye can identify small units that have large, cylindrical arms and giant blocky weapons. But this art style doesn't match that of the Diablo world. Diablo is carnal in that stereotypical RPG way. If a weapon glows, it's with patina. If a monster is ugly, it's not in the PG Crocks "ugly is beautiful" way. It looks like an ugly monster.
Yeh it's great that there are games that look better. I could also show many games that looked better then d1 and d2 at their times. It's not what makes diablo diablo in my opinion. Graphics aren't everything!!
Coolhund, maybe you should go play Dungeon Hero then instead? It seems perfect for you! But I bet it won't have the nice diablo feeling, inspite of good graphics.
I mean, why all the complaining, when there are, according to you, better games. Just go play those!
the nice diablo feeling????could i feel it with the fakes of WoW??
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DIFFERENT ARTISTS MAKES DIFFERENT GAME!!NEW CLASS of WoW above.
His remedy would be hard to implement though, and I'm not sure if it's feasible:
With these boundaries in mind, the solution of hand drawing (and sticking with sprites) seems perfect. Without the limitations of polygons—current screen resolutions combined with Blizzard's artistic talent could create a Diablo that we've only seen in our mind's eye, one that is essentially concept art imported directly into the game without the artistically-limiting technical compromises of 3D modeling. (In short, it'd look a lot like Diablo 2 with the gloves off.)
That's fair if they tested. See I would also shut up if Blizzard, in a grand post, explained why this slightly stylized look was needed for technical reasons (like only the top 20% of the computers would have graphical capabilities to play it), and they needed to compromise so that everyone had a chance to play it.
But if they changed the whole feel of the game just so that a couple of Chinese WoW-gold farmers can buy XX number of copies, I would be pretty pissed (like 80% of computers can play it). I just want a good explanation about the technical issues so I can get educated. I want to be able to appreciate the compromises they made between graphics and gameplay.
They mentioned they went through at least 3 visual redesigns. Why don't they reveal them to the community? And after all, if you do all that testing without the community's knowledge and understanding, you take a risk like they did here of a little fan backlash.
I am a loiterer hence only just signing up and decided to express my views. I am not new, flame that all you want, I am just normally silent but really want to get down my views on these arguments flying about.
The D3 "make it dark!" / "D3 we love the colour!!!!" arguments I feel have lost a lot in translation since the announcement. This is probably due to people who jumped instantly to express their views and didn't quite get them across how they intended. After reading and reading, like I always do, I have come to the below conclusion what people who argue for a 'Colour' change might be trying to express.
The Diablo games (to me and I believe the 'darken' brigade) gave the impression of being real. A fantasy world full of magic, violence, demons, etc ... that felt real. Now where I feel the colour direction should have gone in this game is to keep that reality feeling everywhere.
Rainbows exist, grass is green, trees glimmer when wet, stone grows light coloured moss - etc etc etc. Stone in Cathedrals/Churches (using demo here) however are not a blue hue. Cathedrals do have beautiful stained glass windows that fill a room with wonderful colours - they do not fill a dungeon to the point of being neon anything.
This is where people are crossing wires and arguments...
- Dungeons should look like a dungeon, drab, angry, wet, mouldy & claustrophobic.
- The outside world is full of bright colours and should show that.
- Undead/Demon infested outside areas (we are lead to believe) are a mix of the two.
Now with a 3D engine Blizz are well known for their catering en mass - e.g. most PCs can play it. That in itself gives limitations on what can structurally be achieved in the game hence realism needs to be sacrificed. What I don't see that needs to be sacrificed are texturing of those said areas to keep the sense realism.
This is a game, but atmosphere is what the previous games conveyed whether it be in a dark dungeon, out in the bright desert, an Egyptian (style) tomb or in the lush green jungle. Each area had its own unique feeling because it appeared to be created with realism in mind. D3 from the video appears to show that it has been lost - that all colours are vibrant, everything is exciting - that is not real.
Now if Blizz come out and say that this demo dungeon was meant to be so bright because the occupants worked in B&Q and had huge discount on paint - that will explain a lot and then give hope that other dungeons are going to stick to realism over style. (yes humour)
Seriously though, after seeing the higher res demo I was thoroughly impressed with the blood / entrails & the green grass - I was just underwhelmed by the fact what were 'scary' dungeons were now theme parks.
So my finals words are this...
- The pictures where people turn the Cathedral/Church into that Gothic, dark, brooding feeling - thumbs up, great way to describe what is wanted to be kept in the series.
- The pictures where people seem to think rainbows, green grass and trees should look like everything died - great where needed, like where the undead chill out, but all those things do exist and should be in the game. The whole Diablo world is not permanently depressed and like D2 showed had plenty of colour, like our own world.
Flame all you want, I was constructive and hope I got across a happy medium between all the arguing.
For example, in Diablo, the graphics and mood suggest the type of spells to be used; you aren't going to see a spell like "Polymorph" in the Diablo universe 'cause it just doesn't fit. Stop pretending like you can consider one without the other.
What people are trying to say is that the technical capabilities of the graphics don't matter. What if Diablo III had Pixar level Toy Story 2 graphics, which is better than the visual capabilities of ANY type of game on the market. Are you honestly saying that wouldn't matter to you?
The thread had to do with the total game diablo3 for me. This thread is about the petition mainle, for me at least, and if blizzard llistens to it, the game will be delayed. And they will 'waste' time on the graphics.
Some people enjoy graphics. Some people buy expensive hardware to get the most out of their games graphics wise. Those people are just as important as you. Therefore, if more time is spent on graphics it is completely legitimate.
I wasn't going to buy into this discussion as we are *very* polarised here but I trust the OP in saying that no flaming etc will be allowed.
I doubt any of us play just Diablo. Thus we represent a broad spectrum of tastes and we'll have diverse opinions.
Something we should agree upon is that nearer the completion date we'll all be working together to build some kick butt clans/guilds. But the Art Debate is part of the essence that is Diablo. It *is* important. But a little self-moderation now will be practice enough for when we get stuck into debating whether or not a Necro has a place in our clan's PvM party, LOL.
I agree with the point that the D3 art is influenced by WoW. I'd need to be blind to not notice that. But it is merely an influence. The art remains nothing like WoW.
Buy the styling of the armour and weapons is a concern. It is *heavily* influenced by WoW. It no longer looks like it could really have been worn. D2 had examples (the Bonesnap Maul was my favourite) but they were few.
But lets think again. We're in a fantasy setting. No way in real life would a hero have walked around with a D2-like spikey shield festooned with skulls - even if it was the right size. The gear in D2 was mostly of fantastic proportions, styling and/or properties. Almost all gear would never really have existed.
The D3 gear is even more fantastic. Arguing that the gear is not realistic is to deny that Diablo is all about fantasy and playing a role in a fantasy setting. The monsters are outrageous and so too the heroes.
The point of the complainants is then about the degree of fantasy. The bigger resolution monitors and the higher powered computers now mean that Blizzard can more faithfully represent the fantasy world of Diablo in far richer detail than way back when D2 was being content filled a decade ago.
I'm afraid to say that we have to let go of the old D2 styling.
So when our Barbarian stomps on the ground or our Witch Doctor swirls her wand then lets enjoy the shower of purple sparks, green orbs, orange vortexes of energy and elemental fireworks of fantastic beauty.
Far more entertaining than a wimpy spark from a D1 wand or a bland "ding" from a sword in D2. I want to be amazed and dazzled in D3 by the sheer power my hero has at his disposal.
Festival of Light or Dire Dim Dungeons?
-----------------------------------------------
Again, advances in technology make a richly detailed Tristram Cathedral possible.
The bright hues appear to be mainly from magic effects by the heroes and monsters. We should accept that Blizzard are now able to do these skills justice.
The argument that the landscapes / buildings look like WoW does not withstand scrutiny with side by side screen caps of representative WoW landscapes.
The argument that the D3 landscapes are much lighter than D2 is true. That the colours are saturated and bright, like a billboard poster or WoW is not true.
We have more light and colour because Blizzard are now able to represent evil in other ways and not just by using a limited grey/brown palette in low light. Computers can now cope with more detailed "walls" and variations in texture and colour to paint a scene.
In D2, when things were lightened up, such as when our hero first ventures out of Lut Gholein, the evil ambience was lost (for me at least) in the yellow/grey dessert. And the Arcane Sanctuary seemed to be such an ill fit with the rest of the game. The blandness of the Catacombs prior to Andariel just had to be painted dark to create an evil ambience.
In D3 Tristram palace was once a magnificent building. But in 2008 it is a dark evil place too. In 2000, well, it would not have been possible. Use a bland greyish wash and keep it dark and the gamers will never notice anything - they'll be too busy going carpal with their mouse.
In 2009/2010 we won't be going carpal, as we have been officially told. We'll be busy H&S but not so busy that we won't be able to admire the scenery.
Marvelling at the scenery is part of the Diablo story. As much as the lore and the unfolding story. Let's enjoy the art, be thankful that D3 is faithful to D2 and that any attempt to go down the WoW path got knocked on its head and dragged off into Duriel's lair.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
So we've got over the problem of colour in D3. Great. Now let's argue about everything else not yet set in stone and help make this game simply great! Game on.
Do not fall victim to troll bait, its the main tactic to try and discredit valid arguments.
There is no valid argument against the current version, as they haven't even showed us the game itself beyond a demo. You know what there is an valid argument for? The artistic ignorance of the community at mass. Just because you're not of the mind to understand and appreciate the depth and connotations of an artistic style, to whine unceasingly about an ever-changing and protean gripe, to change the terms used and try to be clever. Well, let me let you in on a wee bit of a secret. In all this complaining, this demand for them to destroy the entire game and remove all resources, this demand to sexualize women in a chauvanistic fashion...
...have half of you idiots actually /read/ what that petition you're all signing states, or what the guy who started it has said in regard to race and gender? Or are you all jumping on simply due to one issue without even reading it? The petition isn't to make the game darker. It's to try and get Blizzard to dissemble everything they've done in the past four years and START OVER.
People talk about /Americans/ being stupid. How do you think Bush got into office?
Atrumentis has informed me the topic has been spiraling into trolling each other in arguments that weren't the aim of this thread. Some good feedback has been received in pro and against the art direction.
I have forwarded the link to the feedback to the Diablo III Community Manager. Thanks everyone for your feedback on the matter.
the nice diablo feeling????could i feel it with the fakes of WoW??
DIFFERENT ARTISTS MAKES DIFFERENT GAME!!NEW CLASS of WoW above.
I know man i know, my point is the Devs already tried many graphical options and none of it worked !!!
Maybe if they show them to us and tell us why they didn't work things could cool down !!!
I really don't know why is Blizz not showing any sort of response, neither negative nor positive ?
Said the Barbarian before proceeding to slaughter everyone
http://www.petitiononline.com/d3color/petition.html
Just happened across this on the net, you gotta admit its pretty funny
That's fair if they tested. See I would also shut up if Blizzard, in a grand post, explained why this slightly stylized look was needed for technical reasons (like only the top 20% of the computers would have graphical capabilities to play it), and they needed to compromise so that everyone had a chance to play it.
But if they changed the whole feel of the game just so that a couple of Chinese WoW-gold farmers can buy XX number of copies, I would be pretty pissed (like 80% of computers can play it). I just want a good explanation about the technical issues so I can get educated. I want to be able to appreciate the compromises they made between graphics and gameplay.
They mentioned they went through at least 3 visual redesigns. Why don't they reveal them to the community? And after all, if you do all that testing without the community's knowledge and understanding, you take a risk like they did here of a little fan backlash.
I am a loiterer hence only just signing up and decided to express my views. I am not new, flame that all you want, I am just normally silent but really want to get down my views on these arguments flying about.
The D3 "make it dark!" / "D3 we love the colour!!!!" arguments I feel have lost a lot in translation since the announcement. This is probably due to people who jumped instantly to express their views and didn't quite get them across how they intended. After reading and reading, like I always do, I have come to the below conclusion what people who argue for a 'Colour' change might be trying to express.
The Diablo games (to me and I believe the 'darken' brigade) gave the impression of being real. A fantasy world full of magic, violence, demons, etc ... that felt real. Now where I feel the colour direction should have gone in this game is to keep that reality feeling everywhere.
Rainbows exist, grass is green, trees glimmer when wet, stone grows light coloured moss - etc etc etc. Stone in Cathedrals/Churches (using demo here) however are not a blue hue. Cathedrals do have beautiful stained glass windows that fill a room with wonderful colours - they do not fill a dungeon to the point of being neon anything.
This is where people are crossing wires and arguments...
- Dungeons should look like a dungeon, drab, angry, wet, mouldy & claustrophobic.
- The outside world is full of bright colours and should show that.
- Undead/Demon infested outside areas (we are lead to believe) are a mix of the two.
Now with a 3D engine Blizz are well known for their catering en mass - e.g. most PCs can play it. That in itself gives limitations on what can structurally be achieved in the game hence realism needs to be sacrificed. What I don't see that needs to be sacrificed are texturing of those said areas to keep the sense realism.
This is a game, but atmosphere is what the previous games conveyed whether it be in a dark dungeon, out in the bright desert, an Egyptian (style) tomb or in the lush green jungle. Each area had its own unique feeling because it appeared to be created with realism in mind. D3 from the video appears to show that it has been lost - that all colours are vibrant, everything is exciting - that is not real.
Now if Blizz come out and say that this demo dungeon was meant to be so bright because the occupants worked in B&Q and had huge discount on paint - that will explain a lot and then give hope that other dungeons are going to stick to realism over style. (yes humour)
Seriously though, after seeing the higher res demo I was thoroughly impressed with the blood / entrails & the green grass - I was just underwhelmed by the fact what were 'scary' dungeons were now theme parks.
So my finals words are this...
- The pictures where people turn the Cathedral/Church into that Gothic, dark, brooding feeling - thumbs up, great way to describe what is wanted to be kept in the series.
- The pictures where people seem to think rainbows, green grass and trees should look like everything died - great where needed, like where the undead chill out, but all those things do exist and should be in the game. The whole Diablo world is not permanently depressed and like D2 showed had plenty of colour, like our own world.
Flame all you want, I was constructive and hope I got across a happy medium between all the arguing.
Mullet
For example, in Diablo, the graphics and mood suggest the type of spells to be used; you aren't going to see a spell like "Polymorph" in the Diablo universe 'cause it just doesn't fit. Stop pretending like you can consider one without the other.
What people are trying to say is that the technical capabilities of the graphics don't matter. What if Diablo III had Pixar level Toy Story 2 graphics, which is better than the visual capabilities of ANY type of game on the market. Are you honestly saying that wouldn't matter to you?
There, i made it make better grammatical sense :cool:
Hahaha ok these are probably annoying some people, so thats all. But damn they crack me up
Some people enjoy graphics. Some people buy expensive hardware to get the most out of their games graphics wise. Those people are just as important as you. Therefore, if more time is spent on graphics it is completely legitimate.
shoo.
Haha he's actually this funny as Jap guy, search youtube for "Hard Gay" and look out for the ones with subtitles, one guy has all of them.
He's absolutely hilarious!
(that's if you were being serious :P)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI doubt any of us play just Diablo. Thus we represent a broad spectrum of tastes and we'll have diverse opinions.
Something we should agree upon is that nearer the completion date we'll all be working together to build some kick butt clans/guilds. But the Art Debate is part of the essence that is Diablo. It *is* important. But a little self-moderation now will be practice enough for when we get stuck into debating whether or not a Necro has a place in our clan's PvM party, LOL.
Cartoony Gear / Outrageous Gear
----------------------------------------
I agree with the point that the D3 art is influenced by WoW. I'd need to be blind to not notice that. But it is merely an influence. The art remains nothing like WoW.
Buy the styling of the armour and weapons is a concern. It is *heavily* influenced by WoW. It no longer looks like it could really have been worn. D2 had examples (the Bonesnap Maul was my favourite) but they were few.
But lets think again. We're in a fantasy setting. No way in real life would a hero have walked around with a D2-like spikey shield festooned with skulls - even if it was the right size. The gear in D2 was mostly of fantastic proportions, styling and/or properties. Almost all gear would never really have existed.
The D3 gear is even more fantastic. Arguing that the gear is not realistic is to deny that Diablo is all about fantasy and playing a role in a fantasy setting. The monsters are outrageous and so too the heroes.
The point of the complainants is then about the degree of fantasy. The bigger resolution monitors and the higher powered computers now mean that Blizzard can more faithfully represent the fantasy world of Diablo in far richer detail than way back when D2 was being content filled a decade ago.
I'm afraid to say that we have to let go of the old D2 styling.
So when our Barbarian stomps on the ground or our Witch Doctor swirls her wand then lets enjoy the shower of purple sparks, green orbs, orange vortexes of energy and elemental fireworks of fantastic beauty.
Far more entertaining than a wimpy spark from a D1 wand or a bland "ding" from a sword in D2. I want to be amazed and dazzled in D3 by the sheer power my hero has at his disposal.
Festival of Light or Dire Dim Dungeons?
-----------------------------------------------
Again, advances in technology make a richly detailed Tristram Cathedral possible.
The bright hues appear to be mainly from magic effects by the heroes and monsters. We should accept that Blizzard are now able to do these skills justice.
The argument that the landscapes / buildings look like WoW does not withstand scrutiny with side by side screen caps of representative WoW landscapes.
The argument that the D3 landscapes are much lighter than D2 is true. That the colours are saturated and bright, like a billboard poster or WoW is not true.
We have more light and colour because Blizzard are now able to represent evil in other ways and not just by using a limited grey/brown palette in low light. Computers can now cope with more detailed "walls" and variations in texture and colour to paint a scene.
In D2, when things were lightened up, such as when our hero first ventures out of Lut Gholein, the evil ambience was lost (for me at least) in the yellow/grey dessert. And the Arcane Sanctuary seemed to be such an ill fit with the rest of the game. The blandness of the Catacombs prior to Andariel just had to be painted dark to create an evil ambience.
In D3 Tristram palace was once a magnificent building. But in 2008 it is a dark evil place too. In 2000, well, it would not have been possible. Use a bland greyish wash and keep it dark and the gamers will never notice anything - they'll be too busy going carpal with their mouse.
In 2009/2010 we won't be going carpal, as we have been officially told. We'll be busy H&S but not so busy that we won't be able to admire the scenery.
Marvelling at the scenery is part of the Diablo story. As much as the lore and the unfolding story. Let's enjoy the art, be thankful that D3 is faithful to D2 and that any attempt to go down the WoW path got knocked on its head and dragged off into Duriel's lair.
...have half of you idiots actually /read/ what that petition you're all signing states, or what the guy who started it has said in regard to race and gender? Or are you all jumping on simply due to one issue without even reading it? The petition isn't to make the game darker. It's to try and get Blizzard to dissemble everything they've done in the past four years and START OVER.
People talk about /Americans/ being stupid. How do you think Bush got into office?
I have forwarded the link to the feedback to the Diablo III Community Manager. Thanks everyone for your feedback on the matter.
http://www.blizzplanet.com