"The contrast and use of color really works well for an Action-RPG, where there are hordes of monsters and spells, and separation of individual entities is required for satisfying play"
Ah, he wrote that it looks fantastic before. Well, it might but i think for people who thinks it's fantastic and colours (less important for me) and textures are genius, well they are just fans of H&S and RPG generally. This game LOOKS great, but it looks great as some other title. The title is DIABLO and bullshit is saying that it looks fantastic. But ok, they are diablo fans who played diablo and didn't like the graphics. So they can like it now. But are they true diablo fans if they didn't like the graphics in previous games? Fans loved everything
I'm tired of explaining it all over again. Nobody is fighting with me when i write some longer post in some topic. It means everybody agree.
cheers
PS: this post isn't long
I'd like to point something out here.
Theres being a fan and theres being a fanboy. You see, a fan isn't blind, deaf and stupid to everything around them. A fan can accept faults in a game, or whatever their a fan of, and still enjjoy it, like it, and want more.
A fanboy beleives everything is perfect and that anyone who found any fault in what they love isn't a fan and, infact, is just some poser or hater.
So yes, I do beleive true fans could have loved the previous games and still not have liked their graphics.
Oh, and on another note. Its not diablo? Again, did no one play the first two damn games? Cause seriously. I keep hearing this bitching and whining about how its not dark like the first two. Then I think back and wonder. . why do they say this? DId they skip act 2? What about the numerous outdoor areas where sure, it was overcast, but it wasn't pitch black? What about the dungeons? They weren't pitch black either. Light changed between 1and 2 as new technology came out, making it more realistic. Thats all tahts happened between 2 and 3.
Oh, and also, I know blizzard has stated this and none of you forum monkeys seem to give a damn and are ignoring it, but uh, the game is supposed to get darker and grittier in appearence as it goes on. You know, as the demonic influence returns to the world after 20 years of silence.
For those of you keeping track, this is the /same/ shit that happened in d2. You started off in a place that had been influenced for a /long/ time by Diablo. Then you moved on, following Diablo and his brothers path. It wasn't so influenced, things slowly changed as you followed them. Things got worse as their influence took hold until act 5 when it all culminated in the final battle and it was heavily influenced in many ways.
In short, please, QQ more. Your delicious tears of imagined suffering really make the day go by much quicker.
Tbh, the mythos beta was one of the suckiest isometric actiongames I've tried Silly graphics, none tight "feel". It was intended to be a freeware game which was nice though. But seeing as he is involved in mythos, ofc he gotta agree with the new diablo art style. They look the same for christs sake!
No offense, but I don't think you're in a position to say that the Mythos beta sucked. It was changing all the time. I played every patch from alpha up until the project was shelved, and I can say that I believe they were on the right track in their development. It got more fun after every content patch, and it was still very much in development.
It was definitely not one of the suckiest isometric action games I have tried.
And claiming Mythos and Diablo 3 look the same is even more ridiculous than saying Diablo 3 and World of Warcraft looks the same. You're really only discrediting yourself by saying that.
As i said. I'm not strong antifan about the colours, coz it's not so imortant. You mentioned colourful landscapes, although we know that the "colourful" and "colourful" are 2 different things Or we don't know? (green and green in D2&D3 are totally different. I hope i don't have to explain it?) The most important for me are texturing at the moment and lighting. And there is no mess at all. I agree, you can have colours but it's need to have bodys around. They will put more in further time? Then i will say "hell yeah". But now i have right to be irritated about the shit i see.
The difference is that Diablo II and Diablo I were both done with limited and out dated technology and methods (hence 2D) and the new one is done with 3D. Because of 3D's nature, lighting, ambient lighting, particle effects (which are new for the most part to the series), and many other characteristics not present in 2D (Diablo II had some basic ambient lighting, which was for the most part unnoticable unless you put it on "3D mode", which was still 2D, just with perspective), the colors that were always present (yes, I say always, because it's completely true) in the old games become suddenly more vivid.
3D mode is the way Diablo II was meant to be played, you know. Most people just play it at normal 2D. 3D mode offers tons more color ( DUN DUN DUN.) Another fact that you people are just ignorant of its colors.
With 2D, the textures aren't illuminated or lit very well because of a limited engine/programming. Now, when you get the proper lighting and such that 3D offers, suddenly it's like you're looking at a rainbow.
I have to say, the more and more Blizzard talks about this the more humorous it all gets.
Blizz: "We give you, Diablo 3!"
Fans: "WTF IS THIS SHIT?! This is not Diablo! Look at those colors!"
Blizz: "Um...Diablo II had colors too?"
Fans: "Well...the rainbows! There's no rainbows in Diablo!"
Blizz: "Yeah, we uh...we put them there on purpose. To piss you off"
Fans: "But the grittyness is gone!"
Blizz: "Here's a technical reason why..."
Fans: "If only the guys at Blizz North could see this! They'd hate it!"
Blizz North: "We think it looks great!"
Fans: "DAMNIT! NONE OF YOU ARE TRUE FANS! NOT EVEN BLIZZARD, THE CREATORS!"
I used to hate the ''grit and dark'' to diablo. You could hardly see at times,and it made it seem like they had a horrible mistake when doing the weathers pixels. The new diablo look is good,and new is good. Allot of the fans of diablo are bull shitting over what is long over. It looks creamy, more fluid now. Not, ''hey I am dark,evil,full of grit. Play me,love me,get used to horrible pixels.''
Thoughtful edit: why post something saying ''I'm going to watch the Olympics instead of posting'' when you're already posting something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm falling apart inside; watching you mourn over my death.
Did you even watch the Siege Beast fight? Did you see all that gore? Did you see how immense and beastly he was? Did you see the living dead flailing themselves all over the place?
They're not going to show you a battle with like a Prime Evil in a demo.
Wait. Did you just say creamy and fluid? Are we discussing d3 or a pornflick? YES, I want my diablo dark and gritty becuase it's a dark saga. I don't mind bright colours and green fields if its backed up with some evil shit now and then. But the current art style is more than just colour: I'm having really hard time imaigening something evil with this overexaggerated design and cellshade textures (evil as in hell, not evil as in.. the evil guy in lion king).
And yes, this design can be pretty (I really enjoy a few disney movies aswell) but to claim this as the new diablo just makes me a little "meh".
It worked very well with zelda: wind waker because it's such a kid-friendly saga. But diablo should remain... diablo.
You have absolutely no clue do you? Disney movie? Look at my sig dumb shit. Perhaps you should watch the high res gameplay and reform your over exagerated opinions. Give me one example of cell shading in D3.
Tell it to kids in Africa who have nothing to eat and drink. I'm sure they will understand you.
Cheerio
WOW. That was sooo inapplicable, disrespectful, irrelevant and stupid of you to say. You should be ashamed for even mentioning that in regards to a game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
First off, please, dobn't insult me for having a different opinion.
Secondly, with cell-shading I meant the smooth textures. Sometimes you gotta overstate something for people to understand. Same goes for the disney thing, I used it as a methaphor.
As for your sig, that's the part I enjoyed the most during the vid, and when he died and turned into coal aswell, looked awesome. The game looks awesome in general, in fact, that's not my point. My point is that it doesn't look very dioblo-esque, because that's more sinister to me. And therein lies my dissapointment.
It sounds like you don't have much to complain about, so why complain at all?
Humm I agree that taste shouldn't be taken in discussion BUT sometimes there is no taste here Why some people can't understand that it's contradiction in terms saying :
I loved Diablo and Diablo 2. Everything was marvelous. And then : i love diablo 3, it's fantastic.
First, how do you suppose that in terms of art direction in a game the discussion of taste become an invalid point to argue? I simply want your full logic when making this assessment.
When you say it is a contradiction of terms to like Diablo, Diablo 2, & Diablo 3 you seem to be implying the following argument:
If a person is a true fan of one game 1, then he cannot be the true fan of another game 2.
You are the fan of game 1.
Therefore you cannot be a fan of game 2
While this is a logical argument it invalidates the argument by any fan of a game that is not Diablo 1 or Diablo 2. Unfortunately this line of argument also creates a problem in your own argument. If there is any significant difference in art or style between the original Diablo and Diablo 2 then you cannot be a true fan of both. However you most commonly reference Diablo 2, so we will use this as the reference point for the continuation of this.
Quote from "Kwic" »
Can you notice the point? Diablo 3 looks totally different than previous series. Gameplay looks great, but that's not only one thing in the game we pay attention on right?.
How can true fan (as declaring so) be satissfied with look of Diablo 3? It looks like every other game, is it nice for you? As i said, some people didn't like art direction in previous series. But i'm not talking about them. I don't mind when they are satissfied about D3 art. But for people who loved everything in previous Diablos, how can they claim that this one is wonderful as well, and they wouldn't change anything in it? heh
Please describe in which ways Diablo 3 "... looks like every other game." If you have time I would like ot see specific examples from other games so that I can clearly understand your point here.
Also you seem to say that you care only about the opinions of people who A) Are true fans of Diablo 2, and are not fans of the art of Diablo 3. Thus any argument presented by someone who declares that they like the look of both would automatically be presenting an argument unacceptable to you regardless of soundness of the argument presented.
Quote from "Kwic" »
I know it's just a game and i can tell you that i don't play ANYTHING since 3 years ago. I'm not kido 12 years old. But when i remind myself beautiful old Diablo 2 times, and i see what they do with Diablo 3- sth is boiling in me. How can someone be satissfied with such graphics?
By this do you mean that no one over the age of 12 or who has not played any game with a release date after 2005 cannot like Diablo 3 art?
If you remind yourself of previous graphics as beautiful it seems that you are both using your sentimentality and taste in beauty to make an argument about how, regardless of tase (and, in fact, outside the realm of taste) a person cannot like the art style presented in Diablo 3 if they liked the art style of Diablo 2.
Quote from "Kwic" »
I can't understand it. It looks as colorful as Titan Quest (which looks much better, even it's old). And Diablo series were characterized by dark places, tons of blood everywhere, atrocity everywhere you look. I don't see it now (i mean background). So it's obvious i'm not satissfied. They might change it of course, but the heck, i'm not gonna comment sth which isn't done yet right? Complaining of fans is sth natural. I don't see anything wrong with it.
Cheerio
PS: I will say more : I find it wrong, when true fun is not complaining but takes what they get. It's ridiculous to do so.
And for the last statements.
If the Diablo series up until this point has been characterized exclusively by atrocity, blood, and darkness everywhere a person can look, it then seems that the ability to present any part of the game which does not contain all three said elements would invalidate the argument you have previously put forth as a criticism of the new art style of Diablo 3.
Also, your final statement. You believe that no one can be a true fan of a game if they do not always complain about a later game in the same series?
I'm 18, but I don't care how old you are, you are still a child in my book.
I didn't say it was.
Then why bring it up at all?
Gameplay
And I'm supposed to take your opinions seriously, why?
Textures are lack of details, colours are pastel-like, hand-painted, colours could be a little bit more desaturated, i don't like catacombs with green light not knowing where from, lack of bodies around and it looks like sb clean the place up everyday, everything is very smooth like baby's ass. Enough?
I see no lack of detail (just look at the bridge). Pastels are used in artwork. Ambient lighting is used to create mood in a piece of artwork. The place does not look clean, its actually crumbleing in places, and the floor is grimey and worn. What you dont like is your preference, and seeing as everyone has there own preferences that makes your argument rather trivial, and pointless.
The detail is in the cracks in the ground, the cement look of the floor, the statues and bricks, etc. (Also, there's no green glow *gasp!*)
It retains the feel of a painting, which would make it seem 2D, but in a 3D world.
Simply put: Art - Brought to life.
And it's impossible to make sth similar to light radius known from D2?
Some of us didn't like the light radius, myself included. Call me crazy but I'd actually like to see the world, the environments, and the art in the game. Not let it be shrouded and covered up in blackness.
And pastel colours are necessary too? Like hand painted.
Exactly, a painting. Many employees, current and ex, have stated that the painting look was to retain a 2D feel. From the color palette to presentation. The very fact you acknowledge this means they artist did their job.
I'm not specialist about it, but i think it can be done in different way, more Diablo-look way.
Diablo was more than a "look", as the looks changed throughout each game and each act. It's about lore, character, mood setting, and more.
It was generally about his statement that faith is all what we need (he didn't write that with Diablo, but generally). The rest you wrote is a bit exaggerated.
Nobody exaggerated anything. You made the horrible analogy, not us. We're talking about faith in a developer that has never let it's fans down. Who demands quality from every title they publish. Whose games are loads of fun to play for years to come. Certainly something to have "faith" in.
Gameplay If gameplay qualifies your ratings then why are you worried about look? You realize they're two different things, right?
Textures are lack of details, colours are pastel-like, hand-painted, colours could be a little bit more desaturated, i don't like catacombs with green light not knowing where from, lack of bodies around and it looks like sb clean the place up everyday, everything is very smooth like baby's ass. Enough?
I didn't write it in regards to the game... Do you think i'm 12 years old kid? How could i say sth like you think? Lol... I have more respect to those kids from Africa than you could even imagine, so don't judge me. I meant GENERALLY about faith. Coz when i wrote that faith is not always enough, he wrote that it is. I didn't mean it in regards to the game so his reply should be not regards to the game as well. And i think i was right. Faith is all what we need? Tell it to Africa kids, who's faith is very strong i suppose, but that's not enough... I wish people could read more carefully when accusing sb.
Doesn't matter, in general as you say, it WAS about the game in all respects.....It was inappropriate for the thread even. Even that you generalized them in AFRICA...Africa is big, not everyone is stricken with starvation....In general you should have given a more fitting example.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
You barely finished childhood and you accuse sb of being a child? Lol. And after accusing you claim that you don't care how old sb is heh. Clearly visible that you still have milk under your nose.
22 isn't far from 18, you may not be a child technically, but childishness is what you exude.
I brought sth different. It was you who connected it with respect in this particular way.
You are mistaken.
Explain me what you mean... You ask what feature of a game i can rate, i asnwer you that it's gameplay, and you ask if you should treat my opinions seriously? Don't get it... I don't know what answer you expected from me then. I obviously didn't understand your question.
What makes your opinion better than the game developers opinions? Do you have a degree in game development? How much have you actually played the diablo games?
Ah, so maybe you want a screen to help you out?
Yea, if you have 2 minutes more you would tell me that the background is same cruel as Diablo 2 background and you never seen so scary game before. My arguments are fine, yours are funny. Right, in D3 all we saw were dirt and mess. You are right, i'm terribly sorry that i didn't notice that.
You babble like a fool. Learn proper english, or shut up.
This is what a cartoony D3 would look like:
Quote from "TheBloody-Nine" »
Seeing as diablo is one of my most loved game series ever, it would kinda dissappoint me seeing it destroyed by a game that, although good, lack the spirit of the series.
Think star wars I: the phantom menace. Jar jar strutting about, while the jedis fight goofy driods. A terrible blow to my love for star wars(although I still love the original three).
If I, even by astronomical chance, can get some influence or some say in the matter, I will (obviously). That's why I post these complains. It's not for offending people who thinks different.
I think you are just complaining because its D3 is 3D
But i meant that those who loved Diablo 1/2 graphics shouldn't say that they love Diablo3 graphics as it is totally different. So we don't talk about taste. Coz taste would be : i didn't like Diablo 1/2 but i like Diablo3 OR i liked diablo 1/2 but i don't like diablo3. I just think you shoulnd't say that you love shit and then you claim that you love vanilla. How can you love them both? You can love one and like another one if so.
...people aren't allowed to like, or love, many things? Since when?
Most gamers play different games because they love different aspects of each game.
I love what UEIII games do in terms of graphics, and especially love the sound and music mod friendly aspect.
I loved the graphics behind Okami and thought they were beautiful.
I loved the graphics in Gears of War, as they were gritty and really set the atmosphere.
I don't even know how to counter argue that...because...it's common sense.
I mean graphics only, nothing else. The thing that Diablo1 and 2 was different than other games was graphics and atrocity. When i wrote that Diablo3 looks the same as other games i meant other RPG and H&S games where the graphics is very similar. I don't see the difference between them. Some one difference to say that it's unique game like previous series. Where did you have so much blood, atrocity and dark places? I don't remind such a game before (maybe i didn't notice). And here what we have? Colourful background with vanish corpses and no bodies hanging on the trees. It looks like other games, just. Do you want me find screenshots? I'm sorry i didn't give you NOW as coz i have pretty much to reply and i want you to get reply as fast as i can write it. But if you will insist on screenshots i will certainly post them for you. But mind you, i mean that Diablo3 doesn't look unique as previous series. And that is why i'm complaining about it.
Yes, I would like screenshots as well showing that Diablo 3 looks like "every other game". The last time I looked at a game and went, "Ya know, this looks just like an oil painting only brutal and brought to life" was...never.
Diablo I and II didn't really "look" all that different from other games. Mainly because of technology. They all looked pixelated and "grungy".
No no, it's not like that. I can accept opinions of even C,D,E etc. but they have to tell me why they think like that, it's first, and second is that they CAN say that they loved some of previous series and they like D3. I really don't mind someone like D3. Even Love the look of it. But if sb's love previous one, can't love this one as it looks totally different, and those who claim that they LIKE this one (as they loved previous), are right to claim so. I did kinda mess now, but i hope you understand my point, if you don't i'm sorry. I will try to do this better next time
Again, people can like a lot of things.
However, people really liked Diablo because of it's gameplay and it's mechanics. Because the gameplay is still there in part III people will "love" it as well.
Ah, so maybe you want a screen to help you out?
No need, I gave you one.
Yea, if you have 2 minutes more you would tell me that the background is same cruel as Diablo 2 background and you never seen so scary game before.
I will reply you RoninSeraph tomorrow when my net will be ok. I didn't missed you, don't worry To Murderface too.
See ya
Not to be rude but..did you pass english? i am thoroughly confused every time i see you post. I dont understand what you mean half the time when you type. Your tenses and spelling are off a lot. It's very confusing. Not taking a shot at you, i just dont understand half of what you say,and what is sth?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'd like to point something out here.
Theres being a fan and theres being a fanboy. You see, a fan isn't blind, deaf and stupid to everything around them. A fan can accept faults in a game, or whatever their a fan of, and still enjjoy it, like it, and want more.
A fanboy beleives everything is perfect and that anyone who found any fault in what they love isn't a fan and, infact, is just some poser or hater.
So yes, I do beleive true fans could have loved the previous games and still not have liked their graphics.
Oh, and on another note. Its not diablo? Again, did no one play the first two damn games? Cause seriously. I keep hearing this bitching and whining about how its not dark like the first two. Then I think back and wonder. . why do they say this? DId they skip act 2? What about the numerous outdoor areas where sure, it was overcast, but it wasn't pitch black? What about the dungeons? They weren't pitch black either. Light changed between 1and 2 as new technology came out, making it more realistic. Thats all tahts happened between 2 and 3.
Oh, and also, I know blizzard has stated this and none of you forum monkeys seem to give a damn and are ignoring it, but uh, the game is supposed to get darker and grittier in appearence as it goes on. You know, as the demonic influence returns to the world after 20 years of silence.
For those of you keeping track, this is the /same/ shit that happened in d2. You started off in a place that had been influenced for a /long/ time by Diablo. Then you moved on, following Diablo and his brothers path. It wasn't so influenced, things slowly changed as you followed them. Things got worse as their influence took hold until act 5 when it all culminated in the final battle and it was heavily influenced in many ways.
In short, please, QQ more. Your delicious tears of imagined suffering really make the day go by much quicker.
No offense, but I don't think you're in a position to say that the Mythos beta sucked. It was changing all the time. I played every patch from alpha up until the project was shelved, and I can say that I believe they were on the right track in their development. It got more fun after every content patch, and it was still very much in development.
It was definitely not one of the suckiest isometric action games I have tried.
And claiming Mythos and Diablo 3 look the same is even more ridiculous than saying Diablo 3 and World of Warcraft looks the same. You're really only discrediting yourself by saying that.
The difference is that Diablo II and Diablo I were both done with limited and out dated technology and methods (hence 2D) and the new one is done with 3D. Because of 3D's nature, lighting, ambient lighting, particle effects (which are new for the most part to the series), and many other characteristics not present in 2D (Diablo II had some basic ambient lighting, which was for the most part unnoticable unless you put it on "3D mode", which was still 2D, just with perspective), the colors that were always present (yes, I say always, because it's completely true) in the old games become suddenly more vivid.
3D mode is the way Diablo II was meant to be played, you know. Most people just play it at normal 2D. 3D mode offers tons more color ( DUN DUN DUN.) Another fact that you people are just ignorant of its colors.
With 2D, the textures aren't illuminated or lit very well because of a limited engine/programming. Now, when you get the proper lighting and such that 3D offers, suddenly it's like you're looking at a rainbow.
Because having faith in a game developer equates to starving children in Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
I have to say, the more and more Blizzard talks about this the more humorous it all gets.
Blizz: "We give you, Diablo 3!"
Fans: "WTF IS THIS SHIT?! This is not Diablo! Look at those colors!"
Blizz: "Um...Diablo II had colors too?"
Fans: "Well...the rainbows! There's no rainbows in Diablo!"
Blizz: "Yeah, we uh...we put them there on purpose. To piss you off"
Fans: "But the grittyness is gone!"
Blizz: "Here's a technical reason why..."
Fans: "If only the guys at Blizz North could see this! They'd hate it!"
Blizz North: "We think it looks great!"
Fans: "DAMNIT! NONE OF YOU ARE TRUE FANS! NOT EVEN BLIZZARD, THE CREATORS!"
Not to a child.
I don't remember shit eating being a requirement for respect.
What qualifies your ratings?
Its a living, breathing, piece of artwork just like its predecessors. Show me something that proves otherwise.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Thoughtful edit: why post something saying ''I'm going to watch the Olympics instead of posting'' when you're already posting something.
you are all dumb, end of argument
They're not going to show you a battle with like a Prime Evil in a demo.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
WOW. That was sooo inapplicable, disrespectful, irrelevant and stupid of you to say. You should be ashamed for even mentioning that in regards to a game.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
First, how do you suppose that in terms of art direction in a game the discussion of taste become an invalid point to argue? I simply want your full logic when making this assessment.
When you say it is a contradiction of terms to like Diablo, Diablo 2, & Diablo 3 you seem to be implying the following argument:
If a person is a true fan of one game 1, then he cannot be the true fan of another game 2.
You are the fan of game 1.
Therefore you cannot be a fan of game 2
While this is a logical argument it invalidates the argument by any fan of a game that is not Diablo 1 or Diablo 2. Unfortunately this line of argument also creates a problem in your own argument. If there is any significant difference in art or style between the original Diablo and Diablo 2 then you cannot be a true fan of both. However you most commonly reference Diablo 2, so we will use this as the reference point for the continuation of this.
Please describe in which ways Diablo 3 "... looks like every other game." If you have time I would like ot see specific examples from other games so that I can clearly understand your point here.
Also you seem to say that you care only about the opinions of people who A) Are true fans of Diablo 2, and are not fans of the art of Diablo 3. Thus any argument presented by someone who declares that they like the look of both would automatically be presenting an argument unacceptable to you regardless of soundness of the argument presented.
By this do you mean that no one over the age of 12 or who has not played any game with a release date after 2005 cannot like Diablo 3 art?
If you remind yourself of previous graphics as beautiful it seems that you are both using your sentimentality and taste in beauty to make an argument about how, regardless of tase (and, in fact, outside the realm of taste) a person cannot like the art style presented in Diablo 3 if they liked the art style of Diablo 2.
And for the last statements.
If the Diablo series up until this point has been characterized exclusively by atrocity, blood, and darkness everywhere a person can look, it then seems that the ability to present any part of the game which does not contain all three said elements would invalidate the argument you have previously put forth as a criticism of the new art style of Diablo 3.
Also, your final statement. You believe that no one can be a true fan of a game if they do not always complain about a later game in the same series?
Thank you, I look forward to your responses.
Then why bring it up at all?
And I'm supposed to take your opinions seriously, why?
I see no lack of detail (just look at the bridge). Pastels are used in artwork. Ambient lighting is used to create mood in a piece of artwork. The place does not look clean, its actually crumbleing in places, and the floor is grimey and worn. What you dont like is your preference, and seeing as everyone has there own preferences that makes your argument rather trivial, and pointless.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
The textures are detailed, they're just not detailed to your liking.
http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/_images/screenshots/ss25-hires.jpg
The detail is in the cracks in the ground, the cement look of the floor, the statues and bricks, etc. (Also, there's no green glow *gasp!*)
It retains the feel of a painting, which would make it seem 2D, but in a 3D world.
Simply put: Art - Brought to life.
Some of us didn't like the light radius, myself included. Call me crazy but I'd actually like to see the world, the environments, and the art in the game. Not let it be shrouded and covered up in blackness.
Exactly, a painting. Many employees, current and ex, have stated that the painting look was to retain a 2D feel. From the color palette to presentation. The very fact you acknowledge this means they artist did their job.
Diablo was more than a "look", as the looks changed throughout each game and each act. It's about lore, character, mood setting, and more.
Nobody exaggerated anything. You made the horrible analogy, not us. We're talking about faith in a developer that has never let it's fans down. Who demands quality from every title they publish. Whose games are loads of fun to play for years to come. Certainly something to have "faith" in.
Gameplay
If gameplay qualifies your ratings then why are you worried about look? You realize they're two different things, right?
See above.
I agree completely!
Doesn't matter, in general as you say, it WAS about the game in all respects.....It was inappropriate for the thread even. Even that you generalized them in AFRICA...Africa is big, not everyone is stricken with starvation....In general you should have given a more fitting example.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
You are mistaken.
What makes your opinion better than the game developers opinions? Do you have a degree in game development? How much have you actually played the diablo games?
You babble like a fool. Learn proper english, or shut up.
This is what a cartoony D3 would look like:
I think you are just complaining because its D3 is 3D
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
...people aren't allowed to like, or love, many things? Since when?
Most gamers play different games because they love different aspects of each game.
I love what UEIII games do in terms of graphics, and especially love the sound and music mod friendly aspect.
I loved the graphics behind Okami and thought they were beautiful.
I loved the graphics in Gears of War, as they were gritty and really set the atmosphere.
I don't even know how to counter argue that...because...it's common sense.
Yes, I would like screenshots as well showing that Diablo 3 looks like "every other game". The last time I looked at a game and went, "Ya know, this looks just like an oil painting only brutal and brought to life" was...never.
Diablo I and II didn't really "look" all that different from other games. Mainly because of technology. They all looked pixelated and "grungy".
Again, people can like a lot of things.
However, people really liked Diablo because of it's gameplay and it's mechanics. Because the gameplay is still there in part III people will "love" it as well.
No need, I gave you one.
Diablo wasn't scary.
Not to be rude but..did you pass english? i am thoroughly confused every time i see you post. I dont understand what you mean half the time when you type. Your tenses and spelling are off a lot. It's very confusing. Not taking a shot at you, i just dont understand half of what you say,and what is sth?
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged