Personally, I liked what I saw -- and I saw that demo right on my face on a HUGE screen at the event with plenty of detail. The outdoors naturally need to look sharp and colorful, while the dungeons have that dark ambience. There is also obviously a change of illumination between 2D and 3D environments.
UPDATE: This quote was from the same day the game was announced, so it doesn't reflect much on the afterward fan response to the game. In short, he did not read the petition at that point. However, for your knowledge, I submitted today the Diablo III Art Design Direction Survey thread to Bashiok (Diablo III Community Manager). Your feedback was confirmed to have been received.Keith Lee - One of the things that we considered when we were working on the visuals for Diablo III is the fact that color is your friend. We feel that color actually helps to create a lot of highlights in the game so that there is contrast. A great analogy is like in Lord of the Rings. Not everything is dark. It allows you to see what a creepy dungeon can be like but if everything is dark it doesn't allow you to have a lot of contrast.
He continued: Diablo I and Diablo II are darker, and I think that the one of the main reasons why is the fact that in Diablo I, you're basically in a dungeon the whole time. And in contrast to Diablo III, you'll be exploring outdoors, you'll be in dungeons, you'll be experiencing so many different areas. We want to bring as much variety as we can when you're playing the game so that you're excited to check out new environments. We don't want everything to look the same and that's really what we're trying to aim for.
Said thread contains links to three of the online petitions.
From the writings of Abd Al-Hazir, Entry no. 0042
"Not long ago, I wrote of my disappointment that New Tristram lacked the palpable dread its reputation led one to expect. I wish that I had not tempted fate with my quick words. Disappointment is much preferable to stark terror, and terror was what I stumbled into that night."
Although it seems the game doesn't have the same dark, gothic feel it used to, it'll probably get 'scarier' later on in the game. Basically, what DubleDex said.
What difference would that make as whether it were valid or not? It is perfeclty possible to make perfectly great, good art using a restricted color palette. Using all the colors of the rainbow to portray something doesn't make automatically better than using muddy browns, reds, blacks, and so son.
Those colors determine a mood and if lighter, more happier colors take away from the story that the artist is trying to suggest, so be it! ART is about just as much about the constraints you place upon yourself to produce the art rather than the final image itself. LOTS and LOTS of games show what you can do with a restricted color palette. Stop trying to pretend that it's a lesser complaint.
For me, those were the additions to the game, feel, tone, music and story line are very important factors to me, although Diablo lacked any story depth.
I can pick up any game and it probably has some playability value, but not many games can touch people on a more emotional note; other than those really frustrating games which make you stamp on your PC and burn it to a pile of dust.
You could give me Diablo 1 with only a few different types of weapons/equipment in the whole game and I'd still play it, just for the tone it sets.
Imagine if you took away those properties from the original Diablo, the darkness, the eerie sounds, the gritty voice acting, the disemboweled corpses tied down to alters and impaled on the walls. The game would just be a blank piece of paper.
Given the bloody nature of the combat, it seems likely to me there will most likely be plenty of nasty locations.
It makes sense to make areas that contrast with that, so that the nasty places will actually have some gravitas to them. The same is true of monsters. The first monsters in Diablo 2 were actually somewhat comedic, from there it sort of goes through a gambit of mystical, brutal and then totally demonic.
It doesnt help a little... If u play Diablo II with no background music, the atmosphere feels just as dark, its not just the lighting people are complaining about, its the art direction as a whole. Do u ever see a Rainbow in Diablo or Diablo II???
Do u ever see a Rainbow mention in any of the Diablo novels???
NO!!!
so why are there rainbows in Diablo III???? :mad:
the art and coloring sets the whole mood of a game, and the Diablo series was originally a dark gothic series, with art styles that superbly reflected that so far, It was Diablo's soul, its very core. but in the Diablo III gameplay video it seems that all that is missing, and the games art style looks very much like that of WoW with gay colors and childish art. so we cant help but be frustrated at that!!
P.S gay colors = colors that reflects happyness or a happy atmosphere.
That may be the case for you, and many other but for me and many like me the mood and ambiance of a game matters hugely as to whether or not we like it or even play it. I do understand that you may be the type of gamer who can enjoy a game simply for the challenge of finishing or finding the best loot, and not for its visuals and feel, but please don't name me an "angry nerd" because I find D3 lacking in the atmosphere department.
I enjoyed the previous titles very much for their game play AND graphic atmosphere and feel. By saying that its only the game play that matters perhaps it is you that enjoyed it less than me? and apologies for mis-quoting you too.
I agree with this. The choice of color palette, whatever it may be, is very important. But just because they broadened the palette on DIII doesn't mean they're using all the colors of the rainbow. To me, there was still a muted feel to the colors in the game play video, hinting at a darker future around the corner.
As for art direction, I can see the point about the statues and over-the-top armor. Part of that, I imagine, is them designing items that actually match the over-the-top names of items we've had in the past.
Personally, I thought some of the depth in the video was excellent - like seeing enemies crawl up the walls in the background, or the huge beast walk by. In terms of sound and detail, I thought they did an excellent job in creating a mood.
Again, I do see how there could be a darker, more foreboding edge to the art direction overall. But I'm still willing to consider that, based on what we've seen, they're building a story here. Things are back to normal, people are happy, times are super scary. YET.
They've given themselves an excellent foundation on which to create on escalating sense of dread and fear.
1. The statues and things shouldn't be smiling unless it in some way denotes a sort of unnerving smile on a demonic face or something along those lines in a dungeon.
2. Bright Colors are fine and dandy in the outside world, good contrast, that being said, the dungeons don't have to be colorless, they just have to exemplify the opposite of the bright outdoors.
3. Art design for weapons and armor thus far look good, (Don't go over board on shoulder pads like they did on wow, sometimes, less is more)
4. There are some other added effects in dungeons that could be thrown in to really express the idea of "Really not somewhere you want to be." That I can only assume they're already doing in other levels. As it has been common place in the other Diablo games, I can't see how it wouldn't.
5. Wondering about the issues of line of sight (As it was a part of Diablo 1 and 2) and doesn't seem to be in Diablo 3. It may be something to look into, in certain dungeons, to create the line of sight barrier, where turning around a pillar can actually illuminate more clearly things that were previously unclear. The ability to create strategic differences with the environment can be useful (Breaking line of sight by turning a corner).
What you people have to remember is that Diablo isnt set in a dark, gloomy, gothic, shit-hole. It just seems thats way because of diablos taint. Have you all forgoten that D2 Act2 was well lit and colored in all of the open areas?
i agree! and i believe that will be managed in production
The textures don't look that bad to me, the ridiculous caricature look does though!
i want play diablo! i like cutey things..... im a girl and i like "beautiful" things
but if i want it i ll play WoW.. and not Diablo!
lets save the darkness of diablo....
and the gayness **** on hell!
dont have problem if the cute things are in some "acts"
but..... if all game have it....... God save us
sry for it... im really sad.....
cmon its like the first video we've been shown, remember when starcraft 1 was in development and what we got at the end, they're making the game, i believe , contrary to what the petition says , that most of the graphics "problems" will be adressed and the game will look fantastic, and dont get me wrong i loved diablo 2 and the way it looked and i DONT want a lighter version, but cmon look at the gameplay video and tell me you dont want to play that.
also there's the fact that i've been looking for this moment a long long time ago and they have to fuck it up real good to make me not love this game hehe:D
Clean, un-detailed, brightly lit dungeons (with really awful looking statues) without a spec of darkness, death and decay & beautiful autum trees in a lush grassy field with rainbows do not scream "Diablo". The dungeon shown in the trailer is supposed to be underneath Tristram... it does not look like ANYTHING that was supposed to be that horrible, bloody, dreadful place we adventured through in D1 (or like any dungeon in D2 even). I also didn't like the non-inclusion of light radius, it shouldn't be lit all over like that. The outdoor enviroment area shown seemed like the Barbarian and Witch Doctor where taking a picnic only then to be assulted by some skeleton bullies who wanted their sandwiches. None of those places in the trailers filled me with "dispair, fear or dread" like they should supposed to. They did not convey a "Diablo" mood or reaction.
Santuary is supposed to be a dark and dreary world, a world filled with fear and depression - with death, blood, sorrow, horrible things everywhere (you get the idea...), this is HELL invading, after all (and even before then, Sanctuary never seemed dandy in the 1st place). It should be like the past 2 Diablo games before it, not like Azeroth. When I play D2, the environments in there look way more detailed and fitting then D3's. D2, an 8 year old game, looks a hellava lot better than D3 does ATM. D2 conveys the whole mood it should.
Also, I feel the armour could use some work. Please no huge shoulders, I hated that in WoW (and those shoulders on the Barbarian look exactly like a pair of shoulders from WoW...). It looks really dumb. I detest shoulder slot armour as well. And, the Witch Doctor does indeed look too much like a Troll WD from Warcraft. A very poor decision for a playable class in DIABLO. (I know there is a Witch Doctor unique mob in D2, but that is something entirely different.)
Imo, Blizzard is trying to cater to the WoW fanbase too much because they think it would make them all play it. Like the guy in the interview said: "Hey, that game looks like WoW! Cool! I'm gonna try it!"... what is that? That is really sad and makes me unnerving. I'm getting afraid that the Diablo series is gonna lose its originality just so Blizzard can feed the WoW fanbase. Its like a kick in the face to all us old Diablo fans. But then again... no one from the original Diablo series team is still with Blizzard, right?... that could explain... and thats what im afraid of. I hope the lore/story doesn't turn out as bad as the "art direction".
The game still has a way to go before its done. I hope that Blizzard takes the time to fix it and learn from the past games. I do not care if it takes them extra time, as long as the game is the way it should be, I'm fine (We already been waiting 8 years, after all. We can wait a little more for a polished game). And, I understand people's opinions and I know there is those who like the new art direction, but I feel it doesnt belong at all. Sure, it looks nice, but not for a Diablo game. I really do not want the Diablo series to loose its "self", so to speak. Now, I'm not jumping to conclusions and saying "This game is gonna be ruined, I'm not getting it!", as the game is not finished and I have not yet played it. I am just showing my concern about the direction the game is taking so far.
THIS IS DIABLO. Please treat it as such!
You have to consider what this video was for. It was created to be shown on a huge screen in front of hundreds of people to show off a new game. The lack of a light radius makes sense in this situation because they want people to SEE the whole game. I wouldn't automatically jump to the conclusion that the light radius has been eliminated--it seems more likely that they simply eliminated it for this presentation.
I do miss the scattered dead bodies and bloody stains of previous dungeons. This one does seem fairly spotless for being a dungeon. I'm not sure how easy that is to rectify later. Again, this could've been just a way to showcase the game play a little better, but it seems less likely.
If you read through the website and some of the "journals" it does have the one character saying that Tristram was not nearly as frightening as he had been lead to believe. I got back to the idea that they're incorporating a broader storyline in DIII. It's 20 years after DII. Things in Tristram and Sanctuary have been cleaned up a bit by people trying to move on and forget the past. In my mind, it makes perfect sense for these areas to not YET be dreary. The demonic forces are just beginning to make their presence felt.
This is a very early stage in the game. Blizzard has given themselves the opportunity to crank up the darkness and despair as the game progresses. Which can act to heighten the player's involvement in the game - you see the world deteriorating in front of you getting even more caught up in the frightening scenarios.
I agree that some of the armor appears to be a little over-the-top. There's definitely an over-exaggerated sense to some of the armor and character styling.
But to say a Witch Doctor is a poor decision for a diablo game doesn't make any sense. It fits the mythos of the game, since there were witch doctor and jungle characters in the jungles around Kurast. The Witch Doctor is no more random than a Druid or Necromancer. They're expanding the game and story in a way that makes sense and brings a fresh set of skills and gameplay to the universe.
Blizzard understands the power of this franchise. I guarantee that a considerable amount of thought (and probably research) has gone into all of the decisions they've made for the game. In the end, they have to make a game that appeals to the largest market.
Remember that Diablo was released in 1996 and Diablo II in 2000. So, you got into this game series anywhere from 8 to 12 years ago. So ultimately, this game originally appealed to someone 8 to 12 years younger than you are now. To some degree, a game does have to evolve with its fan base. However, if you cater only to your fan base without attracting newer, younger fans, you're dead in the water (example: know anybody under 55 years old who buys a Buick?).
In the end, these guys know how to make a game that's fun for the fans and profitable for them--they have lots and lots of examples to prove it. They're doing what they can to satisfy the "old Diablo faithful" as well as a generation of new gamers.
I'm not saying you should just blindly swallow everything they throw at us, but you really have to accept the idea that every single decision they make isn't going to please you.