I guess it's not too surprising that Roper wouldn't have the most complimentary things to say about the upcoming game, and I definitely disagree with his thoughts on it not really "ringing with Diablo". Having played the game at BlizzCon, I can say that it doesn't just ring Diablo... it screams it. It's the Diablo I was hoping for all these years, and the whole idea of starting in a somewhat lighter area and descending into darkness rather than just having the game begin in the depths of hell (ie: where do you go from there?) seems perfect to me. We've only seen a tiny bit of Diablo 3 so far, and sometimes it's easy for people to lose sight of that."Roper, ex-vice president of Blizzard North, the now defunct Blizzard satellite studio that was responsible for the Diablo games, told VideoGamer.com in an interview to be published later this week, that while he "didn't look at it (the released Diablo III gameplay footage) and go, oh my God that's horrible", "as a player it just didn't really ring with Diablo".
He said: "One of the things I always enjoyed about that separation between Blizzard and Blizzard North was that the Diablo games had a very distinct art style. They had different art directors, they had different people working on it, they had a different sensibility about them. Diablo was I think grittier and darker and a little more leaning towards the photo realistic. Whereas the Craft games that were being built down in Irvine were bigger and broader in scope, brighter colours, just different pallets and different presentation. Both of those were very strong from that visual standpoint, for example.
"But it makes complete sense to me where they went because they basically took the Diablo universe and then approached it from the Blizzard Ivine stance for the visuals. That's the way they approach things. It wasn't that I looked at it and went, oh my God that looks terrible. I was like, that looks like Blizzard. The guys in Irvine. That's what it looks like to me. Their interpretation of it."
When asked if he was disappointed or pleased with Diablo's new art style, Roper, who is now design director and executive producer of Atari-owned Cryptic Studios, and in charge of Champions Online, a superhero MMO due out on PC this spring, said: "You know, I liked the darker grittier. I liked the differences in art style, to be honest. So, I think I would personally from a player standpoint prefer that."
"I think that one of the things that we always tried to get across was that Diablo was Gothic fantasy and I think there was just a need that was put in there from the visuals that I didn't necessarily get. I got it from the architecture and to a degree from the character design but not the feeling of the world. I can't say that I dislike it. I didn't look at it and go, oh my God that's horrible. But I looked at it and went, it's not really... to me as a player it just didn't really ring with Diablo.""
So what are your thoughts on the interview with Roper?
And that's it
He's the (or one of the) grandfather(s) of Diablo, and everything he said is so, so true.
also sort of off topic but the guy that did the voice for decard cain also did the voice for a raphael in the teenage mutant ninja turtles cartoon
ok..it's just funny to me ><
Hahaha that's awesome!
I'd be mad too.
Regardless, this art style will maximize prospective profits, so the community probably can in their eyes stand to fracture.
Well said. Thank you for making this point.
"they share the same spirit despite the difference in style."
I do not believe DII and DI even feel the same.
DIII is doing something different and it's not the fault of 3D, they just decided to do it differently to begin with. DIII's style is sort of hard to see at the moment because they are using a medium-poly base and some things will change after they switch to higher poly... so far they are straying away from the gothic scheme, if you ask me.
I'm really excited about the way the game looks too. I like the visuals.
I can understand why people aren't happy if the realistiic visuals and detail are a part what made the game for them. For me though, it was more than just extensive graphical detail.
I don't play WoW cause it's so damn slow. I hate clicking once and waiting for my guy to kill something, then running 3hrs to a new town or quest. That gameplay is just boring to me. Also, grinding is sooooooooo lame.
I can agree with this!
You know they won't though, because it might end up causing a shit storm, and besides that nobody in the community matters enough to ask that and get a real response.
Also, if I recall correctly a lot of the material was taken by Blizz Northies when they left to other ventures.
You might be thinking of this:
http://www.diii.net/blog/comments/the-d2-team-comments-on-d3-part-ii/
Here's an excerpt: "There?s a lot of criticism floating around right now about D3 looking or feeling cartoony; I think that?s just people needing something to complain about."
As for that other statement - that's more than a little bizarre and ridiculous, and I'm sure you have absolutely no source for it.
Remember that.
Yes, Hellgate: London flopped massively. Blizzard's huge array of games was pretty damned terrible up until the jackpot that was WarCraft II, if anyone recalls. That started the chain reaction that has allowed them to ride their huge success thus far.
So many factors go into what makes a game 'successful' that very often even the best of games (not that Hellgate: London was) are buried alive while mediocrity (not that Hellgate: London wasn't) flourishes.
My point is that there is a strangely emotive Corporate Spencerist presence in this thread that is annoying me: the idea that anyone less successful than Blizzard has no business criticising them. I don't know about the lot of you, but as a die-hard BioWare fan, by no means would I dismiss or fail to take seriously criticism of BioWare from an Obsidian team member just because they're the outcast sibling of BioWare that hasn't done as well for themselves since moving out. I'll take the criticism on it's own merit and not scoff because of who delivers it.
What you're talking about is bashing.. which I don't see that many doing in this thread.
DII was just too dark for me. DI was just right. DIII is a bit too bright but better than DII. I just don't like murky video games.
Pretty much every game is unrealistic at least for hardware limitations (which had an effect on DII, whether you like it or not). Developers, through their handling of models and textures develop the style. This is why I can't say much about DIII yet - they're not finished.