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?
I do agree with you tho.
That's a load of crap in what was otherwise a thoughtful post.
The original "Orcs and Humans" was actually quite fun, while "Rock and Roll Racing" and "The Lost Vikings" were both generally well-received.
You need to put this in context - back in the mid nineties, FMV garbage like "Seventh Guest" and incredibly boring non-games like "Myst" dominated the PC. The sad and ironic thing about Bliz's current focus on cinematics, card games, flashy animations, conventions, collectors' editions, etc, and full decade of releasing nothing but WoW iterations is that their initial success was based on them being actual action-based game alternatives to these kinds of overhyped yawners.
I also think you're forgetting all those Dungeons and Dragons games they made before Warcraft as well, all of which were bad.
And Myst is considered by many to be the best game ever made. Of course next to non of the millenial gamers understand or care to appriciate that game for it's puzzled genius.
Yeah. I agree with that statement Dimebog made.
^Thank you.
Kenzai: Why yes, of course I agree with the point that I said I agree with!!
I'm just sad that so many people are so whiny about the graphics.(not flame, just my feeling) Good graphics in video games are awesome (I'm not saying D3's are bad at all) but what really makes the game is the game play, storyline, and re-playability. There is more to the experience than eye candy.
Thank you.
That's a load of crap in what was otherwise a thoughtful post.
The original "Orcs and Humans" was actually quite fun, while "Rock and Roll Racing" and "The Lost Vikings" were both generally well-received.
You need to put this in context - back in the mid nineties, FMV garbage like "Seventh Guest" and incredibly boring non-games like "Myst" dominated the PC. The sad and ironic thing about Bliz's current focus on cinematics, card games, flashy animations, conventions, collectors' editions, etc, and full decade of releasing nothing but WoW iterations is that their initial success was based on them being actual action-based game alternatives to these kinds of overhyped yawners.
Thanks for not getting your panties, er boxers.... whatev you wear, in a bunch. It's nice to discuss things with people who are open minded and don't retaliate to an opinion with "yer stupid you don't even know anything about Diablo, noob!" lol k maybe a lil dramatic, but not in some cases
I think it all comes down to opinion. For me the "spirit" of diablo was the gameplay, and other stuff i mentioned, but for others different things "made" the game for them. When those things get changed, sometimes it's hard to accept that with open arms. Maybe it'll grow on people just like XP did, and Vista will.
I think I made it clear that my response was to the statement, not the poster him/herself, and that I thought the rest of the post was quite good.
I try to stick to the substance of the post, and really don't hold it against folks when they make mistakes. But calling those games "terrible" really is way off-base, and much more of a flame than my response to it. I think the fact that someone bothered to port LV to GBA a decade later says it all:
http://www.mobygames.com/game/lost-vikings
Of course, the exception to the above is Dimebog. Asking any intelligent poster here not to instinctively flame him is like asking a true Diablo player to let Garbad live. Almost impossible.
With Diablo III, I like the more colorful lighter style, something I might actually play single player (although I'll probably just play multiplayer anways), and I've never been a fan of dark games anyways.
Yes, I have played it. And also, saying they're the same is mostly true but can also be a matter of opinion. Playing with others has a lot different of a feel than playing by myself, at least in D2. It's weird, I know, but it's me, so I don't really see the point in arguing this
I don't think Bill Roper said something different." It's great but the style is different" is the summary of his words.
I agree with both of them too. Maybe D3 team can add a little bit darkness here and there, some light radius effect and it's done.
More importantly they have to make the game gritty. D3 at least has to be deteailed like Diablo 2 in 3D.
BTW health-orb mechanic is good but it adds arcade feel to the game. I have a great idea for that. Every fallen mob with soul give you soul power (with very small animation) that slowly translates to health if you could spare some soul power to heal your buddy. So what is the purpose of soul power then? It makes your skills and stats stronger... I think this is more gothic and i call this a feature
Think about it... Targeted unique mob has less health and you have really less health. What are you going to do? Do you want to increase your damage using soul power or do you want to heal? If you increase your damage you could kill the mob before it would or otherway it could kill you before. If you gain health, the fight could be longer and you would have more time.
The balance is Blizzard's business but i think this fits with Diablo universe. If you read the books also you could see something like soul power.
I agree with Bill Roper because I don't really like Diablo II's color palette that much, and I would prefer DIII to be closer to DI... so, I am pretty happy with him saying they're different. I still think the "spirit" may remain there.
I don't really understand why did DIII do this to its visuals. There are many paths they could have gone (heXen II style, for example, fantasy gothic, or even Nox style) that were not any more graphically demanding, but they do seem to be leaning towards WarCraft. It's like middle ground between DI and WarCraft, I'd say. I honestly belive Sacred II dungeouns (albeit rare, S2 is not a dungeon game) look darker and more Diabloish than DIII's do.
Yes, we didn't see the rest of the game, but I can make out the style already, and while I am happy it's not as dark and desaturated as DII was, I wouldn't mind if they removed a few blurred lines. Considering where SCII started and where SCII ended up, I have quite some hope for DIII, and I think it will end up looking very heXen-like.
I second that statement.
Please explain.