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 have. If you count the first time I actually played the demo of it when I was a kid. Then I actually got D2 and still play that. After D3 was announced I picked up D1 just to actually get the full experience. Don't get me wrong; I like D1 as well as D2...I think they are totally different from eachother, but I can appreciate that.
Now back to D1, I guess when I first played it (when I was a kid) it was something new and out at a time when there were no other games like it really. I could see the people relating the scariness or horror if they played it as a kid. I play it now and it's not scary at all.
I liked a lot of the ideas they put forth though. Lots of items, good lore, random level layouts and the progression from going to the cathedral into the depths of hell. Honestly I think that last aspect is what the D3 team is going to achieve, just on a world scale rather than one area. It's still a classic in my opinion.
There are things I didn't like or thought were corny (mind you I played it AFTER D2). I hated not being able to run. I hated not being able to store my stuff. I couldn't stand the fact that if I didn't get any really good items before getting too far I'd get creamed and monsters did not respawn so i could try and get better items. Some of the characters were corny like the fallen that you talk to about the sign or that goat guy gharbad. Some of the quests did not seem that well fleshed out or purposeful either.
Anyways, keep in mind that I played it after D2, so my opinion is going to be skewed a bit. There are things I like and dislike about it. Is it still a great game, yes by all means especially for its time. Is it perfect and should be duplicated exactly (this goes for D2 as well). No. If you look across the two of them there are a lot of differences. So will be the same with D3.
I beat Diablo I at least 10 times. You don't know what are you talking about. I bet all my money that you don't face that shiny place in DI. Probably you just beat it one time and that's all. In fact i'm playing D1 even now and try to get all of missed randomised quests to complete them. Just a few left. The last time i beat it i had a great axe that reduces light radius and i could just see my character in Diablo's lair. I'm really serious about that.
@Dimebog
That screenshot was just for showing the game. If they had choosen to show that shot without removing light radius, people wouldn't understand the game wasn't exist in that time.
I played Diablo I first in 1997 when i was 10 and i still can't forget the experience i had when i saw the butcher. I was just like, Oh shit, run run run run to level 1 Then i couldn't open his door for a day If i tell the truth i was scared. I was just 10 and in that time Diablo 1's graphics were one of the best and most realistic in pc games. Also it was not that pixelly because there were only 14" monitors
Good old memories.
http://www.gameogre.com/reviewdirectory/upload/Age%20of%20Empires.jpg
http://www.penguinpetes.com/images/Heretic_ss_2.jpg
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-making-linux-fun/descent2.gif
http://www.bluesnews.com/guide/images/H203.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/0/198380/quake2gz_screen005.jpg
None of those are cartoony. They use bright colors, yes, but most people who played those games know they have quite an atmosphere and the style fits it. They weren't afraid to use colors, that is all, and they adapted to whatever graphics they could afford. These days, though, it seems the murkier you make the game, the better, as long as you apply the latest shaders and best bumping techniques *ahem* FEAR *ahem*. No imagination whatsoever. Besides, murky colors are easier to draw. Ugh.
It's not about the colors, people. Or darkness. It's about the STYLE. Style, style, style, style, style... You can desaturate those pictures all day long and improve the poly count or change texture size it's not going to make a difference.
I think the vast majority of people would prefer a change in STYLE. But that has nothing to do with the colors, really. Most wouldn't really be able to describe, distinctly, what made Diablo II, or I feel the way it did. You can point out the differences but are they really the actual problem here, or is it something else? Unless you have any concrete proof that a guy with a closed face and dual wield has anything to do with DI's warrior, take that back, please. For all we know, it could even be an angel.
You're comparing an artwork to a game...? Advice #1: replace the stupid DIII music with something else.
For me, the music can define 75% of the game's atmosphere.
It's too late for changing the style. At least we want to see improvements.
It's just about pleasing the majority.
As for the "feel" of the game, uh wouldn't you have to play the game in order to get the "feel" of it? I mean, I don't know about anyone else, but I don't get a whole lot from a screenshot or even a video.
I dunno why any of this is up for debate anyhow since people are comparing final products to a product that is in progress. I mean, they have already changed the look of the mana and life orbs that drop. Don't you think that they might change other things as well? Well, I'm done, I'll read what people say, but no more.
QFT
It is all about how things have been feeling with the games. Neither D2 nor D3 looked bad in any way. It just seems that there was something that made D1 incredibly scary. It was truly a masterpiece imo. Going down in that church had such a creepy depressing feeling. It was great XD
Yea.
The dungeons don't look anything like Diablo II.
You can't even see over into the other rooms, can you?
I hope they take it a notch farther tho.
I Absolutely HATE the Rainbows and bunnies, bright colors, etc in Diablo 3 Art style.
I mean, I don't understand how you all Diablo fans could love Diablo 1 then also Embrace these childish stuff in Diablo 3 now?
The man IS RIGHT! These things doesn't ring with Diablo world, at all!
I don't get how D3 looks childish to you. Ok, so there is some sun outside and it brightens things up a bit, but you are still smashing through hordes of evil and enter dungeons where it's dark like you want. It looks just fine.
Which BTW, I am refusing to get even if it's offered to me for FREE!
Again, as I said, I don't see HOW anyone who thought Diablo 1 was one of the BEST games ever for all the Gothic, darkness, Demon reasons could love this kiddie style so much!
It's like you watching a freaking Nightmare on Elm Street movie, Freddie Kruger goes for a kill. then all the sudden, a cute bunny hops out on the screen ..WTF? Is that Acceptable?
And Don't get me wrong, I have Nothing against Bunnies, Rainbows, Unicorns, BUT they just DON'T belong in the Diablo world!
Just leave Diablo world to Gothic, Dark, Evil, Demon, CAN'T-SLEEP-LIKE-Scaryness PLEASE!!!
Rainbow and Bunnies are clearly in the game!