Super computer? What the fuck, this game graphics are like 6 years old, its completely outdated and im absolutely sure they can add a shit load of more technologies without pushing the computer, im a 3D modeler and artist, i know how games are made and i know there's serious flaws in the Diablo 3 engine and in their art style.
QFT
Its already outdated from the technical stand point and it won't be out until 2010 most likely..super computer my ass
You are obviously clueless about art. Anyone that has the slightest insight into art can tell the difference. So I wont bother arguing, I think those who listen already got my point anyway. The way I changed contrast actually makes the colors more vivid than they were before, how can you not see it? To say all I did was degrade and desaturate shows your ignorance on the subject. Ah well, next.
Diablo 3 is not art.
You simply cannot do all the things you are doing in photoshop to a videogame. you cant desaturate and all that crap to 60 frames in a second.
I wonder guys when do you realize that a 3D game WILL look cartoony unless it's really detailed which will kill most computers? Or that stuff just doesn't get to you?
Does Oblivion kill your computer?
Even if there are tons of monsters, Oblivion is pretty easy to handle on an average system.
And that's in 2005.
Diablo 3 won't be out till at least 2010.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
Now, maybe you don't care about buying a super computer for Diablo III, some people do, and that's to whom Blizzard will sell.
This is where you are correct.
Blizzard does not give a shit that D3 has graphics from 2002, b/c it will sell to more people.
Diablo fans are still disappointed in shitty graphics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
Obvlivion is a TPS perspective game. It doesn't have 100 monsters on screen. 5+ monsters in screen in Oblivion pretty much cause a deadly slow down. On max settings, of course. It also has a bit of faulty optimization and it has minor memory leaks, so it's not too easy to see how optimized it is, really.
And the screen you showed me looks horrible???
Quote from "nasser;256800 »
Diablo 3 won't be out till at least 2010.
And there are tons of Diablo II players who still sit on extremely old computers. Diablo III will be made available. The computer I have now will be able to play it (although I will buy a new one, but for SCII not Diablo III). That's the point of these low graphics.
Quote from "Ultramegazord"" »
lpick up any recent game
a) All games that I can pick up slow down on my computer at max settings. All of htem. All of them are REALLY horrible at handling big masses of enemies.
No, that actually proves that people have no idea how graphics are made at all. You keep using sharp edges on those screens and that would take a lot more polygons in 3D. It's easy to operate with 2D. It's easy to put a tint on a static picture. But when it comes to models and lighting and performance it gets much more complicated.
Post processing techniques made things extremely easy in the last few years.
if you douches are suggesting Blizzard forgets its model of making this game as readily available as possible to current d2 players with comp specs, then get the fuck off these forums.
I am a student working and living on my own and i cant afford a EDITED *$800 rig.
All blizzard needs to do is give the game a less painted look and make it a lot bleaker in the caves/dungeons etc areas. thats it, you are all getting out of hand with your suggestions on both sides of the arguement. Blizzard is smart they will meet somewhere in the middle like ive suggested, keeping this new artisticly driven look but making it a little more eerie and dark in atmosphere.
and who cares if the graphics are outdated, last i checked that didnt infringe on people playing diablo 2 still. shit im planning on repurchaseing the game within this upcoming week because i cant find it anymore.
you people are morons. The specific rig im getting is not important. the POINT is there are man ypeople out there that cannot/do not plan on buying $1000 or even a entry level $400 computer just for this game.
its ridiculous for you to even suggest that. so stop focusing on that and focus on the arguement.
It's an FPS engine. It's made for that perspective, and that perspective could always handle more than top down can... please give me a top down engine with a big amount of monsters that doesn't slow down on max graphics for computers 3 years old.
Quote from "Ultramegazord"" »
Extremely old computers? Do you know what kind of computer Diablo 2 required? Do you really think there's still people with P2, no 3D acceleration and 64MB of RAM around? What the hell is wrong with you? This is 2008, not 1998, that's a really stupid and ignorant argument.
I got Diablo II when it came out. My computer at that time was crap. The game ran fine. SC ran fine. No slow downs at all, nothing.
You are obviously clueless about art. Anyone that has the slightest insight into art can tell the difference. So I wont bother arguing, I think those who listen already got my point anyway. The way I changed contrast actually makes the colors more vivid than they were before, how can you not see it? To say all I did was degrade and desaturate shows your ignorance on the subject. Ah well, next.
Your point is well taken, and there are pics I have seen "improved" that look better, some not as good as the "original". The bottom line is that this is simply a demo trailer, and the screenshots are taken from the game at this stage of development.
I expect them to "enhance" the graphics as development goes on. I also expect, as others have said, that in-game graphic options will allow for this as well. The overall gothic feel is there, to me. I'm happy as hell with the design-for the most part, and again, IT"S STILL EARLY!
At any rate, Rob Pardo has said the game design has already gone through 3 iterations and they feel that they have it right as of now. That's not to say there won't be tweaks, but basically, what you see is what you get, for now and in the long run. All this speculation, while interesting, is going to prove somewhat futile, I would imagine.
And for those of you complaining about next gen graphics of any kind and the strain on your computer- you've got to be kidding. I have a HP HDX with a 8800GTS and a 20 inch screen...I almost can't stand to play D2 on it because of how grainy it is. The point being is that there is no way, even given Blizzard's propensity to make games playable over a wide range of computers, that a PC bought 4,5, or 6 years ago is going to play this game well when it comes out, a year and a half or so from now. This may not be the case for a lot, but the ones that bring it up...sheesh.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People that liked what Diablo 3 looked like are not going to sit here and bitch about how its good. People that want it to change are much more vocal. The poll is flawed because of that FACT.
Where did I mention computer costs? o.O Please don't put words into my mouth.
Do you seriously think if Blizzard wanted the graphics to be more advanced they wouldn't do so? You seem to claim you know much more than they do. It's not like it's an issue for artists to implement all those technologies.
And there are tons of Diablo II players who still sit on extremely old computers.
Agreed, if you can run Diablo II, you can run Diablo III. GG Blizzard.
Monsters / other players do not lag at all.
I proved this to Ralsu and lethlan.
Do you think 24v24 PVP lags in modern RPGs?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
if you douches are suggesting Blizzard forgets its model of making this game as readily available as possible to current d2 players with comp specs, then get the fuck off these forums.
I am a student working and living on my own and i cant afford a $2,000 rig.
All blizzard needs to do is give the game a less painted look and make it a lot bleaker in the caves/dungeons etc areas. thats it, you are all getting out of hand with your suggestions on both sides of the arguement. Blizzard is smart they will meet somewhere in the middle like ive suggested, keeping this new artisticly driven look but making it a little more eerie and dark in atmosphere.
and who cares if the graphics are outdated, last i checked that didnt infringe on people playing diablo 2 still. shit im planning on repurchaseing the game within this upcoming week because i cant find it anymore.
Kudos for maintaining school and work on your own!!! That being said, you don't need a $2000 rig. You can get something in the 500-800 dollar range that will play almost every game available today and the near future at acceptable levels. And that price won't change a 1-2 years from now...this years high end will be low-end by that time. Only you know what you can afford, I'm just saying...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People that liked what Diablo 3 looked like are not going to sit here and bitch about how its good. People that want it to change are much more vocal. The poll is flawed because of that FACT.
I bought my latest pc for about 800 bucks without OS, screen, KB, mouse etc. And guess what. It absolutely pwns.
good job on totally ignoring and evading the main concern, or any concern in my arguement.
the point isnt whether its a 400, 800, or 2000 dollar computer....the point is there are people like myself, that cannot shell out that kind of money when diablo in the first place was never meant as a GRAPHICALLY TECHNICAL ACHIEVING GAME.
btw your reply makes no sense anyway. you got a pc for 800 without Os, screen and mouse and keyboard.....you are doing nothing but supporting the fact that this is a heap of money to get a new up to date computer.
and again, i shouldnt have to update or get a new computer (whether thats $300 or $900, ive got real world expenses in a inflated economy) to play a game that was never meant as a GRAPHICALLY TECHNICAL ACHIEVING GAME. hell thats half of the appeal to me and many fans, that graphics take a backseat to gameplay in Diablo
Now, maybe you don't care about buying a super computer for Diablo III, some people do, and that's to whom Blizzard will sell.Yeah, with TPS perspective, great example...
Do have a split personality or something? At least keep your opinions longer than 15 minutes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "KonataX" »
lol it can still easily be a ranger since who said you cant shoot arrows at melee distance xD
Quote from "Archie" »
The Barbarian is from Arreat, a very cold snowy mountain top, but they are much tougher than normal humans, so they don't need warmth.
Quote from "Archie" »
Where are Barbarians originally from? Sumeria, or more specifically Mesopotamia, AKA Europe. Think the Alps and the Pyrenees
No, that actually proves that people have no idea how graphics are made at all. You keep using sharp edges on those screens and that would take a lot more polygons in 3D. It's easy to operate with 2D. It's easy to put a tint on a static picture. But when it comes to models and lighting and performance it gets much more complicated.
All sorts of games apply 2D Filters it the game. It's UT3, Gears, Call of Duty, Ect. get their games to look like that. It's a technique taken from film, where they post process movies to give them a cohesive color palette. The two example I can think of is "O' brother Were Art Thou" and "Amelie", though almost all movies go through it to some degree anymore.
That being said, Think about how long it takes to apply that photoshop filter. Now, think if it took that long between every frame of animation.
The most notable complaint can be addressed to the 2D background on which the game is played. It may be modified. Everything else is not really that simple. You say the armor is too bulky - try to make a model that has curves, is not bulky, and doesn't have too many polygons. You'll end up with a bulky model or a high-polygon model, or a compromise, which is what most 3D game kinda strive for.
Now, maybe you don't care about buying a super computer for Diablo III, some people do, and that's to whom Blizzard will sell.Yeah, with TPS perspective, great example...
That is part of the problem. People are looking at the close ups of the models and thinking "it's so box", Well, they have to draw a huge number of models on the screen at one time, and they can't have gigantic frame dips the entire time.
I still say that the easiest thing they could do is tone down the ambient lights, so they aren't so colorful or bright. I thoght the outside look fine, miles better than act I on D2.
so the art design you currently see for diablo 3 does not look like it was painted and it looks very detailed and has precise/distinct lines on each objects?
or are you looking at the AFTER fan manipulated art?
Clarify please.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "KonataX" »
lol it can still easily be a ranger since who said you cant shoot arrows at melee distance xD
Quote from "Archie" »
The Barbarian is from Arreat, a very cold snowy mountain top, but they are much tougher than normal humans, so they don't need warmth.
Quote from "Archie" »
Where are Barbarians originally from? Sumeria, or more specifically Mesopotamia, AKA Europe. Think the Alps and the Pyrenees
Great. Then give me a 3D Diablo-like scene the way you want to see it... and make sure it's low-poly, too. Not photoshoped images with fabricated sharp edges... anyone can do that.
Any reason why he should show you anything at all?
I'm wondering what your proffession is?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "KonataX" »
lol it can still easily be a ranger since who said you cant shoot arrows at melee distance xD
Quote from "Archie" »
The Barbarian is from Arreat, a very cold snowy mountain top, but they are much tougher than normal humans, so they don't need warmth.
Quote from "Archie" »
Where are Barbarians originally from? Sumeria, or more specifically Mesopotamia, AKA Europe. Think the Alps and the Pyrenees
Well, by the ignorant arguments you're using i know for sure that i know much more about 3D and game making than you do, that should be enough for me to criticize the way Blizzard is (or isnt) doing things, they're persons like you and me and persons fail.
You still didn't give me a low-poly awesome looking 3D scene. I think you are just babbling. How can I believe you that you are a 3D model person not someone claiming to be one?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
QFT
Its already outdated from the technical stand point and it won't be out until 2010 most likely..super computer my ass
You simply cannot do all the things you are doing in photoshop to a videogame. you cant desaturate and all that crap to 60 frames in a second.
Does Oblivion kill your computer?
Even if there are tons of monsters, Oblivion is pretty easy to handle on an average system.
And that's in 2005.
Diablo 3 won't be out till at least 2010.
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
This is where you are correct.
Blizzard does not give a shit that D3 has graphics from 2002, b/c it will sell to more people.
Diablo fans are still disappointed in shitty graphics.
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
And the screen you showed me looks horrible???
And there are tons of Diablo II players who still sit on extremely old computers. Diablo III will be made available. The computer I have now will be able to play it (although I will buy a new one, but for SCII not Diablo III). That's the point of these low graphics.a) All games that I can pick up slow down on my computer at max settings. All of htem.
Post processing techniques made things extremely easy in the last few years.
Look at the Unreal Engine, for example.
gameplay > graphics
if you douches are suggesting Blizzard forgets its model of making this game as readily available as possible to current d2 players with comp specs, then get the fuck off these forums.
I am a student working and living on my own and i cant afford a EDITED *$800 rig.
All blizzard needs to do is give the game a less painted look and make it a lot bleaker in the caves/dungeons etc areas. thats it, you are all getting out of hand with your suggestions on both sides of the arguement. Blizzard is smart they will meet somewhere in the middle like ive suggested, keeping this new artisticly driven look but making it a little more eerie and dark in atmosphere.
and who cares if the graphics are outdated, last i checked that didnt infringe on people playing diablo 2 still. shit im planning on repurchaseing the game within this upcoming week because i cant find it anymore.
you people are morons. The specific rig im getting is not important. the POINT is there are man ypeople out there that cannot/do not plan on buying $1000 or even a entry level $400 computer just for this game.
its ridiculous for you to even suggest that. so stop focusing on that and focus on the arguement.
Sign for a Darker Art Direction in the dungeons/caves/etc.
www.myspace.com/mariocamillo
www.youtube.com/mariospeedwagon
Your point is well taken, and there are pics I have seen "improved" that look better, some not as good as the "original". The bottom line is that this is simply a demo trailer, and the screenshots are taken from the game at this stage of development.
I expect them to "enhance" the graphics as development goes on. I also expect, as others have said, that in-game graphic options will allow for this as well. The overall gothic feel is there, to me. I'm happy as hell with the design-for the most part, and again, IT"S STILL EARLY!
At any rate, Rob Pardo has said the game design has already gone through 3 iterations and they feel that they have it right as of now. That's not to say there won't be tweaks, but basically, what you see is what you get, for now and in the long run. All this speculation, while interesting, is going to prove somewhat futile, I would imagine.
And for those of you complaining about next gen graphics of any kind and the strain on your computer- you've got to be kidding. I have a HP HDX with a 8800GTS and a 20 inch screen...I almost can't stand to play D2 on it because of how grainy it is. The point being is that there is no way, even given Blizzard's propensity to make games playable over a wide range of computers, that a PC bought 4,5, or 6 years ago is going to play this game well when it comes out, a year and a half or so from now. This may not be the case for a lot, but the ones that bring it up...sheesh.
Do you seriously think if Blizzard wanted the graphics to be more advanced they wouldn't do so? You seem to claim you know much more than they do. It's not like it's an issue for artists to implement all those technologies.
Agreed, if you can run Diablo II, you can run Diablo III.
Monsters / other players do not lag at all.
I proved this to Ralsu and lethlan.
Do you think 24v24 PVP lags in modern RPGs?
"[Diablo1+2] obviously had the gothic look to it, but, you they weren't, they weren't very uh, very colorful games."
"We want to take dark as an emotion, rather than an actual color art choice." -Rob Pardo
"Why the hell shouldn't it be for 'kiddies', it's a goddamn game afterall." -lethlan
Kudos for maintaining school and work on your own!!! That being said, you don't need a $2000 rig. You can get something in the 500-800 dollar range that will play almost every game available today and the near future at acceptable levels. And that price won't change a 1-2 years from now...this years high end will be low-end by that time. Only you know what you can afford, I'm just saying...
good job on totally ignoring and evading the main concern, or any concern in my arguement.
the point isnt whether its a 400, 800, or 2000 dollar computer....the point is there are people like myself, that cannot shell out that kind of money when diablo in the first place was never meant as a GRAPHICALLY TECHNICAL ACHIEVING GAME.
btw your reply makes no sense anyway. you got a pc for 800 without Os, screen and mouse and keyboard.....you are doing nothing but supporting the fact that this is a heap of money to get a new up to date computer.
and again, i shouldnt have to update or get a new computer (whether thats $300 or $900, ive got real world expenses in a inflated economy) to play a game that was never meant as a GRAPHICALLY TECHNICAL ACHIEVING GAME. hell thats half of the appeal to me and many fans, that graphics take a backseat to gameplay in Diablo
Sign for a Darker Art Direction in the dungeons/caves/etc.
www.myspace.com/mariocamillo
www.youtube.com/mariospeedwagon
Do have a split personality or something? At least keep your opinions longer than 15 minutes.
That being said, Think about how long it takes to apply that photoshop filter. Now, think if it took that long between every frame of animation.
That is part of the problem. People are looking at the close ups of the models and thinking "it's so box", Well, they have to draw a huge number of models on the screen at one time, and they can't have gigantic frame dips the entire time.
I still say that the easiest thing they could do is tone down the ambient lights, so they aren't so colorful or bright. I thoght the outside look fine, miles better than act I on D2.
Clarify please.
I'm wondering what your proffession is?
even then it would be art.