Just because the beginning is not all messed up and evil doesn't mean the entire game will be like that. It has been 20 years since something majorly evil happened after all. The good part is the graphics look good so when they do make everything evil, it will look good.
Simply making the game gray and dark will not solve our problems, sure you'll like it at first but 1. Its a lot harder to change that kind of stuff in game as opposed to photoshop and 2. It'll get plain old boring after a while. Just because there is color doesn't mean that color can't be used to make a dark, diablo feeling enviornment. If you want the starting place to be as dark as many people are saying, your entire screen will be black when they get to the real evil stuff. Honestly, wait till we see some of the real evil enviornments before you start worrying.
laugh buddy if anything you are just a troll. and this is my last meal im giving you...
1) ive been here over a year longer than you, quiet now please
2) there are many people that would rather have the game keep the original look AND not be detrimental on PC specs. (stop being so obvious to the fact that everyone can afford to get a new PC if they dont have one)
3) gameplay > graphics in every which way. This is diablofans.com and if you dont go by that philosophy get out now, cause you are not a fan at all.
*Diablo was never about graphical testoserone, it was all above engaging, deep gameplay.* the graphics have updated a lot from diablo 2 and will still be looking better by the time of release.
Only thing I can do is ignore you. THIS is my last for YOU:
won't comment 1)
2)many think the other thing around
3)It must be very easy for you in life. Get a new brain on your shoulders, cause all I see is a Blizzard fan in you, not a DIablo fan.
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
if blizzard doesnt make somth about graphic ...i gues diablo 3 can be a serious candidate for a stupid game. at least wow players will have an alternative :rolleyes::D:D
BUT
Diablo 1+2: 2D, realistic characters, textures (2000)
Diablo 3: in 3D, cartoony, exaggerated characters, painted graphics (2010?)
Don't say "Bliz doesn't have technology", b/c Age of Conan has made photorealistic graphics with 50 players on screen, with no lag. (i already posted the video) And I've played the game, and tested it; there is no lag on my 800$ system.
edit: Fallout is an action rpg. Not a FPS game. And it's very close to AoC in terms of 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
Just because the beginning is not all messed up and evil doesn't mean the entire game will be like that. It has been 20 years since something majorly evil happened after all. The good part is the graphics look good so when they do make everything evil, it will look good.
Simply making the game gray and dark will not solve our problems, sure you'll like it at first but 1. Its a lot harder to change that kind of stuff in game as opposed to photoshop and 2. It'll get plain old boring after a while. Just because there is color doesn't mean that color can't be used to make a dark, diablo feeling enviornment. If you want the starting place to be as dark as many people are saying, your entire screen will be black when they get to the real evil stuff. Honestly, wait till we see some of the real evil enviornments before you start worrying.
The problem, though, is that in Diablo 1, the demons remained underground and the landscape was still dark, brooding, and gothic. It was as if the presence of evil corrupted and tainted the land. The video we were shown did not show a change as the characters progressed. The dungeon didn't get darker and more brooding as he traveled along, the character models didn't get more serious as he took steps... it remained the same.
It's not as if the characters were RIGHT THERE as the meteor hit. Hell already had a sizable force outside of the cathedral. It simply doesn't make any sense that trees came up out of the ground to attack us that looked just as cartoony as a WoW treant.
Obviously these trees had been corrupted enough to come to life and attack the players, but they hadn't been corrupted enough to look as if they were evil?
Thats one of the problems. Nothing looks evil. The summoning sequence when the big fatty comes to life, first having his bones appear? Looks like a goofy big ol' dummy skeleton right there. When his skin came, he looked like a goofy big ol' Abomination from WC3.
That big hell demon that came out from the wall? That looked an awful lot like a Dragonspawn from WC3.
I'm seeing absolutely NO originality here. I'm seeing nothing but WC3 and WoW. I'm NOT seeing Diablo.
cause all I see is a Blizzard fan in you, not a DIablo fan.
QFT
This describes a lot of people who complain about changes to D3.
Those of us who want change, just want improvement.
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
Well since this thread is just too huge for me to read and find out I'll post this at the risk of it being said already...
I'm watching the interview with rob pardo that game spot has and he is actually saying that all the changes and all the stuff we been discussion are actually intentional, He mentioned games like God of War and how he wanted to add some elements of its gameplay to Diablo III, also he clearly said that both Diablo 1 & 2 had the gothic look going for it but they THOUGHT it lacked color so they decided add brighter more vivid color while (dunno how) keeping the gothic feel :confused:.
But he also said that the general idea of announcing the game now is to get the opinion of the Diablo fanbase, this said he mentioned having done this with SC2 and that it also brought changes on the direction that the game was taking, if any this means that we still have a chance of sulling a little more our beloved Diablo.
He also said another interesting thing on about how long they been working on it and how far they are in development (without talking percentages)
For those who haven't seen it and the other videos go here:
~
"[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
I hope that there wasn't sarcasm in there somewhere.
If there was - read again that entire post as a whole.
Nope. No sarcasm. They are ALWAYS hiring artists. They are hiring artists right now as we speak, and I'm betting some of them will work on Diablo III. Because : the artwork right now kind of sucks.
You didn't bring attention to anything though. Quit trying to troll.
You replied, so obviously it brought your attention too it. I wanted to point it out to put the rest of his post into context. Then context of someone who wants to completely dictate what someone else's creation is.
And I agree that graphics are all fucked up, but you have to be reasonable.
You can't tell blizzard that their product isn't "diablo", they get to decide what diablo is. They own it. ITS THEIRS TO DESIGN.
Well, hopefully Blizz will listen to us(which would be kind of hard not to since there's threads like this one damn near every gaming forum I visit lol). They have changed many things in their games once they heard the fans response in the past with the most recent change being the terran faction in SC2.
They do have a good reputation of listening to their fanbase so we should assume that the same should happen for us.
You replied, so obviously it brought your attention too it. I wanted to point it out to put the rest of his post into context. Then context of someone who wants to completely dictate what someone else's creation is.
And I agree that graphics are all fucked up, but you have to be reasonable.
You can't tell blizzard that their product isn't "diablo", they get to decide what diablo is. They own it. ITS THEIRS TO DESIGN.
Well Blizz thought the WCII look was a good decision for Starcraft, look how that played out.
d3 is still under development pls stop, they were kind enough to hear our begging and endless pleading, dont u think they would have darker graphics if this sequel is true to the d2 lore and style!
They are not going to do a forth overhaul of the graphics. They will most likely revamp them to be darker, but for the most part, I think it will stay relatively the same. We can only hope for the best.
But lets remember, there were much better graphics possible for Diablo II, but what makes Diablo is gameplay and replayability.
That doesnt matter because all of the hired artists will work accordingly to what the art director wants, he's the boss, he's the one that tells the artists what kind of feeling and style he wants the game to have, do you understand? The artists are simple workers, they just follow the art director orders and those orders are to copy World of Warcraft style
I work in a creative field(music), so I understand to a degree what you mean. But the person that makes the model/texture is going to have a huge hand in what it looks like.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Common sense goes a long way...
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Simply making the game gray and dark will not solve our problems, sure you'll like it at first but 1. Its a lot harder to change that kind of stuff in game as opposed to photoshop and 2. It'll get plain old boring after a while. Just because there is color doesn't mean that color can't be used to make a dark, diablo feeling enviornment. If you want the starting place to be as dark as many people are saying, your entire screen will be black when they get to the real evil stuff. Honestly, wait till we see some of the real evil enviornments before you start worrying.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
Only thing I can do is ignore you. THIS is my last for YOU:
won't comment 1)
2)many think the other thing around
3)It must be very easy for you in life. Get a new brain on your shoulders, cause all I see is a Blizzard fan in you, not a DIablo fan.
Agree. Fallout stays true to the original games.
Fallout 1+2: 2D, realistic characters, textures (1998)
Fallout 3: 3D, realistic characters, textures (2008)
BUT
Diablo 1+2: 2D, realistic characters, textures (2000)
Diablo 3: in 3D, cartoony, exaggerated characters, painted graphics (2010?)
Don't say "Bliz doesn't have technology", b/c Age of Conan has made photorealistic graphics with 50 players on screen, with no lag. (i already posted the video) And I've played the game, and tested it; there is no lag on my 800$ system.
edit: Fallout is an action rpg. Not a FPS game. And it's very close to AoC in terms of 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
The problem, though, is that in Diablo 1, the demons remained underground and the landscape was still dark, brooding, and gothic. It was as if the presence of evil corrupted and tainted the land. The video we were shown did not show a change as the characters progressed. The dungeon didn't get darker and more brooding as he traveled along, the character models didn't get more serious as he took steps... it remained the same.
It's not as if the characters were RIGHT THERE as the meteor hit. Hell already had a sizable force outside of the cathedral. It simply doesn't make any sense that trees came up out of the ground to attack us that looked just as cartoony as a WoW treant.
http://www.wowwiki.com/Treant
Obviously these trees had been corrupted enough to come to life and attack the players, but they hadn't been corrupted enough to look as if they were evil?
Thats one of the problems. Nothing looks evil. The summoning sequence when the big fatty comes to life, first having his bones appear? Looks like a goofy big ol' dummy skeleton right there. When his skin came, he looked like a goofy big ol' Abomination from WC3.
That big hell demon that came out from the wall? That looked an awful lot like a Dragonspawn from WC3.
I'm seeing absolutely NO originality here. I'm seeing nothing but WC3 and WoW. I'm NOT seeing Diablo.
If there was - read again that entire post as a whole.
QFT
This describes a lot of people who complain about changes to D3.
Those of us who want change, just want improvement.
"[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
Everything else he said was spot on.
I'm watching the interview with rob pardo that game spot has and he is actually saying that all the changes and all the stuff we been discussion are actually intentional, He mentioned games like God of War and how he wanted to add some elements of its gameplay to Diablo III, also he clearly said that both Diablo 1 & 2 had the gothic look going for it but they THOUGHT it lacked color so they decided add brighter more vivid color while (dunno how) keeping the gothic feel :confused:.
But he also said that the general idea of announcing the game now is to get the opinion of the Diablo fanbase, this said he mentioned having done this with SC2 and that it also brought changes on the direction that the game was taking, if any this means that we still have a chance of sulling a little more our beloved Diablo.
He also said another interesting thing on about how long they been working on it and how far they are in development (without talking percentages)
For those who haven't seen it and the other videos go here:
http://www.gamespot.com/videos/index.html?tag=nav-top;videos&navclk=videos
which video? there is a list of them.
"[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
Because that was the part I wanted to bring attention to.
Nope. No sarcasm. They are ALWAYS hiring artists. They are hiring artists right now as we speak, and I'm betting some of them will work on Diablo III. Because : the artwork right now kind of sucks.
You didn't bring attention to anything though. Quit trying to troll.
You replied, so obviously it brought your attention too it. I wanted to point it out to put the rest of his post into context. Then context of someone who wants to completely dictate what someone else's creation is.
And I agree that graphics are all fucked up, but you have to be reasonable.
You can't tell blizzard that their product isn't "diablo", they get to decide what diablo is. They own it. ITS THEIRS TO DESIGN.
They do have a good reputation of listening to their fanbase so we should assume that the same should happen for us.
Well Blizz thought the WCII look was a good decision for Starcraft, look how that played out.
Fans won that argument
But lets remember, there were much better graphics possible for Diablo II, but what makes Diablo is gameplay and replayability.
Gameplay > Graphics.
I work in a creative field(music), so I understand to a degree what you mean. But the person that makes the model/texture is going to have a huge hand in what it looks like.