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.
What I think is that the current staff Blizzard has is incapable of making a product of higher visual quality so they beat around the bush and make false claims about what their goal is.
It's called marketing. They're slapping grease around your eyes. They have got probably the largest fan base compared to other companies. Unless they hire some more talented people this is where their success ends. I don't know whether they have done this (hire new good artists designers etc. and have them work on something else) and left the D3 project to the fools that actually made this crap. What I do know is that since I saw the footage from Blizzcon my fears came alive.
I didn't want to make this claim and hoped that Blizzard would escape this, but I can't see bigger proof than this.
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
My absolute biggest issue with the dungeon we were shown is the blue-green color that the ENTIRE dungeon has. It isn't creepy, it isn't dark, it isn't scary... it's the kind of thing you'd see from a childs cartoon to depict creepy, dark, and scary. Even a lot of the touch-up screenies just don't get it. Only one of them have, and it's the one that added in the light-radius. THAT IS EXACTLY IT. He gets it.
Another thing that REALLY has me not anticipating this game like I was yesterday is the character model. I hate WoW. I hate every aspect about it. The thing I hate the most about it, though, is the art. The character models look terrible. The thing that makes the character models look terrible are the god-awful shoulder pads. They're huge. They're ridiculous. They scream
"HEY LOOK AT ME I'M A BIG OL' DUMMY HYUKHYUK."
The final thing that has me fairly peeved is that the art design has been changed 3 times and this is the one they are the most satisfied with. Really? This one? It doesn't feel like Diablo.
Yeah, ok. It's been 20 years. I get that. We're in King Leorics forest. This is near Tristram. Does anyone remember what Tristram looked like before the demons came up?
The forest surrounding Tristram looks NOTHING like that. Again, this is BEFORE the demons came out of the church. In Diablo 2, the entire area was destroyed. In Diablo 3, the demons are already out of the church and are all about the landscape. Sorry, what? They didn't do anything to the landscape?!
To make this all worse, the dev in the interview stated that they tried to make dark a mood and not a color. Sorry, it's not working. The mood that you have set in the video is clearly the opposite of what you are trying to convey. If this was another game, any other game, it would be fine. Warcraft? Sure thing. Morrowind? It'd fit. Diablo? No. Sorry. Two epic games have dictated the art style. This is what the fans expect.
They really need to dump this WoW art guy. The reason WoW is popular isn't because of the art design, it's because it's an easy game that doesn't require any sort of major time sink to feel like you did something. A game like Diablo dictates an art design that reflects the theme of the game. Currently, the art design dictates a game that is set in the fall months and is very reminiscent of Winnie the Pooh halloween episodes.
Fall does not bode well with setting a 'dark' mood. Winter, though, does.
What I think is that the current staff Blizzard has is incapable of making a product of higher visual quality so they beat around the bush and make false claims about what their goal is.
It's called marketing. They're slapping grease around your eyes. They have got probably the largest fan base compared to other companies. Unless they hire some more talented people this is where their success ends. I don't know whether they have done this and left the D3 project to the fools that actually made this crap. What I do know is that since I saw the footage from Blizzcon my fears came alive.
I didn't want to make this claim and hoped that Blizzard would escape this, but I can't see bigger proof than this.
It might be why they seem to always be hiring new artists.
*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.
Ok, you lost me right here...engaging and deep? I can in no way say this game engaged me like, say, the BG series, IDale, NWN etc.
Hack-n-slash, grab loot, beat the bad guy, rinse and repeat...but it was different every time, even doing the same thing. This is what was so cool to me.
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.
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
So what you're saying is that technology has to stagnate because that way it better suits your needs? Pfft
If you really wanted to know: IT IS THE GRAPHICS that make half the game. Let's not kid ourselves that it's JUST about the story or gameplay.
Stop posting these conspiracy theories- if you think the hardware companies are shaving you with their constant hardware updates, then you shoud think about your government that charges you for the water you drink. Think of all the money they've taken from you. Is the water there to be exploited? Maybe you'd like to discuss about this as well, aye? THINGS CHANGE, AND IF YOU STAGNATE ITS YOUR LOSS AND YOUR LOSS ALONE. Somethings shouldn't change but it's often beyond our power to do something about it.
While this is an interesting point- don't waste our time with it, because it only barely concerns this topic.
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.
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...
Im not sure what you know about 3D but if they did manipulate those pictures in photoshop, it means that the poligons on the models where untouched. How a set texture looks sharp is dependant on the texture size and the games resolution. Yes, blizzard likes to use low polly, it give fast and accurate gameplay that works well in battlenet. The changes are nothing tragic, blizzard has just to change textures to allow the color and tonality to look like those photoshoped pictures.
I know that DII was played on a 2D BG but if you notice carefully, the ground is only so different in 3D. It stays very low on poligon and keeps most basic shapes while still limiting your ground movement on a pre designed path.
You have to understand that just Like WoW and SCII, DIII uses low polly and lets you keep a smooth path on the edges, its called a smoothing group. though you have a low polly model it makes it look fairly round and accurate.
I do however dislike the current look, you dont need to be an artist or creative director to know that rainbows dont fit in DIII (yes they have rainbows in DIII).
The second part looks like a gimmick, but I can't comment on your playing experience. I strive for maximum smoothness while playing. But MAX? Ultra settings? AA and AF?
If that's true, then I'll buy myself 2 more monitors with the money I've been saving. Pitty I've waisting time these past 2 weeks on Diablofans arguing with morons instead of looking up the web about these new GPUs...
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
So, you are going to dictate what time of year the game should take place?
Yeah, lets have the game take place in a sunny forest. That'll fit a game like Diablo where every single piece of scenery thus far has been dark and gothic. That will make a ton of sense.
Fall is a terrible choice for a season for the first act to take place. If they were to do Fall, they would need to darken it up a bit. Make it seem like there are tons of dark, brooding clouds. Have it rain randomly. Lots of thunder. Etc.
Bright and sunny doesn't strike me as a time for me to be afraid.
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:
What I think is that the current staff Blizzard has is incapable of making a product of higher visual quality so they beat around the bush and make false claims about what their goal is.
It's called marketing. They're slapping grease around your eyes. They have got probably the largest fan base compared to other companies. Unless they hire some more talented people this is where their success ends. I don't know whether they have done this (hire new good artists designers etc. and have them work on something else) and left the D3 project to the fools that actually made this crap. What I do know is that since I saw the footage from Blizzcon my fears came alive.
I didn't want to make this claim and hoped that Blizzard would escape this, but I can't see bigger proof than this.
Another thing that REALLY has me not anticipating this game like I was yesterday is the character model. I hate WoW. I hate every aspect about it. The thing I hate the most about it, though, is the art. The character models look terrible. The thing that makes the character models look terrible are the god-awful shoulder pads. They're huge. They're ridiculous. They scream
"HEY LOOK AT ME I'M A BIG OL' DUMMY HYUKHYUK."
The final thing that has me fairly peeved is that the art design has been changed 3 times and this is the one they are the most satisfied with. Really? This one? It doesn't feel like Diablo.
Yeah, ok. It's been 20 years. I get that. We're in King Leorics forest. This is near Tristram. Does anyone remember what Tristram looked like before the demons came up?
The forest surrounding Tristram looks NOTHING like that. Again, this is BEFORE the demons came out of the church. In Diablo 2, the entire area was destroyed. In Diablo 3, the demons are already out of the church and are all about the landscape. Sorry, what? They didn't do anything to the landscape?!
To make this all worse, the dev in the interview stated that they tried to make dark a mood and not a color. Sorry, it's not working. The mood that you have set in the video is clearly the opposite of what you are trying to convey. If this was another game, any other game, it would be fine. Warcraft? Sure thing. Morrowind? It'd fit. Diablo? No. Sorry. Two epic games have dictated the art style. This is what the fans expect.
They really need to dump this WoW art guy. The reason WoW is popular isn't because of the art design, it's because it's an easy game that doesn't require any sort of major time sink to feel like you did something. A game like Diablo dictates an art design that reflects the theme of the game. Currently, the art design dictates a game that is set in the fall months and is very reminiscent of Winnie the Pooh halloween episodes.
Fall does not bode well with setting a 'dark' mood. Winter, though, does.
It might be why they seem to always be hiring new artists.
Ok, you lost me right here...engaging and deep? I can in no way say this game engaged me like, say, the BG series, IDale, NWN etc.
Hack-n-slash, grab loot, beat the bad guy, rinse and repeat...but it was different every time, even doing the same thing. This is what was so cool to me.
So what you're saying is that technology has to stagnate because that way it better suits your needs? Pfft
If you really wanted to know: IT IS THE GRAPHICS that make half the game. Let's not kid ourselves that it's JUST about the story or gameplay.
Stop posting these conspiracy theories- if you think the hardware companies are shaving you with their constant hardware updates, then you shoud think about your government that charges you for the water you drink. Think of all the money they've taken from you. Is the water there to be exploited? Maybe you'd like to discuss about this as well, aye? THINGS CHANGE, AND IF YOU STAGNATE ITS YOUR LOSS AND YOUR LOSS ALONE. Somethings shouldn't change but it's often beyond our power to do something about it.
While this is an interesting point- don't waste our time with it, because it only barely concerns this topic.
So, you are going to dictate what time of year the game should take place?
Im not sure what you know about 3D but if they did manipulate those pictures in photoshop, it means that the poligons on the models where untouched. How a set texture looks sharp is dependant on the texture size and the games resolution. Yes, blizzard likes to use low polly, it give fast and accurate gameplay that works well in battlenet. The changes are nothing tragic, blizzard has just to change textures to allow the color and tonality to look like those photoshoped pictures.
I know that DII was played on a 2D BG but if you notice carefully, the ground is only so different in 3D. It stays very low on poligon and keeps most basic shapes while still limiting your ground movement on a pre designed path.
You have to understand that just Like WoW and SCII, DIII uses low polly and lets you keep a smooth path on the edges, its called a smoothing group. though you have a low polly model it makes it look fairly round and accurate.
I do however dislike the current look, you dont need to be an artist or creative director to know that rainbows dont fit in DIII (yes they have rainbows in DIII).
The second part looks like a gimmick, but I can't comment on your playing experience. I strive for maximum smoothness while playing. But MAX? Ultra settings? AA and AF?
If that's true, then I'll buy myself 2 more monitors with the money I've been saving. Pitty I've waisting time these past 2 weeks on Diablofans arguing with morons instead of looking up the web about these new GPUs...
What the hell are you even arguing about?
sorry . I edited it; replying and fighting with everyone.
Without the avatars it's just a mess.
Yeah, lets have the game take place in a sunny forest. That'll fit a game like Diablo where every single piece of scenery thus far has been dark and gothic. That will make a ton of sense.
Fall is a terrible choice for a season for the first act to take place. If they were to do Fall, they would need to darken it up a bit. Make it seem like there are tons of dark, brooding clouds. Have it rain randomly. Lots of thunder. Etc.
Bright and sunny doesn't strike me as a time for me to be afraid.
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