Many of those who complain forget that Diablo and Diablo 2 were not without color. The vast majority of the game consisted of rich colors that allowed the darker areas, such as the Durance of Hate in Act 3 of Diablo 2 to stand out as one of the more 'Gothic horror' locations, in contrast the verdant jungles of Kurast. Spells were extremely colorful, and many of the game's unique locales were undeniably vibrant.
Yeah and just watch about any old game out there, they look rough and kinda darker. There wasn't as much colors used also the textures were pretty rough. I wonder what D2 would look like with todays graphics.
I have full support on blizzard I trust they know what they do and they have never dissappointed me yet. (or maybe with LOD they did)
I agree as i agreed on the survey forum's quite verbally, lol it was a bit weird my first post I was thrown in to this 3 day argument, being the new guy in a fight you didn't bring a gun too.
I'm glad I'm alive.
P.s, I like the way the game looks I have played the last 2 diablo games and i hate WOW
Support Blizzard..? Is Blizzard hurting for money or a recovering drug addict? Maybe a war veteran?
I can assure you that Blizzard's feelings aren't hurt, so it's alright.
I posted on another thread nearly identical to this one; but I know if I post a link to it, none of you will go to it to read the other side of the story, so I'll just quote myself:
Quote from "AManWhoLikesHisMetal" »
Awww man. All this time I thought I was a true fan of the Diablo series and Blizzard.
As you can see by my sig, I support the thought that people have on the graphics/textures/art. This doesn't mean I'm not a Blizzard fan or that I don't trust Blizzard. And just because I'm a long-time and huge fan of Blizzard doesn't mean I have to be a fanboy and trust Blizzard on an anything-goes basis.
I own every Blizzard PC game except for the WoW expansion. And having played WoW and seen all that Blizzard has shown on D3, I do believe that they are somewhat trying to implement things from the WoW success into D3. And for one to think that that's not possible is pretty ridiculous if you know anything about the WoW success and what it did for Blizzard. Remember, Blizzard isn't cutting a 3rd Diablo just for the fans. They want sales, and to get sales, appealing outside of the already Diablo fans is a must.
The opening post of the thread spoke of the "feel" of the Diablo series; people aren't upset with the look of D3 simply because of just the quality of the graphics, it has to do with the feel of the game that the graphics give. So this "you're not a fan of Diablo and Blizzard, asshole!" type attack every time someone mentions the graphics is pretty idiotic considering it's quite the opposite (or atleast for me): I support the petition and the overall thought on the graphics because I'm a fan, because I love this game franchise, and because Diablo is the game I've logged the most hours on of any other game I've ever played (between that and the original EverQuest).
This whole arguement and taking sides thing is pretty retarded. It's a choice of opinion. MTV "agreeing and sticking up" for you doesn't mean shit; because for every person that's on "your side", there's one that disagrees. And because there's such an uproar on both sides, expect to see a compromise come release; ICI.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Long, long time Diablo fan; short, short time with DiabloFans. USEast D2 Ladder/1.13 Beta: Accnt = ChezPizmo USEast WCIII Ladder: Accnt = TeeheeSprinkles A cool, unrelated video; "Dude Bids 420 on Price is Right" ("420, Bob") "I'm nasty, I'm old and a little bit ornery; I look like Patrick Stewart and sound like Sean Connery." Patch 1.13 = (click here)
The opening post of the thread spoke of the "feel" of the Diablo series; people aren't upset with the look of D3 simply because of just the quality of the graphics, it has to do with the feel of the game that the graphics give.
I don't know how the game feels untill I have played it.
It's like watching a movie trailer and you say "mh this didn't feel very good, I'll pass it" or do you know how a car feels like before you have taken a test drive?
Imo big part of the feel in diablo games comes from the gameplay. Never did the graphics matter one bit in D2. They were so crappy that I didn't really pay much attention to them still the game felt good since it was so nice to play. Now these new graphics look juicy and I prolly will be watching them a lot more.
Even bigger part of the feel is the community. If there are no friends to play with I doubt the game lasts very long for me. For example Wow I played it for 2 years in really nice guilds until they migrated to other realm which I didn't want to after that I had nothing to do in the game and it really got boring. Same thing happened with D2 eventually. When all the friends had quit I had no reason to play it .. felt like a single player after that. Now with the new ladder reset I'm back there again since many old friends came back and we started playing.
I really don't get where all the rabid hatred towards WoW stems from. It's a pretty damn good game and it has a lot of features in it that would actually fit well into Diablo 3.
I don't know how the game feels untill I have played it.
It's like watching a movie trailer and you say "mh this didn't feel very good, I'll pass it" or do you know how a car feels like before you have taken a test drive?
Imo big part of the feel in diablo games comes from the gameplay. Never did the graphics matter one bit in D2. They were so crappy that I didn't really pay much attention to them still the game felt good since it was so nice to play. Now these new graphics look juicy and I prolly will be watching them a lot more.
Even bigger part of the feel is the community. If there are no friends to play with I doubt the game lasts very long for me. For example Wow I played it for 2 years in really nice guilds until they migrated to other realm which I didn't want to after that I had nothing to do in the game and it really got boring. Same thing happened with D2 eventually. When all the friends had quit I had no reason to play it .. felt like a single player after that. Now with the new ladder reset I'm back there again since many old friends came back and we started playing.
Many things go into the feel of a game. Ss you said the community and gameplay, but one thing, in my opinion, that sets the atmosphere more than anything else in a game (or with your example, a movie) is how the graphics are and how it looks. Playing old 8 and 16-bit games doesn't come close to the feel and atmosphere of when games went 3D.
Quote from "Svetopolk" »
And is there something bad about it? Good things should be used, bad things - not. WoW borrowed many things from Diablo 2 and still noone said they have something in common.
Not that there's anything bad with it, but I don't want my games spilling into each other. I don't think game companies should have games that are alike. Different projects, different franchises, different games. But these are just my opinions.
And what were the things borrowed from D2 that went into WoW...?
... Besides "runes".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Long, long time Diablo fan; short, short time with DiabloFans. USEast D2 Ladder/1.13 Beta: Accnt = ChezPizmo USEast WCIII Ladder: Accnt = TeeheeSprinkles A cool, unrelated video; "Dude Bids 420 on Price is Right" ("420, Bob") "I'm nasty, I'm old and a little bit ornery; I look like Patrick Stewart and sound like Sean Connery." Patch 1.13 = (click here)
I really don't get where all the rabid hatred towards WoW stems from. It's a pretty damn good game and it has a lot of features in it that would actually fit well into Diablo 3.
I don't have really a hatred for WoW (other than it gets boring and repetitive quickly); but I wouldn't call it a hate. I actually own WoW and played it for some time. But just because things work well in some games doesn't mean they should be borrowed and implemented into another one. I mean, what would make games different aside from a storyline?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Long, long time Diablo fan; short, short time with DiabloFans. USEast D2 Ladder/1.13 Beta: Accnt = ChezPizmo USEast WCIII Ladder: Accnt = TeeheeSprinkles A cool, unrelated video; "Dude Bids 420 on Price is Right" ("420, Bob") "I'm nasty, I'm old and a little bit ornery; I look like Patrick Stewart and sound like Sean Connery." Patch 1.13 = (click here)
Im just going to reply to the first post.. umm.. so just because we have a different opiniom about the art direction meens we dont support them? Im sure everyone supports them but in order for blizzard to change things people may think can be changed for the better we have to voice our thoughts so blizzard knows were serious. I would never question anyone not support blizzard but if you just go and say "oh I like that, oh I like that" your just been a fan boy and not really giving blizzard any feedback to improve upon.
I support this, although I wouldn't say diablo 3 graphics/art is perfect its in the right direction.
Apart from few improvements/changes here and there the overall graphics/art seem great!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Diablo 3 is graphically and artistically great, there needs to be variety in the game, instead of only plain and dark areas!
+Wouldn't it be better and more interesting if from a sunny beautiful day, mist starts covering the screen, rain starts falling, thunders and lightning striking and it starts to darken, instead of constant dark!?
And this whole fuss and made it hard for me to actually enjoy the website and watch the trailer infinitely. Not to mention that it made me raise my voice against my brothers (other Diablo fans).
Being disappointed with the art direction is a lack of support for Blizzard like opposition to the Iraq War is a lack of support for America or its troops. Come off it.
Anyway, mind if I do something I never did at Hellgate Guru, and disagree with Sol Invictus? This is going to feel naughty....
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
I have written this post to represent those of us, whom I feel are great in number, who genuinely believe that Blizzard should continue to do what they are doing with Diablo 3's art direction and not bend to the wishes of those who would wish to see Diablo 3's beauty and vibrancy reduced to shades of gray and brown.
Now that's a strawman right from the start, isn't it?
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Likewise, I feel compelled to state that we the players very much enjoy the stylistic and silhouette-heavy art of Diablo 3, because it lends much character to the game and allows us, the players, to be able to make out distinct qualities of each individual character and monster within the game.
See, if I were to do to this statement what you did above, I would say: 'While we believe in utilising groundbreaking new technologies such as real-time 3D rendering and animation, Sol Invictus and his ilk would have Diablo III reduced to mere lifeless icons.'
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Many of those who complain forget that Diablo and Diablo 2 were not without color. The vast majority of the game consisted of rich colors that allowed the darker areas, such as the Durance of Hate in Act 3 of Diablo 2 to stand out as one of the more 'Gothic horror' locations, in contrast the verdant jungles of Kurast.
I don't follow. The Durance of Hate and the Kehjistan Jungles only serve as examples of Diablo II's grim style in contrast to Diablo III's. I'm not sure what definitions of 'dark' and 'vibrant' you are using here.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Spells were extremely colorful, and many of the game's unique locales were undeniably vibrant.
Fair enough. Hell is fiery. That's vibrant, I suppose. What were the others, again?
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
There are a great many of us out there who are disappointed in the complete lack of vibrance and the abundance of boring shades of gray and brown in many recent titles, and it is a breath of fresh air for us to see Blizzard's art direction with Diablo 3.
What games are you playing? In PC gaming most of what I have seen lately is wave after wave of technologically regressive, artistically silly tripe, particularly in the RPG and RTS genres. There have been maybe three slightly less ridiculous games and you need a 'breath of fresh air'? I'm asphyxiating on the air you're craving.
The only game I can remotely conceive of as an abundance of grey and brown shades is not even released yet: Fallout 3, set in a world incinerated by nuclear blasts.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Q: The Diablo series was always dark, gloomy, muddy and dirty in every single instance.
A: Hyperbole. While Diablo 1 may have been darker than its sequel due to its lack of locations, it nonetheless featured some very bright, and visually vibrant locations like Tristram itself and the Caves.
Diablo 2 had many bright and vibrant locations in every single Act of the game. Act 1 had a gothic monastery with vibrant colors. Act 2 consisted of a brightly lit desert with an abundance of cacti, Act 3 had colorful jungles and vibrant step-pyramid tombs. Act 5 had crystalline formations and rivers of ice.
Also, Leoric was a complete gentleman and Gheed was an honest businessman.
I expect richer graphics of Diablo III than its primitive predecessors, but that does not imply simply replacing the extremely iconic art style with World of WarCraft's and desaturating it. It is unfathomable to me that you consider more of the same to be fresh. I'm not trying to be an ass, here, either. I am genuinely baffled and I want to understand.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Q: Being colorful destroys the game's immersion and 'gothic feel'. A: Gothic Cathedrals are filled with vibrant colors, due to the heavy use of stained glass windows and vibrant furnishings, yet still possess a very 'dark' and surreal quality.
Very much so. However, what we have seen of Diablo III does not.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Diablo 3's Art is currently:
* Stylish, giving Diablo 3 its own character and personality, allowing it to stand out from the crowd of brown and grey games, or 'realistic' (e.g. boring) looking games.
I think I've figured it out. Are you posting from a mirror universe? Check your chin. Does it bear a Mephistopheles goatee? I'll sell you my soul to swap dimensions with me. Over here, games with realistic art styles and modern graphics arrive at a rate of about two per year, while cartoon styles and regressive or stagnant graphics are the norm and every single game to use them justifies itself with this nugatory argument -- especailly when degrading to it from a slightly or significantly less basic and silly-looking aesthetic.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
* Not monotonous. The use of inviting colours, contours, tones, vibrance, and animations are some of the game's major strengths. Makes the game accessible and playable for a long period of time.
A great way of doing that would be to make it not look like it was outdated three years ago.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
* The use of colors allow for a wide variety of settings and locations, away from the mundane worlds of greys and browns.
Is this post stuck on a loop?
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
* Vibrant colors and a wide variety of locations do not prohibit the game from having 'dark gothic' locations within the game. Diablo 2 consisted mainly of vibrant locations, but that didn't prevent the Durance of Hate from being a part of the game.
I still don't understand what you're on about with the Durance of Hate versus the rest of Diablo II. The fact that it incorporates a great deal of blood into the environment? I haven't seen anyone complaining that Diablo III's rivers are made of water and and the grass is green (although I don't doubt there are probably some), and I don't see how the absence of hundreds of gallons of blood makes the rest of Diablo II consist 'mainly of vibrant locations'.
I suppose by 'vibrant' you may mean 'flatly lit because it was made in 2000', but even that applies as much to the Durance of Hate as anywhere else, so... no, I remain stumped.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
It is my opinion, therefore, that the art direction of Diablo 3 should remain as it is, because we have full faith and confidence in Blizzard Entertainment's ability to deliver a truly compelling, and involving game.
With or without the extremely important yet not predominant feature of decent art and graphics, I agree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
‘I'M NOT LEAVING UNTIL WE ALL HAVE AIDS!’—The importance of calling them ‘mercenaries.’
Being disappointed with the art direction is a lack of support for Blizzard like opposition to the Iraq War is a lack of support for America or its troops. Come off it.
Anyway, mind if I do something I never did at Hellgate Guru, and disagree with Sol Invictus? This is going to feel naughty....
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
I have written this post to represent those of us, whom I feel are great in number, who genuinely believe that Blizzard should continue to do what they are doing with Diablo 3's art direction and not bend to the wishes of those who would wish to see Diablo 3's beauty and vibrancy reduced to shades of gray and brown.
Now that's a strawman right from the start, isn't it?
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Likewise, I feel compelled to state that we the players very much enjoy the stylistic and silhouette-heavy art of Diablo 3, because it lends much character to the game and allows us, the players, to be able to make out distinct qualities of each individual character and monster within the game.
See, if I were to do to this statement what you did above, I would say: 'While we believe in utilising groundbreaking new technologies such as real-time 3D rendering and animation, Sol Invictus and his ilk would have Diablo III reduced to mere lifeless icons.'
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Many of those who complain forget that Diablo and Diablo 2 were not without color. The vast majority of the game consisted of rich colors that allowed the darker areas, such as the Durance of Hate in Act 3 of Diablo 2 to stand out as one of the more 'Gothic horror' locations, in contrast the verdant jungles of Kurast.
I don't follow. The Durance of Hate and the Kehjistan Jungles only serve as examples of Diablo II's grim style in contrast to Diablo III's. I'm not sure what definitions of 'dark' and 'vibrant' you are using here.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Spells were extremely colorful, and many of the game's unique locales were undeniably vibrant.
Fair enough. Hell is fiery. That's vibrant, I suppose. What were the others, again?
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
There are a great many of us out there who are disappointed in the complete lack of vibrance and the abundance of boring shades of gray and brown in many recent titles, and it is a breath of fresh air for us to see Blizzard's art direction with Diablo 3.
What games are you playing? In PC gaming most of what I have seen lately is wave after wave of technologically regressive, artistically silly tripe, particularly in the RPG and RTS genres. There have been maybe three slightly less ridiculous games and you need a 'breath of fresh air'? I'm asphyxiating on the air you're craving.
The only game I can remotely conceive of as an abundance of grey and brown shades is not even released yet: Fallout 3, set in a world incinerated by nuclear blasts.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Q: The Diablo series was always dark, gloomy, muddy and dirty in every single instance.
A: Hyperbole. While Diablo 1 may have been darker than its sequel due to its lack of locations, it nonetheless featured some very bright, and visually vibrant locations like Tristram itself and the Caves.
Diablo 2 had many bright and vibrant locations in every single Act of the game. Act 1 had a gothic monastery with vibrant colors. Act 2 consisted of a brightly lit desert with an abundance of cacti, Act 3 had colorful jungles and vibrant step-pyramid tombs. Act 5 had crystalline formations and rivers of ice.
Also, Leoric was a complete gentleman and Gheed was an honest businessman.
I expect richer graphics of Diablo III than its primitive predecessors, but that does not imply simply replacing the extremely iconic art style with World of WarCraft's and desaturating it. It is unfathomable to me that you consider more of the same to be fresh. I'm not trying to be an ass, here, either. I am genuinely baffled and I want to understand.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Q: Being colorful destroys the game's immersion and 'gothic feel'. A: Gothic Cathedrals are filled with vibrant colors, due to the heavy use of stained glass windows and vibrant furnishings, yet still possess a very 'dark' and surreal quality.
Very much so. However, what we have seen of Diablo III does not.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Diablo 3's Art is currently:
* Stylish, giving Diablo 3 its own character and personality, allowing it to stand out from the crowd of brown and grey games, or 'realistic' (e.g. boring) looking games.
I think I've figured it out. Are you posting from a mirror universe? Check your chin. Does it bear a Mephistopheles goatee? I'll sell you my soul to swap dimensions with me. Over here, games with realistic art styles and modern graphics arrive at a rate of about two per year, while cartoon styles and regressive or stagnant graphics are the norm and every single game to use them justifies itself with this nugatory argument -- especailly when degrading to it from a slightly or significantly less basic and silly-looking aesthetic.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
* Not monotonous. The use of inviting colours, contours, tones, vibrance, and animations are some of the game's major strengths. Makes the game accessible and playable for a long period of time.
A great way of doing that would be to make it not look like it was outdated three years ago.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
* The use of colors allow for a wide variety of settings and locations, away from the mundane worlds of greys and browns.
Is this post stuck on a loop?
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
* Vibrant colors and a wide variety of locations do not prohibit the game from having 'dark gothic' locations within the game. Diablo 2 consisted mainly of vibrant locations, but that didn't prevent the Durance of Hate from being a part of the game.
I still don't understand what you're on about with the Durance of Hate versus the rest of Diablo II. The fact that it incorporates a great deal of blood into the environment? I haven't seen anyone complaining that Diablo III's rivers are made of water and and the grass is green (although I don't doubt there are probably some), and I don't see how the absence of hundreds of gallons of blood makes the rest of Diablo II consist 'mainly of vibrant locations'.
I suppose by 'vibrant' you may mean 'flatly lit because it was made in 2000', but even that applies as much to the Durance of Hate as anywhere else, so... no, I remain stumped.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
It is my opinion, therefore, that the art direction of Diablo 3 should remain as it is, because we have full faith and confidence in Blizzard Entertainment's ability to deliver a truly compelling, and involving game.
With or without the extremely important yet not predominant feature of decent art and graphics, I agree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
‘I'M NOT LEAVING UNTIL WE ALL HAVE AIDS!’—The importance of calling them ‘mercenaries.’
Being disappointed with the art direction is a lack of support for Blizzard like opposition to the Iraq War is a lack of support for America or its troops. Come off it.
Anyway, mind if I do something I never did at Hellgate Guru, and disagree with Sol Invictus? This is going to feel naughty....
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
I have written this post to represent those of us, whom I feel are great in number, who genuinely believe that Blizzard should continue to do what they are doing with Diablo 3's art direction and not bend to the wishes of those who would wish to see Diablo 3's beauty and vibrancy reduced to shades of gray and brown.
Now that's a strawman right from the start, isn't it?
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Likewise, I feel compelled to state that we the players very much enjoy the stylistic and silhouette-heavy art of Diablo 3, because it lends much character to the game and allows us, the players, to be able to make out distinct qualities of each individual character and monster within the game.
See, if I were to do to this statement what you did above, I would say: 'While we believe in utilising groundbreaking new technologies such as real-time 3D rendering and animation, Sol Invictus and his ilk would have Diablo III reduced to mere lifeless icons.'
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Many of those who complain forget that Diablo and Diablo 2 were not without color. The vast majority of the game consisted of rich colors that allowed the darker areas, such as the Durance of Hate in Act 3 of Diablo 2 to stand out as one of the more 'Gothic horror' locations, in contrast the verdant jungles of Kurast.
I don't follow. The Durance of Hate and the Kehjistan Jungles only serve as examples of Diablo II's grim style in contrast to Diablo III's. I'm not sure what definitions of 'dark' and 'vibrant' you are using here.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Spells were extremely colorful, and many of the game's unique locales were undeniably vibrant.
Fair enough. Hell is fiery. That's vibrant, I suppose. What were the others, again?
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
There are a great many of us out there who are disappointed in the complete lack of vibrance and the abundance of boring shades of gray and brown in many recent titles, and it is a breath of fresh air for us to see Blizzard's art direction with Diablo 3.
What games are you playing? In PC gaming most of what I have seen lately is wave after wave of technologically regressive, artistically silly tripe, particularly in the RPG and RTS genres. There have been maybe three slightly less ridiculous games and you need a 'breath of fresh air'? I'm asphyxiating on the air you're craving.
The only game I can remotely conceive of as an abundance of grey and brown shades is not even released yet: Fallout 3, set in a world incinerated by nuclear blasts.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Q: The Diablo series was always dark, gloomy, muddy and dirty in every single instance.
A: Hyperbole. While Diablo 1 may have been darker than its sequel due to its lack of locations, it nonetheless featured some very bright, and visually vibrant locations like Tristram itself and the Caves.
Diablo 2 had many bright and vibrant locations in every single Act of the game. Act 1 had a gothic monastery with vibrant colors. Act 2 consisted of a brightly lit desert with an abundance of cacti, Act 3 had colorful jungles and vibrant step-pyramid tombs. Act 5 had crystalline formations and rivers of ice.
Also, Leoric was a complete gentleman and Gheed was an honest businessman.
I expect richer graphics of Diablo III than its primitive predecessors, but that does not imply simply replacing the extremely iconic art style with World of WarCraft's and desaturating it. It is unfathomable to me that you consider more of the same to be fresh. I'm not trying to be an ass, here, either. I am genuinely baffled and I want to understand.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Q: Being colorful destroys the game's immersion and 'gothic feel'. A: Gothic Cathedrals are filled with vibrant colors, due to the heavy use of stained glass windows and vibrant furnishings, yet still possess a very 'dark' and surreal quality.
Very much so. However, what we have seen of Diablo III does not.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
Diablo 3's Art is currently:
* Stylish, giving Diablo 3 its own character and personality, allowing it to stand out from the crowd of brown and grey games, or 'realistic' (e.g. boring) looking games.
I think I've figured it out. Are you posting from a mirror universe? Check your chin. Does it bear a Mephistopheles goatee? I'll sell you my soul to swap dimensions with me. Over here, games with realistic art styles and modern graphics arrive at a rate of about two per year, while cartoon styles and regressive or stagnant graphics are the norm and every single game to use them justifies itself with this nugatory argument -- especailly when degrading to it from a slightly or significantly less basic and silly-looking aesthetic.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
* Not monotonous. The use of inviting colours, contours, tones, vibrance, and animations are some of the game's major strengths. Makes the game accessible and playable for a long period of time.
A great way of doing that would be to make it not look like it was outdated three years ago.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
* The use of colors allow for a wide variety of settings and locations, away from the mundane worlds of greys and browns.
Is this post stuck on a loop?
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
* Vibrant colors and a wide variety of locations do not prohibit the game from having 'dark gothic' locations within the game. Diablo 2 consisted mainly of vibrant locations, but that didn't prevent the Durance of Hate from being a part of the game.
I still don't understand what you're on about with the Durance of Hate versus the rest of Diablo II. The fact that it incorporates a great deal of blood into the environment? I haven't seen anyone complaining that Diablo III's rivers are made of water and and the grass is green (although I don't doubt there are probably some), and I don't see how the absence of hundreds of gallons of blood makes the rest of Diablo II consist 'mainly of vibrant locations'.
I suppose by 'vibrant' you may mean 'flatly lit because it was made in the late 90s', but even that applies as much to the Durance of Hate as anywhere else, so... no, I remain stumped.
Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »
It is my opinion, therefore, that the art direction of Diablo 3 should remain as it is, because we have full faith and confidence in Blizzard Entertainment's ability to deliver a truly compelling, and involving game.
With or without the extremely important yet not predominant feature of progressive, immersive, or inspiring art and graphics, I also assume that it will be compelling and involving in many respects, and hope it will be in those I do not assume.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
‘I'M NOT LEAVING UNTIL WE ALL HAVE AIDS!’—The importance of calling them ‘mercenaries.’
I have full support on blizzard I trust they know what they do and they have never dissappointed me yet. (or maybe with LOD they did)
RIP: Demon Hunter: lvl 50 | Barb: lvl 60 (plvl 5) | Monk: lvl12 & lvl70 (plvl 200)
I'm glad I'm alive.
P.s, I like the way the game looks I have played the last 2 diablo games and i hate WOW
I can assure you that Blizzard's feelings aren't hurt, so it's alright.
I posted on another thread nearly identical to this one; but I know if I post a link to it, none of you will go to it to read the other side of the story, so I'll just quote myself:
This whole arguement and taking sides thing is pretty retarded. It's a choice of opinion. MTV "agreeing and sticking up" for you doesn't mean shit; because for every person that's on "your side", there's one that disagrees. And because there's such an uproar on both sides, expect to see a compromise come release; ICI.
USEast D2 Ladder/1.13 Beta: Accnt = ChezPizmo
USEast WCIII Ladder: Accnt = TeeheeSprinkles
A cool, unrelated video; "Dude Bids 420 on Price is Right" ("420, Bob")
"I'm nasty, I'm old and a little bit ornery; I look like Patrick Stewart and sound like Sean Connery."
Patch 1.13 = (click here)
If your insane, but still sane enough to know it, are you insane or sane?
It's like watching a movie trailer and you say "mh this didn't feel very good, I'll pass it" or do you know how a car feels like before you have taken a test drive?
Imo big part of the feel in diablo games comes from the gameplay. Never did the graphics matter one bit in D2. They were so crappy that I didn't really pay much attention to them still the game felt good since it was so nice to play. Now these new graphics look juicy and I prolly will be watching them a lot more.
Even bigger part of the feel is the community. If there are no friends to play with I doubt the game lasts very long for me. For example Wow I played it for 2 years in really nice guilds until they migrated to other realm which I didn't want to after that I had nothing to do in the game and it really got boring. Same thing happened with D2 eventually. When all the friends had quit I had no reason to play it .. felt like a single player after that. Now with the new ladder reset I'm back there again since many old friends came back and we started playing.
RIP: Demon Hunter: lvl 50 | Barb: lvl 60 (plvl 5) | Monk: lvl12 & lvl70 (plvl 200)
Hellforge: Forging a passion for video games.
Many things go into the feel of a game. Ss you said the community and gameplay, but one thing, in my opinion, that sets the atmosphere more than anything else in a game (or with your example, a movie) is how the graphics are and how it looks. Playing old 8 and 16-bit games doesn't come close to the feel and atmosphere of when games went 3D.
Not that there's anything bad with it, but I don't want my games spilling into each other. I don't think game companies should have games that are alike. Different projects, different franchises, different games. But these are just my opinions.
And what were the things borrowed from D2 that went into WoW...?
... Besides "runes".
USEast D2 Ladder/1.13 Beta: Accnt = ChezPizmo
USEast WCIII Ladder: Accnt = TeeheeSprinkles
A cool, unrelated video; "Dude Bids 420 on Price is Right" ("420, Bob")
"I'm nasty, I'm old and a little bit ornery; I look like Patrick Stewart and sound like Sean Connery."
Patch 1.13 = (click here)
I don't have really a hatred for WoW (other than it gets boring and repetitive quickly); but I wouldn't call it a hate. I actually own WoW and played it for some time. But just because things work well in some games doesn't mean they should be borrowed and implemented into another one. I mean, what would make games different aside from a storyline?
USEast D2 Ladder/1.13 Beta: Accnt = ChezPizmo
USEast WCIII Ladder: Accnt = TeeheeSprinkles
A cool, unrelated video; "Dude Bids 420 on Price is Right" ("420, Bob")
"I'm nasty, I'm old and a little bit ornery; I look like Patrick Stewart and sound like Sean Connery."
Patch 1.13 = (click here)
Apart from few improvements/changes here and there the overall graphics/art seem great!
Diablo 3 is graphically and artistically great, there needs to be variety in the game, instead of only plain and dark areas!
+Wouldn't it be better and more interesting if from a sunny beautiful day, mist starts covering the screen, rain starts falling, thunders and lightning striking and it starts to darken, instead of constant dark!?
And this whole fuss and made it hard for me to actually enjoy the website and watch the trailer infinitely. Not to mention that it made me raise my voice against my brothers (other Diablo fans).
Hellforge: Forging a passion for video games.
Anyway, mind if I do something I never did at Hellgate Guru, and disagree with Sol Invictus? This is going to feel naughty....
Now that's a strawman right from the start, isn't it?
See, if I were to do to this statement what you did above, I would say: 'While we believe in utilising groundbreaking new technologies such as real-time 3D rendering and animation, Sol Invictus and his ilk would have Diablo III reduced to mere lifeless icons.'
I don't follow. The Durance of Hate and the Kehjistan Jungles only serve as examples of Diablo II's grim style in contrast to Diablo III's. I'm not sure what definitions of 'dark' and 'vibrant' you are using here.
Fair enough. Hell is fiery. That's vibrant, I suppose. What were the others, again?
What games are you playing? In PC gaming most of what I have seen lately is wave after wave of technologically regressive, artistically silly tripe, particularly in the RPG and RTS genres. There have been maybe three slightly less ridiculous games and you need a 'breath of fresh air'? I'm asphyxiating on the air you're craving.
The only game I can remotely conceive of as an abundance of grey and brown shades is not even released yet: Fallout 3, set in a world incinerated by nuclear blasts.
Also, Leoric was a complete gentleman and Gheed was an honest businessman.
I expect richer graphics of Diablo III than its primitive predecessors, but that does not imply simply replacing the extremely iconic art style with World of WarCraft's and desaturating it. It is unfathomable to me that you consider more of the same to be fresh. I'm not trying to be an ass, here, either. I am genuinely baffled and I want to understand.
Very much so. However, what we have seen of Diablo III does not.
I think I've figured it out. Are you posting from a mirror universe? Check your chin. Does it bear a Mephistopheles goatee? I'll sell you my soul to swap dimensions with me. Over here, games with realistic art styles and modern graphics arrive at a rate of about two per year, while cartoon styles and regressive or stagnant graphics are the norm and every single game to use them justifies itself with this nugatory argument -- especailly when degrading to it from a slightly or significantly less basic and silly-looking aesthetic.
A great way of doing that would be to make it not look like it was outdated three years ago.
Is this post stuck on a loop?
I still don't understand what you're on about with the Durance of Hate versus the rest of Diablo II. The fact that it incorporates a great deal of blood into the environment? I haven't seen anyone complaining that Diablo III's rivers are made of water and and the grass is green (although I don't doubt there are probably some), and I don't see how the absence of hundreds of gallons of blood makes the rest of Diablo II consist 'mainly of vibrant locations'.
I suppose by 'vibrant' you may mean 'flatly lit because it was made in 2000', but even that applies as much to the Durance of Hate as anywhere else, so... no, I remain stumped.
With or without the extremely important yet not predominant feature of decent art and graphics, I agree.
‘I'M NOT LEAVING UNTIL WE ALL HAVE AIDS!’—The importance of calling them ‘mercenaries.’
Anyway, mind if I do something I never did at Hellgate Guru, and disagree with Sol Invictus? This is going to feel naughty....
Now that's a strawman right from the start, isn't it?
See, if I were to do to this statement what you did above, I would say: 'While we believe in utilising groundbreaking new technologies such as real-time 3D rendering and animation, Sol Invictus and his ilk would have Diablo III reduced to mere lifeless icons.'
I don't follow. The Durance of Hate and the Kehjistan Jungles only serve as examples of Diablo II's grim style in contrast to Diablo III's. I'm not sure what definitions of 'dark' and 'vibrant' you are using here.
Fair enough. Hell is fiery. That's vibrant, I suppose. What were the others, again?
What games are you playing? In PC gaming most of what I have seen lately is wave after wave of technologically regressive, artistically silly tripe, particularly in the RPG and RTS genres. There have been maybe three slightly less ridiculous games and you need a 'breath of fresh air'? I'm asphyxiating on the air you're craving.
The only game I can remotely conceive of as an abundance of grey and brown shades is not even released yet: Fallout 3, set in a world incinerated by nuclear blasts.
Also, Leoric was a complete gentleman and Gheed was an honest businessman.
I expect richer graphics of Diablo III than its primitive predecessors, but that does not imply simply replacing the extremely iconic art style with World of WarCraft's and desaturating it. It is unfathomable to me that you consider more of the same to be fresh. I'm not trying to be an ass, here, either. I am genuinely baffled and I want to understand.
Very much so. However, what we have seen of Diablo III does not.
I think I've figured it out. Are you posting from a mirror universe? Check your chin. Does it bear a Mephistopheles goatee? I'll sell you my soul to swap dimensions with me. Over here, games with realistic art styles and modern graphics arrive at a rate of about two per year, while cartoon styles and regressive or stagnant graphics are the norm and every single game to use them justifies itself with this nugatory argument -- especailly when degrading to it from a slightly or significantly less basic and silly-looking aesthetic.
A great way of doing that would be to make it not look like it was outdated three years ago.
Is this post stuck on a loop?
I still don't understand what you're on about with the Durance of Hate versus the rest of Diablo II. The fact that it incorporates a great deal of blood into the environment? I haven't seen anyone complaining that Diablo III's rivers are made of water and and the grass is green (although I don't doubt there are probably some), and I don't see how the absence of hundreds of gallons of blood makes the rest of Diablo II consist 'mainly of vibrant locations'.
I suppose by 'vibrant' you may mean 'flatly lit because it was made in 2000', but even that applies as much to the Durance of Hate as anywhere else, so... no, I remain stumped.
With or without the extremely important yet not predominant feature of decent art and graphics, I agree.
‘I'M NOT LEAVING UNTIL WE ALL HAVE AIDS!’—The importance of calling them ‘mercenaries.’
Anyway, mind if I do something I never did at Hellgate Guru, and disagree with Sol Invictus? This is going to feel naughty....
Now that's a strawman right from the start, isn't it?
See, if I were to do to this statement what you did above, I would say: 'While we believe in utilising groundbreaking new technologies such as real-time 3D rendering and animation, Sol Invictus and his ilk would have Diablo III reduced to mere lifeless icons.'
I don't follow. The Durance of Hate and the Kehjistan Jungles only serve as examples of Diablo II's grim style in contrast to Diablo III's. I'm not sure what definitions of 'dark' and 'vibrant' you are using here.
Fair enough. Hell is fiery. That's vibrant, I suppose. What were the others, again?
What games are you playing? In PC gaming most of what I have seen lately is wave after wave of technologically regressive, artistically silly tripe, particularly in the RPG and RTS genres. There have been maybe three slightly less ridiculous games and you need a 'breath of fresh air'? I'm asphyxiating on the air you're craving.
The only game I can remotely conceive of as an abundance of grey and brown shades is not even released yet: Fallout 3, set in a world incinerated by nuclear blasts.
Also, Leoric was a complete gentleman and Gheed was an honest businessman.
I expect richer graphics of Diablo III than its primitive predecessors, but that does not imply simply replacing the extremely iconic art style with World of WarCraft's and desaturating it. It is unfathomable to me that you consider more of the same to be fresh. I'm not trying to be an ass, here, either. I am genuinely baffled and I want to understand.
Very much so. However, what we have seen of Diablo III does not.
I think I've figured it out. Are you posting from a mirror universe? Check your chin. Does it bear a Mephistopheles goatee? I'll sell you my soul to swap dimensions with me. Over here, games with realistic art styles and modern graphics arrive at a rate of about two per year, while cartoon styles and regressive or stagnant graphics are the norm and every single game to use them justifies itself with this nugatory argument -- especailly when degrading to it from a slightly or significantly less basic and silly-looking aesthetic.
A great way of doing that would be to make it not look like it was outdated three years ago.
Is this post stuck on a loop?
I still don't understand what you're on about with the Durance of Hate versus the rest of Diablo II. The fact that it incorporates a great deal of blood into the environment? I haven't seen anyone complaining that Diablo III's rivers are made of water and and the grass is green (although I don't doubt there are probably some), and I don't see how the absence of hundreds of gallons of blood makes the rest of Diablo II consist 'mainly of vibrant locations'.
I suppose by 'vibrant' you may mean 'flatly lit because it was made in the late 90s', but even that applies as much to the Durance of Hate as anywhere else, so... no, I remain stumped.
With or without the extremely important yet not predominant feature of progressive, immersive, or inspiring art and graphics, I also assume that it will be compelling and involving in many respects, and hope it will be in those I do not assume.
‘I'M NOT LEAVING UNTIL WE ALL HAVE AIDS!’—The importance of calling them ‘mercenaries.’
If your insane, but still sane enough to know it, are you insane or sane?
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."