DiabloFans

***Reading sucks if you want the punchline read the last line in this post***

All Wilson really says though is that the photoshopped images wouldn't be what would happen in-game anyways because they're just photoshopped. Duh? I didn't know anyone had the D3 engine to play around with graphics and precisely mimic the gameplay trailer to give exactly the same screenshots.

Anywho, it's a bunch of excuses for not wanting to make the game darker. If they wanted a darker D3, they could have one(another recent article said they tried it, but it was too hard to see stuff or w/e).

I don't mind bright colors. I don't mind rainbows. What I DO mind is that there is an ominous unexplained glow emanating on all things at all times like someone went light-happy when making the maps. Just because they want more color doesn't mean there should be weird lights everywhere. Demons are pretty strong and powerful and all that, but I doubt they'll light up the dungeon so you can see better.

I won't comment on the unexplained green tint for the Tristram cathedral set they used for the gameplay demo, it could very well turn out wierd, green, glow every will fit in somehow.

In the end they're just waffling the issue. They're not going to change the art, I'm not entirely upset but I do wish they'd fix lighting. I've done quite a bit of mapping for UT 2k4 and UT 3 and one of the critiques I always get on maps in the alpha stage is to get lighting to be explained, or remove it in certain areas or make it weaker, etc so I guess it gets on my nerves when its unexplained elsewhere.

Summary though: Lighting != great, but I'll live with it if Blizzard wants to make stuff up to tell me it "can't" be fixed

Doppel makes sense.

Thank you Jay Wilson!!! This comment sums up EXACTLY what I've thought about D2 and D3.

Wilson: I think one of the things that these lack is if you stuck every one of these re-done shots right next to each other you would not be able to tell that they’re in different areas. One of the things that’s key to “Diablo II” — and I’ve gone through and done timing on it — it changes environments every 15 minutes, and every 45 minutes they give you an environment that looks completely different than one you’ve ever seen before. And when they change environments, the contrast is huge. It’s like I’m in green lush fields, and now I’m in the darkest dungeon you’ve ever seen. I’m in a bright sandy desert, and now I’m in a completely dim mummy tomb. There are these vast shifts in look, and it’s one of the things that keeps people interested in playing the game.
It’s a very simple game, and [you need to ] constantly vary what you throw at the player — big look changes in the environment, creature changes with different behavior. And not just behavior; we spent a lot of time trying to make creatures show up and die more interestingly. Because those are all the things that keep you going. Each one of those things is a reward. When you pull all the color out of the environment and you make it too homogeneous across the game, essentially what you’re doing is you’re pulling away the player’s reward of feeling like they’ve progressed because the area they’re in now looks like the area they were in 30 to 45 minutes ago.
So that’s one of the reasons why we really felt we had to do this. We had to move to an art style that had a lot more variety in it and was capable of a lot more.

I've never seen it put better before.

Now please shut up about the art.

I agree with Abedark .. ahaha no shoulderpads

btw I rofled to the Croisants

edit: and in the gamplay trailer the barb equipped gothic plate and it looks a lot like one in D2.. same kind of big shoulders with less protection on the torso.

I have devoted my faith to Blizzard in the making of Diablo 3 so I have no reasons to argue with those that have none. I will say that if you read the D2 manual you will see the reason why you cant wear 8 magic rings. I like Wilson, he riminds me of a certain bloody volley ball.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

Can you quote? I'm too , um, tired or something.

"These enchantments are delicate in nature and too many peices of jewelry in close proximity to one another nullify their magical effects"

I noticed that the shoulder pads look far too big on the barb when you see him without his helm when he's talking to Cain, it doesn't look too big with his helm on, during the action parts.

And the witch doctors shoulder pads are perfect.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

Ah, great, thanks. Ok, then that rules out more then one ring per hand, for lore's sake.

edit: you could however take it literal, and literally "diminish" (not nulify then) magical properties when wearing more rings in close proximity (ie, on one hand).
But then its getting messy i think.

It might be cool to have an option to wear more rings with the risk of blowing your hand off, and for the rest of the game you can only weild 1 handed wepons with no sheild:D

and if you blow both arms off it unlocks a helm class that you can headbutt with.^_^(as much as I would like to see this implicated, it just seems a bit silly:P)

I had saw someone sarcastically remark about the WD not sticking out, what, with his Firebomb and all.

As well, he is casting a spell which has foreign movement, which a great deal of monsters don't do.
More importantly when you're fighting an enormous mob and spells and attacks are creating a fucking pandemonium, I can easily see the WD blending in like digital camouflage (new military uniforms, you see the Army in them all the time.)

As well, if you ignore the movements of casting and the Firebomb itself - the WD does very much look like the monsters.

Distinguishing what monster you're about to fight isn't the concern, rather when you're in the fight with a lot going on is.

Anyone who plays or has played Defense of the Ancients (DotA) with N'aix in the older versions can imagine what it's like when two characters look way too alike amidst action.

I wouldn't say the photoshoped graphics are good or bad until I seem them processed by the engine and how well they "react" during gameplay. I have to take Wilsons word on that portion. Sure you can add a effect post processing to the gameplay video and say LOOK! BETTAH! But it would be completely different in game.

I like the graphics now, but I don't dislike the photoshoped pics that have been posted. I just don't know how well they would play.

That edited video looked like shit. Just darker and without colour. You will likely be able to do that much from the Video Settings menu if you are that masochistic.

\How in the hells are monsters hard to see in dungeons like in the previous games?

They aren't. They contrast starkly against the environment.

And also the dungeons in the previous Diablo games werent boring at all. Even in the first game, the environment changed once you passed a few levels even though it never got colorful. Except the fire/lava in some levels of course.

Turn down the brightness settings. Problem solved.

With changes in the architecture, monsters and decoration (blood and corpses), the dungeons always stay interesting.

If you can't see the shit in the darkness, how the hell does that make it enjoyable? That's what Blizzard is trying to tell all of us.

And with a quality lighting, you can easily see all the different monsters without having to make the background green and the monsters in some different colors.

What are you talking about? You're basically saying we can see while still being deprived of decent lighting. If everything is dark, nothing contrasts. Nothing stands out. It's confusing. And it's not enjoyable. And the Blizzard team has testified to that.

I'm not saying they'll look the same. That obviously can't be the case since D3 is 3D. Besides I never said turning down the brightness would result in a downgrade to D2 graphics, or even D1. Then it wouldn't be a logical progression.

Simply put, the main thing I've gotten from this guy is that the shoulder pads are too big and they float and it's too colorful.

The great light from the torches plus the red blood is generally enaugh light and color for a dungeon. Spells and magical beings add to the interest (Or is it interestingness?) and light if there arent enaugh torches etc..
The previous games had light radius, more light sources would disable the need of that and monsters would be easy to detect without the green background.

I'm assuming you prefer the lighting effects of the one photoshopped image where the range of visibility is limited to the open pathways and visibility is blocked by objects. Jay Wilson said they could not duplicate this in their engine. I'd assume that to mean that light does not interface with objects in the same way as characters do. In other words, lighting is not locked into the character, but it is just a circle of light placed on the center of the screen. That's just my speculation though. I could be wrong. All I do know is that he said they could not duplicate the D2 lighting in D3.

Regardless, we know that it is an engine issue, not an art direction issue. That's much more difficult to fix.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

Why? For the love of god, just give me one reason why being able to see everything at all times equels fun somehow?

1 Reason :

The Heros in Diablo 3 have moves like LEAP and ranged attacks. They need to be able to see what's coming at them in order to more effectively use their moves. You can't shoot the bad guys or leap towards them if you don't know that they're there.

Do you want to sacrifice gameplay just to see less of your screen?

Quote from "Kenzai" »

There are already torches in the game, but they are more like decoration as the sourceless green light is our main lighting. :rolleyes:
Either make the green light better somehow and add a source, or remove it and make the torches the main light source. (We need more and/or bigger ones of course.)

Ugh. Here we go again. There is no green light.. there are rocks and stone that have a green tint. You see the only light in the shot are from the torches and lanterns... which give off the orange glow onto the green rock.



Now please. move on from the green light source argument when there doesn't need to be a light source for the green illuminating from the rock int he first place. This came to closure in the other thread that was closed, please don't get this topic closed either by dragging it out.

Again, there is no green light. The rocks are green. The light is orange. You can see the orange light refracting from the green rock.

Quote from "ExGhoul" »

Ugh. Here we go again. There is no green light.. there are rocks and stone that have a green tint. You see the only light in the shot are from the torches and lanterns... which give off the orange glow onto the green rock.



Now please. move on from the green light source argument when there doesn't need to be a light source for the green illuminating from the rock int he first place. This came to closure in the other thread that was closed, please don't get this topic closed either by dragging it out.

Again, there is no green light. The rocks are green. The light is orange. You can see the orange light refracting from the green rock.

Ive read some of your posts and we should be friends! hehe

Quote from "Kenzai" »

Think about it, even those cheap video modifications could make you think that way. How would it look like if Blizzard would do something similair theirselves? After carefully polishing it. Im sure they can make it über-kickass.

That's the problem. I don't know how it would turn out. I have to take Blizzards word on it that it tried and it didn't work. Do I believe them? Don't know but, like I said, I like the way the game looks now as well so I am not bent out of shape like most of the people on this forum.

Quote from "Kenzai" »

How can someone not like these?..

They look pretty bad to me...