I have been tinkering with games like Two Worlds 2 recently and the graphics in that game are amazing and amazingly smooth! That game runs so great and flows better than any RPG I've played before.
I mean who wouldn't love Diablo 3 to have worlds best, top notch graphics.... but the current graphics are more than fine with me. Anything better than Diablo 2 gets my thumbs up.
If you want to blame anything for the animations, models, etc., blame the animators and modelers and other artists. You don't need an "up to date" engine to make good graphics.
You are wrong
Since they use Havok engine, they can't get realistic graphics that you can from Unreal engine.
The MAJOR reason why their game looks bland and flat on the screen is because of the engine.
Sure they can improve just a bit, but the whole framework is within the boundary restricted by the engine.
If you want to blame anything for the animations, models, etc., blame the animators and modelers and other artists. You don't need an "up to date" engine to make good graphics.
You are alive?
ON Point, To Zerg4Hire... They no longer use Havok first off and second The Havok engine isn't a game engine, It's a physics engine. It has nothing to do with graphics. I still don't understand why the Engine is such a big deal if you think graphics are this important play crysis or Metro 2033 in MAx, If you feel like buying a 2k + gaming rig.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
Sometimes I just can't help but feel that people who make such a big stink about realistic graphics haven't been gaming for very long. Graphical realism has been constantly improving since video games were invented. A game with awesome graphics today probably won't be turning any heads for the way it looks a few years from now. It just doesn't seem very important to me for a video game to have really cutting-edge graphics. Any development studio can shit out a project with flashy particle effects and bump mapping and whatever other fancy effects.
I would much rather have a game that is definitive and artistic in style. Some of my favorite video game graphics are from games that are several years old, like Roller Coaster Tycoon or Ultima Online.
That being said, graphics overall (whether photorealistic, or more artistic) just aren't that important. Gameplay has always been, and always will be the most important part of a video game. I would probably get bored with Crysis 2 in five minutes, but I've spent days playing roguelike RPGs.
First post! This thread is rediculous so I couldn't help but post.
Blizzard's game design has always been about choosing an art style appropriate for the game they want to make and then tailoring the game engine to that specific style. This includes the characters, environment, special effects (spells, etc.), and storytelling so that everything looks like it all fits into the world. At the same time making sure that a wide variety of PC's can play the game to maximize their player base. Making a game that has high end graphics for the sake of high end graphics is BAD game design.
Considering how successful Blizzard is as a developer, it's hard to argue against them...
If you can look at the environments in Diablo 3 and not be speechless, you are clearly blind. The outdoor environments look like masterwork paintings...
Maybe it's because I'm an artist, but I've never understood the complaints against the art style. Everything from the color pallets to the textures to the geometry is gorgeous. It's lower-poly than a lot of other games, but higher polygon count != better looking necessarily, it means potential for more detail.
Also, it's easy to knock Blizzard for choosing to optimize their games for lower end PCs, because apparently it's some kind of insult to the "hardcore" crowd* (oops, your two thousand dollar gaming comp isn't necessary :whistling: ), but without that consideration their games wouldn't be nearly as widespread. A lot of people can't afford that kind of PC.
*While I find this term silly, I too have a big fancy computer <3
5. My expectations for games have generally plummeted over the years, rather than increased... And that's because game developers generally seem to spend too much time on graphics, and not enough time on everything else (imho).
"Consolidation", which is a nice way of saying only risk-averse huge companies make games with any QA, is most of the reason for that.
WoW basically killed PC games by internally destroying what was the best developer. They have absolutely no interest in doing anything that isn't a reworking of something they did a decade ago.
I don't see anything wrong with the engine. All art debate aside, I'm glad the engine doesn't APPEAR to be strenuous on a computer. It means more people will be able to play and that's just more fun. I still think it looks pretty nice. Especially the outdoor environments.
I have always Loved blizzard graphics since WoW. I mean sure the models don't consist of millions of polygons or wtf ever you call it... but the Artwork and the details the put into the artwork is amazing! They can make a brick road look completely 3d and real from just using great artwork.
Diablo 3 is no difference. Looking at the videos / pics you can clearly see how the amazing artwork makes you forget that this isn't crysis 2 with max graphics.
I personally think the game looks great. But as others have suggested it's not just about the look of the game, but the structure and content. The bulk of information we have received from blizzard to date has been regarding the modified and new mechanics, content and design of the game. Even if it was still built on a sprite based rendering engine I would buy, and likely, enjoy it.
But to dig deeper into the OP's ideas how does one determine that an engine is "out dated", exactly?
You are wrong
Since they use Havok engine, they can't get realistic graphics that you can from Unreal engine.
No, I'm not. I just understand the difference between art and technology.
You cannot get realistic graphics on any engine currently existing and thank god for that. Well, unless you consider Maya an engine and rendering something on it for forever acceptable.
Unreal engine is not an RPG engine to my knowledge.
Havok is not a core engine. Diablo III is not "on" Havok, they're on some other engine (probably in-house), while Havok is added to enable physics functionality.
And I will repeat my initial point. Good graphics can exist on older engines. If all you care about is realism you are not worth talking to, even then, most engines these days have all the key functionality.
If you can look at the environments in Diablo 3 and not be speechless, you are clearly blind. The outdoor environments look like masterwork paintings...
They're not supposed to.
This is precisely why they look bland. Too mushy and glossed over.
Also, they don't use Havok for their physics any more. They made some kind of in house engine for their physics, and switched over soon after the WWI announcement.
It's gotta be said that Diablo 3's graphics will age much better than something like Dungeon Siege 3 or Witcher 2 where an attempt at a more realistic world quickly shows it's age where as something that has embedded itself in a more painterly, stylized look.
We are going to be playing Diablo 3 for years and I've gotta say that its look will have a much less dated feel than had they gone for a more literal interpretation of dark and evil.
That being said, graphics overall (whether photorealistic, or more artistic) just aren't that important. Gameplay has always been, and always will be the most important part of a video game. I would probably get bored with Crysis 2 in five minutes, but I've spent days playing roguelike RPGs.
I largely agree with your points, but since video games are such an important combination of visual and audible media, the graphical element is important. Realistic graphics may not be important--many games don't strive for realism, but something more artistic or better suited to convey a mood or message--but graphics are important. After all, without them the game would not exist
I would go as far as to say that gameplay, graphics, sound, and story (assuming one is needed) are all equally important to a good game.
Minecraft has "terrible" graphics, but it's not meant to be realistic. It's meant to be what it is. It has its own style and is therefore its own standard. Therefore, it has excellent graphics.
Diablo III has a very specific style. It was never intended to be realistic. It's meant to be artistic. I can't find the original context, but the lead content producer once said that on minimum graphical settings, the game is meant to look like a painting. With progressively higher settings, that base idea of a painterly world is still present, but it is shown in different ways.
Does this mean it has terrible graphics? No.
They spend just as much time on their highly specific graphical style as any other game company.
If you need realistic graphics for any game to be engaging to you, you have the graphical palette of a nine year old. Realizing the power and influence of non-realistic graphics is akin to the change from realism to everything that followed in art history. That is, the majority of what is hanging in museums and is worth over fifty thousand dollars.
Havok is not a core engine. Diablo III is not "on" Havok, they're on some other engine (probably in-house), while Havok is added to enable physics functionality.
They're no longer using Havok at all. Everything is completely in-house.
I mean who wouldn't love Diablo 3 to have worlds best, top notch graphics.... but the current graphics are more than fine with me. Anything better than Diablo 2 gets my thumbs up.
Since they use Havok engine, they can't get realistic graphics that you can from Unreal engine.
The MAJOR reason why their game looks bland and flat on the screen is because of the engine.
Sure they can improve just a bit, but the whole framework is within the boundary restricted by the engine.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
I guess OP hasn't read the whole thread properly...just shooting blind that's all...
You are alive?
ON Point, To Zerg4Hire... They no longer use Havok first off and second The Havok engine isn't a game engine, It's a physics engine. It has nothing to do with graphics. I still don't understand why the Engine is such a big deal if you think graphics are this important play crysis or Metro 2033 in MAx, If you feel like buying a 2k + gaming rig.
I would much rather have a game that is definitive and artistic in style. Some of my favorite video game graphics are from games that are several years old, like Roller Coaster Tycoon or Ultima Online.
That being said, graphics overall (whether photorealistic, or more artistic) just aren't that important. Gameplay has always been, and always will be the most important part of a video game. I would probably get bored with Crysis 2 in five minutes, but I've spent days playing roguelike RPGs.
Blizzard's game design has always been about choosing an art style appropriate for the game they want to make and then tailoring the game engine to that specific style. This includes the characters, environment, special effects (spells, etc.), and storytelling so that everything looks like it all fits into the world. At the same time making sure that a wide variety of PC's can play the game to maximize their player base. Making a game that has high end graphics for the sake of high end graphics is BAD game design.
Considering how successful Blizzard is as a developer, it's hard to argue against them...
If you can look at the environments in Diablo 3 and not be speechless, you are clearly blind. The outdoor environments look like masterwork paintings...
Maybe it's because I'm an artist, but I've never understood the complaints against the art style. Everything from the color pallets to the textures to the geometry is gorgeous. It's lower-poly than a lot of other games, but higher polygon count != better looking necessarily, it means potential for more detail.
Also, it's easy to knock Blizzard for choosing to optimize their games for lower end PCs, because apparently it's some kind of insult to the "hardcore" crowd* (oops, your two thousand dollar gaming comp isn't necessary :whistling: ), but without that consideration their games wouldn't be nearly as widespread. A lot of people can't afford that kind of PC.
*While I find this term silly, I too have a big fancy computer <3
"Consolidation", which is a nice way of saying only risk-averse huge companies make games with any QA, is most of the reason for that.
WoW basically killed PC games by internally destroying what was the best developer. They have absolutely no interest in doing anything that isn't a reworking of something they did a decade ago.
Diablo 3 is no difference. Looking at the videos / pics you can clearly see how the amazing artwork makes you forget that this isn't crysis 2 with max graphics.
I personally think the game looks great. But as others have suggested it's not just about the look of the game, but the structure and content. The bulk of information we have received from blizzard to date has been regarding the modified and new mechanics, content and design of the game. Even if it was still built on a sprite based rendering engine I would buy, and likely, enjoy it.
But to dig deeper into the OP's ideas how does one determine that an engine is "out dated", exactly?
You cannot get realistic graphics on any engine currently existing and thank god for that. Well, unless you consider Maya an engine and rendering something on it for forever acceptable.
Unreal engine is not an RPG engine to my knowledge.
Havok is not a core engine. Diablo III is not "on" Havok, they're on some other engine (probably in-house), while Havok is added to enable physics functionality.
And I will repeat my initial point. Good graphics can exist on older engines. If all you care about is realism you are not worth talking to, even then, most engines these days have all the key functionality.
No. Engines really have nothing to do with these kinds of things. An engine does not magically make an ugly model or texture look pretty.
DIII's blandness is rather easy to assess. It comes from color blending, low resolution textures, low polygon models, bad lighting, etc.
They're not supposed to.
This is precisely why they look bland. Too mushy and glossed over.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
We are going to be playing Diablo 3 for years and I've gotta say that its look will have a much less dated feel than had they gone for a more literal interpretation of dark and evil.
I largely agree with your points, but since video games are such an important combination of visual and audible media, the graphical element is important. Realistic graphics may not be important--many games don't strive for realism, but something more artistic or better suited to convey a mood or message--but graphics are important. After all, without them the game would not exist
I would go as far as to say that gameplay, graphics, sound, and story (assuming one is needed) are all equally important to a good game.
Minecraft has "terrible" graphics, but it's not meant to be realistic. It's meant to be what it is. It has its own style and is therefore its own standard. Therefore, it has excellent graphics.
Diablo III has a very specific style. It was never intended to be realistic. It's meant to be artistic. I can't find the original context, but the lead content producer once said that on minimum graphical settings, the game is meant to look like a painting. With progressively higher settings, that base idea of a painterly world is still present, but it is shown in different ways.
Does this mean it has terrible graphics? No.
They spend just as much time on their highly specific graphical style as any other game company.
If you need realistic graphics for any game to be engaging to you, you have the graphical palette of a nine year old. Realizing the power and influence of non-realistic graphics is akin to the change from realism to everything that followed in art history. That is, the majority of what is hanging in museums and is worth over fifty thousand dollars.
They're no longer using Havok at all. Everything is completely in-house.