Intro
So I've read a couple of people saying/complaining that the graphics of D3 is going to be outdated when released next year. And a blue post, kinda.
This is also something that I have thought about. Every time a game gets delayed, there is also a chance that the graphics may get outdated. Also, the longer video game developers takes to make a particular game, the graphics might also get outdated.
Quick history
D3 has been in development since ? until 2005 by Blizzard North. They eventually closed and the project were given to the current Blizz team (I think). There were also rumours that the new Blizz team started from scratch including designing a new physics engine just for D3.
Lets say they started from scratch in 2006/2007. That will make the game almost 7 years in development. Most games' graphics that have been in development that long will surely be outdated by the time it is released. How many times, if they even did, blizz updated their graphics since 2006/2007 I will not know.
Conclusion
For me personally even now the graphics looks amazing, even if I've just watched some videos of the gameplay. I also suspect that the reason for having that "painted effect" graphics, is because this type of graphics will not "age" as easily as other (I might be wrong).
With that said, I don't think the graphics will be outdated when it's released next year. Still can't believe it's been been pushed into 2012 (even though they did said they "aimed" for late 2011 release)
As far as I'm concerned, the D3 graphics are already outdated, but I don't care too much about that; I'm not looking for Crysis ultra-photo-realistic graphics, that's never what any Blizzard game was ever about I think.
Diablo 2 graphics have been outdated for, I don't know, 10 years? I still play that today so I really won't mind if they keep the current graphics.
And as a flashback when it was released we had this whole "everything must be 3D"-fashion, because we were just starting to discover 3D gaming, and a lot of critics bashed D2 really hard for being such a long time in development (3 years back then iirc) and saying its graphics were a joke and its engine was soooo outdated.
And it still turned out to be one of the most amazing games of all time I'm sure the same is going to happen to D3.
Some are bashing its graphics because they think everything must have CoD facial animation and sick textures, or Crysis-style graphics, and they usually have a very hard time enjoying the little details.
I just love the whole "playing a living painting"-design.
No. Outdated graphics is very subjective. People consider Wow's graphics outdated and I can't understand why? Its stylized, and IMO will stay fresh for countless years just like watching the Simpsons which has been on for almost 20 years is still great. However its the games that try to be realistic that quickly fall to the wayside.
Honestly, if D2 supported today's resolutions, I'm willing to bet it would still be very very popular and would easily be recommended to newcomers.
D3 like Wow is stylized so it will withstand the test of time. Even Ultima 1-5 are very stylized and look crisp and clean (except for being forced to play it in a Dosbox window).
I don't think 'outdated' would be the right term, the graphics are like that on purpose, it increases the games longevity simply because they ARN'T going for that photo realistic look. If they were, then they would be outdated a lot sooner because someone else will come up with even better graphics.
Take a look at Braid (one of my top games ever, story and art just amazing ), it's whole style is a watercolor look, which someone would argue 'omg that's outdated; it's not even realistic!' Yet I guarantee you when I play it again in say 20 years, The last thought in my mind will be 'damn these graphics are bad'. That's the whole reason for this style, it's in depth, colorful, detailed yet it sets itself apart from other realistic type games because it's not TRYING to look like ultra realistic. It's still fantasy.
Honestly, a VERY smart move by blizzard way back when they first started using this style. If you look at wow you'll notice the textures up close are TERRIBLE, yet the game still looks good.
Blizzard has never in my mind been apart of the cutting edge graphically, but they are the best at styleized graphics that fit their games perfectly. World of Warcraft is still running on pretty much the same graphical engine as it did at launch and I prefer its style greatly to pretty much all mmo's that 'look pretty'. A big plus with their design philosophy in fact is that because they are all about style and atmosphere their games age very well, which is a big contributor to why Starcraft, Warcraft 3, WoW and Diablo 2 are played still to this day.
Yep =D I just did a MF run on D2 like 20 minutes ago. Nothing tho Oo. It's just not D3 QQ
Diablo 3 never claimed to compete with next gen graphics, it's NOT one of the focus points or even vital areas of interest.
It's a moot point, saying that the game is outdated graphically.
The game is what the game is. The graphics couldn't fit any other way, because it's diablo. It fits, and thats the point. It doesn't NEED crysis 2 graphics or some dumb shit... it's irrelevant.
People never seem to get this.
If u want a game with the best graphcis then go play another game. Diablo is probaly not for you anyway in the first place.
/rant
omg you're such a fanboy. Your arguments makes no sense.
The thread is not about D3 being an good or bad game. The thread is not about the design philosophe of D3. It's not about if D3 need or not better graphics.
It's a simple question: it has outdated graphics ? Yes or no ?
The answer is OBVIOUSLY yes. It doesn't really matter if you care or not about graphics or your opnion about if D3 is a good game for me or not. It has outdated graphics. Outdated graphics is not a good thing.
Noone talking about the artistic merits either. The game could easilly look like an painting but use modern graphics, like dynamic lights for example (it would only add to the whole paint feeling).
It's really pathetic how people allways want to defend what they like and/or bash what they don't like. Like xbox vs. ps3 players, pc vs. console players, fps vs. rpg players, etc... u.u''
Sorry but D3 already looks outdated. However since it is Blizzard they are forgiven because Blizzard delivers good gameplay experience.
At best the graphics in Blizzard games have been ok. I have never looked at a Blizzard game and thought "wow, that looks really good" but rather "wow, that looks really fun" which is more than enough.
Thats problably the best answer to the question. The graphics is outdated and it's a bad thing. But I accept it because I believe gameplay will make up for it.
Sorry but D3 already looks outdated. However since it is Blizzard they are forgiven because Blizzard delivers good gameplay experience.
At best the graphics in Blizzard games have been ok. I have never looked at a Blizzard game and thought "wow, that looks really good" but rather "wow, that looks really fun" which is more than enough.
The graphics doesn't look outdated ffs. This term applies only if your expectations to the game are higher than the current graphics, which i can tell, they aren't by your post.
Just because something something newer exists, doesn't mean it's BETTER... doesn't mean it fits the game more overall..
same as saying, old music is outdated too... no it fucking isn't, it's just different, and it fits its time.
Should I go around telling everybody that old rock classic bands, and rock bands are outdated, because we got justin bieber and the jonas brothers?
No... it's stupid and a moot point, because you cannot compare it. As it's two different things they are trying to achieve.
Yes, you can compare them. Your music example is a terrible example. Outdated just means old fashion, or not of current trend, thus old music = outdated. Doesn't mean people still don't listen to them or that they're bad, but just that they're old. Doesn't mean newer music is better either. Whether they're good or bad is based off of "expectation" whereas something new/old is for the most part pretty concrete.
With that said, D3's current graphics isn't on par with most high profile games out there, but there's speculation that they will implement DirectX11, which is newer tech, so who knows what the end product will look like.
But like I said before, it's more about gameplay than graphics. And it's more about artistic direction than graphics (those are two different things)
"So based on your example means, that older stuff is a different trend.. well Diablo 3 graphics is a different trend than omg crysis 2 graphics, but that doesn't mean that either crysis or diablo has bad graphics, it's just different, and hence not outdated, just different."
Wow you are twisting words like a motha! Yes, they are different trends, but I NEVER said Diablo has bad graphics, please read thoroughly next time. BTW, that doesn't prove that D3's graphic is NOT outdated.
"Outdated = not a bad thing in the case of diablo 3. "
Well, the whole issue here is that people perceive outdated as a synonym of bad/ugly/horrible. As far as semantics go, they are not.
Now, firstly, let's all not pretend that we want to say that a given game's graphics are outdated just to hide the fact the we want to say "they suck" - that's the first issue solved. I don't see someone saying a game's graphics are outdated without wanting to say "the graphics suck, the game is ugly as hell".
And then we come to the real cause of disagreement, are Diablo 3 graphics bad? In the end, what we all have to admit is that this is another topic that's extremely subjective and based on our opinions and feelings towards the game.
I absolutely loved Bastion's graphics, even though they were cartoony. I absolutely hated the whole gold/black theme of Deus Ex, for me the simple departure of the Blue-ish theme was enough for the game to not have the same feeling.
Terraria and Minecraft both have some of the most outdated (16-bit-style?) graphics nowadays, but even so, I don't think they're bad at all, I actually enjoy looking at those textures, and they're just fit for the gameplay that's linked to them.
With all that said, I don't think D3 has outdated/ugly graphics at all. The fact that you don't have 2500x1600 textures on a characters' feet does not mean the graphics are outdated.
For the record,imho saying "the graphics are bad" or "the graphics are outdated" is a very generic statement. I'm sure Blizzard would appreaciate more specific criticism such as "x area has very little detail, it could use higher res textures" or "skill y has very little effects".
Compared to today's standards...perhaps I should have stated it. Yes, FPS and isometric hack&slash RPG games' graphic style varies day and night, but you can still see whether graphics are good/bad compared to today's standards, regardless of the genre of the game.
Perhaps a good comparison is Duke Nukem Forever. It has been released a couple of months back and has been in development since the late 90's. You can clearly see the game's graphics are outdated, even to today's standards, eventhough it has been released in 2011.
I don't care. I've never liked or disliked a game just because of the graphics. As long as the gameplay is solid and entertaining, I play with everything.
I have nothing to say about the graphics in this topic( though I loved it), but I have to say I admire every single blizzard engineer/programmer working on all of their engine. Its always extremely well optimized and run on every single low-end system no matter what type of graphics its using.
Honestly, the more the graphic is outdated, the greater audience can enjoy the game which is blizz's goal anyway.
Diablo 2 graphics have been outdated for, I don't know, 10 years? I still play that today so I really won't mind if they keep the current graphics.
And as a flashback when it was released we had this whole "everything must be 3D"-fashion, because we were just starting to discover 3D gaming, and a lot of critics bashed D2 really hard for being such a long time in development (3 years back then iirc) and saying its graphics were a joke and its engine was soooo outdated.
And it still turned out to be one of the most amazing games of all time I'm sure the same is going to happen to D3.
Some are bashing its graphics because they think everything must have CoD facial animation and sick textures, or Crysis-style graphics, and they usually have a very hard time enjoying the little details.
I just love the whole "playing a living painting"-design.
Well we're in 2011 now, soon 2012, that's the difference. And to some graphics of a VISUAL medium make the whole experience better, so not only equally important to gameplay (subjective) but with a good gameplay good graphics only increases the whole experience of the game that much more. I get that you all value gameplay, but you can't be telling me that you DON't want good graphics as well, then you are focusing too much on gameplay, because good graphics is no minus, it's just that you seem to relate good graphics to bad gameplay. Doesn't need to be the case. Think of some really awesome games, either SPs or online games, with awesome graphics to boot, you're just like WOOT I love the new age of gaming, I can have an awesome time with a game, AND visually get the feel that it's more real. It's not a lego game. So yes for me personally, big fan of gameplay, but man I love good graphics in games, it's so beatiful and graphics will just keep pushing boundaries. The feel of playing a game will just get more and more awesome. As a oldschooler I know the value of gameplay very well, it can make a game totally awesome even if the graphics aren't much to brag about, but that doesn't mean I say no thanks to graphics. I'll take both, thank you.
And yes not only are they outdated as of now, per my standards, I expect games to be up to their date in graphics, but next year.. think of the time this has been in development, and keep pushing it on top.. soon the graphics will be dinosaur old. I like how it looks, and like I said I value gameplay I'll play D3, but I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to have even better graphics for a new upcoming online game like this, especially an old classic like Diablo. It would make it that more awesome, already I feel let down cause the graphics (not art) remind me of WoW, the feeling of it, and those has almost always sucked, people loved Wow for it's gameplay, why do you think it lasts so long, graphics ? Even I liked them, and even I liked D3 graphics from the first vids, but times are moving. Boo to delaying D3, and boo to not being able to do better with graphics than this, seems lazy.. and when you claim delaying is to "polish" why are you too lazy to polish the graphics ? At least have a little class, when you make us wait longer to make the end result better, don't we deserve this much ? (better graphics)
Anyways know lots of you don't give a F about graphics, but I don't really care, because I sincerely do and to people with an eye for visuals it should be normal to appreciate well... visually nice things. That said I know that most likely, I'll still play D3. Just had to add lol, the image of jay going like "they'll all still buy it anyway" comes to mind.
Well, the whole issue here is that people perceive outdated as a synonym of bad/ugly/horrible. As far as semantics go, they are not.
Now, firstly, let's all not pretend that we want to say that a given game's graphics are outdated just to hide the fact the we want to say "they suck" - that's the first issue solved. I don't see someone saying a game's graphics are outdated without wanting to say "the graphics suck, the game is ugly as hell".
And then we come to the real cause of disagreement, are Diablo 3 graphics bad? In the end, what we all have to admit is that this is another topic that's extremely subjective and based on our opinions and feelings towards the game.
I absolutely loved Bastion's graphics, even though they were cartoony. I absolutely hated the whole gold/black theme of Deus Ex, for me the simple departure of the Blue-ish theme was enough for the game to not have the same feeling.
Terraria and Minecraft both have some of the most outdated (16-bit-style?) graphics nowadays, but even so, I don't think they're bad at all, I actually enjoy looking at those textures, and they're just fit for the gameplay that's linked to them.
With all that said, I don't think D3 has outdated/ugly graphics at all. The fact that you don't have 2500x1600 textures on a characters' feet does not mean the graphics are outdated.
For the record,imho saying "the graphics are bad" or "the graphics are outdated" is a very generic statement. I'm sure Blizzard would appreaciate more specific criticism such as "x area has very little detail, it could use higher res textures" or "skill y has very little effects".
If the question is "will Diablo 3's graphics be the most technically advanced and cutting edge technology", the answer is clearly no. Blizzard has never made a game that's got bleeding edge anything except gameplay, their looooooooooooooooong development times prohibit that. Will the game look "bad" as a result of that? That's completely subjective and will be hard to determine. If it doesn't look like complete crap that will be good enough for most people. D2 and Diablo didn't look more advanced than other games released around their times, and they did fine, I imagine D3 will too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I've read a couple of people saying/complaining that the graphics of D3 is going to be outdated when released next year. And a blue post, kinda.
This is also something that I have thought about. Every time a game gets delayed, there is also a chance that the graphics may get outdated. Also, the longer video game developers takes to make a particular game, the graphics might also get outdated.
Quick history
D3 has been in development since ? until 2005 by Blizzard North. They eventually closed and the project were given to the current Blizz team (I think). There were also rumours that the new Blizz team started from scratch including designing a new physics engine just for D3.
Lets say they started from scratch in 2006/2007. That will make the game almost 7 years in development. Most games' graphics that have been in development that long will surely be outdated by the time it is released. How many times, if they even did, blizz updated their graphics since 2006/2007 I will not know.
Conclusion
For me personally even now the graphics looks amazing, even if I've just watched some videos of the gameplay. I also suspect that the reason for having that "painted effect" graphics, is because this type of graphics will not "age" as easily as other (I might be wrong).
With that said, I don't think the graphics will be outdated when it's released next year. Still can't believe it's been been pushed into 2012 (even though they did said they "aimed" for late 2011 release)
TL;DR - What the title say.
Plus there's more to games than graphics anyways
And it still turned out to be one of the most amazing games of all time I'm sure the same is going to happen to D3.
Some are bashing its graphics because they think everything must have CoD facial animation and sick textures, or Crysis-style graphics, and they usually have a very hard time enjoying the little details.
I just love the whole "playing a living painting"-design.
Honestly, if D2 supported today's resolutions, I'm willing to bet it would still be very very popular and would easily be recommended to newcomers.
D3 like Wow is stylized so it will withstand the test of time. Even Ultima 1-5 are very stylized and look crisp and clean (except for being forced to play it in a Dosbox window).
I wouldn't worry about the graphics.
Take a look at Braid (one of my top games ever, story and art just amazing ), it's whole style is a watercolor look, which someone would argue 'omg that's outdated; it's not even realistic!' Yet I guarantee you when I play it again in say 20 years, The last thought in my mind will be 'damn these graphics are bad'. That's the whole reason for this style, it's in depth, colorful, detailed yet it sets itself apart from other realistic type games because it's not TRYING to look like ultra realistic. It's still fantasy.
Honestly, a VERY smart move by blizzard way back when they first started using this style. If you look at wow you'll notice the textures up close are TERRIBLE, yet the game still looks good.
Yep =D I just did a MF run on D2 like 20 minutes ago. Nothing tho Oo. It's just not D3 QQ
omg you're such a fanboy. Your arguments makes no sense.
The thread is not about D3 being an good or bad game. The thread is not about the design philosophe of D3. It's not about if D3 need or not better graphics.
It's a simple question: it has outdated graphics ? Yes or no ?
The answer is OBVIOUSLY yes. It doesn't really matter if you care or not about graphics or your opnion about if D3 is a good game for me or not. It has outdated graphics. Outdated graphics is not a good thing.
Noone talking about the artistic merits either. The game could easilly look like an painting but use modern graphics, like dynamic lights for example (it would only add to the whole paint feeling).
It's really pathetic how people allways want to defend what they like and/or bash what they don't like. Like xbox vs. ps3 players, pc vs. console players, fps vs. rpg players, etc... u.u''
Thats problably the best answer to the question. The graphics is outdated and it's a bad thing. But I accept it because I believe gameplay will make up for it.
Yes, you can compare them. Your music example is a terrible example. Outdated just means old fashion, or not of current trend, thus old music = outdated. Doesn't mean people still don't listen to them or that they're bad, but just that they're old. Doesn't mean newer music is better either. Whether they're good or bad is based off of "expectation" whereas something new/old is for the most part pretty concrete.
With that said, D3's current graphics isn't on par with most high profile games out there, but there's speculation that they will implement DirectX11, which is newer tech, so who knows what the end product will look like.
But like I said before, it's more about gameplay than graphics. And it's more about artistic direction than graphics (those are two different things)
Wow you are twisting words like a motha! Yes, they are different trends, but I NEVER said Diablo has bad graphics, please read thoroughly next time. BTW, that doesn't prove that D3's graphic is NOT outdated.
"Outdated = not a bad thing in the case of diablo 3. "
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY TO YOU! LOLOLOL
Now, firstly, let's all not pretend that we want to say that a given game's graphics are outdated just to hide the fact the we want to say "they suck" - that's the first issue solved. I don't see someone saying a game's graphics are outdated without wanting to say "the graphics suck, the game is ugly as hell".
And then we come to the real cause of disagreement, are Diablo 3 graphics bad? In the end, what we all have to admit is that this is another topic that's extremely subjective and based on our opinions and feelings towards the game.
I absolutely loved Bastion's graphics, even though they were cartoony. I absolutely hated the whole gold/black theme of Deus Ex, for me the simple departure of the Blue-ish theme was enough for the game to not have the same feeling.
Terraria and Minecraft both have some of the most outdated (16-bit-style?) graphics nowadays, but even so, I don't think they're bad at all, I actually enjoy looking at those textures, and they're just fit for the gameplay that's linked to them.
With all that said, I don't think D3 has outdated/ugly graphics at all. The fact that you don't have 2500x1600 textures on a characters' feet does not mean the graphics are outdated.
For the record, imho saying "the graphics are bad" or "the graphics are outdated" is a very generic statement. I'm sure Blizzard would appreaciate more specific criticism such as "x area has very little detail, it could use higher res textures" or "skill y has very little effects".
Perhaps a good comparison is Duke Nukem Forever. It has been released a couple of months back and has been in development since the late 90's. You can clearly see the game's graphics are outdated, even to today's standards, eventhough it has been released in 2011.
Honestly, the more the graphic is outdated, the greater audience can enjoy the game which is blizz's goal anyway.
Latest project
Well we're in 2011 now, soon 2012, that's the difference. And to some graphics of a VISUAL medium make the whole experience better, so not only equally important to gameplay (subjective) but with a good gameplay good graphics only increases the whole experience of the game that much more. I get that you all value gameplay, but you can't be telling me that you DON't want good graphics as well, then you are focusing too much on gameplay, because good graphics is no minus, it's just that you seem to relate good graphics to bad gameplay. Doesn't need to be the case. Think of some really awesome games, either SPs or online games, with awesome graphics to boot, you're just like WOOT I love the new age of gaming, I can have an awesome time with a game, AND visually get the feel that it's more real. It's not a lego game. So yes for me personally, big fan of gameplay, but man I love good graphics in games, it's so beatiful and graphics will just keep pushing boundaries. The feel of playing a game will just get more and more awesome. As a oldschooler I know the value of gameplay very well, it can make a game totally awesome even if the graphics aren't much to brag about, but that doesn't mean I say no thanks to graphics. I'll take both, thank you.
And yes not only are they outdated as of now, per my standards, I expect games to be up to their date in graphics, but next year.. think of the time this has been in development, and keep pushing it on top.. soon the graphics will be dinosaur old. I like how it looks, and like I said I value gameplay I'll play D3, but I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to have even better graphics for a new upcoming online game like this, especially an old classic like Diablo. It would make it that more awesome, already I feel let down cause the graphics (not art) remind me of WoW, the feeling of it, and those has almost always sucked, people loved Wow for it's gameplay, why do you think it lasts so long, graphics ? Even I liked them, and even I liked D3 graphics from the first vids, but times are moving. Boo to delaying D3, and boo to not being able to do better with graphics than this, seems lazy.. and when you claim delaying is to "polish" why are you too lazy to polish the graphics ? At least have a little class, when you make us wait longer to make the end result better, don't we deserve this much ? (better graphics)
Anyways know lots of you don't give a F about graphics, but I don't really care, because I sincerely do and to people with an eye for visuals it should be normal to appreciate well... visually nice things. That said I know that most likely, I'll still play D3. Just had to add lol, the image of jay going like "they'll all still buy it anyway" comes to mind.
If the question is "will Diablo 3's graphics be the most technically advanced and cutting edge technology", the answer is clearly no. Blizzard has never made a game that's got bleeding edge anything except gameplay, their looooooooooooooooong development times prohibit that. Will the game look "bad" as a result of that? That's completely subjective and will be hard to determine. If it doesn't look like complete crap that will be good enough for most people. D2 and Diablo didn't look more advanced than other games released around their times, and they did fine, I imagine D3 will too.