Awesome! Finally we have proof that Blizzard never even read through anything concerning the art style and suggestions for it thereof:thumbsup:
Mr. Wilson has no idea what he's talking about.
People remember the Act I dungeons... but they kind of conveniently forget the green fields of Act I, and all of Act II... and it's palaces, its bright deserts.
I think he's forgetting conveniently how those places were colored:D
Diablo II, said Wilson, was actually "very saturated, very bright."
Is this guy for real?:confused:
"There's a philosophy that goes across all of our games, and that philosophy stays true from game to game... so it probably draws some comparisons," Wilson said. "One philosophy is that our artists feel like if they're just using photorealism, not creating a unique look for the game, not stylizing so that it's uniquely Blizzard, then they're not doing their jobs."
Haven't seen any of that philosophy before Warcraft 3. Ever. None of that for Diablo 1,2, Starcraft, Warcraft 1,2. Nor the Lost Vikings.
There are some cases, though, where the sharing of art philosophy doesn't always work — WoW game director Jeffrey Kaplan said that the team takes care not to make the gravestones in WoW's pivotal cemeteries too Gothic-looking — those tombstones belong in Diablo.
Well I'm glad we didn't see the tombstones copy pasted from WoW then:D
The preliminary art we've seen so far, Wilson said, is from early on in the game. "We want to generate the feeling of everything getting worse... it's part of our narrative. It makes the more gloomy part of the game a place where the stakes get higher."
YES! Finally! Some light at the end of the tunnel! This made me really happy. The only good part of the interview, really, because it's the only part where they're not firing a shotgun at their own feet. I'm glad the environment will get worse. And they've confirmed the plot as well, basically. Hell IS breaking loose.
"If you start out at the apocalypse, and then move to more apocalypse, it's not going to have much of an impression on players."
Would have been nice if they'd say that earlier, to stop the "whining". But why didn't they? Well, I could come up with many theories. Ah well, their choice. It was good publicity, actually.
Timmen I'm just curious have you even ever played Diablo 1 or 2 online?
By ignoring the fans request for a change that we are buying...not Blizzard, we are their revenue we are their money why the hell would it seem like a smart idea to ignore us and not even at the very least give us an old screen shot to prove his point? They have archives of all their data and work from day 1. It isn't that hard to grab an old screenshot of just a barbarian or whatever that they feel looks like crap and throw it out at us, it would spoil nothing and only sit there to prove that they are doing what is best for the game but they don't....why is that?
Trying to take control of a game that really we fans make goes back to the statement I originally made, if you have played Diablo 1 or 2 online you know damn well that Blizzard played almost NO role in online play, the community created this game to be what it is, the community kept the game interesting, the community of Diablo is so great because it evolves itself and the game even tho the game stays the same it gets fresh air thrown into it sometimes by Blizzard with the one patch every 9 years, but mainly by the community.
Trying to say that they know best about a game they are making makes sense, duh they are the creators but that doesn't mean its true. Yes they have great minds but that doesn't mean that they know exactly what us fans want. They should actually bring something to the table beyond "We are the developers and we know best" or " It was simply undoable" why was it undoable? Why is still undoable? Why can't you find a happy medium? Im just in aw that such a great company can't shit out 1 screenshot of an old development which is bound to leak once the game is released anyway just to make themselves not look like douchebags.
Hmm, Some of the sound changes in the video are ok but I think the color change really does take a lot away from the game. At least to me it seems as though it would be kinda hard to see what was what and just otherwise get boring after awhile. I think it really shows some of the potential problems Wilson was talking about.
Thanks for posting though, it's an interesting video.
Kwic, I would agree with you on the screen shot you just posted. My expectation was at its peak as I saw the Barbarian ready to do battle in the murky ancient evil tome? HUH? WAIT! There is as much light shining into this place as my living room gets at high noon! What the?! Nothing left to my imagination of what is crawling in the dark? I half expected see the evil creatures crawling up the wall drop off on their own dying from light exposure like insects hit with bug spray. My first thought looking at this shot was, “where is that light coming from below?” “Is there a giant sized door to the outside somewhere down below?” "Those lanterns on the pillars can’t be brightening the whole room that much, and how or why would shade loving demons bother lighting them anyways?"
This would be more in line with the Diablo we came to know, IMO
The argument the light radius wouldn't work or darkening it just doesn't wash with me, you can easily see creatures coming at you and the lay of the land and still make the place look more forbidding. Photoshop or not, good 3D apps like Maya, Studio Max, etc. are not that unforgiving.
I did think that that video was a pretty damn good alteration. I like that the brightness wasn't cut too drastically since it's an early dungeon. It's still a tad bit too gray though, perhaps. The color scheme should just shift to include less color on one side of the color wheel. If you chose to exclude green, then keep the oranges and blues a tad more vibrant but not eye-popping. The important thing to keep in mind is that it's a dungeon that will probably resemble more of what you might expect early on so I would be okay with more calming, vibrant tones ( blues and yellows ). I don't see the need for an explosion of color, though. A stone dungeon, especially early in the game need not be so wild and extravagant with color but not completely devoid of it either. Vegas, your edit would be better for a later dungeon and I'm sure you'll see more of that sort of lighting later on.
The biggest thing that threw me off about D3 is that I was expecting a sharper, slimmer, more contrast driven and sophisticated look to the game. Not to an extreme, but more so than what we saw in the demo. I.E. Some bulk to the armor, but some tapering as well. More mature looking anatomy to the characters and sleek shiny armors and weapons without the crazy glow.
That's from your site, isn't it? I've looked through and read whatever suggestions there are (almost none because it's purely pictures), and I'm glad MTV didn't show any of your doctored pictures because it would be completely blasted. Maybe you should have used this picture instead where it looks like you're gaming on a broken monitor. In reference to that picture, the colours are so purple and dull. Everything is purple, have you noticed that? Purple bricks, purple shingles, purple water, purple haze, purple land, and more purple. Is that really your vision of D3? Whereas the majority of photoshops take out the colour leaving it grayish and bland, you just slop purple onto everything.
Quote from "Kenzai" »
And for everyone whos crying that the photoshop pics wont work in 3D:
Is that a low resolution version of D3? That's what it looks like in motion. And I love the sounds that was replaced. It's so exaggerated, even for low level mobs. If I had to play the game with such hyperboles just the sound, it's certainly a turnoff. Would you like to engage every mob you face with sound effects like that? Save it for the boss fights, thanks.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
None is asking for every area and enemy to be completely desaturated anyways, but the exact opposite is what we're also not wanting. The before pic is almost the one extreme the after the other extreme
MTV isn't showing him good examples where the gray aren't overused and completely engulfing the scenery. Why can't they show him? Because there are none that exists. And of course the before and after pictures are extreme contrasts of each other. People see what they don't like and what to infuse their own visions of Diablo which consists of DARK AND GRITTY features. Bam, and the result is that.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
...shadowy places where monsters could be hiding from the sight of the player...
In some thread about the art direction, a user used an example of Doom 3. I don't know where it is but it's probably long lost by now. All I can say is, would you like a Doom 3 in Diablo? I wouldn't, because half the textures are lost out to the dark and barely anything is given to the player and trying to immersify into that world does not work. More than 3/4 of the game is completely in the shadows and the only time you ever see light is by some flickering light (which then gets cut off, woo scary!) or your flashlight (which runs out of battery in three seconds). If that game didn't have the Doom brand on it, I don't really think it would have sold as many as it did. Is it scary? Yes. The second time? No. And as for Diablo, aren't the dungeons randomly generated? How would you know that those dark crevices would always spawn with monsters to hide in? If you make those monsters so black that it would conceal their location, if they spawn anywhere else, would they not also look out of place?
I'm more worried about skills, gameplay and lore than graphics.
The graphics are good in my opinion, i know this is not the right place to say this but i really didnt like the big overpowered Siege Beast and some skills of the barbarian (he looks as overpowered as Kratos in GoW).
Diablo always had "humble" skills compared to other games. Seeing the barbarian cracking floor and using that big spiked hammer (the skill not the item) is too much for me.
Personally the game looks great in my opinion, the only thing I want changed are the character models, I would like there armor to look more like there separate pieces, instead of one large skin model. I would also like the old tetris inventory back. I want to be able to see unique items transform before my eyes, instead of looking at some crappy items icon.
I love the circle of arguments Kenzai has. It's like a child who refuses to see how irrelevant his points are even after being shown over and over again. Your shit was tired Kenzai, even before Blizz said that they weren't going to change the art. Now it's gone from tired to ridiculously inane.
We don't care if you don't like the shoulder pads. We think you are foolish to complain about such things. You know both jack and shit about immersion in gaming. You need to learn to suspend your disbelief a little bit and accept that in the fantasy genre hulking armor can look good and give the hero a powerful prescence instead of worrying about some bullshit standard of "realism" (according to you realism is a bunch of shit that won't even translate on to the screen anyway - especially in an isometric game).
So boo-hoo. There will big shoulder pads in D3 and little ones. There will be medium sized ones too. It is not up to you to say what size of shoulder pads belong in an IP. It's up to Blizzard.
If we approached every game sequel with your attitude then we wouldn't have evolution of style in gaming. We wouldn't have some of the great sequels we have today.
I could just flame back but instead ill leave it here to make everyone see how much age is bound to maturity.
You're not mature. And this is not a flame. It's an observation. I've heard the kid in your voice from the beginning. It's in your logic, it's in your refusal to see others points unless they are in accordance with yours. I'm just letting you know how tedious you are about your nitpicking. Big shoulder pads do not take you out of the fantasy. Exaggerations aren't helping your points get across. Some highly intelligent people have spoken with you in many threads and you are still avoiding and droning on and on like a broken record when we all know that your shoulder armor complaint is silly to begin with. Every see Warhammer 40K? What about the Terran in Starcraft? Are their shoulder pads allowed to be huge because SC1 had big shoulder pads?
That's cool. I just wanted to let you know how myself, and many others view you and your whinning/argument style. And don't worry, it hasn't been productive from the beginning with you. It's a good move on your part to stop. I've seen enough D2 screenshots from you.
Dont know what you call 'flaming' exactly, but your posts definitely include heavy insulting.
Yeah StarCraft and Warhammer 40000 have big pauldrons. :rolleyes:
Just plainly ridiculous...
I dont think i can productively discuss with you or anyone else who stands with you after this point.
Wait wait wait...
What makes it ok for those shoulder pads to be huge but the ones in D3 are "a little too big"?
Not realistic? ...neither is D3.
Not in the older games? ....this isn't the older games
Not Exactley your taste? ...ding ding we have a winner. However, TOUGH.
But why? ... because your not making the game. Get over it and quit trying to tell people how to do thier job. The game isn;t even out yet and you haven't seen much of it! I'm sure some shoulder pads will be smaller, some will be larger!
LOL. This is just getting silly. You got told by Jay Wilson Guess what, this is not Diablo 2 with updated graphics. Again, you don;t know how to make Diablo 3 "more Diablo" than the creators themselves. Everyone will have small things they want changed about the game but to complain about things when you realize it's your Personal opinion and closing off the creativity of the creators is just silly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Designer Jay Wilson - "We’re not just making a ‘Diablo II’ with updated 3D graphics.”
Coming from a guy who signed the "Diablo should be darker" internet joke petition #14234
I'll take Blizzards approach on how to get a player immersed in the game.
Because this is how we remember what “Diablo II” was like as well. This is what we were thinking what “Diablo II” looks like. And then we played through, and we were like this isn’t very fun. And then we started going, “Why was ‘Diablo II’ so much more fun?” And some of the Blizzard North guys [the team that made 'Diablo I' and 'II'] knew why right away. They were like, “Well, because we didn’t make all the areas like this.” And if you think about even the areas they did, the creatures were really bright. Like in the gray and dark dungeons, those are the places that you run into the ghosts who were almost like glowing brightness, and that was so that they would stand out from the backgrounds.
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.
There is no way I believe you even play other games with such a close-minded nitpicky mind as yourself by the way you ridicule D3 and say you won't play it for anything other than the story because the shoulder pads are a wee too big thanks. You just made my day!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Designer Jay Wilson - "We’re not just making a ‘Diablo II’ with updated 3D graphics.”
[QUOTE]Warhammer 40k don't have huge shoulderpads.
I was speaking of both of them as a series. There are huge shoulder pads in the fantasy world they've created both for WH 40K and Starcraft.
Furthermore, yes, Starcraft 2 is allowed this because this was indeed in Starcraft.
And because D1-2 doesnt have big shoulder pads in some people's eyes, D3 is disallowed large shoulder pads? Or?
The usage of power armour was always "canon", so to speak. The "huge" "shoulderpads" make sense, there's an amount of already settled "internal realism" to it.
Interesting rationalization. However, I believe it's the other way around. In the end big shoulder armor in SC and WH 40K comes down to a design choice with an explanation attached to it to give it some realism. It simply looks cool and fits into the fantasy created. The same goes for D3.
Realism in objects was a part of Diablo. If they really take that out... i dont know.
An adjective is not an argument. Try again.
Realism never left Diablo. Look at the walkthrough. Wait for the zoom on the barbarian, you'll see he's very photorealistic. He's not cartoony or anything. You're arguing for monotony. By saying that Diablo is much darker than this upcoming sequel, and that that is realistic, you are saying the world is dark and monotonous. Good job.
What do shoulder pads have to do with ANYTHING?! Barbarians are big guys. It's totally reasonable for big guys to have big shoulder pads. End of story.
I dont know anymore, the art direction makes it feel new and fresh, which is exactly what they want I understand that, but I think it all bottles down to light radius. After seeing these screenshots made by others I am now at a 50/50, some screenshots look great while others look worse then what it is now. I think they need to work on light radius some more, and that in itself will make the environment around it seem darker. Obviously with that statement we can't even begin to judge what we have seen because that barbarian was pumped up on roids to show off monsters and skills and items, so until they release a REAL gameplay video, I think we should all just lay back and wait.
@synthaza: Use your mind, its a youtube video, sure the res is going to be crappy.
Really? I thought Youtube always streamed HD quality videos! And by the way, if the editted video looks that bad when it is set in motion when compared to the original that is also shown, why would I play it? The colours on the Barbarian are lost to the creeps and the background because the colours become too loose and meld into one blob of mess. Sure I can tell where the Barbarian is - that's because the camera is fixed onto him - but everything about it is diluted and bland. The Barbarian in the original still retains a fleshy, pink colour. The editted video, none. He becomes this gray blob, which the creeps also share that common trait. In the original, they had a blueish tone to their flesh. Think is probably what the design team at Blizzard is trying to avoid. Don't take out colours and replace with gray because that only creates bland graphics. I don't even know why you are flaunting this video as if you have concrete evidence against Blizzard's art design.
Plus, the sounds are really, really bad. I don't think you got my sarcasm.