The art direction screams Diablo from the top of Mount Arreat like a crazed barbarian. If you were to have shown me these screenshots before D3 was announced I would have known deep down in my gaming soul that it was Diablo 3. I dont get how anyone could honestly complain about the art direction without having some sort of grudge towards blizzard.
The art direction screams Diablo from the top of Mount Arreat like a crazed barbarian. If you were to have shown me these screenshots before D3 was announced I would have known deep down in my gaming soul that it was Diablo 3. I dont get how anyone could honestly complain about the art direction without having some sort of grudge towards blizzard.
Speaking personally, all he says fits together with my... common sense (dunno if you can call it that) (and some personal opinions probably) perfectly.
Diablo 2 had a 3D dimension. It's not like it was tetris. Irrelevant to the point as well.
D2 uses 20x more realistic imaging than D3. Same goes for Diablo 1. They are plain to see. Open your eyes.
What's real about bland, oddly shaped characters?
Diablo 3 looks like it will resemble a water-color painting... with dark tones and splattered blood perhaps, but with unnatural-looking dimensions of both the models and the entire environment.
Unnatural=unrealistic
Unrealistic=not-believable
Not-believable=Not Diablo
Not Diablo=something else
And a game looking like a water color painting is fucking beautiful. That's amazing stylization, and will only enhance the game to me. Hell, a perfect example is the game Prince of Persia (the newly released one). While it doesn't have the direct, in-your-face realistic graphics like games like CoD4 and others, the way it's stylized make it have the best graphics of any game out right now.
Oh well, I'm not going to bother trying to convince you. There will always be people unhappy no matter what, but the vast majority like Diablo 3's art style. While it's not directly proportionate, I suppose, it is a lot more pleasant to look at and a lot better looking than Diablo 2. In fact, I like it BETTER than the previous Diablo games. And unless you're someone who sits there like a fucking nerd and gets annoyed at slight proportion differences, then you'll be someone who enjoys it and likes it. It's pletny realistic for most everyone. And 'lmao' at your equation of Diablo's realism. I'm not sure how to rebut it because it seems so ridiculous to me; but my view would seem ridiculous to you.
But it is of my opinion that your opinion sucks.
Quote from "Murderface" »
The art direction screams Diablo from the top of Mount Arreat like a crazed barbarian. If you were to have shown me these screenshots before D3 was announced I would have known deep down in my gaming soul that it was Diablo 3. I dont get how anyone could honestly complain about the art direction without having some sort of grudge towards blizzard.
Bill is stating that the art style of Blizz North differs from Irvine. People with preconceived notions think that Irvine=WoWish. That is clearly a false assumption in my eyes.
Bill is stating that the art style of Blizz North differs from Irvine. People with preconceived notions think that Irvine=WoWish. That is clearly a false assumption in my eyes.
Well then he's alright I guess. People assume he will be miffed because of his situation.
I agreee with him, its the dark gothic atsmosphere, and the fact that your killing the evil-ist evil on the planet that got me hooked, not the pretty bright GOD OF F****** WAR graphics
Let's just see how much of a success the games he puts out lately are.
Then maybe I'll care what he has to say.
It just really sounds like he's eating sour grapes lately.
What on Earth does his success with non-Diablo related games have anything to do with it looking more like a "Craft" game (it does, I.E. the chief complaint the majority of the graphic complainers had) and less like a Diablo game?
I find it more than just coincedental that my complaints with the way the game looks are exactly the same as the Ex-Vice Pres. of Blizzard Norths complaints. They aren't hitting on the gothic feel. It looks like a "Craft" game.
I agree with Roper entirely, despite thinking he's a terrible lead designer and president.
Quote from "Dauroth" »
Not dark and gritty? Then how do you call this:
Spooky.
Not dark.
Not gritty.
That's Halloween level spook, not demon ripping scared.
i dont think hes disappointed in not being part of a project seeing as how hes working with city of heroes... but i think hes disappointed that they are not developing the diablo style to what he sees as the diablo style... i agree with his statement that the new style doesnt exactly ring diablo but i also think that its going to be a very good game
Bill is stating that the art style of Blizz North differs from Irvine. People with preconceived notions think that Irvine=WoWish. That is clearly a false assumption in my eyes.
I don't think so.
You can easily see the difference between the studios. The Irvine Studio has a very distinct visual style. Sharp, crisp lines with vivid colors for models and more subdued, passive colors (except for purple) for the landscape.
This is what we see in D3. Exactly what we see. It's Diablo but without the gritty gothic psuedo-realism.
This looks like a Blizzard game. The thing is, though, is that Diablo wasn't a Blizzard game, it was a Blizzard North game. The distinct difference in the art styles found between the two studios is striking.
If anything, Hellgate: London looks more like Diablo than Diablo 3 does. Roper took the art style from North and put it in that game. Visually, Hellgate was amazing. Where it failed was the tedious and boring nature of the gameplay coupled with the reliance on monthly fees.
It didn't fail because of the art style.
Diablo 3, so far, doesn't feel like Diablo. It feels more like a Craft game put in to the gameplay of Diablo. The gameplay is very Diablo but the world, so far, doesn't remotely look like it. It appears more like Titan Quest or Mythos than Diablo.
The game looks good, but it doesn't look like Diablo. It may play like it, it may have the same story, but it looks more like Warcraft than Diablo.
Bill Roper can think what he wants. It doesn't REALLY matter in the end now does it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
It [Hellgate:London] didn't fail because of the art style
THAT, right there, is why the whole flame war about the art direction of Diablo 3 is useless. The art style doesn't make the game - look at hellgate: london - the gameplay, lore, and the content makes a good game a classic.
True Kenzai but like I said in my second post (I think). There is virtually no way they could have rounded up the whole team. Nor would it have probably went over well, they left for a reason I'm sure.
So I think they're doing the best they can without having much if any of the old team and I still feel like it looks like a very solid game. So far.
Look, argumentation aside, Roper's statements really vindicate my continuing thoughts on the art style. What we've seen of DIII to date just is not gothic fantasy.
It's not that it's not dark enough, it's not that there's too much color, and it's not that it's bad. It's just not the same gritty gothic art style. I still think it looks great, and I will still buy it. It's just that it feels like switching from listening to Tool to hearing Weezer. I truly love both bands, but in completely different ways.
Frankly, for all those who thought folks in my camp were completely insane, it's nice to have a somewhat authoritative source with the same opinion.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Thank-you! Finally the right answer lol.
And a game looking like a water color painting is fucking beautiful. That's amazing stylization, and will only enhance the game to me. Hell, a perfect example is the game Prince of Persia (the newly released one). While it doesn't have the direct, in-your-face realistic graphics like games like CoD4 and others, the way it's stylized make it have the best graphics of any game out right now.
Oh well, I'm not going to bother trying to convince you. There will always be people unhappy no matter what, but the vast majority like Diablo 3's art style. While it's not directly proportionate, I suppose, it is a lot more pleasant to look at and a lot better looking than Diablo 2. In fact, I like it BETTER than the previous Diablo games. And unless you're someone who sits there like a fucking nerd and gets annoyed at slight proportion differences, then you'll be someone who enjoys it and likes it. It's pletny realistic for most everyone. And 'lmao' at your equation of Diablo's realism. I'm not sure how to rebut it because it seems so ridiculous to me; but my view would seem ridiculous to you.
But it is of my opinion that your opinion sucks.
This.
CyberPunk RP Nexus
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Well then he's alright I guess. People assume he will be miffed because of his situation.
I respect his opinion, but it is of my opinion that his opinion sucks.
And he can respect my opinion, but it can be of his opinion that my opinion sucks.
CyberPunk RP Nexus
See now that's what I want to hear ^_^.
What on Earth does his success with non-Diablo related games have anything to do with it looking more like a "Craft" game (it does, I.E. the chief complaint the majority of the graphic complainers had) and less like a Diablo game?
I find it more than just coincedental that my complaints with the way the game looks are exactly the same as the Ex-Vice Pres. of Blizzard Norths complaints. They aren't hitting on the gothic feel. It looks like a "Craft" game.
I agree with Roper entirely, despite thinking he's a terrible lead designer and president.
Spooky.
Not dark.
Not gritty.
That's Halloween level spook, not demon ripping scared.
<shrugs> Maybe it's just me.
gamma11 > east
I don't think so.
You can easily see the difference between the studios. The Irvine Studio has a very distinct visual style. Sharp, crisp lines with vivid colors for models and more subdued, passive colors (except for purple) for the landscape.
This is what we see in D3. Exactly what we see. It's Diablo but without the gritty gothic psuedo-realism.
This looks like a Blizzard game. The thing is, though, is that Diablo wasn't a Blizzard game, it was a Blizzard North game. The distinct difference in the art styles found between the two studios is striking.
If anything, Hellgate: London looks more like Diablo than Diablo 3 does. Roper took the art style from North and put it in that game. Visually, Hellgate was amazing. Where it failed was the tedious and boring nature of the gameplay coupled with the reliance on monthly fees.
It didn't fail because of the art style.
Diablo 3, so far, doesn't feel like Diablo. It feels more like a Craft game put in to the gameplay of Diablo. The gameplay is very Diablo but the world, so far, doesn't remotely look like it. It appears more like Titan Quest or Mythos than Diablo.
The game looks good, but it doesn't look like Diablo. It may play like it, it may have the same story, but it looks more like Warcraft than Diablo.
Bill Roper can think what he wants. It doesn't REALLY matter in the end now does it?
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
So I think they're doing the best they can without having much if any of the old team and I still feel like it looks like a very solid game. So far.
It's not that it's not dark enough, it's not that there's too much color, and it's not that it's bad. It's just not the same gritty gothic art style. I still think it looks great, and I will still buy it. It's just that it feels like switching from listening to Tool to hearing Weezer. I truly love both bands, but in completely different ways.
Frankly, for all those who thought folks in my camp were completely insane, it's nice to have a somewhat authoritative source with the same opinion.