Lighting is usually the last thing to be added to a developing game, and can work wonders on a games final appearence. Its possible that blizzard adds in a layer of "grunge and darkness" that gives Diablo that dark and eerie feel to it that we've all come to love.
Many people is wrong from the beginning,darkness feelings are not only from the dark lighting of graphics...the feelings of fear,dark are from artworks!!!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DIFFERENT ARTISTS MAKES DIFFERENT GAME!!NEW CLASS of WoW above.
I'm sorry, slight saturation changes do not turn day to night, and turn a crystal clear visual presentation into a fuzzy mess...like some of these "improved" screenshots. If you showed me a screenshot modified to the effect that you keep explaining, I may give a crap. However, regardless of how right you think you are, it seems Blizzard would like portions of the Diablo story to be told within the confines of "daytime". Not this:
(All of the original screenshots were daytime shots, amazingly.) This is not Diablo, this is Resident Evil.
Those are my favorite filterd screens yet.
That being said, its too much for the outside.
After reading 22 pages of posts, I would gage that most of posters fail to recognize the need for both contrast and consistency.
A given area needs both. You need contrast in a given area so that you can tell the difference between objects and to keep the game playable. After that you need consistency so nothing is removing for the gameplay experience.
The game as a whole, needs both. You need contrast, so that the gameplay doesn't become exhausting, or boring. You need consistency, so that you again, aren't taken way out of the game in an annoying way.
Focusing on contrast will lead you too a game with a lot of different content, but incoherent and potentially unplayable. Focusing on Consistency will leave you with a game that has a particular mood, more impressive style, but appeals to a smaller audience, and could be exhausting.
Obviously, those are just my opinions, and they are also very vague. But I did that for a reason. You can get either "contrast" or "consistency" from either gameplay, graphics, or sound. Diablo games have always relied on contrast in the game play (leveling up faster than most rpgs, all of the equipment, vastly different character classes, ect) and had a certain consistency to the graphics.
Now, I don't think blizzard needs to make the entire game 5 different shades of gray. That is sort of the "GO TO" technique for all the games this generation, and its fucking pathetic. But I do think that they need the graphics to overall portray a more visceral, more demonic energy.
I am also pro-filter in the case of diablo III. I think filters would be the least resource intensive way to tie the models into the environment more, because as of right now they are just sort of miss matched.
i played titan quest..after i finished,i trow away on the rack and never start play it again.. was too cartoon for me.. things are not the same with D2..that gothic style,music,creepy dungeons full of dead body..blood is GREAT!! this kind of look is need in D3... graphic is great..but not the perfect colours. there is no need to change every part..only dungeons,swamps..dark forest... places that MUST BE CREEPY!!!
Blizzard has always done this. That's one of the reasons their games are so succesful:
- Blizzard games are stable, and rarely crash. I've rarely seen someone say "OMG!!!! I CANT PLAY!!! IT KEEPS CRASHING!!!!". You can rely on it, because it always work.
- Blizzard games are low on requirements, and can therefore run on ANY computer that is two years older than the release date. That isn't the case of games like Crysis, and that's why this game failed.
- Blizzard games don't require you to have a degree in computer science to play it. Easy to install and uninstall, updates download automatically when you connect to Bnet...
- Blizzard games are translated in many languages.
Now you know Blizzard's secret recipe for making games that everyone play: ensure that anyone, whatever his native language, his computer skills, and his PC specs are, can play this game.
So yes, graphics are not that great, but at least, it will run on your computer.
And this is good for me how?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "KonataX" »
lol it can still easily be a ranger since who said you cant shoot arrows at melee distance xD
Quote from "Archie" »
The Barbarian is from Arreat, a very cold snowy mountain top, but they are much tougher than normal humans, so they don't need warmth.
Quote from "Archie" »
Where are Barbarians originally from? Sumeria, or more specifically Mesopotamia, AKA Europe. Think the Alps and the Pyrenees
All the idiot flamers out there who don't know the difference between a straw-man argument and a real impassioned plea to return the spirit of the Diablo franchise back to Diablo III can suck it.
That completely HORRIBLE image of the gryphon is the perfect example of the point and pisses me off every time I see it. So do the ramparts on the bridge and that pillar that is destroyed by the Thousand Pounder.
The thing is, I am frankly tired of the WoW-esque blocky graphics. Even though I understand perfectly the reason they tried to go that path - that is, to sell to the largest gaming population possible by lowering system requirements - it CLEARLY takes away from the mood of the game. Diablo and Diablo II were moody gothic fantasy titles, and to properly evoke that mood, you need intricate masonry (bricks, blocks), detailed (not overly so) character models, and great textures.
I know alot of pussy men out there will be afraid to admit their emotions when they first played the game, but I won't shy away from it - I was scared as **** when I reached Catacombs Level 4 and had to clear out that first room, in anticipation of Andariel, during my first single-player playthrough. No other game has brought me the relative "horrors" DII has. Even when I was boss-running and farming and overcame my noobishness, there were STILL certain areas I didn't really like soloing by myself - lonely Durance runs, the Prince's Palace, much of Kurast.
I could never be legitimately frightened playing this game. Many of the elements present look like a cheap pantimome of a setting, and don't fully capture the mood of the area. Diablo is not just a fantasy game, which can support many different art styles. It is a horror fantasy game. One aspect of being horrified or scared or terrified is the danger has to feel acute and psychologically, has to be really be able to happen to "you". The style is just too far removed from reality to allow that to happen.
Obviously the Diablo III team has come up with a great deal of fantastic ideas. I'm really excited about their ideas for faster, more immersive combat and the "encounter" system they alluded to. I am not too sure about item drops or their plan for inventory, but I could be perusaded. But the stylistic choice STRIKES ME HORRIBLY and I just can't get it out of my mind. This game will at the very least be good because Blizzard is a company takes alot of time to polish off gameplay. But it can hardly be great when it obviously has alienated a great deal of old-time, established fans.
I voted Yes, because it asked me if they should improve the graphics. Better doesn't mean darker. It means, better.
there were a lot of people that thought Duke Nuken 3d looked better than Quake. This is sort of the same situation, just over 10 years later. You loose something with 3d graphics. But you gain much, much, much more.
From the demo : I thought outside was fine for the most part. I would have liked the boss fight to be much darker/meaner/grayer. I thought the dungeon was terrible color-wise. I don't think you can make any color of stone look blue by candle light, except for maybe a very deep blue stone.
I think dynamic filters and a feature that should be added. So when you are in combat, it gets darker and meaner, and when you are in town, its brighter, and more friendly.
Somebody said it looks like a PSP game, and I think that's a pretty good comparison...
I think the HP and Mana spheres should be darker too
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ranger - Ranged Weapon Mastery (fire a bow or javelins like a machine gun!), Traps (MK style!), Pets (lions, tigers, and bears oh my!) - physical damage based
Demonologist - Bone Spells (Necro style!), Avatar (shapeshift into a demon!), Furies (evil spirits that hang around you, giving party bonuses) - mix of physical damage and magic
LEAP ATTACK!!!!! PLAGUE OF TOADS!!!!!
SLOW TIME!!!!!
Blizzard has always done this. That's one of the reasons their games are so succesful:
- Blizzard games are stable, and rarely crash. I've rarely seen someone say "OMG!!!! I CANT PLAY!!! IT KEEPS CRASHING!!!!". You can rely on it, because it always work.
- Blizzard games are low on requirements, and can therefore run on ANY computer that is two years older than the release date. That isn't the case of games like Crysis, and that's why this game failed.
- Blizzard games don't require you to have a degree in computer science to play it. Easy to install and uninstall, updates download automatically when you connect to Bnet...
- Blizzard games are translated in many languages.
Now you know Blizzard's secret recipe for making games that everyone play: ensure that anyone, whatever his native language, his computer skills, and his PC specs are, can play this game.
So yes, graphics are not that great, but at least, it will run on your computer.
YEAH OK, BUT THE RELEVANT QUESTION IS: ARE THEY SACRIFICING TOO MUCH OF THE MOOD FOR ACCESSIBILITY?
THIS IS A PERFECTLY VALID QUESTION.
I always afraid that Blizzard would fall into this trap because of WoW, seeking to corner the "everyone" market because WoW did very successfully. Diablo is a GOTHIC, DARK, REALISTIC, M-rated franchise. IMO, period.
An artist works for a community or client. It is the community or client that must be impressed. That is what decides the "outcome". How can you not be successful if you please the majority? Read the response in this thread, we are the majority.
I'm pretty sure Rembrandt or DaVinci didn't work for the community when they did their paintings.
Blizzard isn't really an artist. They're charging money for this game. Heck of course, we have to have some say in it for that reason.
If Blizzard released D3 for free, that I suppose they can design it the way they want to their hearts content.
I love Diablo, Diablo 2 and so far love Diablo 3. Still play D2.
Diablo fans said that Diablo 2 was too colorful and "cartoony" as well. Yet everyone loved D2.
Diablo was so dark that selecting monsters, even with the outlines, was difficult.
The lower levels in Diablo were actually very bright. Some of the demons were almost bright orange.
Diablo 3's colors are subdued. The lack of very dark blacks and the predominance of mid tone greys in D3 make the colors look brighter.
Blood red against mid grey is more vibrant than against black.
The model movement in Diablo is very stiff. A lot of the model movements in D2 are stiff. Exaggerated example, the player characters walking. Character movements in D3 look very natural and smooth, aka "realistic".
One's Cartoon is another Realism. I have forearms bigger than Popeye's. I'm flesh and blood. I'm real. Popeye is not.
Look at a shadow upon a white surface during the day. Is it black? No. Is it grey? No. It is actually light blue. Go observe.
Realistic moving "cartoon" characters are more real than "stick up the butt" moving "realistic" characters. Old school example... Darkstalker graphics fantastic, Mortal Combat graphics crap.
Green hued dungeons are creepy. Deep purple shadows are frightening. Bright orange locus are threatening.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One's opinion depends on one's perception.
Polygons are not Sprites. Sprites, great details crappy movement. Polygones crappy details great movement.
Well said. I agree. But it's still a while from being released and they said they are going to focus on making it scary and the right balance, I think they don't have it perfect yet, so only time will tell. ATM i'm not stressing at all. I'm going to wait to actualy PLAY it.
agree... the only thing that we try is to be sure that they progress in a good direction:)
This might seem off point at first, but bare with me :
Valve(half-life/Team-Fortress) Doesn't have game directors. They instead, have a collective of programers/artists/writers/modelers that all collaborate together. They then play test the games every week to see what does, and doesn't work.
Blizzard doesn't work like that, they seem to be more traditional. But, they do listen and think about the community. So, people expressing their opinions will only lead to positive results. It's sort of the democracy of the free market. If the consumer wants something, they will get it(to bad it doesn't work for things that matter).
Side Bar :
What would everyone think of excluding colors from certain Acts. Like, ACT 1 doesn't use the color red, its been desaturated. Act 2 doesn't use blue. Act 3 doesn't use green. Act 4 doesn't use brown. ect.
I would think this would be a more artistic method to fixing at least some of the color problems. It doesn't fix the all of the cartoonish-ness, but it would go a long way. You could also desaturate the most dominate in a area. Giving everything a grey look at the core, but the colors that accent it are changing.
There are a ton of different things that you can do. But I couldn't stand for the way it looks now. Its just messy.
Cant understand why Diablo 3 should have 24/7 night......
I agree. There will most certainly be areas of light in the game. It can't be an endless night. That would grow old quick. As for the 3d aspect of the game. I like it very much. In D2, where all the walls meet there are sharp corners, all of the ground is flat for the most part, save for the occasional set of stairs. Now they have rounded it out, added hills as well as ladders and such to climb as we've seen in the gameplay vid. It gives it a more realistic feel. Overall I feel that blizzard knows what they are doing. I will play the game regardless. I just wanna kick Diablo's ass again and again and again and....well you get the point
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The blind mind's eye replies with a sigh and a tear of contempt for those who see the world as it truly is.
jesus people, we've hardly seen any of the game for one. And on top of that the prime evils have been gone for some 20 years, i see no reason why the world cannot look brighter. Maybe a tad bit less saturation overall but the pictures in the OP are going too far. Places like dungeons and forests need to be dark but when you are outside I see no reason for the same colour palette as when you are underground. Diablo I and II were set in a time when the world of Sanctuary was going through very dark times. Diablo III is set so far with the world rebuilding itself and a lot do not even know about the previous events. And besides, since when is the first gameplay trailer look anything like the final product? I thought it looked great but the dungeon needed to be a bit darker. To the person who said 3d graphics have limitations, it's actually your hardware which is limiting it. The one thing that very few can get right in 3d right now are females. With their light smooth skin it's very hard to get them to look real. But men with hair and cuts all over the place can be done very well just because all the extra detail takes away from the smoothness of the skin. So, it's skin which is the problem but I've seen some amazing works on skin textures from a couple of people and if blizzard used their ideas then they will be golden.
DIFFERENT ARTISTS MAKES DIFFERENT GAME!!NEW CLASS of WoW above.
DIFFERENT ARTISTS MAKES DIFFERENT GAME!!NEW CLASS of WoW above.
Those are my favorite filterd screens yet.
That being said, its too much for the outside.
After reading 22 pages of posts, I would gage that most of posters fail to recognize the need for both contrast and consistency.
A given area needs both. You need contrast in a given area so that you can tell the difference between objects and to keep the game playable. After that you need consistency so nothing is removing for the gameplay experience.
The game as a whole, needs both. You need contrast, so that the gameplay doesn't become exhausting, or boring. You need consistency, so that you again, aren't taken way out of the game in an annoying way.
Focusing on contrast will lead you too a game with a lot of different content, but incoherent and potentially unplayable. Focusing on Consistency will leave you with a game that has a particular mood, more impressive style, but appeals to a smaller audience, and could be exhausting.
Obviously, those are just my opinions, and they are also very vague. But I did that for a reason. You can get either "contrast" or "consistency" from either gameplay, graphics, or sound. Diablo games have always relied on contrast in the game play (leveling up faster than most rpgs, all of the equipment, vastly different character classes, ect) and had a certain consistency to the graphics.
Now, I don't think blizzard needs to make the entire game 5 different shades of gray. That is sort of the "GO TO" technique for all the games this generation, and its fucking pathetic. But I do think that they need the graphics to overall portray a more visceral, more demonic energy.
I am also pro-filter in the case of diablo III. I think filters would be the least resource intensive way to tie the models into the environment more, because as of right now they are just sort of miss matched.
And this is good for me how?
That completely HORRIBLE image of the gryphon is the perfect example of the point and pisses me off every time I see it. So do the ramparts on the bridge and that pillar that is destroyed by the Thousand Pounder.
The thing is, I am frankly tired of the WoW-esque blocky graphics. Even though I understand perfectly the reason they tried to go that path - that is, to sell to the largest gaming population possible by lowering system requirements - it CLEARLY takes away from the mood of the game. Diablo and Diablo II were moody gothic fantasy titles, and to properly evoke that mood, you need intricate masonry (bricks, blocks), detailed (not overly so) character models, and great textures.
I know alot of pussy men out there will be afraid to admit their emotions when they first played the game, but I won't shy away from it - I was scared as **** when I reached Catacombs Level 4 and had to clear out that first room, in anticipation of Andariel, during my first single-player playthrough. No other game has brought me the relative "horrors" DII has. Even when I was boss-running and farming and overcame my noobishness, there were STILL certain areas I didn't really like soloing by myself - lonely Durance runs, the Prince's Palace, much of Kurast.
I could never be legitimately frightened playing this game. Many of the elements present look like a cheap pantimome of a setting, and don't fully capture the mood of the area. Diablo is not just a fantasy game, which can support many different art styles. It is a horror fantasy game. One aspect of being horrified or scared or terrified is the danger has to feel acute and psychologically, has to be really be able to happen to "you". The style is just too far removed from reality to allow that to happen.
Obviously the Diablo III team has come up with a great deal of fantastic ideas. I'm really excited about their ideas for faster, more immersive combat and the "encounter" system they alluded to. I am not too sure about item drops or their plan for inventory, but I could be perusaded. But the stylistic choice STRIKES ME HORRIBLY and I just can't get it out of my mind. This game will at the very least be good because Blizzard is a company takes alot of time to polish off gameplay. But it can hardly be great when it obviously has alienated a great deal of old-time, established fans.
Let me fear wandering the world again.
there were a lot of people that thought Duke Nuken 3d looked better than Quake. This is sort of the same situation, just over 10 years later. You loose something with 3d graphics. But you gain much, much, much more.
From the demo : I thought outside was fine for the most part. I would have liked the boss fight to be much darker/meaner/grayer. I thought the dungeon was terrible color-wise. I don't think you can make any color of stone look blue by candle light, except for maybe a very deep blue stone.
I think dynamic filters and a feature that should be added. So when you are in combat, it gets darker and meaner, and when you are in town, its brighter, and more friendly.
I think the HP and Mana spheres should be darker too
Demonologist - Bone Spells (Necro style!), Avatar (shapeshift into a demon!), Furies (evil spirits that hang around you, giving party bonuses) - mix of physical damage and magic
LEAP ATTACK!!!!!
PLAGUE OF TOADS!!!!!
SLOW TIME!!!!!
YEAH OK, BUT THE RELEVANT QUESTION IS: ARE THEY SACRIFICING TOO MUCH OF THE MOOD FOR ACCESSIBILITY?
THIS IS A PERFECTLY VALID QUESTION.
I always afraid that Blizzard would fall into this trap because of WoW, seeking to corner the "everyone" market because WoW did very successfully. Diablo is a GOTHIC, DARK, REALISTIC, M-rated franchise. IMO, period.
I'm pretty sure Rembrandt or DaVinci didn't work for the community when they did their paintings.
Blizzard isn't really an artist. They're charging money for this game. Heck of course, we have to have some say in it for that reason.
If Blizzard released D3 for free, that I suppose they can design it the way they want to their hearts content.
Well said. I agree. But it's still a while from being released and they said they are going to focus on making it scary and the right balance, I think they don't have it perfect yet, so only time will tell. ATM i'm not stressing at all. I'm going to wait to actualy PLAY it.
This might seem off point at first, but bare with me :
Valve(half-life/Team-Fortress) Doesn't have game directors. They instead, have a collective of programers/artists/writers/modelers that all collaborate together. They then play test the games every week to see what does, and doesn't work.
Blizzard doesn't work like that, they seem to be more traditional. But, they do listen and think about the community. So, people expressing their opinions will only lead to positive results. It's sort of the democracy of the free market. If the consumer wants something, they will get it(to bad it doesn't work for things that matter).
Side Bar :
What would everyone think of excluding colors from certain Acts. Like, ACT 1 doesn't use the color red, its been desaturated. Act 2 doesn't use blue. Act 3 doesn't use green. Act 4 doesn't use brown. ect.
I would think this would be a more artistic method to fixing at least some of the color problems. It doesn't fix the all of the cartoonish-ness, but it would go a long way. You could also desaturate the most dominate in a area. Giving everything a grey look at the core, but the colors that accent it are changing.
There are a ton of different things that you can do. But I couldn't stand for the way it looks now. Its just messy.
I agree. There will most certainly be areas of light in the game. It can't be an endless night. That would grow old quick. As for the 3d aspect of the game. I like it very much. In D2, where all the walls meet there are sharp corners, all of the ground is flat for the most part, save for the occasional set of stairs. Now they have rounded it out, added hills as well as ladders and such to climb as we've seen in the gameplay vid. It gives it a more realistic feel. Overall I feel that blizzard knows what they are doing. I will play the game regardless. I just wanna kick Diablo's ass again and again and again and....well you get the point
Diablo walks the earth.