DiabloFans

You know, you can change it by reformatting and re-artworking all the textures when the game releases if you like.

The reason I would buy D3 is to play it not make my own game. They have been stuck on the cartoony look for a long time. If you like the cartoon style WoW or WC3 are perfect games for you. Diablo was never intended to be cartoony or as colorful. Diablo 2 was a very gothic and mature looking game. This style completely goes against that.

Seriously, Blizzard might as well have called this game "Warcraft: Hell's Gate".

Does the new art style kind of remind you of Zombies Ate My Neighbors? That's the first thing that I got.

Everyone is going ballistical over how it should look. Keep in mind that they have certain limitations based on the average person's computer performance (and other factors).

It's because we were spoiled by Diablo 2. There is nothing wrong with expecting consistency in the franchise. Change is good, I'll agree with that, but not if the change is a rehash of their other IP's ( Warcraft in this case ).

I would say 99% of the people in this thread are perfectly calm about the matter and will love the game no matter what. We are simply observing what changes we think should be made to the style so it diverges from Warcraft and adheres more to Diablo. There is no way to completely change a company's style ( and I think many will agree Blizzard is a different company in regards to Diablo since North broke apart ). And because of this there is no way this game could look like Diablo 2, even though I'm sure most of us loved the style of Diablo 2, but I think they can do a better job of emulating the Diablo universe. I am not hellbent on changing this game. I'm really hyped no matter what happens. Subtle things however could be done to improve the mood of the D3. If you read the thread in great detail I think these subtleties will become evident.

I'm glad so many people agree with the idea of changing the color scheme. What Blizzard's goal should be is to create *unique* universes with separate art styles. I know it is more economical to train your artists to work with only one style and stick to it, but then the styles just melt together and soon there is almost no point in having 3 different IP's ( Intellectual Property - just so I'm no cryptic to those who don't know ).

That is truly the advantage of having a separate studio ( Blizzard North ), you get a divergent style because there isn't quite so much collaboration between projects. Instead, each game has a chance to evolve stylistically into it's own unique experience.

We're not talking about colorless, nor is Ultra's solution the final image that Blizzard should use. He doesn't have access to the engine. What we are talking about is using a SELECTIVE PALETTE for a more GOTHIC MOOD. Use Ultra's images as a general idea for what we're going for, not exactly what the game should look like.

The problem it seems is the lack of good shadowing.

EXACTLY, read my other posts! Where'd the shadows go!???!!!!

Some of those screens just looked like a rough photograph, but other than that, I liked some parts of them, like the ground, but D3 needs color, not just ugly plain boring gray textures. Also, remember, they're still making the game.

What your tapping on here is the difference between Noir art versus a generic take-all style. Replace boring grays with "a selective palette". Using all colors so liberally distracts from mood, mood that was thick in the other two Diablo games. In film, black and white movies are considered Noir because they make full use of a limited palette, which has far more style than using all colors for immediate eye-candy.

If you take an artist away from his own vision, it ruins the final outcome.

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.

im doing my part so that the legions of retards that were born after 1989 might realise how graphics are icing on the cake,and not important enough to petition to the devs on how they need to change how it looks to please them. dont you understand the concept of respecting the artists decisions? do you realise the audacity of your requests?

You obviously weren't around when StarCraft was first demoed to the public. They changed the graphics to appease the community. And you're wrong, graphics are very important. We're talking style here, not pixel resolution.

You are right in one respect though, Blizzard's artists have decided on an art style, and I'm highly doubtful they'll change it at all.

I think all they have to do is work on the textures. The graphics are fine, but the textures are bland and nothing like Diablo.

No, the main problem is the shadows. There is no longer atmospheric shadowing around your character in the environment ( remember light radius - that no longer exists because there is no longer that awesome shadow that looms over everything ). Also the characters have 0% shadow/shade. They are fully lit.

( First post btw, but I'm a hardcore Diablo fan )
You make a good point Ultra. A really good point. Diablo2 had amazing graphics, both dark and realistic. I would go so far as to say some of the best graphics ever made for any game. First of all, since most of you wanted 3D, there is just no way you could make as realistic looking of graphics in 3D and have the game run remotely well. Diablo2 was also technically developed by a different studio, who thought independently from the central Blizzard art philosophy. Notice how similar Diablo, StarCraft, and WarCraft all are beginning to look. It's the new "Blizzard" style. Think of Blizzard more like Pixar now, they are a closed-off community, no longer two independent studios ( North and South ). Blizzard is more commercial, they are more generic, trying to be less offensive, and going with something "safe" that is proven to work for a broad audience which guarantess more sales. I'm as sad as you, but think of it as an inevitable change. First of all because the original studio is no longer intact. Secondly because Blizzard is becoming larger and more commercial. It's what happens to all games once the company expands and becomes more corporate. The grittiness disappears. Think of the original C&C (Westwood) as opposed now to the modern C&C (EA). I applaud your efforts, but I doubt they'll do anything to change the style.

To get into the specifics, the backgrounds, as always, look incredibly detailed and overall look really good. But yes, there is too much saturation, not enough darks. Overall, however, the backgrounds look really really good. My main problem is the characters, which you can't do much about and here's why: You can't shadow dynamic characters well in 3D, leaving the character fully lit. This is horrible for a Diablo game. A fully lit character ( enemy or hero ) isn't gothic, it's cartoony. Combine this with low poly counts on the characters, and you get a really cartoony style. Sure, you could change the hue/saturation/contrast to make the backgrounds look more gothic, but the characters are still going to look cartoony. I would guess that this style is also just the result of the limitations of 3D graphics.

The solution to the cartoony character problem would be: Dynamic Ambient Occlusion like in Crysis and higher poly models. This would add tons more lag, and this is against Blizzard's policy of making games that run really well.