DiabloFans

I agree with this. I think what Credge is saying sums up a lot of (but not all of since there is more to the diablo games' "darkness" than their use of colour) what I meant by Diablo and Diablo 2 being fundamentally dark games with bright elements and why Diablo 3 seems to be the opposite.

I love most of the Diablo quests because they all show Blizzard North exploring their new game series and trying to find their voice. Many of the quests seem to take after other fantasy games that had preceded it such as the Magic Rock quest with its "find the treasure and bring it back for a reward theme." In Diablo 2, Blizzard North would dispense with quests like the Magic Rock and Arkaine's Valour because they didn't really relate to the lore that Blizzard North was trying to concentrate on and thus, couldn't be elaborated on. Still, all these quests are really enjoyable because the designers clearly were having fun dishing out old fantasy cliches and exploring all the possibilities of the dark fantasy action-rpg genre. Overall though, I think my favorite quest was the Halls of the Blind. I just love the poem for it and the quest's anguished atmosphere.

Yeah, I don't think Baal, Mephisto or Diablo decided to merge with each other in Diablo 3. To me that wouldn't seem very "diabloish" as it's more the kind of thing you see in some animes. I like the terror explanation however that Diablo has simply taken on this form to look scarier as that seems consistent with his personality and powers. It might also be his true form since he isn't inhabiting a mortal body anymore so I imagine he'd look more badass than he did in the past now that he's no longer limited by matters of the flesh.

Yup, I totally agree with you that the game is not nearly finished and so everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Still, I think it's helpful to comment on each little step along the way so as to aid Blizzard in the shaping of their game. I also think it was a really good idea on their part to show parts of the game before it was released. I know that you as a moderator must be very tired of seeing the same old criticisms and misgivings over and over again but I think criticism from the community can spur the game to be the best it can be.

As I look at those screenshots of the lighting, I see what you mean. It is not as subtle as I remember. But it's definitely of a different nature than the lighting shown so far in Diablo 3 which is really only present to create a sense of eeriness that I feel simply isn't created. Others do I suppose which baffles me, but I guess I have to accept that some people find bright, colourful lighting frightening.

Still, even with your well-supported arguments for Diablo 3's new art direction, I still feel there is a lack of Diablo ambience in many of the screenshots released. When I look at the Leoric Highlands for example, they look a lot like a water-colour painting. I really do believe that if Blizzard could provide more detailed and less smooth textures, all of the areas in the game would benefit from the change. This I hope would be something that would appear once the game has been finished but I don't think Blizzard has mentioned such a change in any of their interviews. If they could only eliminate that cleanly look, I would be much happier and I think other gamers would be quite pleased as well.

I'm also a bit concerned about Tristram Cathedral. Now, I know that Blizzard North was limited by graphics back in the day when they did Diablo but this cathedral seems nothing like the one I encountered in Diablo. I mean the Catacombs in the old Diablo were narrow and dark but the ones I see here are absolutely sprawling and deep! Maybe though since those catacombs were made only for the gameplay video those aren't the kind of catacombs that we'll see in Diablo 3. Still they would probably still use the basic design of these catacombs in the final game no? So wouldn't that still make whatever catacombs they come up in the final game a very vast and open design? I must admit I have many questions and am curious how all these things will shape up in the end product. It's certainly going to be fun comparing the initial designs with the final versions.

I wonder though, maybe all the technological limitations on the old Diablos actually ended up working in their favour instead of against them? I mean, the grittier textures and the smaller dungeons have I think endeared them to me more so than I think would have been the case if Blizzard North had been able to make them bigger and more epic. One thing that I am adament about however with the art direction is that the textures need to be made more realistic and worn down looking and the inappropriately colourful and sourceless lighting needs to go as well. I would very much like to see how the game would look after those changes and I bet you my bottom dollar it would be more "diabloish" than it looks now.

P.S. Is it true what Doppel's saying? Have those screenshots been tinkered with? I really can't remember exactly what the lighting was like during status effects and I really hope you didn't manipulate any pictures Seth. Oh, and I agree with Zhar, you shouldn't be so aggressive Doppel even if the pictures were tampered with. You could be wrong and you don't want to make yourself look like an overly agressive fool. It would make you seem more credible if you disputed in a gentler manner.

I agree that the amount of news that Blizzard has sent out has been perfect. There's just enough for people to give helpful critiques and also leave enough flexibility for Blizzard to tweak their product without getting constant backlashes from people who liked the original version of the newly tweaked aspect of the game. I'm a pretty patient person too so I don't mind not seeing every new update on Diablo to quench my thirst for the game.

I'm not too fussy about inventory personally but I voted Diablo II Modified because I was pretty happy with the Diablo II inventory and its Tetris style but maybe another grid to pack more items in would be beneficial.

You actually get all kinds of sourceless lighting if you run Diablo II in 3D mode. Monsters of all kinds give off anything from neon green to blue light. You also emit green light when you get poisoned and blue when you get frozen (I'm not just talking about your character changing color- because that so adds to the scare factor that everyone seems to think is the focus of Diablo- but actual light). Furthermore, in Diablo I the Cathedral gave off tons of sourceless orange light from outside, when inside it was pitch black. I don't think it's fair to say that the other games did not have a share of it.

The lighting up of your vision in Diablo 2 when you had a status effect was extremely subtle and rather difficult to notice in my opinion. It also doesn't really count as sourceless lighting I think because you know what's causing it even though in real life being frozen or poisoned would definitely not affect your perception. It was really just a temporary visual effect though to make the change of status more visceral and obvious for the player as opposed to lighting that doesn't seem to have much of a point to it but to contribute to the artist's vision of the game (which is the artist's prerogative, but this vision just doesn't seem to ring true with the rest of the diablo world's atmosphere).

Furthermore, with how much graphical progress SCII has seen since its announcement, I can safely say that we will most likely be seeing better and better maps. My favorites so far are the Leoric Highlands and the woods they showed in the demo, since we all know Diablo is not a horror game, but rather an adventure game, and should be open to diverse and vivid scenery where appropriate.

Well, what exactly does better mean? I'm a bit confused on this one, it would be helpful if you could please define better within the context of Diablo 3 maps. I do agree though, that Diablo 3 should be able to have "diverse and vivid scenery," I hope no one feels that the player should be restricted to the same tilesets in every act. But I do want the diversity of the scenery to be consistent with the general aesthetic of the game. If there are to be forests, I want them to be forests that have a feeling of dreariness about them, as if they had never fully recovered from the Prime Evils' invasion. Remember that Sanctuary is after all a place with a very unsavoury past. Surely even after twenty years, its wildlands haven't been able to shake off the taint of demons it had endured for so long before? And now with demons again inhabiting the woodlands again, I would expect the fauna to respond immediatly to their presence since they had been made so vulnerable from the constant corruption of evil of the past.

I'm not sure I fully agree with your assertion that Diablo is not a horror game. Clearly it is not solely a horror game as it has fantasy, adventure, and RPG elements to it and Diablo 2 certainly played down the horror elements that had been much more present in Diablo but wouldn't it be a good idea to bring back some of the horror elements that Diablo has been so noted and loved for? It's mostly the frightening atmosphere (as well as the addictive gameplay) that had made Diablo so memorable for gamers and saved it from being another mediocrity. The gothic horror side of Diablo has to me been the thing that makes the game worth returning to because if I liked it only for the gameplay than I would simply go play Diablo 2 and when it comes out, Diablo 3.

So basically, I feel that the horror elemets of the Diablo series shouldn't be lost because they have a lot of artistic potential and add a much needed tone of distinction to the Diablo series. I should also add that the gothic elements of Diablo help as well to make the series unique and visually inspiring. My biggest concern concerning a loss of horrific and gothic atmosphere within Diablo 3 is that the game will be too cookie cutter and will simply be just another fun but typical game among many others.

I'm going to try to not contribute too much to leading this thread into another flame war art direction debate, but I think that the topic does still merit some comment if it can be kept civil.

The primary difference in what I sense in the art direction of Diablo 3 compared to the art directions of the previous games (especially Diablo 1) is that from what we've seen (which of course can't be considered the definitive, final version of the game), Diablo 3 seems right now more like a bright (in terms of atmosphere) game with dark elements to it whereas Diablo and Diablo 2 were darker games with bright elements to them. Thus the dominant impressions of each art direction seem different from each other.

Of course there were some brightly coloured monsters, spells and lava pools in Diablo 1 and likewise in Diablo 2 (although the amount of "bright" things were even more present in this game) but they still managed to retain the impression of a predominantly dark, macabre, and more menacing atmosphere because of the grittier textures used, lack of out-of-place sourceless lighting, stylization etc.

As for Bashiok's reply to the original poster's question, I tend to disagree that a "grey-scale world" (which is a misnomer in itself for what art direction critics have really felt they wanted from the art direction of Diablo 3) can be boring and dull because Diablo and to a lesser degree Diablo 2 are proofs that such a world can be interesting and fun, not to mention highly atmospheric. Anyways, I digress, maybe Blizzard's next update will prove more promising than what they've showed us from the Tristram cathedral. I don't mind some epic elements such as perhaps one act that has a few epic areas (similar to Act V from Diablo 2), I can live with that. But if this kind of penchant for epic areas keeps constantly returning throught the game to become an integral part of what Diablo 3 is and not just a nice little add-on, I don't think I'll be looking very forward to Diablo 4 if that ever comes out.

So there you have it. My two cents on the direction that Diablo 3 seems to be taking in its art. If you have a differing opinion as most people do, feel free to express it. I won't flame you.

Hehe, I'm glad to see we've got some people on this board who know a thing or two about classical music. As for the whole naming of "classical music" thingy, Rykker was right to say that it can be used as an umbrella term for all periods of "art music" (or whatever you want to call this kind of music, people nowadays often debate the use of the term "classical music") or as Seth pointed out indirectly as well, music from the Classical period in music history. And don't worry Seth about what you perceive as ignorance, the fact that you specified the music of which eras you like shows you're less ignorant about this type of music than many others. Thanks for the thoughtful welcomes guys!

Hii there diablofans community. So, I'll try to keep this brief. I've been lurking on this site for a long time now, long before Diablo 3 had ever been announced, making sure to keep up with all the updates and discussion concerning this game. It's been fun just listening but I decided now that I'd actually like to stop listening and start speaking a bit!

Anyways, I'm a bit of a Diablo purist (so you can imagine how I feel about certain aspects of the art direction) although funnily enough I started with Diablo 2 before I went on to play the original. My primary interest/passion in real life is classical music and that's why I'm going to study it next year. So yeah, there's a little bit about me, I'll try to post a lot. Oh, and could someone please explain to me what a tag is? I"m a bit new to this whole forum business. Thanks.