"I think there's a nice juxtaposition between the larger more epic dungeons and the others that may be less epic but have very specific tones and themes associated with them. When you step inside one of the more epic dungeons, like the Tristram cathedral (and considering its past, shouldn't it be epic?) you immediately know you're somewhere important. Somewhere that looks and feels magical in its presentation and lighting, as opposed to, say... a cave. Still cool! Caves are still awesome, but you probably don't want magical purple and green lighting in a cave, it's probably going to have a much different feel.
That type of theming adds a lot to keeping the scenery changing and interesting. If you're just fighting demons against a grey or brown backdrop for hours and hours, days and days, maybe years and years... it gets boring. Interesting, themed, and contrasting scenery all help ensure visual longevity.
I think before too long we'll have shown a nice cross section of the dungeon types and looks. It's been too long staring at the one dungeon. Each one has a very unique look and feel, so it's really cool going in to each one and having a total change of scenery. It's all very exciting."
And the pics are pretty similar to how it actually appears.
Sure, they could be somewhat enhanced, but still, it illustrates the point pretty damn clearly that ambient light was present in D2.
I think it definitely lent to the style of the game, yes. It made it much grittier, which I don't think would have been ideal when they made the game, but it isn't bad of an effect. It would be nice if we could just ask the original developers if that was the case, but I'm guessing that if they had the technology we do now they wouldn't have approved of the low-quality textures.
When I think of it now, based on what I'm used to, I would agree that a lot of the atmospheric lightning should be toned down a bit, although from the earliest screenshots and screenshots now I think they have been working on it. However, I do not thinking turning down the color on the objects, themselves, will ever be a good idea, because then it would just be bland. Maybe if they kept the color and just made the textures, themselves, more detailed... That would probably make it look better.
Let me ask you something, Doppel. So far all you have done is make vague attempts at personal attacks, offered a percentage out of thin air, and cursed and flamed members in this thread. You are a renown forum troll for years, have received multiple infractions for trolling and flaming, and you are angry at the opposition for supplying evidence against your position.
Do you have some personal vendetta against me? Is that it? I'd really rather have it in a PM.
You're confusing definitions for the same word.
1. Full of color; abounding in colors: colorful leaves in the fall.
2. Characterized by rich variety; vividly distinctive: colorful language.
Diablo 2 had color, but it wasn't ABOUNDING in colors. Each act had a specific color pallete that is reached from. Act 1 had light greens and greys. Act 2 had Yellows, Oranges, and Browns. Act 3 had dark browns, dark greens, and dark greys. Act 4 had lava colors (red, yellow, brown, orange) and grey. Act 5 had blues, greens, and greys.
So, to summarize, the scenery in the game had:
Greens, greys, yellows, oranges, browns, reds, and blues.
If all of those things happened in one act of the game, like we're seeing in Diablo 3, then sure, that would be colorful.
Color was used in Diablo 1 and 2 to signify status and power. A bright colored Fallen One was always more powerful than his more muted colored compatriots just like a brightly colored Barbarian was more powerful than his more muted colored self earlier in the game. Spells did the same thing.
The other impact color had on the game was to quickly inform the player of status ailments on either him or the enemy.
To summarize:
Diablo 1 and 2 used color to signify things. It was tasteful and had a dramatic impact on the world. A touch of red in a grey hallway had much more impact than smothering the entire thing in a red light.
Which is what people complain about.
Quick Edit:
The filters used to show that YOU had an ailment were subtle. Showing a screen shot of it is bullocks. That would be like saying that motion blur isn't subtle in TF2 when you present a screen shot of it.
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2007/10/10/team_fortress_2/5
Disappointing :(.
Anywho, the first one actually looked fairly similar to how it appeared in game, the only one I had second thoughs about was the one in the ice caves :/.
But anywho.
The pictures pretty clearly show that we did have certain amounts of sourceless/green/whatever light in D2, most people think it was all dark and gritty, but it wasn't so.
D1 was the one that was dark and gritty, D2 took a more colourful and vibrant direction.
I don't agree however that Diablo 2 had a more vibrant art direction. When I think vibrant, I think alive and lush but to me Diablo 2 never gave me this feel at all. Act 1 was like some Dark Age English moors sort of place full of all these pale, dark greens and dead vegetation. Act 2 was full of a very arid desert with an opressive sun where even cactuses were an uncommon sight. Act 3's environment seemed to me to be drowning in all the muddy water around and all the trees seemed to grow very unhealthily and uncontrollably. Act 4 was dead and black everywhere which can be expected from a place like hell and Act 5 was full of snow and dead, brown grass underneath. A real Canadian winter.
Anyways, I probably misunderstood what you meant by vibrant. Define and elaborate please. Oh, and I think it's important to note how this relates to what Credge was saying. Each act had its own colour scheme from which it took only a few colours to form its dominant atmosphere whereas from what we've seen from Diablo 3's first act, nearly every colour is used.
In D1 we didn't get much colour at all, the colour palette in the game was quite muted.
D2 on the other hand, had brighter (when compared to D1) colours, and a greater amount of colours.
True about what Credge was saying though, every act had a clear colour scheme to it.
This is mainly because pretty much all of D1, cept Tristram, took place underground.
I played D2 a bit more than the original but what D2 had that was akin to this idea of colors set apart from the rest was its landscape. Each act was, although in itself not entirely varied but, set themselves apart from the rest. And when you reached a point in a dungeon or cave where a boss was to be fought, you knew it right away, if not for the giant ball of lightning that was coming at you, but also because the area looked different architecturally. Duriel's chamber and The Chaos Sactuary were great example of this. Other areas were done better than some in this respect but I still think that this guy is trying to say that they're going to do a better job of it this time around.
That said, I'll wait until I play it before I complain.
I love a game that has good atmosphere and those screenshots and the gameplay video had atmosphere. and I think they look damn good.
This area is saturated with odd bright red sourceless lighting and in my opinion it is because of this lighting that the Throne of Destruction never really did anything for me. I don't even think it lended any atmosphere to the area either, good or bad, it was simply just there and spoiled what could have probably been a very good area.
For example, if you take a look at the cinematic of the Worldstone Chamber (withTyrael destroying the Worldstone and all that) and compare the colour of the chamber to the colour showed in game it should be clear I think to anyone which one is the more effective at creating a distinctive atmosphere. In the game it is red but in the cinematic the primary colour is brown and this in my opinion suits the area much better and creates an aura of age and sturdy masonry to the chamber reminiscent of Khazad-dum (Lord of the Rings) or other such fantastical mountain locations. The red seen in-game just screws up any chance for this atmosphere to be conveyed and instead serves to abolish atmosphere rather than creating it. This is what I feel the constant dashes of brightly coloured lighting that wash Diablo's 3 so-far shown settings serve to do. All this colour I feel, is an atmosphere-killer, I just get no dominant impression of an area like the ones seen in Diablo 3 when I'm in them.
Now you can disagree with this, maybe you do feel that the red of the Worldstone Chamber and the Throne of Destruction was highly atmospheric but I can't imagine personally, why you would feel this way. To me that place is as undistinguished as an empty room.
So in looking at the last area in Lord of Destruction, we can see that Blizzard North was trying out a new utilization of colour for their game to see how it would work and I can imagine that after that little experiment had been finished they wouldn't be trying such a thing again anytime soon (especially seeing how they didn't include a hint of red on the floors or walls during the final cinematic). But then Blizzard took over the reigns and despite seeing what a wishy-washy and blah place that was the Worldstone Chamber, they thought that the use of colourful, sourceless lighting was in fact a great idea for the next installment and thus we have what is shaping out to be Diablo 3.
I know this post sounds all very negative but I'm just focusing on the lighting here. Don't get me wrong, I'm liking other aspects of Diablo 3 but I do have a lot of problems with the art direction. Just offering my opinion up.
Well I wouldn't say that the atmosphere was taken away for the sake of realistic lighting but instead for unrealistic lighting. Super Bright Red doesn't seem very realistic to me, even if Baal had 20 red tinted chandeliers up there. But yeah, just commenting, glad you agree with me.
Yup, never said it was anything other than lighting.
Oops, okay.