View Full Version : The Art Direction of Diablo III
Gamespot interviewed Ron Pardo the executive producer of Diablo III (http://www.gamespot.com/video/930659/6193139/diablo-iii-interview skip to 5:20), and he said something along the lines of wanting to inject more color into Diablo III without degrading the gothic feel the Diablo universe has.
Well, I don't like this new art direction; and I don't see the need for it, either. Is it supposed to make it more mainstream or something? Maybe pull in some World of Warcraft players? I don't know.
I want to know what you guys think.
I liked the gothic art style. It suits the Diablo universe much more; it needs to be dark and gritty, haunting and horrific.
I liked the gothic art style. It suits the Diablo universe much more; it needs to be dark and gritty, haunting and horrific.
I agree.
And I'm a believer in the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. What was wrong with the old art direction of Diablo and Diablo II to warrant changing it? Change for the sake of change is sophomoric and idiotic; and unfortunately, I think that's Blizzard's main reason why they decided to take the Diablo art into a different direction. Ron Pardo didn't even bother to explain why they were changing it in that interview. Is he afraid of the boogeyman or something?
I think the poll is flawed.
Your question is do you prefer the new art direction. I have a feeling most of us wouldn't say we prefer the new art over the old art, which forces us to choose no. But choosing no makes it seem like we dislike the new art, which might not be the case.
For instance, I don't prefer the new art, yet I don't have anything against it.
That's just what I think, but then again, I might just be overthinking it.
I think the poll is flawed.
Your question is do you prefer the new art direction. I have a feeling most of us wouldn't say we prefer the new art over the old art, which forces us to choose no. But choosing no makes it seem like we dislike the new art, which might not be the case.
The poll isn't flawed.
My goal was to find out if you prefered the old over the new. Isn't that obvious? I don't care if you kinda like the new, but prefer the old. I just wanted to know if you liked the old better or not. That's what's important. And the reason why that's important is because you will be the one buying the game. So, if it's found out that the Diablo community prefers the old art direction over the new, then what the hell is the point of changing it? And why would you guys take it? Does that make any sense to you?
If I did, I'd be playing WoW.
diabloreturns
01-07-2008, 10:05
The blizzard art designer said there was actually some "very vibrant areas in diablo 2" besides the dark gothic feel, which led them to inject some color into diablo 3. Here's the link to the art discussion: http://www.gamespot.com/video/930659/6193147/diablo-iii-diablo-iii-world-lore-and-environment-art-panel-
Right now I just think the use greens and blues need a slight revision if they plan to have it throughout the game, otherwise the game doesn't look too bad.
I currently play Diablo 2, and I've just gotta ask "What the **** are you talking about?", there's no such thing as vibrant areas in D2.
Gamespot interviewed Ron Pardo the executive producer of Diablo III (http://www.gamespot.com/video/930659/6193139/diablo-iii-interview skip to 5:20), and he said something along the lines of wanting to inject more color into Diablo III without degrading the gothic feel the Diablo universe has.
Well, I don't like this new art direction; and I don't see the need for it, either. Is it supposed to make it more mainstream or something? Maybe pull in some World of Warcraft players? I don't know.
I want to know what you guys think.
Well I want to first point out that adding color to the game makes it LESS mainstream, not more mainstream. Most games that arent marketed to children lack color in an attempt for 'realism' so when a game comes out with any color, or color used well it gets praise because it adds to the variety greatly and makes games much less monotonous.
I imagine they wanted to add more color for that reason, not an attempt to sway WoW players, not an attempt to make it more 'mainstream' (like the most popular arpg ever isn't 'mainstream' or something?) they most likely did it simply because they think it looks better.
It's easy to speculate saying the game would be so much cooler if it was darker or had more contrast or less lights or whatever, but you really cant know that without actually playing it for yourself.
Because, until you are the one controlling your character and playing for an extended period of time you cant really say the game would be better one way than another.
mouseman
01-07-2008, 10:40
He explained the art choices pretty well in the environment panel: http://au.gamespot.com/video/942519/6193147/diablo-iii-diablo-iii-world-lore-and-environment-art-panel-
Skip to the latter part.
Even if I don't agree with him completely, I certainly understand him.
He says there was a lot vibrant colors in the previous games, too. (Outside areas, act1&2 green lush outside areas and vibrant desert) Colorless and washed-out are psychologically inferior to creating moods than colors, if used properly. All color choices should be considered in the proper context. Using overly gothic and dark colors whole the time makes the game dull and it would be impossible to highlight one event, since the gothic colors would be overused to begin with.
I think he has very valid points and people should listen to him before whining about the decisions his team has made. That being said, I don't think it all works as he said it will work, and some minor changes should be made in the color palettes used in the game. But then again, what do I know?
Gamespot interviewed Ron Pardo the executive producer of Diablo III (http://www.gamespot.com/video/930659/6193139/diablo-iii-interview skip to 5:20), and he said something along the lines of wanting to inject more color into Diablo III without degrading the gothic feel the Diablo universe has.
Well, I don't like this new art direction; and I don't see the need for it, either. Is it supposed to make it more mainstream or something? Maybe pull in some World of Warcraft players? I don't know.
I want to know what you guys think.
You do realize that Diablo 2 already injected alot more color into the game than Diablo 1. Think about stepping into the bright red and oranges of hell (compared to very dull red from D1). Think about facing the Knights in Diablos Sanctum with their varying color bolts flying all over your screen. Think about the greens of being poisoned, the bright yellows of the desert, the blues of ice spells and frozen monsters.
Diablo 2 brought alot more color to the series. The way they are saying they want to use color is not very different to how it was used in Diablo 2.
johntorrio
01-07-2008, 10:50
I currently play Diablo 2, and I've just gotta ask "What the **** are you talking about?", there's no such thing as vibrant areas in D2.
apparently you don't understand the word Vibrant
http://www.gameogre.com/diablo2.jpg
http://www.cheats.ru/uploaded/d/diablo2-01145.jpg
http://www.frictionlessinsight.com/revpics2/DiabloII/DiabloiiA.jpg
mouseman
01-07-2008, 10:54
Nice screenshots. They just don't feel vibrant or annoying, because they fit to the context of the game. Like IMO some of the graphics fit to D3, others don't.
I don't think the art decisions have changed so much in the Diablo series, but the time has. All the games have really different assets graphics-wise and are hard to compare. New 3d effects might stand out.
He explained the art choices pretty well in the environment panel: http://au.gamespot.com/video/942519/6193147/diablo-iii-diablo-iii-world-lore-and-environment-art-panel-
Hey thanks for the link. I haven't watched this one.
apparently you don't understand the word Vibrant
http://www.gameogre.com/diablo2.jpg
http://www.cheats.ru/uploaded/d/diablo2-01145.jpg
http://www.frictionlessinsight.com/revpics2/DiabloII/DiabloiiA.jpg
Those are two exceptions to the rule; and they're droplets in the ocean of what the main focus of Diablo II's art direction was: gothic.
The environment in that last picture is extremely dark. The only thing "vribrant" about that picture is the Necromancer's Poison Nova.
And I have no qualms with Blizzard creating vibrant lava pits, or deserts; but dungeons? No thank you.
diabloreturns
01-07-2008, 11:14
I have a question regarding the art in D2. Did Blizzard purposely design that grainy look? Or was it just because the engine could only produce those sorts of images.
johntorrio
01-07-2008, 11:18
at this point we have no idea how much a part the "dungeons" will play in D3. They could be a minor environment in the grand scheme of the game. Blizzard is doing their research on lighting and colors to help set the mood. It would be highly doubtful that they will not tweak the colors but its not the only thing that makes a game great, its one of many elements that makes it so.
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/2203/screenshot002fm9.jpg
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/9532/screenshot003ze3.jpg
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/9954/screenshot004hi8.jpg
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/1711/screenshot005ay7.jpg
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/9803/screenshot006ie1.jpg
mjkittredge
01-07-2008, 11:26
It worked great in Diablo 1, the game was overall pretty gloomy. It was a SHARPG - survival horror action rpg. Diablo 2 became brighter and much easier.
The reason I mention the difficulty, is because a high level of challenge, combined with very dark artwork, a scary setting and mood music, creates the ideal atmosphere for this type of game. I was NERVOUS going into the cathedral for the first time, down in the dark with those demonic creatures nearly killing me at level 1. Every turn could be my last. I was all jumpy and on edge. And the Butcher, wow, he was scary.
If they could recreate some of that experience through the artwork ect, I would be so happy!
Flashy, bright, and easy = WoW.
johntorrio
01-07-2008, 11:36
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/2203/screenshot002fm9.jpg
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/9532/screenshot003ze3.jpg
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/9954/screenshot004hi8.jpg
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/1711/screenshot005ay7.jpg
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/9803/screenshot006ie1.jpg
and the point of this post was???
and the point of this post was???
To show off how ugly my new Sorceress is.
johntorrio
01-07-2008, 11:41
kudo's on a meaningless post.
kudo's on a meaningless post.
Kudos to your nerd rage.
johntorrio
01-07-2008, 11:50
kudos on your inability to properly define "rage"
and thanks for the nerd compliment.
TraderScope
01-07-2008, 11:52
Jay Wilson, Diablo 3 Lead Designer, before showing the game-play trailer at WWi:
"Before we begin, I would like to remind you all that what you gonna see today is a work in progress (WIP). Nothing is final." (Exact Quote.)
I would like you all to think of those words. Thank you.
kudos on your inability to properly define "rage"
Kudos to not making any sense.
and thanks for the nerd compliment.
If I was trying to compliement you, then I would had called you a geek. Geeks get it done.
johntorrio
01-07-2008, 12:00
Kudos to not making any sense.
If I was trying to compliement you, then I would had called you a geek. Geeks get it done.
rage (rj)
n.
1.
a. Violent, explosive anger. See Synonyms at anger.
b. A fit of anger.
2. Furious intensity, as of a storm or disease.
3. A burning desire; a passion.
4. A current, eagerly adopted fashion; a fad or craze: when torn jeans were all the rage.
intr.v. raged, rag·ing, rag·es
1. To speak or act in violent anger: raged at the mindless bureaucracy.
2. To move with great violence or intensity: A storm raged through the mountains.
3. To spread or prevail forcefully: The plague raged for months.
" Nerd refers to a person who passionately pursues intellectual activities, esoteric knowledge, or other obscure interests "
I'll take it as a complement
ExtraStrongFireEnchanted
01-07-2008, 12:34
Where did I put my Picard image...
I'm not so hardcore to read interviews with gfx designers. Here is my guess: they are using more colors in D3 because... THEY CAN! ^_^
In D2 era color palette was much more limited. Now even cheap cards support HDR and milions of colors. So they use it. There will be very dark, ULTRA gothic and scary dungeons in D3. There will be also lush colorful and bright areas.
psykeman420
01-07-2008, 13:19
I am on the fence of the poll
Do I prefer it No, Do I loathe it, also no.
I for one agree with Mouseman's assement that the team made valid points BUT tweaking is needed.
Rashiminos
01-07-2008, 13:53
I think the poll is flawed.
Your question is do you prefer the new art direction. I have a feeling most of us wouldn't say we prefer the new art over the old art, which forces us to choose no. But choosing no makes it seem like we dislike the new art, which might not be the case.
For instance, I don't prefer the new art, yet I don't have anything against it.
That's just what I think, but then again, I might just be overthinking it.
I agree with the poll being flawed...
Some of us don't care enough and need an "Other" option...
Sokar Rostau
01-07-2008, 14:24
All this whining over the art direction is ridiculous, unfounded and ultimately meaningless. Posting screenshots taken at night to prove how dark D2 is? Give me a break - the exact same screenshots taken during the day are rich and full of, dare I say it, vibrant colours. In fact, if you actually payed attention to the Lore and Environment video the devs said themselves that they were surprised to see just how bright D1 and D2 actually were.
This whole argument is based on seeing TWO areas in D3, and the people making the argument haven't even given those areas enough attention.
The Forgotten Tombs, are every bit as dark as anything in D1 or D2 and when comparing to individual dungeons it is actually darker - even when the Barbarian (who is wearing Light gear) goes to the bookshelves you cannot see them. You cannot clearly see the enemies attacking the Barbarian from a distance - exactly the same as you cannot see them in D1 or D2. And, to really show how stupid the argument is, the light sources (fire) in the video are a lot more washed out than the bright, and vibrant oranges seen in torches in either D1 or D2.
The autumnal palette seen in the Leoric Highlands is also not as bright as people seem to be complaining about - it actually does qualify as being washed out or toned down. Furthermore the scenes in Leoric Highland are during daylight and yet still have very dark areas.
The way people are complaining one would think the environment looked like Las Vegas at night and Disneyland during the day.
"OMG the spell effects are too bright and colourful! It's just not Diablo!!!111!!!oneeleven!!". So there's some bright reds, greens and purples in some of the spell effects, so what? Have you never played a Paladin and seen his Auras? God forbid that there should be any differentiation between spells and effects in D3.
Get over yourselves and find something substantial to complain about... Oops, sorry, I forgot, there's not enough information available to make any real complaints about anything at this point.
FFS
I'll take it as a complement
Why?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nerd
Nerd
–noun Slang.
1. a stupid, irritating, ineffectual, or unattractive person.
2. an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit: a computer nerd.
+
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rage
Rage
–noun
1. angry fury; violent anger.
2. a fit of violent anger.
=
You.
I agree with the poll being flawed...
Some of us don't care enough and need an "Other" option...
How is this poll flawed when the goal was to find out which art direction you preferred? The old one, or the new?
I don't care if you're content with Blizzard's change, or if you don't care at all (either are useless opinions due to their apathy).
I'm just goning to point out one fact here, don't know if someone allready has: According to the devs. the people in Sanctuary don't know where Diablo or hells minions are atm. It's been 20 years since the destruction of the world stone, which alot of the people now think is a myth. So everything seems to be in order, allthough something is lurking beneeth. My guess is that the gameplay video shows footage from Act1, and the evil hasn't really manifested itself into the world, so there's still a bright setting (outside), but I think it will go darker as the story progresses.
johntorrio
01-07-2008, 23:31
Why?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nerd
Nerd
–noun Slang.
1. a stupid, irritating, ineffectual, or unattractive person.
2. an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit: a computer nerd.
+
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rage
Rage
–noun
1. angry fury; violent anger.
2. a fit of violent anger.
=
You.
How is this poll flawed when the goal was to find out which art direction you preferred? The old one, or the new?
I don't care if you're content with Blizzard's change, or if you don't care at all (either are useless opinions due to their apathy).
I am an intelligent person who enjoys non social activities. I'm an artist and enjoy reading and cooking. Just a few of the non social things I like to do.
Again, the rage thing.. In none of the post in this thread am I in an "angry fury; violent anger"
Feel free to have the last word, its apparent you'll drag this out more then it should be. :coffee:
I voted no but my reasons are not colors. My only gripe with colors is the green light all over that dungeon, but if that's a feature of that dungeon alone and something from the lore explains it(ghost goo? :P), no problem.
What I really don't like is the style of low polys and the look of Warcraft 3(more than WoW even). You can best see that:
a) In the conversation mode - just watch the barbarian talking with Cain - the barbarian could use a more detailed, less-cartoony model. He could also have less cartoony movements(animation) but that is a much lesser problem.
b) Models in general also follow this rule, pay attention to candles, stones, etc.
c) Textures are way too smooth and clean sometimes, see stones from walls or anything else, both in the dungeon or the open area.
d) Deckard Cain should not be portrayed as a goofy old man, and the cartoony style helps to turn him just into that.
That are my gripes, not colors. Please do not turn this into a color-only debate!
Sequitur
02-07-2008, 03:10
I'm not so hardcore to read interviews with gfx designers. Here is my guess: they are using more colors in D3 because... THEY CAN! ^_^
In D2 era color palette was much more limited. Now even cheap cards support HDR and milions of colors. So they use it. There will be very dark, ULTRA gothic and scary dungeons in D3. There will be also lush colorful and bright areas.
I agree. Take advantage of improved technology. And use contrast.
However, I agree more with Sokar (above). While I'm sure everyone has their opinion, it's simply TOO EARLY to call.
I am even more sure of the fact that I will frustrate myself to the point of suicide laboring this point many more times in the coming months.
*sigh*
CYBERPUNK
02-07-2008, 05:02
cease this pointless flamewar YSM
stick to the matter at hand, the new game isnt dark and gothic enough! yes I agree!
sure I love me some new graphics but NOT WoW meets D3
I'm afraid that is the fate that D3 is going to be though, so I've already hardened my heart and I'm prepared to stick with D2
sneakytails
02-07-2008, 06:09
While Myself and my brother do share some of the concerns of many on this site and others who think diablo3 needs to have that dark feel to it, it is also very true that this is entirely a WIP and we have only seen the very tip of the iceberg so to speak.
Its almost impossible to talk about somthing visually when you have not seen the whole image/item.
On the other hand voicing concerns and engaging in discussions is why these forums were created and it should be no surprise that many of these threads have turned into heated arguments.
But with so much time between the release of d2 and d3 we should have seen this coming and not be so surprised by it. We love this game thats why many of us have played it so long.
The time to start worrying is when the total post count is like 15 posts.
To be fair I do have some real worries about the game but I want to give blizz the benefit of a doubt and check back in around august and see how the game is really doing. Then We as a community should have much more meat to discuss or grill if thats how you want to play it.
so no hard feelings everybody and feel free to keep dicussing things because there are some great ideas/threads floating around here. I will be sure to leave my flamethrower at home.
http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?p=12210086#post12210086
this shows what a little difference in hues/contrast can make. They changed SC2 after feedback, so hopefully they'll change DIII.
Don't listen to the people complaining about giving feedback, blizzard does listen so keep voicing your opinion.
He explained the art choices pretty well in the environment panel: http://au.gamespot.com/video/942519/6193147/diablo-iii-diablo-iii-world-lore-and-environment-art-panel-
I watched the video, and I'm going to have to disagree with you; I don't think the art director did a very good job justifying the changes to the Diablo series' art direction at all. He explained that the team went back and played Diablo and Diablo II to regard the art, and though they all agreed that it had a gothic tone, they all discovered each game had "vibrant" areas as well. So, they for whatever reason decided to "latch" (his word) onto those areas, and drew influence from them for Diablo III's art. Brilliant. Not. He threw in some other sorry explanations of course -- something about how it makes everything look more epic (Diablo and Diablo II didn't look epic, or epic enough? I beg to differ), but that's pretty much it.
That's like someone after eating a cake noticing that the recipe called for some salt, and concluded that it was solely that pinch of salt that made the cake so tasty, so they wrote another cake recipe that had triple the salt.
I watched the video, and I'm going to have to disagree with you; I don't think the art director did a very good job justifying the changes to the Diablo series' art direction at all. He explained that the team went back and played Diablo and Diablo II to regard the art, and though they all agreed that it had a gothic tone, they all discovered each game had "vibrant" areas as well. So, they for whatever reason decided to "latch" (his word) onto those areas, and drew influence from them for Diablo III's art. Brilliant. Not. He threw in some other sorry explanations of course -- something about how it makes everything look more epic, but that's pretty much it.
Just because you personally do not find the justifications to be solid doesn't mean they are weak, it simply means you don't agree with them.
Just because you personally do not find the justifications to be solid doesn't mean they are weak, it simply means you don't agree with them.
What you wrote doesn't mean anything.
Not all opinions are equal; ergo some opinions are weak, and some are strong. And I think Diablo III's art director's explanation for why he changed Diablo's art is weak, for reasons I've already mentioned.
What you wrote doesn't mean anything.
Not all opinions are equal; ergo some opinions are weak, and some are strong. And I think Diablo III's art director's explanation for why he changed Diablo's art is weak, for reasons I've already mentioned.
And as i said, just because you think its weak doesn't make it so. Anybody who disagrees and likes the art direction they have taken (split poll right now, hmm?) would likely think that the art directors justifications are valid, for reasons they have posted.
And as i said, just because you think its weak doesn't make it so.
It does if I offer sound reason that no one can rebut, or if the argument and/or explanation given is weak by default. That's how debate works. And let me reiterate: not all opinions are equal.
Anybody who disagrees and likes the art direction
Most of the people who claim that they like this new art direction offer no good reason why they do. I think they're just being good complacent Blizzard fanboys. They write things like: "I like it because, er, I like it!", "I want the game to come out ASAP, so stop whining guys!", "HAVE FAITH IN BLIZZ GUYS!" and "It's too early to criticize the game now!" Let's talk about that last quote: I don't think Blizzard would had used an incomplete dungeon to showcase their new game on the date of it's announcement. The dungeon looked finished to me, anyhow. And everything that is wrong with it aesthetically has been explained away by the art director (IT LOOKS MORE EPIC AND UM, THERE WERE 2 BRIGHT SPOTS IN DIABLO 1 AND 2 LOL! SO, WE WOWIFIED DIABLO LAWL) for Diablo III, so it's very intentional and something that will continue if nothing is said about it.
(split poll right now, hmm?)
True, but 8,000 people (and growing) have signed this petition here: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?d3art which asks Blizzard to reverse this new art direction for Diablo III.
I voted no. I don't hate the new art style, but as the poll says, I prefer the darker gothic style. I feel like with the amount of people I've seen posting on different forums, that there is no way Blizzard won't take notice.
And the "it is too early" is a silly argument. Why not make our opinion heard now, when they can change things still?
And the "it is too early" is a silly argument. Why not make our opinion heard now, when they can change things still?
Exactly. Are we supposed to take a chance by waiting until the game is released; and when it's not what we want, ask Blizzard to change it? I have a feeling that wouldn't work.
Exactly. Are we supposed to take a chance by waiting until the game is released; and when it's not what we want, ask Blizzard to change it? I have a feeling that wouldn't work.
I think your poll is very misleading by the way also, because D2 didn't have as much of a distinct art style as people like to make out.
Look at all the screenshots, you cant even make out any of a characters facial features, even simple things like distinguish their eyes.
Personally, I feel the D2 artistic direction has been worse than D1 and D3. It lacked the environment that made D1 and it lacked the realism that we've seen in D3 so far.
The outdoor environments in D2 really are not believable as outdoor environments at all and so there I think D3 is a HUGE step in the right direction.
Look at all the screenshots, you cant even make out any of a characters facial features, even simple things like distinguish their eyes.
That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the rounded shapes, bold lines, oversaturation, and the overuse of green and blue. Diablo and Diablo II had none of that.
Personally, I feel the D2 artistic direction has been worse than D1 and D3. It lacked the environment that made D1 and it lacked the realism that we've seen in D3 so far.
First of all, please keep in mind you're comparing a next-generation game to an eight-year old game. Secondly, the art directors have said that realism is not the focus of Diablo III; and from what I've seen, they're 100% correct. It looks more stylized and cartoony than both Diablo and Diablo II.
raveharu
02-07-2008, 10:15
YSM, you have made your point known.
But you don't have to quote and reply to every single post.
YSM, you have made your point known.
But you don't have to quote and reply to every single post.
He responded to my post, and I rebutted his response. That's how debate works.
Concentrate on policing yourself.
That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the rounded shapes, bold lines, oversaturation, and the overuse of green and blue. Diablo and Diablo II had none of that.
Dude, Diablo 1 and 2 had none of that because the characters head was roughly 4 - 6 pixels high.
First of all, please keep in mind you're comparing a next-generation game to an eight-year old game. Secondly, the art directors have said that realism is not the focus of Diablo III; and from what I've seen, they're 100% correct. It looks more stylized and cartoony than both Diablo and Diablo II.
First off, Realism was obviously never a big focus in the diablo franchise. A tiny pixelated character doesn't equate to realism. The environments in D3 look generally more realistic than D2's environments. Just go look at the dark wood. That doesnt look convincing in any way shape or form.
I think you're more often forgetting the fact that D3 ISN'T an eight year old game. It's a new game and they're going to use the tools they have available, they arent going to go back and make your characters head 6 pixels high anymore, because it would be indistinguishable on most monitors.
Diablo 3 has always been stylized, it's always been different than WoW, but not as different as you're trying to make it out to be. Samwise has done the artwork for blizz for what, decades now? Go back and look at his art between D1 and WC2. Yeah they were varied, but both were stylized and neither one was overly focused on being super realistic.
Tiny pixelated characters and environments does not make realism.
Dude, Diablo 1 and 2 had none of that because the characters head was roughly 4 - 6 pixels high.
OK. You're not comprehending what I'm writing. You're getting graphical technicalities confused with art style.
First off, Realism was obviously never a big focus in the diablo franchise. A tiny pixelated character doesn't equate to realism.
???
The art direction of Diablo and Diablo II most certainly had a more realistic tone to it. You're talking about something completely different; you're talking about the technicality of the graphics in Diablo and Diablo II.
The environments in D3 look generally more realistic than D2's environments.
I'd hope so, considering the age difference between the two games, but we're not discussing which has technically the best graphics. We're discussing the art direction of those graphics.
I think you're more often forgetting the fact that D3 ISN'T an eight year old game.
Wut? :coffee:
It's a new game and they're going to use the tools they have available, they arent going to go back and make your characters head 6 pixels high anymore, because it would be indistinguishable on most monitors.
OK. There's no need for me to continue. I've already made my point in the beginning regarding art direction VS. graphic capabilities, effects, etc.
OK. You're not comprehending what I'm writing. You're getting graphical technicalities confused with art style.
No, I'm comprehending what you're saying. What you don't seem to be understanding that is coming from me is this: When your character has only a easily countable number of pixels in it, the art "style" is much less distinguishable than you make it out to be.
Technology and style are not completely divorced, they are married and walk hand in hand.
???
The art direction of Diablo and Diablo II most certainly had a more realistic tone to it. You're talking about something completely different; you're talking about the technicality of the graphics in Diablo and Diablo II.
no it didn't. Look at the death scenes in the gameplay, look at the significantly more realistic attacks, look at the significantly more realistic plants / foliage. In terms of realism, D3 smashes D2 hands down. This has a lot to do with the previously mentioned Technical capabilities. Trying to completely seperate them is ridiculous particularly when we're talking about a game that came out on an outdated tech when it was new (D2) being compared to a fairly forward looking game as far as effects go (D3).
Additionally, you can't have a "more realistic game" when the comparison game doesn't have enough detail in it to convey any significant sense of realism.
You've gone from talking about the "art direction" in a completely abstract sense, but then you go all over the place with it, Graininess, Realism, Roundness, Green & Blue.
But Greens and Blues are generally part of reality from lighting to foliage. Additionally, so is roundness. To try and make something 'realistic' and in the same breath decry these things seems ridiculous to me.
Frankly, I'd like to know what you would like to see out of the art direction other than nebulous ideals like "more realistic, more gritty"
I mean, other than taking down the brightness by 1, increasing the contrast by 1 and reducing the saturation slightly.
No, I'm comprehending what you're saying. What you don't seem to be understanding that is coming from me is this: When your character has only a easily countable number of pixels in it, the art "style" is much less distinguishable than you make it out to be.
Again, you go back to the technicalities, when I'm talking about art direction. The original Diablo has inferior graphics to Diablo III, but the feel, style, et cetera, is more realistic and dark. And there's no sense in arguing with you anymore if we can't at least concede to that one point. Even the people who like the new art direction and/or who are against people criticizing the art in Diablo III can understand this point.
Technology and style are not completely divorced, they are married and walk hand in hand.
It can be argued that the original Diablo has a grittier look simply because it's graphics suck, but that's obviously not the case because Diablo II more or less has the same look. However, even if the aforementioned argument were correct, it wouldn't matter because that dark gritty look doesn't have to dissolve once the graphics are updated, if the developers decide to maintain it. And they have plenty of reason to because a lot of their paying customer -- whether incorrectly or not -- associate that look with the Diablo franchise, and they prefer it over this new look.
This will be my last post to you since there's nothing more to discuss.
Bill O'reilly: "I'll give you the last word."
It worked great in Diablo 1, the game was overall pretty gloomy. It was a SHARPG - survival horror action rpg. Diablo 2 became brighter and much easier.
The reason I mention the difficulty, is because a high level of challenge, combined with very dark artwork, a scary setting and mood music, creates the ideal atmosphere for this type of game. I was NERVOUS going into the cathedral for the first time, down in the dark with those demonic creatures nearly killing me at level 1. Every turn could be my last. I was all jumpy and on edge. And the Butcher, wow, he was scary.
If they could recreate some of that experience through the artwork ect, I would be so happy!
Flashy, bright, and easy = WoW.
Totally agree!!!:thumbup: well, of course I was something like 16, but I will never forget the music (still listen to it), and the feel, the Butcher (aagrr, fresh meat! - I was like ****) constantly on the edge!, corpses and gore all around, at that time I thougth it was sick, but now seeing this with D3 beeing toony ans stuff I miss that feel like D1, I doubt they will change it to more gloomy and grindy kinda-thing...:(
Pitboss_2000
02-07-2008, 11:45
It can be argued that the original Diablo has a grittier look simply because it's graphics suck, but that's obviously not the case because Diablo II more or less has the same look.
Diablo II originally came in 640x480 pixels.
Diablo II originally came in 640x480 pixels.
I know, but what's your point?
Diablo II's graphics are better than Diablo's whether it's in 640X480, or 800X600.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing for.
Pitboss_2000
02-07-2008, 12:06
I'm saying that the graphics of D2 also look gritty because everything is pixilated and square.
kontankarite
02-07-2008, 14:54
Well there sure is hell aint any grit to D3. THAT'S for sure. All those stones and rocks and rubble... made out of plastic.
Well... at least the water looked nice. But essentially, the game looks like plastic or an oil painting, really. It's thick lines, smooth textures, with strangely placed ambient lighting for "mood".
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.