Diablo 3, how does it fit?

[dimondmind]

I understand that this argument is almost an iteration of the art controversy, and most of you are and are probably going to hate on me for writing this as well. But its a topic that I'm wondering if anyone else agrees with me on.

When Diablo 1 was released, before the player even entered tristram cathedral, the gothic theme of the game was more than apparent. It was a style that had yet been touched upon by previous games, and it immediately defined what the Diablo world was.

Then Diablo 2 was released. The game was like a giant ellaboration on the first, in terms of art direction, music, story, and gameplay. It fit perfectly in conjunction with Diablo 1 as it picked up essentially where the last left off. Re-affirming that we were once again in the world of Diablo. The story was congruent, and it provided the glue to the world in which the player delved, whether on battle.net or single player.

However many years and development team changes later; the announcement of Diablo 3. And right off the bat, something didn't seem right. Although the title read "Diablo 3", it was made by Blizzard, and the Barbarian was a returning class, it looked nothing like the "Diablo" that we had been given and cherished before. And everyone knew it. Starting with the art controversy, something seemed wrong. Nothing about this new game seemed to show that it belonged to the same world as the previous Diablos. It even was announced to be taking place an awkward 20 years after the destruction of the world stone, as if to create more of a distance between itself and the previous games.

I have no problem with change. I have no problem with a completely different way of seeing things, capcom did it with resident evil 4 and now 5 and it was amazing. But my question is, if Blizzard truly plans on claiming that this game is just as much a "Diablo" game as the previous two, where is the proof? How is Blizzard really going to recapture the true essence of the "Diablo" world in this ambiguously themed new game?

[raveharu]

If you look into the direction Blizzard is going, they will not be releasing the details that led to the creation of Diablo 3. Everything you see in the website now will be what you will BE seeing, even when the game's out.

Reason? They want US to find out what is happening.
Likely the only clues will be found in the gaming manual, so you'll still have to wait till the game's out :whistling:

Take a look at Diablo 2, when it first came out would anyone had guessed that the Prime Evils' plan was to actually corrupt the Worldstone? Nope.

The art direction, hmmm this had been discussed many times(including that ridiculous petition some idiot came out with), but I still see the game dark and gothic. Mainly people are ranting because there are more colors in the game now and they want it to be like Diablo.

Meh IMO, go watch some horror B and W film or something if you want D3 to be so lifeless.
Yes Diablo is very very gothic, but it is TOO lifeless.

Note that Blizzard will always change to appease their fans only if it was applicable.
That silly petition about the graphics was certainly, not.

Yes people has been complaining about the health orbs issue. And Blizzard is listening.

I don't believe any videos exist that show the health globes or play the sound they make when you pick them up as they exist now. The globes have a more gothicy-type look to them, sort of like a censer in a way? But with a big glowing red ball in the middle. And the sound they make when you pick them up is a more resonant "ka-thoonk".

When there's a lot going on around your character it could be easy to lose sight of a health globe, so keeping them very visible is important. Also you want to know when you're being healed so a prominent sound is very necessary. Most of the time there's so much carnage going on, a monster could drop a globe on top of you and you wouldn't even know you had picked it up if it weren't for the sound. It all works really well, you'll have to trust me.

(Also yeah, I think the old sound was pretty much a stealgrab of the potion sound in Diablo II)
And why would 20 years be awkward?

[dimondmind]

And why would 20 years be awkward?

It's awkward simply because the pacing of the previous sequels took place sequentially, practically back to back. Now with this new game taking 20 years later, you can hardly expect to even be playing in the same world. its just inconsistent in terms of maintaining the momentum of the story.

If this had been the plan for the Diablo franchise's plot since the beginning, it wouldn't seem so contrived, but it wasn't. The story for this version of Diablo 3 was conceived after Diablo 2 had been finished.

[Turnip]

Diablo 1 and 2 were too lifeless...?

You make it sound like gothy type games are bad.. why would I want fisher price style games?

[raveharu]

Diablo 1 and 2 were too lifeless...?

You make it sound like gothy type games are bad.. why would I want fisher price style games?


Only Diablo, not number 2.

So you want to start this argument about graphics all over again eh?
Whatever, Blizzard has already chosen and made known the graphical direction they're heading for Diablo 3.
Rant and complain for all I care :coffee:

It's awkward simply because the pacing of the previous sequels took place sequentially, practically back to back. Now with this new game taking 20 years later, you can hardly expect to even be playing in the same world. its just inconsistent in terms of maintaining the momentum of the story.

Why 20 years and not 21 or 34 or 56? Well Blizzard always have their reason.
Then again like I said, there is too little evidence to even deduce such speculation in the first place.

And how is 20 years inconsistent? After suffereing so much destruction from the Prime Evils, I doubt 20 years will be enough to heal the Sanctuary enough to change it to a different world. There would inevitably be changes, and it is what many of the players are looking forward to.

Heck I wouldn't want to see the same Lut Gholein in D3. Boring.



If this had been the plan for the Diablo franchise's plot since the beginning, it wouldn't seem so contrived, but it wasn't. The story for this version of Diablo 3 was conceived after Diablo 2 had been finished.

Well if you noticed how Blizzard makes their other games,

WC 1 -> WC2 -> WC 3
SC1 -> SC 2

And so far they're pretty successful in maintaining the very first plot and making it flow continously, and thus a new game.

[Telzen]

where is the proof? How is Blizzard really going to recapture the true essence of the "Diablo" world in this ambiguously themed new game?

What the piles of corpses and bodies hanging from trees in New Tristram isn't enough for you?

[Valmy]

I understand the idea of the topic, but I need to watch the complete Diablo3 game before talk about it.

When I first saw the video of the Barbarian and Witch Doctor, my first idea coming to mind was: "DIABLO 3!!!!!!!!!!

My second idea was: "DIABLO 3!!!!"


Minutes later, I started to watch better, and my 100th idea was like "OMFG, this is like WOW, this is not Diablo3, this is not fun... with these life globes, these colours, these monsters...."




Then, I relaxed, and then I think... I don't like at all the colours, but it's a video. It's only a part of the game, and it's in development.


AND, this is DIABLO 3!!!!!! Many years waiting... I assume every of us wants a perfect game. And each of us got different visions, and wants a different perfect game. I think it's impossible to satisfy every particular player. Then, I will live with Diablo 3.




And looks like reports from BlizzCon are awesome in gothic and darkness.


Anyway, the main thing is: "We will have Diablo 3" :)

[NioTumsSpik]

I have no ide where ppl get that D2 was dark, scary and gritty from, it got lots of weird colors like pink weapons and things. And neon glowing monsters :P

D1 was a dark game, D2 was not, how great nostalgia googles you might have.
I honestly dont care if they make all of D3 glowing pink as longs as its still as fun and adictive as the other games.

[Jetfusion]

Whatever it is D3 and we don't hate you this argument is not nearly as bad as one i had with a dude that wanted guns put into diablo 3 i almost reached through my computer and slapped him so hard that he would be at my house so i could beat the **** out of him so this argument is not to bad i believe in blizzard they have made amazing games so far i say don't be doubting but do voice your opinion so blizzard knows what people want but i trust them to pull it off

[Doppel]

D3 is made by Blizzard, the ones that made the craft games, and it shows, although it could've been much worse i guess.

[Grug]

When I first saw the video of the Barbarian and Witch Doctor, my first idea coming to mind was: "DIABLO 3!!!!!!!!!!

My second idea was: "DIABLO 3!!!!"

:rolf: That's awesome!

Anyways, guess what, naysayers? Blizzard has said that they've changed a LOT of stuff and they'll be releasing a new vid in a month or two to show it off.

Also: Next class is being announced March 31st at midnight, Pacific time.

[Ouroboros]

Grug .. you lie!! ;)

[Demetrium]

When Diablo 1 was released, before the player even entered tristram cathedral, the gothic theme of the game was more than apparent. It was a style that had yet been touched upon by previous games, and it immediately defined what the Diablo world was.

I have to agree with the idea that D1 established atmosphere almost immediately, and it was great.


Then Diablo 2 was released. The game was like a giant ellaboration on the first, in terms of art direction, music, story, and gameplay. It fit perfectly in conjunction with Diablo 1 as it picked up essentially where the last left off. Re-affirming that we were once again in the world of Diablo. The story was congruent, and it provided the glue to the world in which the player delved, whether on battle.net or single player.


I disagree. I don't think it elaborated much in terms of art. While the graphics in D1 are inferior, I think the art and atmosphere are definitely better. The cathedral, catacombs, and to a lesser extent caves all had a genuinely cryptic feel to them. D1 just seemed much more...serious. You never fight giant beetles, birds, scarabs, mosquito, etc. I don't feel very immersed in D2 when going through the jungle in A3 or tundra in A5. The story I don't have much opinion on --- I think it was fine in both D1/D2.

While the music in D2 is great, I honestly think I like D1's better. The music in Tristram is so simple, yet conveys the mood/state of the town so well you almost become depressed listening to it.


However many years and development team changes later; the announcement of Diablo 3. And right off the bat, something didn't seem right. Although the title read "Diablo 3", it was made by Blizzard, and the Barbarian was a returning class, it looked nothing like the "Diablo" that we had been given and cherished before. And everyone knew it. Starting with the art controversy, something seemed wrong. Nothing about this new game seemed to show that it belonged to the same world as the previous Diablos. It even was announced to be taking place an awkward 20 years after the destruction of the world stone, as if to create more of a distance between itself and the previous games.


No, I don't think everyone knew it. I honestly think it's a minority of people who feel it "looks nothing like Diablo" and have issues with the art or graphics. You and people like you just keep repeating the same beaten, tired, very baseless opinions. Why does it not belong? Why is it awkward that they decided to not immediately follow D2 in a chronological fashion?


I have no problem with change. I have no problem with a completely different way of seeing things, capcom did it with resident evil 4 and now 5 and it was amazing. But my question is, if Blizzard truly plans on claiming that this game is just as much a "Diablo" game as the previous two, where is the proof? How is Blizzard really going to recapture the true essence of the "Diablo" world in this ambiguously themed new game?


But you clearly do have a problem with change. If you didn't, you would have actually listed reasons why the changes disappoint you instead of just listing them without any elaboration. That's the difference between people like you and people who aren't flipping out about changes in an unfinished game. The thing that's so frustrating is if Blizzard went ahead and re-released D2 with an upgraded graphics engine (as D3), you would be pissing and moaning about how unoriginal they were. You're impossible to please.

I can guarantee you that if you follow up with this thread (which you probably won't), you'll have difficulty citing actual reasons why you're unhappy with the game. The reasons that you do actually struggle to come up with will be, I'm sure, very minor and unconvincing.

[Bladewind]

There are better things to rant about than the story and graphics etc etc.

I want to see how stats are balanced, I want to see how PvP can be made fair. Whether pvp can be competitive in leagues like DoTA. How classes are balanced. How uber are items ? Magic find drop rates. Area running and boss running etc etc

Bleh the rest were unnecessary.

D1 absorbed me not because of the story, but because it scare the hell out of me. It was so dark that sometimes I get ambushed without knowing it. I wish D3 to be like that. Leave bright areas bright, but dark areas so dark that even your char can't see his own fingers in front of him.

Yes having served the army, there are places as dark as those, I want those back in D3. Oh wait that is a rant on graphics right ? :crazyeyes:

[ThulRasha]

I understand that this argument is almost an iteration of the art controversy, and most of you are and are probably going to hate on me for writing this as well. But its a topic that I'm wondering if anyone else agrees with me on.

When Diablo 1 was released, before the player even entered tristram cathedral, the gothic theme of the game was more than apparent. It was a style that had yet been touched upon by previous games, and it immediately defined what the Diablo world was.

Then Diablo 2 was released. The game was like a giant ellaboration on the first, in terms of art direction, music, story, and gameplay. It fit perfectly in conjunction with Diablo 1 as it picked up essentially where the last left off. Re-affirming that we were once again in the world of Diablo. The story was congruent, and it provided the glue to the world in which the player delved, whether on battle.net or single player.



Hate on you? Of course not, I simply don't agree with you on this.

When you first enter Diablo 2 in the rogue camp and the grass lands outside of that. It does not at all feel like Diablo 1.

The later areas of Diablo 2 do (except the desert in act 2) go back a bit more to the Diablo 1 style, but for all you know the same thing will happen with Diablo 3. Since there we also have only seen the first bits.

And if you are honestly comparing only the first of Diablo 3 to the first of Diablo 2, then you can not say that Diablo 2 is more in line with Diablo 1.
I would even say that Diablo 3 does a better job at that.

Everyone who judges the Diablo 3 art direction does this based upon a memory of Diablo 2 as a whole to a very nostalgic memory of Diablo 1 as a whole, while having seen only the first 5% of Diablo 3.

[Turnip]

Well its not really nostalgia as I still play d2 today. Anyways d2 only had a few areas that were bright and they were bright because it was a desert.. I mean I can forgive brightness in areas that are supposed to be bright, but not brightness in dungeons and stuff.

[Mizantrop]

Nothing about this new game seemed to show that it belonged to the same world as the previous Diablos. It even was announced to be taking place an awkward 20 years after the destruction of the world stone, as if to create more of a distance between itself and the previous games.


Think about the 20 years between D2 and D3 as the 20 years between WW I and WW II. I can call those years a lot of things but awkward wouldn't be one of them.
Everyone rememeber WW II only because the festering wound left by the 1st (Arreat Crater if you wish) used as breeding ground for all the sickness and the evil that was unleashed by force in the time of the 2nd.
I wouldn't be suprised if D3 developers had this info in mind while deciding on the timeline between D2 and 3 (on in their Unconscious).



I have no problem with change. I have no problem with a completely different way of seeing things, capcom did it with resident evil 4 and now 5 and it was amazing. But my question is, if Blizzard truly plans on claiming that this game is just as much a "Diablo" game as the previous two, where is the proof? How is Blizzard really going to recapture of the "Diablo" world in this ambiguously themed new game?

If you look for "proof" go to the official site and listen to all the theme music that's there. Look at all the screenshots released so far. Read all of Abd al-Hazir horrendous diery enteries.

Personally I read "ambiguous" as a very positive word for video games most of the time. It's the negative of monotonous and therefore boring. You can say that Fallout 2 (see my Avatar) is one of the most ambiguous games ever made, and that's why it's one of my favorites.

[KillaMike]

I understand the idea of the topic, but I need to watch the complete Diablo3 game before talk about it.

When I first saw the video of the Barbarian and Witch Doctor, my first idea coming to mind was: "DIABLO 3!!!!!!!!!!

My second idea was: "DIABLO 3!!!!"

Minutes later, I started to watch better, and my 100th idea was like "OMFG, this is like WOW, this is not Diablo3, this is not fun... with these life globes, these colours, these monsters...."

Then, I relaxed, and then I think... I don't like at all the colours, but it's a video. It's only a part of the game, and it's in development.

AND, this is DIABLO 3!!!!!! Many years waiting... I assume every of us wants a perfect game. And each of us got different visions, and wants a different perfect game. I think it's impossible to satisfy every particular player. Then, I will live with Diablo 3.

Anyway, the main thing is: "We will have Diablo 3" :)


Dif between me and you is that after 1000000000 times watching over i was like: GIVE ME TO PLAY IT!!!! NOW!!! I SAID IT, NOW!!!!!!!!!

any ways, i hope you all understand why i am saying it, because i could care any less about how WoWish it is, such as i like warcraft hate WoW, love diablo, Looking forward for D3


Mike

[ThulRasha]

Grug .. you lie!! ;)

No he doesn't. I'm pretty sure Blizzard will release an april fools class for D3. :thumbup:

[Leord]

Personally, I think D3 art style and setting seems much more in tuned with Diablo 1 than Diablo 2 ever did.

[Grug]

No he doesn't. I'm pretty sure Blizzard will release an april fools class for D3. :thumbup:

Shhhh! Don't give it away! :whistling:

[FarBeyondDriven]

Personally, I think D3 art style and setting seems much more in tuned with Diablo 1 than Diablo 2 ever did.

I have to agree with this. The visuals of DIII seem more of a return to form than anything else for Blizzaard.

Do they remind anyone else of TFT?

[Grug]

TFT? Unless you mean Team Fortress Two, then I don't know what you're talking about.

[SlechtWeerBeer]

TFT? Unless you mean Team Fortress Two, then I don't know what you're talking about.

The Frozen Throne, exp pack on Warcraft III.

[ThomasJ]

What made Daiblo 1&2 for me was the story,lore and those very cool cinematics that most of us as Diablo players enjoyed. Ofcourse gameplay is almost #1 priority but there was just alot more to the game than just smashing things.

Diablo 3 will be the same except the graphics will be a ton times better than lets say 1990 ? Which will be a good thing because I feel that Diablo 3 will have a much broader audience than ever before.

[meeproar]

Its not so much that its 3D that bothers me... its the colorful Planar (http://www.elainenybeck.com/art_files/Figure_Drawing/Planar_Analysis.jpg) look that is reminiscent of a lowpoly model (the warcraft look) I would have enjoyed seeing some more fleshy chars

[Srikandi]

When D2 came out, there was a HUGE amount of moaning over how it totally lost the feel of D1.

It was indeed quite different. D1 had no outdoor areas, aside from Tristram, which wasn't a battleground. It was one linear dungeon of exactly 16 levels of only 4 types. It was a tiny game by comparison.

D2 had grassy fields, weather, sunshine. Parts were very pretty. People thought it was much less gothic, and I would agree. Didn't make it a bad game though :) It was just different.

The gameplay between those two games was dramatically different as well. Remember, skill trees were a NEW thing in D2 ;) There was virtually no character customization in D1 except for gear, and even that was far more limited. There were only three character classes who all wound up with the same skills. And the sheer size of D2's world made for a dramatically different playing experience.

D3 in overall visuals looks about as different from D2 as D2 was from D1. That's to be expected. The painterly graphics are something quite different from anything I've seen in any 3D game, as well as different from D1 and D2, and I for one really really like them. Hooray for innovation :)

I think a lot of people have merged D1 in their minds with D2. I had forgotten a lot about it myself, so last week after reading some posts on these boards, I reinstalled it and played a few levels, and was shocked at how limited and primitive some of the most basic gameplay mechanics were. It was D2 rather than D1 that established a lot of conventions... interface, sets, sockets, skill trees and so on and so forth... that are now standard in all kinds of diverse RPGs, and that I tend to take for granted these days... most of that stuff wasn't in D1.

If D3 represents as enormous an evolution from D2 as D2 did from D1, I think that's something we should be celebrating, not mourning.

[Turnip]

Well d2 could have even been darker if your talking about the art controversy, sure it was different than d1 but not to that extreme.

[Death_of_Angels]

I understand that this argument is almost an iteration of the art controversy, and most of you are and are probably going to hate on me for writing this as well. But its a topic that I'm wondering if anyone else agrees with me on.

When Diablo 1 was released, before the player even entered tristram cathedral, the gothic theme of the game was more than apparent. It was a style that had yet been touched upon by previous games, and it immediately defined what the Diablo world was.

Then Diablo 2 was released. The game was like a giant ellaboration on the first, in terms of art direction, music, story, and gameplay. It fit perfectly in conjunction with Diablo 1 as it picked up essentially where the last left off. Re-affirming that we were once again in the world of Diablo. The story was congruent, and it provided the glue to the world in which the player delved, whether on battle.net or single player.

EXACTLY!!! And D3 is going to be the same way for D2 as D2 was for D1. You have to keep in mind how much games have evolved in the past decade. D1 was a great game, no doubt, but if you freshly realeased that game today, it would fail, miserably. Blizzard is trying to elaborate on D2 as much as possible, and they recieved a similar amount of critisizm the first time around, but i'd say D2 turned out ok. wouldn't you?

However many years and development team changes later; the announcement of Diablo 3. And right off the bat, something didn't seem right. Although the title read "Diablo 3", it was made by Blizzard, and the Barbarian was a returning class, it looked nothing like the "Diablo" that we had been given and cherished before. And everyone knew it. Starting with the art controversy, something seemed wrong. Nothing about this new game seemed to show that it belonged to the same world as the previous Diablos. It even was announced to be taking place an awkward 20 years after the destruction of the world stone, as if to create more of a distance between itself and the previous games.

Well first of all, when the world stone was destroyed, the world literally wasn't the same. I'm also sure that the reason for the huge time lapse has something to do with how thoroughly the world was cleansed, and it also gives good background for how this could happen again, because all the previous heroes are now old, dead, or insane, and can't stop the second coming. 20 years isn't awkward, it makes sense. If it took place directly after the events of the first one, that would be awkward.

I have no problem with change. I have no problem with a completely different way of seeing things, capcom did it with resident evil 4 and now 5 and it was amazing. But my question is, if Blizzard truly plans on claiming that this game is just as much a "Diablo" game as the previous two, where is the proof? How is Blizzard really going to recapture the true essence of the "Diablo" world in this ambiguously themed new game?

So why are you so opposed to change here. You have to have faith that a company tha has had as much succsess as Blizzard isn't going to let a franchise with such a huge fan base fall by the wayside because they made a crappy game. I understand that you have no idea what is happening in development, so you draw conclusions, which are mostly negative because the current work doesn't fit the already ambiguos role of "gothic theme." Have faith, though, that this game will be a masterpiece, like it's predecessors, and that when you finally get your hands on the finished copy, you'll forever question how you could have possibly lived without it.

[Demetrium]

^-----A good post.

[Rhyme]

I'd like to echo this last comment on continuity a bit.

D2 did NOT take place immediately after D1. The hero stuck around in Tristram for a while before the soulstone took over. And there was a bit of time passing as you travel from place to place. If you watch the videos, you get the sense that Marius had been in that asylum for a while before Baal showed up to hear his story, too, so that means there was time between Act 4 and Act 5. So there's some time elapsing in this storyline. Maybe not 20 years, but the point is, time is important to telling a story.

Why should D3 happen right after D2? Well, for starters, if it did, why not have the same heroes? Time elapsing allows for a new batch of heroes.

Time elapsing also allows for a new Tristram. They've mentioned Tristram as a place you visit, with actual people there again, yes? If it happened immediately after D2, there wouldn't be anybody there. Who wants to see a destroyed Tristram again? That would be old hat by now... But a rebuilt Tristram is a way to see an old location in a fresh way. 20 years seems pretty ideal for that.

More than that, though, wouldn't you feel slightly peeved if all your efforts in the first two games meant absolutely nothing? At what point do you just give up killing Diablo? I mean, if he comes back IMMEDIATELY, what the heck is the point? Isn't the idea that you're saving the world, at least for now?

So 20 years later seems fine for me. Or heck, they could do whatever they want with the timeline. Saying "We don't know what's gonna happen when the Worldstone is destroyed" at the end of D2 gives Blizzard A LOT of creative leeway with their storytelling.

[FlamangoHellfire]

You know what else we have to compare besides the art direction? The music.
BEGIN RANT - I'm going to be quite honest here, I've done live accompaniment for circus and theatre, and enjoy coming up with epic tracks. I've played keys for 16 years now and you know what still inspires me, whether I like it or not? The music of Diablo. So, when I found out Diablo III was coming out I went to the website and heard the ambient music. I thought, YES They're bringing it back again! And then I was the trailer and I thought, YES! Creepy epic throat singing! Yes, woodwinds, good, strings good, orchestra okay. Xylophone? Flowery brass motifs?! God no. Reworking the Tristram theme is okay, however, inserting flowery motifs = WAY NOT OKAY... Matt Uelmen had a influence, he was creative, he was actually taking his cues from solid, original music, like Chabuca Granda. He wasn't applying the standard soundtrack equation to the theme and putting in plenty of min/maj chord changes in like everybody else. Look I'm a composer right? I get this stuff. But cheap cinema soundtrack gimmicks; really? I'd like everyone here to listen to the original Diablo soundtrack. Listen to track #5 - Caves. What's that I hear at 1:57? A bloody, overdriven, screaming, spine-tingling electric guitar. Where's that now? Where did that weird ambient unexpected creepiness go? I never really registered that it was in fact a guitar, but now that I revisit Diablo, I can see that I missed all of the details that make it what it is. The instrumentation of the whole soundtrack it mostly guitar with wild ambient affects and distortion, some strings, detuned piano, flute, a lot of synthesized percussion and voice. And then organ - which I totally want to hear more of. It was really well mixed and meshed with synthesized effects, filters, and ambient sounds. (Lots of echo and reverb and a lot of twisted tape sampled sounds). I miss this really, and I'll be very depressed if the mad creepy sounds of Diablo 1 don't make it back at some point. I really would rather like having the soaring epic music of the trailer stay in the cinematics, and let us relive a little bit of the madness of the original game. Especially if we are to descend into the Hells of Sanctuary. It's going to be hard for Blizzard to make this a better, more captivating game because in some ways, they had already pulled out the stops. Compare it to the music of Halo for example. What was the first thing you heard when you put in Halo 2 for the first time, that made you tremble in excitement the first time you heard it? It was the wicked guitar solo over the main theme during the Bungie screen. I was so pumped to hear that. It made me think that hey, shoot, they totally stepped it up a notch here. I almost thought that same thing when I heard the music from the DIII trailer. But then I heard the xylophone and the wtf flowery motif. And you know what? The soundtrack and the other stuff by Eminence is okay, but it really sounds hollow; they mastered it wrong in my opinion - really kinda meh. It sounds like an orchestral studio recording when really, it should sound like the soundtrack for the clash of heaven and hell, which it is. Epic is okay, but studio/generic orchestral isn't okay. I want more music like the caverns of Isengard from LoTR, I want real leitmotifs. If you're going to do epic, do it well, if you're going to do scary, make it creepy, etc. No hollow sounding orchestra. END RANT I will have to wait to see if the other game music hinted at is up to par. Until then, I just want to hear as little of that brass motif as possible.

[Mizantrop]

^
It might help you to prove your point by deconstructing that wall of text and simpilfying some of the more advanced terms.
As for your wish, it's really not that different from the art beef some fans have. Yes the mood in what we see so far is not gothic and dark like D1 was. But did anyone see Act 2 or a different dungeon yet? No. Do we want said act 2 and said other dungeon to be just like the last one/D1? Not really.

Diablo is not a horror game where you enjoy by suffereing the same grey, brown and black (or the dark, ominous and glum tunes) all over again and again. It's an ARPG, in which you want to feel you are traveling to different places in the world, meet exotic people and find sparkly magical items (and those are far from wow size and style eventhough some people insist on viewing them as such).

I am not as musically educated as your are but I can give you a musical example. Blizzard is like my favorite death-metal band Opeth. Some say they have gone sissy on their last album. Adding more major cords and even a female singer (blasphemy) to one of the songs. After listening to the new album I can only say that it's still the same Opeth (with their special death-progressive-metal forumla) only different and I like it. I ditched my old favorite band because they were stuck with the same music style they had for 20 years with hardly ANY change. Blizzard in that regard is like Opeth, They are still the same old Blizzard but they evovle. They still have their good-games formula and they are going make something different but good.

[Demetrium]

You know what else we have to compare besides the art direction? The music.
BEGIN RANT - I'm going to be quite honest here, I've done live accompaniment for circus and theatre, and enjoy coming up with epic tracks. I've played keys for 16 years now and you know what still inspires me, whether I like it or not? The music of Diablo. So, when I found out Diablo III was coming out I went to the website and heard the ambient music. I thought, YES They're bringing it back again! And then I was the trailer and I thought, YES! Creepy epic throat singing! Yes, woodwinds, good, strings good, orchestra okay. Xylophone? Flowery brass motifs?! God no. Reworking the Tristram theme is okay, however, inserting flowery motifs = WAY NOT OKAY... Matt Uelmen had a influence, he was creative, he was actually taking his cues from solid, original music, like Chabuca Granda. He wasn't applying the standard soundtrack equation to the theme and putting in plenty of min/maj chord changes in like everybody else. Look I'm a composer right? I get this stuff. But cheap cinema soundtrack gimmicks; really? I'd like everyone here to listen to the original Diablo soundtrack. Listen to track #5 - Caves. What's that I hear at 1:57? A bloody, overdriven, screaming, spine-tingling electric guitar. Where's that now? Where did that weird ambient unexpected creepiness go? I never really registered that it was in fact a guitar, but now that I revisit Diablo, I can see that I missed all of the details that make it what it is. The instrumentation of the whole soundtrack it mostly guitar with wild ambient affects and distortion, some strings, detuned piano, flute, a lot of synthesized percussion and voice. And then organ - which I totally want to hear more of. It was really well mixed and meshed with synthesized effects, filters, and ambient sounds. (Lots of echo and reverb and a lot of twisted tape sampled sounds). I miss this really, and I'll be very depressed if the mad creepy sounds of Diablo 1 don't make it back at some point. I really would rather like having the soaring epic music of the trailer stay in the cinematics, and let us relive a little bit of the madness of the original game. Especially if we are to descend into the Hells of Sanctuary. It's going to be hard for Blizzard to make this a better, more captivating game because in some ways, they had already pulled out the stops. Compare it to the music of Halo for example. What was the first thing you heard when you put in Halo 2 for the first time, that made you tremble in excitement the first time you heard it? It was the wicked guitar solo over the main theme during the Bungie screen. I was so pumped to hear that. It made me think that hey, shoot, they totally stepped it up a notch here. I almost thought that same thing when I heard the music from the DIII trailer. But then I heard the xylophone and the wtf flowery motif. And you know what? The soundtrack and the other stuff by Eminence is okay, but it really sounds hollow; they mastered it wrong in my opinion - really kinda meh. It sounds like an orchestral studio recording when really, it should sound like the soundtrack for the clash of heaven and hell, which it is. Epic is okay, but studio/generic orchestral isn't okay. I want more music like the caverns of Isengard from LoTR, I want real leitmotifs. If you're going to do epic, do it well, if you're going to do scary, make it creepy, etc. No hollow sounding orchestra. END RANT I will have to wait to see if the other game music hinted at is up to par. Until then, I just want to hear as little of that brass motif as possible.

I'm sure we all appreciate your criticism as it sounds like you're very educated in music and have refined tastes. Given this, what's your opinion on D2's music? In one of my last posts I explained how I thought that overall, the music and atmosphere of D1 was superior to D2. Do you agree? What are your thoughts on D2 compared to D3 musically?

[Zarniwoop]

They will be prepping the world for turning it into an MMO.

It's just not as dark as the other two games. And I don't mean the amount of light. It just doesn't feel dark. BUT, that pales in comparison the horror of the design changes they've made so I can't get excited about the world feeling funny.

[FlamangoHellfire]

First, I'd like to say that I'm not truly a professional composer, it's just something that I do on the side (I'm actually studying scene design), and I can be accused of using the same gimmicks as the new composer has for DIII (here's one of my tracks (http://www.myspace.com/circusorchestra)), but, I know the turf well enough to know that what they are doing isn't really working for me. The main reason for my rant is that, I don't mind new direction for the game, but as far as music goes, what they are proposing is very, very different then what was done previously on Diablo & DII. If they are going to do it in this manner (Big, epic, traditional orchestral), they need some sort of continuity with the previous games, that isn't just a variation on the main theme.

For all of the music references, you can find all of the Diablo I & II + LoD music on the Bnet MP3 Player (http://classic.battle.net/window.shtml). You can read all about Matt Uelmans compositions here (http://classic.battle.net/diablo2exp/mp3/), unfortunately they are no longer available for download, but it's still very interesting.

@Mizantrop - As far as the musical terms, and to have a better understanding of my comparisons, go check out the this wiki from the score of LoTR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings_film_trilogy) and the bit about leitmotifs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leitmotif). I know what you mean about Opeth. The only death metal I listen to is Genghis Tron, because it's more closer to progressive/experimental, and they play with electronics way too much to be boxed in as pure death metal. I know what you mean about bands changing. I'm a huge fan of NIN, and really like Trent's music from Year Zero and onward, but not before, because musically it's more captivating. I'm majorly into Radiohead, so you can tell where my musical preference of bands stems from. I want Diablo to grow in the same way, I just don't want it to take a downward turn in the process. Being in theatre, and being an actor (I know, I do a lot of different stuff), the most important part of acting is creating understanding through continuity and through a story. You can't just have random mood swings and emotional freakouts that aren't justified. It makes for a poor production and leaves the audience bored and unconvinced. That's what I'm worried about with DIII, art music, and everything else. You have to have history. It was the first item on the lore slideshow at BlizzCon if I'm not mistaken, but I'm not sure if the music will respected it as well.

@Demetrium - I read your post, and yes, what you feel about the music in Tristram is due to very selective styling. It's also relatively minimal in terms of instrumentation, effects, especially compared to the music of D2. From the perspective of someone who has written ambient tracks and tried to master this stuff, the D2 music is brilliant. To give an example; the track Toru, from Act 2. Musically, this is a rather moving, gorgeous track. But, thinking about how it plays with the game; it was too much audio and visual and everything going on. It became alienating after a while. Also, the music and the game did not take the same journey. In fact, there really wasn't a journey, it was just repetition. That was DIIs big flaw. The music was powerful and changing, but the gameplay wasn't. You cast a town portal and There were also some problems where the music was too ambient. The sounds were brilliant and well enough used that you didn't even notice the glockenspiel, but it was used. I liked the phased and flanged choirs, (simple musical filters that make it sound watery) and I liked this stuff, but it was hard because, you stopped noticing the melodies and the exotic instrumentations because the music wasn't sparse enough. What I want to hear is more along the lines of Fortress from LoD. This was well done, and it was varied, and it was pretty at times really, but it shared enough with the other acts that it had continuity. Unfortunately, I think Matt Uelman pulled back from his earlier work or was requested to conform more. The direction of the DIII music could suffer if it doesn't explore the earlier music of Diablo. I really don't want the exact thing all over again with DIII, but I do want a good music score done right. I'm worried that this new composer is going to homogenize the music of Diablo, and I don't want this to happen. Give a listen to Ice Caves, the title music of LoD. What do you think? Is this satisfactory for your Diablo needs? The instrumentation of this work is orchestral, but it's original sounding, and the melodies fit in with the game. I would really like to hear what other people think of the DII music. My worries for DIII is specifically poor quality, and semi-continuity that doesn't respect the intentions of the original music, but still steals the melodies. I hope we'll hear and see more that will convince me otherwise.

[Mizantrop]

What do you think about WoW's music FlamangoHellfire?

[visom]

Want proof that D3 is a sequel of D1/D2?

-Isometric
-Hack n slash
-Tons of skills
-lots of customization (NO!!!, DON'T bring up auto stat on this one)
-tons of items
-epic boss battles
-Cain
-endless modifiers
-too many others to list

[Turnip]

I like the docks one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzf-iHT5z4A

Gives sort of a natural feeling to the sounds and fits act 3 perfectly. Anyways I need some examples of diablo 3's music to compare.

[FlamangoHellfire]

What do you think about WoW's music FlamingoHellfire?

Flamango, actually, but to answer the question, all that I've heard from WoW's music are the tracks from Echoes of War by Eminence and the bits that radiate from my roommates corner of the apartment. He usually listens to other music while playing the game actually. But really, it's different. It's very epic, it's got some alright themes (I'm kinda guessing). I can't really judge too much though. I couldn't really compare it to WC II or III, even though I played through them; I guess it wasn't particularly striking. It's really not the same though, when you're talking about an immersive ARPG versus an MMORPG based on a strategy game. Those are two very different games. Would you compare the music of Ultima Online with that of Morrowind? In an MMO the music is background, but in an adventure game, the music is immersive. It communicates the world, it's subtleties, and guides your thoughts, and what the game has to offer. It can be one of the most intense parts of the experience, without you even noticing. That's what I played Morrowind for. In other words, I think Diablo III should have music that draws you in. A good example of this (besides Morrowind, which was very good, regardless of the gaming experience), was the reactive score of Half-Life 2. I mentioned the journey of the game, and in HL2 the music guided you through that journey, it was the emphasis and guidance of your emotions. Whenever the mood in the game changes, the music does too. It guides your feelings and your interpretation and perception. To answer your question, the types of music that inherent to these different games styles are themselves different, and serve different functions.

You can find the Diablo III Overture on iTunes, or you can hear it in most gameplay movies (It so does not fit with gameplay in my opinion). The Blizzard cannon inspired work Echoes of War by Eminence can be bought online, and found in other places.

And by the way, Children of Worldstone (A Diablo "inspired" piece from Echoes of War), sort of does it, except not. They got the guitar right (However WAY too quiet, and too frantic near the end), but then they put in this lame chiming keyboard voice (sound), and it ruins the mood completely. It's like, the instruments are used, but it's way too straight edge. The original Diablo music was industrial. (By that I mean tape/sample driven heavily processed experimental rock that used many non-instrument sounds) I don't want to hear the chorused 80's synth keyboard sound, my god, that's like as far in the other direction as you can go. It's just awful. And the toms (drums) sound? Again, 80's pop sounding; really? Go out and buy a drum machine with some classier samples. My synth has better tones then that. Just get a taiko group to come in, I'm sure it wouldn't be that expensive. They have a pretty talented singer, and a pretty good ensemble, but they're drowning it in rubbish. Sorry again for the mini rant, but really, Blizzard can afford more, and actually, they can't afford mediocre, which is what I'm hearing. It's going to hurt them.

Okay, I owe Russel Brower a bit of an apology. This music and transition is done beautifully, and is true to DII. It still uses the Overture, but it does it with class.

Wizard Trailer (http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/media/movies/wizard.xml)

I forgot that there are a few other in-game samples of music. I need to go find them now.

Okay, all of the gameplay footage is good, as far as music is concerned, minus the parts where it returns to overture. You can hear it especially in the beginning of this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQMBIRipp5A). More apologies. I guess the moral of the story is you can't judge a book by it's cover, or the score by it's overture. Oh well.

[Mizantrop]

Flamango, actually, but to answer the question...

Sorry, fixed now :P
All this music discussion+your name made me think about Mr.Bungle (and pink flamingo) and that was my mix-up.
I think I am starting to get your position, although I am not sure that an epic score will be bad for Diablo 3. It suppose to be the closing of the saga as JW said (but not the end of diablo). And from viewing everything that was released so far on the game, it does look much more epic than what D2 was and definitly more than D1.

[Krugar]

I'd like to address a few issues if you folks don't mind. But before, a big thank you for the 4 pages of an adult discussion. The official battle.net Diablo 3 forums are an horrendous place to try and have a discussion on any issue.

20 years later
It's important to go back to Diablo 2 and talk with Harrogath townsfolk after the Wolrdstone gets destroyed. I can't remember exactly who, but Anya or Malah, I think, mention the fact the this will have the potential to change the world and no one knows what it will become next.

In this context, it's perfectly acceptable a 20 year hiatus between D2 and D3. It helps the "new world" to establish its roots and for the game writers to elaborate on a series of new events that eventually lead to D3. This is a common writing technique, of which I'm sure there is a name.

On the other hand, it makes it possible for new material to be introduced into the game in a more sensible way. If D3 immediately followed D2 where it left, new skills, changes in gameplay, introduction of new classes, removal of old classes, new items, different affixes, all and more would just not feel right. The game lore would suffer since it would be nearly impossible to explain some of these changes. Meanwhile players would get a distinct feeling of a game reset, instead of a true sequel. Not good things for a game that one wants immersible.

Diablo 1 nostalgia
My opinion here is highly debatable. But fact is I played Diablo 1 since launch day. Only, I did it when I was already 30 years old. What does this mean exactly? You see... I don't suffer from a Diablo 1 nostalgia effect. For me nostalgia goes back to the 80s and ZX Spectrum days. Diablo 1, on the other hand, happened "yesterday".

So I do look at Diablo 1 from another light. One that may be shared by some of you. But seems to be at the core of what the problem is with many of the players wanting D3 to be more like D1.

As many have already said here, D2 was in fact more distant from D1 than D3 will ever be from D2. In fact, I witnessed many complaints during D2 development stages over exactly this issue. With D3, the problem seems a nostalgia effect that is kicking in on many of the young players for who Diablo 1 was an initiation and who would wish for a comeback.

Gothic
I think it's important for anyone, complaining or otherwise, to take a step back and look exactly what this word mean in the context of the Diablo world.

Gothic was in fact almost entirely non-existing in all of the games. As an art form, Gothic is anything but dark. It was colorful, rich and a celebration of God. It's a fact that hollywood, some (ir?)responsible authors and pop-culture have transformed the idea of Gothic as a dark, foreboding art form. But even in this context, Diablo 1 had very little of a Gothic theme once inside the Cathedral. Diablo 1 art was simple and with a very limited tileset. Gothic is on the other hand, both in its true representation as in what pop-culture has made of it, much richer in forms and variety.

Diablo 2 was even further away from this notion of a Gothic game. With the exception of a very few areas, Diablo 2 was a bright, colorful, almost cheerful game. Again it is small Tristam in particular and the Cathedral (the Inner Cloister Chapel especially) the best examples of Gothic in the current popular perception of the art form. The rest of the game is a mishmash of... things. From African elements to Norse and Middle-East.

This is what especially troubles me on the recent Bill Roper arguments about Diablo 3, when he wants to make us believe Diablo 1 and 2 were games with a Gothic feeling. Thankfully Bill Roper is not an artist, but an executive (and a developer). And so I'll forgive him the ignorance, but not the fact he tried to use that to diminish the current work on D3.

Lastly, the pop-culture Gothic is not about strewn impaled corpses, blood patches, upside down crosses and gargoyles. It is a mood of foreboding and the setting that goes with it and that describes a "foggy" semi-medieval environment and which architecture is particularly rich in forms and lifelike decorations. For a true "Gothic" feeling, I suggest the reading of many Edgar Alan Poe writings, or getting the rule books for Vampire the Masquerade, the pen-and-paper game. In contrast, do read H.P. Lovecraft particularly, or Cliver Barker's Hellraiser for dark, foreboding, horror environments but that you can easily distinguish for not being Gothic.

Darkness
The complaints about lack of darkness and the presence of cheerful colors in Diablo 3 do deserve next to nothing in terms of an actual reply. It's a fact the game is still in development and its a fact we are offered just a tiny glimpse of what the game may look like. On the other hand, the complaints are annoying when one considers (as was mentioned already on this thread) the fact most of the time a player is fighting neon-glowing enemies. It's just not fun when Diablo turns Blue for the whole fight. And then there's Act 2. Brighter than that and Diablo 2 would have been a CRT burner.

The problem I have with darkness in both Diablo 1 and 2 was that it was only an artifice resulting from day-night cycles and dungeon environments to provide players with limited vision, add tension to the game, and offer a new item affix. You may ask, but what else is darkness for?

Well, that type of darkness just doesn't cut it for me. That's not darkness, really. That's Fog of War, thank you. And I really disliked the FoW in Diablo 1 and 2. Darkness instead is useful if to be used as a plot element. Darkness that scares me, Darkness that jumps on me. Darkness that tries to foil my plans. Darkness that works against me.

How interest could it be, if lights on the dungeon turned off as soon as I touched that Chest on the demo video and I was all of a sudden completely blind and could only see wisps of those white ghosts to fight? Meanwhile wasn't it so effective that dark glimpse we had of the Siege Beast in the shadowed background when still on the dungeon and one of the archer companion cries "There is something in here!"? Tell me, not knowing that scene beforehand, what would be your immediate reaction? Mine would be to stop the barb on his tracks, say something like "(s)hit!" and try to walk forward as slow as I possibly could.

When asking for Darkness, I'd ask for this darkness. Not D1 and D2 ... ermm... darkness.

And to finalize a very long post...
My apologies for such a long post. I found myself with some time on my hands and a desire to say something.

Diablo 3 is shaping up to be another major hit on the already long list of Blizzard major hits. From all I've seen, i just have to have it! But my concerns lie elsewhere. Despite all that has been said on the issue, I'm still somewhat concerned Diablo 3 is not going to be the Single-Player experience we have been promised.

I get this feeling from small hints. Like the video demo narrator saying things like "Diablo 3 is first and foremost a cooperative game", or the lack of official comments on single-player mode everytime the issue is brought up on the official forums. Certainly the fact multiplayers are more vocal and active on the forums (due to the fact, well, they play online) helps establish further this feeling I'm having. I hope it's just paranoia. But Blizzard D2 patches history didn't exactly made me a confident person on this issue.

And this is all. Thank you if you read this far.

[ThulRasha]

Diablo 3 is shaping up to be another major hit on the already long list of Blizzard major hits. From all I've seen, i just have to have it! But my concerns lie elsewhere. Despite all that has been said on the issue, I'm still somewhat concerned Diablo 3 is not going to be the Single-Player experience we have been promised.

I get this feeling from small hints. Like the video demo narrator saying things like "Diablo 3 is first and foremost a cooperative game", or the lack of official comments on single-player mode everytime the issue is brought up on the official forums. Certainly the fact multiplayers are more vocal and active on the forums (due to the fact, well, they play online) helps establish further this feeling I'm having. I hope it's just paranoia. But Blizzard D2 patches history didn't exactly made me a confident person on this issue.

I think you can take what the narrator said during the demo video a different way.
He could have meant it that Diablo3 is not meant to be a player versus player game. And when there are more than 1 player in a game, they do not fight against eachother, but cooperative.

This would also explain why Blizzard is planning Diablo3 to have small party sizes and why they do not plan to make support characters. If they had planned Diablo3 to be a party based game, they would certainly have some support characters planned aswell, not just all killing machines. And if they had planned this as a large scaled multiplayer game, I would expect the party sizes to increase compared to Diablo2, not to become smaller.

I really doubt that you need more than 1 player to finish the game.

[Grug]

He said "Co-operative game" because saying that Diablo was first and foremost a Single-Player game wouldn't have sounded as good. I agree with ThulRasha, he meant Cooperative as opposed to competititve.

That's a very nice post. I agree with everything you said. I describe the look of Diablo 3 as "A world of Gothic Beauty". It can be colorful and still have the forboding feeling Diablo is good for. Your comment on darknes sis inciteful. The ghost encounter would be especially tense. Perhaps Blizzard can have plenty of ambient lighting, but the player itself would have a tiny light radius, so when there is total darkness, you feel really alone, and little glmpses of the monsters lurking within the dark, like the moan of zombies or the glowing eyes of a gang of fallen, staring and waiting, would add tension. And then if you have ghosts that are completely visible, even in total darkness, makes them stand out and seem other-worldly.

[Krugar]

Very good point! Haven't thought of the narrator co-op comment on that context.
I don't wish to hijack the thread on this topic. So I'll leave it at that. But definitely, a very good point.

[raveharu]

I could tweak a little of the graphics configuration in D2 to make it alot "darker and creepier".

And I'm pretty sure we can do the same for D3, for all you
omgi'msoooooooonotplayingD3(asif)becauseisooooooon lywantTHEblackandwhite1950'shorrormoviesartstyleBL IZZARDyoubetterlistenANDdowhatisayorelse moaners.

[GoldenBird]

I don't get how anyone could say Diablo 1 was lifeless... the gothic-ness made it sooooo much more lively than D2, so much more interesting. I don't know how anyone could even compare the feeling of D1 to D2 even... I mean, I have nothing against the diversity of the places (like the kurast jungle and whatnot), but that parts that could've been darker were disappointing to me (e.g. catacombs, dungeon types). And plus, in D1, you'll notice that even in the potentially brighter places (like the town) you still had that darkness. IMO, D2, graphically, was fail.

For D3... I don't really know. I'm kind of split. It definitely lacks that corrupted feeling, even in Tristram, although I don't think it would be changed by adding darkness. I actually think the gothic feel of D1 comes from that kind of grittyness in the graphics, almost like you're playing on a rock. With D2 and that kind of splotchiness, I felt more like I was playing on a painting. With D3, I can't really compare because it's so perfect... it looks just like I'm playing on a high-tech computer screen.

Although, I can't really judge D3 now. I mean, it's got the WoW interface for Pete's sake.

[raveharu]

For D3... I don't really know. I'm kind of split. It definitely lacks that corrupted feeling, even in Tristram, although I don't think it would be changed by adding darkness. I actually think the gothic feel of D1 comes from that kind of grittyness in the graphics, almost like you're playing on a rock. With D2 and that kind of splotchiness, I felt more like I was playing on a painting. With D3, I can't really compare because it's so perfect... it looks just like I'm playing on a high-tech computer screen.

Although, I can't really judge D3 now. I mean, it's got the WoW interface for Pete's sake.

Strange, somehow the environment in the demo video looks 100 times more "corrupted" than any place in D1. And players are stepping into this particular terrain when the game starts. I mean like hello, it's like a dark, intense, deep, horrifying, terrifying Blood Moor with 10 times more F-factor. Or that measly dungeon in D1.

We are only looking at the first 1% of the game, and idiots are already complaining. Tsk.

And no it doesn't have a WoW interface.

[Krugar]

For D3... I don't really know. I'm kind of split. It definitely lacks that corrupted feeling, even in Tristram, although I don't think it would be changed by adding darkness. I actually think the gothic feel of D1 comes from that kind of grittyness in the graphics, almost like you're playing on a rock. With D2 and that kind of splotchiness, I felt more like I was playing on a painting. With D3, I can't really compare because it's so perfect... it looks just like I'm playing on a high-tech computer screen.

I tried to explain why there are so very few Gothic elements on D1. Particularly once inside the dungeon. I can understand you don't agree, it seems. But I'd rather have you reply to that point instead of just reinstate the debate as if this was the first post on the thread. A conversation should flow, not jump to the starting point ;)

As for corruption or decay feeling of D1, again I believe there were very few elements of these. The dungeon looked too clean. On any case D1 benefited from pixelated graphics which more successfully help convey a feeling of decay. Precisely because the graphics have a grainy look to them. Technically, this is much harder to achieve with vectors and 3D.

It's doable, mind you. And Blizzard art directions in general and Diablo's in particular are renowned for their top professionals.

But the question I put you is this: "What makes you think Diablo 3 will have no elements of corruption, decay, darkness and Gothic?". Imagine an Act II demo video back in the day D2 was being developed. Could you have seen from that video alone you would be also fighting in a jail, ruined temples, forests and in Hell? So, do you agree you have seen too little of the game to jump to conclusions? And to try and put you even more at ease, did you know that Blizzard did say the game will get darker and darker as you progress through the story?

Finally to address a common concern you have regarding the crispiness and cleanness of the graphics in D3. The jump from pixel to full 3D can come as a shock. It's only natural the first reaction is "ermm... didn't you say this was Diablo?". However, I ask you to trust me this feeling is going to disappear 5 minutes into the game. After a couple of hours and you will even be asking yourself how could you ever go back to D1 and D2 crude pixels.. Save this thread an come back in 1 or two years when D3 is launched. And you'll be able to thank me for this paragraph then. ;)

I could elaborate on why this transition sometimes comes as a shock. I just don't feel this thread is the right place.

[Srikandi]

Want proof that D3 is a sequel of D1/D2?

-Isometric

As I said in another thread...

D3 is NOT isometric. Isometric means "same measurement", i.e. NO PERSPECTIVE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometric_projection

D3 has a downward camera angle but it is also a fully 3D game with perspective.

You could make an isometric 3D game, but I've never seen one.

[SlechtWeerBeer]

As I said in another thread...

D3 is NOT isometric. Isometric means "same measurement", i.e. NO PERSPECTIVE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometric_projection

D3 has a downward camera angle but it is also a fully 3D game with perspective.

You could make an isometric 3D game, but I've never seen one.

Just expanding a bit:
To see the difference, play around with the 3D/Isom option in Diablo II when running a circle around the Countess' tower or something similar. It's a major difference. :)

[FlamangoHellfire]

- To those of you who read my posts on the music of the Diablo world and the continuity into Diablo III, I thought I might share this. Hopefully it will provide my discussion with conclusion. After I thought about everything that was written about the music of Diablo, I got the idea to actually ask someone at Blizzard about; you know old fashioned. So I typed up a message to Russell Brower, the composer for Diablo III and collaborator along side Matt Uelman and Derek Duke for the music of WoW. Well, much to my surprise he responded. Here's my message and his response.

Re: A Very Concerned Fan In Search of Reassurance, With A Lot Of Respect for Your Work.

Me:

Hello, my name is Peter. I'm a fan of Blizzard, and have been since the beginning. If you have a minute, I'm just curious as to how the music from Diablo III is coming?

This is in regards to the music of Diablo III, inspired from thoughts I've written on a forum recently (http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7056615&posted=1#post7056615)). (My screen name is FlamangoHellfire)

I have to apologize for a lot of criticism in what I've said there regarding the music I've heard from the new game (which is very little). I said some things I really have no right saying, but if I'm not mistaken, isn't the new overture rather disparate in regards to the music of Diablo I & II? I'm terribly worried that this might be the case. I hope you can reassure me that in fact, this is just a small glimpse of something broader and more tied into the original music? The reworking and motifs of the Tristram theme are nice, but the instrumentation seems a little hollow, and, well, the original game music was ambient industrial. Is that going to be incorporated into the new game at all? Best regards. I've often inspired to such an awesome career. Thank you for consideration,

- Peter

Russell Brower:

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your thoughtful words. I'm really glad to hear how much you care about the Diablo series and its musical legacy. Maybe it will help in terms of "reassurance" for me to note that my own personal introduction to Blizzard games was in 1997 in the form of playing the first Diablo and being struck by the music... Matt Uelmen had succeeded in creating something original, which is a rare thing these days. The style was daring and completely unexpected, yet it worked so very well.

In regards to Diablo III--- all I can say is "you ain't heard nothing yet!" The overture was conceived of as a way of making a big impression on both new and existing audiences-- saying that this really is the next chapter. What's not apparent in the overture, though, is that the first indication the world had of what the new game was at our Paris announcement last Summer was a single guitarist on a 12-string, rolling those classic opening chords-- not a speech, not a video, not a press release-- but the MUSIC. That iconic music! :) I'm very proud of this moment, as it not only says a lot about how great the D1, D2 & D2X music is, but how important and recognizable game music in general has become.

Finally, if you listen to Matt's writing in D2X Lord of Destruction, you'll hear not only most of the thematic material from the overture, but also the "Wagnerian" orchestration-- Clearly, Matt was exploring new areas of musical expression in parallel with where the game's story lead him. I believe that in playing D3 someday, you'll hear homage to the iconic styles in all the right places, along with new music to go with some very exciting story developments and locales.

I'm not at liberty to say much more, as I don't wish to provide any spoilers... however, I hope you'll stay tuned as we roll out more information (and music) in the future.

(By the way-- the Eminence recordings you mentioned are awesome, but they are Eminence's own interpretations/homages ("cover" versions)-- those recordings are not part of the official D3 project, save the original overture recording on which they performed.)

All my best,

-Russell

[visom]

As I said in another thread...

D3 is NOT isometric. Isometric means "same measurement", i.e. NO PERSPECTIVE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometric_projection

D3 has a downward camera angle but it is also a fully 3D game with perspective.

You could make an isometric 3D game, but I've never seen one.

well its close enough, unless you have the option to zoom in to expand your frontal view but doubt thats going to happen

[Krugar]

Thanks FlamangoHellfire.

It's a tough subject to draw many comments I'm sure, as music and sound is often an aspect of a game often praised or criticized, but hardly really discussed. On what concerns me, mostly because while with highly broadened tastes, my know-how is not enough to discuss such issues as composition. So I rely mostly on personal taste and base any opinions solely on that.

I do think however (and also because of the official reply you got) this issue deserves its own thread and would kindly ask you to repost the above post on a new thread.

[JonathanNathan]

- To those of you who read my posts on the music of the Diablo world and the continuity into Diablo III, I thought I might share this. Hopefully it will provide my discussion with conclusion. After I thought about everything that was written about the music of Diablo, I got the idea to actually ask someone at Blizzard about; you know old fashioned. So I typed up a message to Russell Brower, the composer for Diablo III and collaborator along side Matt Uelman and Derek Duke for the music of WoW. Well, much to my surprise he responded. Here's my message and his response.

Re: A Very Concerned Fan In Search of Reassurance, With A Lot Of Respect for Your Work.

Me:

Hello, my name is Peter. I'm a fan of Blizzard, and have been since the beginning. If you have a minute, I'm just curious as to how the music from Diablo III is coming?

This is in regards to the music of Diablo III, inspired from thoughts I've written on a forum recently (http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7056615&posted=1#post7056615)). (My screen name is FlamangoHellfire)

I have to apologize for a lot of criticism in what I've said there regarding the music I've heard from the new game (which is very little). I said some things I really have no right saying, but if I'm not mistaken, isn't the new overture rather disparate in regards to the music of Diablo I & II? I'm terribly worried that this might be the case. I hope you can reassure me that in fact, this is just a small glimpse of something broader and more tied into the original music? The reworking and motifs of the Tristram theme are nice, but the instrumentation seems a little hollow, and, well, the original game music was ambient industrial. Is that going to be incorporated into the new game at all? Best regards. I've often inspired to such an awesome career. Thank you for consideration,

- Peter

Russell Brower:

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your thoughtful words. I'm really glad to hear how much you care about the Diablo series and its musical legacy. Maybe it will help in terms of "reassurance" for me to note that my own personal introduction to Blizzard games was in 1997 in the form of playing the first Diablo and being struck by the music... Matt Uelmen had succeeded in creating something original, which is a rare thing these days. The style was daring and completely unexpected, yet it worked so very well.

In regards to Diablo III--- all I can say is "you ain't heard nothing yet!" The overture was conceived of as a way of making a big impression on both new and existing audiences-- saying that this really is the next chapter. What's not apparent in the overture, though, is that the first indication the world had of what the new game was at our Paris announcement last Summer was a single guitarist on a 12-string, rolling those classic opening chords-- not a speech, not a video, not a press release-- but the MUSIC. That iconic music! :) I'm very proud of this moment, as it not only says a lot about how great the D1, D2 & D2X music is, but how important and recognizable game music in general has become.

Finally, if you listen to Matt's writing in D2X Lord of Destruction, you'll hear not only most of the thematic material from the overture, but also the "Wagnerian" orchestration-- Clearly, Matt was exploring new areas of musical expression in parallel with where the game's story lead him. I believe that in playing D3 someday, you'll hear homage to the iconic styles in all the right places, along with new music to go with some very exciting story developments and locales.

I'm not at liberty to say much more, as I don't wish to provide any spoilers... however, I hope you'll stay tuned as we roll out more information (and music) in the future.

(By the way-- the Eminence recordings you mentioned are awesome, but they are Eminence's own interpretations/homages ("cover" versions)-- those recordings are not part of the official D3 project, save the original overture recording on which they performed.)

All my best,

-RussellSounds a lot like what I heard from Metallica before they released St. Anger...like what I heard from Marvel before they released Spider-Man One More Day...like what I've heard from countless creators trying to reassure me and people like me that they care about continuity with the past, while also "exciting" me for their "revolutionary take!!!" (read: completely different conception) of it.

I buy Metallica albums so I can hear Metallica. I buy Spider-Man comics so I can read about Spider-Man. And I play Diablo games so I can play Diablo.

If it ain't Matt Uelmen, I don't believe in it until it proves me wrong. It is a failure until proven successful. Especially since he does make a point of noting that Uelmen was "going in new directions" in LoD (bull****, by the way, I have the mp3s, and they were nothing like the overture) and saying that his music will be markedly different.

*yawn* I couldn't imagine a more perfect storm of the creative team of Diablo III making me uninterested in the product. I'm going to buy it, because Blizzard has never let me down before, but I've got a bad feeling about the game, with basically nothing good that I'm looking forward to.