cartoony? how? cause it doesnt have like 50 million shaders per object? look at all of blizzards games, they ALL have this look. its just what blizzard does, making games that most people can run, rather then going GRAPHICS IS MAH SELLING POIIIIINT!!
The Cool Kid said:
Polycount has nothing to do with textures....Nice going there.
Considering that the most basic card a gamer will have will be the equivalent of the GT8800 of higher, there is no longer a need for crap graphics or steps to compensate for low GPU power.
no kidding there. if people took the time to zoom in at the textures on a wow character, youd see how actually high rez they are, but the characters have a polygon count almost equal to the level cap
To me, in my particular viewpoint, most of the criticisms of D#s graphics is that it is less gruesome, and doesn't give as dark of a feel. I disagree with this. The demons still look horrifying and gruesome, the dungeons and levels still feel ominous, and look like mobs are coming out of the walls, the atmosphere is no less dark and foreboding as the previous installments. I like the comparison with TF2 done here, because I love TF2 and it's cartoony style, but it is still fairly gruesome. With all the blood and body parts flying everywhere still gives a certian amount of disgust. So I feel that D3's current art style is not degrading the atmosphere, just presenting it in a new way.
To me, it's simply a case of "Dark and brooding is for real, mature MEN of 16 years of age like me! Colour is for gay babies!", as well as a knee-jerk reaction to change.
Diablo 3 seems to be the first game in the series that will give my eyes a fighting chance, at least, and I'm very interested in seeing how it works out.
How can a game having colours besides black, dark green and the colour of dried blood possibly be considered anything but a sign of the suicide of the franchise and indeed the death of gaming as a whole? I don't play games to enjoy scenary that actually looks nice, I play to wander through scenary so bleak it's like I invaded the mind of an emo kid.
Sarcasm aside, a grim atmosphere just doesn't suit a game like Diablo. It's a dungeon crawler, you just pick a character and have fun blasting through some levels. It's not going to have an epic dark storyline so having the environment of a game that does is just out of place.
Any MMO that has tried to look realistic has failed because they either had to tone down the graphics, encountering an Uncanny Valley like effect or ramp up the hardware requirements, alienating potential players.
I think Guild Wars solved this quite nicely. The graphics were crisp, and (at least on my computer) less demanding than WoWs. On the other hand: With the newer screens I have seen from D3, the cartoony look doesn't seem so pronounced as I first feared.
I think Guild Wars solved this quite nicely. The graphics were crisp, and (at least on my computer) less demanding than WoWs. On the other hand: With the newer screens I have seen from D3, the cartoony look doesn't seem so pronounced as I first feared.
I think the OP's points are correct, but I'll also be a tad cynical in supposing that market appeal could also have influenced the artistic direction. I'm assuming Blizzard will want to rope some of its WoW base into Diablo 3, and offering them something that's visually familiar may or may not be useful.
OK, so I was wrong about a few things there, I was aware of that the first Call of Juarez was made for PC, but as I said, it looks really grainy so you can't really compare it to Crysis. You also completely ignored my explanation why cartoony games require less than realistic games. Do you stand by your explanation that games that require less processing power to process every bit of the environment because they don't strive towards realism aren't low spec simply because they require less power? Because that's pretty much what I thought low spec means.
Now I NEVER said that all old games look cartoony. I said that technology improves so what was considered highs spec before is low spec now. If you disagree with that will you make any claims that System Shock is a high spec game even though it requires 8 MB RAM?
Cartoony games require less processing power because of every tiny bit require less processing power to run smoothly. Do you disagree with me when I say that because every movement in the game takes less power to keep up that game takes less processing power?
As for your explanation, you were simply wrong. Again.
Every style needs lighting, shadows and so on. As I've said games in the past were not all cartoony, therefore you don't need to have cartoon graphics to have low requirements. You seem to be ignoring the middle ground between cartoon and ultra-realistic. Not every game has to look like Metro 2033 or WoW. Call of Juarez Bound in Blood is actually a good example of a very good looking engine which requires very little power - you can max it out with a GT240.
I'm not sure if a lot of this argument is getting lost in translation but you keep misunderstanding me. I never claimed old games that had high specs still do...
I'm saying that there is no need for cartoony graphics if we consider the average PC, more so if you make a good engine.
Now you you did again ignore most of my points why cartoony graphics take less and when you do that you do make pretty good points. Now I think we should agree that you are right on all points because clearly you're afraid to admit fault. I could go on with this, but I simply don't care enough to discuss this with someone who doesn't have any better argument than "You're wrong".
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
