He is stuck on his one argument that processing power is now enough so that any game, regardless of aesthetic can look good. It's beyond his understanding that resource management is one of the lesser considerations (not irrelevant though, since not everybody has a strong pc) and in fact the game's aesthetics serve other purposes, or that cartoony graphics don't require fewer resources, but make games that HAVE fewer resources look less ugly. Ignore him, it will save you a headache.Yopaz said: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".The Cool Kid said:Yopaz said:
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.
Dark and Gritty VS Cartoony. Diablo 3's aesthetic. Thoughts?
- Thread starter VladG
- Start date
Thanks for the advice I will definitely follow it.VladG said:He is stuck on his one argument that processing power is now enough so that any game, regardless of aesthetic can look good. It's beyond his understanding that resource management is one of the lesser considerations (not irrelevant though, since not everybody has a strong pc) and in fact the game's aesthetics serve other purposes. Ignore him, it will help your nerves.Yopaz said: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".The Cool Kid said:Yopaz said:
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.
I don't get what the problem is with D3 graphics. Yes, they are a bit brighter than D2. Yes, there is a slightly greater variety of color. But seriously, are you only capable of percieving two modes, dark and cartoon? Is that how you split everything in the world? Into one of those two categories? Diablo 3 is a bit brighter than D2. But I'd hardly call it cartoony. By the sheer volume of whine some people are making over it, you'd assume they did a Diablo/MyLittlePony crossover or something.
I like the visuals that I've seen of D3. They look nice, the atmosphere is solid and I'm looking forward to the game. But I suppose I shouldn't be suprised that on the internet people are looking for any excuse to /wrists...
I like the visuals that I've seen of D3. They look nice, the atmosphere is solid and I'm looking forward to the game. But I suppose I shouldn't be suprised that on the internet people are looking for any excuse to /wrists...
I've earned the right. I've been playing 40K for a long time...I had an Eldar army before they had their own codex. I think between my husband and I we have 10 armies, most are fully painted and finished, a few are works in progress (he's got this insane Tallarn army that he'll pretty much only use the 2nd ed metals and Forge World for, so it's takin' some time to get everything). I may not read the novels (mostly because I don't like them that much) very often, but I am steeped in lore like an English teabag. It grew up with me, and I've been supporting them the whole time; so you can take your comments about how I show appreciation and stick them in the eye of terror, maybe you can find that mutt Russ to chew on it while you're there.Elmoth said:
Hammeroj said:Draech said:Those screenshots speak volumes as to why I'm now defending Diablo 3's aesthetic.Hammeroj said:snip
And because I'm really starting to feel tired of the subject and said pretty much all that needs to be said already, I'll point you to a game that translates Diablo 2's style to 3-D way better.
They are more fitting to the theme. Yes. Also note how the character in the first screenshot simply blends in with the background. If the camera wasn't centered on him you would not notice him right away. And it's not even a busy screen. Same thing for the 2nd screenshot zombies. Check any Diablo 3 screenshot and notice how the characters pop out, the are always the first thing you see.
From a gameplay perspective this is very important. Diablo3 is a fast paced game (even more so than the previous ones) so what you don't want to do is spend time trying to figure out what's going on. The quarter of a second you spend trying to tell X from Y might mean you are too late to react.
It's also important to note that while visuals play a big part in defining tone and atmosphere, there are other elements : Music, dialogue, story, pacing, hell even the level design. From what I've seen so far those are much more in line with the original games.
Bottom line, the choice in aesthetic is a very carefully calculated one. It detracts some, but adds much to the final product.
To emphasize this, I, as a huge Diablo fan, wouldn't mind if they made the game look like My Little Pony (and I can't describe the repulsion I have for that...thing) as long as the gameplay stays true to the series. Also it's worth noting that not a single game that imitates Diablo (TQ, Sacred, Divine Divinity, etc) has ever come close to recreating the same satisfying gameplay. And as far as D3 goes, the gameplay seems better than ever.
Man this thread is pretty funny, and by funny I mean I remember reading it 11 years ago.
The internet (what little there was of it back then) exploded because D2 dared to have OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS. Holy crap, there's so much light! The sun actually exists!
The diablo series survives on 2 main facts (and the fact that it did them very well/nearly first):
1. Randomized environments and enemies
2. Distillation of MMO elements to their very core.
Bashiok talks about this stuff a lot actually. Diablo at its core is about "loot explosions". The MMORPG elements of being social, "advancing" (levels, crafters, gear) and collection (loot). That's all Diablo does. It throws up a cinematic occasionally but the game presents those 3 things and nothing else.
All that would be junk, however, if not for element 1. Randomization keeps the grind from appearing tedious by making each play through slightly different.
As the d1->d2 transition has shown, proving there's a sun in the sky and there's more colors than green, brown and dark red is irrelevant.
d3 (having played it in 2008, 2011 and having the beta right now) is in no fear of becoming childish. Townsfolk are depressed, bodies explode in showers of blood and parts (turn Physics to High in graphics settings) and there's dead crap *everywhere*.
I'm fairly certain we'll see more crucified naked people bleeding everywhere in the hell-level too.
The internet (what little there was of it back then) exploded because D2 dared to have OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS. Holy crap, there's so much light! The sun actually exists!
The diablo series survives on 2 main facts (and the fact that it did them very well/nearly first):
1. Randomized environments and enemies
2. Distillation of MMO elements to their very core.
Bashiok talks about this stuff a lot actually. Diablo at its core is about "loot explosions". The MMORPG elements of being social, "advancing" (levels, crafters, gear) and collection (loot). That's all Diablo does. It throws up a cinematic occasionally but the game presents those 3 things and nothing else.
All that would be junk, however, if not for element 1. Randomization keeps the grind from appearing tedious by making each play through slightly different.
As the d1->d2 transition has shown, proving there's a sun in the sky and there's more colors than green, brown and dark red is irrelevant.
d3 (having played it in 2008, 2011 and having the beta right now) is in no fear of becoming childish. Townsfolk are depressed, bodies explode in showers of blood and parts (turn Physics to High in graphics settings) and there's dead crap *everywhere*.
I'm fairly certain we'll see more crucified naked people bleeding everywhere in the hell-level too.
They could market it as anything they want as far as I care. It looks nice, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that about Acts 1 and 3 of Diablo 2. I also don't think you can call something a "mature experience" just because it turns the brightness levels down too far.Hammeroj said: