I wonder how many of these auteurs would stop in their tracks if they were told, "Hey, that looks just like Gears of War!"
-- Steve
-- Steve
Diablo 3 fans, photoshop, and you!
- Thread starter wilsonscrazybed
- Start date
I don't know there is a difference between bright colours (good) and bright colours (bad) as far as I am concerned. I don't think what Bethesda is doing looks bad but these particular shops do look better, to me anyway.Anton P. Nym said:
For the exact same reason, the current Blizzard staff is clueless on how to make Diablo 3 correctly. The name Blizzard doesn't mean a damned thing because the majority (Read: All but 2 or 3) are no longer working for Blizzard. The only ones working for Blizzard are the lore guys (and probably the CG guys... a completely unrelated division).Anton P. Nym said:
Just because you've flown a hang glider doesn't mean you can fly a 747 and this is what has happened with Diablo 3. We've got a group of developers that are not looking to make Diablo 3 how it should be, they are looking to make it how they want. It's no different than a person who has only flown on a hang glider wanting to fly the 747 how he feels.
It's shown that the last game Blizzard will listen to fans on is going to be SC2. A shame. They've turned into EA and Activision.
Oh wait.
so you're angry that people move on to other development teams?Credge said:
i really don't get what your arguement here is. most, if not all game developers have a revolving door of talent why would Blizzard be any different? i think it's unrealistic to expect game designers to put their life on hold and to stick with a property for the length of it's existence just to pacify a handful of fans.
Honestly, I could have taken you seriously but then you used the words "correctly" and "should". Nobody should do this or that with the game just because you think it is the best way to do it. There is no correct way of making a game, no matter what you think is the right way to do it.Credge said:
So ActiBlizzard hired a bunch of Flash-game developers to make the next Diablo? Is that what you're saying? Because that's the only way your analogy makes sense to me... it looks like you're accusing them of being unfamiliar with how to operate the technology of an A-list game. I think that's out of line, myself. The 3D renders tell me that we're not looking at guys picked up at Amateur Hour.Credge said:
If instead you're implying that fans know the look and feel better than the developers, well, that's possible if they've got all-new staff but as you stated there are "2 or 3" story experts from the series still there... it doesn't take too many "keepers of the flame" to keep a style alive.
I'd suggest you at least allow the guys to get something resembling a finished product before deciding... but if you really can't stand the changes, you're far more likely to get your point accross if you exercise your power of not-buying. Posting nerd raeg and hyperbole certainly isn't going to help.
-- Steve
Mmmm, me too! Pass the buttered dinner (t)rolls, too!gibboss28 said:
Seriously, I have a word for that "Necromancer's Choice" screenshot. EYESTRAIN. Keep your Doom3 out of my Diablo III, please.
Never really been caught up in the Diablo thing, gotta say that the after versions just look bleaker and less interesting.
IF you make everything too dark and gritty that leaves you very little room to manoever when you want to emphasise.
Dont forget, Blue can ben be mysterious and etheral.
Green can be toxic and diseased
Red Can be Bloody and violent
Yellow can be Noxious and foul
Colours FTW
IF you make everything too dark and gritty that leaves you very little room to manoever when you want to emphasise.
Dont forget, Blue can ben be mysterious and etheral.
Green can be toxic and diseased
Red Can be Bloody and violent
Yellow can be Noxious and foul
Colours FTW
What many people seem to be failing to realise was that Diablo II was pretty goddamn bright in many places. Act II before you hit the Claw Viper Darkness Curse quest stands out in my mind. Hell, even in Act I, where you're in this quasi-marshland/field/foresty place that's night two thirds of the time was pretty bright. Mainly because the common enemies were bright red/blue/yellow. That and there were fireballs and violent founts of blood everywhere :3
The only difference that I can see is that Diablo III is both bright and fairly shiny, as opposed to Diablo II's bright-but-matte look. Which was completely necessitated by the technology at the time, of course. Either way, some people need to go back and have a look at what they're comparing the new screenshots with.
Obviously, in the Diablo III case, it was realised somewhere along the line that players like to be able to see what's going on, but it's not a bad thing that people disagree. It's worthy of debate, but in this case, the decision had already been made, so it's not going to change. In other, more specific cases (ex: I want an ability that does [ability]), it's probably a better idea to start talking about it early, as they're more likely to listen to your awesome new idea for a move.
The only difference that I can see is that Diablo III is both bright and fairly shiny, as opposed to Diablo II's bright-but-matte look. Which was completely necessitated by the technology at the time, of course. Either way, some people need to go back and have a look at what they're comparing the new screenshots with.
This is an interesting question worthy of discussion. To say that developers shouldn't accept any level of fan contribution/suggestion/criticism is ludicrous. They'd be completely run by marketting divisions or the people that run them (noting of course that the people who [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Wright_%28game_designer%29] run game companies [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Molyneux] can and do produce awesome games), simply because there's no other way to find out what people want in games. So there should definitely be SOME input. How much, though... is difficult to quantify. It may not be possible. I believe that, as much as possible, all suggestions should be weighed and examined for promise.wilsonscrazybed said:
Obviously, in the Diablo III case, it was realised somewhere along the line that players like to be able to see what's going on, but it's not a bad thing that people disagree. It's worthy of debate, but in this case, the decision had already been made, so it's not going to change. In other, more specific cases (ex: I want an ability that does [ability]), it's probably a better idea to start talking about it early, as they're more likely to listen to your awesome new idea for a move.
I'll just say this: The tone in 300 was fine, but there's a line that has to be drawn when trying to make things more gritty, because things can become dull that way very easily. The fan-photoshopped texture of a darker D3 world made me want to turn up the gamma on my monitor. I think Blizzard made a fantastic decision with the color scheme. Game environments don't have to be gritty to be realistic.. They can pull off the same effect if they're vibrant. Those kind of environments just take more effort to make, with today's advanced graphics, than just darkening and sepia-ing everything. Hence why there are a decreasing number of those kinds of environments these days.
I am a huge diablo 2 fanboy, and personally I think vibrant colours make the game look alive.
More contrast, dampening colours is a cheap way of making it look gothic, and to be honest, I'd much prefer to be able to see what is going on.
More contrast, dampening colours is a cheap way of making it look gothic, and to be honest, I'd much prefer to be able to see what is going on.
I get the feeling Mr. Wilson played Gears of War. I had that exact problem with that game.Blizzard III designer Jay Wilson said:
I don't mind discussion in the least, but "that sux, they have 2 do it this way or i wont buy teh gaemz" is not discussion, it's verbal flatulence. As Fenixius said, Diablo II was fairly bright in a lot of places (seriously, the deserts started to hurt my eyes) and Diablo III is following in that vein. It's just that some people think everything has to be dark and gloomy (and slate-grey) to be interesting.
As a fan of the first two Diablo games (minus Hellfire and plus LoD), I find it appalling that these people are so narrow-minded. People literally blew up over the fact that there was a rainbow in the trailer. Now, I can understand if suddenly there were rainbow stickers plastered all over the Barbarian's armor, but this happened naturally and it would be stupid if the rainbow wasn't there.
In a sea of different shades of brown, color is not bad.
In a sea of different shades of brown, color is not bad.
Yeah, I laughed quite a lot at the people freaking out about "LACK OF IMMERSION" caused by the rainbow. I reckon it would be almost worth putting in hello kitty and a few unicorns in there just to set the same people off again, I could do with a few laughs.Flos said:
The outdoor levels look great, Colourful, vibrant, a lot like a dildo really but the dungeons also seem colourful and vibrant, which I suppose doesn't really mesh with what a dungeon is supposed to be. Also where to demons get all those purple flood lights from?