Diablo III Looked Heavenly in 2005

[Uszi]

Blizzard said that they want the game start more colorful then get darker and darker to get a sense of "it is only getting worse as the story goes on". That is why people are only complaining about early screen shot. None of them post any later ones.

Right, as I pointed out, it's an example of confirmation bias. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias]

I believe that people should look at the more recent screen shots from later in the game found here [http://us.blizzard.com/diablo3/media/screenshots.xml].

And then see if they're still as pissed off, or if things seem to be getting better for them. Also note, we only have screen shots through Act 2, bearing in mind Exort's argument.

 

[Tiamat666]

Honestly, I would have preferred this version. Diablo 3 may not look like the previous titles, but it does look like about a billion other generic fantasy games.

I agree. The scrapped Diablo has a unique visual style and looks much more interesting than the "generic 3D" new Diablo.

I also like the surprisingly flat angle on some of the screenshots. I would like to play a Diablo like that. Feels much more immersive than the "almost top-down" perspective.

 

[Uszi]

Oh hey, at one point it looked like a Diablo Game instead of Isometric WoW.

As an old school Diablo fan I am very much prepared for disappointment, while trying to keep a glimmer of hope. I guess everything is really conjecture and we will all have to see.

If Diablo 3 is a huge disappointment there is always Grim Dawn. [http://www.grimdawn.com/index.php]

Spoiler

Doesn't this bright outdoor environment from Grim Dawn look exactly like this one?

Spoiler

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

Blizzard said that they want the game start more colorful then get darker and darker to get a sense of "it is only getting worse as the story goes on". That is why people are only complaining about early screen shot. None of them post any later ones.

Which is actually one of the reasons why I am looking forward to Diablo 3.
I always felt that 2, for all its good quality, utterly failed at providing anything close to escalation or a feeling of "shit getting real"ness.
You start in hellish, corrupted forest, you go to hellish, corrupted desert, you go to hellish, corrupted swamp and then you go to hellish, corrupted... hell.

Arriving in act 4, I did not think "Holy, fucking sh*t, this looks really threatening.", I thought "Tyrael must sweat his balls off, levitating so close to the fire...".

Now, there IS something to be said for a really consistent art-direction (just look at Mirror´s Edge, even that Zero Punctuation dude whose name I refuse to learn how to spell correctly, liked the look), but there is also something to be said for contrast and using different colors, levels of light and compositions.
Just look at Portal.
And if you do not know what I am talking about, go and play it.
NOW!

 

[Void(null)]

Oh hey, at one point it looked like a Diablo Game instead of Isometric WoW.

As an old school Diablo fan I am very much prepared for disappointment, while trying to keep a glimmer of hope. I guess everything is really conjecture and we will all have to see.

If Diablo 3 is a huge disappointment there is always Grim Dawn. [http://www.grimdawn.com/index.php]

Spoiler

Doesn't this bright outdoor environment from Grim Dawn look exactly like this one?

Spoiler

Grim Dawn is the first game for a new IP, they are only just establishing their aesthetic and so there are no expectations of the fanbase and the daytime shots are just that, the level during the day time which will visually change with the fall of night as it cycles. From what I have read of Diablo 3 day and night will be static and dictated by area and story progression. Unlike Grim Dawn which has a proper day and night cycle. That very same scene will look very different once night falls.

 

[Joe Deadman]

Can't believe noone has posted this yet:

Spoiler

Seriously people the art designer guy even said they tried playing with darker graphics and it sucked because you couldn't tell where any thing/one was.

Not to mention it apparently gets darker later and the coloured areas are there so that you aren't running through the dark foreboding place of doom and no colour for the 100000000th time with a weird sense of deja vu.

Edit: oh yeah and as for the screenshots themselves personally I think the 2005 version looks a bit flat, but maybe that's just the engine and graphics talking rather than the art style.

 

[Uszi]

Oh hey, at one point it looked like a Diablo Game instead of Isometric WoW.

As an old school Diablo fan I am very much prepared for disappointment, while trying to keep a glimmer of hope. I guess everything is really conjecture and we will all have to see.

If Diablo 3 is a huge disappointment there is always Grim Dawn. [http://www.grimdawn.com/index.php]

Spoiler

Doesn't this bright outdoor environment from Grim Dawn look exactly like this one?

Spoiler

Grim Dawn is the first game for a new IP, they are only just establishing their aesthetic and so there are no expectations of the fanbase and the daytime shots are just that, the level during the day time which will visually change with the fall of night as it cycles. From what I have read of Diablo 3 day and night will be static and dictated by area and story progression. Unlike Grim Dawn which has a proper day and night cycle. That very same scene will look very different once night falls.

So... you admit that they do look the same?

The day/night cycle is also an unimportant caveat. The outdoor environments in Diablo 3 also look very different at night:

I think the fact that you might potentially see the night environments in Grim Dawn more frequently than the night environments in Diablo 3 isn't really an argument about how the aesthetics of one are superior to the other.



...

As far as your very first argument, i.e. Grim Dawn can look bright and happy because its a new game and doesn't have to look like previous games: I'm not sure I accept the premises of that argument. Does Diablo 3 have to look exactly like Diablo 2? Or can it be innovative?

Is it accurate to say then that you're actual argument is that you are NOT disappointed about the brightness/color, but are instead disappointed that they aren't re-releasing Diablo 2 with interface/graphic updates and new content?

 

[Gxas]

I love the look of the graphics now. When I looked at those screens from the scrapped version, I immediately thought, "Wow, that looks exactly like D2." Sure, the scenery looked cool, but, when I buy a sequel to a game, I want it to look different. I don't want the same thing I bought before with a different storyline. That is called an expansion pack. (Granted, this does only work for PC games, as developing a game that pushes a console to its limits halfway through its lifetime doesn't leave any room for improvement. Looking at you, God of War.)

However, I do see the WoW-esque details that people seem to dislike. When I look at screens from D3, I see subtle blurs on the outlines of textures, and that is a bit annoying. You have to remember that these are screens. When the game is moving around, you wont have time to notice all the subtle blurs.

As it stands, if you really hate it that much, just don't buy it.

 

[Uszi]

Can't believe noone has posted this yet:

Spoiler

Seriously people the art designer guy even said they tried playing with darker graphics and it sucked because you couldn't tell where any thing/one was.

Not to mention it apparently gets darker later and the coloured areas are there so that you aren't running through the dark foreboding place of doom and no colour for the 100000000th time with a weird sense of deja vu.

Edit: oh yeah and as for the screenshots themselves personally I think the 2005 version looks a bit flat, but maybe that's just the engine and graphics talking rather than the art style.

Win!

Agree, the 2005 screen shots don't look finished yet, so I hesitate to judge them myself. I think the new style looks better/more readable and the 2005 style looks flatter, but that might be because those screens aren't as far along as the ones coming out now for Diablo 3.

 

[Void(null)]

So... you admit that they do look the same?

I never said that, but I do think anyone who would argue that daytime is not bright is pretty fucking stupid.

Of course day is going to be bright, however that Grim Dawn uses realistic Day and Night Cycles and Diablo 3 has static lighting for each map is a pretty big difference.

That map will always be dark as it is, the other will always be light as it is, there will never be any variance and there is no "This map will look X at Night time" because there will never be a night time for that map... its static. D3 will have maps that are at night but that is an entirely different thing from "This map during the day/night" Its an entirely different level...

 

[John Funk]

Oh hey, only three colors and tons of health potions. Just what the Diablo fanbabies wanted!

 

[Taunta]

First of all, the people are saying it looks like "family fun amusement park" are grossly exaggerating, and it's not exactly fair.

This is a My Little Pony Game.

Spoiler

The notion that they compare is laughable.

Also laughable are the people who insist that their photoshopped screenshots are easy, logistical, and furthermore, possible to do in the actual game. Don't you think that Blizzard, who has been making games for about 20 years now, knows just a LITTLE bit more about making games than you do?

 

[ShaqLevick]

I think it's just a little sad that Blizzard has been sitting on a Diablo game for 5 years and I can't play it... Standards be damned, I mean sell it for $5 and I bet you'd make a few million.

 

[Taunta]

Quit fooling yourself, the only reason the graphics don't look better is because they want the game to run on 7 year old computers.

Ooh boy, tinfoil hat time. Perhaps you should read the articles kindly linked for you on the front page, before you continue to assume Blizzard's reasons for doing in the face of contrary evidence.

I'd say in general, they look tons better than the original screenshots. The edges are a lot smoother, for one. The only reason why diablobabies in this thread seem to think it looks "worse" is because they use more colors than gray, brown, red, and graybrownred.

Unless they know better than me how to code, in which case they're all perfect and obviously their game is faultless.

So far all your contributions to the coding argument seem to be "Everything is possible, so let's do it!". Your contributions development-wise have been what, exactly? So yeah, I'd say they know a hell of a lot more than you do about coding, which no, doesn't make them infallible, and I don't think anyone ever said that, but thank you for implying that I must believe that Blizzard is perfect because I agree with their decision. Because I couldn't have possibly read both sides of the argument and formulated my own opinion.

Secondly, while yes I'm sure that "Anything is possible!" but that does not open the door for "let's do it!" because you addressed possible, but not logistical. Sure, they could flash pictures of dead children on the screen every 30 minutes, but why would they? I'm sure it would make the game a lot grittier for you, but it just doesn't work out gameplay-wise.

Point being: I'm far more likely to take the opinion of someone who actually develops games with a lot more weight than the peanut gallery.

 

[Jack Macaque]

Pics look like they're from Diablo2 just with a different angle of view TBH, looks like a skeleton for what they have now.

Which would make sense lol...as we can all tell

 

[Chibz]

Dear Blizzard,

Please refrain from making and remaking and remaking the game and just make a game and release it for once.

Sincerely,
Everyone.

 

[dragonshardz]

No. Just no. The camera is way too, err, down to the horizontal plane. Nothing like the first two games. As for the art style... well, I see where they were going with it, except it looks way too bright and a bit, uh, cheesy. I prefer the new approach though I would still pick Diablo 2 > Diablo 3 in terms of art style.