Diablo III Looked Heavenly in 2005

Uszi

New member
Feb 10, 2008
1,214
0
0
ciortas1 said:
Uszi said:
By far the most used definition of it is corny. And corny means trying too hard.
So I pulled definitions from three different dictionaries. None of them said, "Trying too hard."

So I disagree that it means, "trying too hard." I cite as my reason any dictionary you like. As I've stated, if you want to continue to use it to mean that, then feel free--but people are not going to understand you.

OH, Wait, wait. NM, nm. I found your definition in Urban Dictionary. [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cheesy] And even though that is the only place I've found it defined that way, I suppose it is unfair for me to claim that you are the ONLY person who defines it that way.

But then, it's hardly the most used definition then, is it? Since it's only ever defined that way in one entry on Urban Dictionary.

You've failed to bring up any actual point on where the bear was cheesy other than the fact you saw the running animation funny. The closest you could say to that is that it's low quality - but then again, this is a 11 year old game, and for the game, it's on par with everything else.
I've said that the bear is corny. Corny is a synonym for Cheesy. If the bear is corny, then it is Cheesy. The bear is corny because of it's goofy walking and attacking animations, and it's silly appearance with it's bodacious pectorals and it's six-pack abs. Therefore, the bear is cheesy.

Is the bear overdesigned or trying too hard? Perhaps not.

Now, you responded that what you really meant was find something from Diablo 2 that is over designed or trying too hard. I responded with the Amazon.

As for the amazon, so having boobs is making a character more cheesy than double uzi automatically reloading crossbows that can shoot like shotguns and high heels? I suppose I can grant you the boobs to some extent, let's say they outweigh the high heels. Still leaves the fucking ridiculous crossbows. Also, I like how you tried to pick on practically the most basic fantasy archetype in favour of some convoluted juvenile mess of ideas.
But you literally just admitted that her boobs "could possibly have been anywhere near" as cheesy.

Your original challenge:
I'm sorry, but what, in the arsenal of the rogue and the amazon could possibly have been anywhere near as cheesy and overblown as two automatically reloading uzi crossbows that can shoot like shotguns in combination with high heels?
[Emphasis Added]
If you concede that the Amazon's boobs are over designed cheese--They are certainly "Overblown" at least (Hardyharhar)-- then that is something that "could possibly have been anywhere near as cheesy" as the D3 Demon Hunter. You never asked anyone to find something that is "more cheesy" as you stated above.


Now, I'm pretty sure I've demonstrated with the Amazon's rack something that "could possibly have been anywhere near" as cheesy as duel Uzi xbows. If you want to change your language to be more definite, like, "Something precisely as cheesy as" or "Something of equal or greater cheesiness" or just "Something anywhere near as cheesy as" then whatever.

I mean, you've tried to argue that no one has met your challenge because they were using the wrong definition of cheesy, they gave examples of things, but you personally don't find those things cheesy. Then you admit that they do have something cheesy, but you shift your language to say that now it has to be "more" cheesy, instead of "possibly anywhere near as" cheesy.

I'm not going to continue to respond to this challenge if you continue to move the goal posts. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts]
 

Uszi

New member
Feb 10, 2008
1,214
0
0
fundayz said:
Diablo 1 and 2 = stylized realism

Diablo 3 = gory cartoons
I mean, I don't think anyone can even claim that Diablo 1 and 2 were super realistic. I think things still looked fairly cartoony there.

But because everything was at extremely low resolutions, people are able to project more onto the image.

Do people really think this [http://www.thanatosrealms.com/diablo2/pictures/necromancer/render01.jpg] is extremely realistic?

Is this [http://www.co-optimus.com/images/upload/image/diablo_2_classes.jpg] so different from this? [http://ancientavenger.com/images/diablo_3_character_selection_4_classes.jpg]
 

Treah

New member
Feb 17, 2011
3
0
0
Well sad that they decided to wow D3 up but I think it will still be an ok game. I was very disappointed with Starcraft2 as the units just have too much special bullshit to work with and I am sure this is how this game will go. You guys have to understand that Blizzard went though massive people leaving the company much of which worked on Diablo and D2 and the only ppl really left are the code shovelers that work on Wow. Come to think of it alot of people who worked on Wow originally left too why it took so long for Burning crusade. But anyway I'm getting offtrack. Now that Blizzard is owned by a 3rd party that pretty much makes shit I fear the future of blizzard is to make games to appease the twitchy 13 year olds of this day. D3 should never be on console it should not be adapted to fucking console because it is an shall ever be a computer game. I hate it how everything has to be on a console because a puter is too hard for the braindead masses out there.....
 

fundayz

New member
Feb 22, 2010
488
0
0
Uszi said:
I mean, I don't think anyone can even claim that Diablo 1 and 2 were super realistic. I think things still looked fairly cartoony there.

But because everything was at extremely low resolutions, people are able to project more onto the image.

Do people really think this [http://www.thanatosrealms.com/diablo2/pictures/necromancer/render01.jpg] is extremely realistic?

Is this [http://www.co-optimus.com/images/upload/image/diablo_2_classes.jpg] so different from this? [http://ancientavenger.com/images/diablo_3_character_selection_4_classes.jpg]
Honestly? Learn2read.

Stylized realism = extremely realistic, in fact, it's almost the opposite.

And yes, there's a recognizable difference in art style between the two last pictures.
 

LadyRhian

New member
May 13, 2010
1,246
0
0
Personally, given the pictures, I prefer the older ones. I played Diablo 1, but not 2, and I like the older graphics better than the new ones as shown. Just my $.02.
 

Anti Nudist Cupcake

New member
Mar 23, 2010
1,054
0
0
I remember on avpgalaxy.com where I ranted about the style and models in aliens vs predator, people said I was over-reacting and got banned, twice.

I'm not a fan of diablo but I think the fans should get the art styles that THEY want, what the developer wants is irrelevant.
 

Exort

New member
Oct 11, 2010
647
0
0
Anti Nudist Cupcake said:
I remember on avpgalaxy.com where I ranted about the style and models in aliens vs predator, people said I was over-reacting and got banned, twice.

I'm not a fan of diablo but I think the fans should get the art styles that THEY want, what the developer wants is irrelevant.
The problem is that the fan doesn't know what they "really" want. Blizzard did try fan version of Diablo 3 graphic, the problem is that the contract is too low and you can't tell the difference bewteen different character. I'm certain that is not what Diablo fan want right? A pretty yet unplayable game.
 

The_Yeti

New member
Jan 17, 2011
250
0
0
Emergent System said:
The_Yeti said:
All this ignorant babble about it becoming WoW'd or kiddy-fun-land because of the color tone, I have played both WoW and the original Diablo's from start till now and i can tell you just from watching all of the media they've released on their site, http://us.blizzard.com/diablo3/ that all of this opinion based commentary is pure malarkey.
The demon hunter called. She would like a word with you. She's the gnome of D3, I suppose. I can't look at her and not think that it's an attempt at satire.
You do Realise that the Demon Hunter is just the Amazon with a less corny and yet more corny appearance at the same time eh?
 

Exort

New member
Oct 11, 2010
647
0
0
ciortas1 said:
Except if you actually read the articles, it's obvious it's all PR bullshit. The guy was babbling about how only a slightly darker version was already making the game hard to see, the enemies hard to differentiate and other such bullshit. I mean come the fuck on, is he creating the game for half-blind people?

Not to mention in Diablo 2 there were moments where you could see almost nothing closer to the edge of the screen, yet the moment a monster entered said screen, you could instantly and easily recognise it. The fact that Blizzard says it can't be done, if we granted that as true, only says that they've become incompetent as developers.
Please then go find me a Diablo 2 screen shot that doesn't show clear contract of monster and background.

"Not to mention in Diablo 2 there were moments where you could see almost nothing closer to the edge of the screen, yet the moment a monster entered said screen, you could instantly and easily recognise it."
That is exactly the point. The Background is DARK as you said, "See almost nothing closer yo the edge of the screen", the reason you can instantly see the monster is because the monster is brighter in color whether that is bright white against the dark gery floor or red against the sands.

Furthermore to proof my point see these early Diablo 3 leaked monster they are both brightly colored.
http://diablo.incgamers.com/blog/comments/the-earliest-diablo-iii-monsters/

Also do you think you can idenfity how many different kinds of monsters in the Fan version of screenshot in a second? Remember the real game will be moving.
 

Morbira

New member
Nov 28, 2009
67
0
0
I think everyone here misunderstanding the reason why so many older Diablo fans are angered by the new art direction needs to read/reread this article posted in the Escapist magazine a month or so back.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_283/8404-Breaking-the-Genre-Contract

It's not that D3 is going to be a "bad" game, but the new art style is breaking the contract Blizzard established with its early fan base. This is upsetting for a lot of gamers who have been anticipating the continuation of the franchise in the style they loved it for, and in some ways makes them feel like the company has abandoned them for a different focus. It leaves an especially bad taste considering that these fans were the ones that made a 3rd installment in the series plausible for the developers to begin with.
 

The_Yeti

New member
Jan 17, 2011
250
0
0
Morbira said:
I think everyone here misunderstanding the reason why so many older Diablo fans are angered by the new art direction needs to read/reread this article posted in the Escapist magazine a month or so back.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_283/8404-Breaking-the-Genre-Contract

It's not that D3 is going to be a "bad" game, but the new art style is breaking the contract Blizzard established with its early fan base. This is upsetting for a lot of gamers who have been anticipating the continuation of the franchise in the style they loved it for, and in some ways makes them feel like the company has abandoned them for a different focus. It leaves an especially bad taste considering that these fans were the ones that made a 3rd installment in the series plausible for the developers to begin with.
Breaking with the Fan Base my @rse, anyone that lived and loved through the Diablo age from 1 to expanded 2, who'd spit on the game for the 3D conversions atmosphere either hasn't looked heavily enough into the series, or wasn't a fan of the game to begin with, their just cheeky sobs that were in love with the "oo its totally goth!" theme, and can't wrap their heads around a well lit horror scene because their all still afraid of the bloody dark :p
 

Morbira

New member
Nov 28, 2009
67
0
0
The_Yeti said:
Morbira said:
I think everyone here misunderstanding the reason why so many older Diablo fans are angered by the new art direction needs to read/reread this article posted in the Escapist magazine a month or so back.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_283/8404-Breaking-the-Genre-Contract

It's not that D3 is going to be a "bad" game, but the new art style is breaking the contract Blizzard established with its early fan base. This is upsetting for a lot of gamers who have been anticipating the continuation of the franchise in the style they loved it for, and in some ways makes them feel like the company has abandoned them for a different focus. It leaves an especially bad taste considering that these fans were the ones that made a 3rd installment in the series plausible for the developers to begin with.
Breaking with the Fan Base my @rse, anyone that lived and loved through the Diablo age from 1 to expanded 2, who'd spit on the game for the 3D conversions atmosphere either hasn't looked heavily enough into the series, or wasn't a fan of the game to begin with, their just cheeky sobs that were in love with the "oo its totally goth!" theme, and can't wrap their heads around a well lit horror scene because their all still afraid of the bloody dark :p
...Except that the major issues being brought up here revolve much more around the "cartoony WoW" art direction, so I'm failing to see where your point fits in.
 

The_Yeti

New member
Jan 17, 2011
250
0
0
...Except that the major issues being brought up here revolve much more around the "cartoony WoW" art direction, so I'm failing to see where your point fits in.[/quote]

The fact you could say that just implies you've got no idea how terrible WoW's graphics really were at vanilla, and are still, sure any 3D rendering that includes freakin' monsters is going to have a bit of a cartoon sentiment, but its a hell of a lot better then WoW's from the start, not only in design but by how well it flows together.
 

drunken_munki

New member
Nov 14, 2007
124
0
0
fabulocco said:
Oh my god, people... Not this again.

This effin graphics discussion is driving me insane already. Read this, please.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/07/31/diablo-iii-designer-talks-colors/
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/08/04/diablo-iii-designer-turns-tables/

It's outrageous (and nearly IMPOSSIBLE) for someone from the outside of the game's dev circle to possibly state the whatnots of a decision of the caliber of art direction, for there are many more elements involved than you can possibly conceive! These people are paid to do this, and make a lot of effort to make the best decisions they can.

So stop trolling and just wait for the thing to release. If even then you don't like it, don't buy it, and that's it.
I disagree. I read the articles and most of the quotes from Blizzard staff I find very hard to believe. For example: "However, translating the game from 2D to 3D with a dark color palette didn't make for the best gameplay experience"... Erm, games like Gear of War did this very successfully and many fans love that art style.

"When you have 30 creatures on screen -- and four or five different types -- target prioritization is a factor,"

Erm... since when did someone say you can't have colour in the world at all? We are talking about the atmosphere and surroundings having a darker a gritty tone. Left for dead 1 + 2 did this very well. I didn't EVER feel lost and/or confused from that game. Objectives were slightly highlighted. Creatures were different looking, enough to immediately spot the difference. Colour was splashed in here and there to add the difference. What I'm looking at in ANY of those screen shots of the modern D3, to my eye looks like a page torn right out of something like WoW. It looks way too green, GRASS ffs. Blue skies? Are you high? Every single spell effect and click produced a new influx of colour on the screen. I ARGUE the exact opposite of the blizzard guys quote, and I will say after watching a video of D3 gameplay the thing looks very confused and hard to spot what is going on.

"You'll be playing 'Diablo III' for potentially hundreds of hours, and being in one type of environment with one type of look... it really became boring very quickly."

Erm, I played D and D2 countless times and as D2 was a longer game there were different areas involved in the exploration. Crypt -> Desert -> Jungle -> etc. However the overall art style was dark and creepy. What I see in the modern d3 is fluffy rainbow land. You are trying to tell me that I will get confused that I can't tell a monster from the background? what kind of lazy statement is that? There are a hundred ways to improve the contrast if you made EVERYTHING dark and monotone. But that isn't what people a saying. Look at the goddamn fan art for f's sake. Everything is there but the MASS of random colour splashed about the screen is controlled. I can actually SEE what is in the picture. The D3 style art looks WAY too confused.

You are telling me there is no balance? The simple fact is the art style has changed to attract more WOW people into the franchise. Pure greed here, rather than staying true to the original flavor. I'm sorry, I don't want to play WODC3. I don't play WOW because in my opinion the art style is utterly retarded, and the content is pure grind. If I could bare grind I would play EVE-online, the art in that game is stunning.

"Wilson also addressed a few of the concerns that critics of the new art direction had. Many blamed "World of Warcraft" for the change and the influence. But Wilson didn't see that as a bad thing. "I think it's impossible for us to not be influenced by our other creations," he said. "

Erm... Well no it can be both a good and bad thing. But consider you changes the ENTIRE art direction of a game built on horror, grim settings, murder and evil and turned it into WOW style, and that is not a bad thing? Stop lying to me, I'm not that stupid.

The art direction is the problem, we're not talking about adding a 'grey filter' over the image. We're talking about rainbows and green grass and and random Green lighting in an indoor room. We're talking about random blue god rays in a passageway and RANDOM colour stretching the entire view of the screen. You get that? RANDOM colour. We're not commenting on lakes of lava or a white glowing angel, those things REQUIRE colour and differentiation from the scene.

I could go on and on but this is already getting tedious and you can always take comfort in the fact that a picture says a thousand words.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
thylasos said:
Am I the only man left who doesn't have a problem with isometric graphics?
No, though you can probably count the number of us who are left on one hand.

Glad to see two pages further down the line, there's more whining solely for the sake of whining. I see a lot of subjective argumentation being used as "fact".

Well, rather than just contributing more bile, I'll address the one point that keeps coming up again and again: coloration.

-There are segments of Diablo 2 that are quite dark. This is a running theme with the game; where there are hoards of monsters off the beaten path, it will be dark. The first three end dungeons are horribly dark, as are the vast majority of secondary dungeons. These are those "Dens of evil" the game establishes with the very first quest.
-There are segments of Diablo 2 that are full of PAINFULLY OBVIOUSLY contrasting colors.
Most of the "overworld" (non-dungeon/main path) zones follow this. All acts (except 4, which has its own mini-theme at work) follow this principle for the most part.

Points to note about the design of each act:
Act 1 looks somewhat subdued because it's trying to emulate the look and feel of the original (Diablo 1).
Act 2 is designed to be directly contrasting to make the player think (consciously or covertly) that you aren't in Diablo 1 anymore. You are now traveling the world. The desert overworld allows the player to see clearly approaching foes even at night (with one, quest-centric exception, presumably to correct this). This helps enforce the darkness-theme.
Act 3 (most skipped Act EVER), is a long slog through the jungle. Overall, it's fairly boring, but sticks to the premise of darkness. Mephisto's Durance of Hate is VERY VERY dark.

Act 4: You're in Hell now. Color contrast and saturation changes overtly the closer you get to Diablo, starting out with the subdued (and boring) earth/stones and warming up (pun not intended) along the River of Flame to a fully saturated palette in the Chaos Sanctuary.

Act 5: Color contrasts are at their highest here. Blues and whites abound, but portals leading back into Hell (blacks and reds) are interspersed throughout the levels to provide respite from color fatigue (something Act 3 needed BADLY) and variety.
The darkest zones in Act 5 cannot even compare to most of Act 3, simply due to the saturation.
In hindsight, it's quite impressive how Blizzard introduced such strong concepts and detail into this act on a limited color palette. (Pity how most people were too busy rushing or botting to stop and take notice.)

Each act is significantly different in its approach and theme (with the exception of Act 3, vs Act 1) compared to the others.

What does this mean for Diablo 3? Honestly, not a whole lot to me.
The idea (if I'm correctly inferring what the end of Diablo 2: LoD established) is that the boundaries between Heaven and Hell are dissolving and each side is now spilling into Sanctuary.

More specifically, Diablo 1 and 2 were about Hell (and ONLY HELL) invading Sanctuary. But now, Heaven is being forced into the mix. The art direction should attempt to address this at least a little. It would be stupid if this did not occur.
Previously, I said that as long as they retain the architectural style, I would be cool with it, and this is mostly why.

That's my analysis on the coloration and rationale behind it. Since I'm not a mind-reader, and I don't work at Blizzard, I can only concisely guess or interpret the intentions of the art direction at work here (just like everyone else in this topic).
If Diablo 3 is to retain a sense of artistic identity, then Blizzard should be adapting brighter coloration. As for the rest of the design, well, I am going to wait for updated content before I form (or revise) my opinion.