Diablo III Looked Heavenly in 2005

Alar

The Stormbringer
Dec 1, 2009
1,356
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 thats it.
...Thank you. Thank you so much. These two articles explained the entire situation for me, and though I didn't have any major complaints before, even my minor complaint about the art-style seem to be gone now.
 

Stevepinto3

New member
Jun 4, 2009
585
0
0
I like how people joke constantly about all games being dark and gritty, but when someone actually want's to use a variety of colors in a game people get into an uproar. Yes I'm aware that's been Diablo's history, but Resident Evil's history was to suck up until 4.
 

seditary

New member
Aug 17, 2008
625
0
0
Treah said:
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.....
I'm not going to get into all the other crap in the thread because I'll get too angry and get myself in trouble, but I just wanted to point out to you that Diablo 1 was on console as well.
 

BloodyThoughts

EPIC PIRATE DANCE PARTY!
Jan 4, 2010
23,003
0
0
Treah said:
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.....
No, it's not really because "The puter is too hard". It's because DIII is going to have a much better graphics engine than DI and DII(Which I could actually download on my hunk of junk), and is going to be rendered in 3D. I don't know about you, but I think I know A LOT of people who can't get games like DIII on their computer because they're computer are just too bad, and they don't feel like selling their souls to get the money for a thousand dollar gaming computer, when they can get something that can still play games, and only costs 200-400 dollars.

EDIT: Forgot to add, that way, Blizzard makes more money, and the fans are happy that they can still play Diablo even though they don't have computers strong enough to run it.. It's win-win.

That being said, I cannot wait until DIII comes out, and because I don't want to get into the argument that is going on now, I really do not have a problem with the new colors implemented into the game, and think that the newer one is better than the older one. It still looks just as atmospheric as the last two to me.
 

Dyme

New member
Nov 18, 2009
498
0
0
BloodyThoughts said:
they don't feel like selling their souls to get the money for a thousand dollar gaming computer, when they can get something that can still play games, and only costs 200-400 dollars.
Everyone has a computer anyways. And I am pretty sure that computers are cheaper. I bought my computer 2006 or 07 for 500? and can still play everything fluently.
BloodyThoughts said:
EDIT: Forgot to add, that way, Blizzard makes more money, and the fans are happy that they can still play Diablo even though they don't have computers strong enough to run it.. It's win-win.
As a computer gamer I can tell you: Consoles restrict games and make them playable less comfortably. Because computers have superior controllers. For example: The Fallout 3 inventory was so incredibly bad that I puked every time I had to open it.

BloodyThoughts said:
That being said, I cannot wait until DIII comes out, and because I don't want to get into the argument that is going on now, I really do not have a problem with the new colors implemented into the game, and think that the newer one is better than the older one. It still looks just as atmospheric as the last two to me.
I agree. Diablo looks hot. And as long as the gameplay is good, who really cares about graphic?
 

VanityGirl

New member
Apr 29, 2009
3,472
0
0
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I'm dissapointed. It's been 10 years and I've been waiting on Diablo! It look like they took WoW textures and pasted it onto the Diablo maps.

You can say what you want about "the designs did it for blah blah value", but at the end the end of the day, it's still a dissapointment to me. You've had 10 years to work on Diablo, you'd better make it good.

I'm not even sure I'd buy this. I might just stick to Diablo 2.
 

GodEmperor47

New member
Nov 12, 2010
27
0
0
People complain too much. Diablo 3 is going to be fun, nearly everyone in this thread will play it, and half of them will (while enjoying the game) come back here and scream "I WAS RIGHT THIS SUCKS AND I AM GETTING MY MONEY BACK!"

Then they'll keep playing in shame.
 

acosn

New member
Sep 11, 2008
616
0
0
1: Lets look at some other Blizzard games that looked utterly different back in their alpha.

Warcraft 3:
http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/attachments/requests-341/57678d1245011625-model-request-warcraft-3-alpha-models-request1.jpg
http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/attachments/requests-341/57681d1245011756-model-request-warcraft-3-alpha-models-request-3.jpg

Starcraft 1:
http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/e/e0/Zergalpha.jpg
http://starcraft.incgamers.com/gallery/data/534/alpha5.jpg
http://starcraft.incgamers.com/gallery/data/534/alpha1.jpg
http://home.planet.nl/~aggel005/alphabeta/alpha/alpha18.jpg

World of Warcraft:
http://i8.tinypic.com/25k6geg.jpg
http://vnmedia.ign.com/screenshots/wow/87835306.jpg

So no, in all reality considering that graphics blizzard never ends up using in the actual release of a game can make it onto the box art used for said game, I'd say its reasonable that any arguments complaining that the game looks too fugly / kiddie are generally unfounded. Blizzard is notorious for hammering out the graphics last.

2: The dark graphics used in Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 were based on necessity, not because grimdark grimdark grimdark. It genuinely took more work to do the shadows in the game, but without all the darkness? Yeah, games looked atrocious. Not even in a "well this is tolerable" kind of way, like migraine inducing bad.

3: Diablo 3 is set in a world that's gotten along without three primevals stalking it for 20 years. It's not going to look grimdark grimdark grimdark everywhere.

4: Comparisons with WoW are laughable. Blizzard built a new graphics engine specifically for Diablo 3, so at a fundamental level the argument doesn't begin to hold salt. After playing WoW for five years and then actually looking at these screen shots one of the first things that comes to mind is, "wow. This isn't WoW."

5: If you really, really wanted to compare color pallets its actually possible to find comparable situations where the 3D graphics engine builds a more "grim dark" atmosphere than the 2D engine.
 

Racthoh

New member
Feb 9, 2009
156
0
0
So we could've had the game 5 years ago, that's how I read it. Liked the way it would've looked also.

Xzi said:
THIS is what Diablo 2 looked like, people:
That second screenshot is being altered, Maphack (since the stairway to Worldstone Keep Level 3 is labeled on the map...) or that freegamecam being advertised around the outside is doing something. The Throne of Destruction is not that bright:

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/283/diablow.jpg

I don't see a problem with that first screenshot. The blizzard spell?
 

acosn

New member
Sep 11, 2008
616
0
0
ciortas1 said:
drunken_munki said:
"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. "
Holy shit, he actually said that? Perfect example of their lead art designed working on all their games instead of hiring someone more fitting for the universe.

And at this point, who the hell can even try to argue the graphics haven't been WoW'ified?

I mean, I've made my case long ago (post 166 go), but this is just icing on the cake.

Alar said:
Advertisements must work pretty well on you.

BloodyThoughts said:
I'm sorry, could we cut the bullshit "sell a soul to get a computer that can run things" and misconceptions like gaming PCs costing an upwards of 1000 dollars? It's been established on this forum a million times over, you can get a 300-400 dollar PC that can run everything on the market. So quit being ignorant and talking out your ass.

Furthermore, it's like if Sony only made PS2 games (and PS3 had backwards compatibility) because lots of people still haven't made the switch. The potential of the PS3 is ruined for the publisher to get higher profits for a bigger audience, and frankly, the PS3 audience suffers. Same here. This game looks, from a technical standpoint, worse than a 2006 game made by a comparably tiny studio. Let's not have fucking technological regress made by the most well funded developer out there.
Dude. You're ranting, raving, and double posing like a bro. If you want to make a compelling argument your first step is at least looking like you're trying to acknowledge the other side of the argument rather than simply seeing everything as something that can be integrated into your own argument.

You'd have to find some pretty damn good deals and just flat out be lucky to be able to assemble an entire computer for under 600 bucks that'd be able to run everything. Quality of graphics not withstanding.

I honestly don't see that much of a difference between the art style of Diablo 2 and Diablo 3. Of course I also recognize that one is 2D and one is 3D. I also recognize that Blizzard's notorious for having their games look utterly different from their initial builds to their late releases.

Then again, they're not worried about your purchase. It's already guaranteed, or at least guaranteed enough that they won't need to care. They're going to scare away those potential sales with overly stylized graphics.

And no, Blizzard's about as far away from the cutting edge in terms of graphics as you can get. SC1 was still 2D when it's competition was in 3D. As was Diablo 2. Starcraft 2 graphically is inferior to games that came out 4 years ago. When World of Warcraft came out it was obsolete graphically by about 4-5 years. Blizzard games look good, but they're not interested in catering to that 1% of their demographic that builds bruiser rigs that can run the industry's roughest games at the highest settings and not have their computers die in the process, or have them running hot enough to cook dinner while they're at it.

When you get right down to it, superior graphics don't sell. It's why every technologically superior system has never done well. No one remembers the Atari Jaguar. No one remembers Hudsonsoft's foray into console gaming. No one remembers the Dreamcast or the Saturn. Even the PS3 is struggling to keep relevant. NeoGeo? What's that? Sega Gamegear? Even the Nintendo 64 is remembered as, "That first system that signaled Nintendo's folding as being a defacto tyrant of the industry" despite being an all around superior system to the PlayStation.

Still don't believe me? Look at the top selling video games of all time. Even on the PC the highest selling game that sold well and was pitched partially because of breath taking graphics was Myst, and that figured into the game pretty damn importantly all things considered. And the actual sales? Factoring out bundled games the 15 best selling games ever are...
1. Pokémon Red, Blue and Green (Gameboy) - 20.08 Million Copies Sold
2. Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES) - 18 Million Copies Sold
3. The Sims (PC) - 16 Million Copies Sold
4. Nintendogs (Nintendo DS) - 14.75 Million Copies Sold
5. Pokémon Gold and Silver (Gameboy) - 14.1 Million Copies Sold
6. Super Mario Land (Gameboy) - 14 Million Copies Sold
7-tie. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (Playstation 2) - 13 Million Copies Sold
7-tie. Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire (Game Boy Advance) - 13 Million Copies Sold
7-tie. The Sims2 (PC) - 13 Million Copies Sold
10. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (Playstation 2) - 12 Million Copies Sold
11-tie. Super Mario 64 (Nintendo 64) - 11 Million Copies Sold
11-tie. Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec (Playstation 2) - 11 Million Copies Sold
11-tie. Grand Theft Auto III (Playstation 2) - 11 Million Copies Sold
14. Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen (Game Boy Advance) - 10.66 Million Copies Sold
15. New Super Mario Bros. (Nintendo DS) - 10.52 Million Copies Sold

A whopping 2 games are on there based on high quality graphics that also happened to have these so called, "Good" graphics.
 

Alar

The Stormbringer
Dec 1, 2009
1,356
0
0
ciortas1 said:
Advertisements must work pretty well on you.
Actually, I typically ignore advertisements unless they're for, I don't know, something I actually enjoy or have enjoyed in the past? Just because what few minor complaints I had with the art style now seem justified doesn't mean I don't have other complaints, nor does it mean I won't have more problems with the game when it comes out. Did I say I thought the game was going to be perfect and I would gladly throw my money away for it? No, I'm going to wait and see if it addresses some of the issues I have (such as being too damn easy at the start) before I finalize my considerations of purchasing.

Please don't make such bold-faced, idiotic judgments. I happen to trust Blizzard, so if they tell me they had good, justifiable reasons for making a certain decision, I'm more likely to believe them than not. That has nothing to do with any advertisements whatsoever.

Try not to take this as a challenge, as that's not what it is. I have no interests in any of your other arguments, as frankly they aren't likely to influence my purchasing or not purchasing this game.

EDIT: The game could probably use some more blood, bodies, and gore ala Diablo 1. I'd definitely be glad to see that. The room of mutilated corpses with the Butcher was creepy and very atmospheric. Additions like these might go a long way to bringing back some old school Diablo appeal.
 

acosn

New member
Sep 11, 2008
616
0
0
ciortas1 said:
The low/minimum PCs as shown here are better than mine on every aspect bar the processors, which still are more than enough, and my PC can run every game on the market right now, with decent-good graphics. So herp derp on that point.
Yay for my new idea on how to respond to people's posts.
Decent is a relative term.

Fuck, "run" is a relative term. My old computer could run WoW but at a certain point you have to wonder if you really want to be OK with 10 frames per second.

It makes no sense to drop that 400 bucks on the low end rig when you can up it to 600 bucks for a legitimately good PC.

Oh, and I'd like to remind you that this magical mainstream is what Blizzard's trying to tap into. Why do you think they partnered with Facebook for Starcraft 2? It's not to capture the anti-social nerd population they already have. It's because they know those people are going to buy regardless, but questionable graphical style and content might scare people away otherwise.

Incidentally, these torture devices you have a hard on for.... did those even show up in screen shots before D2 came out? Because I did go back and look at post 166 and your argument was just as petty back then as it is now.