Diablo III Looked Heavenly in 2005

acosn

New member
Sep 11, 2008
616
0
0
ciortas1 said:
acosn said:
Decent-good means medium-high graphics, and it's a given I'm talking solid FPS rates, are you even serious?

Of course it makes no sense. I mean why would anybody play on anything but the highest graphics, right? Except they do. And the machines they do it on are called consoles.

They probably are. Excuse me, but being by far the most profitable developer in the world, you'd think they would pay their long time fans, the people who got them there, back in one way or another, and not fuck them over time and time again. I hold no respect for them for shamelessly pandering to the lowest common denominators for the sake of nothing other than profits. Profits they're not using even a fraction of on actual game development.

Come on. I mean really. Did you open the spoiler box, did you not understand the question posed, do you want it to be even simpler?
Consoles are actually always a step behind PCs in terms of graphics, but lets not get ahead of ourselves. You buy a PC for utterly different reasons from why you buy a console, and if anything I'd look at the fact that the newer consoles get the more like PCs they're trying to be.

Actually Blizzard isn't the most profitable developer in the world, but they remain competitive because they don't expend nearly as much keeping AAA titles selling well.

And no, they don't owe their fans anything. Pandering to your respective audience is a sign of hackery and flagging that you've run out of ideas as a developer.

You seem to forget they're a corporation and their number one goal is making as much money as possible. And no, I'm not saying that from the perspective of a tin foil hat. Some companies think that it means releasing as many marginal quality games. Blizzard understands that it means actually choking the market of their IP's and keeping demand artificially high by simply not releasing them that often.


Oh, and yeah, I hold a great deal of respect for them not wasting resources on making their games look pretty. I like my games like I like my cars- functional, running 5 years later with minimal maintenance and still looking good.

My real driving point is thus-

If their choice of graphics really bothers you that much don't buy the game. Blizzard will listen to that like they listened to the blow back from their RealID push. Blizzard sales literally dove by almost a quarter in the week of and after their announcement, and I'd say it has a lot to do with that. People didn't threaten boycotts and form face book groups over it. They actually did something.

Me? I've never been one who was overly distracted by graphics.
 

gurall200

New member
Apr 14, 2009
110
0
0
The old screenshots look like a mod of titan's quest made by a very enterprising group of fans or a very low budget developer, it looks like diablo 2 but in 3D like the article says but in a very bad way, the new style (while having a bit of torchlight look to it....take from that what you will) is a bit easier on the eyes personally.
acosn said:
If their choice of graphics really bothers you that much don't buy the game.
/thread
 

Zanaxal

New member
Nov 14, 2007
297
0
0
Liked the style of the old screenshots, the grafics lacking, almost as bad as D2 but well it was 2005.

Now a days they want everything dark and shadowy so you can't barely see what you are doing. They really overdo it on the shadows and shading. IRL i have yet to see these extreme dark shadows coming off everything like in alot of fps 3'd person games. Its like the sun is a Super intense spotlight casting pitch black shadows on everything not in direct light.

The red ambient shading / shadow in d3 to me looks stupid, hope i can turn it off.
 

acosn

New member
Sep 11, 2008
616
0
0
ciortas1 said:
Who's the most profitable developer in the world, then? Because Blizzard's making more than a billion [http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1041353/wow-makes-huge-profits] dollars each year from WoW's subscriptions alone.
Well, for one thing I'd encourage you to actually investigate rather than take things at face value. The article took the lump value of 9 million people and multiplied it by the US subscription fee of 15 bucks a month.

Unfortunately the single largest source of subscribers for WoW, Asia, has an utterly different payment model because in some parts of Asia a month's pay is 15 bucks a month. They have different payment models.


I'd say having the same cartoony art style on all 3 of your franchises that used to be so different different is more of a sign of hackery and flagging that they've run out of ideas. And what you said doesn't even make sense in the first place. Having an artistically consistent franchise is a sign of hackery and no ideas? Really?
No game remains consistent in it's 3D translation from the 2D world, and big surprise Blizzard discovered that with 3D games using "cartoony" graphics means that it looks good longer. Its probably why Blizzard was literally one of the last horses out of the gate to transfer into a fully 3D engine when most of the industry was already there.

In all honesty I don't grasp this, "Cartoony" argument. If you set games that are aiming to be utterly realistic (Say, Call of Gears of Duty Wars) on one end of the spectrum, and games that are legitimately about cartoons on the other I'd put Blizzard's games smack dab in the middle.

Remember, Blizzard is going to regard those who put the 1000-ish bucks into a computer specifically for the purpose of gaming as that minority who's buying the game anyways, so they're not going to care about how it looks. They're interested in capturing the rest of their sales, and that won't be done with put-offish graphics, and style. People seem to forget that Blizzard games have never been cutting edge in terms of graphics. They're more interested in making it run on as many computers as possible.



Because you use a game to get from point A to point B? What a nonsensical point to make. You play the game to have fun, and don't you dare tell me seeing intestines flying out of enemies when you disembowel them instead of simple spurts of blood wouldn't only add to that. Don't you dare tell me actual lighting within the game wouldn't bring awesome opportunities with spell effects.
Gore for the sake of gore is an empty thing. I'm probably giving Blizzard too much credit here considering the atrocity that was the story writing for SC2, but they need to be careful about how they craft Diablo 3. The primevals are dead (Hey, maybe that's why the environments look not so hells-bellsified) and a new evil is setting up shop. Maybe disemboweling humans in the greater scheme of ending all life isn't their aim. Maybe they want to corrupt humanity? Wouldn't it make a bit less sense to have your demons romping about killing everything then?

I approach the whole issue conservatively because ultimately we don't really know enough to have any comments about it. The game is still in alpha, and blizzard is notorious for adding in those graphical effects you seem to get so hard about at the last minute. Back up to my first post- SC used to look like WC2, WC3 used to look utterly different, and WoW used to have a much less toon'd look to it.

Much in the same way you use a car to get from one place to another you use video games to have fun in place of boredom. Just because they don't do the same thing doesn't mean you can't draw analogies between them. Much like with video game graphics I'd only find myself not wanting to drive a car if it looked absolutely ugly.

And again, I already said I'm buying the game and I'm not telling anyone not to. How many times do I have to repeat this?

The community was unanimously against Starcraft 2 not having LAN for 2 years. Not a single shit was given. And for a company that prides itself on being all about the fans, that's one shit less than adequate. About the sales dropping for 2 weeks, I'd hardly believe it's anything more than a coincidence. EDIT: Actually, I have heard something about people cancelling their WoW accounts. Yet still, the Real ID feature was such an irrelevant one from a business standpoint, they basically didn't lose anything by going back on that.
Sales don't arbitrarily nose-dive like that.

And you're demonstrating exactly why your whole argument is useless. When you complain, but still buy the product you've effectively told the company that while you care, you just don't care enough to make a big deal about it. You're still buying their product, so they're not going to expend the resources exploring the, "What If?" category of what fans want.

If you do not like what a company is doing to your favorite established franchises do not buy the games.


I did exclaim that there are a bunch of pretentious people on this forum who are supposedly above graphics, doesn't surprise me one bit.

And I just love how you try to sidestep the core argument of whether the graphics are good or not by saying you don't care about them, and the art style by, well, simply ignoring what I say[footnote]Or being dismissive without addressing any actual points.[/footnote]. Good stuff. Why don't you just acknowledge what I'm saying and be on your way?
My own 2 cents about the graphics is that they look fine. Much like how SC1, WC3, and WoW looked utterly different when they were in development than they do now I acknowledge that Diablo 3 will probably also look different than it does now. Hell, even Starcraft 2's graphics weren't finalized until the beta hit, and even then the highest graphical settings hadn't even been added. I was never one to be dazzled by games that try to sell themselves on top notch graphics. In fact, I'm often wary of those games because those graphics come from somewhere and when you operate on a budget that means the money comes from somewhere else.

I'm not dodging your argument, I'm not even acknowledging it because you're trying to put the horse in front of the cart.
 

pumuckl

New member
Feb 20, 2010
137
0
0
fundayz said:
Xzi said:
I don't see where people are getting the idea that it looks like WoW from. All the environments remain pretty much dark grey/dark red. The only things that bring any color to it are the character abilities.
Really? Diablo 3 looks less "Demon-worshipping, virgin-sacrificing temple" and more "Family Scare Themepark".

just look at these fan comparisons:
http://www.maxfreak.com/diablo3/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/diablo-3-screenshot-big.jpg
http://img299.imageshack.us/i/itshouldrh5.jpg/
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/2/22868/881061-d3_wow_g_super.jpg

If you can't see how the new style deviates from the old diablo style towards WoW style then there's not much left to say.
soo a few shades darker and u'd be excited? thats why blizzard doesnt care about pleasing u
 

acosn

New member
Sep 11, 2008
616
0
0
FFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-


Ok, here we go.

You said that Blizzard made more than a billion dollars.

Your most liberal projection falls short of that.

I called you out on it because you were using bad sources to try and back up flimsy facts.

The big problem is that at the very least WoW in China isn't administered by Blizzard, it's licensed out to another company.

The switch from 2d to 3d is a moot point, considering other companies are having an easier time tackling the Diablo style without even trying than the company that made it.
Perhaps then Blizzard felt that the style is over done in the same way that Duty Calls points out everything wrong with FPSs in the current age. It doesn't make sense to release a game that graphically has a hard time distinguishing itself from everyone else, and knowing Blizzard...

Well, they hate being like everyone else.

They have been sort of behind, but with Diablo 3, they're lagging miles behind every major studio, hell, some minor studios, with the money to buy the moon.
They're a corporation. If they can't demonstrate that better graphics will translate to more sales they're not going to get the funding to do it. History shows that basically no one except one racing game, and one massive fluke (Myst) managed to sell well with graphics as a selling point.

Blizzard's selling point of releasing games that just about anything but the lowest end computers can run is actually one of the reasons they have such unheard of lee-way in the industry. Spending 4-5 years on a game is almost unheard of, but Blizzard does just that. I'd also direct you to Blizzard's history of games. Name one that was graphically a guzzler in terms of resources. WoW was obsolete by 5 years when it came out 5 years ago and it still looks good.


Then why's blood there?
I'd direct you to a game like Call of Duty: World At War. The gore is gratuitous to the extent that even physically improbable limb dismemberment happens. Games like Fallout and what's been presented of Bullet Storm (Or replace it with Mortal Combat if you're anal like that) actually use the gore to build the atmosphere. It's what sets them apart from the likes of Postal.


Starcraft 2 as released looked both technically and artistically exactly the same as the Starcraft 2 from 2007 videos, with the exception of unit/spell changes that occurred in the time period. Diablo 3 looked the same in every single Blizzcon and it's being released either early next year or late this year. The graphics are not going to change. This isn't pre-alpha.
Actually the highest graphical settings never really even made it into screen shots. A number of unit models saw re-working, and an entire tier of graphical settings flat out didn't exist in 2007.

In a large sense? No, the graphics for Diablo 3 will not change. What I would tell you though is that trying to claim you know the game in it's entirety from a series of screen shots is like trying to describe an elephant in one word to a blind man. What if you had nothing but screen shots from the over world for Diablo 2? The desert? We simply don't know enough at this point.


The car analogy is bad. You're comparing what's mostly used as a tool to a form of entertainment media. Personally, I just find it disturbing, seeing how much Diablo 3's graphics lack on the technical standpoint and how much potential there is for improvement, that hardly anybody wants it to look better. Well, I do, and we'll have to agree to disagree.
People drive cars for fun too. Just thought I'd throw that out there.


And again, Blizzard is a company, not an artist. They're not going to just keep working at the quality of graphics till they can't feasibly be improved. They're not trying to build the next Crysis here.


I did edit my post, and you quoted it. I can only add to what I said, that the only reason they rolled back with the decision of Real ID was because its use in the forums in the first place wasn't thought up to make more money, it was simply severe short-sightedness that was pointed out by the whole of internet.

So because I buy a game, any criticism of it I have becomes useless? Come on. As for the whole buying/not buying deal in the first place, there's a problem. The market of the, uh, Diablo genre is severely stagnant. There are literally 3 to 5 decent games, with one or two of them standing above average. If I don't buy this game, I'm effectively depriving myself of a genre of gaming. That's why I'm buying it. Furthermore, I'm not really a believer in the one vote can make a difference train of thought.
At best that makes you kind of whiny, and at worst it means you're a hypocrite. You're complaining about a lot of things, but in the end you don't care enough about it to really do something. Something meaningful, at any rate. No, you probably won't make a significant dent in Blizzard's sales by not buying it, but ultimately you're only accountable to yourself.


Not sure what this means.
You're judging a game you've never played before it comes out, from a company that's notorious for changing things at the last minute.
 

drunken_munki

New member
Nov 14, 2007
124
0
0
gurall200 said:
The old screenshots look like a mod of titan's quest made by a very enterprising group of fans or a very low budget developer, it looks like diablo 2 but in 3D like the article says but in a very bad way, the new style (while having a bit of torchlight look to it....take from that what you will) is a bit easier on the eyes personally.
acosn said:
If their choice of graphics really bothers you that much don't buy the game.
/thread
The graphics don't mean jack to me. I still play Baldur's Gate. I find it increasingly worriying that larger developers are changing things in the wrong direction. Then saying if you don't like it, tough.

Even like the Black Ops cunts. Basically they screwed up sniping COMPLETELY, amungst the game stopping problems such as sound switching off and CTD. Lol, pathetic. A game with 4 sniper rifles and they are all gimped to retarded levels on a normal game mode. The publisher says something like speak nicely to us or we wont do anything. LOL what a pathetic and retarded excuse. Then some other **** sends a letter stating that the fans are too judgmental and are ruiningthe industry? LOL I nearly died with laughter. Maybe the fans have had enough of this bullshit attitude problem that large developers have geared into.

I get the same feeling from Blizzard now.'We changed the art style to increase sales and provide switch over content for bored WoW players, if you don't like it, tough'. That is all is see what I read over the shite statements from Blizzard.

And please stop posting pictures of modded Diablo 2. And also open your eyes, look at those screen-shots. SMASHED with red color all over it, I can't even tell what blob is the player and what isn't. IT looks absolutely pathetic.
 

dagens24

New member
Mar 20, 2004
879
0
0
D2 art style got a little stale after a while. Dark plains, dark tombs, dark sewers, dark sanctuaries, dark swamps, dark bla bla bla. The desert was refreshing because it had actual colour. I think that D3s art is heading in the right direction, I'm sure it'll have its dark tombs and what not, but it also has some other interesting art. I really enjoy the grey ish fall type art style we've seen in the screens, and the graveyard stuff was cool too.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Looks as if D3 is an isometric version of Dragon Age. The human eye can distinguish 16.7 million colours, lets see another besides brown. Also, can we see another filter apart from "murky" and/or "dreary"?

Dark & Gritty have been done, to death.
 

fundayz

New member
Feb 22, 2010
488
0
0
dagens24 said:
D2 art style got a little stale after a while. Dark plains, dark tombs, dark sewers, dark sanctuaries, dark swamps, dark bla bla bla. The desert was refreshing because it had actual colour. I think that D3s art is heading in the right direction, I'm sure it'll have its dark tombs and what not, but it also has some other interesting art. I really enjoy the grey ish fall type art style we've seen in the screens, and the graveyard stuff was cool too.
It's not about the colour, it's about the atmosphere and the art style. Some(most) places just don't give the ominous feel that the other Diablo games did.

Most of this is due to the more "cartoony" art style. It's just hard to take the game seriously when the monsters look like they came out of Beetlejuice.
 

fabulocco

New member
Nov 9, 2009
5
0
0
What many people are forgetting is that more than half of this so called "ominous feel" they hope will come from graphics, comes from sound. With propper sound design you can get ominous feeling from f-in Bambi, if you want. Ever played Dead Space or even Silent hill with sound off? Its almost hilarious.
 

MrHero17

New member
Jul 11, 2008
196
0
0
fundayz said:
It's not about the colour, it's about the atmosphere and the art style. Some(most) places just don't give the ominous feel that the other Diablo games did..
How much of the game have we really seen though, none of us know. In D2 the catacombs(jail?) and Andarials lair were really the only grisly environments in the first act. The whole rest of it was grass and stone.

Would people feel better if they saw some section latter into the game where's there's lots of carnage and gore everywhere?

To me it seems like we've only really seen the first 2 acts of D3 and as Blizz has stated, things aren't going to start of looking like hell.
 

cthulhumythos

New member
Aug 28, 2009
637
0
0
fundayz said:
Xzi said:
I don't see where people are getting the idea that it looks like WoW from. All the environments remain pretty much dark grey/dark red. The only things that bring any color to it are the character abilities.
Really? Diablo 3 looks less "Demon-worshipping, virgin-sacrificing temple" and more "Family Scare Themepark".

just look at these fan comparisons:
http://www.maxfreak.com/diablo3/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/diablo-3-screenshot-big.jpg
http://img299.imageshack.us/i/itshouldrh5.jpg/
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/2/22868/881061-d3_wow_g_super.jpg

If you can't see how the new style deviates from the old diablo style towards WoW style then there's not much left to say.
 

WabbitTwacks

New member
Dec 8, 2010
92
0
0
ciortas1 said:
It's about the art style from the ground up. There are barely any rough edges, the gothic feel is completely out the window, the textures don't even try mimicking reality and the graphics are extremely low-poly and, thus, blocky, which goes against everything D2 was. That's where the problem is.
You should remember that Diablo 2 was a 2D game with pre-rendered sprites (and a lot of them were pixelated as all hell especially on the 640x480 resolution). Also you don't need high-poly models for a game where you are watching all the action from afar and rarely get real close. Ever heard of LOD? (No, I'm not talking about Lord of Destruction).
Actually there aren't that many colors in D3 (they might be bright, but that's it). The Grim Dawn screenshots have a lot more colors (because it's going for the photo-realistic look which obviously isn't the case with D3) and it's actually harder to distinguish different objects in that screenshot while it's quite easy in the D3 screen you provided with it. And guess what, that's because of that "cartoony" look which adds a lot more contrast. You don't need to be photo-realistic to look dark and gory. Also turning saturation up to 11 won't fix anything. I think the colors in D3 are well balanced and I have no problem distinguishing all the objects and monsters on the screen (looking at the screenshots of course, we still have to see how it will look in the actual game).
 

fundayz

New member
Feb 22, 2010
488
0
0
cthulhumythos said:
Way to miss the point. It's not about making it dark for the sake of looking dark, it's about staying true to the art style, atmosphere, and tone of the franchise.