This Needs to Stop...

[The Sorrow]

I've remained mostly silent about my opinion, but seeing yet another "the colors are ruining Diablo III" argument, I can't stay silent.
Why does the art matter? Why do we play games?
To have fun.
If a game had excellent gameplay and I thoroughly enjoyed myself playing it, I wouldn't care if the graphics were done by a team high on LSD and the main character shat rainbows.
If you enjoy a game less just becous of some aesthetic choices, you're not gaming.

In addition, most reviews (excluding ZP) seem to forget the fun factor, as it is buried under complaints about graphics and minor design choices. Scores shouldn't even exist; reviewers should just say whether the game is fun.

Am I doing it wrong? Is the point of gaming not to gave fun? That's the impression I'm getting.

 

[Soulfein]

Haven't you seen the screenshot from Diablo II where half of the monsters are poisened and the other half are frosted?

I do agree with you, but there is a reason why people go with "The Browns". Some people like it like that. Not everyone is going to agree with you.

 

[Bane07]

The bright colors might detract from some peoples fun in the game. I'm not saying that it really bothers me (hell I didn't even know about it) but some others might. They might see it as their dark and scary game being turned more mainstream?
I don't know, just throwing some ideas out there.

 

[Altorin]

They WERE going to make Diablo 3 "brown"

That was the original plan, because that's what their memories of Diablo and Diablo 2 were like

But when they went back and played through Diablo and Diablo 2, they discovered that they were in fact very colorful.

Once people play through the game, they won't notice.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

You're making an argument that isn't limited to Diablo III. You are saying that graphics have no impact on the way a game plays and thus no worth should be placed on art, design, tone, themes, use of color, quality of animations and characters, or general look and feel.

To each their own; but keep yours far away from mine, please.

 

[Altorin]

To say that art doesn't matter in diablo III is like saying sugar doesn't matter in [insert your favorite candy] or, if you don't like candy, it's like saying [the thing that gives your favorite thing it's special-ness] doesn't matter in [your favorite thing].

art and story and music were like the three best parts of d2. The gameplay was just clicking, [i was gonna write a list but come to think of it that's pretty much it]. Oh and the leveling up system was nothing great, nothing intuitive. IT still rocked because it had damn nice ambiance and believability.

yes, the art style in Diablo is important, but it's not the gray and brown mess that people remember it to be.

 

[pha kin su pah]

if it had too much colour people would say it looked like Halo...

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

A piece of art can contain green, red and blue and still have a dark theme. So it is with Diablo II.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

People blow things out of proportion. Diablo will be fine and sell shit tons of copies. It's BLIZZARD. You can nitpick them all they want, in the end they'll produce a high quality product with broad appeal. Hardcore nerdz of various niche's might not like it but the middle majority well.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

PS- Diablo only looked so brown because everything was so damn blurry and in 800x600.

 

[The Sorrow]

Graphics matter. Just nowhere near as much as people give them credit for.

 

[blank0000]

You bring up a good point lad. I think what it is the communities push to have Video Gaming be excepted as a legit medium as opposed to a "mindless killbox" that poisons your children and burns your crops.

I think the way gaming is evolving, theirs more variation on what people consider fun, entertaining, or enjoyable. I personally love when a game goes with an "artistic" edge such as in TF2. I'm an animator with specific taste that loves old school Disney and hates anime, so it's to be expected. However, if the games machanics FAILED EPICLY, I'd soon stop playing. It's generally a combination of these interests. Others don't agree with me and hence they might be drawn to something else out their for some other reason. That's one of the great things in video games, theirs plenty of variety for any sort of person.

 

[The Sorrow]

Just to be clear: I love a good story and good characters. Graphics, though...especially this Diablo III thing.
Fanboy #1: Hey, Diablo III! Diablo II was fun, so this should be too.
Fanboy #2: But wait! This graphics are shiny! Let us avoid a potentially fun experience for a ridiculous reason!
FB #1: Amen!

 

[Joeshie]

If you enjoy a game less just becous of some aesthetic choices, you're not gaming.

If you honestly don't think that aesthetic choices such as art design doesn't positively or negatively affect the overall game, then you are an idiot. They may not play as big of a role as gameplay, but it does play a role.

 

[Jamanticus]

I've remained mostly silent about my opinion, but seeing yet another "the colors are ruining Diablo III" argument, I can't stay silent.
Why does the art matter? Why do we play games?
To have fun.
If a game had excellent gameplay and I thoroughly enjoyed myself playing it, I wouldn't care if the graphics were done by a team high on LSD and the main character shat rainbows.
If you enjoy a game less just becous of some aesthetic choices, you're not gaming.

In addition, most reviews (excluding ZP) seem to forget the fun factor, as it is buried under complaints about graphics and minor design choices. Scores shouldn't even exist; reviewers should just say whether the game is fun.

Am I doing it wrong? Is the point of gaming not to gave fun? That's the impression I'm getting.

Hey! If Yahtzee actually paid attention to the fun part of gaming, his reviews wouldn't be as funny....
And this whole Diablo happy color thing is certainly not the universe-altering deal that many people are making it out to be... The problem is that huge numbers of fans have petitioned Blizzard to return to a darker side of things and Blizzard has just looked at them and plainly said, "No- we could change the tone of the game to help make it more in keeping with the first 2, but we won't because we like our art department making happy rainbows in our newer gothic rpgs"
Of course that's an exaggeration of what they said.

 

[Gene O]

For my part, I didn't give much thought to the colors of Diablo 1 or 2. I just thought it was easier to see what I was fighting against in Diablo II. In retrospect, I see that because 2 was brighter than 1, I didn't spend as much time in the sequel chasing lamp flickers or texture details as I did in the original.

 

[Alex_P]

Why does the art matter? Why do we play games?
To have fun.
If a game had excellent gameplay and I thoroughly enjoyed myself playing it, I wouldn't care if the graphics were done by a team high on LSD and the main character shat rainbows.
If you enjoy a game less just becous of some aesthetic choices, you're not gaming.

Aesthetics and good design and quality storytelling and other fancy-pants stuff aside...

Looking at shiny stuff that amuses you is part of the "fun" for most players. Isn't that rather self-evident?

(I don't agree with the "you ruined it with rainbows!" people, mind you. But it's pretty easy to understand why what a game looks like directly affects how people experience it.)

-- Alex

 

[pieeater911]

I agree with The Sorrow

Sure, it's a little bit more colorful than our old beloved Diablo 2, but who cares?

I mean, if the game is just as fun as or even better than Diablo 2, then why does it matter?