colors are not the problem

[DarkGoat]

As you can see below, brightness is not the main issue, nor colors. These pictures clearly show why diablo 2 looks better than diablo 3.

http://www.cheats.ru/uploaded/d/diablo2-03708.jpg

http://www.cheats.ru/uploaded/d/diablo2-01145.jpg

http://www.juegomania.org/Diablo+2+Expansion:+Lord+of+Destruction/fotos/pc/6/6877_t/Foto+Diablo+2+Expansion:+Lord+of+Destruction.jpg

[tuxor]

Gates, mercs, and ancients?

/me is confused.

[DarkGoat]

No, it's the textures and the general realism. Look at the buildings and the gate in the first pic for example. You dont see that kind of detail in d3.

[ThulRasha]

I very much disagree that D2 looks better than D3.

The textures are indeed more detailed, that is because they are not really textures at all. Diablo2 was not a 3D game as such. The only thing it used was a perspective view where the same 2D graphics were displayed slightly different. To get the same effect now in a full 3D world, you would need to do a lot of texture swapping, resulting in a sloppy non smooth game.

[DarkGoat]

There already are many games with similar detail in full 3d, and although they are very high end games, by the time diablo 3 is released any standard computer will be able to run them.

[Swiffer]

There already are many games with similar detail in full 3d, and although they are very high end games, by the time diablo 3 is released any standard computer will be able to run them.

Yeah, and all of those 'many' games are finished, whereas *gasp* shock horror, Diablo 3 is still in development. I know, it might be hard for you to get your head around that fact, but it really is true. Diablo 3 isn't finished, and i highly doubt that all the people that wrote the 3d engine are off on vacation because it is finished.

I also disagree that all these 'high end' games will be able to run just fine on 'standard' computers when Diablo 3 is released. You might not know it, but if you look outside the hardcore gaming community, people don't upgrade their computers anywhere near as often. Blizzard games are designed to run on a wide range of systems for just that reason. Sure, they expect most D2 players will have upgraded their machine since LOD came out, but they know most of their player base aren't running top end rigs and make their games accordingly.

The art when the characters stepped out into the Leoric Highlands was fantastic, and immediately made me think back to how Baldurs Gate looked years and years ago (whose fully hand drawn environments still look great to this day).

[DarkGoat]

Yeah, and all of those 'many' games are finished, whereas *gasp* shock horror, Diablo 3 is still in development. I know, it might be hard for you to get your head around that fact, but it really is true. Diablo 3 isn't finished, and i highly doubt that all the people that wrote the 3d engine are off on vacation because it is finished.

You dont think I'm aware that it's still in development? Things like the general style of art are decided at the beginning, and they don't change. When you looked at the early screenshots of WoW, did you think there was the slightest chance that it would end up looking like diablo? No0, because that's not the style of art they decided to use, and it was clear from the earliest of screenshots.


Sure, they expect most D2 players will have upgraded their machine since LOD came out, but they know most of their player base aren't running top end rigs and make their games accordingly.


Unfortunately, I didn't say they should assume everyone has top end rigs. I said the exact opposite.

[Swiffer]

Unfortunately, I didn't say they should assume everyone has top end rigs. I said the exact opposite.

Nice try at answering a quote by taking it out of context. I was responding to your quote:

There already are many games with similar detail in full 3d, and although they are very high end games, by the time diablo 3 is released any standard computer will be able to run them.

Emphasis is mine. My mention of them not expecting you to have a top end rig was aimed directly at your statement about the many 'very high end games' and how the rigs needed for those current games would end up being 'standard' machines when D3 is finally released, which as i will say again, is quite frankly fantasy.

Context is everything, and ignoring it doesn't make your argument convincing ;)

[DarkGoat]

Saying that something is "quite frankly fantasy" doesn't make your argument convincing either.

[Thunderchild]

I think that art texture and -minor- details are exactly the things that fall under finishing touches, or polish.
I really don't understand this trend... is it something from Wow? all the players immediately became griefers that complain over -every- -single- -little- -thing-.

The game is far from being done, up to this point they made 2 excellent games and now you think you know better than them what they should or shouldn't do?

Correct me if I'm mistaken but I -think- that they have a rather strong inclination for people to actually -want- to play the game.

Why is everyone acting like Blizzard is trying to deprave that from them?

You aren't happy? go and play D2... but for the Love of God stop sticking your head inside the kitchen and whining that you don't like the smell.

If you don't like it- don't eat it. But at least wait until it's done

[Flux]

There are some things that 2d games do better than 3d, and depicting tiny, detailed textures and surfaces is one of them. 3D doesn't have that level of resolution, though it may some day, as processing power increases.

I'll also point out that you've pictured 3 static areas in D2; places created entirely by the art crew and tweaked and refined. Random dungeon areas do not have that level of detail, or when they do you can see the repeating textures. We've not seen any static areas of D3 yet; no towns were shown in the gameplay. Just semi-random dungeons. It's possible that when we see the d3 towns, assuming they're chunks of set art and not randomly created from puzzle pieces each time, they'll be amazingly detailed and hand crafted. the concept art for them certainly looks cool, at least.

[Brother Laz]

Actually, D2 and D1 look realistic. D3 does not.

It's not about detail, or rainbows, or brightness. It's about catacombs looking grey in D1/D2 and neon green in D3, and shoulders looking realistic in D1/D2 and giant with spikes in D3.

[KiLLJOi]

I don't know if all of you have forgotten...but D3 is not being developed by the same people who gave us the first two installments

of course they are going to look different, but as Thunderchild was saying, I think this topic should hold off until we have a little more evidence of what the game will actually look like towards the end of development

[Angel_of_Wrath]

There are some things that 2d games do better than 3d, and depicting tiny, detailed textures and surfaces is one of them. 3D doesn't have that level of resolution, though it may some day, as processing power increases.

I'll also point out that you've pictured 3 static areas in D2; places created entirely by the art crew and tweaked and refined. Random dungeon areas do not have that level of detail, or when they do you can see the repeating textures. We've not seen any static areas of D3 yet; no towns were shown in the gameplay. Just semi-random dungeons. It's possible that when we see the d3 towns, assuming they're chunks of set art and not randomly created from puzzle pieces each time, they'll be amazingly detailed and hand crafted. the concept art for them certainly looks cool, at least.

Yep, so true. Go look in the Halls of Vaught or The Pit for examples of that. I'm looking forward to see how Caldeum is represented since it will probably play a major role in D3, and the trailer makes it look huge/epic.

[Neferim]

I think this topic should hold off until we have a little more evidence of what the game will actually look like towards the end of development

http://www.gamespot.com/video/930659/6193139/diablo-iii-interview

Not sure if you've seen this interview with Rob Pardo or not, but he says that all 5 classes are pretty much done and playable as well as the first act, or what would be the equivalent of a "first act" as far as D2 terms go. They've got multiplayer up and running, and are mainly just filling in content for the rest of the game. They've been working on the game for around 5 years, and from the sounds of it, they seem pretty optimistic about how for along in development they are.

What I'm trying to say is that if people have concerns about something they saw in the gameplay videos, I don't think that it's premature to bring it up now. Waiting too long in case it changes before they show us the next videos may be waiting too long, and it won't hurt to let Blizzard know what we think about what they have so far even if they were already heading in the direction of some of the criticisms people put forward.

[ThulRasha]

There already are many games with similar detail in full 3d, and although they are very high end games, by the time diablo 3 is released any standard computer will be able to run them.

Name one of these many games.

You can't.
There are no 3D games with that level of detail. Age of Conan comes close with the amount of textures they use, but look at the payoff. When running trough two maps your 4gig memory is filled and it's so slow that you will see each texture going trough 6 stages, breaking immersion massively.
And that is exactly what I meant. If you want so many high resolution textures, it's going to get slow on even the fastest computers and graphics cards.

[CYBERPUNK]

I'm sorry that you're catching so much flack on this @Darkgoat as I completely agree with you, after hearing the dude talk about how they're taking the WoW approach of "larger more fantasy style textures" and cartooning the whole world up, I was like "WTH?!? that's TOTALLY NOT Diablo/DiabloII"

ah well, whatever I'll prolly still be replaying D2 years down the road, but it remains to be seen if D3 will have such staying power

[Cwicseolfor]

Actually, D2 and D1 look realistic. D3 does not.

It's not about detail, or rainbows, or brightness. It's about catacombs looking grey in D1/D2 and neon green in D3, and shoulders looking realistic in D1/D2 and giant with spikes in D3.

You know what, you're completely right (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/diablo-hate-internet.php).

Warning: swearz

[Thunderchild]

You know what?
fine...
let's examine D2- your oh so perfect game apparently.
The fact that auras sucked, that the resolution was horrifying and that the colors on the armor were totally off and shifted oddly didn't bother you?
There are -dozens- of examples where the graphics in D2 sucked like hell, but you still enjoyed it.
The magical effects were really unimpressive as well.

Things are bound to change, for better or worse. But you're turning this into a celebrated cry-mongering when the truth is simple- the game is still being made.

and D1 looked realistic?! yeah, the lightning spells there were very good hm? There too, the graphics were okay, nothing beyond that.

So stop crying, you are not pleased with it-fine. But why must I see these infantile complaints everywhere?
You will not persuade me that a game like Diablo looked "realistic", as I doubt you saw tons of demons to judge that- it's simply what you are used to.
You -cannot- rely on a frigging replay of a movie on an unfinished product to state all the "world shattering" announcements you are making.

Blah, this is just tiresome. People are simply on the lookout for things to whine about, yish

[Neferim]

I don't think anyone said that Diablo 2 was perfect or had the greatest graphics of all time, and of course we all still played the game despite its flaws. Does that mean we are not allowed to have input as far as what we would like to see in Diablo 3? Do Diablo 2's graphical inadequacies in any way justify the inadequacies of future games? I am not saying that graphics on D3 are bad, and I'm certainly not saying that I will refuse to buy it if they stay the way they are. All I am saying is that I would like to see some things changed.

As far as realism goes, I find it a bit odd that everyone's response to "I wish [XXX] looked a little more realistic" is "It's a fantasy game! F-A-N-T-A-S-Y! It's not realistic. DEMONS! ETC!" We all know that the game isn't -reality- but things in the game can look still look realistic. Many of us would like the character models and armor to look more realistic because the sprites looked more realistic in the previous games, and it's a style we are pleased with. True, I haven't seen many demons from hell to compare to the game, but I have seen human beings and pieces of armor.

Finally, I just thought I'd point out that the part of the game that was demonstrated in the gameplay video is pretty much done, as was stated in the interview I linked to earlier in this thread. You seem pretty upset about people giving criticism on the gameplay video, but I don't understand why. Just relax and either participate in the discussion or move on to something you find more interesting. As a famous hip-hop artist once said
"Burn the negativity down to ashes,
Let the positivity grow like grasses..." :)

[Thunderchild]

I don't mind criticism. What's currently going on is not by any means constructive criticism. It's a bunch of people moaning about rather shallow and minor thing or whining about the fact that they want this or that character in the game.
The line "I ain't buying this game" is not criticism, that's being whiny.

As for the statement of it being done- minor tweaks are exactly the things that goes into the -final- polishing of the product. If you believe that the shades of textures there is the major thing in the said video.... I believe you're wrong.

Besides that, even if said dungeon is complete- that does not mean that the characters themselves are not going to undergo cosmetic changes- they are not a part of just that scene, and they openly stated that the characters are by no means done.

If the comments stated by most people were conveyed in a manner that was befitting an adult rather than an up-snot child, I wouldn't have been so vexed about it.

You won't convince me that the onslaught of criticism is fully based or even deserves attention.

[Neferim]

I will certainly admit that many of the people posting are not giving well founded arguments, or even arguments at all. I am probably as tired as you of the topics that just have a screenshot posted and then another screenshot that has been photoshopped to look like what they want. Those are not constructive in the slightest. It's not a reason to shut down all discussion of the topic though, because I believe that it is possible to have a meaningful discussion about it.

I know that many of the things I have posted that I would like to see changed or augmented may be still on the books, as many of the things are pretty minor details. A little more evidence of corruption, modified armor and possibly character models, and the green/blue haze permeating the dungeon. However, it can't hurt to let Blizzard know that those are the things I would like to see, because if they are NOT on the books for being included, they may consider it if enough people want them.

As far as the characters being done, in the interview with Rob Pardo, at about 2 minutes in, he says they have "most of the other classes playable back at the office" and then says most of act 1 is playable as well. By no means does this mean they're completely done with them, but it says to me that they are pretty far along. Far enough along that I would want to make known any concerns I had now before it becomes too late for them to change anything.

I can only really speak for myself of course. I try to be reasonable in most of my posts and usually proof read them to make sure I've really thought out my positions. I think there are probably a lot of people who don't do that on internet forums because "it's just the internet".

Oh yeah, and the graphics definitely aren't going to stop ME from buying the game at least :)

[Rolland]

Actually, D2 and D1 look realistic. D3 does not.

It's not about detail, or rainbows, or brightness. It's about catacombs looking grey in D1/D2 and neon green in D3, and shoulders looking realistic in D1/D2 and giant with spikes in D3.

I don't agree with this opinion concerning the look of D3, we'll be fighting all manner of creatures, demonic and otherwise and someone's going to ***** about some knight's Pauldrons ar too big? Or this fighter's got some spikes on his armor?

Give me a break...

And as far as the "greenish" tint of the dungeon he complains about, we have no clue what the other dungeons might look like, nor the actual setting of the dungeon we've seen. There might very well be a "reason" it looks that way..."evil taint"?

But it's ok that we can have a half naked giant woman with 4 arms who can be blue or black???

The realism argument just doesn't work. The problem is that people have differing tastes in Art. Texture, lighting and color are all part of the process. People like different types, it's just the way it is. I like old school X-Men comics, the ones when John Byrne and Terry Austin drew them with a huge amount of detail (108-143?) but can't stand the plain airbrush look of the current artistic trend found in many of the mainstream comics.

It's aesthetics, commonly known as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.

Have a 1000 people look at a work of art and you're going to get "a lot" of differing views and interpretations...but are any of them "wrong"?

Should anyone be told that they're wrong about liking or not liking a certain type of artistic creation?

The current team of developers have chosen this "LOOK" and probably for many more reasons than we currently know.

I personally like the look and feel of the gameplay and world I've seen so far...it could of easily gone the other way. At which point I would have to decide IF that was reason enough for me not to play the game, something I can't imagine it ever being bad enough for me to actually contemplate that.

People should be free to choose what they find pleasing or like especially when it comes to art of any kind.

Just don't try and use "realism" or lack of as an argument when dealing with a fictional setting that is PACKED with un-realistic elements left and right!

I say the developers should stick with the vision they have for the game, the vision they feel good and passionate about. I want a Team that's putting their ALL into making what "they" feel will be the best game possible, because that's what they'll do their very best work on...not the vision or opinion of another.

Art and the process of "creating" it is personal. Which painting or book is better, the one the artist felt they needed or wanted to create? Or the one that HAD to be made because of a deadline?

Which one do you think had more heart, passion, magic within it?

;)

Just my opinion heh

[Funkopotamus]

There's a difference between fantasy and realism. If you notice in the D2 scans, there's not a whole lot of stylization. It looks like things people would actually build to live in, or keep their ancient Barbarian spirits. And you practically get sand in your buttcrack just looking at that Act 2 screenshot. Though I do understand improved textures would probably come a bit later. And there may be a good reason for an entire dungeon glowing green.

Those shoulder pads are just distracting though. Hopefully there's nothing as big in the actual game.

[angers]

Funkopotamus: don't play the game then. We don't care.

[Funkopotamus]

There's an ignore list feature on this forum. If you don't like what I'm saying, put me on it.