Yeah, but this is a dodging of the issue that the screenshots were produced to address: The argument isn't that the game should be made with the art style they've selected and then artificially darkened, the argument is that the game simply looks better with a darker blend of colours. It isn't inherently more difficult to make games dark.Scrow said:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Blizzard Norths old version of Diablo III revealed!
- Thread starter KareBear
- Start date
bigboss370
Member
Scrow said:
i don't expect blizzard to change their art style, thats why i'm hoping mods will take of it.
but just look at the difference in atmosphere and mood the second screen creates compared to the first. the darker tones, the heavy rain, it just better pronounces a desolate, cold, and evil setting. the tattered banner looks more fitting.
Fugu said:
It doesn't look better, unless you are purely speaking from a 'holy shit it's so dark I can't see any polygons(or much of anything else)' point of view.
I'm sure the game will have gamma controls for all you emos, but I don't really understand why a daytime outdoor scene is supposed to be dark. Outdoor scenes in DII weren't dark at all.
So the stat system was only half-broken before they started balancing the game and adding new content with patches/expansions? The clusterfuck of synergies and how stats affected different ratings has been a never-ending battle to balance and without a great deal of success.Fugu said:
Why go back and deal with those balancing issues when you can build a new system from the ground up that is more simple and still achieve customization as the original system intended?
Why does it have to look desolated and cold?bigboss370 said:
Really, if they were to make it darker, I'd rather have them do it just in a subtle way. Sorta like this:
'Before - After 15% - After 75% - After'
Go with 'After 15%' and leave it there...
(but again, I'd rather have them stick to the current visuals)
mavs said:
The two complaints about the graphics I can really buy are the watercolor type textures as opposed to the intricate line patterns that were all over the place in D2, and all the fog and haze everywhere. The former probably to lower the system requirements and increase performance, and the latter probably just an overused tool to increase atmosphere.
The average brightness level and color saturation and overall art style is not all that different from D2. The difference is in the lack of super detailed textures and that haze and fog making everything look super washed out.
From what I've seen the game looks amazing in motion, but in screens it sometimes looks flat and washed out. I wonder if there is another higher graphics setting that includes some more specular or bump mapping on the environments, or if that stuff just isn't turned on yet.
If not I'm fine with the way the game looks in action, and the action is the important part, D2 itself was never the most amazing looking game even for the era, but that never really mattered.
The stat system wasn't at all broken when the game was launched. Energy was used for skill builds that didn't itemize like skill builds. Vitality was used for people who didn't like to die or otherwise couldn't avoid getting hit. Dexterity was used for all weapon classes that didn't use an ITD skill or Amazons who wanted a damage boost, or characters of any kind that wanted to surpass a defense break point. Strength was used for gear and hitting things.John_B said:
Before energy was on everything, it had a defined purpose and became a point of contention because, while players deemed it generally to be a waste of points (as in it was the only one of the four stats that did not directly contribute to damage or survivability), the combination of mana potions not being sold at vendors and skills using copious amounts of mana at high levels meant that players would often put points into it anyway because it made things more consistent; it was a point of preference in a genre where consensus is painfully powerful. You may also note that getting past level 75 was extremely difficult before the expansion (and 1.07) was released so even base mana totals were, on average, about two-thirds to three-quarters of what they are now. This also applies to vitality, with the opposite classes being affected.
Vitality was often considered a throwaway stat when a high level character was around 75 because a) the vast majority of damage dealt in the classic environment is non-physical and therefore more easily and readily mitigated by resistances and b) the lower level meant a lower stat pool, meaning reaching certain strength milestones (there is a large boost in damage at 100, for example) was a priority. In fact, some people didn't put any points into vitality at all because they were itemized well enough to have a ton of fire and lightning resistance and therefore the value of vitality was very little compared to the boost alloted by dexterity. But of course, some people did, either because they put enough time into their character to level up to absurd degrees or because they encountered a more diverse selection of enemies (and therefore benefitted more from the universal -- but lesser -- bonus from health than they did from specific resistances). On a related note, it's obscenely easy to max all four resistances in hell now but this used to be an option that required sacrifice -- you would either have to have a stupid low block chance or otherwise crappy gear.
Dexterity used to not contribute to block chance so it wasn't the stat dump that it is now. But more importantly, dexterity offers a ranged damage boost at 100 so any character that used ranged physical damage had to consider whether or not they wanted to pursue that boost. Even more importantly, dexterity's contribution to %hit and def made it sort of important for PvM and stupidly important for PvP. For PvM, most characters used ITD skills anyway so it wasn't relevant, but there were some that didn't (WW barbarians are probably the most notable, zeal paladins too) and the balance of %hit (dex) versus +damage (str) was a difficult one and depended largely on the specifics of your weapon and how dangerously you lived. For PvP, there was a contentious balance between strength, dex and vitality: Too many points into strength and you wouldn't hit much and you would be easily hit, too few and your damage would be low or your gear options would be limited (or both if you're some kind of moron barb with <100 strength); too many points into dex and your damage would stink and your health would likely be lacking making you entirely ineffective against magic-users, too few and you would be easily hit and possibly have a low chance to hit (again, ITD popular); Too many points into vitality and your health total wouldn't be able to counteract large physical damage attacks, too few and your lack of health total would make you susceptible to large magic attacks.
Strength was tethered to what gear you would expect to use, but unless you were twinked (somewhat less common considering how rare-dependant things were) you had to consider how much strength you expected you were going to need for your gear lest you waste stat points on a pretty useless sink. Any class that relied on attacks with hit checks had to counterbalance strength and dexterity; dexterity was generally more important but it was almost always beneficial to make it to 100 at some point.
Half broken? Hardly, that's a lot of customization out of four very general stats, and that's only considering their end-game benefit. Also, synergies were created to add more variety to potential builds, considering the old system meant that it was very easy to create an optimal build because to maximize the potential of a given skill you only had to invest 20 points plus prereqs (or 40 for characters/skills with masteries). Absolutely nothing to do with stats.
EDIT: The function of stats has not changed at all since 1.00 with the exception of one change made in 1.07. The amount of health that a point of vitality gives has not changed since the game was released. Likewise, the attack rating given by a point of dexterity or the damage boost given by a point of strength (or the special boost at 100) has not changed since the game was released. The only change was removing block percentages based on gear and the introduction of a CTB formula based largely on character level and dexterity.
Yes. Go to the lost city.Bregor said:
It's preference. I like the assertion that you have to be "emo" to enjoy a colour pallate darker than the one presented by Blizzard. That's constructive.iamblades said:
Fugu said:
Stop being disingenuous. The majority of the desert was very brightly lit and you know it. Much more brightly lit than any of the screenshots we have seen from D3.
The point is quite simple - why does an outdoor daylight scene need to be dark? The people who made D2 certainly didn't believe this.
I'm not being disingenuous. You made a statement that's inaccurate and a total misrepresentation.Bregor said:
Out of the six desert areas in Act 2 (Rocky Waste, Dry Hills, Far Oasis, Lost City, Valley of the Snakes, Canyon of the Magi), two of them (incidentally the largest and the smallest one) are completely in the dark, and the other four are affected by the day/night cycle. That means that if you intentionally tried to avoid darkness you would spend, on average, about a third of your time wandering around in the dark. That is entirely without mentioning the fact that you spend a good percentage of the act in dungeons, most of which are quite dark. The Arcane Sanctuary isn't affected by light radius and the Maggot Lair isn't meaningfully affected by light radius, but the rest of them are; the palace cellar is one of the darkest areas of the game.
No one is saying that the entire game needs to be dark, but it would be preferrable if most of it is.
EDIT: Late night grammar needs a-fixin'
Sure they did; that's why they implemented the concept of a light radius. They're not so dark to offer some contrast to the substantially darker dungeon areas. I'm not entirely sure I like that decision either, because I felt that the original Diablo was generally a lot better at being atmospheric and the entire game was in the dark.Bregor said:
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
the latter looks dreadful. completely dreadful. like a deviant art kid who just discovered photoshop desaturation and over-exposure.bigboss370 said:
This a different place than where we started. You initially implied that no areas of the desert were dark (you didn't even mention time of day), whereas I've illustrated that it is at least 33% dark.Bregor said:
It doesn't need to, it's just desirable.
It contributes substantially to the atmosphere of a game about a world overrun by evil. It's for the same reason that the game has blood or grotesque enemies who hurl corpses. Pathetic fallacy is effective and the Diablo games have utilized it effectively in the past; it would be silly for them to stop utilizing it now.
I never said attributes had anything to do with synergies, just pointing out that Blizzard has been adjusting the game for 10 years without nailing it.Fugu said:
While the attributes system may have given great customization options, I still think it was a very weak system that easily let you create broken characters. From the start you are not distributing stats for how you want to play now, but distributing stats for how you want to play in 70-80 levels.
I don't believe the old attributes system is solid enough today, and going with auto distribution for a solid base that players then can build upon with traits sounds like a much better direction, do you not agree?
Fugu said:
And once again, you act like you know the way the characters will go down. Blizzard HAVE mentioned several times that the darkness will creep back to this setting, and that change in the mood will be present ON the journey, not before it.
All this screenshot altering stuff is really pathetic, as it feels like teenagers trying to change their favorit movies/books to a "darker" setting. Guess what: if Blizzard wants to tell a story where in the beginning of the game, things does not seem THAT bad, but they turn out to be really horrible onwards, it is THEIR game to tell the story in - this "let us darken the mood for the sake of darkening the mood" stuff is really horrible: it is like turning down contrast/brightness in your screen when you watch the first Lord of The Rings movie for DARKER feeling.
Hah. Let it come. It will come if they want to. They expressed that they want to. What is the matter then?
Rez said:
This. I cant help but feel that the "dark diablo for us please" group has some very nasty backseat storytellers who wants to express themselves by trying to force changes on other's creative work.
For god's sake, this is not about light vs. dark. The "After" shot is pretty horrible - you can't see anything and it still doesn't look like Diablo 2 for shit.
That's because the problem with the new graphics is deeper than simply cranking up the contrast -The entire art style is different - Diablo 2 had a much more naturalistic art, it felt almost photo-realistic (if you ignore the colored enemies
) - even when the game wasn't at night or in dark dungeons it felt gritty and grim. The desert and the Arcane Sanctuary level in Diablo 2 are the lamest arguments I could think about in trying to paint the Diablo 3 style as resembling the former art.
The new art design is not bad (far from it, some of the desert photos above are amazing) plus we're talking about an unfinished game, we didn't saw it much in motion or with the music added - So, really, it could blow everybody minds once you actually get into it, but I'd still prefer for them to stick with something the looked a little more like Diablo. Like the old screenshots.
That's because the problem with the new graphics is deeper than simply cranking up the contrast -The entire art style is different - Diablo 2 had a much more naturalistic art, it felt almost photo-realistic (if you ignore the colored enemies
) - even when the game wasn't at night or in dark dungeons it felt gritty and grim. The desert and the Arcane Sanctuary level in Diablo 2 are the lamest arguments I could think about in trying to paint the Diablo 3 style as resembling the former art. The new art design is not bad (far from it, some of the desert photos above are amazing) plus we're talking about an unfinished game, we didn't saw it much in motion or with the music added - So, really, it could blow everybody minds once you actually get into it, but I'd still prefer for them to stick with something the looked a little more like Diablo. Like the old screenshots.
They haven't really adjusted the game though; they adjusted skills and items in almost every patch since the game's inception but stats haven't changed at all, so the once-pertinent benefits of stats are far overshadowed by the benefits of items.John_B said:
The stat system didn't let you create broken characters, the limited amount of content did. Blizzard didn't have the foresight in 2000 to realize that, unlike the original Diablo, people would actually continue playing Diablo 2 after they'd beaten it on the same characters that they beat it with. The lack of a complete character build (namely a sorcerer with max stats and spells) meant that people would feel compelled to continue playing like they never were in the original Diablo, and the game simply wasn't prepared for that. It is entirely impossible for the same content to be balanced around both an untwinked character with only a passing concern for stats and an intentionally min/maxed character with the best gear.
I do not agree with the notion that the stat system has to be removed or with the notion that removing player-distributed stats will, in any way, produce a more balanced or level (in terms of difficulty) game. Blizzard needs to realize that any system that they implement will eventually be exploited for the benefit of the players and they need to start designing content around these players simply because the players who build their characters right and with the right gear will eventually become the majority, as they have in Diablo 2.
In Diablo 2's original, balanced state, the only problematic stat is energy because it becomes mostly ineffective when you're at a high level and with good gear. Energy should provide some boost to magic-origin damage (or perhaps just a fixed boost at a large number) much in the same way that strength provides a boost to physical-origin damage.
How many of those darker screenshots have I posted? I'll spare you the skim of the thread and tell you that the correct answer is zero; I'm not endorsing the "art style" reflected in those pictures, so arguing against me by telling me that those pictures look like crap is a straw man. I am advocating for an art style somewhere between Diablo and Diablo 2; an art style that primarily revolves around the intimidating darkness of Diablo but also has the environmental and bestiary variety of Diablo 2. That's not really what I'm getting from either the Blizzard screenshots or the doctored Blizzard screenshots.V_Arnold said:
You assert that screenshots of the appropriate tone exist but considering that I've seen many screenshots and none so much as substantiate the existence of a single one I'm wondering what that's based on. I kept up with the news of Diablo 2's launch and I can tell you that at the time, they weren't only showing bright pictures of Dry Hills and... well, that's the only area that I can think of that looks as bright-coloured as any of these screenshots.
ShinNL
Member
I personally think this one is a much better example since it doesn't tweak the brightness and the contrast is relatively the same (unlike that wannabe GOW shot):
In the interview I feel the arguments were the weakest for these shots, since the witch doctor looks as much like the zombies in the original shot as the altered shot. And more detailed highlighted textures causes shimmering? SC2 has very detailed textures and no one complains about things looking too busy or shimmering while scrolling.
As for some of you (you know who you are): stop using strawman arguments and insult everyone while doing so. It's really weak.
In the interview I feel the arguments were the weakest for these shots, since the witch doctor looks as much like the zombies in the original shot as the altered shot. And more detailed highlighted textures causes shimmering? SC2 has very detailed textures and no one complains about things looking too busy or shimmering while scrolling.
As for some of you (you know who you are): stop using strawman arguments and insult everyone while doing so. It's really weak.
maniac-kun
Member
Not this shit again.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
The first capture is just perfect. The devs complained about enemies blending too much with the environment, but that is kind of the point; not only it looks more natural, but a big chunk of Diablo's tension (specially Diablo 1) derived from suckers coming at you out of fucking nowhere. I want my dungeons dark and creepy, not well lit.Soneet said:I personally think this one is a much better example since it doesn't tweak the brightness and the contrast is relatively the same (unlike that wannabe GOW shot):
In the interview I feel the arguments were the weakest for these shots, since the witch doctor looks as much like the zombies in the original shot as the altered shot. And more detailed highlighted textures causes shimmering? SC2 has very detailed textures and no one complains about things looking too busy or shimmering while scrolling.
As for some of you (you know who you are): stop using strawman arguments and insult everyone while doing so. It's really weak.
Also, chunky pillars and WoW-like statues need to go. Diablo can't exist in my mind without gothic architecture.
Fugu, I am very sorry if the second half of my post offended you in any way - I thought it is clearly visible that (damn, they should be in different paragraphs) it is not directed to you.
For you, I only wrote the "being dark for the sake of being dark when we do not know how the journey will darken in the road of D3 yet" part.
For you, I only wrote the "being dark for the sake of being dark when we do not know how the journey will darken in the road of D3 yet" part.
Soneet said:
I do think that the regular screenshots look better than the darker one's, I really do look forward to seeing more but I feel that Diablo is more about the gameplay and the asthetics will be fine.
Edit: I apologize for my post that got quoted because it came across worst than I meant it to.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
It's not as much about "looking better" but "looking closer to Diablo and less than WoW", which, in the mind of many Diablo fans, is the best look.Lothars said:
I can't believe I have to explain this.
Funky Papa said:
Except that we are not living in a binary world, where it either looks like D2/D1, or looks like WoW. It does not look like WoW, but they SHARE a similar (not the same!) setting, especially when people go out of their way to try and compare it to the dark-fantasy parts of WoW. Diablo IS a dark-fantasy, after all.
maniac-kun
Member
Its dark enough.
If I pump all my points into one stat, then my character is broken. If I didn't plan ahead and got enough strength for that armor that suddenly dropped, then I better hope I have enough levels left to eventually be able to wear it. Later I find another armor that requires less strength, so now those points are wasted. Plenty of holes.Fugu said:
They are taking control of how the points are spend to limit the amount of skewed/broken builds. They then give you the option of boosting the attributes through traits. It seems like a more balanced approach.
I think some Diablo players that took a dislike to the visual change has a very negative mindset regarding the development of this game. If isn't a Diablo 2 remake then Blizzard is ruining the game.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
And I think it looks like a disgrace to the Diablo name. The aesthetics are messed up, and it has to do with Diablo swichting hands from Blizzard North (which favoured creepy and dark) to the makers of WoW y WC (everything is bright and well lit; also, big boots and shoulderpads).Lothars said:
I didn't say that it looked just like WoW, did I? Right now I think it looks like 75% Diablo with a 25% of WoW tainting the classic style with washed out textures and pastel colours. On top of that, it seems like Blizzard has toned down the ultraviolence from the previous games. Yes, there are some gruesome deaths in the official videos, but most of the action is not as visceral as it used to be.V_Arnold said:
I'm not sure if that is your particular case, but I noticed that many (most?) of the people favouring the new visuals are also WoW players, so for them the changes are seamless. For those who dislike "WoW aesthetics", Diablo 3's looks are kind of unpleasant.
It isn't. Actually, it perfectly illustrates my point. It looks as if Blizzard jacked up the gamma to make everything stand out in the dark. On top of that, pastel palettes have no business in a Diablo game outside of Heaven.maniac-kun said:
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
We are talking about visuals, not gameplay. I'm sure it'll be a blast to play._tetsuo_ said:
-tetsuo-
Unlimited Capacity
Im talking about visuals as well. The violence and dreariness are there even now without the music.
Funky Papa said:
Now I like you already!
Yes, 75% Diablo 2 and 25% WoW (by that you of course must mean "colored gloom" and pastel painting style has appeared) is already a better saying than some of the stuff that can be read in this thread. Saying the "dark fantasy" somewhere turned into a stylized "high fantasy" is even better as we are pointing to obviously not WoW-originated assets here.
And to the second question: yes, I play WoW every now and then, have a lot of time put into that - but I love both franchise. And my feelings with this is the freshness, I am happy that Diablo looks DIFFERENT than WoW, with much better atmosphere for this type of gameplay - so that is my "angle" here, and that is why I do not really get the D3=WoW comments.
_tetsuo_ said:
And THIS is what I am talking about! The village ruins in the desert totally screams "dark" for me. It is wrecked, it is abandoned, it is in bad shape - one can feel it just by watching that video. Dungeon parts are good also. And by good, I mean "dark". Not neccessarily by the coloring, but by the "feel".
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
I find death animations sorely lacking. Also, the colour palette detracts much of the impact :-/_tetsuo_ said:
-tetsuo-
Unlimited Capacity
Exactly. You do not need darkness to convey the feeling of darkness, if you know what I mean. look at that abandoned desert village. It's daytime, but there is no sunshine. It's empty and oppressive and overall feels like a very uninviting place. If the game is too bright for you, I'm sure it will ship with brightness/gamma/contrast settings for you to tinker with.
Don't know what to tell you. Physics and gibbing are much more spectacular than canned animations 1000 times over.
Funky Papa said:
Don't know what to tell you. Physics and gibbing are much more spectacular than canned animations 1000 times over.
I know that most of you will probably hope I die in a fire, but after seeing the new pics I found the buttons to be big enough to use on the iPad, so after some minutes of photoshop-fu, I modified the screenshots to fit in the iPad (they were widescreen so I had to fix the toolbar at the bottom):
And the originals if you wanna try them on your iPad..
http://i.imgur.com/vMaPd.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KfTms.jpg
Yes / No /Die in a fire
And the originals if you wanna try them on your iPad..
http://i.imgur.com/vMaPd.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KfTms.jpg
Yes / No /Die in a fire
Definitely disagree, it looks great to me :\Funky Papa said:
And I very much support the current art direction after watching that video of the monk in the desert, it seemed hard enough to keep track of who were the player characters as it was, fuck going through that with a more drowned out colour palette.
AdventureRacing
Member
Mik2121 said:
I would be interested to see how well this would control with a touch interface. Obiously not as well as M & KB but i think it could be good in some ways.
Fallout-NL
Member
AdventureRacing said:
No it couldn't.
As someone that spent too much time in middle school playing Diablo II, I totally think a touch interface would work - at least as well as a controller. Obviously it wouldn't match a keyboard with hotkeys mattering so much.Fallout-NL said:
Touch for all left click actions (movement/attack).
Two fingers for right click skill - swipe to scroll through skills.
Three finger and four finger swipes as hot key alternates.
Plus go-to hot keys on the bottom of the screen. It wouldn't be ideal - honestly, put me in the camp of someone that won't be happy unless I have a keyboard in front of me, but it would work.
Confidence Man
Member
You could tell me that was Torchlight 2 and I'd believe it.