DiabloFans

Quote from "Projectz" »

The fact is, this freakin thread isnt about your fucking childish arguments about cartoonish graphics, it is about the actual graphics selection screen of d2, so maybe you should focus on that instead

I was as on-topic as Kalyptein, for better or worse.

Aye, that's the point.

Here. I ripped it from the artwork trailer.

Right, much like the animations in Dawn of War, these are triggered when the blow is already a killing one.

Quote from "LolygagerX" »

I will sign the petition if it is to make the game a tad darker... But wait?, Cant you just change that in your graphics/video settings like in Diablo 2?......... Why don't you guys just do that instead of making a petition.

It's not that simple.

I do see two other mouths, although they don't move.

It would make some sense. Diablo, Mephisto, and Baal are names that each refer to the same entity, anyway.

The interface was edited in by Iocus, but the screenshot is from IGN's stash: http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/714955/diablo-iii/images/diablo-iii-20080628035157755.html

Quote from "Kalyptein" »

So: http://www.battle.net/diablo2exp/classes/ is not cartoony

Correct.

Quote from "Kalyptein" »

but http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/characters/ is cartoony

Correct.

Quote from "Kalyptein" »

and looks like http://www.goblinworkshop.com/gallery/albums/goaq/normal_Warrior.jpg

Did you choose that completely at random? It seems irrelevant. The point is this not that they look similar to any particular World of WarCraft player character archetype, but rather that they would fit right in because it is the same art style, attempting to compensate for the same minimalistic modelling and texturing -- these are the World of WarCraft's artists, after all.

Stylisation is great, but if the point of stylisation is to differentiate a franchise from others, why use another franchise's style?

The graphics are slightly more modern and it is not nearly as colourful, but the modelling style is dead-on World of WarCraft. Everything from the armour to the furniture to the architecture. All that's missing is the interface. So, courtesy of Iocus:

The models were mentioned at WWI08 and chalked up to silhouetting. I don't know if they're silhouetting for handheld displays or what, but that's the official rebuke.

Quote from "Dvirus55" »

Some of you guys seriously sit there looping the 20 min gameplay video and analye at every single thing?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I notice things like this instantly. I'm not looking for them. They stand there like an elephant in a living room. The cathedral is green. The statues are cute. These are very basic, in-your-face visual facts, not minutiae. These are things Blizzard artists quibble amongst themselves about. It's game design, Dvirus55.

Quote from "Dvirus55" »

Most people probably didn't even see that gargoyle had no one mentioned it because it gets destroyed in the video during an amazing fight. I know I didn't and thats what makes this so funny heh

I understand that you think the environment is unimportant to the design, just a container for monsters. That's fine. Some people think they're Napoleon. Far be it from me to get in their way.

Being disappointed with the art direction is a lack of support for Blizzard like opposition to the Iraq War is a lack of support for America or its troops. Come off it.

Anyway, mind if I do something I never did at Hellgate Guru, and disagree with Sol Invictus? This is going to feel naughty....

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

I have written this post to represent those of us, whom I feel are great in number, who genuinely believe that Blizzard should continue to do what they are doing with Diablo 3's art direction and not bend to the wishes of those who would wish to see Diablo 3's beauty and vibrancy reduced to shades of gray and brown.

Now that's a strawman right from the start, isn't it?

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Likewise, I feel compelled to state that we the players very much enjoy the stylistic and silhouette-heavy art of Diablo 3, because it lends much character to the game and allows us, the players, to be able to make out distinct qualities of each individual character and monster within the game.

See, if I were to do to this statement what you did above, I would say: 'While we believe in utilising groundbreaking new technologies such as real-time 3D rendering and animation, Sol Invictus and his ilk would have Diablo III reduced to mere lifeless icons.'

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Many of those who complain forget that Diablo and Diablo 2 were not without color. The vast majority of the game consisted of rich colors that allowed the darker areas, such as the Durance of Hate in Act 3 of Diablo 2 to stand out as one of the more 'Gothic horror' locations, in contrast the verdant jungles of Kurast.

I don't follow. The Durance of Hate and the Kehjistan Jungles only serve as examples of Diablo II's grim style in contrast to Diablo III's. I'm not sure what definitions of 'dark' and 'vibrant' you are using here.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Spells were extremely colorful, and many of the game's unique locales were undeniably vibrant.

Fair enough. Hell is fiery. That's vibrant, I suppose. What were the others, again?

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

There are a great many of us out there who are disappointed in the complete lack of vibrance and the abundance of boring shades of gray and brown in many recent titles, and it is a breath of fresh air for us to see Blizzard's art direction with Diablo 3.

What games are you playing? In PC gaming most of what I have seen lately is wave after wave of technologically regressive, artistically silly tripe, particularly in the RPG and RTS genres. There have been maybe three slightly less ridiculous games and you need a 'breath of fresh air'? I'm asphyxiating on the air you're craving.

The only game I can remotely conceive of as an abundance of grey and brown shades is not even released yet: Fallout 3, set in a world incinerated by nuclear blasts.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Q: The Diablo series was always dark, gloomy, muddy and dirty in every single instance.

A: Hyperbole. While Diablo 1 may have been darker than its sequel due to its lack of locations, it nonetheless featured some very bright, and visually vibrant locations like Tristram itself and the Caves.

Diablo 2 had many bright and vibrant locations in every single Act of the game. Act 1 had a gothic monastery with vibrant colors. Act 2 consisted of a brightly lit desert with an abundance of cacti, Act 3 had colorful jungles and vibrant step-pyramid tombs. Act 5 had crystalline formations and rivers of ice.

Also, Leoric was a complete gentleman and Gheed was an honest businessman.

I expect richer graphics of Diablo III than its primitive predecessors, but that does not imply simply replacing the extremely iconic art style with World of WarCraft's and desaturating it. It is unfathomable to me that you consider more of the same to be fresh. I'm not trying to be an ass, here, either. I am genuinely baffled and I want to understand.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Q: Being colorful destroys the game's immersion and 'gothic feel'.
A: Gothic Cathedrals are filled with vibrant colors, due to the heavy use of stained glass windows and vibrant furnishings, yet still possess a very 'dark' and surreal quality.

Very much so. However, what we have seen of Diablo III does not.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Diablo 3's Art is currently:

* Stylish, giving Diablo 3 its own character and personality, allowing it to stand out from the crowd of brown and grey games, or 'realistic' (e.g. boring) looking games.

I think I've figured it out. Are you posting from a mirror universe? Check your chin. Does it bear a Mephistopheles goatee? I'll sell you my soul to swap dimensions with me. Over here, games with realistic art styles and modern graphics arrive at a rate of about two per year, while cartoon styles and regressive or stagnant graphics are the norm and every single game to use them justifies itself with this nugatory argument -- especailly when degrading to it from a slightly or significantly less basic and silly-looking aesthetic.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

* Not monotonous. The use of inviting colours, contours, tones, vibrance, and animations are some of the game's major strengths. Makes the game accessible and playable for a long period of time.

A great way of doing that would be to make it not look like it was outdated three years ago.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

* The use of colors allow for a wide variety of settings and locations, away from the mundane worlds of greys and browns.

Is this post stuck on a loop?

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

* Vibrant colors and a wide variety of locations do not prohibit the game from having 'dark gothic' locations within the game. Diablo 2 consisted mainly of vibrant locations, but that didn't prevent the Durance of Hate from being a part of the game.

I still don't understand what you're on about with the Durance of Hate versus the rest of Diablo II. The fact that it incorporates a great deal of blood into the environment? I haven't seen anyone complaining that Diablo III's rivers are made of water and and the grass is green (although I don't doubt there are probably some), and I don't see how the absence of hundreds of gallons of blood makes the rest of Diablo II consist 'mainly of vibrant locations'.

I suppose by 'vibrant' you may mean 'flatly lit because it was made in the late 90s', but even that applies as much to the Durance of Hate as anywhere else, so... no, I remain stumped.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

It is my opinion, therefore, that the art direction of Diablo 3 should remain as it is, because we have full faith and confidence in Blizzard Entertainment's ability to deliver a truly compelling, and involving game.

With or without the extremely important yet not predominant feature of progressive, immersive, or inspiring art and graphics, I also assume that it will be compelling and involving in many respects, and hope it will be in those I do not assume.

Being disappointed with the art direction is a lack of support for Blizzard like opposition to the Iraq War is a lack of support for America or its troops. Come off it.

Anyway, mind if I do something I never did at Hellgate Guru, and disagree with Sol Invictus? This is going to feel naughty....

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

I have written this post to represent those of us, whom I feel are great in number, who genuinely believe that Blizzard should continue to do what they are doing with Diablo 3's art direction and not bend to the wishes of those who would wish to see Diablo 3's beauty and vibrancy reduced to shades of gray and brown.

Now that's a strawman right from the start, isn't it?

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Likewise, I feel compelled to state that we the players very much enjoy the stylistic and silhouette-heavy art of Diablo 3, because it lends much character to the game and allows us, the players, to be able to make out distinct qualities of each individual character and monster within the game.

See, if I were to do to this statement what you did above, I would say: 'While we believe in utilising groundbreaking new technologies such as real-time 3D rendering and animation, Sol Invictus and his ilk would have Diablo III reduced to mere lifeless icons.'

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Many of those who complain forget that Diablo and Diablo 2 were not without color. The vast majority of the game consisted of rich colors that allowed the darker areas, such as the Durance of Hate in Act 3 of Diablo 2 to stand out as one of the more 'Gothic horror' locations, in contrast the verdant jungles of Kurast.

I don't follow. The Durance of Hate and the Kehjistan Jungles only serve as examples of Diablo II's grim style in contrast to Diablo III's. I'm not sure what definitions of 'dark' and 'vibrant' you are using here.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Spells were extremely colorful, and many of the game's unique locales were undeniably vibrant.

Fair enough. Hell is fiery. That's vibrant, I suppose. What were the others, again?

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

There are a great many of us out there who are disappointed in the complete lack of vibrance and the abundance of boring shades of gray and brown in many recent titles, and it is a breath of fresh air for us to see Blizzard's art direction with Diablo 3.

What games are you playing? In PC gaming most of what I have seen lately is wave after wave of technologically regressive, artistically silly tripe, particularly in the RPG and RTS genres. There have been maybe three slightly less ridiculous games and you need a 'breath of fresh air'? I'm asphyxiating on the air you're craving.

The only game I can remotely conceive of as an abundance of grey and brown shades is not even released yet: Fallout 3, set in a world incinerated by nuclear blasts.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Q: The Diablo series was always dark, gloomy, muddy and dirty in every single instance.

A: Hyperbole. While Diablo 1 may have been darker than its sequel due to its lack of locations, it nonetheless featured some very bright, and visually vibrant locations like Tristram itself and the Caves.

Diablo 2 had many bright and vibrant locations in every single Act of the game. Act 1 had a gothic monastery with vibrant colors. Act 2 consisted of a brightly lit desert with an abundance of cacti, Act 3 had colorful jungles and vibrant step-pyramid tombs. Act 5 had crystalline formations and rivers of ice.

Also, Leoric was a complete gentleman and Gheed was an honest businessman.

I expect richer graphics of Diablo III than its primitive predecessors, but that does not imply simply replacing the extremely iconic art style with World of WarCraft's and desaturating it. It is unfathomable to me that you consider more of the same to be fresh. I'm not trying to be an ass, here, either. I am genuinely baffled and I want to understand.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Q: Being colorful destroys the game's immersion and 'gothic feel'.
A: Gothic Cathedrals are filled with vibrant colors, due to the heavy use of stained glass windows and vibrant furnishings, yet still possess a very 'dark' and surreal quality.

Very much so. However, what we have seen of Diablo III does not.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Diablo 3's Art is currently:

* Stylish, giving Diablo 3 its own character and personality, allowing it to stand out from the crowd of brown and grey games, or 'realistic' (e.g. boring) looking games.

I think I've figured it out. Are you posting from a mirror universe? Check your chin. Does it bear a Mephistopheles goatee? I'll sell you my soul to swap dimensions with me. Over here, games with realistic art styles and modern graphics arrive at a rate of about two per year, while cartoon styles and regressive or stagnant graphics are the norm and every single game to use them justifies itself with this nugatory argument -- especailly when degrading to it from a slightly or significantly less basic and silly-looking aesthetic.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

* Not monotonous. The use of inviting colours, contours, tones, vibrance, and animations are some of the game's major strengths. Makes the game accessible and playable for a long period of time.

A great way of doing that would be to make it not look like it was outdated three years ago.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

* The use of colors allow for a wide variety of settings and locations, away from the mundane worlds of greys and browns.

Is this post stuck on a loop?

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

* Vibrant colors and a wide variety of locations do not prohibit the game from having 'dark gothic' locations within the game. Diablo 2 consisted mainly of vibrant locations, but that didn't prevent the Durance of Hate from being a part of the game.

I still don't understand what you're on about with the Durance of Hate versus the rest of Diablo II. The fact that it incorporates a great deal of blood into the environment? I haven't seen anyone complaining that Diablo III's rivers are made of water and and the grass is green (although I don't doubt there are probably some), and I don't see how the absence of hundreds of gallons of blood makes the rest of Diablo II consist 'mainly of vibrant locations'.

I suppose by 'vibrant' you may mean 'flatly lit because it was made in 2000', but even that applies as much to the Durance of Hate as anywhere else, so... no, I remain stumped.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

It is my opinion, therefore, that the art direction of Diablo 3 should remain as it is, because we have full faith and confidence in Blizzard Entertainment's ability to deliver a truly compelling, and involving game.

With or without the extremely important yet not predominant feature of decent art and graphics, I agree.

Being disappointed with the art direction is a lack of support for Blizzard like opposition to the Iraq War is a lack of support for America or its troops. Come off it.

Anyway, mind if I do something I never did at Hellgate Guru, and disagree with Sol Invictus? This is going to feel naughty....

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

I have written this post to represent those of us, whom I feel are great in number, who genuinely believe that Blizzard should continue to do what they are doing with Diablo 3's art direction and not bend to the wishes of those who would wish to see Diablo 3's beauty and vibrancy reduced to shades of gray and brown.

Now that's a strawman right from the start, isn't it?

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Likewise, I feel compelled to state that we the players very much enjoy the stylistic and silhouette-heavy art of Diablo 3, because it lends much character to the game and allows us, the players, to be able to make out distinct qualities of each individual character and monster within the game.

See, if I were to do to this statement what you did above, I would say: 'While we believe in utilising groundbreaking new technologies such as real-time 3D rendering and animation, Sol Invictus and his ilk would have Diablo III reduced to mere lifeless icons.'

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Many of those who complain forget that Diablo and Diablo 2 were not without color. The vast majority of the game consisted of rich colors that allowed the darker areas, such as the Durance of Hate in Act 3 of Diablo 2 to stand out as one of the more 'Gothic horror' locations, in contrast the verdant jungles of Kurast.

I don't follow. The Durance of Hate and the Kehjistan Jungles only serve as examples of Diablo II's grim style in contrast to Diablo III's. I'm not sure what definitions of 'dark' and 'vibrant' you are using here.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Spells were extremely colorful, and many of the game's unique locales were undeniably vibrant.

Fair enough. Hell is fiery. That's vibrant, I suppose. What were the others, again?

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

There are a great many of us out there who are disappointed in the complete lack of vibrance and the abundance of boring shades of gray and brown in many recent titles, and it is a breath of fresh air for us to see Blizzard's art direction with Diablo 3.

What games are you playing? In PC gaming most of what I have seen lately is wave after wave of technologically regressive, artistically silly tripe, particularly in the RPG and RTS genres. There have been maybe three slightly less ridiculous games and you need a 'breath of fresh air'? I'm asphyxiating on the air you're craving.

The only game I can remotely conceive of as an abundance of grey and brown shades is not even released yet: Fallout 3, set in a world incinerated by nuclear blasts.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Q: The Diablo series was always dark, gloomy, muddy and dirty in every single instance.

A: Hyperbole. While Diablo 1 may have been darker than its sequel due to its lack of locations, it nonetheless featured some very bright, and visually vibrant locations like Tristram itself and the Caves.

Diablo 2 had many bright and vibrant locations in every single Act of the game. Act 1 had a gothic monastery with vibrant colors. Act 2 consisted of a brightly lit desert with an abundance of cacti, Act 3 had colorful jungles and vibrant step-pyramid tombs. Act 5 had crystalline formations and rivers of ice.

Also, Leoric was a complete gentleman and Gheed was an honest businessman.

I expect richer graphics of Diablo III than its primitive predecessors, but that does not imply simply replacing the extremely iconic art style with World of WarCraft's and desaturating it. It is unfathomable to me that you consider more of the same to be fresh. I'm not trying to be an ass, here, either. I am genuinely baffled and I want to understand.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Q: Being colorful destroys the game's immersion and 'gothic feel'.
A: Gothic Cathedrals are filled with vibrant colors, due to the heavy use of stained glass windows and vibrant furnishings, yet still possess a very 'dark' and surreal quality.

Very much so. However, what we have seen of Diablo III does not.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

Diablo 3's Art is currently:

* Stylish, giving Diablo 3 its own character and personality, allowing it to stand out from the crowd of brown and grey games, or 'realistic' (e.g. boring) looking games.

I think I've figured it out. Are you posting from a mirror universe? Check your chin. Does it bear a Mephistopheles goatee? I'll sell you my soul to swap dimensions with me. Over here, games with realistic art styles and modern graphics arrive at a rate of about two per year, while cartoon styles and regressive or stagnant graphics are the norm and every single game to use them justifies itself with this nugatory argument -- especailly when degrading to it from a slightly or significantly less basic and silly-looking aesthetic.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

* Not monotonous. The use of inviting colours, contours, tones, vibrance, and animations are some of the game's major strengths. Makes the game accessible and playable for a long period of time.

A great way of doing that would be to make it not look like it was outdated three years ago.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

* The use of colors allow for a wide variety of settings and locations, away from the mundane worlds of greys and browns.

Is this post stuck on a loop?

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

* Vibrant colors and a wide variety of locations do not prohibit the game from having 'dark gothic' locations within the game. Diablo 2 consisted mainly of vibrant locations, but that didn't prevent the Durance of Hate from being a part of the game.

I still don't understand what you're on about with the Durance of Hate versus the rest of Diablo II. The fact that it incorporates a great deal of blood into the environment? I haven't seen anyone complaining that Diablo III's rivers are made of water and and the grass is green (although I don't doubt there are probably some), and I don't see how the absence of hundreds of gallons of blood makes the rest of Diablo II consist 'mainly of vibrant locations'.

I suppose by 'vibrant' you may mean 'flatly lit because it was made in 2000', but even that applies as much to the Durance of Hate as anywhere else, so... no, I remain stumped.

Quote from name="Sol Invictus" »

It is my opinion, therefore, that the art direction of Diablo 3 should remain as it is, because we have full faith and confidence in Blizzard Entertainment's ability to deliver a truly compelling, and involving game.

With or without the extremely important yet not predominant feature of decent art and graphics, I agree.

Quote from "SNowfreak" »

anyone feel this way about the visuals? change your mind?

Even if we are getting a completely misleading impression from the two areas we've seen, no matter how good the game looks, the suggestions in the petition cannot be detrimental.

So, no, I can't even imagine not supporting it.