DiabloFans

then they'rent searching for me

I can't believe you just did a double conjunction. You sir, fail at the english language.

Anyways, I don't think this will affect the art direction much at all. I agree with the Kotaku writer. They're probably hiring a new guy just to tie up loose ends.

Guess what, Jay cant comment on Shit anymore, cuz guess what folks? 2 days ago blizzard posted this job up http://www.blizzard.com/us/jobopp/ Art director LOL.

And guess what folks? Thats pretty much when that article came out as well am i right? PFFFFT!!111 PPffffhhhttt!!
BHAHAHAAA HAHAHA!!! seriously though... :cool: nice try to get a last word in jay before you got fired. Now go work on a hello kitty island expansion pack, thanks. Yeah that's right, I'm that insensitive when someone almost destroys a franchise that I love to play.

Uh, Jay Wilson isn't the art director, tard. Yeah, don't you feel dumb now. The realy art director was Brian Morrisroe. Even so, Blizzard's been extremely staunch about proclaiming that the aren't going to appease you. Jay Wilson is the lead director and he says no.

Quote from "Abaddon" »

I said he was full of it, which he is, his arguments are total shit, your problem if you want to accept anything he tells you. I just said I would respect him more if he just said he likes the Warcraft art style over the "dull" style of the original games which I believe is closer to the truth. All the things he said are perfectly achievable without placing one bright color on another bright color, as I said before his attitude towards contrast seems to be as abysmal as those people who place red writing on a blue background to get attention on websites, yeah they may be two different bright colors but it just makes it harder to read, not easier.

It's not the Warcraft style in the slightest. And last I checked, you haven't stated any criteria that would give us reason to believe you know better than Jay Wilson.

http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~theller/eric/images/Arthas.gif

Notice how the body parts are not properly proportioned. The lower halves of his legs and his forearms are humongous. Now explain to me how that is similar to Diablo 3. Oh, also note the grittier and higher detail in the character model of the barbarian and witch doctor, especially in the face.

http://techieweb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/barb.jpg
http://techieweb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/witch.jpg

Look at the detail in the barbarian's arms. Extremely photorealistic. Arthas, on the other hard, looks like a friggin' gundam with a cartoon character's facial details. The motherfucker looks like Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty. By the way, the D3 characters don't seem too colorful either. But I'm going to entertain your ideas. Please tell me what you would recommend to make the game better. After all, you are the one with a degree in art and game design, right?

Quote from "Doppel" »

I have to agree with =Abaddon= above me, i would've disliked Wilson less if he would've actually been honest instead of trying to sell us crap excuses.

I find Jay's explanations to be very legitimate and logical. He hasn't lied to you. So he's not being dishonest.

Quote from SpecialK xm107 »

Didn't read all of this thread... well I read the first couple of pages of people attacking each other... but Wilson did say that they are going to have Acts in the game right? When he was talking about the rainbows...

Is that a confirmation on how the game is gonna be played (instead of open world)? Sorry if this has been discussed/posted before - I missed it if it was. I figured they were gonna do this anyway... I mean it IS Diablo

That has nothing to do with art direction, but yes there will be acts.

I want at least two expansions for D3! I think achievements are pretty much worthless, though.

Incentives: D3 Achievements need them to make them worthwhile.

Except, Communism hasn't been given a realistic chance to work. Russia was...well...complicated. There was no way such a spaciously populated country such as that would work. However, a country like the US or Japan, or England or the like could possibly pull it off. Maybe not pure Communism, but some form or another.

Russia's almost always been a total disaster. They get slapped with a tyrant at least once a century. It's absurd.

I agree with you LinkX. A combination of the two is the best choice. What is important to note when debating capitalism and communism is recognizing the role of government and business. In my opinion, the government's role is to protect the rights and well-being of its citizens. The role of the business is to make money. That, in many cases, works against citizens. This is why government regulation is needed.

Another thing to note, the problem with socializing industries is that by de-privatizing it, you're removing competition. That means less efficiency. Take, for example, education. Teachers are protected by a very powerful union, not to mention they have tenure after a few years. Not very long. No competition means less efficiency. Some might say education as a whole should be privatized in order to improve. But to totally privatize it would deny many the opportunity to have an education. That is why I simply advocate that the teaching profession should be privatized. Tenure should be guaranteed after much longer than a few years.

An example from the other side. Health care and insurance. Totally privatized. Totally business. Insurance companies make their money by making sure you don't get money for health care. Clinics and hospitals are geared towards profit. My solution, instead of private insurance, we should have government insurance. Steady rates for everyone based on your income bracket. In other words, a progressive income tax. While many might argue that it is not fair that those who work harder for their money have to lose more and still live like everyone else. Again, a compromise is needed between capitalist and communist philosophy. Hypothetically, let's say there are three income brackets:

-$50,000
-$100,000
-$150,000

I know it's a gross oversimplification, but bear with me. With a base income tax of 10% and a progression of 5% as you rise a bracket, the math works out like this:

-$50,000 income - 10% income tax
-$100,000 income - 15% income tax
-$150,000 income - 20% income tax

Now, let's take a look at income after taxation:

-$50,000 income - $45,000 post-tax income
-$100,000 income - $85,000 post-tax income
-$150,000 income - $120,000 post-tax income

Now, the figures can be different, based on context. I'm being very general about this. But I'm simply laying out theory here. As you can see, the wealthy are still contributing more to social programs like socialized insurance (everyone is insured, medicine is still a private practice, thus efficiency remains high). But hard workers can still reap the fruits of their labor. If they work hard, they can still enjoy the nice home, the nice car, etc. You'll be narrowing the gap between the rich and poor. But the contrast of the two is still necessary. There will always be a lower and upper class. It's just the way it works. There always needs to be social mobility.

Now, I know an issue would be for businesses like pharmaceutical companies to raise prices on medicine. Anti-trust laws should be geared to address the issue of predatory business practices such as trying to break the system. I think we can all agree that medicine is absurdly expensive. Although it is highly expensive to produce new medication, there must be pressure to lower prices after businesses have been able to profit.

Call it socio-capitalism. XD

Holy shit, 9 pages in 8 hours? Damn, I go to work and you guys go to town on this thread.

Quote from "Kenzai" »

So you accept that shouder pads are too big and unrealistic and the colors in the dungeon arent good?

Way to put words in my mouth. Honestly and with all due respect, I think you're full of....doody. I'm fairly satisfied with the game. There's always room for improvement, but I don't think something as small as torch lighting or...floating pauldrons (I'm sorry, but really? That's such a lame reason) is not going to hurt the quality of the game as much as you're implying.

Those arent really problems as minor as you think. Small changes can affect the game drastically.

Shoulder pads...right. I don't think they're gonna do much for you, buddy. But good luck with that :rolleyes:

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

LOL? It fucking literally applies to a FPS, the rest are anologies, you do understand anologies, right?

I don't think I do either. But if you were talking about analogies, I would totally understand. Just busting your chops.

To address Doppel v. Creeps: Slightly hindering the player's ability to succeed is part of the game design philosophy. Giving players a challenge is what makes a game feel worthwhile. It's human to feel more satisfied after overcoming a greater challenge. It's why many game designers offer different difficulties for those who want a tougher time. That being said, completely depriving them of their ability to act effectively is not logical. I don't think anyone was advocating putting proverbial blindfolds on players.

Quote from "ExGhoul" »

Green is naturally a eerie color. Pink is not. It's why hospitals and other places such as morgues in movies enhance the florescent lights on set. You have to be dumb not to realize the aesthetic difference that green gives compared to pink from an audiences perspective LOL :rolleyes:

It's all relative. In the context of Diablo, green may be more readily associated with poison as it is a common gameplay element. For reference, green connotes nature or jealousy in general psychology. However, pink is generally associated with love and romance. This has been brought to you by about.com, in the article about color psychology.

Quote from "LarryNC" »

I agree 110% with Blizzard on this, and I believe they will deliver a game that will satisfy everyone!

You're a tool.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

Then you are delusional.

You're a crybaby.

There, you both can see the errors of your ways. Blizzard's always got room for improvement on the game. Problem is, who is to say that they've got the better idea? In all honesty, I think the torch lighting's a fairly decent idea. But I don't think it's anything to start a petition over. But that doesn't mean we should just bend over and take it from Blizzard willingly.

Yeahyeah, everytime you fail you fall back to what Jay says, smart. Lets all trust what Jay says, he is god.

Well, he's got you by the metaphorical nuts. Also, he knows more about what it takes to design a Diablo game than anyone here. But that's no excuse to simply parrot what someone else says. Not gonna take sides on that argument.

And to those two posters, I think they were like...Abadon and avavent or something like that. You know, the ones that called Jay Wilson pathetic and acted completely outraged at "what he's done to Diablo." I have one thing to say to you. Go fuck yourselves, seriously. You act like he just poisoned your dog or some shit. Or like one of those mothers who blame their kids problems on video games, acting all outraged and shit. And God forbid Blizzard put your cone cells to some fuckin' use! How dare Wilson condone the use of lighting other than torches. Boo-fucking-hoo. Let's delay the game just because you two have your heads up your asses. Jesus tap dancing Christ! Okay, I'm done with that.

So wider color-palette means green and blue in DUNGEONS?!?

Not every place has to have every color, there are lots of places to show the different colors.

I highly doubt that every color is there. Green and blue does not constitute every color. Mist is water vapor. Water is often associated with the color blue. Mist connotes mystery. I don't see why not. Green is the color of poison and such. That connotes death. Rather fitting themes.

Umm, i think you took the wrong quote.
Or just didnt properly read what you quoted, not a good idea.

I said, just cutting the colors and light is NOT enaugh.

But cutting the colors is something you're advocating. If that's not enough, well you're simply being greedy. Oh well, they've already made up their minds. May as well take what you can get. Consider it a consulation prize.

I'm not saying they'll look the same. That obviously can't be the case since D3 is 3D. Besides I never said turning down the brightness would result in a downgrade to D2 graphics, or even D1. Then it wouldn't be a logical progression.

Simply put, the main thing I've gotten from this guy is that the shoulder pads are too big and they float and it's too colorful.

The great light from the torches plus the red blood is generally enaugh light and color for a dungeon. Spells and magical beings add to the interest (Or is it interestingness?) and light if there arent enaugh torches etc..
The previous games had light radius, more light sources would disable the need of that and monsters would be easy to detect without the green background.

I'm assuming you prefer the lighting effects of the one photoshopped image where the range of visibility is limited to the open pathways and visibility is blocked by objects. Jay Wilson said they could not duplicate this in their engine. I'd assume that to mean that light does not interface with objects in the same way as characters do. In other words, lighting is not locked into the character, but it is just a circle of light placed on the center of the screen. That's just my speculation though. I could be wrong. All I do know is that he said they could not duplicate the D2 lighting in D3.

Regardless, we know that it is an engine issue, not an art direction issue. That's much more difficult to fix.

\How in the hells are monsters hard to see in dungeons like in the previous games?

They aren't. They contrast starkly against the environment.

And also the dungeons in the previous Diablo games werent boring at all. Even in the first game, the environment changed once you passed a few levels even though it never got colorful. Except the fire/lava in some levels of course.

Turn down the brightness settings. Problem solved.

With changes in the architecture, monsters and decoration (blood and corpses), the dungeons always stay interesting.

If you can't see the shit in the darkness, how the hell does that make it enjoyable? That's what Blizzard is trying to tell all of us.

And with a quality lighting, you can easily see all the different monsters without having to make the background green and the monsters in some different colors.

What are you talking about? You're basically saying we can see while still being deprived of decent lighting. If everything is dark, nothing contrasts. Nothing stands out. It's confusing. And it's not enjoyable. And the Blizzard team has testified to that.

That pic is in no way too grey. As long as they add nice decoration, cool, different monsters and some gore to the place, it wouldnt be boring at all.
Thats what they basically did in D2, and it worked great. I want an improved version of that.

Blizzard North would totally disagree with you there. After all, Jay Wilson conferred with them about art direction and they said they did not follow your formula. They said they used a much wider color palette than what you are advocating.

2nd paragraph: Well thats also what you see in most photoshopped pictures; saturated, dark and less colorful.
And thats why people dislike the pics. Only draining color and light doesnt cut it. If done professionally -by Blizz- it can be so much more kickass.

Wow, I'm glad they said they aren't changing it for you guys. Otherwise, they'd be delaying a great game just because it's not bland enough for you. Any ambience that you seek can easily be made up for by the dramatic music. Wait...I've got an idea for you. How about when you get the game, you turn the brightness settings down. Problem solved. I'm a fucking genius. They can maintain their art direction and you can have your darker color palette.

I created the thread.

I loved the orange box. The only part I didn't like about it was TF2. It was way too difficult to play. I just couldn't force myself to play long enough to get good at it.

Go for it. An interesting debate I intend to ignite.

Anyway, another gran turismo, another god of war, another rachet and clank, another Final Fantasy rip off, same old same old.

Let's look at the 360's track record, Halo 3, Gears of War 2, Grand Theft Auto IV, Rainbow Six Vegas 2, Call of Duty 4, Fable 2, Fallout 3, Geometry Wars 2, Red Faction 2, etc. Point being that just because a game is a sequel does not mean it's not a good game. You're just reaching for any excuse to discredit them at this point.

(By the way, Communism is pretty good. But that's another topic entirely.)

Yah damned right that's another topic entirely. And I'd be more than happy to meet you head on in that discussion. Because I disagree with you there too.

Honestly, I haven't been impressed with Sony this generation. I haven't heard many good reviews either, save for that one fellow who praises it, and that site he found. Other then that, the general concensus from what I have seen isn't too good for the PS3. The PS4 better bring it to the table if they want to survive imo, the Xbox 720 is gonna be powered by Microsoft, the badasses of electronics and Nintendo knows fun, it's been doing fun for many many decades.

I'll let you in on a little something. I subscribe to about 12 gaming blogs, including PS3, X360, Wii, PSP, DS Fanboys, Destructoid, Kotaku, Gamasutra, etc. So I think I have some credibility on this issue. By the way, did you know that in recent months, the PS3 had been outselling the 360? It lost its momentum after the release of GTAIV, but the PS3 has a much greater market saturation as a result of it. You gotta read the news to understand the climate of the industry.

From what I've seen, Sony has done a much greater job because they have taken the most expensive console and made it a true contender to the 360 despite its "Achilles' wallet". Hell, they are in practically the same situation that the Xbox of last generation was in. Except Sony has done a much better job of marketing it. Come on, I think the fact that online play, internet, and complete console flexibility more than makes up for the higher price tag. And I don't think that the 360 really can argue that it's that much cheaper, considering that to truly enjoy a lot of the games, you have to pay to play online, which sooner or later puts the markup at and beyond the price of a PS3.

I also hate the Wii. I have it. I got it the morning it came out. And I have been thoroughly disappointed with the flow of decent games. The only ones I have thus found worthwhile are Zelda, SSBB, Wii Sports, and potentially Mario Kart. It's a gimmick. Not a true contender in the video games industry.

Well then you've failed my friend. As Jay Wilson points out, it makes the game monotonous and the characters and mobs indistinguishable and dull.

Look again at the scene where he first wears the armour parts and also where he speaks with Cain. Its best to have the high-res trailer.

And when did I talk about the darkness? :confused:
(Posts sent in another thread 100 posts ago dont count.)

Who ever told you that was a good debate strategy? "Prove me wrong, but you can't use the evidence related to the topic." That really bothers me. You're basically telling me I can't hold you accountable for your statements. That's bullshit.

Also, I don't like your reasoning for signing the petition. If it doesn't match your cause, then why support it? You're basically siding with something you don't agree with, for the sake that Blizzard might ignore the main point of the petition to recognize your personal opinion. It just doesn't work that way.

By the way, I always view my game trailers in high resolution because I'm a boss like that. By that, I mean the HD version on GameTrailers.com.

Viewing it again only reaffirms what I am saying. The barbarian is jacked. I see no reason to deny him the big armor. If he can carry it and it offers him the superior protection, who are you to judge? This isn't America's Next Top Model. This is meathead versus Satan. I see no reason to compromise his badassery in the name of fashion.