Yeah, it was like Tim Burton. Creepy only in the cheesiest possible way. No, thanks. Not my definition of a dark setting. The current art direction (and voice acting, to boot) feels like Blizzard committing self-parody.
Gore is almost irrelevant to establishing a dark atmosphere. It's just gore. Especially when it just gets cheerfully splattered around like red Jell-O so some chuckling morons can say, 'Huhuh, cool. Dude. Fucking sweet.'
It totally desensitises the viewer/player to its more pointed use. If, indeed, it is to have any.
I believe Blizzard exists, yes. There seems to be ample enough evidence.
As for the art direction, which I believe is under discussion: either something appeals to me or it doesn't. At the moment the art direction doesn't, but my love of the setting doesn't end with the visual style, so I'm still interested, albeit apprehensive.
You are confusing dark lighting with a dark setting/mood/atmosphere. The former is only effective for people who are afraid of the dark. The Diablo series is a hell of a lot more moody than that, despite its history of dated graphics and huge, colourful spell effects. Take some time out to ponder it.
As it is, it is not dark and certainly not 'gothic'. It is like something you'd see on Cartoon Network, plus overdone gore as if the creatures were piñatas. As I said, like a Tim Burton film.
In terms of previous Blizzard games and their other settings, it's about as dark as WarCraft's undead and their lands. It's a cute kind of creepy. If that is what they're going for, I don't understand why it's not a WarCraft action-RPG.
Yeah that's pretty much it isn't it?
It's just a different kind of dark. Diablo 1 was totally unique with it's melancholy Dark Ages vibe, D2 had a range of styles that fitted pretty well together but at the same time nothing that quite rivaled that first Tristram setting that struck of chord with so many people.
Gothic comes under a number of different subgroups, D1 was based on the medieval horror genra but D3 is leaning very heavily on a number of influences that imo are best left in other Blizzard franchises.
I think it looks a lot better than it did before but seeing as so much of the 'seriousness' of the game appears to have been replaced with self-conscious caricature I doubt it'll rival the amazing sense of gloom and foreboding evil that they had in the first one.
That being said, the game will still be damn good and I'll no doubt spend hours playing in regardless of where they go from here. Still I do miss the old style and can't quite agree that this new path will ultimately make the game a more memorable and engaging experience.
1
Yeah that's pretty much it isn't it?
It's just a different kind of dark. Diablo 1 was totally unique with it's melancholy Dark Ages vibe, D2 had a range of styles that fitted pretty well together but at the same time nothing that quite rivaled that first Tristram setting that struck of chord with so many people.
Gothic comes under a number of different subgroups, D1 was based on the medieval horror genra but D3 is leaning very heavily on a number of influences that imo are best left in other Blizzard franchises.
I think it looks a lot better than it did before but seeing as so much of the 'seriousness' of the game appears to have been replaced with self-conscious caricature I doubt it'll rival the amazing sense of gloom and foreboding evil that they had in the first one.
That being said, the game will still be damn good and I'll no doubt spend hours playing in regardless of where they go from here. Still I do miss the old style and can't quite agree that this new path will ultimately make the game a more memorable and engaging experience.