Snarf, is it sad that I think those images combined makes a FAR better result than either of them?
Diablo 3
- Thread starter ShakeZula
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
i must say that personally i prefer almost all of the "fixed" pics that i've seen (edit: not including the one snarf just posted, thats TOO dark) compared to the official ones, but i really don't think it's a big deal
Last edited:
That second pic washes out any subtly found in the first pic. It's as if they took the GoW approach by hiding details in pitch-black shadows. That's why the second pic looks so much better. By using less colors, the pic implies more details hidden somewhere in those huge patches of pure black.[Snarf];2152819 said:
The second pic might look fine as a desktop background, but ingame you'll just end up wondering a vast landscape of mostly-grayscale terrain. It'll tire out your eyes in about a dozen hours.
Last edited:
I agree that if the whole game looked like that the look would get boring. However, the second picture definately does look better. I don't think it's just the color either. The whole look and feel of everything you see in the videos is cartoony and WarCraft IIIish. Even the wood etc flying into the screen adds to the fake quality about everything.
I seriously don't see how you can say the second pic looks better. You can't see jack.
I'll admit toning down the colors a bit may look better but I'd at least like to see what's going on.
I'll admit toning down the colors a bit may look better but I'd at least like to see what's going on.
I think a middle ground between the color and the darker picture is the best solution. I like the darker setting, but it belays reality and I don't think that the above ground world in Diablo 20 years after the second game is in a constant state of turmoil and destruction to warrant such dark atmospheres that some folks want.
At night, or when it cloudy, and only in those situations should it be that dark or greyed out.
During the day it should be colorful. I guess I would prefer more neutral toned colors and less pastels. I'll bet if they ditched the bloom, or at least tweaked it, it'll make things look better too. I've noticed in some games that the bloom effect has the nasty habit of horribly exaggerating some colors.
That picture of the bridge is during what seems to be a heavy rainstorm. In that situation the darkly edited picture fits and less color is appropriate. However during the day it should never be that dark, or grey toned.
Some of those edited pictured linked to from that petition look pretty good. Some don't work at all.
Someone from the diablofans forum linked this as the bio for the D3 art director.
http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,53715/
If you check his previous game experience history then you can see his style/experience and also see why D3 looks the way it does.
At night, or when it cloudy, and only in those situations should it be that dark or greyed out.
During the day it should be colorful. I guess I would prefer more neutral toned colors and less pastels. I'll bet if they ditched the bloom, or at least tweaked it, it'll make things look better too. I've noticed in some games that the bloom effect has the nasty habit of horribly exaggerating some colors.
That picture of the bridge is during what seems to be a heavy rainstorm. In that situation the darkly edited picture fits and less color is appropriate. However during the day it should never be that dark, or grey toned.
Some of those edited pictured linked to from that petition look pretty good. Some don't work at all.
Someone from the diablofans forum linked this as the bio for the D3 art director.
http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,53715/
If you check his previous game experience history then you can see his style/experience and also see why D3 looks the way it does.
Last edited:
I agree with you until there. You've obviously never spent a significant amount of time playing warcraft 3
And I like blizzard's philosophy in that way. I remember playing starcraft with some people in high school 2 years ago who could never dream of having a rig fast enough for UT3, but they'll probably be able to run starcraft 2 on their laptops. These are people who don't usually spend too much time playing pc games, but they'll have a fair share of hours logged onto bnet.
Well the system requirements arnt going to be through the roof either way, Im just saying that by the time Diablo3 is out current hardware will be the low-mid end so they could easily aim alittle higher especially since its 3d it should allow more graphics options over a res setting!
I thought I made it clear though, I still think Diablo2's levels look better, if the res matched Diablo 3 itd put it to shame
This is Blizzard we are talking about hey so looking pretty good is aiming alittle low. I have faith they could make the game more detailed in polycounts and not raise the system requirements a great deal, I mean after all its not like you can see miles off in the horizon. Theres all kinds of tricks which could be used, those polycounts are really shameful considering the shader level they are using, ofcoarse Blizzard arnt the only ones doing it but as I said I expect more from them. Id like to see them mature their graphics pipeline or even roll back to when they were making pre-rendered assets and use those but in real-time this time.
Theres alot more things I could rattle off that will have a more adverse effect on framerates (even on older systems) than bevelling a few edges and changing the chunky 6 sided cylinders to 12 sides. I mean for starters is the water and distortion a shader model 3 requirement? That'll rule out anything under a 6600 and Im certain a card like that could handle more polys, perhaps the effects would need to be turned down a notch and the texture res is going to have an effect.
There is also going to be things which are heavier on the CPU, polycounts arnt, they might add to loadtimes alittle but not a great deal so its not like this game would require a heap more ram because of polycounts.
Now imagine those environments rendered at the same res as the high def gameplay clip. Im certainly not saying Blizzard must do it but it would be nice to see, Im happy with how Diablo 3 looks hey so dont get me wrong, I just think the detailed environments were one of the things that Diablo 2 had going for it. Ive played that game alot and still I have occasion to look at something and go oh wow, that is rather detailed and kewl
I'm a little confused as to where you're getting here... first you say something like "building a new rig in a few years would be cheap," implying that you'd like cutting edge graphics, but then you say "well a few more polys would be nice." Do you want much better graphics, or just a little bit better? Do you want it to look like D2 in 3D, or something else entirely? Or do you even know what you want it to look like?
Sorry, Blizzard doesn't design games for GPU benchmark articles, they design games for a large audience of people to enjoy with as little hassle as possible. Upgrading a pc is a hassle, and sometimes an impossibility for some people.
I think I see what you're saying, but to me it just sounds a little whiny, especially since the game already looks good. "Oh, the game could sure use a few more polys here, the game could use some less contrast here" etc etc. Well, yes, it could look a little nicer, or it could look a little more to your liking, but it doesn't. Not every game has to have bleeding-edge graphics; in fact, some games are better without them. D3 is arguably one of those games.
It's not like we're facing a UT3 UI here.
edit:
Well that's great, but a new graphics card is going to cost me at least $150, and I don't have enough $$$ to get that right now. I definitely wont have that when school starts up again.
Last edited:
[Snarf];2152771 said:I'd say this very thread is a testament to that...
This very thread is an example how discussions can be relatively sane ...
I'd suggest you try to find the 'anti re-spec'-discussion on the D3 forums Blizzard apparently gives you the option to change part of your character-skills after you've made choice ... which makes sense for casual gamers.
The 'colour'-discussion has a similar level of idiocy.
Sure it may look a bit 'cartoon'-like, but it also gives Blizzard a huge range of atmosphere to play with.
If everything is as dark as shown in the 'after'-example there'd be no way to make it feel worse in the latter stages.
You'd also give people yet another reason to increase gamma/brightness to insane levels just because they can't see a damned thing in those shadows.
The attached modified version is what people would be looking at if the game was ever released with those 'dark' graphics ... not that much 'better' or 'darker' than the 'cartoon'-version that Blizzard is doing, is it ?
Also keep in mind that previous games had only 256 colours to play with.
Heck ... the desert-level from D2 looks really 'happy' and it isn't nearly as dark&dreary as those who made the 'after'-screenshots are thinking Diablo was.
Attachments
Im not saying it has to be bleeding edge, you are totally not getting it. It would be 1 step, not a leap above what they are showing. As Ive said the effects are kewl etc, but shrugging me off as whiny because you're too cheap to own a PC made in the last 5yrs is alittle bit rude.
My point is the current PC's from the last 2yrs, will be lowend by the time this game is out so say Blizzard is aiming 4yrs in the past thats 6yrs in total by the time the game is released. You follow now? Im not saying aim for the PC's that will be out when the game is out as a minimum requirement. Like I said its already got a shader model 3 requirement (most likely) so if you got an ati 9800 youre **** outta luck and you'll probably just get by with a 6600, so the polycounts havent added anything in terms of requirements to the game at all.
Its very doubtful theres going to be software rendering support at all for this game, diablo 2 had the ability to run it through 2d or 3d api's.
Its called constructive criticism hey, Im not bitching or moaning... If you dont understand what Im getting at then perhaps you should look up the affects of polycounts on framerates and tell me there isnt room for blizzard to improve while still running on a wider range of systems. Im not talking about running GPU benchmarks since we all know Shaders have alot more to do with that these days, Im not saying make it a Shader model 4 DX10 requirement!
The game does look good as I said but its got the potential to look excellent and look good for years to come, sorry if I want to see this game stand the test of time like previous games!~
Last edited:
shadow_dragon
is ironing his panties!
meh! The issues people seem to have with Diablo so far seem to be easily resolved by simply adjusting the contrast settings and i bet after all this fuss half the people who play it end up adjusting their settings so black=grey and they can see everything better anyway.
Unless you're forwarding your uhh... analysis... to Blizzard, then it's not constructive criticism. It's just a critique.
Anyways, you're heavily hinging your posts on the idea that D3 will "most likely" require SM3.0. Ignoring the fact that both "water effects" and "distortions" are both possible with the earliest SM2 specs, that's... still probably not true. Even Crysis will run on a SM2.0 card. Given the slew of pre-3.0 cards still on the (international) market and the fact that most laptops have at best a modest GPU, it's unlikely Diablo 3 will want go with a SM3 requirement.
Sh*t, I don't think any past (or near-future) game absolutely requires SM3.
Last edited:
Yeah ofcoarse, Im just getting too caught up in it all. Considering I made a paragraph statement on what I saw I dont think I need to go into it in anymore depth, you can certainly draw youre own assumptions like a pre SM3 requirement. Considering SM3 has been around a good 4yrs I dont think its worth supporting anything less myself, most laptops might have a modest GPU but thats the people with laptops battle. I mean even intels latest integrateds has dx10 support but they arnt exact up to the task apparently.
There are some nice use of details through out the environments but my main concern is the consistency especially when you consider what the camera is viewing, some of the screens Ive seen are very low poly while others are nice and high poly.
The biggest concern I guess with that for me is that the game is being rushed, Im gonna buy the game almost definatly at this point hell it might even be my first pre-order. Basically Im just saying while blizzard should take an effort to support a wide range of system it shouldnt come at the cost of the art, the style is up to them to work out and I'll just roll with it for now unless it suddenly turns into world of diablo then I'll speak up. Theres certainly some things I agree with on the petition but theres no way Im going to sign it.
I could email my posts in letter form to blizzard if that means you'll call them constructive criticism!
There are some nice use of details through out the environments but my main concern is the consistency especially when you consider what the camera is viewing, some of the screens Ive seen are very low poly while others are nice and high poly.
The biggest concern I guess with that for me is that the game is being rushed, Im gonna buy the game almost definatly at this point hell it might even be my first pre-order. Basically Im just saying while blizzard should take an effort to support a wide range of system it shouldnt come at the cost of the art, the style is up to them to work out and I'll just roll with it for now unless it suddenly turns into world of diablo then I'll speak up. Theres certainly some things I agree with on the petition but theres no way Im going to sign it.
I could email my posts in letter form to blizzard if that means you'll call them constructive criticism!
[Snarf];2152944 said:Sorry, Im confused but please bear with me.
What exactly is it you are trying to prove with that picture? Ist that the original 'too dark' fixed version with extra high brightness applied, or what?
Yes. It's the dark version with the gamma turned up. Kinda like what most people do with dark games.
MonsOlympus said:
What are you basing that on? At any rate, I wouldn't worry, Blizzard is not prone to "OMFG get this crap out the door!" Especially with the cash cow that is WoW filling their bank.
Rushed? Perhaps, but from what I can tell they are releasing this really early along in the development. It seems to me that Blizzard has made a really good inhouse engine, and now that they have a good base they can do a lot more stuff. I'm willing to bet that StarCraft 2 is using the same technology (also has the havok physics etc). Hence why they are now able to show us stuff so early along. Still I wouldn't expect to see this game until 2010. I'm sure that a lot is going to change between now and then, including some artistic changes.
Sorry if I'm "too cheap" to afford a new pc for this game, but I've got more important things that take priority over pc gaming. Like tuition, books, a car, etc. So if my pc can't run the game, I won't be playing it. And that's how it's going to be for a lot of people who would otherwise be playing SC2 or D3. Many people that play blizzard's games don't otherwise play pc games, which means they probably don't have too powerful of a pc. Rember that.
The game has already been in development for 3 years, and it's still not close to release. It's definitely not being rushed. Even if it were... what do you expect, them to remake a good portion of the game so the polycounts can be increased just a little bit? Doesn't that seem like... I dunno, a waste of time? Especially since it won't make too noticeable of a difference anyway?
If you look at Blizzard's past titles, they have always done well, and have always been "subpar" in the graphics department. I've never talked to someone who stopped playing starcraft because it looked like poo. So I doubt the visual quality of their games has affected the success of their games negatively.
All pissing and moaning aside, I am looking forward to this game and intend on buying it when it comes out.
[Snarf];2151659 said:
i would love to see an option for first-person in D3 cause sometimes i kinda get tired of third
I could say the same about you, then. Glorified micromanaging or air-rushing isn't what I'd call "advanced", because that's basically what the game boils down to these days.I agree with you until there. You've obviously never spent a significant amount of time playing warcraft 3
I STILL have to look at Spring TA to get my strategic fix.
Same. It rocketed up to the top of my want list as soon as I saw that 20 minute demo.