Diablo 3

[Fuzzle]

It's the Hack and Slash gameplay that I don't like.

Fix't.

Hack'n'Slash is fun when done well. Diablo is the best in it's class when it comes to it. Most of us wouldn't want it any other way.

I don't want Diablo3 to be an arcade action hack'n'slash because it's "diabloish". I want it because it's hella fun and there are almost no franchises doing it these days. Dungeon Siege 3 and Space Siege are the only upcoming ones I can think of.
How many upcoming fps'es do we have?

Let diablo fill that area. Why does it need to be like other games, even if you think they're "better"? Would megaman be a better game if it was a 3rd person over-the-shoulder rpg? Would soul calibur be a better game if it was a first person adventure game? I'm sure you could make great games based on these premises, but why would you? Who would make the arcade platformers and fighting games?

 

[ilkman]

Apparently some folks don't like the artistic direction of D3.
http://www.petitiononline.com/d3art/petition.html

Man I hate gamers sometimes. Its too brown! Its too dark! Its too colorful! Its too this! Its too that! You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. What do they expect the world to look like? Night time, raining, and gloomy constantly? Good gravy I'd hate to play a game like that.

Check this lovely quote:

Graphically realistic world with realistic, dirty and muddy textures

So everything is supposed to be covered in mud and dirt? Is there a full time mud/dirt slinging company or class in the game whose soul duty is to go around and make everything dirty and muddy? Last I checked trees and plants and animals and all that had lots of color. The dungeons still look dark and dank like they should, but good lord, the rest of the outside world, the not even 1% of the game that we've seen, should be colorful.

Who knows what will happen down the road in the game. Some event in the story might end up giving the world a nice dark atmosphere. Give the developers a break already. Its not been a week since its announcement and already people are whining and throwing a fit.

After looking through all their example comparison pictures I have gathered that the new 'realistic' isn't brown anymore, its grey.

Edit: Upon thoroughly viewing those pictures I think I would prefer it to be darker as far as the dungeons are concerned, but I'd still be perfectly happy in its current state. I just hate how people are so anal sometimes especially concerning this long standing business of color problems in games.

 

[Sirius]

Dip-Sh*t petition

Someone call the Whaaaaambulance!

 

[Armagon917]

Yikes @ the petition. First off its wayy to early for a petition of that kind. We have seen a whole 5 minutes of gameplay and a dozen screens of just a small section of game. Theres something these people don't understand about use of color. I guess as an artist it just seems obvious to me. When Diablo appears on screen imagine the once pristine bright rolling hills being darkened by dark grey clouds and rain.

So a quick change in color can give you this feel of impending doom. I think thats what they're going for and I'm willing to bet that when you fight Uber Evil Thing B they're going to gradually darken the dungeon, forest or whatever environment to show evil is lurking. A few nasty corpses, skeletons and things as icing on the cake. Most gamers have no clues about these techniques.

In Diablo 2 I was suprised when I saw Diablo and thought I was going to fight something else then him. This was mainly because the environemnt was dark all the way up to that point. I have never seen a Blizzard game in its finished state and complained about the art.

 

[Matfei]

Does anyone think that Blizzard should branch into cg movies like pixar? I think this would be a great idea. I mean their pre rendered stuff is amazing.

I agree.

After seeing their Starcraft 2 cinematic with the Marine kitting up, I was like

Would be awesome to have Blizzard make a film or two.

 

[TWD]

Apparently some folks don't like the artistic direction of D3.
http://www.petitiononline.com/d3art/petition.html

Man I hate gamers sometimes. Its too brown! Its too dark! Its too colorful! Its too this! Its too that! You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. What do they expect the world to look like? Night time, raining, and gloomy constantly? Good gravy I'd hate to play a game like that.

Check this lovely quote:

So everything is supposed to be covered in mud and dirt? Is there a full time mud/dirt slinging company or class in the game whose soul duty is to go around and make everything dirty and muddy? Last I checked trees and plants and animals and all that had lots of color. The dungeons still look dark and dank like they should, but good lord, the rest of the outside world, the not even 1% of the game that we've seen, should be colorful.

Who knows what will happen down the road in the game. Some event in the story might end up giving the world a nice dark atmosphere. Give the developers a break already. Its not been a week since its announcement and already people are whining and throwing a fit.

After looking through all their example comparison pictures I have gathered that the new 'realistic' isn't brown anymore, its grey.

Edit: Upon thoroughly viewing those pictures I think I would prefer it to be darker as far as the dungeons are concerned, but I'd still be perfectly happy in its current state. I just hate how people are so anal sometimes especially concerning this long standing business of color problems in games.

I have to agree with them. I would prefer that the art style be kept more in line with the original games. The new art direction is far too colorful and fantacy, and not enough dark and gothic. It looks like a more pretty WarCraft III. I don't think people are complaining about this just because of what they've seen in the movies, but because Blizzard has stated that putting more color in is one of their design goals

 

[Armagon917]

I agree.

After seeing their Starcraft 2 cinematic with the Marine kitting up, I was like

Would be awesome to have Blizzard make a film or two.

I wouldn't mind some kind of 15 minute episode seasons of something they release periodically. Yeah the StarCraft 2 cinematic was incredible. I think what was shown likely didn't stand out as much as the rest of the game will.

Its Diablo and there will be some very dark creepy areas. I just think that it will be handled like Oblivion handled it. Certain areas of the world will be bright and others will be gloomy. I think thats good contrast. Diablo always started you out pretty slow and then the game got bat****crazy later on in terms of visuals and difficulty. Diablo 3 won't be different. I'm amped about it.

I think that this vid shows that Blizzard made the right choice with the visuals

diablo 1 ---> diablo 2 ---> diablo 3

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/35766.html

 

[MonsOlympus]

Actually I finally got the high res gameplay clip downloaded and after watching it the second time I tend to agree on the too colourful style. Well its not so much the colour but how clean everything looks, I think blizzard need to take a page from Epic's book and grungify some things. Especially the exterior bit, maybe its because its only the start and the monsters are starting to come up from out of the tombs. There could certainly be something there we dont know about, once the rain kicks in its alittle darker but I sure hope there is some nice dirty parts in the game.

Another thing I noticed is the lack of polycounts, now for the characters and monsters thats kewl as there might be a ****load of them on screen at once but its everything even the level. It actually looks alittle worse than diablo 2 would at the same res with its pre-rendered backgrounds. Id love to see more polys happening on the environments, sure its a big game and they are probably going to have zippy load times but I would prefer to see atleast a similar level of detail to diablo 2 with the environments. The specs for the game must not be very high at the moment at all!

I must admit the effects are rather impressive, the distortion, the rippling water, the physics of the walls breaking etc is all top notch but I think diablo 3 needs more then that. So yeah, colour is fine Id just like to see blizzard pushing themselves harder for diablo 3 and not get too content to sit at those polycounts or with their clean textures. This could all be a bit premature as I said theres probably alot I dont know but for now...

 

[SleepyHe4d]

Someone call the Whaaaaambulance!

Too true, I saw that petition and thread on GT. These people don't even have a right to complain because they obviously didn't even play Diablo 2 enough to get to Act 2.

Either way people should just stfu and let them make their game, you're not forced to buy it, it would be understandable to complain if they actually changed something.

 

[Dante]

I think here again the art style is gothic yet colorful and id and epic games need to look at how Blizzard did this. Its art style blends color and darkness better then any game I've seen. I'm not saying the art design or color has been poor from id or epic just that Blizzard did it better. They all rip each other off anyways.

Too true, I saw that petition and thread on GT. These people don't even have a right to complain because they obviously didn't even play Diablo 2 enough to get to Act 2.

Either way people should just stfu and let them make their game, you're not forced to buy it, it would be understandable to complain if they actually changed something.

Quoted for the truth.

Seriuosly, petition to make a game look grey? What the hell, Diablo was always colorful and there was enough "dirt and mud" when it needed, but it wasn't covered in puke like they are suggesting.

 

[ShakeZula]

what confounds me about that petition is people saying "make it look gothic like d2". has anyone played d2 recently? because those graphics aren't gothic, they're a complete bag of ****.

anybody who says that blizzard should make the visuals like D1's is correct - that graphical style created a very dark and intimidating atmosphere - but D2 has proved beyond any doubt that diablo games don't have to look good to be good.

besides, D3 looks OK. far better than D2 at any rate. and maybe blizzard will be able to create atmosphere in other ways, through music and story etc

 

[FaT CaM]

Another thing I noticed is the lack of polycounts, now for the characters and monsters thats kewl as there might be a ****load of them on screen at once but its everything even the level. It actually looks alittle worse than diablo 2 would at the same res with its pre-rendered backgrounds. Id love to see more polys happening on the environments, sure its a big game and they are probably going to have zippy load times but I would prefer to see atleast a similar level of detail to diablo 2 with the environments. The specs for the game must not be very high at the moment at all!

The effects you mention below are what would push the system requirements up. Diablo 2's requirements were piddly, pretty much anyone could run it fine with a computer from, say, before 2000 (like mine!) and this was its selling point - An interesting, fun game that anyone with just about any computer could get into.

I must admit the effects are rather impressive, the distortion, the rippling water, the physics of the walls breaking etc is all top notch but I think diablo 3 needs more then that. So yeah, colour is fine Id just like to see blizzard pushing themselves harder for diablo 3 and not get too content to sit at those polycounts or with their clean textures. This could all be a bit premature as I said theres probably alot I dont know but for now...

I would like to see them push themselves too, especially if this is what they've produced so far. But i think people are misunderstanding the context of the game. The world of sancturary has been rid of the three prime evils, so there is a degree of peace in the world, but the destruction of the worldstone by tyrael has left it open to being taken over by any other minions of hell or even archangels of heaven. I would say the colour is like a calm before the storm. Once the mad **** goes down appearances will take a turn for the better (read: everything in the world will get majorly ****ed up).

Don't despair, I think we will all get the game we want in the end.

 

[JaFO]

The problem is how do you get waves of enemies to attack a player from all sides without having them horribly slaughtered when using a first/third person perspective? Seeing as about 270 degreees of vision is lost to the player in theory. To be honest it seems like first/third person is more limited than isometric as far as cameras go? I bet if Blizzard added a first/third person check box in the interface options it'd go mostly unused by the majority of players.

The major advantage for a 1st/3rd-person pov is that it makes the ranged attacks more effective as you aren't limited to half your screen-width for precise attacks (and blindly shooting at everything beyond that range).
You're right that the isometric style is pretty essential for melee-oriented characters due to the peripheral vision.

Also on the cutscene front. First person or "in game" cutscenes have been a horrible trend for too long. Untill games are pre-render quality

with engines like UE3 I think we really are at a stage that in-game = 'pre rendered' quality or at least good enough that it doesn't have to be a problem (unless you're obsessed with eye-candy).
I like the fact that such in-game cut-scenes show of your character just as you've dressed him/her. Pre-rendered scenes either have to keep your character out of view (by using a first person pov for example) or they'd be forced to show a generic dummy which tends to break immersion.

Blizzards cinematics are beautifull

that I definitely agree. One really has to wonder why they haven't used that capability for a tv-show or even a movie.
They've certainly proven that they've got the hardware and know-how to produce fantastic scenes.

...
It'd be like asking for a Max Payne game with in-game cutscenes. Urgh!

If the engine had been more advanced then it would have worked.

 

[MonsOlympus]

Yeah you sound like you hit the nail on the head there with the setting FaTCam

I just think blizzard is capable of more, when you see the improvements they make to their cutscenes time after time, I mean the only people I think that could match them is blur. Id like to see them put the same effort into trying to advance the graphics in the game also, I know the effects would push the shader level requirement up but Im not sure on the rest of the requirements.

I dont think thats asking too much from the likes of blizzard anyways, it might add alittle to load time and ram requirements but I dont think it would over dramatic unless they start adding more details to the physics objects. The base collision would stay pretty much the same so there wouldnt be a huge hit from adding more polys on screen.

It is still early days yet I guess, this game could be a q3-4 09 release then again it could get pushed depending on what happens. With a team maintaining wow, a team working on SC2 and a team on diablo3 blizzard must be a touch thin atm so it could be possible things will start looking really good once the core SC2 team is done and moves to help on diablo3. Im not entirely sure how things work but blizzard are certainly gonna hit big, I mean wow was a huge hit and now we got sequels for 2 very popular franchises on PC. I just hope blizzard isnt skimping alittle to get it out the door quick, Im sure the gameplay will totally rock but Id really like to see this game stand the test of time like their previous titles, having subpar graphics to reach a wider audience is good but considering the rigs you'll be able to buy for cheap by the time its out I dont think its a bad idea to raise the bar a notch or two

 

[hilo_]

Yeah you sound like you hit the nail on the head there with the setting FaTCam

I just think blizzard is capable of more, when you see the improvements they make to their cutscenes time after time, I mean the only people I think that could match them is blur. Id like to see them put the same effort into trying to advance the graphics in the game also, I know the effects would push the shader level requirement up but Im not sure on the rest of the requirements.

I dont think thats asking too much from the likes of blizzard anyways, it might add alittle to load time and ram requirements but I dont think it would over dramatic unless they start adding more details to the physics objects. The base collision would stay pretty much the same so there wouldnt be a huge hit from adding more polys on screen.

It is still early days yet I guess, this game could be a q3-4 09 release then again it could get pushed depending on what happens. With a team maintaining wow, a team working on SC2 and a team on diablo3 blizzard must be a touch thin atm so it could be possible things will start looking really good once the core SC2 team is done and moves to help on diablo3. Im not entirely sure how things work but blizzard are certainly gonna hit big, I mean wow was a huge hit and now we got sequels for 2 very popular franchises on PC. I just hope blizzard isnt skimping alittle to get it out the door quick, Im sure the gameplay will totally rock but Id really like to see this game stand the test of time like their previous titles, having subpar graphics to reach a wider audience is good but considering the rigs you'll be able to buy for cheap by the time its out I dont think its a bad idea to raise the bar a notch or two

You may be willing to pay for a new pc every 2 years, but I'm not. I paid $1300 for mine 1&1/2 years ago and I'm not upgrading for at least 3 more years. Thank goodness Blizzard isn't creating a game that only the elite pc nerds will be able to play.

All of blizzard's games have been playable on a wide range of systems (meaning they have "subpar" graphics, apparently) and, interestingly, they're played longer and by more people than most other pc games out there.

And adding a "couple more polys" is going to have very little effect in making the game look better, especially since it's a 3rd person game. I don't know about you, but I think it looks pretty good as it is.

 

[Airmoran]

Maybe I'm just getting dragged into the past by my Wii, but I think Diablo 3 looks gorgeous.

Yeah, the underlying engine and so forth are clearly not gonna tax anyone's system, but the art. Man, the colors, the pretty (and juuuust right) lighting, the quality and cohesive stages, the detailed and expressive animation all look fantastic. It's really a feast for the eyes.

At any rate, I have a really tough time calling Diablo 3 "crippled" by polycounts or anything like that. The art shines through perfectly. Adding more polygons would be superfluous.

 

[Kantham]

Is it me or people are wanting this game more than SC2?

 

[Fuzzle]

I was "ah nifty" at the sc2 announcement. I'm all "holy ****! No way!" at D3.

This vid sums up my feelings about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQk_CT7fY9E

 

[Matfei]

Is it me or people are wanting this game more than SC2?

I'm wanting both; but D3 ranks above SC2 for me.

Nothing beats stomping about as a badarse brute, kicking demonic backside.

 

[haarg]

Needs more brown.

edit: And bloom.