Diablo III Looked Heavenly in 2005

[Korten12]

Oh hey, at one point it looked like a Diablo Game instead of Isometric WoW.

As an old school Diablo fan I am very much prepared for disappointment, while trying to keep a glimmer of hope. I guess everything is really conjecture and we will all have to see.

If Diablo 3 is a huge disappointment there is always Grim Dawn. [http://www.grimdawn.com/index.php]

oooh... color me interested.

 

[Korten12]

Not fond of Diablo 3's current style.

Prefer the original shots.

Yeah same, the new one looks bland. Normally I wouldn't mind (hell I play Blops) but... Diablo 3 style... Just looks, I don't know, just boring...

 

[Void(null)]

Now that you mention it, though, it's a funny coincidence that the things I've been playing most lately are Titan Quest and Civ4 (and I guess AI War, which is just 2D sprites and not even any fake 3D going on).

AI war is without a shadow of a doubt, on a purely technical basis one of the greatest games ever written. I love the game as a programmer almost as much as I love the game as a player. The entire thing is just masterful.

 

[erm]

Diablo 3 is looking more grimdark than Diablo 2 for sure. Diablo 1 was the darkest, so much so it hurt.

Act 1: Fields at nighttime. Dark

Act 2: Desert in daytime. Bright

Act 3: Jungle at nighttime. Dark

Act 4: Twilight hell place. Dark on the plains, bright in the lake of fire

Act 5: Mountains in daytime. Brightest of them all.

The magic was bright monochrome effects. Enemies were colored brightly for convenience. Unique enemies actually glowed with color. Bright blue and green for cold and poison. It was vibrant and colorful.

Diablo 3 has removed a lot of that brightness. Just compare the desert environments of each. Less monochrome effects, the magic is darker and has a better range of color, and the enemies aren't as bright or outlined. They still have daytime, unlike Diablo 1, which is naturally bright.

To make up for the lack of color, they are using the art style for differentiation. It's a good choice I think, which is why so many games do the same thing. Diablo 2 was cartoony in its own way, Diablo 3 just has a different style.

As for cheesy. All Diablo stuff is cheesy. Cheesy sells with games like these. The over the top dialogue, the scantily clad women, the crazy abilities, a literal good vs evil fight, it's all so corny/cheesy/cliche.

 

[Hungry Donner]

I like these shots but rather than graphics and aesthetics I'd be more interested in knowing if the planned characters were different as the current Diablo 3 line up is severely lacking in my opinion.

 

[Warachia]

snip.

People are more reffering to "dark in tone" which the whole game, even the sand level kept, because it had more of a consistancy throughout the games. Funnily enough, when there is a lot of colour, the environments don't feel that they shift as much and the game can start to feel much more samey, that was the case for me in Titan Quest, and it seems to be a case for me here. Could you tell me what will set this apart from other overhead hack and slashers that I have played, aside from possibly cutting a few of my favourite classes? (which I am not bitter about, it's just not a point in the games favor.)

Now, to get a point across, I want you to do something for me, look at the new characters here:
http://us.blizzard.com/diablo3/characters/index.xml

And the old ones here:
http://classic.battle.net/diablo2exp/classes/

yes the both have colour, but the old ones had a darkness in tone would easily work with the games gothic style whereas the new ones... I honestly can't tell what they're trying to accomplish, aside from trying to hard, these characters, specifically the witch doctor and barbarian are where people draw the WoW comparisons from.

 

[hotsumota]

*sigh* I really do not understand why the graphics are such a great issue. In all honesty, when ever I played this game LAN, online, or single player, I never really thought the graphics were that great of an impact to the game. I never played it for the graphics, I played the game for the mechanics and the instant reward factor of "loot".

I played this game for the experience of playing with my buddies, and beating the lord of destruction. As well as, any continuing time I added to Diablo II was to improve my character with better gear, and don't you people dare say you didn't keep playing it because of these reasons. In all honesty, all I ever saw online were runs and runs and runs to go kill the lord of destruction for loot. That is it. I never truly saw anyone stop to examine the scenery. Seriously, all I am looking forward to in diablo III is an experience with my friends. That is it.

Diablo III never gave me any reason to take the grim Gothic dungeons seriously. This as because EVERY SINGLE DUNGEON LOOKED THE SAME. I am glad they are changing the art style of the game so that we can actually have variety, and maybe even stop to actually acknowledge some of the great scenery.

As someone that I read earlier said, I am really getting scared of how people are making a petition to have darker, dull gray/brown hues to the game.

 

[Atmos Duality]

How does not releasing games earn them more money?
Also they never said any release date at all or even promise any year to release.

Simple: Diablo 3 and WoW are competing for the same market. We saw proof of this when WoW first launched; the online population for Diablo 2 plummeted.

Until WoW's popularity sufficiently wanes, Blizzard will not release Diablo 3. It's a smart business decision because WoW is the single most consistently profitable game of all time.
I suspect that the game has already been finished for years now, but is back in development to bring the technical details up to date.

If they had not already revealed content for Diablo 3, I wouldn't be surprised if they just pulled the plug on it altogether, though at the time I'm sure Blizzard didn't suspect that WoW would remain as popular as it is today.

 

[Exort]

How does not releasing games earn them more money?
Also they never said any release date at all or even promise any year to release.

Simple: Diablo 3 and WoW are competing for the same market. We saw proof of this when WoW first launched; the online population for Diablo 2 plummeted.

Until WoW's popularity sufficiently wanes, Blizzard will not release Diablo 3. It's a smart business decision because WoW is the single most consistently profitable game of all time.
I suspect that the game has already been finished for years now, but is back in development to bring the technical details up to date.

If they had not already revealed content for Diablo 3, I wouldn't be surprised if they just pulled the plug on it altogether, though at the time I'm sure Blizzard didn't suspect that WoW would remain as popular as it is today.

Tin foil hat time?
I didn't remember Diablo 2 popularity drop, and even so it was a 5 years ago game. Any proofs?
And more importantly Diablo fan HATE WoW, just go to any Diablo fan site.
and how is Diablo and WoW competing for the same market? they are two different gernes.

 

[Baalthazaq]

Honestly, when I look at the characters in DIII vs DII, the difference I see is that one is done in a proper videogame engine with dark shadows and a single light source, and the other is done in flash without.

Looking at the actual characters, the DIIs are: More colourful, less detailed.

The difference you're talking about isn't tone, shade, art direction, or anything else to make it "more WoW". Fallout III was "more wow" than 1 and 2, because it was 3D. Like WoW.

GTA became "more WoW" when it became 3D.

The only reason anyone is even considering the comparison argument this time is because it is Blizzard.

It's also why every time try bringing up an objective rather than subjective argument, it falls on it's face. The argument is ridiculous and every time you can actually point to something concrete and measurable, we can measure it and see that you're flat out wrong.

Try looking at Kaa the soulless [http://classic.battle.net/images/battle/diablo2exp/images/superuniques/kaa.jpg] for a second and tell me about tone/colour/lighting, and anything else that was superior in DII. The creatures [http://classic.battle.net/images/battle/diablo2exp/images/superuniques/fangskin.jpg] in DII, looked ridiculous [http://classic.battle.net/images/battle/diablo2exp/images/superuniques/coldworm.jpg].

So did the player abilities.

They're not even shaded, it's just a matter of absolute RGB primary colour monsters with no detail whatsoever. These were not scary creatures. Salamander... maybe. Salamander who has joined the blue man group? No.

As for what is going to set this apart from other hack and slashers... I'd argue: Gameplay. Which is what should set *any* game apart. The graphics aren't going to do very much to a game with good or poor gameplay.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Tin foil hat time?
I didn't remember Diablo 2 popularity drop, and even so it was a 5 years ago game. Any proofs?
And more importantly Diablo fan HATE WoW, just go to any Diablo fan site.
and how is Diablo and WoW competing for the same market? they are two different gernes.

You can keep your tin-foil hat jab. My argument is perfectly rational.

First, I must posit an alternative statement: The REMAINING Diablo fans hate WoW, but WoW's original target market was aimed squarely at the Diablo 2 playerbase. I would know because I'm one of them, and played Diablo 2 online for years. Those that stuck around after the mass-exodus despised WoW on principle, and most of those who stuck around were those who had all the gear they wanted already (remember this, it will come up again later).

Back in 2003, I recall the Bnet servers reporting over 2 million users online. It would flat-out tell you when you entered the general Bnet chat channel.
2 years following WoW's launch, that number dropped to about a 10th of that. I personally knew dozens of players who left Diablo 2 for WoW on launch. Most of my Cisco class back in community college among them.

Of course, it's nearly impossible to provide the data now; nobody kept track of that sort of thing. So I guess I'll have to take your jab on the chin.

However, you would have to be in denial to not see the similarities between the two games:
1) Class based system. Skill Tree -> Talent Tree
2) Grind. Motherfucking metric tons of grind. You do boss runs for gear in Diablo 2. You do raids/instances for gear in WoW. They are virtually identical in practice.
3) Massive online community (though relegated to only 8 player games due to the lower bandwidth and processing allotments at the time. In 2000, there were very few MMORPGs out there because very few people had real broadband)

These are not idle similarities, but core points specific to each game. Items, more than anything else, ultimately determine how valuable you are compared to your peers.

Diablo 2's main difference is that it's effectively a rogue-like. Of course, in practice (via Maphack) it's no different than WoW when you go online (instances are static, and with maphack, the random-generation is completely thwarted).

Taking that all in; WoW was essentially built on Diablo 2's skeleton, and made improvements on its own.

So what does that mean today?
Well, if nothing else, Diablo 3 would be directly competing with WoW if only because of the matter of TIME.
WoW makes money hand over fist because it deliberately wastes your time (and not in the "I'm playing a game" sort of way; but with endless amounts of boring busywork), while charging a monthly fee.
If they release Diablo 3, then one of two possibilities happen:
1) WoW's subscriptions slip as people freeze their accounts to play Diablo 3
2) Fewer people buy Diablo 3 because they're too dedicated to WoW

Unless you have all the time in the world, you cannot feasibly play both, just due to the amount of grind required. MMORPGs monopolize time; which is why so few people leave WoW for other MMORPGs for long. They have too much investment in their WoW character that even if a vastly superior game came out, they still might not leave.

So you'll pardon me if I don't believe your "they are entirely different genres" theory one bit.

 

[Rythe]

Sigh.

I'm not surprised that the D3 graphic haters jumped on this thread immediately. And I'm also not surprised that they're still idiots. Yes, idiots. And beyond reasoning.

They do not have the experience or talent or knowledge to even begin to know what they're talking about. They're all bias and nostalgia trips. They can't even get the original Diablo 2 right. What they took as gritty darkness was nothing more than a freaking 800 x 600 resolution combined with the rose(black) tinted glasses of memory.

Case in point - all the photoshopped pictures with liberal use of the 'noise' filter. The haters rave about how gritty and dark the adjusted pics look when really they're just (affectively) dropping HD graphics back into 800x600 world. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

As much as I could go through a long list of examples and concrete counter points like other posters have, I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

Oh, almost forgot. The Demon Hunter intro movie was, indeed, terrible, but at least the class looks fun to play.

 

[Emergent System]

All this ignorant babble about it becoming WoW'd or kiddy-fun-land because of the color tone, I have played both WoW and the original Diablo's from start till now and i can tell you just from watching all of the media they've released on their site, http://us.blizzard.com/diablo3/ that all of this opinion based commentary is pure malarkey.

The demon hunter called. She would like a word with you. She's the gnome of D3, I suppose. I can't look at her and not think that it's an attempt at satire.

 

[fundayz]

Honestly, when I look at the characters in DIII vs DII, the difference I see is that one is done in a proper videogame engine with dark shadows and a single light source, and the other is done in flash without.

Looking at the actual characters, the DIIs are: More colourful, less detailed.

The difference you're talking about isn't tone, shade, art direction, or anything else to make it "more WoW". Fallout III was "more wow" than 1 and 2, because it was 3D. Like WoW.

GTA became "more WoW" when it became 3D.

The only reason anyone is even considering the comparison argument this time is because it is Blizzard.

It's also why every time try bringing up an objective rather than subjective argument, it falls on it's face. The argument is ridiculous and every time you can actually point to something concrete and measurable, we can measure it and see that you're flat out wrong.

Try looking at Kaa the soulless [http://classic.battle.net/images/battle/diablo2exp/images/superuniques/kaa.jpg] for a second and tell me about tone/colour/lighting, and anything else that was superior in DII. The creatures [http://classic.battle.net/images/battle/diablo2exp/images/superuniques/fangskin.jpg] in DII, looked ridiculous [http://classic.battle.net/images/battle/diablo2exp/images/superuniques/coldworm.jpg].

So did the player abilities.

They're not even shaded, it's just a matter of absolute RGB primary colour monsters with no detail whatsoever. These were not scary creatures. Salamander... maybe. Salamander who has joined the blue man group? No.

As for what is going to set this apart from other hack and slashers... I'd argue: Gameplay. Which is what should set *any* game apart. The graphics aren't going to do very much to a game with good or poor gameplay.

You are still missing the point. Nobody is arguing that the gameplay will be bad because of the art style, people are arguing that the game doesn't look or give the atmosphere of a Diablo game. This has nothing to do with the 3D graphics.

It looks like a Diablo mod for Warcraft. They took Diablo's truly evil-looking gothic art and made it more stylized, destroying the ominous feel of the game. The game world doesn't feel like hell and satan themselves are reaching into the mortal realm as much as it feels like a generic fantasy RPG with gory monsters.

Furthermore, it's not about the colour itself but rather how it is used. In fact, Diablo is known for it's over the top colours: we all remember running around in bright purple armor dodging lime green gas clouds. However, in Diablo 3 this colour, which was used as a contrast tool in previous Diablo games, is now spread generously even in the environment.

Diablo 1 and 2 = stylized realism

Diablo 3 = gory cartoons

 

[Israirie]

Sigh.

I'm not surprised that the D3 graphic haters jumped on this thread immediately. And I'm also not surprised that they're still idiots. Yes, idiots. And beyond reasoning.

They do not have the experience or talent or knowledge to even begin to know what they're talking about. They're all bias and nostalgia trips. They can't even get the original Diablo 2 right. What they took as gritty darkness was nothing more than a freaking 800 x 600 resolution combined with the rose(black) tinted glasses of memory.

Case in point - all the photoshopped pictures with liberal use of the 'noise' filter. The haters rave about how gritty and dark the adjusted pics look when really they're just (affectively) dropping HD graphics back into 800x600 world. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

As much as I could go through a long list of examples and concrete counter points like other posters have, I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

Oh, almost forgot. The Demon Hunter intro movie was, indeed, terrible, but at least the class looks fun to play.

The graphics are not the problem. The resolution is not the problem. It's the artistic direction. Badly proportioned character models, demons which lack any intimidating or really alienating factors, people wearing high heels and doing backflips, bizarre lighting, soft watercolours, abominations from WoW(!), over the top voice acting, inside jokes that seem to be designed to break tension (this is Diablo, why would we want the tension broken?), and I could go on forever.

You can call it rose tinted glasses all you want. I STILL PLAY DIABLO 1 and have every now and then since the day it was released. It is often called a pure hack and slash. I prefer to think of it as 1 part hack and slash, 1 part survival horror. There is an extremely obvious contrast in atmosphere - the very reason why Diablo appealed to me so much in the first place.

Point is that D3 does not convey anything close to believable portrayal of hell rising. That is to say there is zero suspension of disbelief. Sure, back when D1 was released you had to fill in some of the gaps with your own imagination as the graphics weren't perfect - however it was obvious Blizzard North were trying to convey a harsh realism where as Blizzard are not.

Spoiler

So you can call me and all the masses of people who share a similar opinion stupid all you like to make yourself feel better. That doesn't change the fact that there is a major shift in atmosphere coming to the franchise. It's obvious that you're OK with it, but you'll have to accept that not everybody is.

 

[elvor0]

Because you can't just turn your contrast down to make it darker...
Sure having it really fucking dark in d2 helped with the aesthetic, but when you need a stat called "light radius" that helps you to see, it sort of speaks for itself on just HOW dark it was.

C'mon in D2 you could be running around in bright purple armor with giant neon green clouds blowing up all over the joint. It wasnt really that dark, and it did have A lot of intese bright colours going on. Fuck all of Act2 was set in a sunny desert, and the latter half of act five was set in bright white as you accended a mountain.

 

[Exort]

Because you can't just turn your contrast down to make it darker...
Sure having it really fucking dark in d2 helped with the aesthetic, but when you need a stat called "light radius" that helps you to see, it sort of speaks for itself on just HOW dark it was.

C'mon in D2 you could be running around in bright purple armor with giant neon green clouds blowing up all over the joint. It wasnt really that dark, and it did have A lot of intese bright colours going on. Fuck all of Act2 was set in a sunny desert, and the latter half of act five was set in bright white as you accended a mountain.

This is very true. Diablo 2 background is dark, while the charater is very bright and the spell effect is over the top. therefore it shows contract bewtten different things, however I doubt that kind of color scheme work in 3D. Blizzard said they did try darker version of graphic just like some of the fan version, in fact that is what they start with, but the contract was too low and you can't tell the difference between monster and background.

 

[thylasos]

Am I the only man left who doesn't have a problem with isometric graphics?

 

[ProfessorLayton]

I like this much better than what it is now... this looks more like Diablo II and while I'm all for innovation with titles and fixing things that didn't work, the art in D2 did work and created a distinct style. This seems like they were making a sequel to Diablo II, now it looks like they're making a Diablo-themed World of Warcraft expansion.