Warcraft Legacy Starcraft Legacy BlizzForums
The Future?

Go Back   BlizzForums > Games > Diablo Discussion

Diablo Discussion Enter the Uncertain Realm Dominated by an Epic Conflict.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes


Old 08-13-2008
 
#31
BlizzForums Neo
Boo!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 10,110
 Neo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulzNeo did it for teh lulz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeitgeber View Post
I remember the deserts and tombs being some of the first screen shots I saw of Diablo2 and I was actually quite impressed with the level of detail and texture, especially in the tombs.

Once again, it's texture and form, not just the level of colour that determines how a game will feel, but whatever, we've going over the same old territory.

I don't know Neo, maybe you're simply blind to it, some people simply don't 'get' the darker aesthetic and so can never comprehend why some people might find it so attractive in the same way that I simply don't 'get' pink polo shirts or postmodern architecture. This isn't something words will change, thought I do believe the pro change crowd consist of a majority of Diablo fans.
Thats unfair. I don't "get it" ?? "a majority" ??

That's just bull. There is no majority and there is nothing I don't get. I understand that the consensus among those that want the art to change is that they want it to be constantly dark, whether the environment is outside or inside. Personally I find that boring. I want the outside environments to look like outside environments.

Now you keep putting words in my mouth, I get the darker aspect, however I personally am tired of playing a game where I can't see 2 inches from my character whenever I'm in the dark. I actually want to see that detailed mural painting in the cathedral, or the design of the monster I'm fighting. Many of the monsters in Diablo II have extremely interesting details that one usually misses because it's to damned dark to see anything except their life bar.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/...-turns-tables/

I agree with almost everything Jay said in regards to the fan modified screen shots.

What saddens me is that fans aren't even willing to give blizzard a chance. You see, maybe, 30-40 minutes of video, and you're all just so sure the design sucks and should be changed?

I don't want a desaturated version of Diablo. People seem to be forgetting how colorful Diablo II actually was. I want everything to be vibrant, I want to see my spells and my allies.

-Neo
 
Neo has 10,110 Posts
 

Neo is offline


pm.gif  Send a message via AIM to Neo Send a message via MSN to Neo Send a message via Yahoo to Neo 
Reply With Quote


Old 08-13-2008
 
#32
Canada DemolitionSquid
TestosterOWNAGE
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,740
 DemolitionSquid would like to thank all of the little people...DemolitionSquid would like to thank all of the little people...DemolitionSquid would like to thank all of the little people...DemolitionSquid would like to thank all of the little people...DemolitionSquid would like to thank all of the little people...DemolitionSquid would like to thank all of the little people...DemolitionSquid would like to thank all of the little people...DemolitionSquid would like to thank all of the little people...DemolitionSquid would like to thank all of the little people...DemolitionSquid would like to thank all of the little people...DemolitionSquid would like to thank all of the little people...
Default

I think this is the first time I acctually agree with Neo on anything. D2 was dark, yes, in both mood and graphical overlay. But Act 2 and Act 3 were also vibrant. There's nothing wrong with a little contrast.
 
DemolitionSquid has 7,740 Posts

 

DemolitionSquid is offline


pm.gif  Send a message via MSN to DemolitionSquid  
Reply With Quote


Old 08-13-2008
 
#33
United States mr. peasant
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,432
 mr. peasant is a name known to allmr. peasant is a name known to allmr. peasant is a name known to allmr. peasant is a name known to allmr. peasant is a name known to allmr. peasant is a name known to allmr. peasant is a name known to allmr. peasant is a name known to allmr. peasant is a name known to allmr. peasant is a name known to allmr. peasant is a name known to all
Default

Something I have noticed about the pro-change crowd is that their reasoning, regardless of whether others agree to or not, concern aesthetic issues. But when designing an art style, it is worth remembering that there are other factors to be considered, such as gameplay and practicality. In fact, out of these three (aesthetics, gameplay and practicality), aesthetics are the least important.

To help illustrate my point, I've added some questions pertaining to the relevant factors that I think Blizzard artists (amongst others) are likely to ask during the development of the style:

Aesthetics:

- Is it unique and different from competing products? How so?
- Is the quality on par with competing products?
- Does the style allow for variety and change or is it static through out the game?
- Are fine details noticeable? If so, would they be appreciated or ignored?

Gameplay:

- Is it easy to differentiate between different characters, creatures and locations?
- Is it easy to read what is happening?
- What does the art style allow and prevent us from doing? Are these things we want or need?

Practicality:

- How many work hours must be put in to achieve an acceptable quality?
- Can the style run well on the typical computer possessed by the average computer owner (as opposed to a gamer)?
- If additional hardware is needed, how available are they and are people likely to take the effort to obtain them?

Blizzard's explanation on the selection of the current art style takes all these three factors into account (though they may not have officially answered these specific questions publicly). Pro-change supporters haven't.
 
 

mr. peasant is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 08-14-2008
 
#34
Australia Zeitgeber
BF Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 329
 Zeitgeber has become enlightenedZeitgeber has become enlightenedZeitgeber has become enlightenedZeitgeber has become enlightenedZeitgeber has become enlightenedZeitgeber has become enlightenedZeitgeber has become enlightenedZeitgeber has become enlightenedZeitgeber has become enlightenedZeitgeber has become enlightenedZeitgeber has become enlightened
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid View Post
I think this is the first time I acctually agree with Neo on anything. D2 was dark, yes, in both mood and graphical overlay. But Act 2 and Act 3 were also vibrant. There's nothing wrong with a little contrast.
That's not what I'm getting at DS.

The existence of bright colours do not de facto mean the game is 'bright' in mood, it's all about contrast and texture, things which would not overly alter the processing power needed to operate but more constitute a stylistic change.

It's true that this different direction would involve in many areas of dark, but that also serves as a contrast to make spells, particular aspects of the environment and characters stand out. This doesn't mean you can't have brighter areas, but the impression we got from the screen shots and trailers was that the entire game has been 'lightened' in mood and aesthetics, not just certain sections.

I'm not arguing for a D3 in monochrome, never was.
 
 

Zeitgeber is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 08-15-2008
 
#35
United States Adovid
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 444
 Adovid simply pwnsAdovid simply pwnsAdovid simply pwnsAdovid simply pwnsAdovid simply pwnsAdovid simply pwnsAdovid simply pwnsAdovid simply pwnsAdovid simply pwnsAdovid simply pwnsAdovid simply pwns
Default

Come on people. It's not that hard to lower some ambient values on a few shader effects.

What Blizzard uses on Diablo 3 looks like the models use constant shading with hardly any lighting. It's pitiful.

We have pixel shaders now people. Geforce 4 and up.

Here is what they need to do:

1. Use the phong shader on everything with a very close to zero ambient value(no more than .01), a diffuse value of around 2 and a very high specular power, like 200. These are the values that seem to match the materials used in the original diablo 1 & 2 sprites.

2. Use a lighting model that shades units individually and takes minimal influence from the environment. Why? Because sprites in diablo 2 were lit by the scene they were modeled in with 1 light. That made it look dark and definitely gave it it's own look and feel.

In addition to this, using the phong shader will not pull so much of a load on low end cards because it would only shade over 1 light.

The thing is. You actually WANT to duplicate the cheesy default materials the artists used back when they couldn't or didn't know how to tweek very much and didn't think to use more than 1 light to illuminate the models.

Here is an example of what I am talking about. Mario if he was in Diablo. This was done with an hlsl real time shader with shader version 2.0.
 
Attached Images
File Type: jpg diabloMario.jpg (20.8 KB, 14 views)

Last edited by Adovid; 08-16-2008 at 01:59 AM.

"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art."--
Charles McCabe
.
 

Adovid is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diablo III Colectibles Bluesang Diablo Discussion 3 08-07-2008 01:59 AM
Competitive elements in Diablo III Todie Diablo Discussion 4 07-07-2008 02:04 AM
Kotaku Jay Wilson interview mgcemir Diablo Discussion 3 06-30-2008 05:18 PM
StarCraft 2's potential addiction on PS3 zergburger StarCraft Discussion 21 02-08-2008 12:23 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:00 AM.
Designed by XG3