Support NeoGAF

[Psy-Phi]

Allocating points was dumb, because there are so many ways you can screw it up and only a few ways that you could do it optimally. So basically people would just go to gamefaqs, find the optimal builds and do them. So you only had the illusion of choice with allocating skill points.

The FAQ's didn't exist when the game ships, and you don't have an illusion of choice, you have choice. You can try different builds out, that's how different play styles come to fruition. You can try whatever you fancy, it may not be optimum, but it worked. Removing that is a little disheartening. Though I understand where Blizz is coming from too. I'm certainly willing to give it a shot. I just miss having granular control over how powerful each ability I use can be (when I actually get my hands on Runes, we'll see how I feel then).

Sure after a year or two there were optimum builds, just like for this game there will be FAQ's built around Loadouts & Runes to use. The same meta-game will be in D3, just in a different way.

The only reason it sucked in D2 if you ended up with a screwed up build was there were no means to respec.

 

[Sothpaw]

The FAQ's didn't exist when the game ships, and you don't have an illusion of choice, you have choice. You can try different builds out, that's how different play styles come to fruition. You can try whatever you fancy, it may not be optimum, but it worked. Removing that is a little disheartening. Though I understand where Blizz is coming from too. I'm certainly willing to give it a shot. I just miss having granular control over how powerful each ability I use can be (when I actually get my hands on Runes, we'll see how I feel then).

Sure after a year or two there were optimum builds, just like for this game there will be FAQ's built around Loadouts & Runes to use. The same meta-game will be in D3, just in a different way.

The only reason it sucked in D2 if you ended up with a screwed up build was there were no means to respec.

How exactly are they removing trying different builds and play styles? There are many times more builds in D3 than D2.

 

[thetrin]

I'm honestly happy that allocating points is gone. It makes classes more experiment-friendly. You can max out a build, try it out, realize you don't really like it, and try something else. There's no real cost to that, other than a bit of time, and you get to try out all kinds of abilities.

Points never added to the experience of Diablo.

 

[SupaNaab]

I think it's just a very drastic change from Diablo 2. In Diablo 3 you have to master your class. I really doubt you can pick a build and stick with it throughout all the difficulties and encounters. In Diablo 2 you only had to master a build-type. The freedom you have in Diablo 3 is simply daunting because its much more like the Guild Wars system where your skill bar defines you, not the passive stats.

 

[KKRT00]

This does not seem to be the popular opinion though. Most people seem to think D3 looks great, me included. It certainly looks leaps and bounds above titan quest, thats for sure.

And I can definately see me enjoying the D3-style graphics for years to come.

Leaps and bounds in terms of what? Geometry? Lighting? Particles? Shaders? Details?
How a 2012 AAA game that looks like smth from 2006 can look great? Double standards? And stop with PC requirements, Path of Exile looks generation better and runs better than D3 beta, so its not that.
Kingdoms of Amalur looks also bad for me, but its generation ahead of D3.

Sometimes i think that people just dont want to see Blizzards fails, its like that can exist, but its a feature!
And art is nowhere great, its not even good, especially in comparison to earlier games.

 

[Belgorim]

Leaps and bounds in terms of what? Geometry? Lighting? Particles? Shaders? Details?
How a 2012 AAA game that looks like smth from 2006 can look great? Double standards? And stop with PC requirements, Path of Exile looks generation better and runs better than D3 beta, so its not that.
Kingdoms of Amalur looks also bad for me, but its generation ahead of D3.

Sometimes i think that people just dont want to see Blizzards fails, its like that can exist, but its a feature!
And art is nowhere great, its not even good, especially in comparison to earlier games.

You still do not get it. I'm saying Diablo 3 looks more appealing than even Path of Exile. I do not think PoE looks great at all. You are stuck on technicalities with shaders, particles, lightning etc. If you put the games side by side screenshots or video, I prefer diablo 3 graphically over Path of Exile (and of course titan quest).

No one cares about generations, especialy in regards to what generation something was released in 5 years when they will still be enjoying diablo 3.

You will find that your opinion about the gfx is not common enough. Most people are content with the graphics. I'm not a wow-player, hated the graphics of that game for so long, played EQ2 instead when they both came out, and eq2 looked so much better in my opinion. Comparing them today, I would prefer wow. Still not talking about gameplay, since Blizzard has a tendency to nail that completely (still nore sure about wow here) and leave their competition in the dust (Path of Exile is not competition to d3 btw)

 

[SteveWD40]

Well looks aside, I am enjoying the POE beta far more than the D3 one, mainly as POE seems to be playing client side with on-line authentication, so I don't get the slideshow lag I get on D3 randomly.

But as one is free then yes, they are not competing, room for both on anyone's HDD.

 

[zoukka]

Leaps and bounds in terms of what? Geometry? Lighting? Particles? Shaders? Details?
How a 2012 AAA game that looks like smth from 2006 can look great? Double standards? And stop with PC requirements, Path of Exile looks generation better and runs better than D3 beta, so its not that.
Kingdoms of Amalur looks also bad for me, but its generation ahead of D3.

Sometimes i think that people just dont want to see Blizzards fails, its like that can exist, but its a feature!
And art is nowhere great, its not even good, especially in comparison to earlier games.

Here, have an example:

Take Dawn of War II. An RTS game with relatively complex enviroments in its genre. Shit gets destroyed and debris falls everywhere. The game uses a lot of cool stuff like real shadows, fancy particles and the models themselves are way more detailed than is necessary unless you play the game with 500% zoom.

Now on paper you might be happy about all this. But when you play the game and hit online, you want to perform well. And this is where I myself went into the options and disabled all shadows and turned most sliders to low. The game now looks more clearer and I can play it better.

Now this example doesn't correlate 100% with Diablo, but it should give you a glimpse to some other points of view about the visuals of games. The gains of faking a lot of stuff with the assets makes it possible to ensure that the game looks good and consistent no matter what settings you use with Diablo III. And for many people (Blizzard included), this is more important than to push some arbitary hardware set to its limits, which in practice may or may not have any effect on the general opinion about the games look.

 

[KKRT00]

Here, have an example:

Take Dawn of War II. An RTS game with relatively complex enviroments in its genre. Shit gets destroyed and debris falls everywhere. The game uses a lot of cool stuff like real shadows, fancy particles and the models themselves are way more detailed than is necessary unless you play the game with 500% zoom.

Now on paper you might be happy about all this. But when you play the game and hit online, you want to perform well. And this is where I myself went into the options and disabled all shadows and turned most sliders to low. The game now looks more clearer and I can play it better.

Now this example doesn't correlate 100% with Diablo, but it should give you a glimpse to some other points of view about the visuals of games. The gains of faking a lot of stuff with the assets makes it possible to ensure that the game looks good and consistent no matter what settings you use with Diablo III. And for many people (Blizzard included), this is more important than to push some arbitary hardware set to its limits, which in practice may or may not have any effect on the general opinion about the games look.

Consistent =/= leaps and bounds and still Path of Exile is great example of more realistic look and still consistent visuals and low requirements.
Consistent visuals more defines how art is made, especially in terms of particles effects in games like hack and slash, not tech.

I dont care personally how Diablo 3 looks, i've already accepted that two years ago, but i hate to hear that game looks great, because its not and for me calling it that way offends other developers who work hard on their tech.
In terms of what i care about D3 and annoy me much more than graphics ever be, its guild support, stash size, lack of shared towns and pvp options.

Well looks aside, I am enjoying the POE beta far more than the D3 one, mainly as POE seems to be playing client side with on-line authentication, so I don't get the slideshow lag I get on D3 randomly.

But as one is free then yes, they are not competing, room for both on anyone's HDD.

Its hard to not enjoy PoE beta more because, there is just more content and challenge D3 is very easy demo and PoE beta is almost full game.
Blizzard is really stupid that they havent enabled pvp in beta, it would make it so much more replayable.

 

[zoukka]

I dont care personally how Diablo 3 looks, i've already accepted that two years ago, but i hate to hear that game looks great, because its not and for me calling it that way offends other developers who works hard on their tech.

You don't care personally means it's your opinion and yours alone. And the next sentence is about how you hate that other people like it and state that it's not true, as if it was a fact. Realise this: no-one wants to have a debate with you, if you already demonstrate the lack of logical thinking in your initial assumption.

Also you need to somehow prove that Blizzard employees sleep on their desks if you want to have any decent conversation about their laziness. Also you need to find at least one example, of other devs who critisize Blizzard for being lazy or being offended by Blizzard.

Blizzard is really stupid that they havent enabled pvp in beta, it would make it so much more replayable.

You are completely missing the point of betas.

 

[Jason2slow]

I really wouldn't call this a beta. It is most definitely a demo/stress test.

 

[zoukka]

I really wouldn't call this a beta. It is most definitely a demo/stress test.

I think you are wrong.

 

[Jason2slow]

Well maybe it's a different kind of beta then most closed/open betas of games have been in the past? Most betas that I have experienced allow me to complete more than just a section of a game.

"You have completed the Diablo III Beta" is a pretty oxymoronic statement isn't it?

 

[zoukka]

Well maybe it's a different kind of beta then most closed/open betas of games have been in the past? Most betas that I have experienced allow me to complete more than just a section of a game.

"You have completed the Diablo III Beta" is a pretty oxymoronic statement isn't it?

You define a beta by what you want to achieve with it, not with the amount of content in it. Betas are not meant for end user entertainment (although they usually offer this), but more as a tool to collect data.

Demos are meant to advertise and sell your game.

 

[Jason2slow]

But we're only testing a very small section of the entire game...how can they be happy with only testing this one tiny section? Are they assuming the rest of the game is bug free? I assume that some people are allowed "farther" into the game then the majority seeing as how there is content out there that is not included in this beta.

 

[zoukka]

But we're only testing a very small section of the entire game...how can they be happy with only testing this one tiny section? Are they assuming the rest of the game is bug free? I assume that some people are allowed "farther" into the game then the majority seeing as how there is content out there that is not included in this beta.

I'd imagine this betas main points are to test the skill and leveling features and how the players advance. These tests can be scaled to the rest of the content. Bug testing is handled internally or outsourced to some other companies I'd guess.

And there's the possibility that the beta is expanded in the future.

 

[tomg126]

I'm desperate to get in the beta, been signed up since you could opt in and nothing.....sigh

 

[Belgorim]

Well looks aside, I am enjoying the POE beta far more than the D3 one, mainly as POE seems to be playing client side with on-line authentication, so I don't get the slideshow lag I get on D3 randomly.

But as one is free then yes, they are not competing, room for both on anyone's HDD.

Well, of course, PoE beta is a complete different experience compared to d3 beta. D3 beta you can run through in 30 minutes and realise its only a tease of the game.

And well, if I had slideshow lag in d3 I would not enjoy it either. I will just assume they fix it for everyone with a decent internet connection for release. I have not played with the latest patch for instance, since suddenly with 100k people invited I had 500+ ms ping time and sometimes above 1000ms to the US servers from Sweden. That was unplayable.

I dont care personally how Diablo 3 looks, i've already accepted that two years ago, but i hate to hear that game looks great, because its not and for me calling it that way offends other developers who work hard on their tech.

Have you asked the developers if they are offended? What if they themselves think d3 looks great? And what is with the assumption that Blizzard does not work hard on their tech?

 

[FieryBalrog]

I dont care personally how Diablo 3 looks, i've already accepted that two years ago, but i hate to hear that game looks great, because its not and for me calling it that way offends other developers who work hard on their tech.

Don't get mad that other people have a sense of aesthetics and like well-directed art.

I don't give a fuck about tech.

 

[V_Arnold]

I like Path Of Exile's tech and I am playing it on max when I feel like it, but Diablo 3 is looking better when it comes to Art and style. Easily.

There is a distinction between having good tech and having good art. Blizzard never has really good tech, but they have good art. That is about it. Having a good tech could do wonders to them? Yep, they would double overkill every competition when they are simply just the best right now - but it looks like that they do not feel like they need it.

Well looks aside, I am enjoying the POE beta far more than the D3 one, mainly as POE seems to be playing client side with on-line authentication, so I don't get the slideshow lag I get on D3 randomly.

But as one is free then yes, they are not competing, room for both on anyone's HDD.

Actually, this does not seem true, POE before EU gateways was an almost unplayable, constantly delayed laggy-combat game for me - since EU gateways are introduced, the game is much more smooth.

 

[zoukka]

There is a distinction between having good tech and having good art. Blizzard never has really good tech, but they have good art. That is about it. Having a good tech could do wonders to them? Yep, they would double overkill every competition when they are simply just the best right now - but it looks like that they do not feel like they need it.

I need examples on why their tech has been bad in the past and present. And "because it doesn't look like crysis" doesn't qualify as an answer to this question.

I cannot remember the last time a Blizzard game I played had any technical hiccups, or the game logic was flawed somehow.

 

[V_Arnold]

I need examples on why their tech has been bad in the past and present. And "because it doesn't look like crysis" doesn't qualify as an answer to this question.

I cannot remember the last time a Blizzard game I played had any technical hiccups, or the game logic was flawed somehow.

Uhm, honestly, if you need examples, you are probably not really playing them too much
World of Warcraft is not a good engine. It has hidden system requirement that somehow gets bumped without allowing the users on the worst pc's (that WERE(!) capable of runnning wow in 2005, but are absolutely unable to do so in 2011), to keep up, the minimal requirements get higher and higher, graphical options keep disappearing again and again, the game itself however still scales horribly with more characters on the screen.
Starcraft II? Kinda the same. You need way too strong pc to run it at minimum, and it can struggle easily on those - then why is it even supported in the first place? So you can play it on single campaign, with 10-20 fps?

A few years ago, it was possible to say that while Blizzard games might look outdated tech-wise, at least the engine is not that depending. That is not really the case anymore. Their engines DO require more tech than they should, especially on the lowest end of settings. That is why I say "bad tech".

Bugs have nothing to do with this, although we could open a can of worms with that plus WoW client's long and unresolved issues. But that is pointless.

 

[KKRT00]

Have you asked the developers if they are offended? What if they themselves think d3 looks great? And what is with the assumption that Blizzard does not work hard on their tech?

Streaming problems, multithreading problems, crappy optimization, really low detail environments and characters, limited lighting all indicates that tech is strong, right?

Go to beyond3D and read about praises on their tech solution in D3 - oh wait...

Don't get mad that other people have a sense of aesthetics and like well-directed art.

Can You show me even one screenshot from the game that shows good art?
Their CG has awesome art, but game not.

You don't care personally means it's your opinion and yours alone. And the next sentence is about how you hate that other people like it and state that it's not true, as if it was a fact. Realise this: no-one wants to have a debate with you, if you already demonstrate the lack of logical thinking in your initial assumption.
.

Because it is a fact?
You can like it, but it doesnt mean its good or great. You can like art, but when tech is awful game cant look great.
What is great looking in those screenshots? Can You point me even one thing?
http://i.imgur.com/65r5k.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9JGWQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/eept4.jpg

 

[SteveWD40]

Actually, this does not seem true, POE before EU gateways was an almost unplayable, constantly delayed laggy-combat game for me - since EU gateways are introduced, the game is much more smooth.

Well I only got in the other day, but yes, on the EU gateway and had not one slither of lag, yet when I tried D3 the other day it was pretty shocking in outdoor areas, I was getting about 200 ms (UK).

 

[tomg126]

It's not that d3 looks bad, it's just not how you would expect the d2 successor to look, ie not grimdark / gothic enough.

I still can't wait for it either way!

 

[zoukka]

Because it is a fact?
You can like it, but it doesnt mean its good or great. You can like art, but when tech is awful game cant look great.

It is not a fact and you have the burden of proof for your ridiculous assumption. And it's the other way around. You can have the best engine ever, and still end up with a shit looking game, but you can build good visual presentation on ANY platform ever made.

Before you acknowledge this, I won't go into commenting anything because there is no stable base for our debate.

Uhm, honestly, if you need examples, you are probably not really playing them too much

WoW is the only game I haven't played so yeah maybe that's the problem. And I play SCII on a fairly old machine and have never had problems with performance since beta.

 

[V_Arnold]

WoW is the only game I haven't played so yeah maybe that's the problem. And I play SCII on a fairly old machine and have never had problems with performance since beta.

SCII is not utilizing dual(+)-core either, if I remember correctly, yet it demands it like there is no tomorrow Point is, on my old pc, SCII played like hell, where I could have played other RTS games on that pc with higher settings and an overall better image quality/performance for some reason.

 

[zoukka]

SCII is not utilizing dual(+)-core either, if I remember correctly, yet it demands it like there is no tomorrow Point is, on my old pc, SCII played like hell, where I could have played other RTS games on that pc with higher settings and an overall better image quality/performance for some reason.

Yeah I wish I was a coder on this matter :b

The unit logic/pathfinding in SCII is amazing if I have to compare it to other RTS games I've played though. Dunno how much that has to do with it.

 

[ZealousD]

Hey, people are complaining that a Blizzard game isn't up to par on technical graphics.

Surely, this has never, ever happened before.

I mean, I bet people were completely fine with Starcraft and Diablo 2 being in 2D at the time of their release.

 

[V_Arnold]

Hey, people are complaining that a Blizzard game isn't up to par on technical graphics.

Surely, this has never, ever happened before.

I mean, I bet people were completely fine with Starcraft and Diablo 2 being in 2D at the time of their release.

On one hand, Blizz was REALLY genius at that time as both games held themselves AMAZINGLY when it comes to an overall feel of how they look, even a decade later.

On ther other hand, I had a PC at that time that was BELOW D2's minimal system requirements - and I could play with D2 on that machine, and the expansion as well. This is not true anymore when it comes to sub-min requirement PC's

But regardless, D3 will, as all Blizz games, stand still a decade later when all these technically superior games will age worse, as they usually do.

 

[Belgorim]

But regardless, D3 will, as all Blizz games, stand still a decade later when all these technically superior games will age worse, as they usually do.

As has been said before by a lot of people, this is pretty much what it comes down to for me.

 

[Fonds]

What is great looking in those screenshots? Can You point me even one thing?
http://i.imgur.com/65r5k.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9JGWQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/eept4.jpg

First: 4:3 ... pfffrt

Second:The UI is amazing. The concept-art style trees are beautiful.
The way the world is fleshed out, the attention to detail makes this game beautiful. There are games with killer engines and a poly count of a gazillion, that are still soulles. Blizzard knows how to make games beautiful not just with superhigh tech, but with attention to detail.

Good art. Huge screen to make my point.

 

[Mengy]

Streaming problems, multithreading problems, crappy optimization, really low detail environments and characters, limited lighting all indicates that tech is strong, right?

Because it is a fact?
You can like it, but it doesnt mean its good or great. You can like art, but when tech is awful game cant look great.
What is great looking in those screenshots? Can You point me even one thing?
http://i.imgur.com/65r5k.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9JGWQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/eept4.jpg

Even though I love the D3 beta and I think it's a blast to play, and I can't wait until the game comes out because I will be buying it day one and most likely playing it for years to come, even with all of that said, I sort of agree with KKRT00 on this.

I disagree with him when he says that a low tech game will look awful by default. Minecraft is a game that is very low tech but it has a style and atmosphere that makes up for it in spades. WoW is a low tech game graphically speaking with an old and messy engine, but I love it's graphic style and art direction. Low tech games CAN look fantastic when done right, and a good low tech game will still look good years down the road.

And while Diablo III doesn't look bad, the graphics are my one letdown with the beta. It is the only thing about the beta that doesn't give me the Diablo "feel". It's different than the previous Diablo games. The graphics aren't crisp and dark like before, the lighting isn't gloomy yet vivid, the game feels a bit like a watercolor at times, washed out or low rez or something. I'm not even sure whats giving me this feeling, maybe it's a lack of AA or maybe it's the color palette. I also agree with KKRT00 about the lack of detail, especially in the characters. And I really expected a better lighting engine with the effects. In many ways, games like Titan Quest and Path of Exile do have superior graphic engines. I'm not saying they are better games, but they do things graphically that I wish the Diablo III beta was doing.

I expected a modern but improved version of Diablo II with new acts out of Diablo III, and for the most part D3 delivers in every aspect. Except for the graphics and art style. I've played through all five classes in the beta now, and while I loved every minute of it and eagerly anticipate the whole game, I do miss the atmosphere and style of Diablo II.

A large part of that is due to D3's graphic engine. I did expect more out of it, and you would think that a company with Blizzard's resources could deliver that. Yes that is my opinion and many people might disagree with me, but on this front I agree with KKRT00.

But that aside I can't freaking wait until this game comes out. Thankfully the gameplay overshadows any graphical misgivings that I have for it!

 

[LogicStep]

So what's the latest speculation on the release date?

 

[ToyMachine228]

So what's the latest speculation on the release date?

I've given up all hope that its ever coming out.

 

[ReadingRambo]

Blizzard has never been in the business of releasing games that could only be played by a fraction of those that would like to. They make games with a clear and consistent art aesthetic on top of a rock-solid engine that can be played on any machine that could be called even remotely "current".

The simple truth is that at this point, they can't afford to marginalize parts of their potential player base by releasing a "z0mg teh grafix" marvel that 20 or even 30 percent of the PC market can run but most would agree that they are capable of it (look at any cinematic they've ever made). They sink a ton of time and money into each game and it makes a lot of sense that they would want to share their products with the most people possible. There are plenty of other companies out there that will push graphical boundaries and stun people for a couple of months. Blizzard would prefer that you enjoy their games for decades.

I can't believe my first post was a blizz fanboy rant.

 

[Fallout-NL]

@Fonds: Yeah, WoW was really pretty at times. Makes me want to play it again. Still, it's not a look I want for Diablo.

Even though I love the D3 beta and I think it's a blast to play, and I can't wait until the game comes out because I will be buying it day one and most likely playing it for years to come, even with all of that said, I sort of agree with KKRT00 on this.

I disagree with him when he says that a low tech game will look awful by default. Minecraft is a game that is very low tech but it has a style and atmosphere that makes up for it in spades. WoW is a low tech game graphically speaking with an old and messy engine, but I love it's graphic style and art direction. Low tech games CAN look fantastic when done right, and a good low tech game will still look good years down the road.

And while Diablo III doesn't look bad, the graphics are my one letdown with the beta. It is the only thing about the beta that doesn't give me the Diablo "feel". It's different than the previous Diablo games. The graphics aren't crisp and dark like before, the lighting isn't gloomy yet vivid, the game feels a bit like a watercolor at times, washed out or low rez or something. I'm not even sure whats giving me this feeling, maybe it's a lack of AA or maybe it's the color palette. I also agree with KKRT00 about the lack of detail, especially in the characters. And I really expected a better lighting engine with the effects. In many ways, games like Titan Quest and Path of Exile do have superior graphic engines. I'm not saying they are better games, but they do things graphically that I wish the Diablo III beta was doing.

Agreed, but we have to make sure that two different things are being discussed here. The first is unimpressive or 'old' tech, the second is a disappointingly different art direction from D1 and 2.

Personally, I feel that the tech is indeed dated, but that doesn't mean DIII does not have some incredible looking effects (like the town portal, looks fucking amazing). Oddly enough it does seem to be demanding of relatively modern hardware, still it's just the beta.

Apart from that, while admitting D3 looks great objectively, I do think the art style or direction or whatever is disappointing given the way Diablo used to look.

 

[zoukka]

Diablo II looked grim because it was in such a low rez and the choppy animation gave a lot of room for imagination. Also most of the screen was black all the time.

 

[Mengy]

Diablo II looked grim because it was in such a low rez and the choppy animation gave a lot of room for imagination. Also most of the screen was black all the time.

Yeah, most of the screen in D2 was very dark or black most of the time, until you threw a frozen orb or a fireball into it, then it lit up like the day. This gave the game an atmospheric and moody feeling that added immensely to the experience. The D3 beta was missing that atmosphere for me, you can pretty much see everywhere all of the time. And the spell effects for D3, while pretty and well done, lacked the lighting impact that I expected. (for contrast Starcraft 2 has much better lighting effects than Diablo III seems to have) The gameplay was there, the loot felt spot on, the classes played fantastic even though it is just the beginning of Act 1, the mix of monsters was well done, but that atmosphere due to the graphics of the game fell short IMHO.

 

[forrest]

Art Direction > Tech

I consider myself a graphics whore, but I don't care how many polygons, hi res textures, animated shaders, normal maps, self shadowed and motion blurred objects you throw at a game. If it is devoid of any substance on the art side it will just fall flat. I'm sorry KRT, but PoE simply looks like shit. The tech looks nice though, but it's not saving that game due to the lack of art direction which is making it look textbook generic and completely uninteresting to me.

Now, Diablo 3, isn't a technical masterpiece. I'm not sure who would argue that it is. I also believe a studio with pocketbooks and resources like Blizzard has is making very particular decisions as to why they are approaching the graphics as they are. Not due to a lack of "tech", but due to a goal put in place for the game itself. You ask how the game has any examples of "good" art and despite it being completely subjective, I personally find that there is a lot to like in the art of Diablo 3.

1) The character silhouettes for one. There is no mistaking which class is which and all of the classes have a very unique shape that define them.

2) Character animations are top notch in my opinion and really breathe life into the stereotypes that blizzard has chosen for it's heroes. This is also one of the areas where many studios fail, I'm looking at you Bethesda! The default stance of the demon hunters are ace!

3) Soft painterly texturing for background elements is an amazing choice in my opinion with how they approached the environment look. The small leaves on the ground, the detailed edges of the twisted and gnarled trees and the soft blades of grass that move as you walk though them all create a really cool painted look that I've not seen any another game like this yet. It reminds me of a more detailed Skyward Sword than anything, only not pointillism. Anyhow, some may see a "lack of tech" I see an "accomplished art decision".

4) Spell effects are just awesome and very well done. I haven't seen an effect yet that I thought was just plain ugly.

5) Sound design and voice acting seem to be top notch as well. The thud of the bodies, the sizzle of the electricity, the wrapping noise of the bola finding it's target, seriously the sound in this game is really freaking good. I've seen complaints about the acting, but I would point the finger at the writing first.

Now I'm not devoid of any Blizzard criticism, I would like to the see the main heroes have a bit more of a polycount and texture resolution. And I would also like to see a stronger use of normal maps instead of just flat painted textures. Having spells and other elements cast lights would also be very nice and I agree the lighting feels very limited in the current beta. That being said I would in no way shape or form, ever, ever, and I mean ever, trade art for tech or should I say substance for flash.

 

[Fonds]

Apart from that, while admitting D3 looks great objectively, I do think the art style or direction or whatever is disappointing given the way Diablo used to look.

Yeh this is pretty much the core of it.

In the end I guess Blizzard is trying to set a hallmark visual style for all of their games. Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo are all coated with the same style. I guess with Diablo 3 they made the choice to turn Diablo in the same direction as Warcraft and Starcraft, visually.

From a branding perspective I completely understand why they're doing that as well. You can recognize a Blizzard game from miles away now. They've just set themselves apart from other publishers by their visual style.
It's like being able to tell a Rubens painting from a Rembrandt.

 

[V_Arnold]

Nacire, amazing, amazing summary of the situation. I perceive it the same way.

 

[forrest]

In the end I guess Blizzard is trying to set a hallmark visual style for all of their games. Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo are all coated with the same style. I guess with Diablo 3 they made the choice to turn Diablo in the same direction as Warcraft and Starcraft, visually.

From a branding perspective I completely understand why they're doing that as well. You can recognize a Blizzard game from miles away now. They've just set themselves apart from other publishers by their visual style.
It's like being able to tell a Rubens painting from a Rembrandt.

I completely agree with this, which is why many say Valve out Blizzarded Blizzard with DotA 2. Same style, but better IQ. I would say the blizzard franchises are different visually to varying degrees, but yeah, they definitely have strong characteristics tying them altogether. As you said "all coated with the same style".

 

[Mengy]

Art Direction > Tech

I consider myself a graphics whore, but I don't care how many polygons, hi res textures, animated shaders, normal maps, self shadowed and motion blurred objects you throw at a game. If it is devoid of any substance on the art side it will just fall flat. I'm sorry KRT, but PoE simply looks like shit. The tech looks nice though, but it's not saving that game due to the lack of art direction which is making it look textbook generic and completely uninteresting to me.

Now, Diablo 3, isn't a technical masterpiece. I'm not sure who would argue that it is. I also believe a studio with pocketbooks and resources like Blizzard has is making very particular decisions as to why they are approaching the graphics as they are. Not due to a lack of "tech", but due to a goal put in place for the game itself. You ask how the game has any examples of "good" art and despite it being completely subjective, I personally find that there is a lot to like in the art of Diablo 3.

1) The character silhouettes for one. There is no mistaking which class is which and all of the classes have a very unique shape that define them.

2) Character animations are top notch in my opinion and really breathe life into the stereotypes that blizzard has chosen for it's heroes. This is also one of the areas where many studios fail, I'm looking at you Bethesda! The default stance of the demon hunters are ace!

3) Soft painterly texturing for background elements is an amazing choice in my opinion with how they approached the environment look. The small leaves on the ground, the detailed edges of the twisted and gnarled trees and the soft blades of grass that move as you walk though them all create a really cool painted look that I've not seen any another game like this yet. It reminds me of a more detailed Skyward Sword than anything, only not pointillism. Anyhow, some may see a "lack of tech" I see an "accomplished art decision".

4) Spell effects are just awesome and very well done. I haven't seen an effect yet that I thought was just plain ugly.

5) Sound design and voice acting seem to be top notch as well. The thud of the bodies, the sizzle of the electricity, the wrapping noise of the bola finding it's target, seriously the sound in this game is really freaking good. I've seen complaints about the acting, but I would point the finger at the writing first.

Now I'm not devoid of any Blizzard criticism, I would like to the see the main heroes have a bit more of a polycount and texture resolution. And I would also like to see a stronger use of normal maps instead of just flat painted textures. Having spells and other elements cast lights would also be very nice and I agree the lighting feels very limited in the current beta. That being said I would in no way shape or form, ever, ever, and I mean ever, trade art for tech or should I say substance for flash.

Yeah, I agree with all of your points except for #3, but the way you put that is a great way of explaining what I was talking about above. It's that "painterly look" that I'm not liking. And it's not that I think it looks bad, I just don't think it looks like what I would call a Diablo game. It's this change in art style that just isn't jiving with me I guess.

Yeh this is pretty much the core of it.

In the end I guess Blizzard is trying to set a hallmark visual style for all of their games. Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo are all coated with the same style. I guess with Diablo 3 they made the choice to turn Diablo in the same direction as Warcraft and Starcraft, visually.

From a branding perspective I completely understand why they're doing that as well. You can recognize a Blizzard game from miles away now. They've just set themselves apart from other publishers by their visual style.
It's like being able to tell a Rubens painting from a Rembrandt.

That's an interesting point. I'm not sure I like it, as the Diablo franchise already had a style of it's own that was hugely popular and iconic, but your point does help to explain WHY they changed it for D3. I'd also kinda argue that having three very different games but with identical art styles is kind of lame, but that's purely my opinion. And it won't keep me from buying those games, it won't even slow me down, lol.

 

[Fallout-NL]

'Homogenized'

And yes, that's totally what they're doing.

 

[FieryBalrog]

The Diablo3 art style is not the same as WoW (which is in turn not the same as SC2).

All of them are stylized, and share certain characteristics like a love of vibrant color, but they are not stylized in the same way. Just like all TV cartoons are stylized, but there are many different styles of cartoon animation.

I can understand people preferring a less stylized approach like Path to Exile, although I personally think it is better for a fantasy loot game to avoid that approach. I also don't think Diablo 2 had very good graphics, and I don't just mean the tech, I mean the art direction too. A huge portion of that game looked terrible, like most of Act 1 and Act 3. There are 2d RPGs from 2000 that look enormously better, like Baldur's Gate 2.

Dota 2 is going for a painted artistic style very similar to Diablo 3, and neither of them looks all that much like World of Warcraft.

 

[Frostburn]

I think Blizzard games have always been a sum of their parts. You isolate it to a single screenshot and say "Whats so special?" Playing the game in motion with sound and to me it is apparent what makes it special. It is an atmospheric, good looking game with a distinct style. I agree it is much brighter than the past games but at the same time I like what they've done with the art direction. And although a bit of the WoW styling shows through here and there, it is unique and immediately identifiable for those that have seen it before.

 

[ReadingRambo]

This sort of reminds me of all the WoW vs. SWTOR graphics debates. I feel like SWTOR is sort of lifeless in comparison. Blizzard games just tend to have that je ne sais quoi about them that sets them apart. In WoW for example, you will rarely ever see any parallel lines and you can tell a characters race from max distance away due to the distinctive silhouettes and animations.

Diablo II had very heavy outlining which sort of gave everything a coat of eyeliner that made it all feel a bit more gothic. While that is lacking in the new art style, it still feels pretty dark and the atmosphere feels pitch perfect.

 

[zoukka]

'Homogenized'

And yes, that's totally what they're doing.

Examples pls.

 

[dustytruly]

all i can say is, thank god the game doesn't require high tech, because i'm running D3 smoothly on my macbook air...

that being said, i can say that blizzard obviously moved in this direction on purpose, they're appealing to the widest range of players, inviting not only hardcore PC gamers but also completely opening the doors to casual players who probably don't have anywhere near the specs it takes to run other games from this generation..

PoE being the one example people have been refering too, although it can be played with low specs, i think it looks worse in terms of the overall "character" of the game. while D3 isn't exactly what i expected from a DIABLO game it definitely has grown on me, the cartoony designs and consistent non-super realistic art style i think is more visually appealing, for me anyways. and you can tell the attention to detail is far superior.. it's all about the little things. also, the art style is definitely meant to appeal to a wide audience as well.