Diablo III Designer Defends New Look and Feel

In response to a fair amount of angry outcry at the new look and feel for Diablo III, designer Jay Wilson has critiqued some fan-altered screenshots and defended the new style. "The key thing to remember here is that this has been Photoshopped. This isn't created by the engine. Though it looks really cool, it's almost impossible to do in a 3D engine because you can't have lighting that smart and run on systems that are reasonable. If we could do that, we probably would in a few of the dungeons."

Comments

I don't see it

[grumpygrodyguy]

At first glance I prefer Blizzard's version.

Re:I don't see it

[denmarkw00t]

Doom III came out just in a time when gamers were used to the "dark, dungeon of a bedroom" idea, and indeed I played many of my favorite FPSes of the time (D3 not included, just couldn't get into it with my low-end system - not the game's fault). id was banking on the fact that they're target audience were people who were going to play this game in a dark environment, with surround sound, where you could really get scared by every little thing that moved because, ultimately, it was going to try and kill you.

Re:I don't see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus H. Christ. "Fog of War" is a term from military theory, and is meant to describe the often vague "information" units have to deal with, as their intelligence is imperfect to start with and the battle scene is constantly changing. Read some Clausewitz -- he introduced the term.

The RT/TB-S games you mentioned use what you're thinking of to simulate the military theory Fog -- if you don't have a unit within visual range of a bit of land, you can't see what's on it, even if you have previously explored it.

Shadows Set the Mood

[eldavojohn]

Diablo III Designer Defends New Look and Feel

I haven't really RTFA'd, just looked at the pictures. I'm a bit torn on this story because I don't even think this designer needs to answer to people putting up screenshots that are entitled "wow gayness" when compared to their preferred screenshots. But as to whether or not he felt they had a valid point or he Blizzard just really cares for their fans, I cannot say.

While the lighting in a few of these looks like definitely done by hand, the only other major difference I see is color and tint. In example #1 the lighting is much better in the fan screenshot but I can definitely see what the designer was talking about with it being 'smart.' My question would be (and I'm a complete idiot with vector graphics) why do they have no problem putting directional shadows behind characters but not the scenery? It seems to me that the candle light in that particular screenshot is being blocked by walls and ridges. Is this difficult with scenery? I'm guessing the levels are dynamically generated like in the first and second (a great aspect of the game, might I add), is this what causes difficulty with shadow play? I think by and large with the fan shots they use borderline too much shadow. I am guessing shadow is crucial in setting the mood but dynamically generated shadow would be difficult ... when would you have too much? For example in #1, the big white blob thing attacking blocks 1/4 the screen ... four of those and you'd be blind. There could be an army behind him and you wouldn't know it. Something to think about.

Now, the rest of this stuff just seems to be color pallette and tint which seems to be artistic preference. I can't say which I like better but I've a feeling I'll appreciate color (and a change of that between levels) if I'm going to be staring at it for hours.

I'll be honest, when I first saw the game play I was very nonplussed, it was exactly Diablo II. But then I realized the great thing about II was that it was Diablo I with more features, levels, classes, monsters, etc. Ironically, I think that all that would make me happy in III is just more multiplayer options, more items, monsters, classes, etc. I can't want to play this one!

Re:Shadows Set the Mood

[poetmatt]

All they have to do, take all that green, all that distanced lighting shit, and make it black. Pitch as fuck black.

This was the thing in the first game, you couldn't just see infinitely further ahead, shit was dark in many places. That was half the fun of the 2nd and 3rd dungeons. I like a change, but honestly, this is to be some form of a dark game, this is not hello kitty meets diablo.

Re:Shadows Set the Mood

[ProppaT]

I think some of the things that people aren't taking into consideration are:

1) Diablo came out during the CRT games. The game was dark but not quite as dark as you remember, your monitor just sucked.

2) These are the LCD days. All that black is going to make all the 6bit panels that don't show true blacks well choke and show mud.

3) Diablo wasn't built around 8 player multiplayer. Diablo III is being built ground up as a multiplayer game that can also be played single player. You need to be able to see your companions. That's like the point of the game.

4) The physics of Diablo III look beautiful in motion. To do that, add in all sorts of dynamic, intelligent lighting, and have a game that will play terrific on an average system at standard 1280 x 1024 resolution ain't gonna happen. Not when you have 8 players casting spells and 50 enemies on the screen. This is Blizzard, they're not gonna put out a game if it won't run on an average system. That's kind of their thing.

No problem here

[bigstrat2003]

I have always failed to understand what people's problem with Diablo III's graphics. The important thing is the gothic feel here. You don't need a color palette made up of shades of brown, grey, and black to achieve that... there's nothing wrong with having a colorful world, since it doesn't necessarily change the look & feel of the world at all. Hell, I by far prefer the screen shots Blizzard has produced to the "improved" stuff the fans have put out. The people doing that work may be happy with a world full of dreary colors which is hard to see any detail in, but I for one am not.

Re:No problem here

[Chris Burke]

You don't need a color palette made up of shades of brown, grey, and black to achieve that... there's nothing wrong with having a colorful world, since it doesn't necessarily change the look & feel of the world at all.

Exactly. Game developers over the last ten years have been tied to the idea that something can only be spooky if it's dark brown and gray, and is also a sewer. I was getting sick of it eight years ago, and games that have broken that mold have been very refreshing.

Now, come to find out, the reason there was so much gray-on-dark-gray motifs in games was because there were a large number of gamers who actually agreed that this was the only way to go! That actually get pissed when a developer tries to break this old and tired mold, and try to "improve" the art by forcing it back into the mold. Hey guys, 1996 called, and they want Quake's color palette back!

Though even it seems Quake has too many colors for these people. The best example is the last pair of shots. Apparently the "Necromancer's Choice" is the same grey-on-black style I've seen a million times (not that necromancers are known for their interior decorating), and "wow gayness" is exemplified by... the color green? Yeah, how gay. You gotta wonder when not even Quake is mono-chrome enough.

So far, my biggest problem with the D3 art I've seen is that it's too bland and boring, not that it goes too far in using actual colors. But apparently I feel oppositely of some people.

Re:No problem here

[BRSloth]

I think the problem is that people don't understand the story behind Diablo.

Diablo 1 events took very long, from King Leoric fall, the death of Prince Albrecht and the appearance of our hero. Also notice that the story says that several other heroes came to Tristam to find fame and fortune, but never came back from the dungeons. So, the place was completely defiled when you start the game.

Diablo 2 events, which should start some time after Diablo is defeated in the first game, find a kinda nice place, except for Kurast, which has been defiled by Mephisto. Also, you move from far away to Tristam, so the land is not defiled by the evils yet.

Diablo 3, as I could understand by the video, seems to take 20 years after the defeat of all Prime Evils and the game starts just after the fall of the meteor. So I would expect that there was no time to have the land and the dungeons defiled.

I'll give it a try

[Shadow of Eternity]

Honestly my only issue with the blizzard designs are the tf2 style "Hay look we're reusing stuff from 1998" low-res textures and that the armor seems to be less realistic (at least in its physical proportions).

Re:Impossible? That's laying it on a bit thick.

[thepotoo]

Oh, come on, now. The point is that, two days after launch, those same fans who mostly just altered contrast in the pictures, will release a mod that alters your monitor's contrast whenever you launch Diablo 3. It's not rocket science here people.

For the record, I'm not so much concerned about the contrast changes (see previous sentence), it's the cartoonish, WoW-like graphics that may kill this game's lasting appeal for me (see the Barbarian's armor in the 30min gameplay preview. It looks just like Warcraft 3.

I may be in minority here, but one of the best parts of Diablo 2 was the ridiculous, over-the-top violence and the cold, realistic graphics.

Disclaimer: I put 3000+ hours into Diablo 2, and I consider it the greatest game of all time. Diablo 3 will not live up to my expectations no matter what the Dev team does.

Re:Impossible? That's laying it on a bit thick.

[thepotoo]

So, graphics are more important to you than gameplay? That's a rather shallow attitude.

Absolutely not! I play the "national sport of South Korea" several times a week, and love it.

What I'm trying to say is that the style of the graphics is what sells the game (to me). It's not about pixel shaders or polygon counts, it's about showing me a monster that just jumped out of Disney, vs. one that came from Alien. The fun is in what you're doing in the game, and if you're trying to be humanity's last hope in a world of chaos and demonic monsters, fighting off hordes of Pixar baddies tends to kill the suspension of disbelief. Simple as that.

Re:Impossible? That's laying it on a bit thick.

[sexconker]

I bet you can't wait for StarCraft II...

http://www.playthingofthegods.com/DianiusPetsGuide/GuardianFelhunter.jpg
http://www.blizzard.com/blizzcast/_images/episode1/zerg.jpg

Blizzard - do not let any artists work on multiple franchises! Kill off the Warcraft II style now - it's crap.

Re:Hey emo kids, try this!!

[JCSoRocks]

The gist of the article is that that's because it's too expensive to do dynamic vis and dynamic lighting everywhere. Anyone that's ever played on some horrible Source map (DOD, CS, TF2) where someone's packed it full of dynamic lights knows what I'm talking about too.

I agree that it'd be awesome to see the lights wrap around objects and cast real shadows... but when you've got 20 zombies running around while you're running around and you've got to calculate the shadows based on the light emanating from both you and the handful of environmental lights - things get interesting.

Blizzard is trying to avoid making Diablo III - Crysis edition... and that's commendable.

Re:Impossible? That's laying it on a bit thick.

[erikvcl]

I also consider Diablo 2 one of the greatest games of all time and I can't wait for Diablo III. I hate FPS games and the adventure game genre is dead. I have no interest in MMORGs, so that leaves the Diablo!

As for your comment, wasn't Diablo 2 better than Diablo? Wasn't WC II better than WC? Wasn't StarCraft better than WC II? Why do you think that Blizzard will fail with Diablo III?

Repackage D2?

[IdeaMan]

Hmm, I'd say they should let us repackage D2/3.

That's the difference between D2, WC3, and HL
In the first, it's a total pain in the neck "we'll litigate you to death if you touch it" to mod it.
In the second, limitations on the map creation tools limited its usefulness.
On the last, there are huge amount of power available, but it's nearly as bad as writing your own game from scratch.

I say give us a D3 engine with 32 player multiplayer support, several levels of moddability (NWN style DM support - wc3ish type map/character/scripting - source module additions/changes), and an official launcher that mixes the best of BNetD and Steam that allows customs mods.
The community can take it from there just like we did with Half-Life.

Re:Impossible? That's laying it on a bit thick.

[Cornflake917]

I think this "WC3" style you are referring to is also known as "3D." Other than that, every game after WC3 has had their own style.