Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

[Furvy]

Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

Read my lips. I'm not arguing against the art mood/direction. I think it's fine. That is all I have to say about that.

However, I am quite concerned with another area of the graphics which is the detail and poly count of the environment. Regardless of the art style and direction, I am not sure that I am too happy with the current low-poly count of some of the the current graphics and its lack of fine detail. I really loved in D2 how intricate the graphics were with the fine embellishments and decorations on the buildings and everything. Just about every pixel was used to create a unique sense and feel of the material. Stone felt like stone, sand felt like sand, etc.

A prime example of what I am talking about are the stone textures in the Forgotten Tombs, especially the stone railing. At its current stage, it literally looks like a bunch of simple 3D box shapes stacked against each other. It almost looks like someone opened up Maya, made a bunch of different-sized cube shapes, put them together and called it a railing. It doesn't really give me the feeling of stone or has much detail which can help me clearly identify it as stone. Since these stone railings are destructible, this has me thinking that they have been toned down to be this simple to support the extra overhead of the Havok physics when they are destroyed. This has me a little worried because I hope this isn't going to be permanent. I hope that this isn't a result of toning down the graphics to support a wider range of hardware, and is just a result of being a work-in-progress and not being completed yet. I can already see that they have an awesome stone texture going in the new UI, and I really hope that gets projected to the rest of the environment.

Do you guys think that the simplicity of some of these graphics is simply a result of being it in this early of a stage, or do you suspect these graphics are permanent in order to support a wider range of hardware?

tl;dr: This is not a thread about how WoW-y the D3 graphics are. Please go back and read my post.

 

[korialstraz]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

I can see it being toned down to support a wide range of hardware, but what I think is it's just temporarily so they can start testing the game. It's like in Starcraft 2 when they made some huge updates to graphics. I suspect we will see something similar to SC2 and that D3's graphic will be improved. Blizzard usually supports quite a wide range of hardware though, so how much different it'll be probably depends on the hardware market when it's closer to release.

 

[Valvolux]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

I really loved in D2 how intricate the graphics were

Nice joke…

The current d3 graphics from the game play footage looks amazing and it probably has another 2 years of development and polishing till the release date. D2 was bright, ugly and lacklustre in a lot of places, some people have this fictitious memory of what d2 actually looked like. Honestly using d2 as a comparison for detail levels is ludicrous.

Go waste your time worrying about something that’s actually important.

 

[Krugar]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

The graphis in D3 are a work in progress. And much of the visual effects haven't been implemented yet. This is StarCraft 3 all over again.

'nough said.

 

[qOcOp]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

Graphics definitely sucks and behind the times. blizzard games arent known for graphics, they want to milk as much mmoney as they can, graphics too good = not everyone can play and they lose buyers. i dont really care though, gameplay and fun is king.

 

[Kiroptus]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

Well I gotta say that everything I have seen so far looks quite beautiful. Except for the fallens, in terms of art they are perfect but the poly-count of each fallen do seem a bit too economic but lets just wait, they will find the best optimization for them.

 

[Knight_Wolf]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

Graphics definitely sucks and behind the times.

No it doesn't suck at all ... just because it doesn't have the latest graphical tech flare doesn't mean it sucks .. that's just silly.

blizzard games arent known for graphics, they want to milk as much mmoney as they can, graphics too good = not everyone can play and they lose buyers. i dont really care though, gameplay and fun is king.

Good thing you know that, but they aren't trying to milk anyone, any game developer wants to make his game available to the largest possible audience (many companies refrain from making their game M rated to allow for more people to buy their games) ... so a sacrifice has to be made .. in case of Blizz the chose to sacrifice jumping the next gen graphics bandwagon of graphics junkies in return for presenting their games for the mainstream market and even low-end machines .. all while keeping the game look attractive by implementing neat artistic direction.

Well I gotta say that everything I have seen so far looks quite beautiful. Except for the fallens, in terms of art they are perfect but the poly-count of each fallen do seem a bit too economic but lets just wait, they will find the best optimization for them.

rest assured ... looking at the other monsters we can clearly see that the Fallen aren't fully finalized (textures, shading, .. etc etc) ... besides .. we can expect them to have a slightly lower poly-count not only because they are viewed from a large distance and a top down view but because they appear in very large numbers compared to other monsters.

 

[Kiroptus]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

Yeah I am aware that it will improve and its due to the high number of fallens on-screen. I am not worried, they will find the balance.

 

[GuardianHadriel]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

Honestly using d2 as a comparison for detail levels is ludicrous.

what he meant was that there was alot of work put into creating the environments....and btw "did you see that ludicrous display last night?"
"no, i had a pony on liverpool" roy and moss quotes

 

[stillman]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

I notice the skeletons are kind of weird, and I do notice the rail thing as well. The only thing that bothers me is the WD, because I wouldn't be able to tell what he is atm if I had not been reading forums about the WD. He looks more like some wierd insect until the gameplay video zooms in on him. I don't mind the background stuff being imperfect, but the main characters are pretty important.

 

[Galtrovan]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

1. The D3 graphics are a work in progress and are not finished yet.
2. Graphics, who cares. Graphics are the icing on the cake. If the cake sucks, I'm not eating it. Put into game terms, I'll go play Final Fantasy on my NES before purchasing and playing crap wrapped in eye-candy.

 

[kavlor]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

I tend to prefer interesting scenery over the looks,the type that make you wonder how it'll effect game play.I remember waiting for the first dungeonsiege to come out and was wondering how the bridges and cliffs come into effect with strategic positions when attacking enemies(as it turned out it was more limiting than I imagined because of attack range).Oh there was this fun part in the first gothic where you could climb up this cliff face after being chased by orc dogs and they would run all the way round and come from above but then you step down and they run all the way to the bottom again.

 

[Bad Ash]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

no. no one else is worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics.

 

[Pyrohemia]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

I love the current graphics and when I saw the iterative improvement that the Starcraft 2 graphics went though I was assured that the already great graphics are going to become superb.

 

[DeadInside.DOA]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

No and here's why. I have not played the game nor know enough about it to say right now. This goes for if I think the game isnt "gothic" enough, if the WD sucks, if its too "WoW-ish" now and all of the other questions that pop up every day. I just plainly have not seen enough about the game. But more importantly I have not played the game. I've seen pictures and a few videos of the game but thats not enough to pass judgement right now. I dont care what anyone says its not enough until you have played the whole thing.

I have played games, watched movies, read books ect that I have seen snippets of and didnt see what the big deal was until I experienced the whole thing and then loved it. Just wait for the game to come out. Everyone has waited so long even for the announcement of it being made you can wait alittle longer to pass judgement once and for all. Going over every single minor detail about the game and debating it is pointless. Especially since the game can change drastically over years with xpacs or patches.

 

[Brother Laz]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

Graphics definitely sucks and behind the times. blizzard games arent known for graphics, they want to milk as much mmoney as they can, graphics too good = not everyone can play and they lose buyers. i dont really care though, gameplay and fun is king.

Oh no, they're making a smart business decision! The losers.

Btw. How many copies did Crysis sell again? UT3? Yeah. Face it, you wasted your money on a top end gaming system and then it turns out nobody else has one so there aren't any successful games for it.

 

[jacobgold]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

I don't see why they can't do both simultaneously. It's a simple as having higher and lower poly models for each graphics quality setting within the game.

After the modeling, then you have quality texturing. Textures, bump mapping, and proper lighting can turn a 2 polygon square into an amazing work of art.

Im not expecting Farcry 2 graphics though, but I wouldn't rule it out.

Either way Im sure it will be good. This isn't their first rodeo.

 

[Ishtor]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

1. The D3 graphics are a work in progress and are not finished yet.
2. Graphics, who cares. Graphics are the icing on the cake. If the cake sucks, I'm not eating it. Put into game terms, I'll go play Final Fantasy on my NES before purchasing and playing crap wrapped in eye-candy.

among what some other things people have said, i think this was awsome, good job! :thumbup:

You know this is what people do when they get bored with something, they knit-pick. I know it has been a while since we have got a really good update, we have had some minor ones, so we resort to complaining about something that is not that big of deal.

Compared to D2, the graphics are amazing, just because they are not ground breaking does not mean they suck, and knowing that they will improve as the game developes more, just make me that more excited about this game.

Blizzard is a great company, they make sure that there games are able to support as many people as possible, while keeping it reasonable. They dont release crap, there track- record can prove this.

Graphics are good, but like other say i am more worried about the gameplay and story. again kudos for the icing comment that was made.

 

[CaptainDingo]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

Plants vs. Zombies is one of the best-looking games I've played all year. ...And it's 2D.

Moral of this story? Polygon counts and fancy effects don't matter. Artistic quality does.

 

[Furvy]

Re: Anyone else worried about the SIMPLICITY of the graphics?

Nice joke…

The current d3 graphics from the game play footage looks amazing and it probably has another 2 years of development and polishing till the release date. D2 was bright, ugly and lacklustre in a lot of places, some people have this fictitious memory of what d2 actually looked like. Honestly using d2 as a comparison for detail levels is ludicrous.

Go waste your time worrying about something that’s actually important.

I'm not talking about the quality of the graphics as a whole between the two. I'm talking about how certain elements like the ability to convey textures through graphics were done a lot better in D2 *SO FAR* such as stone and sand and other elements of the environment.

The difference between the two is that many graphics in D2 were 2D, thus the artists only had one dimension to work in. Buildings in D2 LOOKED 3D, but they weren't actually 3D models (As far as my understanding); They were flat, 2D paintings. When you get into actual 3D models, it's quite a bit harder to project exactly what you want from a flat 2D painting because we're now working in multiple planes, lighting, etc. It takes a really skilled artist to create a painting in 2D then reproduce it as a model in 3D and not lose any of the subtleties that were in the 2D painting.

I was arguing that the 2D paintings of stone, sand and other textures that were in D2 looked more detailed and believable than many of the 3D models in D3 (currently). I'm just hoping that they up the detail of some of these 3D models so they look less like simple, blocky 3D models and more like paintings.

I do have faith though because the Barb, WD and Wizard are all exactly what I would like to see in the rest of the environment. They look like 2D paintings projected onto a 3D model. I'm just hoping that this same sort of technique is applied to every part of the environment because I really don't want to be seeing many of the blocky 3D models that I see currently.

Perhaps I should have titled this topic "2D paintings (D2) VS. 3D models (D3)"