Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do? if

Discussion in 'Diablo 3 General Discussion' started by Fanusvr, Aug 28, 2010.

  1. Fanusvr

    Fanusvr IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2009
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    D3 news in general are scarce, so when new screenshots and gameplay videos are released they get scrutinized by those following the development process.

    So here we go again, let’s start with the new screenshots.

    The screenshots of the barb fighting the champion zombies look great, the blue glow looks awesome. Then the screenshots of the barb in New Tristram at the artisan is where you start noticing things like for example all the low quality flat textures on: the caravan wheels, (the hub is pancake flat, in D2 act one there are numerous caravans and all of them look better than this new one), the shields and axes in front of the artisan are also dead flat, is this really the best they can do?

    The fully levelled up artisan has a shield with a demon face on it that has no depth at all it’s like a cardboard cut-out. Why are they skimping on detail that is so in your face apparent? I get why they say insane detail gets lost on character models but that doesn’t work the same for the game world. D2 used hard fine lines that made everything look sharper and detailed. D3 has a lot of smooth pastel colour textures that doesn’t always convey what the Diablo world is. ITS DARK, GRITTY AND DANGEROUS, IT’S NOT DISNEY WORLD.

    SC2 used SM 2 and the game looks great, so there is no reason why D3 can’t have high quality detailed textures. There is also no reason why D3 can’t have AA. In a screenshot where the sorceress is standing next to a corpse bonfire there are two NPC’s the one to your right holds a sword that is jagged, unless it is a jagged sword which I doubt, that’s a prime example of why D3 needs at least AA. Justin Browder’s team made a big texture update on SC2 a few months before beta that brought new life to the models, hopefully D3 gets an update as well.

    For those who have seen the 2008 WWI barb gameplay video you would have noticed the mouse pointer it looked good IMO. Then when I saw the Artisan Presentation video my first reaction to the pointer was WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s gigantic, it’s the Kanye of mouse pointers, Imma let you see, but first I just want to obscure your view. You can hide an imp behind it. Hopefully it was enlarged for presentation purposes. Then my attention was drawn to the barb spell icon that has an orc getting punched in it, since when does Diablo have orcs? The 08 WWI spell icons looked good, why were they changed to be so cartoony?????

    And lastly the paper doll, now IMO the 08 WWI 3D paper doll looked great, since Diablo has no zoom that is pretty much the closest view of your character you’ll get, why deprive us of that?

    I really do hope Blizzard realise that Dungeon siege 3 will be D3’s competition when it comes out, and Microsoft won’t hold back, Dungeon siege 2 looked good, you could zoom and it was fun to play. Blizzard should start to realise that people upgrade to play games; us fans spend a lot of money on machines so that we can play games at max settings. So why make excuses like, we want the game to be playable on low end machines.

    Let’s face it people buy games from the first impression and that is how the game looks, you get to gameplay after that. Eye candy sells. If that’s not true then why did you play crisis definitely not for the story, pretty graphics sells, whether you and I like it or not.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 29, 2010
  2. korialstraz

    korialstraz IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Messages:
    5,901
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    There's your answer. Usually a game only recieves enough graphics for it to be playable/worth showing to players, then they focus on content and balancing before fine tuning the graphics towards the end.


     
  3. konfeta

    konfeta IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    5,336
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    SC2 did not get a native AA option despite that :(. Sure, you can force it using the ATI/Nvidia control panels, but it's the thought that counts!

    Though, OP, as nice as it would be for D3 to scale really nicely into high-end technical graphics, you are really overstating how much people care about that stuff anymore. The obsession over GFX pretty has pretty much died down. It has went the way of the story, nice to have, but not necessary. Just read comments on blogs, etc. about new PC games. The number one question for people who don't follow that game is almost always "can my <insert 6000/7000/8000 crappy Nvidia level comp0uter> run it?" Looking ridiculously pretty ala Crysis just results in a bunch of sadfaces with "I wish my computer could run this but nah."


    http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

    Pretty good demonstration of what kind of hardware people run.
     
  4. Fanusvr

    Fanusvr IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2009
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    If what you are insinuting is that the graphics will be updated when gameplay is done, then thats fine, as long as it happens. We know that gameplay has always been a strong point of blizzard games, but whats the problem with adding great visuals to that. Jay wilson might feel that it is not needed, where as Rob felt it was for SC2 and it helped the games' appeal. The effects for D3 lookgreat for example the Artisan upgrade effect, so why can't the textures match that quality?
     
  5. konfeta

    konfeta IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    5,336
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    People pay attention to the flashy stuff more than to the static stuff when it comes to gameplay videos. Texture quality is probably the last thing they will end up polishing.
     
  6. Fanusvr

    Fanusvr IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2009
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    I totally agree, and one again I'm going to use SC2 as an example, the game looks great so people will expect more from D3 since it will be released in 2011 or 12. During the week a guy who played D3 in Austin mentioned that the graphics did not impress, and that was his only negative opinion. It is possible for them to upgrade the textures, which is the main issue not the graphics per se.


     
  7. Moonfrost

    Moonfrost IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,268
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    First off, you should really get used to splitting up longer posts into paragraphs. A post should look inviting to potential readers; a wall of text doesn't.

    Secondly, I agree about the flat textures (especially the shields on the ground stand out as flat, no pun intended). I too hope that they'll look better as we near release, though I think the game looks far better in motion once particle effects are applied (wind, dust storms etc). The game does go for a smooth texture approach, which helps it avoid the generic western RPG look.

    The cursor was probably enlarged for presentation purposes, yeah. I actually didn't even think about until you mentioned it.

    Not to go OT or anything, but if there's something I really hated about DS2 it was all the backtracking. Often I would find an interesting door/NPC/chest only to be told that I couldn't interact with it right now and that I would have to return and try again at a later point in the game. Come on, seriously? I can barely remember how I found it in the first place, let alone how to find it several hours later.

    For instance, in one of the first dungeons of the game you run across some NPC ghosts, only to be told that you don't possess the necessary skill to speak with the undead. No kidding, then why did the designers put the damn ghosts there in the first place, well aware of the fact that the player wouldn't be able to interact with them? Surely they don't expect me to run all the way back to the start of the game once I obtain said skill, just to see what I missed out on the first time? Why yes, yes they do.

    Backtracking is such a good example of terrible game design - hey, let's squeeze out a few more hours of gameplay by having the player explore some parts of the game twice! - that I uninstalled the game out of principle.


     
  8. Sass

    Sass IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,381
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    This thread is identical to the thousands of others whining about graphics. We know for a fact that graphics are not the priority at this point of development.

    Despite this, most claims are just plain wrong in the post. Pastel? Flat shields, axes and wheels? Disney?

    Only the wheel has any hint at all at the depth, and that's the shadow it casts. The axes and shields both are laid flat on the ground in a still screenshot where it is impossible to tell depth with any certainty.




    Not much other comment on this, but Blizz has geared their games toward the low tech fans since it started. They don't want you to need a thousand dollar setup just to play their games. They've never been known to use the utmost state-of-the-art uber real graphics. Instead, they took low tech, create the illusion of realism, and surpass the grahics other games ha with higher tech.


    Why would D3 be any different than the 10+ year long pattern?
     
  9. Apocalypse

    Apocalypse IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,652
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    exactly. bliz has time and time again proved that gameplay > graphics
     
  10. Kiroptus

    Kiroptus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    People cmon... If blizzard wanted they could have Mass Effect + Gears of War graphics on Diablo 3 with great gameplay as well. Blizzard's game art department is the best in the world. Plus Blizzard is rich as hell.

    The reason why D3 looks a bit outdated isnt because its the best the blizzard can do but its because its what they want to achieve the highest range of computers. That means: more profit. Blizzard knows that everyone would buy a diablo sequel even if it looked like tetris.

    And the game looks asthetically appealing, it has a nice art-direction and all, certain looks weaker than what is already on the market. Great art-direction but bad technical graphics aspects.

    Dungeon Siege 3 btw, looks 100x better. Here:

    http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/111/1113948/dungeon-siege-iii-20100818095159443.jpg

    http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/111/1113948/dungeon-siege-iii-20100818095204115.jpg

    http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/111/1113948/dungeon-siege-iii-20100818095150303.jpg

    http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/111/1113948/dungeon-siege-iii-20100818095216505.jpg

    http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/111/1113948/dungeon-siege-iii-20100818095219020.jpg


    But the "Dungeon Siege" franchise doesnt have the same popularity than the Diablo franchise so they must improve into more areas, like graphics. While Blizzard can "abuse" Diablo's popularity and still get away selling millions and millions of copies even with bad-average graphics.
     
  11. Risingred

    Risingred IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,496
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    Diablo II looks like ***. It did when it was released. But still a great game, no?
    If this is the biggest of your worries, you may want to re-consider playing games and taking up film instead.
     
  12. Apocalypse

    Apocalypse IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,652
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    agreed. so many games come out that look way better than D2 did and does and none of them are nearly as good as D2 is now let alone when it released.
     
  13. Flux

    Flux Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    6,710
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    472
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    You realize, I trust, that "better" is a subjective statement?

    Those DS3 screens are much more photorealistic than D3, but I don't find them inviting at all. They look hard and cold and computerized, to me. I know nothing about that game, but from a glance at the screens I do not want to play it since I do not find it visually pleasing.

    Different people like different styles of graphics. Bliz intentionally went for a cartoonish, stylized look in WoW (and D3), and dozens of MMOs with much "better" graphics have come and gone, while WoW remains the market monster. For lots of reasons, but I'd say that inviting, stylish, appealing graphics are one of them; something the polygon counters seem to miss, when going by tech specs rather than what people actually enjoy looking at.

    Can we make an analogy between video game graphics and artwork? Look at what hangs in museums and what sells on calendars and prints for home decoration. How much great art is crisp and clear like a photo? Some, Dutch Masters (though not so much Rembrandt, the most famous of them) were big on that, but an awful lot of people prefer VvG and Monet and Michelangelo and Klimt and Picasso and others with a more stylized look to their artwork. I can't imagine a photo of a field that I'd prefer to one of VVG's creations of it.

    Not to imply a direct comparison, but would you prefer the Mona Lisa, or a photo of some woman? The photo would have much "better" graphics. Clearer, crisper, more precise. Like DS3. So it must be better.

    Right?



     
  14. TheMythe

    TheMythe Diablo: IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    I think another point hasn't been addressed. Namely patches... Since D3 is supposed to run for the upcoming 10 years or so, they'll put in all the best graphic codings the current/upcoming market has to offer. However, they will put it in but not activate it yet. They'll do this for the oftenly mentioned hardware stats. Blizzard wants their games to run on as many PC's as possible. More PC's = more copies sold = more $.
    So these graphical code snippets are lying there in wait untill patches over time enables them. Sure you can already activate them by adjusting your settings, but choosing other than the games chosen defaults might result into non-fluid gameplay, which equals your toon's premature demise.

    I think Blizzard(game industry) anticipates this nowadays and gladly take it into account when developing a new game.

    Remarks/critics?
     
  15. permaximum

    permaximum Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    You may not remember because of your age but Diablo 1 was one of the best looking and especially the most realistic looking game when it's released. Playing Diablo on a 14-inch monitor in 1996 was the best thing.

    And Diablo 2 was 2D when most of the games started to go for 3D (first it was 3D too but the game looked worse because of the undeveleoped 3D back in the day) but one thing was certain, Diablo 2 graphics' detail level were so high that they are even more detailed than ERD 2012 Diablo 3's graphics.

    Graphics in Diablo games matter. I think fans who got into the Diablo franchise with the original game already know it.
     
  16. TheMythe

    TheMythe Diablo: IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    My age? What do you mean my age? I'm 31. Next to that I certainly played D1 back in '96 and I also played D2 for years.

    I'm not talking about the games developed/released THEN, I'm talking about the games developed/released NOW.

    There is certainly evolution going on in the developments departments to.


     
  17. Sass

    Sass IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,381
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    D3's were more detailed at demo release circa '08. o_O


    You must be confusing more grainy and only creates the illusion of realism when viewed from afar with detailed.
     
  18. permaximum

    permaximum Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    I didn't mean you. I was pointing out the people who didn't get into the franchise with D1.


     
  19. TheMythe

    TheMythe Diablo: IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    Sure thing no biggy. Might want to address towards other posters more neutrally though. This way you unintentional provoke people...

    Sidenote: English isn't my first language as well.


     
  20. konfeta

    konfeta IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    5,336
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Re: Is what Blizzard have show really the best they can do?

    The argument here is on the technical side, not artistic merrit. Diablo 2 did and still does look great because of excellent artist work, but from the perspective of keeping up with the industry on proper use of all the wonderful graphical toys, Blizzard has almost been behind. With justifiable reasons, but still behind.

    The 640x480 resolution with was a very lulzworthy discussion point in 2000 when games like this came out in 1998-2000:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcTVFiw60oc

    Again, I loved the look of D1/D2, but I have to admit that they looked like crap when you take art style taste out of consideration.
     

Share This Page