Diablo 3 petition rejected

[PvtRyan]

You're trying to explain something to someone who knows more than you on the subject. It's useless. I'm in UnrealEd every other day practically, and use 3ds Max to make models, unwrap them and texture them.

No, they wouldn't require a finer mesh or higher res textures to have more detail and look more like real stone. They could also adjust the texture scale to make anything less blurry. Texture sizes aren't even that big a deal nowadays. It's more the normal maps/shaders that will kill a computer.

And I knew one of your predictable group would jump on the photoshop noise filter comment to further your non-point, so I thought about putting a disclaimer in parenthesis to say it was an example. I had to do that in this post - http://halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2714544&postcount=9

I would say this game looks like Baldur's Gate/Icewind (which I haven't played), or at least Planescape Torment - http://halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2702471&postcount=31 (bottom 3 screens).

Do you know why they call it a "appeal to authority fallacy"? Because it is a fallacy!

So you make games? Big whoop. So does Blizzard, and they apparently don't agree with you. So who's right then? What the hell is that statement supposed to tell me? Perhaps you're very bad at what you do, I don't know.

So ignoring that, so (again) claim that to make it look more realistic, you don't need higher res textures and they don't need to no, you're right. They could (for the guy who mentioned CoH) make it look like the textures here. It has more detail and a grittier look at a low resolution (it's the wall I'm talking about by the way). While that works fine for CoH because it's usually seen from a greater distance, in D3 you would be better off with more blurry painted textures than low res "detailed" ones. If you're going to use low res textures that you're going to see from a not to great a distance, go for stylized textures, not realistic ones.

Also, I was actually looking for a Dragon Age screenshot as an example for my point. It doesn't even remotely have the artstyle of Diablo 2. It actually looks exactly like Diablo 3 but with higher resolution textures and models because it's aiming at a different point of view (lower to the ground than Diablo 3) and most likely a different userbase.

Anyway, this is fairly pointless. In the end, it's an artist's subjective taste that made it look the way it does. Don't like it? Fine, have fun not playing it. But don't tell Blizzard that they're "wrong" or that this isn't a Diablo game any more.

 

[Direwolf]

Man, saying Blizzard is lazy strikes me as the utmost in silliness. Their products are generally met with insane success because of the time and dedication they put into trying to get every last little thing right.

 

[Asknoone]

My 'Give-a-shit' metre hasn't moved since I bought it. I guess if I actually went out and played a Diablo game, we might see a tickle of activity. Oh, wait, that's never going to happen.

so blizzard should drop it and make a totally different game.

 

[Adrik_Senturu]

"Also, online petitions are ****ing retarded," Wilson added.

 

[MRG]

More assholes going on about us wanting it dark...

We just wanted it to have an ounce of realism. That means no low-res hand painted comic book textures like WoW. Source the textures from photographs to give them a little thing called detail.

Well said Stardog. The cartoony graphics are what put me off playing WoW when I was given a free account to use.

Still, I am very much looking forward to Diablo 3, whenever it finally gets here. The more I watch the 20 min videos, the more excited I get.

-MRG

 

[TCfromBN]

I never liked diablo nor hack and slash games in general, so blizzard should drop it and make a totally different game.

GTFO D:<




Oh, we don't like any games here at hl2.net.

 

[Absinthe]

All games suck.

Except Half-Life 2.

 

[Acepilotf14]

You know who else rejected a much signed petition?

Spoiler

SOE.

 

[Rico]

Blizzard just owned the whiners. This is why I love their company, at last, someone with the nuts to stick to their vision.

Also, if you don't like the graphics to the point of whining on other games fan sites, there's a very easy solution to your dilemma:

Don't buy it.

You're trying to explain something to someone who knows more than you on the subject. It's useless. I'm in UnrealEd every other day practically, and use 3ds Max to make models, unwrap them and texture them.

No, they wouldn't require a finer mesh or higher res textures to have more detail and look more like real stone. They could also adjust the texture scale to make anything less blurry. Texture sizes aren't even that big a deal nowadays. It's more the normal maps/shaders that will kill a computer.

And I knew one of your predictable group would jump on the photoshop noise filter comment to further your non-point, so I thought about putting a disclaimer in parenthesis to say it was an example. I had to do that in this post - http://halflife2.net/forums/showpost...44&postcount=9

I would say this game looks like Baldur's Gate/Icewind (which I haven't played), or at least Planescape Torment - http://halflife2.net/forums/showpost...1&postcount=31 (bottom 3 screens).

That's funny, I have development experience and actually released several mods. You think that because you've used UnrealEd you know everything there is to know about 3d graphics and texturing? Hilarious.

1) Diablo 3 is an isometric 3d RPG. Diablo is well known for it's hordes of enemies. Is unreal know for that? Nope, that's right, it's an FPS.
2) Diablo 3 is based on an entirely different engine from Unreal. They have been created to do two VERY different things. You have NO IDEA how either engine works, obviously, or you wouldn't be posting garbage such as this and believe you speak with authority.
3) When you have 500 mobs on screen, texture resolution becomes a real problem. If you're naive enough to think that any game developer worth their salt would use 2000x2000 resolution textures "because they can" you'll be playing the crappiest game on earth, and performance would be horrendous. Obviously, in your glorious mod-making experience, you never cared to optimize your maps, otherwise you would KNOW that optimization is a HUGE part of game development AND programming. Optimization is a very important part of developing software.
4) Trying to play the authority card is a dumb idea unless you know for a fact that you are the highest authority present. Don't try to belittle other posters please, if you're mad at Blizzard maybe you should start a petition (heh) and voice your unhappiness in their forums.

 

[alehm]

Blizzard are just lazy and can't be assed changing

Actually they aren't lazy and they changed a lot. If you actually read the article you would have seen they tried different styles and the decision they came to was what enhanced gameplay.

The petition was only to serve certain gamers nostalgia for the past at the expense of gameplay. If anyone is lazy and not wanting change is the petitioners IMO. Its their way only, the game mechanics be damned.

 

[SamuraiKenji]

Diablo 3 went the right way in doing it brighter.
You figure it's been 20 years since the Fall of the Prime Evils.
So some peace and light is needed.
I do think it's beautiful and i can't wait.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Regardless of whether Blizzard tried the other styles, or were just lazy, or are just copying WoW, or whatever you want to accuse them of, it still comes down to a preference call. Some people are going to like it, some aren't. Either way, the fact of the matter is that Blizzard are doing it this way because they want to, because it works for them. To me, that shows a bit of integrity that has been lacking in some other areas of late (ie - giving in to the whiners on WoW, turning it into a ****ing e-sport, raping the lore etc).

Here's why - Blizzard is a company with a huge, devoted following. Everyone knows this. Their games, while not incredibly innovative or original, are known to have a tremendous amount of polish and exude quality from every pore. Whether or not you like them, each of their games is an exemplar in it's own genre, something for other developers to take notice of, but at the same time completely inimitable. No one does it like they do. For this reason, people have come to have certain... expectations of them, shall we say. When Starcraft 2 was announced, for instance, I knew it was going to be fundamentally identical to the first game. A visual upgrade, some new units, maybe tweak a few of the systems, but mechanically the same at it's core. Why? Korea, that's why. Blizzard knew that if they changed it too much, there would be a fan outcry. Their fans know Starcraft, probably better than they do now. To alter it at this stage would be like changing the bible (oh wait). Thus, they stuck to the tried and true.

Now, with Diablo III, it looks to be mostly the same case. A visual upgrade, some tweaks, but still evidently the same game at heart. Except for the art style. And, surprise surprise, fan outcry. It's not the same, we want it back, that's not Diablo, wah wah wah. The fact that most people seem to be missing here, though, is that this was a conscious decision on their part. They chose not to imitate the old style, not because they weren't able to, but because they didn't want to. Beyond all the possible motivations and contributing factors, they did it this way because they wanted to, because they thought it looked better, and that shows dedication, not betrayal or wanton disregard for their own property as some seem to be suggesting. Infact, I'll put money down that they knew people wouldn't like it beforehand. A fanbase this size, there's bound to be a lot of people who aren't too thrilled about the change. In that sense, this poll was dead in the water before it was even started, no "rejection" necessary. Blizzard know what direction they want to take with it and they're prepared to stick to their guns. I commend them for that.

Some things, I will concede, warrant fan intervention. Art direction is not one of them. Art direction is solely the property of the artist, and it should remain such. If fans were allowed to decide the visual style of a game purely by voting in numbers, there'd never be any variation. People hate change. The fact that some are still trying to make an objective argument out of a completely subjective issue is testament to this fact. You can't always have things your way, sometimes you just have to give the developer the benefit of the doubt, and trust that he knows his own property better than you do (and I stress sometimes, only because I'm willing to give Blizz another chance).

Failing that, if their track record proves true, and enough people whine about it, there's always the possibility that they just patch the grittiness in later, and be damned with anyone who actually liked it this way.

Edit - Holy shit, huge post is huge.

Also, on a topic that's slightly more open to objective criticism: good ****ing riddance to the light radius. Seriously.

 

[Adrik_Senturu]

Well said.

And yeah **** the light radius, although im sure there will be some really dark dungeon where they'll have it in there for old times sake.

 

[nurizeko]

Diablo III looks fine, glad to hear Blizzard is ignoring the nerd ragers.

 

[StardogChampion]

That's funny, I have development experience and actually released several mods. You think that because you've used UnrealEd you know everything there is to know about 3d graphics and texturing? Hilarious.

Texturing and modelling is the same for pretty much every engine.

1) Diablo 3 is an isometric 3d RPG. Diablo is well known for it's hordes of enemies. Is unreal know for that? Nope, that's right, it's an FPS.

Your point is? The engine they're using makes no difference.

2) Diablo 3 is based on an entirely different engine from Unreal. They have been created to do two VERY different things. You have NO IDEA how either engine works, obviously, or you wouldn't be posting garbage such as this and believe you speak with authority.

I do speak with authority.

3) When you have 500 mobs on screen, texture resolution becomes a real problem. If you're naive enough to think that any game developer worth their salt would use 2000x2000 resolution textures "because they can" you'll be playing the crappiest game on earth, and performance would be horrendous. Obviously, in your glorious mod-making experience, you never cared to optimize your maps, otherwise you would KNOW that optimization is a HUGE part of game development AND programming. Optimization is a very important part of developing software.

2000x2000? If you had a clue what you were talking about you'd no that almost no engine on earth would accept a texture with those dimensions.

You also didn't read my post, as usual. I never said they'd have to make the textures bigger, therefore there would be no performance hit. Go read.

Where did you get there will be 500 mobs on screen? "I don't think we've broken a hundred monsters on screen at a time, but we've flirted with it." You just made it up. I deal in fact, try it sometime.

4) Trying to play the authority card is a dumb idea unless you know for a fact that you are the highest authority present. Don't try to belittle other posters please, if you're mad at Blizzard maybe you should start a petition (heh) and voice your unhappiness in their forums.

You should read this quote and follow the advice.

And if anyone else wants to revive dead discussions, then go right ahead. I'm waiting.

 

[Rico]

Texturing and modelling is the same for pretty much every engine.


Your point is? [/b]The engine they're using makes no difference.[/b]


I do speak with authority.


2000x2000? If you had a clue what you were talking about you'd no that almost no engine on earth would accept a texture with those dimensions.

You also didn't read my post, as usual. I never said they'd have to make the textures bigger, therefore there would be no performance hit. Go read.

Where did you get there will be 500 mobs on screen? "I don't think we've broken a hundred monsters on screen at a time, but we've flirted with it." You just made it up. I deal in fact, try it sometime.


You should read this quote and follow the advice.

And if anyone else wants to revive dead discussions, then go right ahead. I'm waiting.

1) Learn what hyperbole is. Maybe if you removed your head from a certain dark place you will realize that I was exaggerating to prove your ridiculous point wrong. I have actually released work, done texture work, mapped, animated, and coded my own total conversion. Check the signature, thanks. Wanna play the authority card some more? Where's yours?

2) Engines make ALL the difference. The mere fact that you'd even say something as ridiculous as that shows that you know nothing on the subject.

3) Blizzard isn't going to change jack, so why are you even trying to continue your little campaign to change their art style? Change it yourself when it gets released if you care that much. Aren't you some self proclaimed master texture artist anyways? Easy fix, right?

 

[SamuraiKenji]

MY views on this....Verbal War

Rico is a hero and Stardog is a dumbass


As Rico said engines make all the diffrence


Now i must go scrub my eyes or something because from reading Stardogs posts my eyes are pretty much shot

 

[StardogChampion]

1) Learn what hyperbole is. Maybe if you removed your head from a certain dark place you will realize that I was exaggerating to prove your ridiculous point wrong. I have actually released work, done texture work, mapped, animated, and coded my own total conversion. Check the signature, thanks. Wanna play the authority card some more? Where's yours?

With your way of thinking, this is where I say: "Diablo 3 is an isometric 3d RPG. Diablo is well known for it's hordes of enemies. Is the Max Payne engine know for that? Nope, that's right, it's an third-person shooter." Now you know how it feels.

2) Engines make ALL the difference. The mere fact that you'd even say something as ridiculous as that shows that you know nothing on the subject.

Vague statement that engines make all the difference without actually saying how/why. Brilliant. Remember, the point was that you can get a more detailed/realistic visual style without increasing the texture sizes.

3) Blizzard isn't going to change jack, so why are you even trying to continue your little campaign to change their art style?

I'm continuing because people like you keep going on about us wanting it "dark". See page 1.

 

[SamuraiKenji]

Ok first off Douche-fag it's just the fact of he's done his own shit not messed around in UnrealEd and called it good
SECOND
There is no need to explain why/how for the engine because a lot of people know(you're obviously not one of them)
Lastly
People like you are the ones who don't liek change
You prefer the dark deep dungeon diving shit am i right?
If you want something like that play Fate
Blizzard is going for the PEACE look for the moment
As the game goes on you never know everything might grow darker
We'll just have to see now won't we?

 

[StardogChampion]

SamuraiKenji. You might aswell just stay out of this. You're clueless and you'll just start a fight. But to summarise - I love change... for the better, no I don't want darkness, it's peaceful here in Scotland but that doesn't mean that it looks like I'm living in a digital painting, again... darkness has nothing to do with anything. You'd know that if you could read.

 

[Pesmerga]

Blizzard is going for the PEACE look for the moment
As the game goes on you never know everything might grow darker
We'll just have to see now won't we?

Peace look?

The Worldstone has just been destroyed- the very fabric of space and time has just been torn straight down the middle, the gateway to Hell might have just been opened again since the beginning of the creation of Sanctuary. Heaven's angels and Hell's demons have been clashing since the dawn of existence, and the mortal realm of men have just gotten caught in the crossfire.

And you think Blizzard is going for a "peace look"? I don't think you have a very found knowledge of what's actually going on.

 

[Krynn72]

lol @ SamuraiKenji.

And performance would not take a hit by making more realistic looking textures. No matter what the mob size or engine.

 

[PvtRyan]

Wait. Don't I deserve a response (i.e.: get shouted at by Stardog)?

OK, fine, I'll have my own private discussion with simulated Stardog then.

I sorta make games, so I'm right! ALWAYS!

No, I won't read your arguments, I'll just take the opposite stance of what you're saying, regardless of what you're saying. You think that a more cartoony/stylized look enhances performance? NO IT DOESNT. There, that's my argument. Texture size has impact on performance when you're aiming at low end users? NO IT DOESNT.

Also, I once drew a purple dick in Paint so that gives me supreme authority on the making of games and their art, ignoring completely the fact that Blizzard also makes games and that they're kinda good at it, nullifying what ever merit that argument had.

To summarize: I make games so I'm right.

And if you don't shut up, I'll post a picture of you and make an infantile comment about it, it wouldn't be the first time.

In closing: I make games so I'm right and I'm gonna be damn angry about anything that you say for no reason. I'm truly incapable of making a happy post. Your happiness only feeds my anger.

PS: I make games, so I'm right.

Interesting points there Stardog, I'll have to do some research and I'll make sure to get back to you on that later!

 

[JNightshade]

Meh. I love the colors, personally- the game looks gorgeous IMO.

 

[Pesmerga]

Whatever, hippie. Go smoke a shroom.

 

[SamuraiKenji]

You don't smoke shrooms i think.

 

[Asknoone]

This thread delivers. Continue.

 

[Cormeh]

Gamers are the cancer that is killing gaming.

 

[StardogChampion]

Wait. Don't I deserve a response (i.e.: get shouted at by Stardog)?

OK, fine, I'll have my own private discussion with simulated Stardog then.

Interesting points there Stardog, I'll have to do some research and I'll make sure to get back to you on that later!

You want a response to your previous post that I didn't reply to? (http://halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2715028&postcount=41) You said: "All 3D RPGs look similar to Diablo 3 and nowhere near the same as Diablo 2 or Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale or any of those 2D games." And I gave you a screen that looked like Planescape, then you complained that it didn't look like DII. Maybe Blizzard should've made DIII look like DII

Also, when I say I'm right and someone else is wrong, it's usually because I'm 100% sure that I'm right. I'll quote what I've said so far:

It wouldn't need any more polygons. The textures would require more colours maybe, which would add almost nothing to the memory usage. Even adding a photoshop noise filter would give them more detail. The texture dimensions would be exactly the same.

True. The PS noise filter part was a quick example of how to add more detail, and to show that it wouldn't affect performance at all. 1st time I had to explain that no texture sizes or polygon counts need to be increased.

No, they wouldn't require a finer mesh or higher res textures to have more detail and look more like real stone. They could also adjust the texture scale to make anything less blurry (if they needed to). Texture sizes aren't even that big a deal nowadays. It's more the normal maps/shaders that will kill a computer.

True. Explained for the 2nd time about not needing to increase texture dimensions etc.

Texturing and modelling is the same for pretty much every engine.

True. The modelling/texturing process doesn't have to be changed to suit an engine. I could export all my work to most engines currently available without problems.

The engine they're using makes no difference.

True. See above.

2000x2000? If you had a clue what you were talking about you'd no that almost no engine on earth would accept a texture with those dimensions.

You also didn't read my post, as usual. I never said they'd have to make the textures bigger, therefore there would be no performance hit. Go read.

True. 2000x2000 won't get into 99% of engines because it's not using a power of 2. 2048x2048 would be fine. 3rd time I had to make it clear that no texture sizes need to be increased. To Rico this time, but he was using hyperbole, which is never confusing in a technical discussion.

I don't get why you're all disagreeing with those 5 quotes, because there's nothing to disagree with there. It's all technical fact, not my opinion. You seem to be disagreeing with simple technical facts just so you can have an argument. :afro:

 

[Bad^Hat]

Quickly, someone disagree with him! You were on such a roll.

Kenji, pull your foot out of your goddamn mouth and say something inspired and relevant! Now, before the flames die down! DO IT!

 

[Asknoone]

 

[Bad^Hat]

Follow-up from OP dude.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/08/04/diablo-iii-designer-turns-tables/

Enter... THE DISAGREERISER.

 

[Absinthe]

D3 looks like it was made for raging homo fashionistas obsessed with flair and pretty colors. Queerbait is what I calls it.

 

[Pesmerga]

I hate you all.

 

[StardogChampion]

Follow-up from OP dude.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/08/04/diablo-iii-designer-turns-tables/

Enter... THE DISAGREERISER.

Hi.

"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."

I agree 100%. I even said that here 1 month ago - http://halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2685292&postcount=317

"It becomes really hard to see all the profiles. Look at the tables and see how hard it is to see the profiles of those."

Scraping the barrel there... I don't find it hard to see any profiles of tables... The tables and candles on the left stick out more in the edited image for me.

"I will say I wouldn?t be surprised if we had areas in the game that had this kind of texturing in the background. They?ll probably be later in the game because they?ll be darker, but again, the biggest problem here is that the silhouettes don?t stand out enough.

And it?s easier [to see] in this shot because you?ve only got skeletons, but if there are three other types of creatures in there ? which is not uncommon ? and give them all that same desaturated tone, you won?t be able to play the game very well."

Disagree here. Silhouettes don?t stand out enough? Stinks of the previous answer.

On the other point, just because the ground textures are desaturated, it doesn't mean the enemies have to be desaturated. Just look at that game called Diablo II. Maybe the devs of DIII haven't played it. Those bright red Fallen were really hard to see in DII... NOT.

A lot of this change is adding noise to the screen. If [the characters] weren?t centered on the screen ? like find the witch doctor. Especially think about him as a friend [in co-op play]. Standing over there, you can?t even tell the difference between him and the zombie. And that?s another player, and when you can?t tell the player apart from the creature, that?s horrible.

The guy spent 5 minutes in PS on that ffs. Surely oh mighty Blizzard could figure something out.

He sort of underlines why I hate arty people. They choose colours/styles based on textbook reasons, instead of "because it looks good". As long as they have their little textbook that says green means horror then they'll use it and be in the clear.

 

[Krynn72]

Follow-up from OP dude.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/08/04/diablo-iii-designer-turns-tables/

Enter... THE DISAGREERISER.

I pretty much disagreerise with everything he said. With the exception of the noise overlay, because thats stupid. Mass Effect had it and it was obnoxious, and I turned it off. But the lighting in dungeons could just be a simple post process to darken the edges of the screen, rather than needing the actual lighting system to determine the falloff. Simple and any computer could handle it. The silhouette thing is ridiculous, I can see the shapes just as easily in the original screenshot as I can in the edited one, plus its kind-of a non-issue when they're moving.

My biggest complaint about the graphics they have now is that there are no darks. And I dont mean shadows, I mean the contrast between the lights and darks. Look at the darkest part of this screenshot.

The darkest spot in the original is like a 65% grey tone. Contrast mother****ers, do you know about it?!

 

[Pesmerga]

**** you, I want my god damn Spyro the Dragon graphics.

 

[Asknoone]

OH MY GOD IT'S GNASTY GNORC!

 

[StardogChampion]

I agree with Krynn, although I think that 2nd bridge screen is too dark. There was a better one somewhere. Someone make Krynn a mod.

I also agree with Pesmerga. If you're going to sell out with colourful graphics, why not go the whole hog? It needs a bigger rainbow and more lens flare.

 

[Pesmerga]

Please note that I was being entirely sarcastic, and I think anyone who is still arguing Diablo 3 should be more darktastic is a trollop.