Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Graphics Software Entertainment Games

Diablo III Designer Defends New Look and Feel 371

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Diablo III Designer Defends New Look and Feel

Comments Filter:
  • I don't see it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grumpygrodyguy ( 603716 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:17PM (#24471067)

    At first glance I prefer Blizzard's version.

    • Re:I don't see it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by philspear ( 1142299 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:20PM (#24471111)

      I can't understand the attraction to underlit gaming environments. Maybe it's supposed to be scarier? I just get annoyed when I can't see s***.

      • Re:I don't see it (Score:5, Informative)

        by rob1980 ( 941751 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:26PM (#24471237)
        Yeah, that kind of stuff just pisses me off. I hated that I needed to install the "duct tape" mod for Doom 3 just so I could see what was going on.
        • Re:I don't see it (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Wildclaw ( 15718 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @04:02PM (#24471859)

          Doom 3 is perfect if you played in a completly dark room where your eyes can adjust. In that kind of environment "different shades of black" actually works. Playing it in a light room however is painful unless you turn up gamma, which you can't do in the basic settings, instead requiring you to use the console. And if you do turn up gamma the visual quality of course goes down.

          This is the problem when doing any visually dark game. You have to consider how the game plays in a not so dark room.

          • Re:I don't see it (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Haeleth ( 414428 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @04:27PM (#24472219) Journal

            Doom 3 is perfect if you played in a completly dark room where your eyes can adjust

            And presumably if you have a CRT screen. Increasingly people these days have LCD screens, which can't do black at all. Playing in a dark room with an LCD -- even a good gaming LCD -- means having an immersion-wrecking glowing rectangle hovering in the air in front of you. It just doesn't work.

            Kudos to Blizzard for actually trying to design a game that will look good on real people's PCs, instead of pandering to the crazy obsessions of a tiny minority.

          • Re:I don't see it (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Bat Country ( 829565 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @04:46PM (#24472455) Homepage

            If it becomes necessary to alter my environment, buy a new monitor, and use the developer console to see the game as the designers envisioned, the designers need a new vision.

            A visually dark game makes little sense when you happen to be a person with extremely good night vision, because you have an expectation to be able to fucking see what you're doing.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by philspear ( 1142299 )

          It's been around a lot longer than Doom 3. I remember playing Marathon back when the only other FPS people played was Doom (1).

          The first level it was creepy, after that it felt like the level designers just didn't realize that not all of us knew the level inside and out. "Okay, now even though I can't see it, there's a hunter in a nook halfway up that wall who is going to destroy me unless I launch rockets in that general direction."

          Fortunately, bungie included tools that allowed you to play with the phys

      • by SQLGuru ( 980662 )

        If the proposed shots were to be included instead of the existing shots, my screen would still look more like the existing shots because I'd have to crank up the gamma. One of the first things I do in a game is adjust the gamma so that I can see everything. I never played Doom III (more into RPG than FPS), but I would have hated that game because you can't see (I've played I and II). In an RPG, darkness and fog of war and what not are much less important to the game since they are about the story and pla

        • Re:I don't see it (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Lilith's Heart-shape ( 1224784 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:40PM (#24471505) Homepage

          In Doom III, where character level isn't much of an issue, the darkness adds to the gameplay.

          It adds to the gameplay for about five minutes. Then it gets annoying.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by eln ( 21727 )

          To me, darkness and the "fog of war" effect point to laziness more than anything else. Sure, it's probably supposed to produce "atmosphere", but to me it just looks like they were too lazy to draw out the entire scene in detail. I enjoy FPS games, but the really dark areas drive me crazy. I want to see an immersive detailed world, not something I have to get right up next to and point a flashlight at before I can see how detailed it is.

          Like a previous poster, I tend to crank up the brightness and contras

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            To me, darkness and the "fog of war" effect point to laziness more than anything else. Sure, it's probably supposed to produce "atmosphere", but to me it just looks like they were too lazy to draw out the entire scene in detail.

            I have to disagree. In AvP2 [], when I was playing as a marine in the single-player mode, and there was a xenomorph somewhere out there in dimly red-lit building, the effect was incredibly spooky. In that particular game, the dim red lighting really made the mood.

          • Re:I don't see it (Score:5, Informative)

            by Sun Chi ( 680938 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @04:54PM (#24472581)

            I don't think you mean "fog of war." That is a term from real time and turn based strategy games that relates to what area of the map you have explored. I think you are talking about the clipping plane.

      • Shame I spent my mod points, or I'd give you a +1 insightful there. I'll just have to say 'I agree'. At least some games give you a nice gamma setting, but even in those cases, it tends to wash things out.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Goaway ( 82658 )

        I think the basic idea is that if you can't see it, you can't see how bad it looks.

      • It seems these shots are more knee-jerk reaction from die-hard Diablo II fans than anything else. In each shot they've basically done whatever is necessary to make it look like "Diablo II+". I agree with the designers -- they *could* make it look like that, but they choose not to.

        I think the biggest thing to remember is Diablo II was 2-D, and Diablo III is 3-D. You're never going to have 1:1 art translation like that.

    • Re:I don't see it (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:42PM (#24471523) Journal

      Agreed. If I were playing a game that looked like the photoshopped screenshots there, I'd bump up the gamma until I could see.

    • I don't know why you got modded flamebait, but I agree. The altered version just looks like a Photoshop sharpness filter overly applied, and color adjusted to make everything darker (but in a way that will make everything far too dark on CRTs).

    • I can see how both would be cool.

      I don't understand what this "us versus them" mentality is all about.

  • Shadows Set the Mood (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn&gmail,com> on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:18PM (#24471077) Journal

    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!

    • by poetmatt ( 793785 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:21PM (#24471123) Journal

      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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, 2008 @04:13PM (#24472003)

      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?

      The reason is because creating dynamic shadows via shadow mapping or shadow volumes (which is what their technique looks like) is extremely expensive to calculate and then to draw (both techniques are often fill-rate limited, meaning the more that's in shadow, the longer it takes). Typically, designers have to define a subset of shadow-casting objects which are included in the calculation, and everything else is left out. Areas that are determined to be in shadow are then drawn dimmer than their surroundings. Scenery such as walls, mountains or hills doesn't usually cast these kinds of shadows because the effect can be reasonably approximated by simpler techniques (attenuation, directional lights, etc). Indeed, you'll often find that only certain lights cast shadows on certain objects, further simplifying the work.

      I don't work at Blizzard, but I suspect the lack of universal shadowing has little to do with the random nature of the dungeons, and everything to do with high cost and limiting returns of truly "realistic" shadows.

      Thus, the determination of what will cast shadows is typically done by the designers who have to determine what gets the most bang for the processor time.

  • by douthat ( 568842 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:21PM (#24471129)

    Step 1) Turn down your monitor's brightness
    Step 2) Stop whining
    Step 3) There is no step 3!

    Honestly, IMHO, the Blizzard shots are nicer. I have to squint to make out what's going on in the fan-created screenshots.

  • No problem here (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigstrat2003 ( 1058574 ) * on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:22PM (#24471157)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by k_187 ( 61692 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:28PM (#24471285) Journal
      As with any game with a fiercly loyal fan base, nothing blizzard can do other than repackaging Diablo 2 (and probably not even then), will make these people happy.
    • All the fans did was remove...well...all the SHARPNESS from the graphics. If I want to play a diablo game that looks like shit, I still have a trio 64 laying around somewhere that I will use. To play Diablo (original version).
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 )

      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,

      • Re:No problem here (Score:5, Insightful)

        by FreonTrip ( 694097 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (pirtnoerf)> on Monday August 04, 2008 @04:18PM (#24472087)
        Quake was brown because id had to create a realistically lightmapped 3D environment with a VGA color palette. I greatly enjoyed the first Quake and still believe that technical limitations can result in good, interesting design choices, but the fact that a game designed to run on Pentium CPUs and 1 MB graphics cards has continued to profoundly influence game graphics and people's expectations thereof is... well... sad. As for Diablo III, if people want to kick their feet and scream that it's too colorful, then Blizzard just needs to add a post-processing shader option to thump certain color ranges down a bit. See ATI's SmartShader or Far Cry's "graphics filters" for an example.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by skeeto ( 1138903 )

      You sounded almost like Bob Ross,

      "You can do whatever you want with your world. It's your world. You can put a happy little bush here. Or some happy little clouds. Let's do that. *relaxing paintbrush tapping sounds* You see that? That'll be our little secret."

    • Re:No problem here (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BRSloth ( 578824 ) * <julio@juliobia[ ].net ['son' in gap]> on Monday August 04, 2008 @05:52PM (#24473383) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        So I would expect that there was no time to have the land and the dungeons defiled.

        You don't need meteors or prime evils to have defiled dungeons []?

        Sorry, I can't decide if I'm attempting dark humor or political commentary.

  • bgy (Score:5, Informative)

    by Annymouse Cowherd ( 1037080 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:28PM (#24471279) Homepage

    What I don't like is the excessive amount of blue, green, and yellow on what should be plain stone tiles.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Because water is #000FF, grass is #00FF00 and rock is #808080... amirite?

  • Its Blizzard (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dunezone ( 899268 )
    This has to do with Blizzard. Ever since Warcraft 3 they have shifted their graphic design to a more cartoonish or anime style.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I was unaware that "being able to see" meant cartoony.
    • Re:Its Blizzard (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PotatoFarmer ( 1250696 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:53PM (#24471709)
      This has to do with Blizzard. Ever since Warcraft 3 they have shifted their graphic design to a more cartoonish or anime style.

      I think the cartoonish style is more about a means to an end, rather than an end in and of itself. Blizzard prides itself on producing games that will run well on average hardware, and that means reduced scene complexity, especially in cases where you've got arbitrary amounts of geometry on the screen. Because of this, they're limited to broader artistic strokes to convey meaning.

      I look at this a lot like stage theater - actors make exaggerated gestures and wear dramatic makeup on stage because they need to transcend the limitations of the medium. Blizzard uses simple polygons and textures because that's the best way to get a whole bunch of em on the screen at any given time. As long as it doesn't break immersion (and I understand for some people it does, but not for me), then I'm fine with it.

      Personally, watching the gameplay video I wasn't thinking "these colors look off" or "this seems too cartoon-like". I was thinking more along the lines of "whoa, wall of zombies" and "that thing just bit that guy in half!"
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Millennium ( 2451 )

      Awww, is Mr. Winkie feeling a little small?

      Seriously; what's wrong with graphics that don't get in the way? Bloom-ridden gray-and-brown gets in the way of gameplay, and comparison shots like these show it better than just about anything else: it becomes too difficult to tell things apart. A little color makes games more fun.

    • by AlpineR ( 32307 )

      I'm impressed with Blizzard's attention to detail. Some game designers (and designers in other fields) don't pay enough attention to things like visibility, subtly, utility, and balance in visuals. You might not like the style they chose, but you have to respect that they can justify the decision rather than just say "we like it that way".

    • Re:Its Blizzard (Score:5, Insightful)

      by skeeto ( 1138903 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @04:21PM (#24472137)

      Ever since Warcraft 3 [...]

      I guess you never played the first two Warcrafts? Warcraft games have always been cartoony.

    • Re:Its Blizzard (Score:4, Informative)

      by p0tat03 ( 985078 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @04:22PM (#24472151)
      Wha? Last I checked Starcraft and Warcraft 2 were both plenty cartoony. Even the original Diablo games had *glowing red monsters*... Blizzard has *never* been known for gritty, realistic rendering...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gsn ( 989808 )

      It isn't cartoonish or anime - the idea is to create a fantasy world. Diablo didn't have a world - it had a town with a plain boring dungeon that was pretty much exactly the same all the way down. D2 made the first effort where you had some more variety in the character classes and that there were distinct areas each with a different feel but within each you still had dungeons that were essentially the same. From what I can tell with the screenshots for this world they are actually trying to create more of

    • It's really a matter of perspective. The difference between what the designers have made and what these fans want are slight. While Diablo III might not be as dark as they want it, it isn't as cartoonish as Super Mario Bros or Sonic the Hedgehog when it comes to color palette. Most people won't really care.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by garylian ( 870843 )

      It has more to do with Blizzard realizing that having a game that has lower GPU requirements means a greater possibility of getting a sale.

      Not everyone out there wants to get a new machine to play a particular game. Heck, when WoW came out, I was running a P4 1.8GHz machine with about 1GB RAM and a pretty darn old graphics card, and the game ran great everywhere but IF. And that was a huge thing, considering that same system could barely run EQ2.

      A decent number of folks will leave WoW to try the newest MM

    • by SeinJunkie ( 751833 ) <> on Monday August 04, 2008 @05:15PM (#24472867) Homepage

      This has to do with Blizzard. Ever since Warcraft 3 they have shifted their graphic design to a more cartoonish or anime style.

      I agree. Lost Vikings [] had it right, with it's ultra-gritty, gothic realism. Let's see a return to the good old days of Blizzard like that!

  • by KnowledgeEngine ( 1225122 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:34PM (#24471395)
    I'm going to have to go ahead and say regardless of anyones personal preference we have to give a lot of credit to the designer for taking the time to comment on their choices. Personally the only user created design change I like better is the last gayness.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dmala ( 752610 )
      Yeah, he has far more patience than I'd have. It takes a lot of nerve to take screenshots of an unfinished, unreleased game, hack them up in Photoshop, and then go "See, *this* is what you should have done." Let Blizzard design the game, and more importantly, let them finish and release it. If you play the finished product and it sucks, then you have a legitimate gripe. It's not like Blizzard doesn't have a track record of making great stuff.

      I can't think of a better way to create a complete trainw
  • Monitors (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Freeside1 ( 1140901 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:39PM (#24471463)
    Seems to me that the critics/photoshopppers just want a game that looks like it's constantly nighttime.

    If they want a dark, difficult to see game, they can just adjust their monitor (brightness, saturation, etc). Let the rest of us see what we're doing.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:39PM (#24471473)

    People are always complaining about how colorful the current d3 images are. Did any of you ever play Diablo 2? Go join a hell difficulty game. Whenever you see champion/unique/superunique monsters, you almost always see an array of colors. Purples and Reds. Green auras. Even if you're running through the depths of a countess' tower, the screen is contrasted by dark colors and bright colors.

    These bright colors make the game easier to play (oh that mob has one red enemy in it, that's the one I want to pop to get the better loot and more exp).

    If some of the armchair game critics would go and reinstall d2, they would see that the new style is not all that different from the old! ... And now I'm back to key runs. Need to get a hellfire torch! Later!

  • The fan altered images are mostly converted to shit brown.
    Games these days or often either shit brown, or totally neon colored. There should be a proper color balance. It's must more interesting.

    Diablo 3's color usage isn't that bad, it could do with a little less bloom. But then again, it's not as terrible as Halo 3's bloom.

  • by rpillala ( 583965 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:53PM (#24471717)

    In Diablo I, the player was going down down down and it got darker as you went. This is part of the game, and as such it made sense to get darker.

    In Diablo II, there are only a few zones that have a large number of levels, namely the zones leading to bosses. Much of the rest of the game is outdoors and pretty brightly lit. In the expansion, it's a snowscape which is about as bright as you can get. There's no sense of delving down so it didn't get darker. Even the hell portion of the game was itself a large flat landscape. I guess the three prime evils like to be able to see in front of themselves too.

    Depending on what this game is about, it may not make sense for every indoor area to be pitch the fuck black. I agree that it's a more challenging game if you don't see infinitely in front of you, and maybe they'll address it. I hope there's some variety in the environments and how you have to navigate them, as it will make a better game. Fans requiring all the locations to be muted and gloomy are thinking short sighted.

  • "wow gayness" (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by BobMcD ( 601576 )

    I think that title is VERY telling for Blizzard's future challenges.

    WoW is cartoon-y. Its cute. Very soft fantasy.

    Diablo is not, and never has been.

    Nor has Starcraft, for that matter.

    Since WoW is a behemoth now, everything Blizzard ever does will be compared to it. This, to me at least, means they should focus on making things have a very distinct feel. Otherwise, the comparisons will be the killer.

    "Yeah, Diablo III was okay, but it just wasn't WoW..." probably isn't something they want to hear.

  • V. short version. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MRe_nl ( 306212 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @03:54PM (#24471733)

    A lot of the D3 fans don't want D3 to look like WOW.
    Designer says "Interesting (not), but thanks for the publicity" ; )

    I must say i agree with most of the designers points.
    It still has to be easy on the eyes and gameplay, artistic perfection
    is not the main point.
    And, as others have pointed out, if it's too "happy" for you, adjust the gamma, not the game.
    Comma coma, must rest...

  • 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).

  • by Nymz ( 905908 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @04:03PM (#24471877) Journal
    A Diablo III representative defended design choices against 'dark & desaturated' versus 'brighter & colored'. While admiting that a single screen shot could look cooler when 'dark & destaurated', they concluded, after much playtesting, that 'brighter & colored' 1) offered greater visual playability when many creatures and players are on the screen, and 2) made the game more intersting because different game areas actually looked different.
  • It's not gamma (Score:3, Informative)

    by bigtangringo ( 800328 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @04:30PM (#24472255) Homepage

    The altered screenshots have a certain grungy, gloomy richness to them, while the originals have a pale, blown-out look to them.

    Oh, and I really only want a D3 for the fucking amazing graphics. The originals look like a top down WoW clone, which looked like a first/third person clone of WC3 with higher resolution models.

  • Why Bother?... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff ( 680366 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @04:37PM (#24472345)
    While I know the urge to show why these fans' visions simply do not work is strong, I have to ask, why bother? What's to be gained? They won't change their minds. Educating them to the reasons for decisions that are made won't change the fact that they want to bitch and moan about something - ANYTHING. Also, they want to show off. They want to play in Photoshop with the images and have their friends ooh and aah about how much better their versions look when the reality is that a vast, vast, vast majority of people feel that Blizzard makes simply stunning games. I won't even get into the fact that the fan-altered versions look like crap and are way too dark because that's beside the point - I just don't understand why he spent any time or effort responding to this sort of thing. Nothing will change for having done it other than giving the fans versions an extra 15 minutes of fame...
  • Hardcore fans. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MaWeiTao ( 908546 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @05:20PM (#24472953)

    I think screenshot with the pseudo graffiti font that reads, "wow gayness" pretty much reflects the stupidity and immaturity motivating these guys. I guess in their minds everything needs to be "hardcore".

    All I have to say is thank goodness the fans aren't designing the game. I much prefer Blizzard's more colorful, softer feel.

    The last thing I need is every little gritty detail being so prominent preventing important details like enemies, items and my own character from standing out. I also don't want Diablo 3 turning into yet another drab, monotone game like most other games out there.

    Those fan-altered images look like every screenshot developers release for PS3 games desperate to impress everyone with graphics when they often don't have much else to go on.

    I'm surprised that with the popularity of WoW and the Wii that so many gamers apparently are still clamoring for more gritty, realistic, and in my opinion, boring and uninspired, art. No wonder most developers keep churning out crap.

  • by pcolaman ( 1208838 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @05:46PM (#24473323)
    One thing that is often overlooked or forgotten is that these still shots don't do the game justice, because a game running at 24+ fps will always look better than a still frame from said game (reason why in many cases, still shots from games are usually doctored to smooth out the jaggies) and anyone who watches the D3 Demo and think the game looks "kiddie" and "Wowish" and isn't in good spirit of the original Diablo games either hasn't played them recent enough or needs to have their eyes checked. The game looks amazing, and plenty sinister without looking like Isometric Doom 3.
  • by Yvan256 ( 722131 ) on Monday August 04, 2008 @05:47PM (#24473341) Homepage Journal

    All I want to know is if there's gonna be a secret cow level?

    Although I'm getting tired of slaying evil walking cows... Make a deal with Fox and make a secret chicken level.

    Of course, we'd need to have a chicken NPC give us a bad coupon to be able to enter the secret chicken level, but I'm sure Blizzard could squeeze that somewhere in the story.

With all the fancy scientists in the world, why can't they just once build a nuclear balm?