Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Diablo III Under Fire From Fans

Last response: in Video Games
Share
July 2, 2008 5:57:04 PM

Article by Devin Connors

After eight years of anticipation, Diablo III was uneviled by Blizzard at its Worldwide Invitational event last weekend in Paris. But some fans are not happy with how the game looks so far and are taking action.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/07/02/diablo3_petition/

More about : diablo iii fire fans

July 2, 2008 6:25:31 PM

As much as I loved D2, I don't ever want to go back to that light radius crap. The near constant rain (we get enough rain outside here), and Tetris inventory. Good riddens.

Besides, we've only seen a small part of what is probably Act 1 (which they said was playable).

Those ppl have probably been playing D2 since 2000.. they've all gone mad! Diablofans is a scary site..
July 2, 2008 6:47:23 PM

I'm not going to make a judgment either way just yet, because 1) we really haven't seen enough of Diablo III to make a proper call, and 2) I think some folks are suffering from nostalgia and have idealized Diablo/Diablo II. Just my opinion.

Anyway, realistic environments/dark lighting/shadows etc. aren't always the best way to go. Look at Grand Theft Auto IV. You can barely tell what's going on in that game at default display settings. So I'm just sayin'....
Related resources
July 2, 2008 6:50:26 PM

haha, scary site indeed! Anyway, I don't really see how the lighting is a problem.... they can just turn their gamma down. These people need to get a monitors with a good contrast ratio and play some titan quest.. i imagine the lighting will be somewhat similar in caves and what not, and it's pretty decent for me... the demo video they released appears to be far from finished as far as the lighting goes, and there's already people complaining about it. and THAT is why you never realease anything before the game is almost finished... don't give the complainers time to really think about stuff to complain about.... then they've already bought the game.

If i were blizzard i would just think to myself "ok, spend a little more time on some lighting effects before launch. and the petition, that's just a garunteed 15k people that will buy the full version of the game no matter what crap we put out." hahaha.

note: the lighting in the demo video looks 100% better on a high contrast monitor compared to low contrast monitor, i watched it on both... I really do think the lighting effects could use some brushing, but I don't see the brightness as an issue, just turn the gamma down.
July 2, 2008 6:53:24 PM

agreed, the game is far from finished. I've heard estimates as far out as 2 years... but I don't know if blizzard would release a game play video 2 years before completion? You've been around the block Rob, you have any guestimates to when this might hit shelves? My personal guess is that they'll be aiming for holiday season of one or another, but who knows.
July 2, 2008 7:01:59 PM

nachowarrior said:
agreed, the game is far from finished. I've heard estimates as far out as 2 years... but I don't know if blizzard would release a game play video 2 years before completion? You've been around the block Rob, you have any guestimates to when this might hit shelves? My personal guess is that they'll be aiming for holiday season of one or another, but who knows.


Well, games like Diablo III are 5-6 year projects in my mind. And Blizzard will use all of that dev cycle time, believe me. So if the game has already been in the works for 3 years, then that means there's probably another two years minimum to go. We're looking at 2010, therefore. I think 2009 is a pipe dream frankly. Look at it this way: StarCraft II was announced what, a year ago? And we still don't have a release date. And if it comes out this year, it will be late 2008. So I think early-mid 2010 is probably a safe bet.
July 2, 2008 7:03:43 PM

Here's something that hasn't been brought up yet. Anyone notice how it looks like Titan's Quest? I would even go so far as to say it could be TQ2.

Wonder if some ex Iron Lore employees ended up on Blizzards doorstep?
July 2, 2008 7:11:36 PM

fastanglx said:
Here's something that hasn't been brought up yet. Anyone notice how it looks like Titan's Quest? I would even go so far as to say it could be TQ2.

Wonder if some ex Iron Lore employees ended up on Blizzards doorstep?


Interesting theory, but I'm not sure the timing works out. Diablo III has been in production for three years already, and Iron Lore went out of business a few months back. So even if Blizzard did pick up some of TQ design team, I'm not sure they'd have much time to contribute.
July 2, 2008 7:16:00 PM

I think its a little too early to judge D3. Artistically I think its fine although it does have a slight warcraft feel to it, from what I've seen so far the action has improved and the new monsters look awesome especially the collossal sized ones. Kinda like Dungeon Siege 2.
Im sure the developers will do whats best for the fans, after all its not like they are going to rush it based on past experience.
July 2, 2008 7:52:36 PM

It's been so many years, but that comment on light radius reminded me of the "gotdamitsdark" helm lol
July 2, 2008 8:57:47 PM

HAHAHA I can't believe this! I can;t believe Blizzard fanbois! Already criticizing a game that was just revealed? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! A game that will not be finished, let alone released for 1 or 2 years at the very least? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I play World of Warcraft and I am a very big Blizzard fan but come on people! There are more important things to do in life than judge a game based on 1 damn introductory level!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
July 2, 2008 9:12:07 PM

The rest of their screenshots are pretty lame and consist of messing with the levels and saturation, and increasing the intensity in the "light radius" of the character. This isn't Fallout 3 we're talking about. Blizzard isn't Bethesda. They're not going to **** up an awesome game.
July 2, 2008 9:30:14 PM

two years... uhg. I guess it does make sense though from a business standpoint. starcraft 2 first, for money 2008-2009 years, then 2009-2010 for diablo 3, why compete with yourself within your own fanbase... if they both released at the same time, and i only had 50 bucks in my pocket, i'd pick diablo 3 first... and i'm not likely to buy 2 games at once, as I don't really have enough time to switch between two games, i like to get into one game, then move onto the next one. and i think that the starcraft and diablo fanbase crosses over... so that will be a sure sign that you're right Rob... next year later on if not 2010, starcraft 2 will release fist i'd believe.
July 2, 2008 11:49:49 PM

I have a super simple solution to people who crave D3 to be darker.... simply adjust your monitor to a darker setting and bam darker Diablo III.

Also I agree, wait till its done till you start complaining... I hate when my wife complains about something I just started.
July 3, 2008 12:53:57 AM

^a key point in the petition, is if they "wait to complain", it will be too late. You complain about small things in a near finished product, like balance, things missing from the UI, spell tree layout. Not the art direction. Frankly, its already probably too late.

I don't mind the new look, and on first glance thought it just seemed very "blizzard" in style... it reminded me of color use in Starcraft and Warcraft games... but, admittedly, while I liked it, I didn't think that this looked like a Diablo game.

My experience with Diablo, was mainly from Diablo 2, and Lord of Destruction. The characters were in proportion, seemed to be intended to be realistic, had no customization, and the environments were dark, dirty, and gothic. It all added up to a certain atmosphere, that currently Diablo III does not have.

I credit this to Blizzard taking the art direction of Diablo to a broader audience.... and I don't like the sellout attitude.

I have many questions for Blizzard on this one... for starters: Why in the living **** are there female barbarians in Diablo III? Why are the character models cartoonish? Why are the armor and weapons exaggerated? Why do the textures look like they were made by oil pastels? What happened to the light radius? Are you merging the Diablo and Warcraft franchises? Do I get to play as an Orc?

If I wanted a cartoon Diablo clone with pastel textures, I'd just play Mythos... its going to be free, and apparently has some ex-Diablo programmers working on the project.
July 3, 2008 2:49:39 AM

I haven't played Diablo for a long time but when I reached the town in Duskwood in WoW I thought that if they were working on a Diablo sequel then that's how Tristram would look like.

I think the blue green glow they could change easily but they can't do it at the last minute...so maybe it's not too early to voice opinions regarding the art direction.
July 3, 2008 7:51:22 AM

During the interview they said its a secret when someone ask about secret cow level, but in another interview on a website they said theres no secret cow level.

They better add the cow level or make a new one.
July 3, 2008 10:34:07 AM

Yes, we need an excuse to cut off Wart's other leg eh? :p 
July 3, 2008 11:33:13 AM

Blizzard's lead producer Keith Lee

Quote:
So this is what Lee had to say about the art direction when we spoke in Paris: “One of the things that we considered when we were working on the visuals for ‘Diablo III’ is the fact that color is your friend. We feel that color actually helps to create a lot of highlights in the game so that there is contrast. A great analogy is like in ‘Lord of the Rings’ — not everything is dark. It allows you to see what a creepy dungeon can be like but if everything is dark it doesn’t allow you to have a lot of contrast.”

He continued: “‘Diablo I’ and ‘Diablo II’ are darker, and I think that the one of the main reasons why is the fact that in ‘Diablo I,’ you’re basically in a dungeon the whole time. And in contrast to ‘Diablo III,’ you’ll be exploring outdoors, you’ll be in dungeons, you’ll be experiencing so many different areas. We want to bring as much variety as we can when you’re playing the game so that you’re excited to check out new environments. We don’t want everything to look the same and that’s really what we’re trying to aim for.
July 3, 2008 11:58:21 AM

While I will say that the concept image for what they want looks much cooler, I'm not sure if it would be as playable. Also the art is just fine as is. It isn't anything special, but I never really played Diablo for the art. I mean really, who loaded up Diablo 2 and went 'wow, this art is amazing'.

I'm just going to sit back and keep an eye on this game. I trust Blizzard to make it good.
July 3, 2008 1:29:58 PM

you know, i still hold out hope for a high resolution patch for D2 but i have no idea why(for my 1680x1050 lcd i guess)

im really looking forward to D3, but im gonna have to forget about it till the release, or try and get in the BETA(if its not already out)

July 3, 2008 2:20:33 PM

I like what they have because it's so blizzard in style. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is Blizzard definitely know what they are doing and if you want darker environments simply adjust the gamma and the issue is solved. I've had enough of raining and dark areas in D2 LOD and I Don't want to see another D2. I know keeping the good things up are necssary but I don't think doing the same things again and again without adding something new would please the mainstream fanbase. IF I have to put it into one sentence, it's simply breakout of that boring custom(darker, gothic theme, it's ok to be gothic but don't make the whole game gothic) and do what's right, 1/3 new ideas, 1/3 classic designs, and 1/3 whatever they think it's right to the fanbase.
July 3, 2008 2:22:34 PM

I think they went that route for D3 simply because of the success of WoW. WoW succeeds, partially because it can be played on almost any modern PC in the last 4-5 years or so.

You also use an existing graphics engine, in this case it looks almost exactly the same as the engine they built for Star Craft 2, and you build it to run on Direct X 8 or greater cards. I also would have liked to see a more realistic approach of the game as well, but I can see why they are pushing this route.
July 3, 2008 6:57:33 PM

HI All.. new to this forum

Like many of you here... I am pumped about Diablo 3's release and I'm certianly not going to let a mess of nonsense from "colour haters" and"scenery bashers" ruin that.

I totally agree with te sentiments of Archvictoros-some gothic elements are classic, but leave a little room for originality.

Came across this pro Dioablo petition attempting to squelch the anti-Diablo sentiment in the air..

http://www.thenextbench.com/hpg/blog/article?message.ui...
July 3, 2008 8:46:27 PM

The whole friggin' game doesn't need to be so dark that you can't see anything. That's just stupid. I don't know about you guys, but in the dark, I don't glow. Watch the Diablo 3 Gameplay Trailer on fileplanet. Fast forward to about 3:20 and pause it. Look around at the scenery there and tell me that isn't very dark. Sure, you can see, but that's a good thing in my book. What's the point of creating all that art if you can only see it when you're a foot away? In fact, everything from the beginning to about 11:45 is dark enough.

The problem for me only arose around 11:55. Those textures are straight out of WoW. I may have a little problem with that. The game does seem to have lost it's gritty feeling. Maybe this could be improved. But, CURSE the ridiculous light radius. I don't even want that to return.

Either way, I'll still buy the game, because the game-play will undoubtedly make up for any stylistic goof up.
July 3, 2008 8:48:45 PM

stemnin said:
Blizzard's lead producer Keith Lee

Quote:
So this is what Lee had to say about the art direction when we spoke in Paris: “One of the things that we considered when we were working on the visuals for ‘Diablo III’ is the fact that color is your friend. We feel that color actually helps to create a lot of highlights in the game so that there is contrast. A great analogy is like in ‘Lord of the Rings’ — not everything is dark. It allows you to see what a creepy dungeon can be like but if everything is dark it doesn’t allow you to have a lot of contrast.”

He continued: “‘Diablo I’ and ‘Diablo II’ are darker, and I think that the one of the main reasons why is the fact that in ‘Diablo I,’ you’re basically in a dungeon the whole time. And in contrast to ‘Diablo III,’ you’ll be exploring outdoors, you’ll be in dungeons, you’ll be experiencing so many different areas. We want to bring as much variety as we can when you’re playing the game so that you’re excited to check out new environments. We don’t want everything to look the same and that’s really what we’re trying to aim for.


I'm quoting this quote because the 15,000 or whatever number of people that signed that stupid petition have obviously overlooked this point.
July 3, 2008 8:54:35 PM

Ahh I remember back in Diablo 1 me and a friend ran around with Darky McDark and Lightbulb.

Darky McDark wore the Gotterdamerung and anything else that decreased light radius. Lightbulb wore everything he could find that increased his.

We made a lot of silly characters in that game. I had one character that I cheated to put a scavenger's Carapace in every equipment slot but weapon and gave him a Weird Axe. The Scavenger's Carapace gave like -60 armor class and reduced incoming damage by 15 if I remember correctly. In other words, everything that attacked him, hit him, but it only did 1 damage. This included Diablo himself. About halfway through nightmare the character became completely unplayable though.
July 3, 2008 10:18:51 PM

ive seen the gameplay trailer and dont find it dark, perhaps its my monitor.
July 3, 2008 10:43:46 PM

No, the gameplay trailer isn't dark at all, the dark comments were referring to the "desired" changes in art direction that the petition signers were wanting.
July 4, 2008 7:45:52 AM

The trailer's awesome! The gameplay video... lacks something...
July 4, 2008 10:10:33 AM

Here is what I hope Diablo III can capture.
During the day you are safe, things look brighter, people wonder around but nobody ever looks at you or really talks and when they do it's in a quick nervous way. It maybe bright, nice, and everybody seems to be OK but there is something really wrong.
The sun starts to go down and suddenly everyone is running for their homes, the doors get locked around you, somewhere in the distance a woman is screaming for her child hysterically.
Then it gets Dark and all you hear is utter silence. There is no more screaming, no sounds of footsteps, no movement behind the curtains.
And then out of one of the houses a single word floats out.
That word is "Run."
I agree with "Oh Snap". Blizzard isn't going to f*** this up. If they capture the above feeling where you want to keep all the lights on in your house then that would way more than I could expect. Right now I'm overjoyed in the fact that in about 3-5 years I'll be playing a game with a great story line.
July 4, 2008 7:27:16 PM

Cuddles said:
Here is what I hope Diablo III can capture.
During the day you are safe, things look brighter, people wonder around but nobody ever looks at you or really talks and when they do it's in a quick nervous way. It maybe bright, nice, and everybody seems to be OK but there is something really wrong.
The sun starts to go down and suddenly everyone is running for their homes, the doors get locked around you, somewhere in the distance a woman is screaming for her child hysterically.
Then it gets Dark and all you hear is utter silence. There is no more screaming, no sounds of footsteps, no movement behind the curtains.
And then out of one of the houses a single word floats out.
That word is "Run."
I agree with "Oh Snap". Blizzard isn't going to f*** this up. If they capture the above feeling where you want to keep all the lights on in your house then that would way more than I could expect. Right now I'm overjoyed in the fact that in about 3-5 years I'll be playing a game with a great story line.


Word.

So excited. I think they are probably borrowing some graphics elements from WoW right now just to make the thing playable, but they will slowly change things out and make them better and more Diabloey.
Blizzard won't eff this one up - it's going to be fantastic.
July 5, 2008 12:58:14 AM

Perhaps half the problem is that a lot of die hard fans are mistaking atmosphere for "darkness"

From what i've seen of the diablo3 gameplay, it reeks of atmosphere and the environments are definitely very highly detailed for a preview.

I think a lot of people who want diablo3 to return to the "gothic look" of diablo1 forget that "dark colors" wasn't really what made diablo1 have a great atmosphere. It was the constant feeling of bleekness and imminent threat that gave diablo1 its atmosphere; walking up to the church in tristram for the first time with its red glow and seeing the man lying wounded on the ground. Finding the butcher's lair for the first time and seeing the impaled corpses, ichor and gore covering the walls. These are examples that anyone should be able to relate to easily; although there are lots more events like this throughout Diablo1 that definitely maintained the "eery" mood. These were the things which gave diablo1 its horrifying and gothic atmosphere. Not just having a bloody dark color-set and low light-radius.

I really think the jury is still out as to whether or not Diablo3 will capture the same sort of essence of horror that Diablo1 did - although from the Barbarian vs Summoned Demon sequence partway through, it does appear to have some potential in this regard. I really think the sky is the limit and the goal of Diablo 3 design should be to make memorable moments and good consistant atmosphere transition over simply making the whole damnable game look like an alleyway.
July 6, 2008 12:51:14 AM

^ Diablo 2 lost some of that gothic stuff and look, it was so much better!
July 6, 2008 2:40:04 PM

I really enjoyed all the Diablos of ages past, but I do not plan on getting the latest installment. Blizzard is to blame, as they have already got me hooked on ganking Allies in WoW. In this economic disaster, I can in no way justify spending 3 months ( or more) subscription money on something that ,while nice looking, is not very Horde. This is a case of Blizzard competing with itself, my own questionable choices notwithstanding.
That's my 2 copper.
July 7, 2008 8:03:37 PM

GherkinPekul said:
I really enjoyed all the Diablos of ages past, but I do not plan on getting the latest installment. Blizzard is to blame, as they have already got me hooked on ganking Allies in WoW. In this economic disaster, I can in no way justify spending 3 months ( or more) subscription money on something that ,while nice looking, is not very Horde. This is a case of Blizzard competing with itself, my own questionable choices notwithstanding.
That's my 2 copper.


I think it's rather funny that you quantify it in terms of subscription value. Regardless, I don't think that most people playing games are so hard pressed that $50 is going to prevent them from buying a Blizzard title. Not only that I think the games appeal to two different markets.

WoW is built on the social mechanics of the game especially in the high end PvE segment. Long extended gameplay sessions work better in WoW, but if you've got 30 minutes to play there isn't even a reason to log into WoW. Diablo has previously been much more forgiving in that 1 person can do the same thing that 8 people can as the difficulty scales. If you've only got 10 minutes in Diablo 2 you can still accomplish a few boss runs if you're good. I know this is why I left WoW. I don't have 4-6 hour blocks of time to play the game anymore, so it simply wasn't fun. If I have to get huge groups of people in Diablo 3 and devote hours at a time, then it'll be a failure in my eyes.
July 8, 2008 11:44:58 AM

^^ That is what's great with Guild Wars (though I would've liked to do more solo stuff, taking henchmen for missions was kinda frustrating sometimes (even heroes can be so). You can do most missions in 20-40 min (some less if you can run through). Can't wait for GW2, I hope it keeps that. Though instances (dungeons) could take groups upto 3 hours when they first opened, once everyone knew how to go through each room (and bring the right skills) it wouldn't take that long at all.
July 8, 2008 1:31:56 PM

i had massive problems with GW, there wasnt enough weapons/armour to keep me occupied, I couldnt solo, and the difficulty of the missions felt completely random, one mission being really hard, and the next really easy. i just couldn't get away with it.
July 8, 2008 5:57:34 PM

All I can say is who gives a **** about how a game looks as long as it's fun? I remember being disappointed with Zelda Windwaker because of the cartoony graphics but once I actually started playing the game, I thought it was excellent and the artistic choices actually made sense.
July 9, 2008 1:58:36 AM

bitching won't solve anything, and like I had mentioned before, just turn your brightness down, that will make it harder to see. I always had to turn the gamma up on diablo 1 and 2 becuase i couldn't see crap. But i would adjust it to where i could see and still enjoy the intended levels. Not to mention the fact that if you didn't have you gamma cranked enough in D1 and D2 you got jipped otu of good items because nobody knew how to share any dropped items on any given quest, so you HAD to crank up the gamma and made it look like crap. So I'm all for it, make it look good at a decent brightness level. and leave it at that.
July 9, 2008 2:37:04 AM

Maybe separate 'profiles' of colour to keep the fans happy?
!