Ten days ago, after an incredibly successful viral marketing ploy ensured truckloads of eyeballs were at the ready, Blizzard Entertainment unveiled the long-awaited Diablo III at their Worldwide Invitational in Paris. Many were pleased. But in the days since, a single online petition has revealed that at least 40,000 individuals were not.
They took issue with the game's art style, decrying the oversaturated, cartoony look, which they felt was more like the fantastical World of Warcraft than the gothic bloodletting adventure they'd come to know and love. Is their opinion justified? Does it matter either way?
In his own petition, former PC Gamer editor Greg Vederman points out that it's a hell of a thing for tens of thousands of fans to dump on the artists who've toiled for so long to make Diablo III a reality. I agree.
In a amusing post, Destructoid's Jim Sterling decries the audacity of gamers who claim to know Diablo better than its own creators. He and I are in accordance.
In an interview with MTV Multiplayer, Diablo III's lead producer Keith Lee argues that "color is your friend," because color allows for contrast and a variety of different, interesting environments to explore. I can't argue with that.
And yet, having thought about the matter at length, I too signed the petition. Why? Not because I think Blizzard's artists aren't incredibly talented, and certainly not because I know Diablo any better than they. I signed the petition because I know what I like, and I like this...
...infinitely more than the original.
To risk stating the obvious -- though these two screens sport the exact same setting, their atmosphere is as different as night and day. In the former, rain lances down like arrows upon the corpses of your recently defeated foes, as your barbarian charges in to deliver a epic strike worthy of Thor himself, its power seemingly drawn directly from the storm. If you look closely, there is distinguishable color, but it's muted to allow light and shadow to take precedence on the now-ominous bridge. Blizzard's original shot is colorful, but doesn't convey similar emotion.
Here, your hero walks down a blue-tinted staircase whose appearance implies a long history of disuse...
...and here, a set of dark, ichor-stained steps have a slightly different history visibly cloven into their stone. Which staircase would you rather your hero traverse?
This Witch Doctor can immediately see all her foes clear through to the very edge of the green-tinted screen, and will thus always be able to properly prepare herself...
...while this Witch Doctor will face fear of the unknown, unless she strategically uses light sources and walls to her advantage. Which encounter sounds more fun?
I don't really expect that Blizzard will change Diablo III's art style at this point; at least not now that a number of populararticles have made out the petitioning fans to be impudent hypocrites, and a prominent artist from the original Diablo II team has come out in support of the title. I also believe Blizzard has a lot to gain by leaving the graphics as they are.
Last week I theorized that Blizzard was making synergistic use of their 10-million-strong World of Warcraft audience to help spread the word about Diablo III -- but what if the familiar appearance is designed to draw them in as well? Just as WarCraft III introducedheroes to tempt action players into the RTS genre, here Diablo III could be introducing WoW art to tempt MMO enthusiasts into their new action-RPG.
But I am not attracted to all of these darker screenshots because they look like Diablo, but because they look like a game I want to play. Even if Blizzard doesn't lift a finger themselves, those 40,000 signatures still signify an unserved market. One has to wonder if competing studios might take notice of a potentially valuable opportunity. If a rival action-RPG with a darker style arrived before Diablo III, might some of those tens of thousands give it a go?
Who else might be seriously listening to these 40,000 voices?
its all subjective - i will take every d3 that will come dark or not ... graphix is just small part of whole game and to add to that all these "after" screenshots are made from daylight locations ... what will bee seen at night cycle? will we be forced to look for diablo's nightvision helmet?
get a clue and just be thankfull they didnt just leave diablo to rot at d2
@rea: You've got a good point as far as the first before/after shot is concerned, but there's far more going on in shots two and three than just the difference between night and day.
But my overall point, again, is not that the retouched shots are any more Diablo than Blizzard's own vision, but that they reflect the game I'd rather be playing. And that the opinion of 40,000 people who feel the same way should not be rejected out of hand.
I think it looks good either way. I wonder how many of those 40,000 people who've signed the "petition" will go out and get the game anyways. My guess is a vast majority of them will.
You have to realize that the petition is polarizing the argument of having the art direction changed. It ranges from people who are weak in opinion that are easily swayed from a few darker screenshots to those who fervently believe the game looks to "cartoonish."
You also cannot say that Blizzard is not listening. They are listening. They care about fans and public relations, more so than many other game companies. They may make a few small changes to the graphics. They are not, however, going to change the art direction. As stated in Jim Sterling's post, Blizzard does know better. But I'm not going to take their word for it. Here is my take on why this new art direction is good.
I've played Diablo 2 for a long time and I've actually returned to playing it recently. I've also played many games similar to Diablo 2, such as Divine Divinity, Fate, Hellgate London, and more recently Titan Quest. I prefer more color in the artistic style because it encourages more on exploration and adventure. What I like about Diablo 2 in a graphics standpoint, are the flashy colorful spells (think sorc spells, poison nova, bone spirit, druid elemental spells) and the blood and gore from corpse explosion. What sucked was the 8-bit drab and bland color scheme and the annoying and inhibiting light radius.
If you prefer to play games that have a darker color scheme, such as Hellgate London or Resident Evil, then I have nothing more to say. But many who've signed the petition idealize the dark/gothic feel they remembered of the Diablo games. Once some of the fans saw the amount of colors in this game, they took an extremists position stating it was too "cartoonish" and too much "WoW influence." They failed to see the game as a whole and made rash judgements and outlandish comments from some still screenshots.
I actually imagined myself playing the game from the gameplay footage. I imagined I was playing the barbarian in the beginning of the gameplay video before the commentator was talking and I thought it was pretty creepy for all those zombies to climb up on the walls (something that never happened in Diablo 2 anyways) with the Diablo'ish music in the background. So while it does look more colorful and prettier than the previous games, I feel that it successfully maintains and sometimes even surpasses the dark/creepy feeling of the past games.
@xcelsior: I commend you on your balanced, well thought-out opinion.
Personally, I thought the wall-climbing zombies were a nice touch, but that they weren't particularly creepy when you could see them coming a mile away.
Like you, I'm a big fan of gore and explosions (Jade Empire's harmonic combos make me giggle with delight) but I suppose I do like my games a little darker than most. Before I got involved in the never-ending quest for unique items, I enjoyed Diablo II because it scared me -- I never knew what vile creature was lurking just around the corner, waiting to sink its fangs or blades or ball of lightning into my neck, and I enjoyed the resulting thrill when facing the game's demons.
Certainly, there were plenty of places in Diablo II where that feeling wasn't present, like the Arcane Sanctuary, but I saw nothing that felt remotely creepy in the D3 trailer or screens.
I'm sure it's not very scary watching someone play Diablo 2, which is what people are doing by merely watching the gameplay footage and not actually playing the game. As you said, what made Diablo 2 scary was fearing monsters lurking around the corner when you're actually playing. And especially if you're playing hardcore mode, what's scary is the fear of a multishot lightning enchanted monster killing you, or those bone fetishes in Durance of Hate (act3) or Throne of Destruction (act5) popping and killing you in one hit, or when you're a barbarian dying from your own whirlwind from those Oblivion Knights in act4.
Perhaps what was a little discouraging is the player was too strong in the gameplay video as most of the monsters barely hurt the player. But imagine if those zombies climbing up the wall were actually much stronger, or if that glutton boss summoned from those 5 cultists could actually one shot you just like he did against one of your ally npc's, wouldn't you be scared? "Oh shit, oh shit, I'm going to get fucked by a lot of zombies..." "OMG, HE JUST KILLED MY HIRELING IN ONE HIT!!! RUNNNNN!!!1!11!!"
Anyway, my point is that you may not like what you "see" because it doesn't "look" dark or scary enough. But "playing" and being involved in a game is a whole other story. If I want to "see" something scary, I'd watch a scary movie. But since we don't have a playable demo, then I stress the word "imagine." Think about the time one of the players gets his head ripped off by the siege beast boss at the end of the video. Imagine you were that player. I think I'd be scared shitless instead of feeling merely disappointed when I hear a squeal followed by the generic death animation I get whenever I die in Diablo 2.
As you said, most of what you found to be scary and creepy in the past games is the thrill of facing monsters behind the corner that will charge and strike, something that Diablo 3 is bound to be plentiful of. I argue that this has little to do with the lighter, more vibrant new art direction. You'll probably argue that the darker environment, the hellfire color scheme, and the inhibiting light radius adds to more of the overall creepiness to the game. I take it you'd probably like the art style of Resident Evil 4, right? That game looks very beautiful, despite its recurring dark and gloomy atmosphere. However, there are a few places, such as one of Ada's missions, that that game has a bluish-green hue to it, just like the sanctuary shown in Diablo 3's gameplay video.
Being as this is a Diablo game, I assure you that you will see a hellfire color scheme at some point in the game. I know if I see the same dark hellfire scheme whenever I venture inside a dungeon, I'd find the game looking very boring. So please, give this new art direction a chance. I guarantee you that this game will be scary despite the new art direction with added variety. If you can't imagine (and I stress this word as I stated previously) the scariness from the gameplay video, either you don't have a vivid enough imagination or you've simply grown desensitized to scariness in games. If it's the latter, I suggest you replay Diablo or Diablo 2 and see if it's as scary as you remembered. I rest my case.
@xcelsior: You have your opinion, and I have mine. I signed the petition because I believe that the new art direction of Diablo III is not in the same spirit as the rest of the Diablo universe. It is trying to capture over WoW players for the inevitable end of WoW and beginning of Diablo Online (my prediction). I see too much adoption from WoW and not enough of Diablo in the game.
I don't like the coloration, but more so, I don't like the WoWish stylization of the characters and more-so the backgrounds. Certainly as Blizzard said, Stylization does not mean cartoony, but in this case it does. I truely believe that if Blizzard has to "justify" the new art direction to fans of the series, then the new art direction should not have taken place.
I have played Diablo I and II. I have also played Dungeon Siege I and II, Neverwinter Nights I and II, Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance I and II, Champions of Norrath I and II, NoX, Titan Quest, Sacred, numerous Gauntlets, and other games, all in the hopes of finding the successor to Diablo II. None have succeeded, even though I have found all of them fun in some way. None have captured the mood of Diablo.
Diablo III looks like it can fit right in with the rest of those games and less in with it's own series. I'm sure that it will be fun to play, however, it does not strike me as being a successor to its own series. Aliens vs. Predator to Aliens if you will. That is too bad really, but it seems that Blizzard is just going for the bigger paycheck instead of appealing to the fans of the series. I can see it though, since it is Blizzard (the makers of WoW and such) and not Blizzard North (the makers of Diablo) doing this game.
they complain about the game,
but in the end,
the game was analysed through 20 minutes of gameplay, which wasn't even remotely close to the finished job,
and they're still going to shell out cash to buy the game to play it.
blizzard can better well do what they want to do.
long live blizzard
@Lord Jaroh: Then I ask you, have you played Hellgate London? Many of the core executives of Diablo and Diablo 2 left Blizzard North to start Flagship Studios and their flagship game was Hellgate London. It matches in art style and mood to what you hold dear in the past Diablo games. Get it and try it. You'll find it's not up to par to Diablo just like the rest of the games you've mentioned, and it's not because of how it looked. It's because of the gameplay and how it all fits together does not match Diablo in terms of addictiveness.
If you're such a fervent fan of Diablo, then you should recall Diablo 2 is much more colorful and vibrant than Diablo. Diablo was completely inside dungeons and underground lairs whereas in Diablo 2 you see lush jungles in Act 3, snow covered peaks in Arreat Summit, and the deserts of Lut Gholein. Were you there to complain about Diablo 2 held outside in vibrant environments? I bet not. Even if you did, you probably enjoyed Diablo 2, probably more so than Diablo.
I find it disrespectful you're not acknowledging those who disagree with the petition as fans. As I've said in my earlier post here, the petition serves to polarize the argument of a change in art direction. Some are easily swayed by some still screenshots and also some who fervently believe that a change is necessary. It does not count those who've changed their mind after thinking the situation more thoroughly. It also does not count many more who don't read forums but still anticipate the release of the game who probably have no gripes with the new art direction.
You have every right to complain about the new art direction. I'm merely pointing out flaws to your argument. I just urge you to stop being so pessimistic and stuck with the past. If you were inclined to play Titan Quest (which is a more colorful and vibrant game than Diablo), then your intention to find a successor of Diablo was not the art style, it was the addictive gameplay.
@xcelsior: Yes, I played Hellgate London. I did not like the camera nor the futuristic bend of the game, but I did enjoy it. It did lack a certain...something that I was looking for, which is why I went back to Diablo II.
I do recall that D2 was more "lush" than Diablo I, and I also felt that D2 lacked a little...something that Diablo had, the claustrophobic, moody, scary feel to it. Diablo II never had the deep dungeon feel to it, which I was hoping that Diablo III would remedy. If you look at the style of the "lush" environments in Diablo II, they were also of a darker vein. The colors were of the darker variety, not the bright, almost overwhelming aspects of D3.
I find it disrespectful that other people want the game to change from what it was rather than stay true to the series. What about those that signed the "keep the art" petition and then realize they want it changed after all, that Diablo III seems to lack something the other two had?
Of course I have every right to argue the art direction. When a series of games changes course mid-stride it is because they are looking to capture a different market because the earlier ones didn't do as well as hoped. That is not the case with Diablo II. It was extremely popular and has a still large following. So why change what isn't broke? Because they feel they can tap into the WoW market which is larger at the expense of the original fans.
Remember Star Wars Galaxies? They changed their game as well hoping to grab a market they did not have yet and look what happened to it.
As a sidenote, I followed Titan Quest because I also liked the theme of the game. I liked the addictive gameplay, and I didn't mind the art, within Titan Quest. I liked Mario 3. Should I want Diablo III to follow its footsteps then? Why was God of War and it's sequals successful? Is it because they changed from each other or is it because they held true to the overall vision of the theme?
If you want a more colorful game, I might suggest picking up many numerous titles that aren't Diablo nor Diablo II. It's too bad as a fan of the series that I want Diablo III to follow in their footsteps rather than become a different style of game.
@Lord Jaroh: Sequels are meant to improve upon many aspects of its previous game but stay true to the overall vision of the series. The overall vision includes cooperative online play, addictive monster bashing, blood and gore, dungeon exploration, and collecting awesome loot. I argue that this change in art direction does not deviate in the overall vision and is an improvement to the look of the game. If the game looked like Ragnarok Online, then it’d really be deviating from the vision and I’d be signing the petition. But it doesn’t, and it looks awesome and is a fitting welcome for the series. It doesn’t change the style of the game because I’m still bashing zombies with cool abilities and spells. What’s even better is I’m now able to explode their skulls out in many different directions, something not present in Diablo 2.
It's not that like Blizzard isn’t keeping the insidious feeling of the past games. It’s hard to judge from still screenshots but I feel it when I'm imagining I'm playing the barbarian on the gameplay video.
However, you and many others who’ve signed the petition do not see the colorful new art style as an improvement as I do, especially if one hasn’t played the game or imagine vividly playing the game from the gameplay video. That’s understandable. It’s impossible to please everyone. But I advocate that there are just as many, if not more, of us that embrace this new art direction than those who deny it. It’s just we don’t speak as loudly because we have less to complain about. If I had anything to complain about, it’d be that I wish the corpses would stay around longer. But that’s a very minor complaint.
In the end, the addictive gameplay is going to determine the success of Diablo 3 as the rightful heir to the series. In comparison, the argument about having a little less color is moot. And in the end, you won’t mind the new art style, just like you did with Titan Quest, and you will claim Diablo 3’s as a worthy successor due to its amazing gameplay.
Here's the skinny: 40,000? What difference will that make? 100,000 wouldn't. 200,000 wouldn't. You have big numbers? OK. You have 40,000 petitioning. The rest of us have no complaints, therefore we have no reason to sign anything, which means whatever your number is, the number of those without complaints is an intimidating multitude of size.
Will you play the game? Oh, yes, you will. And you -will- like it. Ever noticed a lot of "videos" are usually a couple shades too high in gamma as compared to the actual subject?
Have you taken the time to compare, seeing that there are more colors, better resolution and color quality, not more brightness?
The difference is Diablo II looked like a sandbox under a constant effect of tremors. It looked like sand with color. Sand is gritty. It's bland. Every screen looked the same in Diablo II. Reason : lack of colors, lack of color quality, lack of resolution. There wasn't the flexibility to change. I go outside, it's dark. I go into a dungeon, it's just as dark. What the fuck is that?
So Heaven and Hell are waging war with a world stuck between it, and so the sun ceases to exist, precipitation takes a vacation, and solar refraction runs for its life? Demons are pissed, so the suns rays no longer split through water making a rainbow? Gee, that's not cartoony, that's real fucking real. Diablo II was like a set on a TV show. It was synthetic, expected, predicted, needed, conditioned. The gameplay, terrific. The plot, terrific. Diablo III has gameplay, plot and life via color. It's realer, adaptable, flexible, holds character, and has dynamics, dimensions and possibility - not just something to look at, something to feel. But no, you pest, you critter, manythings to feel, not the same GOD damn something in every room and landscape.
You have it twisted, sir. Diablo II's gameplay and plot distracted from the art, not Diablo III's art distracting from gameplay and plot. Blizz learned and made all three factors top notch, and you will happily accept this when you practically break the case and mouse from waiting for it to install, and have that stupid jaw drop to your collar bone - as will each and every of those 40,000. Not play it? Who're they kiddin', that bluff that Blizz will lose customers is a joke, and Blizz knows it. If anything I say they started this crap somewhere to pick up discussion and really call attention. I saw this shit on MSNBC. That is epic. Blizz is the boss of this shit. Act knowledged.
in the end, those 40,000 will just pirate the game if its not changed and the other majority who don't mind the change will buy the game,
all are winners
blizzard gets cash
petitioners get there satisfaction.
blizzard gets cash from gamers nostalgia later on
in 5 years, well all be running to buy the battle chests.
I kid. But I'm torn. I've been playing D2 for a while now because it runs really nice on my laptop. I like the atmosphere, but jebus, it's hard to play after too long at the wrong angle. I feel like I'm squinting, just to see stuff on the ground. The new style is nice. The old style was nice. Can't we all just get along?
My main hope is that D3 will be as modable as the first two, and that a month or so after release, the Darkened Diablo Design (D3, get it?) mod will come out. If you like the old style, drop it in, and wallah. If you like the new, ignore it, and wallah wallah!
I signed the petition, never did i say i wouldn't buy it. I'm against the art changing in the game. But I know i'll both buy and play and probably love it aswell for a long time. Ofcourse they changed the art direction to get more people to play the game, but why oh why did they have to change for more WoW graphix?
And USN you're saying that blizzard won't be loosing gamers on this graphic change? They pretty much might, i quit WoW couse once you hit max level it got rather boring, raiding all the dungeouns, getting the best pvp items. And what's better then to change game to a game that has other graphics but more important different gameplay, yeah diablo 3 and WoW aren't even close to the same gameplay, but having the same graphics might make alot of people who played WoW stick to Diablo 3 or once they are done with diablo 3 then realize "Gah, WoW looks lame" (exagurated) couse the graphics looks just like Diablo 3, myself I'm glad i quit WoW half year ago so I won't get bored with the graphics in diablo 3 after let's say 3-6 months (before the expansion is released).
But what's gonna happen in the future of Blizzard, are all their games going to look the same? Couse that's what's happening right now. Having some variaty when playing games is a must, gameplay is different but is this all that matters? - I say no. There will be new games with different graphics than WoW,Warcraft 3 and now Diablo 3.
I love Blizzard, but if this is what's happening to their games with graphics, i hope WoW dies out (which it will, just like all MMOG games ofcourse). And when it does the truth's gonna hit Blizzard that they really shouldn't have gone for the WoW theme in all their games.
And for the love of god blizzard, please don't copy-paste like you did in WoW
[...] 13/07/2008) Another D2er on Diablo 3 (added 12/07/2008) More from Bashiok (added 12/07/2008) Diablo III Petitioners Have a Point, But Who’s Listening? (added 11/07/2008) IGN AU: The Ten Commandments of Diablo III (added 11/07/2008) Six Demons We'd [...]
[...] controversial new direction. 52,000 petitioners will not change Blizzard’s mind. Those photoshopped visions would be boring and unplayable. The Necromancer has realized his full [...]
July 11th, 2008 at 9:57 am
its all subjective - i will take every d3 that will come dark or not ... graphix is just small part of whole game and to add to that all these "after" screenshots are made from daylight locations ... what will bee seen at night cycle? will we be forced to look for diablo's nightvision helmet?
get a clue and just be thankfull they didnt just leave diablo to rot at d2
July 11th, 2008 at 10:33 am
@rea: You've got a good point as far as the first before/after shot is concerned, but there's far more going on in shots two and three than just the difference between night and day.
But my overall point, again, is not that the retouched shots are any more Diablo than Blizzard's own vision, but that they reflect the game I'd rather be playing. And that the opinion of 40,000 people who feel the same way should not be rejected out of hand.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:09 am
I think it looks good either way. I wonder how many of those 40,000 people who've signed the "petition" will go out and get the game anyways. My guess is a vast majority of them will.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
You have to realize that the petition is polarizing the argument of having the art direction changed. It ranges from people who are weak in opinion that are easily swayed from a few darker screenshots to those who fervently believe the game looks to "cartoonish."
You also cannot say that Blizzard is not listening. They are listening. They care about fans and public relations, more so than many other game companies. They may make a few small changes to the graphics. They are not, however, going to change the art direction. As stated in Jim Sterling's post, Blizzard does know better. But I'm not going to take their word for it. Here is my take on why this new art direction is good.
I've played Diablo 2 for a long time and I've actually returned to playing it recently. I've also played many games similar to Diablo 2, such as Divine Divinity, Fate, Hellgate London, and more recently Titan Quest. I prefer more color in the artistic style because it encourages more on exploration and adventure. What I like about Diablo 2 in a graphics standpoint, are the flashy colorful spells (think sorc spells, poison nova, bone spirit, druid elemental spells) and the blood and gore from corpse explosion. What sucked was the 8-bit drab and bland color scheme and the annoying and inhibiting light radius.
If you prefer to play games that have a darker color scheme, such as Hellgate London or Resident Evil, then I have nothing more to say. But many who've signed the petition idealize the dark/gothic feel they remembered of the Diablo games. Once some of the fans saw the amount of colors in this game, they took an extremists position stating it was too "cartoonish" and too much "WoW influence." They failed to see the game as a whole and made rash judgements and outlandish comments from some still screenshots.
I actually imagined myself playing the game from the gameplay footage. I imagined I was playing the barbarian in the beginning of the gameplay video before the commentator was talking and I thought it was pretty creepy for all those zombies to climb up on the walls (something that never happened in Diablo 2 anyways) with the Diablo'ish music in the background. So while it does look more colorful and prettier than the previous games, I feel that it successfully maintains and sometimes even surpasses the dark/creepy feeling of the past games.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
@xcelsior: I commend you on your balanced, well thought-out opinion.
Personally, I thought the wall-climbing zombies were a nice touch, but that they weren't particularly creepy when you could see them coming a mile away.
Like you, I'm a big fan of gore and explosions (Jade Empire's harmonic combos make me giggle with delight) but I suppose I do like my games a little darker than most. Before I got involved in the never-ending quest for unique items, I enjoyed Diablo II because it scared me -- I never knew what vile creature was lurking just around the corner, waiting to sink its fangs or blades or ball of lightning into my neck, and I enjoyed the resulting thrill when facing the game's demons.
Certainly, there were plenty of places in Diablo II where that feeling wasn't present, like the Arcane Sanctuary, but I saw nothing that felt remotely creepy in the D3 trailer or screens.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I'm sure it's not very scary watching someone play Diablo 2, which is what people are doing by merely watching the gameplay footage and not actually playing the game. As you said, what made Diablo 2 scary was fearing monsters lurking around the corner when you're actually playing. And especially if you're playing hardcore mode, what's scary is the fear of a multishot lightning enchanted monster killing you, or those bone fetishes in Durance of Hate (act3) or Throne of Destruction (act5) popping and killing you in one hit, or when you're a barbarian dying from your own whirlwind from those Oblivion Knights in act4.
Perhaps what was a little discouraging is the player was too strong in the gameplay video as most of the monsters barely hurt the player. But imagine if those zombies climbing up the wall were actually much stronger, or if that glutton boss summoned from those 5 cultists could actually one shot you just like he did against one of your ally npc's, wouldn't you be scared? "Oh shit, oh shit, I'm going to get fucked by a lot of zombies..." "OMG, HE JUST KILLED MY HIRELING IN ONE HIT!!! RUNNNNN!!!1!11!!"
Anyway, my point is that you may not like what you "see" because it doesn't "look" dark or scary enough. But "playing" and being involved in a game is a whole other story. If I want to "see" something scary, I'd watch a scary movie. But since we don't have a playable demo, then I stress the word "imagine." Think about the time one of the players gets his head ripped off by the siege beast boss at the end of the video. Imagine you were that player. I think I'd be scared shitless instead of feeling merely disappointed when I hear a squeal followed by the generic death animation I get whenever I die in Diablo 2.
As you said, most of what you found to be scary and creepy in the past games is the thrill of facing monsters behind the corner that will charge and strike, something that Diablo 3 is bound to be plentiful of. I argue that this has little to do with the lighter, more vibrant new art direction. You'll probably argue that the darker environment, the hellfire color scheme, and the inhibiting light radius adds to more of the overall creepiness to the game. I take it you'd probably like the art style of Resident Evil 4, right? That game looks very beautiful, despite its recurring dark and gloomy atmosphere. However, there are a few places, such as one of Ada's missions, that that game has a bluish-green hue to it, just like the sanctuary shown in Diablo 3's gameplay video.
Being as this is a Diablo game, I assure you that you will see a hellfire color scheme at some point in the game. I know if I see the same dark hellfire scheme whenever I venture inside a dungeon, I'd find the game looking very boring. So please, give this new art direction a chance. I guarantee you that this game will be scary despite the new art direction with added variety. If you can't imagine (and I stress this word as I stated previously) the scariness from the gameplay video, either you don't have a vivid enough imagination or you've simply grown desensitized to scariness in games. If it's the latter, I suggest you replay Diablo or Diablo 2 and see if it's as scary as you remembered. I rest my case.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
@xcelsior: You have your opinion, and I have mine. I signed the petition because I believe that the new art direction of Diablo III is not in the same spirit as the rest of the Diablo universe. It is trying to capture over WoW players for the inevitable end of WoW and beginning of Diablo Online (my prediction). I see too much adoption from WoW and not enough of Diablo in the game.
I don't like the coloration, but more so, I don't like the WoWish stylization of the characters and more-so the backgrounds. Certainly as Blizzard said, Stylization does not mean cartoony, but in this case it does. I truely believe that if Blizzard has to "justify" the new art direction to fans of the series, then the new art direction should not have taken place.
I have played Diablo I and II. I have also played Dungeon Siege I and II, Neverwinter Nights I and II, Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance I and II, Champions of Norrath I and II, NoX, Titan Quest, Sacred, numerous Gauntlets, and other games, all in the hopes of finding the successor to Diablo II. None have succeeded, even though I have found all of them fun in some way. None have captured the mood of Diablo.
Diablo III looks like it can fit right in with the rest of those games and less in with it's own series. I'm sure that it will be fun to play, however, it does not strike me as being a successor to its own series. Aliens vs. Predator to Aliens if you will. That is too bad really, but it seems that Blizzard is just going for the bigger paycheck instead of appealing to the fans of the series. I can see it though, since it is Blizzard (the makers of WoW and such) and not Blizzard North (the makers of Diablo) doing this game.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
oh come on, are you serious?
people who signed that petition are idiots
they complain about the game,
but in the end,
the game was analysed through 20 minutes of gameplay, which wasn't even remotely close to the finished job,
and they're still going to shell out cash to buy the game to play it.
blizzard can better well do what they want to do.
long live blizzard
July 11th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
@Lord Jaroh: Then I ask you, have you played Hellgate London? Many of the core executives of Diablo and Diablo 2 left Blizzard North to start Flagship Studios and their flagship game was Hellgate London. It matches in art style and mood to what you hold dear in the past Diablo games. Get it and try it. You'll find it's not up to par to Diablo just like the rest of the games you've mentioned, and it's not because of how it looked. It's because of the gameplay and how it all fits together does not match Diablo in terms of addictiveness.
If you're such a fervent fan of Diablo, then you should recall Diablo 2 is much more colorful and vibrant than Diablo. Diablo was completely inside dungeons and underground lairs whereas in Diablo 2 you see lush jungles in Act 3, snow covered peaks in Arreat Summit, and the deserts of Lut Gholein. Were you there to complain about Diablo 2 held outside in vibrant environments? I bet not. Even if you did, you probably enjoyed Diablo 2, probably more so than Diablo.
I find it disrespectful you're not acknowledging those who disagree with the petition as fans. As I've said in my earlier post here, the petition serves to polarize the argument of a change in art direction. Some are easily swayed by some still screenshots and also some who fervently believe that a change is necessary. It does not count those who've changed their mind after thinking the situation more thoroughly. It also does not count many more who don't read forums but still anticipate the release of the game who probably have no gripes with the new art direction.
You have every right to complain about the new art direction. I'm merely pointing out flaws to your argument. I just urge you to stop being so pessimistic and stuck with the past. If you were inclined to play Titan Quest (which is a more colorful and vibrant game than Diablo), then your intention to find a successor of Diablo was not the art style, it was the addictive gameplay.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:03 am
I'm just going to ask one simple question.
Are you going to play Diablo III for it's gameplay or for the eye candy?
If you want games with eye candy they are a dime a dozen just look at any korean mmorpg.
If you want gameplay they're a lot harder to find and ones with replayability are even harder to find.
July 12th, 2008 at 5:15 am
@xcelsior: Yes, I played Hellgate London. I did not like the camera nor the futuristic bend of the game, but I did enjoy it. It did lack a certain...something that I was looking for, which is why I went back to Diablo II.
I do recall that D2 was more "lush" than Diablo I, and I also felt that D2 lacked a little...something that Diablo had, the claustrophobic, moody, scary feel to it. Diablo II never had the deep dungeon feel to it, which I was hoping that Diablo III would remedy. If you look at the style of the "lush" environments in Diablo II, they were also of a darker vein. The colors were of the darker variety, not the bright, almost overwhelming aspects of D3.
I find it disrespectful that other people want the game to change from what it was rather than stay true to the series. What about those that signed the "keep the art" petition and then realize they want it changed after all, that Diablo III seems to lack something the other two had?
Of course I have every right to argue the art direction. When a series of games changes course mid-stride it is because they are looking to capture a different market because the earlier ones didn't do as well as hoped. That is not the case with Diablo II. It was extremely popular and has a still large following. So why change what isn't broke? Because they feel they can tap into the WoW market which is larger at the expense of the original fans.
Remember Star Wars Galaxies? They changed their game as well hoping to grab a market they did not have yet and look what happened to it.
As a sidenote, I followed Titan Quest because I also liked the theme of the game. I liked the addictive gameplay, and I didn't mind the art, within Titan Quest. I liked Mario 3. Should I want Diablo III to follow its footsteps then? Why was God of War and it's sequals successful? Is it because they changed from each other or is it because they held true to the overall vision of the theme?
If you want a more colorful game, I might suggest picking up many numerous titles that aren't Diablo nor Diablo II. It's too bad as a fan of the series that I want Diablo III to follow in their footsteps rather than become a different style of game.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
@Lord Jaroh: Sequels are meant to improve upon many aspects of its previous game but stay true to the overall vision of the series. The overall vision includes cooperative online play, addictive monster bashing, blood and gore, dungeon exploration, and collecting awesome loot. I argue that this change in art direction does not deviate in the overall vision and is an improvement to the look of the game. If the game looked like Ragnarok Online, then it’d really be deviating from the vision and I’d be signing the petition. But it doesn’t, and it looks awesome and is a fitting welcome for the series. It doesn’t change the style of the game because I’m still bashing zombies with cool abilities and spells. What’s even better is I’m now able to explode their skulls out in many different directions, something not present in Diablo 2.
It's not that like Blizzard isn’t keeping the insidious feeling of the past games. It’s hard to judge from still screenshots but I feel it when I'm imagining I'm playing the barbarian on the gameplay video.
However, you and many others who’ve signed the petition do not see the colorful new art style as an improvement as I do, especially if one hasn’t played the game or imagine vividly playing the game from the gameplay video. That’s understandable. It’s impossible to please everyone. But I advocate that there are just as many, if not more, of us that embrace this new art direction than those who deny it. It’s just we don’t speak as loudly because we have less to complain about. If I had anything to complain about, it’d be that I wish the corpses would stay around longer. But that’s a very minor complaint.
In the end, the addictive gameplay is going to determine the success of Diablo 3 as the rightful heir to the series. In comparison, the argument about having a little less color is moot. And in the end, you won’t mind the new art style, just like you did with Titan Quest, and you will claim Diablo 3’s as a worthy successor due to its amazing gameplay.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:39 am
Here's the skinny: 40,000? What difference will that make? 100,000 wouldn't. 200,000 wouldn't. You have big numbers? OK. You have 40,000 petitioning. The rest of us have no complaints, therefore we have no reason to sign anything, which means whatever your number is, the number of those without complaints is an intimidating multitude of size.
Will you play the game? Oh, yes, you will. And you -will- like it. Ever noticed a lot of "videos" are usually a couple shades too high in gamma as compared to the actual subject?
Have you taken the time to compare, seeing that there are more colors, better resolution and color quality, not more brightness?
The difference is Diablo II looked like a sandbox under a constant effect of tremors. It looked like sand with color. Sand is gritty. It's bland. Every screen looked the same in Diablo II. Reason : lack of colors, lack of color quality, lack of resolution. There wasn't the flexibility to change. I go outside, it's dark. I go into a dungeon, it's just as dark. What the fuck is that?
So Heaven and Hell are waging war with a world stuck between it, and so the sun ceases to exist, precipitation takes a vacation, and solar refraction runs for its life? Demons are pissed, so the suns rays no longer split through water making a rainbow? Gee, that's not cartoony, that's real fucking real. Diablo II was like a set on a TV show. It was synthetic, expected, predicted, needed, conditioned. The gameplay, terrific. The plot, terrific. Diablo III has gameplay, plot and life via color. It's realer, adaptable, flexible, holds character, and has dynamics, dimensions and possibility - not just something to look at, something to feel. But no, you pest, you critter, manythings to feel, not the same GOD damn something in every room and landscape.
You have it twisted, sir. Diablo II's gameplay and plot distracted from the art, not Diablo III's art distracting from gameplay and plot. Blizz learned and made all three factors top notch, and you will happily accept this when you practically break the case and mouse from waiting for it to install, and have that stupid jaw drop to your collar bone - as will each and every of those 40,000. Not play it? Who're they kiddin', that bluff that Blizz will lose customers is a joke, and Blizz knows it. If anything I say they started this crap somewhere to pick up discussion and really call attention. I saw this shit on MSNBC. That is epic. Blizz is the boss of this shit. Act knowledged.
July 13th, 2008 at 8:49 am
USN = Pwnage on all of you.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
in the end, those 40,000 will just pirate the game if its not changed and the other majority who don't mind the change will buy the game,
all are winners
blizzard gets cash
petitioners get there satisfaction.
blizzard gets cash from gamers nostalgia later on
in 5 years, well all be running to buy the battle chests.
July 14th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Monitors -> Settings -> Brightness -> Decrease.
I kid. But I'm torn. I've been playing D2 for a while now because it runs really nice on my laptop. I like the atmosphere, but jebus, it's hard to play after too long at the wrong angle. I feel like I'm squinting, just to see stuff on the ground. The new style is nice. The old style was nice. Can't we all just get along?
My main hope is that D3 will be as modable as the first two, and that a month or so after release, the Darkened Diablo Design (D3, get it?) mod will come out. If you like the old style, drop it in, and wallah. If you like the new, ignore it, and wallah wallah!
July 16th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I signed the petition, never did i say i wouldn't buy it. I'm against the art changing in the game. But I know i'll both buy and play and probably love it aswell for a long time. Ofcourse they changed the art direction to get more people to play the game, but why oh why did they have to change for more WoW graphix?
And USN you're saying that blizzard won't be loosing gamers on this graphic change? They pretty much might, i quit WoW couse once you hit max level it got rather boring, raiding all the dungeouns, getting the best pvp items. And what's better then to change game to a game that has other graphics but more important different gameplay, yeah diablo 3 and WoW aren't even close to the same gameplay, but having the same graphics might make alot of people who played WoW stick to Diablo 3 or once they are done with diablo 3 then realize "Gah, WoW looks lame" (exagurated) couse the graphics looks just like Diablo 3, myself I'm glad i quit WoW half year ago so I won't get bored with the graphics in diablo 3 after let's say 3-6 months (before the expansion is released).
But what's gonna happen in the future of Blizzard, are all their games going to look the same? Couse that's what's happening right now. Having some variaty when playing games is a must, gameplay is different but is this all that matters? - I say no. There will be new games with different graphics than WoW,Warcraft 3 and now Diablo 3.
I love Blizzard, but if this is what's happening to their games with graphics, i hope WoW dies out (which it will, just like all MMOG games ofcourse). And when it does the truth's gonna hit Blizzard that they really shouldn't have gone for the WoW theme in all their games.
And for the love of god blizzard, please don't copy-paste like you did in WoW