Diablo designer judging fan art for MTV

All what the Blizzard guy makes sense. It was quite entertaining reading. (e.g. new scene every 15 minutes, completely new environment every 45 minutes.)

Also it is nice that guys actually care about in game experience (telling enemy from foe).

THE OUTSIDE AREA A IN THE PREVIEW WAS ALL BLUE AND BRIGHT AND PRETTY-LOOKING

THIS WAS THE LONGEST PART OF GAMEPLAY FOOTAGE SHOWN

THEREFORE, THE REST OF THE GAME WILL LOOK THE SAME

NEVERMIND THE DUNGEON PART AT THE BEGINNING, THAT IS IRRELEVANT

Choo choo, here comes the isometric warcraft train!

Oh for crying outloud, guys!

Just because what we HAVE seen has some "extra color" in it, doesn't mean there are parts of the game that are dark and gritty as well. Perhaps as the game progresses it gets darker and grittier to signify you're getting closer to hell, diablo, or whatnot. Just a thought...

black, browns and greys are for emo's. and i hate emo's.

kudos to blizzard for actually using the entire colour palette for this game, instead of going with the "safe" colour scheme.

I can not understand how people are complaining about realism and gritty/dark graphics.

For starters, people are complaining about rainbows in the waterfall and how completely "dumb" that is. Well...if I want my games to be more realistic then rainbows actually seem paramount when there is sunlight and a waterfall involved, I really would feel odd if my game defined optics.

Secondly, yes the game has always been a more violent and destructive world, but that does not mean it has to change in color palette. The middle east right now is a violent war torn location, the color palette on that side of the world did not change all of a sudden. Colors are a part of life and consider that we have seen an early dungeon as well as a small area outside does not give you enough evidence to say that the entire game follows the same schema.

Lastly, those who compare it to World of Warcraft are just kidding themselves or they have been playing for too much WoW in their day and everything is blurring together. The only thing in WoW that "might" be considered to be WoWish would be the exaggerated armor. The water, fog, tree textures makes this world seem painted and I can assure you WoW does not give of any painted feel. Overall, if you are going to give criticism be constructive, educated, and for god sack do your research.

Here's my commentary on his commentary. Let's see if I can break Joystiq's comment form with the longest post it's ever seen.

#1 - Light Radius on Witch Doctor in Dungeon

"Jay Wilson, Designer of “Diablo III”: 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."

Is anyone buying this nonsense? Look at the screenshot and notice the real-time lighting engine currently being used in the game. It's already in there, Mr. Designer. The processing power is already being utilized. I don't buy it all that it's impossible or unfeasible to tweak the settings to result in light coming from your character and casting shadows on objects in the environment that, don't forget, Diablo 2 did quite well all the way back at the turn of the millennium.

"Now in terms of the actual texturing, this texturing, where they grayed out everything and it’s very flat and the monsters are all kind of a similar tone — that does not play well. It’s very boring to run through more than a couple of times, and it’s very difficult to tell creatures apart and pop them out of the environment. So those things don’t really work for us. A lot of the lighting stuff I think is very cool, but it’s also not very doable for us."

I see the point that, were the monsters to become the same tone and texturing as the environment, it wouldn't play well. But that didn't happen in the screenshot. The monsters have the same contrast to the environment as in the untouched screenshot. They're no harder to discern than before.

#2 — Witch Doctor in Dungeon

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

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the difference. The tables are as clear and distinct as they were in the original shot, it's just that the neon green splattered all over the image is lessened. I'm trying to be objective, but the profiles of the tables haven't changed as far as I can see.

"And one of the things that I actually would argue about something like this is that it’s completely against “Diablo II.” If you look at the spell effects in “Diablo II,” they’re very over-the-top. To gray out the actual spell effects, to me it’s pulling out all the vibrancy and interest out of them and really going against a lot of “Diablo II” philosophy."

Oh, I think we all agree. Desaturating the spell effect was an unintended side effect of the process used to make The Emerald City there look more like a dungeon. Weird that there's absolutely no mention of that green. Is it supposed to be scary or something?

#3 — Barbarian in Outside Environment Fighting Skeletons

"Wilson: I will say I wouldn’t be surprised if we had areas in the game that had this kind of texturing in the background. They’ll probably be later in the game because they’ll be darker, but again, the biggest problem here is that the silhouettes don’t stand out enough."

Again, maybe it's just me, but the silhouettes are still clear. Perhaps even TOO sharp thanks to the Photoshop filter. The interesting take-away here is that the two areas shown in the demonstration are intentionally lighter and more care-free than the rest of the game. Showcasing only these areas when unveiling the game was a stupid move, to be sure. But then is a tonal shift partway through the game a good idea?

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

Really, I can't see how this Photoshop could bring that about, but it's true that that's something to be avoided.

#4 – Barbarian on the Bridge… And Rainbows

"Wilson: More rain? It’s funny because if watch later on in the [debut gameplay] video, we have more rain. It is much stronger than that."

Okay, the weather effects can be much stronger than the original shot would have you believe. Fair enough.

"I’m sure they got rid of the rainbow. Yeah, rainbow — gone. I think our artist just put [the rainbow] in there because they knew that’d be controversial. And I’m sure they were like, “Well we’ll see how far we can push it.”

MTV Multiplayer: Just to be clear, are we going to see a lot more rainbows during the game?

Wilson: [laughs] After the announcement, one of our environment artists went to the darkest area in Act One and put a giant rainbow across the whole area."

We. Are. Screwed. Sounds like it was a temporary practical joke, but if this is the mindset they have down there; the kind of "if they don't like it, let's do it more" thinking, we're screwed.

It's not as though only morons find it agreeable to make a sequel to a horror series a horror game. They want to "see how far [they] can push it"? Away from horror... toward what? And why would you want to do that?

"No, you’re probably not going to see a ton of rainbows. But we don’t think the one that’s in there is that big a deal. You know it’s like, it’s a waterfall."

The odd thing about this statement is that if you were to make a horror movie in real life, you could film a gripping scene with a character being closely followed by a serial killer as he cautiously explores… a bright and sunny meadow next to a fresh-water pool fed by a waterfall featuring a brilliant rainbow. You could. Such places exist in the world, and you'd have a hard time trying to pretend they don't. Well, the point is that even though that place exists, there's no reason to go and film a horror movie there since you have the option to film somewhere more appropriate. Again, there are more appropriate settings to place your horror-themed game; places that don't have rainbows, for example. Sure, rainbows exist; doesn't mean we have to see them. Just sayin'.

"We don’t think it’s that big a deal; we just think it adds a lot of interest to that scene. We don’t have specific plans to fill “Diablo” with rainbows. It’s not like we restarted the project and were like “Diablo III — now with rainbows!” Although I will say the pitch that I originally did, once we decided what we were going to do, said “Diablo III — now with pants.” Because we added a pants slot."

#5 – “How It Should Look Like”

"Wilson: A lot of this change is adding noise to the screen. If [the characters] weren’t centered on the screen — like find the witch doctor. Especially think about him as a friend [in co-op play]. Standing over there, you can’t even tell the difference between him and the zombie. And that’s another player, and when you can’t tell the player apart from the creature, that’s horrible."

Agreed, that wouldn't be good. I just can't shake the fact that I can see him just as well as before. I don't know what it is about my eyes or monitor settings or whatever, but it's not any more difficult to see him or any other entity in the scene.

"You’ve got to think that there’s potentially up to seven other people in addition to yourself, and several dozen monsters. All that noise just translates into unplayable, especially when this starts moving. This texturing was actually very similar to one of our previous art styles. But when you started moving and the whole screen just kind of shimmers, you can’t really tell anything that’s going on."

As with one of the previous screenshots, the grain isn't entirely intentional. Well maybe it is. Either way, I also don't like the grain. Some screenshots are worse than others.

"MTV Multiplayer: So you ultimately decided to change the art direction only after play-testing the game?

“Wilson: Yes. Because this is how we remember what “Diablo II” was like as well. This is what we were thinking what “Diablo II” looks like. And then we played through, and we were like this isn’t very fun. And then we started going, “Why was ‘Diablo II’ so much more fun?” And some of the Blizzard North guys [the team that made 'Diablo I' and 'II'] knew why right away. They were like, “Well, because we didn’t make all the areas like this.” And if you think about even the areas they did, the creatures were really bright. Like in the gray and dark dungeons, those are the places that you run into the ghosts who were almost like glowing brightness, and that was so that they would stand out from the backgrounds."

Heh, if they eventually get to the point where the game, as he says is the goal here, captures the look and style of Diablo 2, then I'd have nothing to complain about. As I've pointed out before, they said in the art panel at the WWI they're shooting to recapture the horror vibe and stylization of the first two games. The funny thing is that no one in either art style camp believes they've met that goal!

#6 – “Necromancer’s Choice and WoW Gayness”

"Wilson: I think one of the things that these lack is if you stuck every one of these re-done shots right next to each other you would not be able to tell that they’re in different areas."

Come on, can you really make that claim? That's ridiculous. Of this batch of screenshots, this one is probably the best. It doesn't try to remove all the color, just the improperly used greens and blues where they fly in the face of the horror genre the team is trying to capture. Jay doesn't even talk about this screenshot in particular; he just goes on to say you wouldn't be able to tell one area from another if it weren't all green. Just like Diablo 2?

"One of the things that’s key to “Diablo II” — and I’ve gone through and done timing on it — it changes environments every 15 minutes, and every 45 minutes they give you an environment that looks completely different than one you’ve ever seen before. And when they change environments, the contrast is huge. It’s like I’m in green lush fields, and now I’m in the darkest dungeon you’ve ever seen."

Oh, there's going to be a dark, dark dungeon in Diablo 3? That's genuinely good news. Maybe they'll show it at Blizzcon. Why isn't the dungeon in the video dark?

"I’m in a bright sandy desert, and now I’m in a completely dim mummy tomb. There are these vast shifts in look, and it’s one of the things that keeps people interested in playing the game. "It’s a very simple game, and [you need to ] constantly vary what you throw at the player — big look changes in the environment, creature changes with different behavior. And not just behavior; we spent a lot of time trying to make creatures show up and die more interestingly. Because those are all the things that keep you going. Each one of those things is a reward. When you pull all the color out of the environment and you make it too homogeneous across the game, essentially what you’re doing is you’re pulling away the player’s reward of feeling like they’ve progressed because the area they’re in now looks like the area they were in 30 to 45 minutes ago."

Oh, it's true, the game should bring a lot of varied environments and let you feel like you're making progress. Totally. Just remember that the forest, desert, jungle and tundra areas (not to mention the infernal realm) in Diablo 2 were still gritty and dreary environments, especially at night when the light radius became noticeable, but even during the day. Death and gore was everywhere. That doesn't make them all the same environment or indistinguishable from one another.

"So that’s one of the reasons why we really felt we had to do this. We had to move to an art style that had a lot more variety in it and was capable of a lot more."

More than what? Listen, none of those dumb photoshops intended to illustrate a game blander and more homogeneous than Diablo 2, they're trying to show you how far you've strayed from what you've already said you wanted to accomplish. You and your team have set goals for Diablo 3: a gritty, dark, slightly stylistic horror game.

Does anyone here think he's met that goal? He doesn't think he has, but he also doesn't realize he doesn't think he has, and instead of allowing the uproar to make them realize they pushed it too far, it's made them want to push even further. It shakes my confidence to see them so easily influenced.

Blizzard, please go back to doing what you said you were going to do; not because people whined and made bad photoshops and online petitions, but because you know it should be a horror game and that that's the right direction to take.

all the people who are bitching abt the colour in this game will end up buying the game anyways... just shut up and submit to it

Everyone complaining has absolutly NOTHING to go off of. We've been shown all of a fraction of a percent of the game, and these people get all up in arms over it. These people have experience, they know what works, they know what doesn't. Does anyone really think the game would be better with a more bland color scheme? More enjoyable? More realistic?

Whoever made the comment about the middle east is dead on, if this game took place entirely in a dark, gray dunegeon, it'd just be a total rehash of Diable 1. Blizzard is doing something different, but apparently they should just stick with what a couple of loud idiots want, 'cause those are the people with the sensible ideas, right?