Game News Diablo 3 designer responds directly to the gritty fan art

[DarkUnderlord]

Tags: Diablo III

News about Diablo 3's art direction abounds but this one's a little different. <a href="http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/08/04/diablo-iii-designer-turns-tables/">MTV Player sat down with Jay Wilson</a> and showed him all those fan-made grittier art designs for Diablo 3. Well, Jay spat back on what was wrong with the photoshopped fan attempts. Here's a bit:
<br>
<blockquote><b>#1 - Light Radius on Witch Doctor in Dungeon (Blizzard shot followed by fan-altered shot)</b>
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.</blockquote>
<br>
Snap.
<br>
<br>
Thanks <b>PlanHex</b>!

 

[Shoelip]

That second, grainy one just doesn't look all that good. The top one looks great though. But... need to cater to people with crappy computers... oh well.

 

[Mareus]

So why change from 2D to 3D?

 

[Shoelip]

You know they do have to make any profit at all right...

 

[Micmu]

So why change from 2D to 3D?

So they can make close-up screenshots from various angles for magazines.

On a serious note, I don't think 3D can be as useless in Diablo like it was in HoMM V (useless AND devastatingly annoying). It's all about the camera.

 

[J1M]

So why change from 2D to 3D?

So they can have more than 3 armor styles, more variation in animation, male/female chioce, higher resolution, better particle effects, use less HDD space, etc.

 

[Allanon]

So why change from 2D to 3D?

So they can have more than 3 armor styles, more variation in animation, male/female chioce, higher resolution, better particle effects, use less HDD space, etc.

As far as style and variation go, 2d has an advantage. It's easier for an artist to make good looking pictures, than to make that texture look as good. One advantage I've seen so far for 3d is that it allows to create some more interesting environments...such as chasms from which the monsters can crawl or fall into or real time destroyable surrounding..etc.

 

[Fez]

I suppose the comments were fair enough, but those were quick and sloppy Photoshop edits by the look of them. They were out to prove themselves right, rather than ever concede anything or even suggest that there were ideas that could be worked upon. They'd happily make out that it was all beyond the thinkable if it means they don't need to make changes, even if it would only require an edit here or there to sort out the complaints they had with the fan versions.

 

[Herbert West]

Duh, I can imagine all the negative press if Diablo 3 was to stay 2d. If some journos ask blizzard why they haven't updated the tech and moved to first person view instead sticking to some technologicaly inferior iso, it's easy to see one of the main reasons of moving to 3d.

 

[Azarkon]

Man, that was alot of spin. He could've just said, "we've made some cost-benefit analysis and decided that the Warcraft art direction is the way to go, kthxbye" and it would've been just as "enlightening." Citing the over-the-top SFX in D2 as rationale for why Blizzard has switched from a color pallette that actually had the color black to one where dark dungeons are conveniently illuminated by some kind of blue-green glow - ala Warcraft III/World of Warcraft - just reeks of desperation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Diablo III will be a great game, but saying that it's got the same art direction as Diablo II is simply, from what I've seen so far, incorrect. If you can't tell the difference between the Diablo and Warcraft worlds I suggest you go back and replay them. Diablo is to Warcraft as Conan is to Narnia: one's about fighting Lovecraftian demons from Hell, the other an epic journey in a kingdom of furries and bright colors. Not the same.

That said, I'm completely in agreement about the need for variations in environments. Yet, I disagree that the old Diablo art style was incapable of producing such variations - clearly, Diablo II was varied enough, as Wilson himself admits. So, let's hope they actually deliver on this legacy feature, and don't just make all their areas look like World of Warcraft instances.

 

[elander_]

It's amazing how the color palette can bring comparisons between Conan and Narnia.

 

[Azarkon]

It's not just the color pallette.

 

[Azarkon]

Notable examples (one of the following isn't like the others...):

(Diablo II)

(Diablo III)

(World of Warcraft)

[/img]

 

[Fez]

I'm not a fan of the World of Warcraft/WC3 look that seems to be very popular nowadays. I don't like the style.

 

[elander_]

There's still some important differences between WoW and Diablo3 art style. In WoW monsters are often disproportionate with huge dragon bosses or whatever. You can see in those screens there is little regard for proportions, and that is not the case with Diablo 3 screens. I think that in terms of proportions they are maintaining the same style as the previous games.

 

[Fez]

I agree it is better than the true Warcraft look in that regard.

 

[DraQ]

I thought fans asked for grittier textures and judicious use of colour in both the textures and lighting, rather than replicating photoshop artifacts in game.
How hard can it be?

 

[FrancoTAU]

This isn't a huge deal to me, just a minor preference for the old style. Still, I could deal without the bullshit excuses about technology limits. I understand that the photoshop jobs aren't fair, but the art direction and glowy thing going on is obviously something they're purposely going for.

 

[J1M]

So why change from 2D to 3D?

So they can have more than 3 armor styles, more variation in animation, male/female chioce, higher resolution, better particle effects, use less HDD space, etc.

As far as style and variation go, 2d has an advantage. It's easier for an artist to make good looking pictures, than to make that texture look as good. One advantage I've seen so far for 3d is that it allows to create some more interesting environments...such as chasms from which the monsters can crawl or fall into or real time destroyable surrounding..etc.

No. Drawing one picture is easier. Drawing enough frames for every single animation you want in a consistent style is a lot harder than spending the time to get it right in an object + texture + animation.

 

[Murk]

i like the warcraft style art, but loved the diablo atmospehre - i don't see the two necessarily working together, but who knows what they'll do.

 

[RK47]

yawn you guys are being selective when it comes to D2 art. I recall there were some instance of bad colourings of neon lights in that game, namely poison effects that were neon green, purple curses, blue ice bolts that just lit up the whole dungeon like a disco.

Wow. damn gritty in there. I hope blizzard put that back in D3. It provides so much atmosphere.

You know it’s like, it’s a waterfall. My favorite [criticism] is the one that analyzed the light refraction angle, and told us why from that angle seeing a rainbow would actually be impossible. Oh yeah, and it was upside down because the colors were reversed. And we’re like, “This is a whole different world than ours! Who’s to say that light refracts the same in the Diablo world?” [laughs]

he's Roffling at ya.

 

[Fez]

yawn you guys are being selective when it comes to D2 art.

Well, duh. It'd be pretty stupid if we insisted they put in the things that we didn't like into the sequel, rather than saying what we did like and want to see again.

 

[Shodan]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/8/6/

 

[Gerrard]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/8/6/

 

[Dandelion]

Man, that was alot of spin. He could've just said, "we've made some cost-benefit analysis and decided that the Warcraft art direction is the way to go, kthxbye" and it would've been just as "enlightening." Citing the over-the-top SFX in D2 as rationale for why Blizzard has switched from a color pallette that actually had the color black to one where dark dungeons are conveniently illuminated by some kind of blue-green glow - ala Warcraft III/World of Warcraft - just reeks of hypocrisy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Diablo III will be a great game, but saying that it's got the same art direction as Diablo II is simply, from what I've seen so far, incorrect. If you can't tell the difference between the Diablo and Warcraft worlds I suggest you go back and replay them. Diablo is to Warcraft as Conan is to Narnia: one's about fighting Lovecraftian demons from Hell, the other an epic journey in a kingdom of furries and bright colors. Not the same.

*
Fixed.

90% of those anwers are totally nonsense. But you know, there will always be some idiot agreeing that without the gay colours and cartoonish style you can't distinguish the characters on screen nor create some variety with the graphic...