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

[Shoelip]

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

Wow, he's a druid, a fairy, and a pimp!

 

[Jaime Lannister]

I'd roleplay a druid fairy pimp any day. So long as I can bitchslap my druid fairy hos.

 

[Azarkon]

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...

It's not the art direction that really bothers me. It's the legions of fanboys rushing to its defense under the slogan, "Blizzard can do no wrong! STFU YOU STUPID EMOS!" The sheer zealotry of Blizzard fans worshipping their idol borders on the religious, and sycophany has a way of stifling reason. Blizzard, so far, has avoided the traditional pitfalls associated with a fawning fandom; they have good internal critics who give solid feedback and maintain the quality of Blizzard's games. Still, there may come a day when the development team becomes convinced of its own infallibility, and then they're in trouble.

 

[kingcomrade]

The sheer zealotry of Blizzard fans worshipping their idol borders on the religious, and sycophany has a way of stifling reason.

You have not been around Blizzard fanboys long enough. They're split. Half are pro Blizzard can do no wrong, the other half are pro OH MY GOD THIS ISN'T THEIR PREVIOUS GAME WITH A GRAPHICS UPDATE

 

[Destroid]

I think that in terms of proportions they are maintaining the same style as the previous games.

Clearly you havn't watched the gameplay trailer in which they battle a gigantic demon the size of a large house.

Guy in the article is full of shit, picking at the shops for technical issues.

 

[Kingston]

Worry not, Rex made a newspost on the comic on his Blizzardguru.

http://blizzardguru.com/2008/08/penny-a ... is-colors/

The often hilarious webcomic Penny Arcade has just done their own take on Diablo III’s color complainers, and it’s a sentiment that I verily support.

Verily.

 

[HanoverF]

OMG It's like Olde timey and shit cause he said verily!!1

 

[Pegultagol]

It is obvious Diablo III is using some sort of modified engine from WoW. I wonder if the art style is due to borrowing from some of the WoW assets or it could be how the art director that has overseen WoW development managed to interpret the concepts as per his or her personal preference and/or experience. I wonder if the engine could support the ideal gritty and dark scenery without having to restart the entire progress with an entirely different set of art properties, overturning what design philosophy they applied up until now. I think that is what the designer was implying; it is too late to uproot everything that we have already done, and frankly we did not expect this type of response as showing the demo seemed to have done more harm than its intended purpose.

Honestly, I would not mind either graphics style. Likewise, a lot of people who do not mind the current state of graphics would not have as much qualms going back to the dark grainy art style from the previous instalments as those who are outright aghast at the new art style.

 

[shihonage]

Warcraft 3 was the death of visually distinct styles in Blizzard franchises. The grittiness of Starcraft and dark gothic undertones of Diablo are gone.

Today, if they decided to make a World War II shooter, it would take place inside a French plush toy factory.

 

[J1M]

It is obvious Diablo III is using some sort of modified engine from WoW. I wonder if the art style is due to borrowing from some of the WoW assets or it could be how the art director that has overseen WoW development managed to interpret the concepts as per his or her personal preference and/or experience. I wonder if the engine could support the ideal gritty and dark scenery without having to restart the entire progress with an entirely different set of art properties, overturning what design philosophy they applied up until now. I think that is what the designer was implying; it is too late to uproot everything that we have already done, and frankly we did not expect this type of response as showing the demo seemed to have done more harm than its intended purpose.

Honestly, I would not mind either graphics style. Likewise, a lot of people who do not mind the current state of graphics would not have as much qualms going back to the dark grainy art style from the previous instalments as those who are outright aghast at the new art style.

Funny how you think it is obvious that they are using a modified wow engine. My friends who actually work in the industry looked at it and said "oh cool, they updated the warcraft 3 engine".

Even more interesting you think that the engine they are using dictates what type of textures they can import.

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

Funny how you think it is obvious that they are using a modified wow engine. My friends who actually work in the industry looked at it and said "oh cool, they updated the warcraft 3 engine".

Even more interesting you think that the engine they are using dictates what type of textures they can import.

The World of Warcraft's engine is a modified version of Warcraft III.

 

[Murk]

it's definitely similar to warcraft 3 more so than WoW, but WoW is directly influenced by wc3 so it stands to reason why people would confuse it.

The sewer levels and tomb levels are exactly the same as the crypt terrain shown in the d3 gameplay trailer. even the glowing lights and enemies look like they're from warcraft 3.

edit: ^ he beat me ;(

 

[Chimera]

Originally posted by 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.

I fail to see how shifting the contrast on the base textures would in any manner affect the so-called "Recommend System Specs" for Diablo 3. A graphics engine (particularly those used for games) can render a scene and map the textures to it just as swiftly if they appear one way or another. It is the relative resolution of the texture that matters, not it's appearance, hence changing it from a gaudy green to a gray is irrelevant where performance is concerned.

Originally posted by J1M
So they can have more than 3 armor styles...

IN RESPONSE TO: Why switch from 2d to 3d?

Ridiculous, mate. I could cite any number of games on various platforms that are two-dimensional and employ various "armor styles" for sprites. The variety is respective of the art team, not the engine's capabilities.

Originally posted by J1M
...more variation in animation...

Again, mistaken. The capacity to create fluid two-dimensional animation has existed far longer than in three. I would recommend you play some older games and watch some animated movies, they'll clue you in.

Originally posted by J1M
...male/female chioce...

Honestly? Are you joking? Yes, it's 2D, therefore I may not draw a woman...

Originally posted by J1M
...higher resolution...

I have to ask, again, is this a serious assertion on your part? Resolution of an image is not related in any fashion to whether or not the image has depth.

Originally posted by J1M
...better particle effects...

Granted, the technology is far more refined in the three-dimensional arena, however, two-dimensional particle engines do exist, with the capacity to render particle dispersion, flow and variable pressures. Case in point: the earliest consistent use of a two-dimensional particle system was seen in the Unreal Engine (v1) games, known as "Dynamic Textures." The current (v3) Unreal Engine SDK also comes with an updated version of said technology. If it exists in that engine, it is certainly within Blizzard's capacity to replicate such.

Originally posted by J1M
...use less HDD space...

You forgot to factor in all the extra space taken up by the three-dimensional models, else you would never make such a fallacious statement. Compression of a 3D model versus a sprite sheet? No comparison.

Originally posted by J1M
...etc.

Please, by all means, expound.

Originally posted by Allanon
It's easier for an artist to make good looking pictures, than to make that texture look as good.

That, my friend, depends entirely on the capabilities of the engine and the art direction of the game (wherein "art direction" encompasses the style, not palette). Having worked as both a two- and three-dimensional artist (though not on videogames) I can assure you that neither can be boasted of as "easier" than the other from an objective measure.

Originally posted by 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."

Bravo! Those were my very thoughts.
His "replies" are little more than hedging and, quite often, encompass outright lies. Though I have never seen the engine they're using, I know enough about such things to firmly declare that the only aspect of the game they would have to change in order to accommodate the protesters wishes are the textures and, perhaps, a few models. That, however, as you pointed out, would not sell quite so well. WoW has truly corrupted the entire Blizzard corporation.

Than again, I maintain that they ought to simply include a palette-swapping option in the menu. The company creating the next Gothic game is making two distinctly colored titles (one for EU, one for NA), why not Blizzard? They certainly do not lack the fiscal resources.

Originally posted by 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.

(same as above, just had to quote it as you phrased that so well)
...
(also agree with Dandelion at the bottom of page one)

Originally posted by J1M
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.

Again, you are mistaken. I do not know where you acquired this idea that three-dimensional image creation is somehow "easier" than doing such in two. If anything, modern animation techniques are more difficult (well... time consuming, I should say) than those required to animate in 2D. True, motion capture cuts down significantly on the work required by any animator, whilst a relative degree of competency can allow you to cut and string the keyframes (whether in AMC, BVH, BIP or CSM formats) together to create a working composite. Even then, however, you must spend hours fiddling with speeds, clipping and other elements, which only become more complex if you are utilizing a third-party physics engine or any sort of skeletal-animation technique (as seen in Rise of the Argonauts and Assassin's Creed), which requires you to place the block points by hand. It is not easier, which is precisely why it is a specialized field. You have modelers to create the actual model and animators to handle its motion, whereas a 2D artist may safely accomplish both.

Originally posted by 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.

Sharp contrasts such as those you've referenced were used to aid the player in discriminating their actions from the environment, whilst emphasizing the muted atmosphere and adding some vibrancy to the game. That did not preclude the fact that the general aesthetic was both subdued and gritty.

Oh, and what Fez said...

 

[J1M]

A whole lot of bullshit

Bravo. You attempt to cite specific examples of possible exceptions to what I have said... and completely miss how unfeasible it would be to do your suggestions in a game with the scope of Diablo 3.

I was thinking about giving you a serious reply explaining how and where you are wrong until I read that comment about 3D models taking up as much space as 2D animation and realized you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[DraQ]

I blame the decline of the Codex.

 

[Xi]

I think it looks fine, and like the designer said, there will be some dark and gritty areas, but they come later in the game. It's a whole lot of fuss over nothing. I'm more concerned with some of the mechanic/design changes than the art direction. It still has it's old Iso, with playable graphics. This is just fine for me.

 

[Jasede]

It looks to me like Chimera actually worked in this industry and likely has a better knowledge of this than you, J1M. Please do bother to show his mistakes, I would like to see how Chimera responds to him before I can decide who of you is wrong.

 

[J1M]

It looks to me like Chimera actually worked in this industry and likely has a better knowledge of this than you, J1M. Please do bother to show his mistakes, I would like to see how Chimera responds to him before I can decide who of you is wrong.

If you read his post he claims to be a 2D/3D artist who has never worked in the games industry. No offense to artists, but it's not surprising he doesn't understand this stuff as well as a bit-twiddling coder would. I'm not an expert on graphics programming, but I know enough to call bullshit when I see it.

Here's a quick example of what I am talking about when it comes to HDD usage. I'm going to be generous and say that we are only looking for 30 fps animation and 8 directions of movement. I'm also going to only look at 1 second of animation. Each character would have WAY more than that. (Walking, running, swinging different weapons, casting, being hit, etc.) I'm also going to assume the character is 10% of the screen width and 20% of the screen height and screen resolution of 1680x1050. This is roughly what the barbarian was in the video we saw.

Chimera's claim is that it would just as easy to hand-draw 30 frames x 8 directions of movement = 240 frames of animation for every second of animation per character per sex in the game as it is to animate one second of animation on a 3D model.

This is just a retarded claim. Yes, it takes a while to make a model, texture it, and weight it for skeletal animation, but it takes a really long time to draw 240 frames of animation. Assuming a perfect world this is a one-time cost. This isn't a perfect world though. The art director or rabid fans might want to change a character's hair or animation or whatever. Changing the 3D model or the 3D animation and rendering it out is nothing compared to throwing away 240 frames of animation and starting those over again.

I really shouldn't have to remind people of this, but Diablo II was a 2D game made with renders of 3D models. There are good reasons for that. Doing an animation once instead of 8 times for each character direction is one of them.

Furthermore, for one second of animation you are looking at a lot of HDD space:
168x210 pixels
4x8 bits per pixel (RGB + transparency)
30 frames per second
8 directions
=33868800 bytes or roughly 32 MB for one second of animation for one character

Now certainly there are ways of compressing this 32MB down by using a palette and compression techniques. The point is even at 90% compression you are looking at over 3MB per second of animation per character and these costs never go down. (EDIT: For comparison, Unreal Tournament 3 characters are about 4 MB without the animation files and that is 4 MB flat, not per second of animation.)

With 3D animation you have a fixed cost for the model information (vertices + texture + UV mapping + bone weighting) and extremely small data requirements for the actual animation information. The more animation in the game, the further and further ahead the 3D advantage becomes. This is further multiplied when you factor in sockets for shoulderpads, boots, etc. All of the equipment changes that don't affect animation essentially come for "free" with 3D, unlike 2D which requires a transparent overlay to be drawn for each frame for each direction so you don't end up with shoulderpads clipping out someone's head, etc.

Finally, you aren't restricted to just 8 directions with 3D animation. Those come for "free" too. So does 60 fps animation, and resolution changes that don't change the size of characters onscreen, whereas 2D animation would take twice as much work to draw and twice as much space to store.

 

[deuxhero]

I am pretty sure that last frame in that Penny Arcade comic was reused.



That being said, I could care less, the lighting in Diablo 2 geneneraly wound up an eye sore then anything else.

 

[sportforredneck]

I am pretty sure that last frame in that Penny Arcade comic was reused.

The entire comic was fake, so yes, it used old frames. Hence the date of "2007" on the side.

 

[deuxhero]

Ah, don't really pay attention to Penny Arcade, it has one funny comic every 2 months or so, the last one was the e3 summery.

 

[Chimera]

Originally posted by J1M
...and completely miss how unfeasible it would be to do your suggestions in a game with the scope of Diablo 3

And you would know this how? Did I miss some part of this little exchange wherein you informed us all of your acceptance as the new Art Director on the project? If not, I cannot comprehend how you would have any insider knowledge of the "scope" of D3 nor the technology available to Blizzard in producing it.

If you read his post he claims to be a 2D/3D artist who has never worked in the games industry. No offense to artists, but it's not surprising he doesn't understand this stuff as well as a bit-twiddling coder would.

Indeed, as I said, and you caught on, I have never worked in the games industry nor on any videogame related projects whatsoever, yet I do not imagine for one moment that the software or pipeline utilized in the field are so disparate as to make any correlation infeasible.
===REDACTED, PERSONAL INFORMATION===
In short: I have practical experience when it comes to art, what about you?

Originally posted by J1M
This is just a retarded claim. Yes, it takes a while to make a model, texture it, and weight it for skeletal animation, but it takes a really long time to draw 240 frames of animation. Assuming a perfect world this is a one-time cost. This isn't a perfect world though. The art director or rabid fans might want to change a character's hair or animation or whatever. Changing the 3D model or the 3D animation and rendering it out is nothing compared to throwing away 240 frames of animation and starting those over again.

I'll acknowledge that you have a valid point, in that changing a single image is far simpler than doing so for multiple frames, your hypothetical situation is hardly a reflection of a 2D artist's work. Since the inception of multi-step history files and layers in programs such as Photoshop, I have never once encountered a scenario in which it was necessary to dispose entirely of any art asset in order to modify it. I believe we can safely assume that any game artist creating sprites of any sort would be bright enough to go about creating their work in a similar manner.

Now, if we're done bickering with one another, allow me to reiterate: based solely on personal experience, neither the creation of two or three dimensional images may be dubbed "easier." ...actually, I noted that several times and sought to get it across, though obviously without success. Allow me to concede to your technical expertise, but do not presume to tell me about art.

 

[J1M]

Originally posted by J1M
...and completely miss how unfeasible it would be to do your suggestions in a game with the scope of Diablo 3

And you would know this how? Did I miss some part of this little exchange wherein you told us all of your acceptance as the new Art Director on the project? If not, I cannot comprehend how you would have any insider knowledge of the "scope" of D3 nor of the technology available to Blizzard in producing it.

lol, art directors don't decide what engine technology is going to be used.

If you read his post he claims to be a 2D/3D artist who has never worked in the games industry. No offense to artists, but it's not surprising he doesn't understand this stuff as well as a bit-twiddling coder would.

No, as I've said, and you caught on, I have never worked in the games industry nor on any videogame related projects, however, I do not imagine for one moment that the technologies utilized in either field are so disparate as to make any correlation infeasible.
If you really must have my credentials, I'll be happy to provide them: I spent almost two years working as a mock-up artist during an internship (with McCann Erickson, an advertising firm) while working through college and transferred after graduating to Kansas City, where I held a position as part of the D&M team with Take-Two (presently known as T2), up until early 2006 when I left the company to spend further time with my family. During my time with the company I worked on various magazine spreads (creating both two- and three-dimensional images), motion capture for cinematic and televised trailers, in addition to extensive photo-editing. I presently reside and work in my hometown of Salem, Oregon, though in a non-graphics related field.
In short: I have practical experience when it comes to art, what about you?

Ok. You know more about how to draw art. I never disputed that. This discussion isn't about how to draw art though. It's about why Blizzard picked a 3D engine for Diablo 3.

Originally posted by J1M
This is just a retarded claim. Yes, it takes a while to make a model, texture it, and weight it for skeletal animation, but it takes a really long time to draw 240 frames of animation. Assuming a perfect world this is a one-time cost. This isn't a perfect world though. The art director or rabid fans might want to change a character's hair or animation or whatever. Changing the 3D model or the 3D animation and rendering it out is nothing compared to throwing away 240 frames of animation and starting those over again.

While you do have a point (in that changing a single image is far simpler than doing so to multiple frames), your hypothetical situation is hardly a true reflection of a 2D artists work. Since the inception of multi-step history files and layers in programs such as Photoshop, I have never once encountered a scenario in which it was necessary to dispose entirely of any art asset in order to modify it. I believe we can safely assume that any game artist creating sprites of any sort would be bright enough to go about creating their work in a similar manner.

Now, if we're done bickering with one another, allow me to reiterate.
Based solely on personal experience my point is this: neither the creation of two or three dimensional images can be called "easier." I wrote that multiple times and sought to get it across, though obviously without success. Allow me to concede to your technical expertise, but do not presume to tell me about art.

Creating art for games using 3D tools is easier. It's a workflow, productivity, and reusability concern. The artists I know in the game industry agree with me on this. (Not that such a claim can be verified on these forums, but if you want to argue from authority so can I.)

Good job avoiding my points with regards to how Diablo II was made and storage considerations.

 

[Topher]

You have both made some valid points but J1M is right. It is much easier to animate and alter in 3D. One blank-slate character can be animated and then made into any player character by simply changing textures without the need for any new animation.

It's not that the same kinds of thing done in 3D cannot be done in 2D but it is faster to alter or reuse the same base animations in 3D. Blizzard is not the first studio to switch to 3D because of it's benefits.