Diablo 3!!!

Grand Fromage · Post by **Grand Fromage** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:17 pm

Helios wrote:They revealed two; Barbarian and Witch Doctor. They said five more will be revealed, I believe.

From the summaries I read today there are five total classes. So we'll have Barbarian, Witch Doctor, Archer-type, Sorcerer-type, and ?

NickD · Post by **NickD** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:16 pm

Seems like a lot of people aren't so happy about the appearance of the game. Apparently it's a bit to cartoonish and happy, WoW style, rather than dark and gritty, Diablo style.

http://www.petitiononline.com/d3art/petition.html

Kest · Post by **Kest** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:36 pm

yeah a petition will sure get them to change the entire art design

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:46 am

Kestenvarn wrote:yeah a petition will sure get them to change the entire art design

Particularly when they have already gone through 3 iterations on the art direction to get where they are.

I think the fanboys just need to shut the fuck up and remember the 'this is a work in progress, nothing is final' warning Jay Wilson gave before the demo at the WWI. They can easily follow the art direction they have while playing around with color and lighting to get the mood right.

Grand Fromage wrote:From the summaries I read today there are five total classes. So we'll have Barbarian, Witch Doctor, Archer-type, Sorcerer-type, and ?

Actually we still really don't know. The FAQ says 5, but in the Diablo 3 Design Fundamentals panel at the WWI Jay Wilson said they had not yet nailed down how many classes there would be. I can't imagine more than 5 though.

Burt · Post by **Burt** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:14 am

Grand Fromage wrote:
Helios wrote:They revealed two; Barbarian and Witch Doctor. They said five more will be revealed, I believe.
From the summaries I read today there are five total classes. So we'll have Barbarian, Witch Doctor, Archer-type, Sorcerer-type, and ?

Healer-type (e.g. the Paladin).

Grand Fromage · Post by **Grand Fromage** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:17 am

Swift wrote:I think the fanboys just need to shut the f*sk up and remember the 'this is a work in progress, nothing is final' warning Jay Wilson gave before the demo at the WWI. They can easily follow the art direction they have while playing around with color and lighting to get the mood right.

No one cares about them anyway. Blizzard changes shit constantly while games are in development--just look at Starcraft 2. The art is a lot different and half the units have been changed since it was announced. And the original changed radically, if you want to dig into the past a bit.

I don't really get the fuss. The art looks just like the classic Blizzard style of concept art, except now they have graphics good enough to actually do that in the game instead of just the manual.

Lusipher · Post by **Lusipher** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:39 am

because blizzard forum posters need something to bitch about. The majority of posters on the WoW forums are complete idiots. Bnet is about the same. Half the people in the Diablo3 forums on the WoW website have hardly even heard of Diablo.

People just gotta bitch about something.

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:56 am

Danubus wrote:because blizzard forum posters need something to b*tch about. The majority of posters on the WoW forums are complete idiots. Bnet is about the same. Half the people in the Diablo3 forums on the WoW website have hardly even heard of Diablo.

People just gotta b*tch about something.

Its pretty much the same wherever you go. Diablofans.com (the former Diablo3.com) and diii.net (formerly diabloii.net) are the most known destinations and the discussions are exactly the same there, though i have managed to have a couple of very decent discussions on plot speculation at the latter.

Kest · Post by **Kest** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:24 am

Grand Fromage wrote:The art looks just like the classic Blizzard style of concept art, except now they have graphics good enough to actually do that in the game instead of just the manual.

Exactly. The models look identical to the style used for Diablo II art - you can see it just checking through the manual. Apparently it isn't brutal enough for them, despite the dark environments and hordes of enemies that explode into fountains of gore.

E: Now that I've gone through their rant, the changes suggested are not that farfetched - but they are still idiots for believing in petitions.

Joos · Post by **Joos** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:17 am

Kestenvarn wrote:These people are complete idiots.

I disagree, I think the photoshopped screenshots looks better without the blue and yellow lights. It's not that the video's Blizzard is showing us are bad, far from it, the game looks gorgeous as it is right now. I just think the grittier look would be more suitable to the world as a whole.

For example, I wouldn't mind if the game looked like the original, but I would prefer the lower in these screen shots:

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/ ... ablo31.jpg
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/7807/itshouldrh5.jpg

Obviously my taste, each to their own I say. I'll still buy and play the game and most probably have a good time no matter how it looks in the end.

I mean, Diablo 2 wasn't particularly impressive graphically (even for the times) when it came out, but was a huge success anyway.

Kest · Post by **Kest** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:23 am

I'd go for either of those really. The afterwards shots do have a problem with overused shadows, though.

Detry · Post by **Detry** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:51 am

I et sum playdo

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:53 pm

The game is set 20 years after the end of Lord of Destruction. The invasion of hell that was meant to happen once the Worldstone was shattered...never did.

You cannot honestly tell me that there aren't places of beauty in Sanctuary? Am i to really believe that there is nothing in the world but dark, gothic buildings all colored in 30 different shades of grey, with nothing but misery and despair being plentiful?

The events of D2 and LoD have, as the developers have stated, been forgotten or thought of as nothing but myth by those that weren't alive to see it, which is a large part of the world. It stands to reason that people are getting on with their lives and the lands are recovering from the blight of the Prime Evils.

We have seen fragments of 2 areas: What is believed to be the Catacombs below the Tristram Cathedral, and the Leoric Highlands. Lets wait until we have seen a little bit more before denouncing how the game looks

Avaz · Post by **Avaz** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:02 pm

If you look at the screenshots from this site, you'll see it wasn't all as dark and gritty as our memories make it seem.

However, it seems like what most people remember the best is the way the second screenie looks, with the superblack outside your light range.

Grand Fromage · Post by **Grand Fromage** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:07 pm

Diablo 1 was a lot darker than 2, I think that's what they're talking about. D2 had a fair amount of bitching about the graphics too.