ratings are not always accurate in the content they represent.
eg you have a man beating another man's face in with a hammer. Rating=M
You have a man beating a elf's face in with a hammer with all the same blood and animations. Rating=T
Fantasy violence just gets a way with a lot. Also the sexual content is a big factor as well. So as far as ratings go thats not everything. As far cartoony i don't think thats always bad. One of my favorite games was FFIX very cartoony. If Diablo 3 can keep the same atmosphere and make the character cool then the more colored in version is fine with me. Though on the other hand if it more childish than a lot of people will be upset as not only is the art direction changed, but the atmosphere as well.
|Feb 18, 2011 00:02:03 AM|
Well as I said before I don't know where this cartoon arguement even originated, there is virtually nothing in any of the video or concept art that I have seen to validate that arguement. Furthermore I don't see how guys are providing such strong anti D3 bandwaggoning by comparing it to D2 the two games are more than a decade apart. The average computer back then wouldn't stand up to today's netbook, I even remember playing it over dial up. Based on that and earlier comments I think it's just the standard pre-troll of comments from people that will have it at midnight on said release date waiting for the servers to go live. By the way Z I'll agree with you to the point of cartoony violence gets away with more in the ESRB's eyes I don't think D3 is going to have that problem.
|Feb 18, 2011 17:11:53 PM|
The cartoon argument, I think, comes from comparing the art style of D3 with WoW, mainly the proportions(size of body/arms/legs...) You can see it in SC2 also, just compare the proportions of the guy that upgrades your stuff with the dwarf in WoW. They are basically the same. You may also consider the fact that WoW is so popular that it has achieved a Cliché state and anything that is remotely connected to it will be considered as "cartoony".
|Feb 20, 2011 02:03:02 AM|
Blizzard has jumped the shark, sold out, whatever other phrase there is like those. It seems like some people are a little too ok with this. Diablo 2 is my favorite game of all time. No one wants to see their favorite franchise/game get screwed with for the sake of sales.
I also never explicitly said the art direction was bad. I am basically agreeing with Bill Roper, saying its not horrible, it just doesn't fit with the franchise. Which is not a ludicrous statement in any regard. You can't seriously say the new art direction fits with the franchise more than the older games.
Also, don't take dark literally. I don't mean "just make everything black and hard to see". I don't mean "make less light", as some would say. There is nothing wrong with a couple rainbows in the sky. That is a natural occurrence. I understand the times in the (early) game are more peaceful. I am not a blizzard fanboy saying "maake tings dharker an more blacker. And ewww rhainboes r sooooo gayyy."
Also, (sorry, responding to all feedback since I last posted) computer advancements have nothing to do with making a game colorful. D2 and D3 being ten years apart doesn't mean D2 would have been all colorful and clean if the hardware could handle it. PoE is proof of this fact. You may say the hardware back then was limited so the way to make things scarier, for lack of a better word, was to limit the color palette or PoE has a limitation due to it being made by a very small team. That doesn't explain why Blizzard is making dungeons fully lit by blue/green lights. Does anyone think that is scary, moody or meant for a demon invaded world in the least?
In the end, what does explain Blizzard making these fully lit blue/green dungeons is that they jumped the shark. Is it wrong for people to get angry with companies, any company, when they do this? I could ask the same question when game companies release an unfinished game to prematurely make back money.
|Feb 21, 2011 05:12:33 AM|
If potential customers want to give their feedback on a future product, that's absolutely fine. In fact, I'd believe it's preferred by the company. However, there's a line between feedback and ownership.
Fans will never own the product under development. The people who have a stake in the product are the people who invest in the company and the company itself.
So, sure, fans will get angry when they don't see what they want to see. But there's really no follow-up to that. It's pure entitlement.
Fan entitlement generally doesn't work in a companies best interest. Though there are exceptions to that rule. Like with indie developers who are making games for a specific audience and not one so broad as the one that Blizzard must contend with.
Anyways, personally I'm happy with Blizzard's direction in Diablo 3, I have a few reservations, and I've given my feedback in those areas. But beyond that, everything about Diablo 3 screams "Blizzard." It's very easy to tell that Blizzard has their own palette of colors that they prefer to use.
|Feb 21, 2011 09:32:51 AM|
Its not so much the brightness of the dungeons. Its how the players and npc's are lit. Its dark gloomy dungeon and the monsters just dont match the atmosphere of the dungeon, even if the dungeon has that WoW concept-art looking textures.
Seriously, have a look at a piece of concept art and then look at some screenshots. Its like they extracted textures from their cartoony concept art.
|Feb 21, 2011 11:07:14 AM|
Well, I'm pretty sure their goal is to make enemies pop out of the screen, rather then blend into the dungeon's background.
Cartoony implies that the atmosphere is intentionally light-hearted, when that is far from the case.
Color doesn't equal cartoon, it really depends on how the color is being used. Which in the case of Diablo 3, color is intentionally being used to give the player a much better visual experience. Which means they aren't going to limit their color palette to simple dark tones.
|Feb 21, 2011 11:31:18 AM|
It's the characters too. Blizzard recently revealed the male hunter and they were talking about how realistic the model is. If you actually look at it though, the hunter model is completely out of proportion. the guy's muscles are gigantic, he has about a ten inch waste, his legs take up about 2/3 of his body length, etc. Basically he's proportioned like a barbie doll (similar to WoW characters) and not at all like how people are actually proportioned.
Granted, D2 wasn't perfect in this respect either. The female characters were very busty. Historically, Amazons were known to cut off their breasts so they could wield a bow effectively. For the most part, though, the characters in D2 were proportioned in a way that was at least physically possible.
|Feb 21, 2011 14:13:10 PM|
Well, you have to remember, these characters are going to be viewed from top-down. So, there are some obvious differences in proportion to make everything look right in the game.
Once you're actually playing the game, I highly doubt you'll be sitting their obsessing over the proportions of the character's bodies. You'll probably be more interested in the game-paly and action.
|Feb 21, 2011 14:35:27 PM|
PoE's characters are properly proportioned for the most part and I don't see any problem with those models in game.
"wrote:Once you're actually playing the game, I highly doubt you'll be sitting their obsessing over the proportions of the character's bodies. You'll probably be more interested in the game-play and action.
This is true. But these sorts of little things are important for setting the overall atmosphere of the game. Blizzard understands this which is why they made the deliberate decision to make the character look like it does.
In truth, it's not really the model itself that bothers me. It's a nice model and it looks cool and it'll be fun to play as. What bothered me was that the Blizzard devs made a big deal out of saying how realistic the model is when it's far from realistic. Is their frame of reference so skewed by WoW that they consider their male hunter model to be realistic? I don't know.
|Feb 21, 2011 14:50:35 PM|