If you don't like the color of this game!

[Darkchaoself]

Darkness needs some light, or darkness cant be defined, or compared to light, losing meaning. Cool.

The petition i agree with on most parts.

And looking at something, wait, whats that...a little up and over from the barb.

The current color looks like its just finishing from a storm; all the bad things have already happened, and the little kids can go back outside and play now that the rain has past. That isnt the case in D3. Evil is re-emerging and threatening Sanctuary once again. The second one more accurately represents it, the fierce middle of a storm; although i'm guessing that would be ~act 3, act 1 would be more of a kind of "Pre-Storm." (Large metaphoric paragraph.)

And tbh, idc if you say "Its still good just a change." Yea, change can be good, but also bad. And let me just say, the rainbow being a positive change, is blasphemy. If you want that color, go play WoW. Or Hello Kitty Island Adventure.

 

[AgentPaper]

Yea.

OR, get yourself another game

OR, sign the petition: http://new.petitiononline.com/d3art/petition.html

Anyone else think that petition is artificially large? I mean, sixty thousand people? Seriously? I would be more willing to take it seriously if you could view the names and comments of the signatures.

 

[Ioannes]

Could be. There's a lot of competitions or polls nowadays that have "ghost" votes in them (I'm pretty sure Eurovision is one of them; I'm confident about Eurovision country nominations, at least in Bulgaria) and there could also be "dead souls" in this one.

I can't sign it from home

Rainbow = presence of the sun. Not appropriate, unless the sun is somehow evil, unpleasant, hostile, etc. (that is - unless it's about the desert).

 

[Darkchaoself]

Rainbow = presence of the sun. Not appropriate, unless the sun is somehow evil, unpleasant, hostile, etc. (that is - unless it's about the desert).

I think your supporting making D3 darker, but im still gonna prove you wrong

Rainbows require the sun and rain/water to be created. The suns light is refracted by mist and water droplets, and is then changed to visible light, since violet has the shortest wavelength, it is seen first, and red has the longest wavelength, being seen on the top; always.

So once again, the rainbow would of had to come after the storm.

 

[Sajberhippie]

It is really noticable that you did not read the post at all, either you read it or you don't answer:nuts:

I think the critique that D3 has gotten is far overblown, but some things I think would heighten it a lot:
Light Radius. It worked quite bad in d2, but instead of dropping it they should have fixed it by decreasing the base sight radius (or maybe tie zooming to it, so that you can't unzoom farther than your light reaches). This could really work to improve the game athmosphere.
No. Rainbows.
Some of the art seen is kinda "wow"-ish, with oversized armor and clothing. While it is true that this existed in D2 in the form of concept art, it was neither ingame or in the menus. But I guess this is a quite minor problem, as it wasn't nearly as extreme as I thought when people first told me of the pictures.

 

[Pineapple]

Light radius boosting equipment was useless in D2. Hopelly they either get rid of that stuff or make it useful.

(here is a hind blizzard, extending the radius one pixel does not help.)

Hell, no mater what happened to the light radius I could STILL see and tell every enemy out of it apart.

 

[Genkora]

the only reason any of my gear ever had light radius is if it happened to have it along with something else I actually wanted.

 

[Samael88]

Light radius boosting equipment was useless in D2. Hopelly they either get rid of that stuff or make it useful.

(here is a hind blizzard, extending the radius one pixel does not help.)

Hell, no mater what happened to the light radius I could STILL see and tell every enemy out of it apart.

I agree on that one, tho making it useful can be difficult.

An easy solution would be making the game have more of a fog of war thing, like most strategy game, where you can only see the terrain within the fog, tho that would probably be a turnoff for most people (myself included).

I actually think that the light radius thiny in D2 was more of a eye candy thing, you get to see more of the game at one single time the more light-radius you have, or atleast see it "better".

Some of the art seen is kinda "wow"-ish, with oversized armor and clothing. While it is true that this existed in D2 in the form of concept art, it was neither ingame or in the menus. But I guess this is a quite minor problem, as it wasn't nearly as extreme as I thought when people first told me of the pictures.

The key word in that quote is "ingame" The thing is, have anyone ever seen the game as it will be when finished?
Answer to that question is no.
The "wow-ish" textures as you said, it is not as "wow-ish" as you think, if you take a closer look at the older SC2 screenshots you will probably notice that they had the same exact look to them, this was before the graphic overhaul blizzard rescently made to the game.
I myself don't think that there was anything different to the game compared to D2 when I watched the trailer, the weapons still have quite the same size as before, if they are bigger, then it is just better The bigger hammer you use to bash a ghoul, the better it feels to me

The thing is that there is no such thing as "wow-ish" graphics anyway, I would call it warcraft3-ish if anything, but that would not be true either, beacuse there are far many more games than wow that have had that exact same look to them that people today are calling "wow-ish".

The rainbows just make it even better, I have said it before and I will say it again. A rainbow is a natural phenomen that has more to do with physics and lights than anything else, if blizzard have made it possible to see rainbows where there is water "puffed" into the air, then they have really achieved something if you ask me.
If you don't get me, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow
And also, read about prysmatic light.

There is another side of the rainbow thing aswell, and that is contrast, "without darkness there would be no light"- some person somewhere.
Or viceversa in this case. The more light they have in the game the more strenght they give to the dark (There are limits to this tho).

If you had a game that was all darkness, D2 for example, not all darkness there, but there have always been a lack of "bright" areas, I mean areas of good-ness or whatever you preffer to name it, that makes the game less supricing, you go into a place and you go:
"Oh, it is.... "
*Drumwhirl starts playing your head*
You enter the area.
"Dark again".

What if it where this way:
"Oh it is...."
*Drumwhirl starts playing your head*
You enter the are.
"Dark, jay finally"

That would make the game a bit more interresting.

It sounds to me like people that complains about the light in D3 expects that just beacuse there is a damn rainbow there will be lollipops and unicorns everywhere But that would be almost a suicidal act for blizzard, and do you really consider them to be suicidal?

 

[Pineapple]

Unicorns would be bad ass. /fact

 

[Ioannes]

In continuation of this epic clash, I will mention a few things about the last post

The thing is, have anyone ever seen the game as it will be when finished?

Answer to that question is yes, Blizz have confirmed that this is the way the game will appear when released. The textures are WoW-ish compared to D2 and its thin sharp lines.

And then i see the problem: bashing a ghoul with an oversized hammer IS NOT the Diablo2 experience. Bashing it with a magical hammer that gives these and these bonuses and looks in this and this way so that it does not conflict the satanic gothic medieval atmosphere IS, but bashing it with this hammer just won't feel like playing Diablo. When I get me the game, I expect to see something with realistic shape.

And basically, realism is BAD for the Diablo feeling. In my huge post a couple of pages ago, I explained the gothic, evil atmosphere of demonic doom that enhanced the process of killing monsters by making it a process of killing some really evil monsters. And so (,Samael ) realism only helps to some extent.

Realism can contribute to creating this atmosphere. Making the weapons look normal in size, shape and volume is good. WarCraft-ish weaponry looks cartoonish and, all in all, not serious but has an air of playfulness about it.
This is the heavy armour in WoW, this is the heavy armor in Diablo2. Any difference? To me, personally, there is and it is that the WoW armor is way more cartoon-ish than the Diablo2 one. How is that bad? Well, it erodes the above described evil hellish atmosphere. It is like the difference between

and

Guess which one represents the Diablo style better.

However, realism can take away from the atmosphere of hell having risen. Rainbows and lush grass are realistic, but there is no place for them in the game. Act1 had grass, but there the grass was short and within limits. A rainbow is realistic, but it, like the sun, takes away from the Diablo-feeling. There are no rainbows in Diablo, because it is Diablo and realism ends there.

Finally, I need to clarify something. People may play the game for the sake of pure action, but they may also play it for the sake of escaping reality. The second case is when things like graphics and sound come into the equation of making a good game. The things the player sees are the main way for him to escape reality into the world of the game and have fun. This is the reason, for example, you will feel awkward when you are playing StarWars KotOR and every single thrandosian or wookie or whatever wears a clown's nose. What Blizz are making is not a Diablo game. It may be called Diablo 3, and its characters and places may have names from the Diablo franchise, but it is a new hack&slash RPG with this kind of feeling that I see.

 

[Samael88]

First of all, I have not seen anything that even looked like that in D3 so far.

Second, you can't be serious when you compare that tripod logo to a game at all:nuts:

I think that there is one thing you people keep forgetting:
D2 = 2D
D3= 3D

That makes a lot of difference in appearance there already.

What I get from you is that you would rather see a doom 3 lookalike where you run around in a pitch black room with a freakin flashligt, rather than a blizzard game.

Blizzard got their touch to their games, if anything why don't you call is blizzard-ish graphics?

Another thing, that armor on the paladin was never in the game, and even if it where it was a little 2D thing that could had been made by any little 15 year old boy and photoshop today

There is one thing you missed in my big post, the contrast, You can't have Darkness without light.

If you turn of your screen, it will turn black, right?
If you draw a huge black ball in mspain, it will appear even darker beacuse there is a lot of white around it.

And also, how the F*** can you even compare the first act of D2 with this?
1. It is 2D.
2. Second, the first act is one of the best acts in D2, since it brings out the dark shroud but still in a "slight-hope-for-the-light-way".

If you want "wow-ish" in the Diablo franshise then why don't you compare the colorful spells in D2 with wow instead? I think that would be a good comparision to me

 

[Darkchaoself]

First of all, I have not seen anything that even looked like that in D3 so far.

Second, you can't be serious when you compare that tripod logo to a game at all:nuts:

I think that there is one thing you people keep forgetting:
D2 = 2D
D3= 3D

That makes a lot of difference in appearance there already.

What I get from you is that you would rather see a doom 3 lookalike where you run around in a pitch black room with a freakin flashligt, rather than a blizzard game.

Blizzard got their touch to their games, if anything why don't you call is blizzard-ish graphics?

Another thing, that armor on the paladin was never in the game, and even if it where it was a little 2D thing that could had been made by any little 15 year old boy and photoshop today

There is one thing you missed in my big post, the contrast, You can't have Darkness without light.

If you turn of your screen, it will turn black, right?
If you draw a huge black ball in mspain, it will appear even darker beacuse there is a lot of white around it.

And also, how the F*** can you even compare the first act of D2 with this?
1. It is 2D.
2. Second, the first act is one of the best acts in D2, since it brings out the dark shroud but still in a "slight-hope-for-the-light-way".

If you want "wow-ish" in the Diablo franshise then why don't you compare the colorful spells in D2 with wow instead? I think that would be a good comparision to me

[del]Im very sorry to say this to you, but,[/del] You have absolutely no idea what your talking about.

First off, i cant even tell what image your corresponding the first 2 sentences to; i don't see a tripod; and "I haven't seen that in diablo" could relate to so many images in this thread.

2nd thing: This is where it just seemed like you typed, without thinking. In no way is D2 2D. I'm not sure what gave you that idea. They kept the same movement in D3, so that's just a dead giveaway. Please note that the qualities of graphics =/= the #dimension. An example of 2D would be a Mario game, and no, not Galaxy, Sunshine, etc. One like Super Mario Bros. Thats 2D.

So, a company's name = The deciding rule on all their game graphics?
Nintendo is a company, so you expect kirby games to look the same as a game such as "No More Heroes" or "Madworld"? No.

Actually, if you played D2 past [del]Act 1[/del] the opening talk with Warriv, you'd see the armor is quite frequently used. And, if its so easy to make, then do it. It has to be 3D too, its got a back, a front, and sides.

*Turns off screen* Yea, i know that happens, how does it relate?
Mspain? Black is black, unless its at least partially white, even slightly, your not getting black to look darker. There isnt anything darker, thats why.

Yea, D2=/=D3 ....wait i thought you were trying to prove that before with the whole light thing?
1. No, its 3D
2. Hypocrite.

Colorful? So because its not black its colorful? Please play WoW before you compare to it, we arent judging color as much as were judging light. Please watch a video on the WoW spells "Starfire" or "Rejuvenation." Or better yet, "Tranquility". All druid spells. Now compare it to the D2 druid spells "Volcano" "Molten Boulder" or "Armageddon". Just from the names you can see that D2 spells are going to be more dark, hell, ones named "Armageddon"; the end of the world.

I hope you took time to read this post, and actually learn about the two games. Any questions?

Oh, and did i have a post after #48 (Before this one)? I think i thought about posting in reply to it, but theres no reply from me there. Was it deleted, or was i just too lazy to ever reply?

 

[Samael88]

[del]Im very sorry to say this to you, but,[/del] You have absolutely no idea what your talking about.

First off, i cant even tell what image your corresponding the first 2 sentences to; i don't see a tripod; and "I haven't seen that in diablo" could relate to so many images in this thread.

2nd thing: This is where it just seemed like you typed, without thinking. In no way is D2 2D. I'm not sure what gave you that idea. They kept the same movement in D3, so that's just a dead giveaway. Please note that the qualities of graphics =/= the #dimension. An example of 2D would be a Mario game, and no, not Galaxy, Sunshine, etc. One like Super Mario Bros. Thats 2D.

So, a company's name = The deciding rule on all their game graphics?
Nintendo is a company, so you expect kirby games to look the same as a game such as "No More Heroes" or "Madworld"? No.

Actually, if you played D2 past [del]Act 1[/del] the opening talk with Warriv, you'd see the armor is quite frequently used. And, if its so easy to make, then do it. It has to be 3D too, its got a back, a front, and sides.

*Turns off screen* Yea, i know that happens, how does it relate?
Mspain? Black is black, unless its at least partially white, even slightly, your not getting black to look darker. There isnt anything darker, thats why.

Yea, D2=/=D3 ....wait i thought you were trying to prove that before with the whole light thing?
1. No, its 3D
2. Hypocrite.

Colorful? So because its not black its colorful? Please play WoW before you compare to it, we arent judging color as much as were judging light. Please watch a video on the WoW spells "Starfire" or "Rejuvenation." Or better yet, "Tranquility". All druid spells. Now compare it to the D2 druid spells "Volcano" "Molten Boulder" or "Armageddon". Just from the names you can see that D2 spells are going to be more dark, hell, ones named "Armageddon"; the end of the world.

I hope you took time to read this post, and actually learn about the two games. Any questions?

Oh, and did i have a post after #48 (Before this one)? I think i thought about posting in reply to it, but theres no reply from me there. Was it deleted, or was i just too lazy to ever reply?

What the H*** are you talking about?

I am trying to get people not to compare the game to wow

Earlier today there was a picture there that said "This image is hosted by tripod", instead of that notredame thing

I have played wow, that's why I know it's not like D3:S

And yes, most of D2 is actually 2D, have you even seen the game?
It uses a 3D engine to project 2D stuff to the screen:nuts:
This is quoted directly from blizzards Diablo2 info page:

Optional PC 3D Acceleration

* Supports Glide™ and Direct 3D™ compatible video cards with at least 8MB of video RAM. Direct 3D™ requires 64 MB of system RAM

If there where 3D in D2, then it would not had been able to handle the game with cards that does not have 3D support at all Just beacuse a game get's better graphics with Direct 3D does not make it in 3D

Colorful? So because its not black its colorful? Please play WoW before you compare to it, we arent judging color as much as were judging light. Please watch a video on the WoW spells "Starfire" or "Rejuvenation." Or better yet, "Tranquility". All druid spells. Now compare it to the D2 druid spells "Volcano" "Molten Boulder" or "Armageddon". Just from the names you can see that D2 spells are going to be more dark, hell, ones named "Armageddon"; the end of the world.

Have you even played those games?
beacuse the: "Just from the names you can see that D2 spells are going to be more dark, " Makes it sound like you have not:nuts:

And D2 spells look more colorful than the wow ones beacuse the game itself is darker, it has nothing to do with graphics, or names for that matter, It is the contrast

Second, I have played D2 since the day it came out, don't you think I know my games?:shades:

I think that you should read my post one more time and read the post above first so you can see what I am arguing against instead of throwing words in the air like that

 

[Darkchaoself]

What the H*** are you talking about?

I am trying to get people not to compare the game to wow

Earlier today there was a picture there that said "This image is hosted by tripod", instead of that notredame thing

I have played wow, that's why I know it's not like D3:S

And yes, most of D2 is actually 2D, have you even seen the game?
It uses a 3D engine to project 2D stuff to the screen:nuts:
This is quoted directly from blizzards Diablo2 info page:


If there where 3D in D2, then it would not had been able to handle the game with cards that does not have 3D support at all Just beacuse a game get's better graphics with Direct 3D does not make it in 3D



Have you even played those games?
beacuse the: "Just from the names you can see that D2 spells are going to be more dark, " Makes it sound like you have not:nuts:

And D2 spells look more colorful than the wow ones beacuse the game itself is darker, it has nothing to do with graphics, or names for that matter, It is the contrast

Second, I have played D2 since the day it came out, don't you think I know my games?:shades:

I think that you should read my post one more time and read the post above first so you can see what I am arguing against instead of throwing words in the air like that

Just to start off: Is English your second launguage? My first part was easily understandable.

Tripods an image hosting service.

Actually, not, its really not.
Why use the nuts smiley for that sentence? Oh, you must clearly not understand what you saying, i get it. Even if what you said made sense, it'd still make it 3D.

Im sorry, what? Handle the cards? IT saying that it supports 3D cards, meaning it can only use those; ie: Its a 3D game.(Second reason i ask if enlgish is your 2nd language)

Yes, but i dont think you have.
You do realize that i was saying that without even having to look at the spells, the names are a clear give away that they are darker; not that you can judge it just by that. (3rd reason)

No, they dont. No, its not.

No.

No, i read your's fine, i think your the one having trouble here.

 

[Samael88]

Just to start off: Is English your second launguage? My first part was easily understandable.

Tripods an image hosting service.

Actually, not, its really not.
Why use the nuts smiley for that sentence? Oh, you must clearly not understand what you saying, i get it. Even if what you said made sense, it'd still make it 3D.

Im sorry, what? Handle the cards? IT saying that it supports 3D cards, meaning it can only use those; ie: Its a 3D game.(Second reason i ask if enlgish is your 2nd language)

Yes, but i dont think you have.
You do realize that i was saying that without even having to look at the spells, the names are a clear give away that they are darker; not that you can judge it just by that. (3rd reason)

No, they dont. No, its not.

No.

No, i read your's fine, i think your the one having trouble here.

No, it's my second language, but I read and write english really well. It seems that english is your second language aswell.

The game can be played with graphiccards which does not have 3D support, what part of that is it that you don't understand?
Put together an old 4:86 and see for yourself that it does not need 3D support to run.

And another thing, can you please stop flaming this thread before the admins closes it?

 

[Darkchaoself]

No, it's my second language, but I read and write english really well. It seems that english is your second language aswell.

The game can be played with graphiccards which does not have 3D support, what part of that is it that you don't understand?
Put together an old 4:86 and see for yourself that it does not need 3D support to run.

And another thing, can you please stop flaming this thread before the admins closes it?

Alright, i can give you a little leeway with that (Good job on learning a second language this well too, its a tough thing to do :thup. It seems like everything i say, you just say back to me (Second language, "you have no idea what your talking about" "It doesn't seem like you played the games" etc.) And actually, although I'm in 9th grade, im in all honor classes, including ELA, with a 93 average, mind you.

Any proof? Have you tried this? Whats a 4:86? And yes, Diablo 2 CAN be run 3D, and normally is.

I'm not flaming, I'm stating my opinion, which differs from yours. If anything, you started the thread saying how if we don't like the color: we are wrong, its fine, etc.

 

[Knight7770]

Well, first, this is related. I haven't actually played D2, but I just watched some videos. It's like StarCraft, which is also 2 dimensional (although the sprites were created with 3D models, or so I've heard).

No, it's my second language, but I read and write english really well. It seems that english is your second language aswell.

Not everyone would agree, Mr. As-well-is-not-a-single-word. On a related note,

The game can be played with graphiccards which does not have 3D support

Very nice agreement going on there (graphics cards is also not one word).

And finally, what does this have to do with anything? :nuts:

 

[Samael88]

Well, first, this is related. I haven't actually played D2, but I just watched some videos. It's like StarCraft, which is also 2 dimensional (although the sprites were created with 3D models, or so I've heard).

Yes, it is related. And yes, you recall have heard correct, the sprites where created with 3D models, or atleast they look like it, open up the D2 MPQ file and have a look for youself(assuming you have the game yourself)

Not everyone would agree, Mr. As-well-is-not-a-single-word. On a related note,

Very nice agreement going on there (graphics cards is also not one word).

And finally, what does this have to do with anything? :nuts:

yeah, I am getting a bit rusty, but that is not only my english

Any proof? Have you tried this? Whats a 4:86? And yes, Diablo 2 CAN be run 3D, and normally is.

I have tried it myself. A 4:86 is a really old computer, here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80486
If that old bucket can run it(with severe lag tho), then it can't be a 3D required game.

The thing is that the game is made in 2D, and then it has support for 3D, which makes the graphics a bit better, but it does not make it 3D:nuts:

Here is a link to an MPQ program, if you own a copy of D2, install the game and use this program to open up the MPQ, if you find a single 3D model there, then please show it to me, beacuse that would be a thing I would like to see
http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/tools-560/mpq-extractor-1-0-a-63410/


Why are people telling me of all the time?
I created this thread a long time ago beacuse I was sick of the people complaining about the colors of the game, and trying to get them to shut up:nuts:

 

[Darkchaoself]

Yes, it is related. And yes, you recall have heard correct, the sprites where created with 3D models, or atleast they look like it, open up the D2 MPQ file and have a look for youself(assuming you have the game yourself)



yeah, I am getting a bit rusty, but that is not only my english




I have tried it myself. A 4:86 is a really old computer, here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80486
If that old bucket can run it(with severe lag tho), then it can't be a 3D required game.

The thing is that the game is made in 2D, and then it has support for 3D, which makes the graphics a bit better, but it does not make it 3D:nuts:

Here is a link to an MPQ program, if you own a copy of D2, install the game and use this program to open up the MPQ, if you find a single 3D model there, then please show it to me, beacuse that would be a thing I would like to see
http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/tools-560/mpq-extractor-1-0-a-63410/


Why are people telling me of all the time?
I created this thread a long time ago beacuse I was sick of the people complaining about the colors of the game, and trying to get them to shut up:nuts:

Why put on the box that it has support for 3D, only? When you talk specs, you dont put the max something can run at, you put the minimum (ie: Needs at least 1gb of RAM; not "Can have a maximum of 8gb of RAM running this, the rest is useless")

Too much time i dont have to do that.

Telling you off? Maybe because this thread is basically saying "The light in D3 is good, stop complaining, because your opinion is wrong" AKA: People have different opinions, yours isnt "the right one." (Theres no "Right" opinion)

 

[Cheesy]

Diablo 2 uses 2D sprites in a 3-dimensional world.

/argument