Graphical quality of Diablo 3 (beta)

Avatar image for Berdmanfx
#1 Posted by Berdmanfx (25 posts) -

I'd like to hear others opinions on D3's graphical impression.

Personally.. I'm extremely disappointed. I expected at least SC2 quality, and I barely got WOW quality. I understand Blizzard focuses on storyline and gameplay... But these graphics are personally killing me.

Thoughts?

Avatar image for battle_chaser9
#2 Posted by battle_chaser9 (178 posts) -

I personally like the graphics, I think that Blizzard found their art style for their next few games. Know blizzard they tend to go with a graphics style that is pleasing for the masses and also playable from numerous computer builds (mediocre to awesome cpus). Most of the complaints I hear is that "it's not gothic enough" or whatever, but the game is dark, bloody and violent. I just did a run with 2 barbs a monk and wizard, the action was fun and very gory.

Avatar image for Ultramarinus
#3 Posted by Ultramarinus (1046 posts) -

Especially the characters look terrible, it feels like a Titan Quest 2,5 overall. This level of poor graphics aren't excusable by any desire to support old PC's. It looks like a 2005 game at best.

Avatar image for Stead_Ward
#4 Posted by Stead_Ward (25 posts) -
Yes the graphics are not to my taste. Not only do they seem sub par, but the cartoonist direction they went with takes away from realism and scariness, 2 addicting qualities of the Diablo series. Littered throughout the hell scape there are bodies but all of them are bloodied bright red, making them seem a bit cartoon, and if you don't look for these details the overall scenery looks pretty, not scary. But I guess I didn't get into it enough, its just the beta right? Well many of the major game aspects have changed that make the game less interactive. The quests are extremely obvious, the dialogue can be completely skipped, and there is no in depth skill tree changes at each level or attribute points, to make you lean into the screen and become one with your character. The next step in the active quest is always blinking softly at the edge of your screen, and theres even a cirle on the mini map in the fog showing you exactly where to go... Now the character levels up entirely automatically, even prompting you when a level has unlocked a new skill. Later you do have the option of tweaking your spells to do slightly different thing based on which runes you use. But ultimately these options can be changed at anytime, and are the same set of options for every barbarian, etc. The only random actual choices is what item to use, and that even has a built in computer program to assess exactly which item is better for your character, in the form of one big number. Its as if the developers wanted to play diablo, but were lazy and didn't want to put any effort into playing through the dungeons, or trial and error runs on how to attribute points at level up. But that means there is no skill involved anymore, just spending the time to item farm, so your items let you win. I guess they claim the skill is in questing with others on harder difficulties. Okay fine, but that's still just clicking, yes back and forth between 2 different skills, 2 from a choice set of like 7, which all are basically good. No skill needed to figure out good skill tree synergies, attribute item combos, for crying outloud I wanted to make a barbarian that was heavy in dexterity.....guess I gotta make my barbarian like everyone else s and just hope for some cool items....soooo boring and unreal I stopped playing the beta before I had to because it was making me sad. So im at least gunna wait to buy it until after some updates come out after release. Or maybe when the new classes get added, cuz at the moment the game is pretty bad. What they should have done was added quests that allow you to reassign a skill point, and just made the quest repeatable and take like 20 minutes, solves the issue of stupid people making the wrong decision and then getting upset about it....what does blizzard care anyway,s they already bought the game, and oh yea, they're stupid. Why does everything have to be made for stupid people now??? Why can't I have a pool without a fence? Why can't a fly on an airplane without taking off my shoes? Why can't a start a business without a permit? .... I guess those good ol days really were good ol days.
Avatar image for ShimmerMan
#5 Posted by ShimmerMan (4595 posts) -

The graphics in the beta are just plain bad. There's no point in using 3D graphics if you won't use upto tech such as dynamic lighting and ambient occlusion and depth of frame and all that other good stuff. I get 120+ FPS on a 560TI which is ridiculous considering how cheap this card is and there are cards on the market three times as strong.

Avatar image for hireath
#7 Posted by hireath (261 posts) -
i think diablo 2 would look better if it was updated to 1920x1080. the colours and contrasts are still better and it has less cartoony/exaggerated character design. plus there was gore in diablo 2, in the beta i can't remember seeing a droplet of blood - ffs diablo made a name for itself because of realism and gore.... not cartoonish and toddler-safe. simple is often better.... why the hell do the characters look so 'distinct'? it makes it even more obvious that everyone looks identical under their hood.
Avatar image for citrus_oranges
#8 Posted by citrus_oranges (903 posts) -

The graphics are okay. I actually find it an interesting take in the artstyle where it's dark yet still vibrant with the introduction of different colors. I always thought that Diablo 2 was a little too bland in color and that the 'gothic' look was practically universal in the whole game. I suppose it's also easy on the more low-end and mid ranged computers so that most people can play it.

And seriously... a card around 200 bucks is cheap? c'mon...

Avatar image for hireath
#9 Posted by hireath (261 posts) -

The graphics are okay. I actually find it an interesting take in the artstyle where it's dark yet still vibrant with the introduction of different colors. I always thought that Diablo 2 was a little too bland in color and that the 'gothic' look was practically universal in the whole game. I suppose it's also easy on the more low-end and mid ranged computers so that most people can play it.

And seriously... a card around 200 bucks is cheap? c'mon...

citrus_oranges

eh? diablo 2 graphics were marvellous for their time and the colour contrast was vibrant and great to look at.

where is the contrast in diablo 3? the colours are so lifeless and weak. it looks like the game is running behind a white-gray filter, like your monitor brightness setting is rediculously high.

in diablo 2 the black was black, and the greens, blues and reds were immense and true. imo even with the crappy resolution limit, diablo 2 actually looks more pretty than diablo 3 because of the colours alone.

Avatar image for mep69
#10 Posted by mep69 (1926 posts) -
i think the graphics are awesome, look at the orginial canceled diablo 3. Now that looked awefull.
Avatar image for Pr3acher
#11 Posted by Pr3acher (314 posts) -

sc2 was weaker than sc1 just because it tried too hard to surpass it.

 

d3 is a combination of d1 and d2, adding new things but not trying to do everything better than its predecessors.

 

if you nitpick on graphical quality for blizzard games you should a. get your priorities straight and b. go install crysis or some eye candy shooter.

 

This game is all about the loot, music, mood and cow level.

Avatar image for mep69
#12 Posted by mep69 (1926 posts) -

sc2 was weaker than sc1 just because it tried too hard to surpass it.

 

d3 is a combination of d1 and d2, adding new things but not trying to do everything better than its predecessors.

 

if you nitpick on graphical quality for blizzard games you should a. get your priorities straight and b. go install crysis or some eye candy shooter.

 

This game is all about the loot, music, mood and cow level.

Pr3acher
Ah but in the beta loading screen a little note says "There is no Cow level". Unless they are trolling.
Avatar image for BovineDivine
#13 Posted by BovineDivine (283 posts) -

I expected the visuals to be more grim and I also didn't expect their skill system to differ that far from previous entries in the genre.

 

expectations lead to dissapointment... I guess that if I were capable of viewing d3 as its own game and stop incessently comparing it to d2 and d1 I'd be more pleased with what i've seen so far. Only time will tell.

Avatar image for OgreB
#14 Posted by OgreB (2523 posts) -
I'm glad I played the open beta, saved me 60 bucks. The graphics and game play are just awful. Ughh.
Avatar image for Arcturus559
#15 Posted by Arcturus559 (25 posts) -
I am a massive Diablo II fanboy. I played D2 in middle and highschool back in 'the day'. It was a lot of fun to play, and was challenging even on Normal difficulty in many cases. The colors looked amazing, and the skill system was intuitive, fun, allowed for customization, and included a whole lot more skills per class than D3. Overall, I think D2 was just a more well-rounded game than D3. Also - and I have not played D3 yet so bear with me - the classes in D3 look very, very linear. There does not seem to be much room for specialization. Further, it seems that D3 is "Trying to be different from D2" too much, just like SC2 "Tried to be different from SC1" too much. They got rid of the Necromancer and Paladin - two core classes of D2 that everyone liked to play. The witch-doctor seems comic-like with the flying bomb-bats, etc. The other classes look okay, but they look A LOT more linear than the D2 classes were. The sorcerer for example gets instant access to all of the skills with no specialization required? No Ultimates for each element? No teleport?!
Avatar image for Luka89
#16 Posted by Luka89 (61 posts) -

I'd like to hear others opinions on D3's graphical impression.

Personally.. I'm extremely disappointed. I expected at least SC2 quality, and I barely got WOW quality. I understand Blizzard focuses on storyline and gameplay... But these graphics are personally killing me.

Thoughts?

Berdmanfx
Yup same here, I was like wtf?! Is that it Oo Only the graphics looks somehow lame to me...
Avatar image for dzimm
#17 Posted by dzimm (4706 posts) -

Threads like this make me laugh, especially when people praise the aesthetics of Diablo 2 and act like nobody ever had a problem with them. Maybe they don't remember, but when Diablo 2 came out, it was limited to a resolution of 640x480 at a time when 1024x768 was becoming standard. It was also unapologetically 2D at a time when more and more games were making the jump to 3D. For this, Diablo 2 was widely criticized for its "dated" graphics with pixels as big as your nose and ugly, washed out visuals that lacked detail.

Of course the critics were wrong about Diablo 2 then, just as they're wrong about Diablo 3 now. History repeats itself.

Here's Christian Lichtner, the art director of Diablo 3, giving an hour-long presentation about Diablo 3's design aesthetics:

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1015306/The-Art-of-Diablo

Avatar image for SongeeX
#18 Posted by SongeeX (233 posts) -

All is fine with those graphics. if you wanna see some eye candy, why don't you step outside your home and look around? It's spring, plenty of nice things to look at. If you want dark creep places, find a basement or old buildings and sit there and enjoy the view. You will experience the "most up to date graphics".

It's a game. You are supposed to play it, not boot up the game and stare at graphics how gorgeous they are.

Avatar image for bsnimunf
#19 Posted by bsnimunf (1039 posts) -

test

Avatar image for ZRavN
#20 Posted by ZRavN (25 posts) -

On the technical level I feel like the game is quite dated, which is wierd considering how advanced starcraft 2 ended up. Models and textures look legitimately terrible for a 2012 game. Titans quest came out in 2006 I think and looks more advanced than diablo 3. Path of exile, which is free to play mind you and made by 1/200th of the development team at blizzard with much lower finances looks way more detailed than diablo 3.

On an artistic level, I think the game has a pleasant consistent look with nice colors and is easy to "read". However, I believe that they should have stuck with the dark gothic horror theme of the first 2 diablos. I especially loved diablo 1s asthetic. I am not a huge fan of the somewhat goofy and cartoony animations and the cartoony exageration of purportions on the models. The game looks more like a tod mcfarlance comic which is not the style I am looking for.

Basically, I feel like blizzard sold out and made the game appeal to as wide an audience as possible in all aspects of its design. Unfortunately, something was sacrificed in this process and the game is just boring to me. Its kind of wierd they made the game look closer to what we saw in torchlight 1 then diablo1.

Avatar image for csward
#21 Posted by csward (1607 posts) -

[QUOTE="citrus_oranges"]

The graphics are okay. I actually find it an interesting take in the artstyle where it's dark yet still vibrant with the introduction of different colors. I always thought that Diablo 2 was a little too bland in color and that the 'gothic' look was practically universal in the whole game. I suppose it's also easy on the more low-end and mid ranged computers so that most people can play it.

And seriously... a card around 200 bucks is cheap? c'mon...

hireath

 

eh? diablo 2 graphics were marvellous for their time and the colour contrast was vibrant and great to look at.

 

where is the contrast in diablo 3? the colours are so lifeless and weak. it looks like the game is running behind a white-gray filter, like your monitor brightness setting is rediculously high.

 

in diablo 2 the black was black, and the greens, blues and reds were immense and true. imo even with the crappy resolution limit, diablo 2 actually looks more pretty than diablo 3 because of the colours alone.

Um, D2 graphics were not "marvellous" for their time, they were okay. The art style was superb, as always is the case with a Blizz game, but the ploys/textures are low, and it is the same for most Blizzard games. D3 characters models/animations just look BAD though. Like PS2 baulders gate era bad. Blizz needs to release an HD graphics patch. 

Avatar image for dzimm
#22 Posted by dzimm (4706 posts) -
Diablo 2's visuals were sharply criticized when it was first released. Anybody who thinks otherwise is either ignorant or fooling themselves.
Avatar image for ShimmerMan
#23 Posted by ShimmerMan (4595 posts) -

. D3 characters models/animations just look BAD though. Like PS2 baulders gate era bad. Blizz needs to release an HD graphics patch. 

csward

 

LOl this. Also some of the environment looks very low poly, makes the game look like Dungeon Hunter:alliance.