Series' architect 'prefers dark and gritty', but reckons new art style 'makes complete sense'.
Bill Roper, one of the chief architects behind the Diablo series, has revealed to VideoGamer.com what he thinks of the hotly-anticipated Diablo III.
Blizzard caused an internet storm when it released the first screenshots and gameplay footage of the game in June last year. The game has a brighter, more cartoon-esque art style than previous iterations, similar to that of Blizzard's hugely successful Craft games, World of Warcraft and StarCraft.
Following the reveal fans launched an online petition calling for a "darker, more realistic" look. At the time of writing the petition has 59285 signatories.
Roper, ex-vice president of Blizzard North, the now defunct Blizzard satellite studio that was responsible for the Diablo games, told VideoGamer.com in an interview to be published later this week, that while he "didn't look at it (the released Diablo III gameplay footage) and go, oh my God that's horrible", "as a player it just didn't really ring with Diablo".
He said: "One of the things I always enjoyed about that separation between Blizzard and Blizzard North was that the Diablo games had a very distinct art style. They had different art directors, they had different people working on it, they had a different sensibility about them. Diablo was I think grittier and darker and a little more leaning towards the photo realistic. Whereas the Craft games that were being built down in Irvine were bigger and broader in scope, brighter colours, just different pallets and different presentation. Both of those were very strong from that visual standpoint, for example.
"But it makes complete sense to me where they went because they basically took the Diablo universe and then approached it from the Blizzard Ivine stance for the visuals. That's the way they approach things. It wasn't that I looked at it and went, oh my God that looks terrible. I was like, that looks like Blizzard. The guys in Irvine. That's what it looks like to me. Their interpretation of it."
When asked if he was disappointed or pleased with Diablo's new art style, Roper, who is now design director and executive producer of Atari-owned Cryptic Studios, and in charge of Champions Online, a superhero MMO due out on PC this spring, said: "You know, I liked the darker grittier. I liked the differences in art style, to be honest. So, I think I would personally from a player standpoint prefer that.
"I think that one of the things that we always tried to get across was that Diablo was Gothic fantasy and I think there was just a need that was put in there from the visuals that I didn't necessarily get. I got it from the architecture and to a degree from the character design but not the feeling of the world. I can't say that I dislike it. I didn't look at it and go, oh my God that's horrible. But I looked at it and went, it's not really... to me as a player it just didn't really ring with Diablo."
Diablo III is currently without a release date.
Be sure to check back tomorrow for the first part of our mammoth interview with PC gaming legend Bill Roper.
Do you agree with Bill? Do you prefer "darker grittier"? Or are you happy with Diablo III's art style? Let us know in the comments section below.
Champions Online: Accolades Trailer02 Nov 2009
Champions Online: Anthem Trailer07 Oct 2009
Gameplay Clip 128 Jun 2008
Diablo III: Cinematic Trailer28 Jun 2008
Star Trek Online: Starship Tactics: Part 118 Nov 2009
Star Trek Online: Bridge Gameplay Trailer18 Nov 2009
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
I think it's important to note what the D3 devs at Blizzard have said about the game's art direction ever since it was announced last year. The "dark" art direction of the first two Diablo games was simply an unintended consequence of the limitations posed by the technology they used to create the games. This notion that all older Diablo players are in love with (myself included) of a "darker" fantasy world is a result of the fact that they were trying to make a kind of horror-laced action rpg and unfortunately at the time the best method they had for instilling that atmosphere in a game was playing with the lighting. Besides if you compare Act 2 of Diablo 2 with the screens from Diablo3, the outside areas of the desert (until darkness consumes the desert as part of the storyline) and the bright colors of the Canyon of Magi aren't too much different from the new game.
So while I have fond memories of the older, darker Diablo 1 & 2, I'm looking forward to the new direction to see where they take it. After all they have a lot more tools to instill atmosphere than just the gamma.
And as for a console port, I really don't think the point & click play style of the Diablo games is well-suited for console controls. Just look at what happened to Diablo 1 when it was ported to the PS1. Complete and utter garbage for those who don't know/remember.
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
Really Bill? "But I looked at it and went, it's not really... to me as a player it just didn't really ring with Diablo."
So did it ring more like "damn I just created a studio that put out a game that sucked so bad at launch no one could play it, we had massive refund issues, and now it's offline" or was it more, "hmmm that game is going to make millions of dollars and my whole effort as a studio lead was a write-off?"
I have played DI and DII quite a bit through the years and the funny thing about all these people saying it doesn't look dark enough, they will shell out all the money it costs at launch and play the hell out of it.
People romanticize the past way too much. The graphics on Diablo 2 were actually worse than 1. The resolution was so bad that on big monitors it looked like you were playing pixelated ideas of what the D2 screenshots were when they previewed the game. D2 was fun because of the gameplay, the loot, the co-op play, the boss's you worked towards killing and the setting. D3 has all of that and it looks far better than D2. The voice acting is there, the over the top spells and characters are in place, and it's Blizzard and you WILL play it you sheep.
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
That aside they did skimp on the details on the floors and walls. Even wow as cartoon as it was still took the time to put the details in.
Do I miss the cool weapons of Diablo I & II yes but they were the same twenty weapons with different stats on them. If D3 has more models of weapons I will forgive that the gritty details that are missing in the environment, if they are in the character. Then again from everything I've seen so far I'm not seeing blizzards level of quality D3.
» Go to 's original post
» Go to Ogre's original post
» Go to ghost92's original post
The level designs were terrible for diablo 1 and 2, yes it was dark but the monsters and what not were bright as hell, i mean for the people that think the art direction for diablo 3 makes it look gay, diablo 1 and 2 used the same models but different colors for different monsters. There were purple and light blue yetis in the game. For me the horror atmosphere came from the audio of the game.
If you've seen the fan made video of what they think diablo 3 should look like, you'll notice that the light radius and darkness cuts out alot of detail from the map, and unlike diablo 1 and 2, in diablo 3 you actually may need to use your surroundings.
» Go to 's original post
Vasdrakken apparently has no idea what he/she is talking about, as Roper and his team designed a series which introduced and expanded new gaming markets. They definitely know how to sell a game or as you put it "players and money side of thing". News flash: they knew what they were doing, it's why the series is so popular.
billyz, that's an outright lie: it had nothing to do with "limitations". It was a style they created, which Roper himself has stated. Thus it was intentional. It's a game that is defined as "Gothic Fantasy" it's suppose to be dark, gritty, with more realistic color palletes, and washed out values and unsaturated tones. That, coupled with the dark lighting is a major aspect (and appeal) of the Diablo franchies look, style and feel.
The reason they did this is simple: it will allow the game to be desireable to a larger target market; the same target market that plays WoW, which will guarantee high sales, while completely foregoing the people who made their Diablo franchise in the first place. It's certainly one of the finest examples of selling out. It's what most have come to expect from Blizzard. It wont be surprising to see it with an ESRB rating of T either because of it.
And the bottom line is this (this is especially for you Ogre) We don't care what Blizzard wants. Do you know why? Because we're the ones who pump out the money to purchase their product because it's something WE want. If all the Diablo fans want a WoW experience, they'd just go play WoW then. Thus, while there may be a great deal of new features, enemies, weapons, items, blah blah blah, it doesn't excuse the overall style, feel, and artistic design choices of the game, which are solely about making money, and not about pleasing the massive fan-base which made the franchise (and is still making it) what it is today.
Post Comment
Login or register to reply to this topic
Create a new account or login to take part in this topic discussion.