Are the graphics amped down for the beta?

General Discussion
Prev 1 3 4 5 22 Next
I agree. After skyrim, this game is a little unimpressive graphically. Not bad-mouthing the game AT ALL, just agreeing that the graphics are somewhat untextured IMO.


This right here makes me cringe. Do you really contrast every game to Skyrim?...
I would take a 2D scroller that gave me months of game play over a $60 3D game that you finish in 4 hours.

Totally agree with this. I'd rather companies spend more development time and money on the Content of their games rather than having a horrible game that simply looks Pretty.
There is a graphic quality slider for a reason. I'm sorry, but given the amount of time it has taken to get D3 to this point, I was expecting a much better range of graphics than what I've seen so far. While a lot of people might have crappy older computers who are just dying to play this game, there are also a lot of people with new systems and larger, higher res panels that expect to see something visually impressive. Let the welfare cases with 5 year old computers set the graphics to Ultra Low and allow those of us with a computer worth more than the cost of the game itself to actually enjoy it.
We're not particularly interested in pushing graphical limits with Blizzard games. Our intent is always to provide a timeless stylized aesthetic, while allowing for a broad range of machines to view the game with similar results. The art style for Diablo III is specifically intended to appear as a moving painting, which in general avoids very crisp textures or hard lines.

More importantly though we [url="http://media.diablofans.com/images/news/2012/march/gdc/fullqqa/qq8.jpg"]specifically separate[/url] background from [url="http://media.diablofans.com/images/news/2012/march/gdc/fullqqa/qq6.jpg"]foreground[/url] by using [url="http://media.diablofans.com/images/news/2012/march/gdc/fullqqa/qq2.jpg"]by using a visually unobtrusive canvas[/url] and sharper and more saturated enemies and spell effects in the foreground to elevate the gameplay. We actually specifically call it [url="http://media.diablofans.com/images/news/2012/march/gdc/fullqqa/qq4.jpg"]the 'canvas'[/url] because the foreground and midground elements and action are painted on top. With the screen full of enemies, spell effects, minions, and players you don't want a busy background, because it actually detracts from the ability to quickly and easily make important skilled choices during combat. Being able to quickly and effortlessly read what's going on is more important than almost everything else, because if you can't do that then the depth of a combat system is being thwarted by the visual bells and whistles.

It's more important for us to serve the gameplay as well as design a timeless game. "Realism" in games is really only as real as the next version of DirectX or video card product cycle. By approaching with a stylized and painterly approach, we intend for Diablo III to be playable and visually appealing for as long as possible.

(Shaky-cam shots are from Christian Lichtner's (Art Director on Diablo III) talk at GDC 2012.)


Yeah it's obvious you guys aren't interested in pushing limits at all. Yet still are charging 60 dollars at launch with a graphics engine from 2004 just so little billy with his Pentium 4 and Geforce 2 mx can run the game.

It's pretty disappointing that for how long this game has been in dev and how far technology has come with GPU's this is the best you guys are offering visually.
Yeah, I think the graphics are perfectly fine... If they went for a massive upgrade to the GUI a lot of us wouldn't be able to enjoy the game without buying a new machine. If you want the best graphics on a game possible then have another game ready on your machine for that purpose... if you want to play diablo, then graphics shouldn't be of primary concern anyways, after all.. it's diablo!
04/22/2012 02:56 PMPosted by Bashiok
We're not particularly interested in pushing graphical limits with Blizzard games. Our intent is always to provide a timeless stylized aesthetic, while allowing for a broad range of machines to view the game with similar results. The art style for Diablo III is specifically intended to appear as a moving painting, which in general avoids very crisp textures or hard lines.


It's too bad that it looks nothing at all like a moving painting though. Maybe your art team should take a look at Street Fighter 4, Okami or Ico. Diablo 3 looks more like a slightly improved version of a Warcraft 3 mod than it does an actual Diablo game. The grittiness that was a big part of the first two games in the series is completely gone in this iteration. Now we have blurry as hell textures that are lit up like they are straight out of World of Warcraft. I've always let Blizzard give the "artistic aesthetic by design" excuse and the stylization typically never bothered me, even if the explanation was weak.

This game however is clearly stuck in 2004 though, and that's really not acceptable at all. Why are there even graphics options in the options menu if you apparently don't really care about "pushing graphics"? Why is it not stuck on "low"? The real problem is that you're only giving the illusion that there's actually any graphical options at all since they all look pretty bad. It's kind of sad when a game that probably had a budget around 1/10th of what this game does looks almost identical (Torchlight).
Yeah it's obvious you guys aren't interested in pushing limits at all. Yet still are charging 60 dollars at launch with a graphics engine from 2004 just so little billy with his Pentium 4 and Geforce 2 mx can run the game.

It's pretty disappointing that for how long this game has been in dev and how far technology has come with GPU's this is the best you guys are offering visually.


Hey!! You leave Billy alone! He's a good kid, done no harm to nobody!
Also, to those of you complaining about the graphics:

Keep the physics in mind. The physics of 300 random peices of a toppling wall requires a lot of graphic processing power to carry out. The physics of this game are EXCELLENT.


That is typically handled by the CPU again just like it was in the past.
Yeah it's obvious you guys aren't interested in pushing limits at all. Yet still are charging 60 dollars at launch with a graphics engine from 2004 just so little billy with his Pentium 4 and Geforce 2 mx can run the game.

It's pretty disappointing that for how long this game has been in dev and how far technology has come with GPU's this is the best you guys are offering visually.


Hey!! You leave Billy alone! He's a good kid, done no harm to nobody!


Billy needs to get a job then and buy a new computer. In all seriousness though, with the budget this game surely had, the graphics are abysmal, stylized excuse or not. I feel like I'm playing a mix of Diablo 1 and Darkstone and that isn't a good feeling.
Of course... Blizzard still has some of the best cinematics in the industry... seriously, I'd rather their art team keep up with the Cinematics than make the game a pretty mess of the sheer awesome of rock, that will just get me killed due to sensory overload.

Though for anyone who wants to know why the game looks the way it does, I’d be happy to plug some the stuff from the Extra Credit people... Infact, here you go.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics

Graphics vs. Aesthetics!
I've been warming up re-playing D2. The grapghics are an improvement. They don't seem as spectacular as WOW but may deeper into the game
News flash .. when you release a game in 2012 that has a minimum requirement of a processor and video card both released in 2005, and that is coded to utilize a Direct X version from 2004, you end up with a game that looks like it should have been released 7 YEARS AGO.

Hmm wait a sec .. I forgot .. it SHOULD have been released 7 years ago! Sorry my bad, I guess you just never got around to updating the graphics engine .. move along nothing to see here.
the graphics are exactly like I thought they would be. they feel like the old diablo's titles but with more fluid graphics and textures
Personally I love the art and graphics

They are dark detailed and dynamic

I guess my expectations weren't as high as some.

I have been enjoying this game and am seriously looking forward to release.
News flash .. when you release a game in 2012 that has a minimum requirement of a processor and video card both released in 2005, and that is coded to utilize a Direct X version from 2004, you end up with a game that looks like it should have been released 7 YEARS AGO.

Hmm wait a sec .. I forgot .. it SHOULD have been released 7 years ago! Sorry my bad, I guess you just never got around to updating the graphics engine .. move along nothing to see here.


Nail on the head, I'm still trying to figure out why this game took so long. Yes Blizz North was shuttered, yes they moved a ton of focus to WoW, but still, the fact that Blizzard has this habit of taking 10 years a game on average makes me wonder what project management is like there, or lack there of rather.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum