There has been many debates on the graphic level of Diablo 3 and how it should be different. Finally a developer comes out and says “um, no.” Their reasoning is fairly simple, it’s one thing to photoshop up a screenshot with some filters but it’s another to get the texture and lighting to run at that detail on a standard computer.
How do you argue with that? Personally, I think the graphics look wonderful, brilliant, vibrant and professional. Diablo 3 game designer Jay Willson said:
“The key thing to remember here is that this has been Photoshopped. This isn’t created by the engine. Though it looks really cool, it’s almost impossible to do in a 3D engine because you can’t have lighting that smart and run on systems that are reasonable. If we could do that, we probably would in a few of the dungeons.” (slashdot)
Non-developers seem to forget that the colors, cameras and lighting don’t come free on a video game. Everything has limitations and, although the limitations change over time, today’s graphics for a standard machine are capable of running Diablo 3. Blizzard isn’t making a game that only hardcore PC gamers can play, this game is for everyone.
Building a video game is a lot of smoke and mirrors to make a virtual object look “real” to normal gamers. Immersion and definition is important, grainy dark graphics do set a mood, but they also frustrate many players. Remember DOOM 3? Some people could barely see the “epic graphics” of the last DOOM sequel, it’s time to mature and show off true colors.
Darkness usually is used to hide imperfections, Diablo 3 has nothing to hide.
(For a high resolution photo, checkout MTV Multiplayer Blog)
Hi guys great episode!
I found Infamous to be a pretty easy game, if they make the third even more so just seems sad. Not a lot of games seem to be as difficult as the old 8-bit games. I do like the paper trail feature Jordan talked about and I know Rockstar has a similar thing though not quite as cool as unlocking more missions through using the website, you can still track your progress of various games on the site.
Hearing Paul spending 200 on in game purchases on a FB game just makes me sad. I know it’s his choice on how to spend his money but a lot of FB games really seem to encourage you to spend real money to get fake in game money just to speed things up and make the game enjoyable. The Foxtrot comic Jonah brought up is a good example of why I don’t like those games. I feel like it’s lazy game making and undeserving of my money. I know they got to make money to pay their bills but I don’t like what they are selling. I guess though if there is a demand for these type of games who am I to judge? I’ll stop beating the dead horse now.
@Occulus bought by FB: When I first heard the news I was like “Why?” I wasn’t the only one scratching my head at this. I really didn’t want to think of Virtual Farmville. I do like the idea though of remote classroom, though I know we already have video chat for that sort of thing. Is anyone going to really want to wear this thing on their head? It’s like a fancier virtual boy.
QOTW: I subscribe to Gameinformer, which can be read online now. It does seem like it’s less and less necessary now though given how easy it is to hear about gaming news.