Diablo 3 Art Director Quits!

The lighting conditions are constant, but the lighting isn't. The light can be blocked by you (standing still), coloumns, lintels, and tons of other objects.

That's what D2 was like and obviously it worked out fine in the end.

@Meee: I read that article and I thought it was BS. I was going to bring up exactly the same example what Vodka brought up. It can be done, Blizzard was merely giving excuses for the poor graphics the pre-alpha version of D3 had. It's only logical that at such an early stage the game will look awful, but at least they could've said that instead of that poor excuse.

 

Actually to me the new D3 look is closer to how D1 looked than D2. And I prefer D1's looks over D2 also. Most of the spells and effects were a little too cartoony and vibrant for my liking in D2. But it's not a D1 clone and that's a good thing I guess.

I think people have to realise that this is D3 and not another D2 expansion pack. It's gonna be different. It should be different. Sure it's harder to play than D2 with less visibility and such, but it's more realistic though. I don't like what they showed in this area. But I like they concepts they have provided us with. I just think a lot more work is needed before the visuals can be considered finished.

 

They already incorporate objects blocking light, except your character of course, because it has a light source of its own. The 'fans' took it way too far. Again, the light doesn't fluctuate enough to have pitch black corners.

Diablo2 wasn't that dark. It was still dark of course, but so is Diablo3. Most of the photoshopped screenshots basically just reduces the size of your monitor, which shouldn't go down well with anyone, but especially ranged classes. As I said before, light radius and stamina were the two things that sucked about Diablo2.

 

Wow, I'm kind of sad to see that this is also happening to Diablo. They can't accept a change in graphics so they get all upset. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the criticism was the reason the Art Director quit. This is just like the Siege Tank's Siege Mode. The X treads didn't look ugly, you have to look at the point of view that if this really was the war, would they go for beauty or firepower?

 

What's everyone complaining about? Diablo 3 as blizzard presented is AWESOME. Screw the critics, they don't know how to make a game a fraction as good as blizzard can *LAUGH*

 

Exactly. Go back to D2 and look at the entire screen of an already-explored dungeon. You can clearly see the environment/enemies bordering the player character's field-of-view.

I am far from a savvy game-programmer/artist, but after a month of learning how paint with acrylics, I can safely say that these fans with their photoshopped screenshots have no idea what they're doing. The key to an entertaining image is to have the right level of contrast, which incorporates the lightest "lights and darkest darks" of the colors your using. What these fans are doing is making everything grey, which means no contrast whatsoever.

 

The contrast found in colour images is there in greyscale as well. Contrast has nothing to do with what colours are used, so please don't say such nonsense.

People who don't like the photoshopped versions should stop going "all they did was...". They did good jobs of what they had in mind, so don't criticise their technique - just say you don't like the result, period.

 

Of course contrast has to do with colors used! For example, look at this image. Look at the apple - there's the darker olive green on the left, lighter green making up the majority of the shape, and a small patch of white near the center. Put a black-and-white filter over it and that's three color ranges - Dark, Medium, and Light. It's the contrast of those colors that gives the illusion of a 3-D image. If you had used only the "medium" green on that picture, you would only have a symbolic apple - you could still recognize that it was an apple, but it wouldn't look real enough to pick up and eat. (Granted, there are different shades of green past the two I've noted, but the human eye "softens" those colors the farther from the image you are)

I'd venture a guess that the same principles apply in coloring polygons of game environment/models, as I can see these principles pop up everywhere in the original screenshots. However, the screenshots these fans have made present all of the environments (especially the dungeon) in different shades of dark grey. I stand by D3's color style. It's certainly more entertaining than the "realistic" gun-metal grey and soiled-diaper brown we see in games these days.

 

OK first, I consider greyscale coloured but let's run with your definition of colour for the sake of convenience. It doesn't matter whether the image is coloured or greyscale, contrast means the range of tones in the image. You have the same 3D feel in greyscale:

With increased contrast:


On to the topic now. I think D3 could do with a bit of saturation reduction. Just remember how pleased people were when SC2 went through the visual overhaul.

 

Dude, I hate to say it, but you have no clue what you're talking about here. Colours have everything to do with contrast. You basically proved that by grayscaling Kaaraa's image. When it was coloured, it definitely had contrast, but when you grayscaled it, you had to manually increase the level of contrast in order to reach the same level of contrast that it had before. That painting of the apple and the pear is pretty stunning once you think about it. The heat of the red makes the pear come forwards into the foreground with the yellowy-green of the edges receding, and the same goes for the apple with the light green standing out in contrast to its darker and cooler edges. Warm colours come out, cool colours recede.

If you're still not convinced that colours are strongly related to contrast, just look at the complementary colours on the colour wheel. Each primary colour complements the combination of the other two, or, in other words, red complements green, blue complements orange and, my favourite pair, yellow complements purple. There's no black or white involved, it's just the contrast of those two colours. Then again all this talk about colour i probably why most of the emo's are outraged at the 'new turn', despite there being no turn, of Diablo3.

Why does it need a saturation reduction? Why should every single dungeon be as black as pitch? I loved the look of that dungeon when I first watched it. It was dark, it was eerie and it had a real cold feel to it. You know why? Because of the colours used. So what if it's bathed in a cool blue light, are dungeons prohibited from looking like that?

 

Someone needs to calm down.

First, your first quote is meant for colours by Kaaraa's definition, excluding greyscale. Are you saying there's no contrast in the greyscale pic? That there's absolutely no 3D feel to it? Someone needs to learn the meaning of the word.

As for the second quote, reduced saturation does not mean black. The pics in my previous post have no saturation. Are they pitch black? Again, learn the meaning before wanting to be a hero.

 

Just because someone's disagreeing with you, it doesn't mean they're angry.

Firstly, it was in response to you saying "Contrast has nothing to do with what colours are used, so please don't say such nonsense." If you're going to go around telling other people they're wrong, learn to accept it when they prove you're wrong.

Secondly, you honestly think I don't know the meaning of contrast after all that? Yes the greyscale still physically has contrast, but look at how much it lost when you greyscaled it. The 3D feel goes as well. Warm colours stand out, cool colours recede, simple as that. Remove the colour and it looses its depth.

No, but reduced saturation does mean reduced saturation. Darker, less colour, emo, not to mention that the majority of the 'fans' screenshots were genuinely pitch black. So instead of clutching at straws, nit-picking what I write and ignoring the rest, why not answer what you're being asked?

LOL, dude... That's just weak, not to mention purely hypocritical. How about replying to everything that's being said instead of just picking out the stuff that suits you next time?

 

Where did I say angry = disagreeing? I can tell by the tone, especially since I know what your general tone is like.

Exactly how and where was I proven wrong? I was merely saying that hue doesn't matter, if your have the same transition in tone, the 3D feel can be achieved regardless of whether it's greyscale, sepia, full colour, or any other profile. If anyone's been proven wrong it's Kaaraa, not me.

That's why I increased the contrast in the second greyscale. I know you get less contrast in immediate greyscale, but if you tweak it you can achieve the same level of depth. But this is a dead point since I've already proven Kaaraa wrong.

So you're saying you know what you're talking about yet you relate brightness to saturation? Desaturated images can be dark, but they can also be really bright. The two have nothing to do with each other. For the third time, please get your facts right.

If that's meant for the last question in your previous post then the answer is no, but that looked like a rhetorical question to me.

I reply to whatever I want. And this multi-quote thing is onerous for me And I have no idea why I was hypocritical. I think you got mixed up with the two definitions of colour. I like to refer to greyscale as colour because... well, they're still colours. That might not be true on paper, but anyway.

The bottom line is that greyscale does have contrast and it does have the ability to display depth, just with different methods. Depth looks nicer in colour because that's what we're used to.

 

If you're picking up a 'tone', then that's the tone you're reading it in, not the tone I'm typing it in. And about my 'general tone', I seriously don't know where people get that from. I've stated numerous times to numerous people in numerous places that I'm not angry when people've told me to calm down. That's where the whole smiley-face-avatar experiment came from. People just need to keep in mind that you can have a discussion without being angry.

You're wrong because you blatantly said "Contrast has nothing to do with what colours are used, so please don't say such nonsense." Contrast has everything to do with what colours are used and Kaaraa was not just saying nonsense. Also, the 3D feel can't fully be achieved regardless of the colouring because, again, it's all to do with the properties of the colours used.

More like that's why you had to increase contrast, because it was lost with the removal of colour. You can't achieve the same level of depth because it's just black and white. Colours give depth. This isn't a dead point because you'll always have more contrast with colours than you will with just black and white.

Again, the nit-picking. Allow me to demonstrate...
Which of the following is the darkest, and which is the brightest?

This? Which reduced saturation...


This one? With no change to saturation...


Or this? With increased saturation?


So, if you don't mind, please get your facts right next time.

Yes, but it's from almost everything I've said from when I joined this discussion. So why can't, or shouldn't, the dungeon keep its current colour scheme?

You're being hypocritical because you're telling everyone to check their facts when you're obviously not checking yours.

Of course greyscale has the ability to display contrast, but what does that prove? Pinkscale would have equal ability to as well. All in all, contrast and depth are lost when changed to greyscale.

It's not just because that's what we're used to, it's because of the properties of the colours. Are you trying to say that yellow against purple only looks more contrasted than their greyscale equivalents because we're used to seeing in colour?

 

i only read the first 3 pages, but what you all keep forgetting is that the only dungeon we saw was a cathedral, a cathedral has windows...

 

If contrast is all to do with what colours are used, then how come there's contrast - adjustable, I might add - in greyscale? I said the colour didn't matter because you can achieve contrast with any combination of colours, in the form of tones.

By using 'lost' and not 'reduced' I assume you mean completely lost. So you don't see any depth in the greyscale picture if there are no warm/cool colours, only tones. Then I rest my case, there's no point in talking to blind people about images.

And here is your dark and emo greyscale picture (which for some odd reason managed to be bright despite being greyscale):


As for your tone, if several people have asked you to calm down then the problem is surely not on our end?

 

Because it's the lack of colour that provides less contrast. Just because you've greyscaled something, it doesn't mean that colour still isn't a contributing factor. You lose contrast with the removal of colour. You've proved that yourself.

Why would you assume I'm talking in absolutes? Contrast and depth aren't singular aspects of a painting. It's not like you either have it or you don't. If you halve the colour used in a painting, you've lost colour. If you reduce the depth, you've lost depth. For another example, if you had a big bucket of sand and lost half of the contents, then you've lost sand.

Dude, just pick an image and stick with it. The original greyscale picture lacked contrast and depth, and yes, it was dark. In the one where you increased contrast, it had contrast and depth, but it was even darker. In this one, it has next to no contrast and depth, and is very light. You can't have the best of both, or more accurately, all three, worlds.

So you're trying to tell me I'm angry when I'm typing? And you're basing it off how other people read it? It's easy to start reading an opposing argument in an insulting tone if you're on the back foot. It's just human nature.

 

I won't bother creating yet another image for you but believe me - you can have a light greyscale with contrast to it if you set appropriate levels (i.e., keeping midtones and increasing both highlights and shadows).

What you say is true - if you turn a colour image into greyscale, you do get a darker image. However, you can change the brightness and levels infinitely many times and to the very extremes (where you get a uniform black or white image), which is why I said brightness has nothing to do with saturation. You can have a desaturated image with exactly the same brightness as the saturated one - yes, you'd need to manually alter the brightness of it but nothing prohibits that now, does it? If one aspect can be achieved with different images (like same brightness for the desaturated version and the colour version, etc.), then I consider the aspect fully independent from other aspects (viz., saturation, brightness, contrast, etc.).

Since we were talking about D3 graphics which can be freely changed by the developers, it would be perfectly possible to have less saturation with the same brightness as we have seen in the videos, and that goes for contrast as well, which goes back to the validity of what I said to Kaaraa.

And about that back foot, I can assure that I never felt that way. Image editing is my obsession and I know a lot about the practical side of things, so I always knew what I was talking about - I'm not sure if that could be said for you.

As for your tone, I can only repeat myself: if I'm not the only one that thought you were angry, then I'm positive the problem is round your end. Maybe you have trouble conveying in text what you feel (I'm not trying to have a go at you), or I don't know. But at the end of the day it's not me who's being misinterpreted so it's not my problem. *shrugs*

 

Personally I think you should create another image if you really want to prove it, and yo probably should because at the moment you're just referring to individual aspects of several different images as proof that all this can be done, but when doing so, do the same for the coloured image. In other words, change the brightness and saturation, etc, all you want, only do it to a non-greyscaled image as well. See which has more contrast and depth. Seeing as colour gives more contrast and depth, the edited coloured image will look much better than the edited greyscaled image. As I've said before, removing colour removes contrast and depth. Sure you can change the levels, etc, but you can also change the levels of a coloured image and a refined coloured image will always be better than a refined greyscaled image.

To put in another way, and possibly a way that's closer to the way you're thinking, think of colour as contributing to thirty percent of an image's contrast. For example, if there's an image at full contrast and you greyscale it, then, without any further manual change to its contrast, it'll be at seventy percent contrast. Not sure if that helps, but that's what I've been saying. Removing colour reduced contrast.

Then there's depth. There's no way to make up for the loss of depth when removing colour. It's the properties of those colours that give depth. Remove them and remove the depth. Obviously there will still be some, but it won't be anything like what it was with colour.

And all that's not to mention emotion. Colours give off emotion as well. the cold blue of the dungeon obviously gave off a cold, dank feeling, which simply cannot be expressed with just black and white.

You may know what you're talking about, but either you got confused or tried to exploit your knowledge for several parts of this conversation. Saying colour has nothing to do with contrast was a blatant one, but also saying that saturation has nothing to do with brightness was another.

Maybe being on the back foot wasn't the right way to do it, but when talking in person and someone keeps coming back with lines of argument that completely contradict what you're saying, then it's human nature to raise your voice. It's the same with this, only people read that rise, which might not always be there, until it gets to the stage where someone's told to calm down or not to get so riled up or whatever. Lastly, I don't see how it's my problem if I'm being misinterpreted. If you type something like 'I do like spam' and someone reads that as 'I don't like spam', is that your problem? Of course not. It's the reader's problem. The same goes for voice, tone, pitch, etc, which can be just as vital as what's being said.

 

It is your problem because you seem to mind being regarded as angry. Although, if you don't mind minding something that's not true according to you, then of course there's no problem

As for the images, you seem to interchange contrast with depth. The warm and cool colours give depth, the tones of the colours give contrast. Here is the bright greyscale image with clear contrast:


On a side note, for some reason you keep wanting to perform the same operations on the two (saturated and desaturated) images. Why? Like I've said, there's nothing prohibiting that, and it's only natural that you need to treat the two images differently. Here's a silly analogy, yet handy one: You're saying that if we take 2 apples that balance the scales and we let one of them dry out, there's no way to have the two apples equalise the scales, yet if I put some other weight on it, it can be done. Here, weight (or density, I'm not too good with biology) can be regarded as brightness, contrast, or whatever aspect of an image that needs to be brought back to the original value by means of an artificial tool.

And side note number 2, do you think when Blizzard did the graphical overhaul of SC2 they only changed the saturation and nothing else?