Diablo 3 Art Director Quits!

Why do I seem to mind being regarded as angry?! This's basically the same assumption that leads people to assume I'm angry, only applied to when I'm talking about how I'm not angry! Jeez, this's just getting deeper and deeper... Maybe I need to go back to my smiley-face avatar.

About that image, I wouldn't say it's a good example to back up your point. Look at the edge between the pear and the backboard. There's hardly any distinction at all. Also the left side's all scratchy and the light on the pear is wrapping around the whole side. I don't mean to just pick it to shreds, and I'm aware that you'd have just whipped it up because only half and hour's elapsed, but don't you see how much simpler it is with colour? Colour naturally gives it depth and contrast so there's no need to distort or augment the image.

I didn't mean perform identical actions on both images, I meant to refine a greyscaled image, and then refine a coloured image. I guarantee the coloured image will come out better.

With the StarCraft2 overhaul, they obviously didn't just change saturation, but neither have you in your examples. There's still no reason for them to do such an overhaul in Diablo3. With StarCraft2, all Terran buildings were practically fluorescent, but in Diablo3, this specific dungeon is bathed in a cold blue. Completely different situations in completely different games. Besides, look at the StarCraft2 overhaul and then look at what the Diablo 'fans' did. Are they really both comparable?

Lastly, if you can achieve the same contrast, same depth and same ambience with less colour, why would you do it? It'll be the same, only dungeons will be more monotonous, characters and mobs will have less distinction and spells will be less noticeable. What's the reason for the change?

 

I don't know, it sort of looks more D2ish. But it certainly can't be complete nonsense since countless other people would like to see a few changes. It's not just a few people's obsession, it's a whole bunch of people's (much like what the case was with SC2). On that note, I have played D2 but never was a big fan of it - I doubt I will become one of D3, especially considering its system requirements and my old desktop. In other words, I don't care too much what happens, I just shared my opinion.

Going back to the fruits. As I've said earlier, contrast can be achieved in greyscale but with different methods to colour. In this case, it's the texture - if you look at the border you mentioned, you can see a clear difference in texture (viz., vertical strokes vs diagonal strokes), which markedly separates the pear from the wall. Depth, on the other hand, cannot be imitated in greyscale such easily and we don't sense the space between the wall and the pear as easily as in colour, although the shadows do help (shadows which become more emphatic due to the increase in shadow levels).

However, a 2D image can't even be compared to a 3D engine in terms of what it can display and express. The specific rules of 2D images don't apply in 3D because there's physically another dimension, and so depth and contrast go by slightly different rules. Which is why I said it doesn't matter what colour is used, contrast as well as depth can be achieved with any colour range as long as we're not talking about completely unrelated colours - because you already see the depth and there's no need to emphasise it with colours.

I hope that clears things up.

ps LOL at the angry-paradox but I'll leave that for you to figure out

 

well, as i said, the main difference between the colorrs of d2 and d3 lies in the light circle in dungeons(and the light that glowing stuff creates), but if you were to reimplimant(sp?) he light circle, we wouldnt be able to see all those beatifull cliffs, and depths and such

 

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of those 'fans' aren't really huge Diablo2 fans. Seeing Diablo2 as a dark and colourless game is very superficial. All the spells are bright, all the effects are literally vibrant, all the acts have colour and even all the boss fights are colourful. There're definitely dark places in it, but the Diablo3 dungeon's still pretty dark, not to mention that they never said that was as dark as it's going to get.

About the fruits, I still don't feel that you can achieve what would otherwise be achieved with colour in greyscale. As I've said, the natural contrast and depth are properties of those colours. If you remove the colours, you remove those properties. It'd be like losing the ability to change brightness or contrast, because the colour itself is providing it.

You're definitely right in saying that you can't really compare a 2D image to a 3D engine, but it's still a contributing factor. The textures, etc, are still 2D and they can't really be rendered into a 3D environment without being a huge drain on system resources while accomplishing pretty minor results. It's far easier to just use a texture, and because the textures are so small, they have to basically be exaggerated to physically stand out, so eliminating colour, and hence the properties of those colours, isn't really an option.

 

Okay you're saying colour determines depth while I say colour doesn't matter and that it's the tones. Let's see the two up against each other and see which version is more convincing about depth and contrast.

Only hue changed (different colour, same tones):


Inverted colour and tones:


As I see it, the first picture has contrast and depth while the second one completely lacks both. From this I think I can conclude that tones determine contrast and depth, not colour.

 

The first image doesn't portray depth too well. Apart from the whole image being pushed back, the dark blue around the light reflecting off the apple pushes it back further than the edges, which are much lighter and although not warm, are warmer than the centre. The pear still kinda works because it still has the warmest colours in the middle and the coolest colours on its edges. At a superficial level, it's obvious that the first one has depth, but when you actually look at what the colours are doing in that sense, they distort it.

Again, it's the properties of the colours used that give contrast. The reds contrasted against the yellows and the greens. The warm colours standing out and the cool colours receding. Colour obviously isn't the only thing that contributes to depth, but the properties of the colours used can't be replaced by changing the contrast or brightness. The colours have properties of their own. Just as contrast, brightness, etc, are all properties that contribute towards an image or painting, the colours used are also properties.

 

What happened if you took a picture of a blue plum and a red apple in exactly the same setting, one after the other to ensure the same lighting conditions? One would turn out better than the other?

edit: Do you see anything wrong with this picture (apart from showing non-existent fruits)?

 

Pictures are very different to paintings, vasz. Even hyperrealism or natural history illustrations are very different, despite being painted, well, hyperrealistically. With paintings, you've got all the techniques and you control all the variables. Even the media you choose and the way you choose to apply it can vary greatly, even though you're still resulting in a near photographic painting. Pictures and paintings just aren't comparable.

About the picture, apart from them looking fluorescent which is a huge put off, the base of the stalk on the right apple blends in with the surrounding skin far to much, and the same goes for the leafy parts on the base of the core of the left apple. There's a slim difference between browns and reds to yellows that can't be captured by turning the whole image bluey green. All in all, the contrast's been distorted because all the colours have been changed. Here's a visual example.


Here's your classic colour wheel:



And here's your classic colour wheel with its hue halved:


When the hue's changed, the natural properties of the colours are lost.

 

I used a real life image to avoid the distraction of the heavy strokes and the artificial tones and shadows.

Why is it a huge put off? Because you're not used to apples having that colour. However, it isn't too hard to imagine a blue fruit that turns fluorescent when ripe. This is when experience interferes with perception - even if it looked perfect from an image display point of view, it'd still look off. Similar to how people's judgement are influenced by knowing the author of, or other, unimportant information about the object to be evaluated, which is why people tend to hold anonymous votes (a close example would be the SOTM).

As for the blending "problems", they're there even when looking at the original:

And if they're there, then yet again I'm inclined to say colour does not matter.

 

Dude, showing that image pretty much backs up what I said was wrong with it and why. It's basically a textbook example.

The parts I commented on as having no contrast, being the following:


...Has lost its contrast because of what's happening here when the hue's been changed:


Look at the top-right sections of both colour wheels. There's still strong contrast on the regular colour wheel, but when the hue was changed, it lost all that contrast. It's just as I've been saying, the properties of the colours create contrast. If you screw around with the colours, then you're screwing around with the contrast, which is exactly what you've done.

EDIT: Sorry for the changed colour wheel being in much worse quality. That often happens when I use Picture It and I got no other way to change the hue. I'll be able to reduce the quality of the proper colour wheel if you want, but it's too late to at the moment.

 

I see the colour wheels fine, but I'm not sure about the parts you point out. Maybe I do see a slight difference, but again, that might be just because you say so and my mind is playing games on me.

Anyway, here's another pair of blue apples, where the contrast to me seems absolutely the same as in the original pic. This one was done using a different technique.


ps still no tampering with saturation, contrast, or levels - this was a pure colour replacement

 

Admittedly, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that picture, but you've got to admit that it definitely doesn't have the same feel or look as the original.

However let me say this. Firstly, it's a photograph, and I've already explained the problems with using photographs, especially when trying to prove a point about paintings or computer generated imagery. Secondly, it uses an extremely limited range of colours. It'd be like using a flat image, i.e. one tone or colour, to show how contrast doesn't effect an image.

 

Only because of what I explained earlier - you know the picture shows something impossible. Apart from that, no, there's nothing wrong with it.

I already explained the reason I used a photograph - to make sure that the tones are as natural as possible, to allow your mind to accept blue apples a bit easier, even though it's still hard. But I'm fairly sure they look more natural than the painted blue pear and apple.

The original uses just as limit colours, so what's your point?

What I'm trying to point out here is that all the colours can display the same contrast (yet again going back to what I said to Kaaraa) when they're not mixed with totally unrelated colours. Yes, red is in front of blue, but the transition from light to dark expressing going front to back is universal and has nothing to do with what colours are used. Why would it be, anyway? There is just as much depth in a picture of blue fruits as in one of red fruits.

Another note to be taken is that the original fruit picture is 2D, and a painting. As a consequence, the strokes are very emphatic and inaccurate, and the sense of depth needs to be emphasised with the warm/cool colours. We're talking about a 3D engine, there will be no exaggerated strokes or contrast, and there's certainly no need to emphasise depth with colours.

D3 will aim for a realistic look while the painting is not realistic at all, so if anything, the photo is a good example and the painting is useless.

 

That's not the case. You can't just replace colours with other colours and say it's exactly the same because simply, they're not. They can't be. Different colours are just as much of an influence as different levels of contrast and different levels of saturation. Although there may not be anything wrong with a different coloured image or an image with a much higher level of contrast, they simply do not have the same feel or look.

My point is that you can't use such a limited palette to prove a point about colours. Otherwise, with what you're trying to prove, you might as well be using black and white. The more you limit the range of colours, the more you're just using the one colour.

All colours can display contrast, yes, but that's pretty much a meaningless statement. A greyscale uses one colour and can convey contrast, pinkscale uses one colour and can still convey contrast, but nothing else can convey what the physical properties of the colours express, especially in relation to other colours. You simply can't express what the properties of the colours express simply by changing contrast, brightness, etc, just as you can't express contrast simply by changing brightness and saturation, etc.

You've raised an interesting issue here, especially relating to the use of colours in Diablo3. The transition from light to dark is universal. Basically, contrast will be the same throughout, so although it's still possible to have lighter areas and darker areas in Diablo3, you won't have low contrast areas and high contrast areas. So, with contrast basically remaining as a constant, the only thing to add diversity to the game would be brightness, which would be fairly dull if you don't mind minding the pun, and the use of colour. So, to put it simply, colour is needed throughout to keep the game from being boring, which leads us right back to where this whole controversy started.

Again, the problem with your analogy of depth is that you're referring to pictures. With paintings, etc, it's entirely possible that an image of red fruits won't have the same depth as the same image of blue fruits, against due to the properties of the colours. Hot colours come off the page and cold colours sink into it.

Well perhaps in that example the strokes were much more important, but that is not a universal rule across paintings in general. Just look at hyperrealism or natural history illustrations. They're picture quality, exact replicas, yet still make use of the properties of the colours to express depth in their artworks. Besides, as stated before, colours are needed as they're the only consistent variable of interest.

No, that painting is not realistic at all. Again, look at hyperrealism or natural history illustrations. Here you're more picking on the style of the painting, and not on the use and properties of the colours used.

Found this recently which reminded me of this thread. Tell me what you think, and I'll get back to you.

http://www.diii.net/n/692572/the-end-of-the-art-controversy

 

It was dead for almost a month, why, oh WHY go back there?!

 

'Cause I didn't get the right of reply due to camp... And then yearlies... But they're over now! So I've returned to share the love. Besides, it's a noteworthy video.