You raise some interesting points but I think you are wrong to be so zealous about sticking to reality. Let me explain why:
Diablo is a combination of realism, Dungeons and Dragons art and Gothic Horror
Gothic Horror was part of the Romantic Movement. Because of Romanticism and even the Renaissance, Gothic Architecture became synonymous with darkness and decay, an attitude that likely originated from the Reinaissance, which saw it as excessive. In reality, it was invented as an evolution of Romanesque Architecture for the exact opposite reasons. Romanesque Architecture provided poor lighting due to the thick walls but with the invention of the flying butress and pointed arch walls were thinner and windows were a lot taller so a lot more light could come in! Completely opposite. Gothic architecture evolved too, and was heavily ornamented from the beginning.
This is Notre Dame, see how bright it is? cdn6.dissolve. com/p/D869_89_370/D869_89_370_1200.jpg
This is Sainte Chapelle. See all the light and vibrant colors?
Therefore, when people think that Gothic Architecture is supposed to be ādarkā and āforebodingā they are actually arguing for an unrealistic art style, not a realistic one.
People also cite Diablo 1 as being the most āgothicā of the three games but you never really see gothic architecture in the game. The catacombs have Romanesque architectures due to the semicircle arches!! So if you want to make a realistic Diablo game, Romanesque Architecture is the way to go.
Diablo is also heavily influenced by classic D&D armors and weaponry, which while is more rooted in reality than modern fantasy (especially WoW) is still not really realistic!
Most of the armors you see here have nothing to do with reality, in spite of looking closer to reality than D3. The chainmail and breatstplate look realistic but the rest is just fantasy armor. Not that far off from D3 stuff. There was NO studded armor in reality. Leather armor was not āpracticalā.
i.imgur .com/PGx0k6k .png
There is NOTHING realistic about this āarmorā
i.redd. it/6fl2npe1d8911 .png
So why am I writing all of this? Because I find your adherence to the smallest historical details to be a bit fanatical and not really Diablo. Even Diablo 1-2 is a combination of different styles, a combination that is not really realistic if you look close.
Itās definitely not ultra realistic but I understand where youāre coming from. I too think that much (if not most) of the horror of Diablo comes from the fact that it is more grounded in reality than WOW but Diablo never strictly adhered to any architectural or cultural movement and even when they do adhere a movement, such as Gothic Architecture, they do so not because it is realistic but because of how people perceive it, which has nothing to do with reality.
Very interesting read and I agree with your nuances. I already wrote it that Romanesque style is a safer style to use in an earlier post. happy we both agree
However,
Large openings and gothic architecture is acceptable for churches. What Iām worried about is seeing too much decorations or large openings in castles which was the case if various of their panels: https://ibb.co/dQHrJ5m (but still looks gorgeous, they only need to be careful)
Other rpg games always have it wrong and mix Baroque or classique in medieval games: https://ibb.co/gTbdr4L
Castles were first and foremost functional and protective, before the rise of powder weapons
Diablo is a combination of Dungeons and Dragons
I disagree this statement. Dragons belong to high fantasy
Pople associate gothic as a dark term, Agreed. Which is in reality was the opposite historically. But anyway, Diablo is about how people imagine evil and hell during the middle ages. Whether gothic is a positive or negative term, is not relevant.
As you probably know, gothic architecture and paintings were expensive and mostly developed in the wealthiest cities. Romanesque was still the most developed genre in rural areas even at the rise of gothic style. This is why I keep saying they should keep it simple, and not over decorate, not enrich the environment especially when itās a rural environment.
Yes, Diablo1ās church is romanesque but I donāt know why you take an north american example for it, since there is an extra layer of how every period always construe and revisit styles. The church in Ontario seems neo-romanesque (because well. itās recent?). Yet I agree overall.
d1 and d2 also did mistakes. However
We also have to keep in mind that todayās graphics are unforgiving because so much more detailed than 20 years ago
. This is why details matter even more.
Imagination and tolerance was stronger with less pixel count.
With todayās screen resolutions, Blizzard has to do more historical researches, or the game simply wonāt look right. One have to be more careful than before.
There is still some place for fantasy (black priest). But there must be 1 solid layer of realistic world, otherwise the layer of fantasy does not work in our imagination and the 2 layers overlap.
As I said to CyberdemoN, some areas of the demo could look sometimes too wealthy or too dense.
currently the areas are currently too heterogeneous and donāt define enough 1 specific mood. itās still looks artificial https://tinyurl.com/rvxnpue
The majority of areas should be more homogenous and natural: https://ibb.co/6RwbxWx
How many adjectives do you need to describe 1 area? if you need more than 3 adjectives to define it, something is wrong and:
not realistic because the composition of geological properties are impossible to exist in the nature
too high-fantasy.
or itās not 1 area but a mix of 3 areas blended together
if an area is not definable, it will be harder for the storyteller and for the music composer to set and understand the mood.
As a conclusion to both of you. Immersion is possible if the first layer of realism looks alright. But Realism is not only about genres, itās also about how you manage density and how you compose all the elements together (homogeneity/heterogeneity)
Dungeons and Dragons is the classic pen and paper RPG, which had a huge influence not only on the Blizzard we know but also Blizzard North. It is basically the 80s fantasy style. Type in 80s fantasy art in google and see for yourself. It basically looks like a more realistic modern Blizzard style. So you want the churches to be Romanesque (early medieval) but also want Gothic Armor (Late Medieval era)?
My point is that since even the original Diablo 1 and 2 was based on disparate styles from very different time periods, there is no need to be zealous about medieval realism. Instead, they should focus on making this combination feel as realistic as possible because although Gothic Horror has nothing to do with reality, it still feels realistic somehow.
Now it should be mostly realistic medieval art but I think they have every reason to take a bit from 80s fantasy art, Renaissance art and so on since Blizzard North already did that.
EDIT:
I do agree that SOME of the areas are a bit too wealthy. That gothic dungeon looks a bit too expansive and āepicā. It seems like they made the blockouts using the D3 workflow but made the textures and models more realistic.
You know, David Brevik said : ā_We knew what we wanted, a kind of a dark gothic game. [ā¦] But the theme was always going to be Anti-fantasy. [ā¦] stick away from typical fantasy stuff that was happening at that time [ā¦] Most of the fantasy stuff at that time were Lord of the rings, elvesā¦[ā¦]ā
This is the source: https://youtu.be/Snzfe3h_2tg?t=294
Of course, every game, novel, or serie is influenced by some predecessors in some amount.
But Brevik wanted a more realistic approach for a reason, and I think itās well weighted in d1 and d2. Itās a layer of fantasy build on a realistic world.
There is indeed undoubtedly a layer of fantasy in Diablo, but Diablo defined its own rules:
takes place around 1200 in various regions of the world
how different cultures imagine evil and hell at that time.
This is why:
black priests and amazons are fine in the franchise
Renaissance or baroque are not compatible with the diablo franchise (I explained why many times)
For instance, It is no secret Gotham city is New York in Batman. It may have a different name but everybody know itās New York city. I think itās exactly what d1 and d2 did, having landmarks we all share and agree on.
But if a game breaks its own rules of design, the game shoots itself in the foot.
It seems there are misunderstandings between d3 and d2ā players. Nobody want a carbon copy of d2. But an artist can embrace creativity only if he/she beforehand learned the basics, the pillars of design.
In every field, in photography, drawing, cinema, cuisine, music, there are pillars. Rules that define art, genres and structure ideas. This is the base layer on which imagination can build upon.
And this pillars of design donāt only define artstyle, but also game mechanics:
In photography, there are rules of thirds for composition
in drawing there are techniques to hold a pencil and draw perspectives
etc
This is why understanding diablo2 is important because d2 quite successfully nailed the pillars of design (despite having caveats and being very unbalanced). But Diablo 4 can of course iterate in a different way.
Yes, having a more grounded look of the game can help to feel more familiar with the world and with what is happening.
Sure, there are some places where some more fantasy could be good, like Xiansai and Skovos (maybe in a lesser degree). And other realms could have an even higher degree, that way when we enter we know āweāre not in Kansas anymoreā. One example could be the Arcane Sanctuary.
But in the end it is that sence of familiarity that gives a bigger connection with the world and whit what is happening.
Yes the arcane sanctuary as āa contrast fantasy zoneā in contrast to the typical desert area, a very strong archetype everybody understands and agree on.
This is why Iām a little worried when they tend to populate areas rich and heterogenous, itās a bit too much.
They want areas to look too dramatic in shapes. Itās not very natural. There is a risk to lose archetypes in many areas. https://img.tweakpc.de/images/2019/11/04/diablo-4.md.jpg or https://tinyurl.com/rvxnpue
They tend to always make the stones dramatic, these rocks actually seem to be taken from d3? https://tinyurl.com/r369fh9
I mean, if every area looks dramatic and busy, the archetypes get diluted and the drama is lost. In order to have contrasty dramatic areas, most areas must look more normal I think.
In d2, the areas look natural, a lot of homogeneous lands, and suddenly 1 tower, 1 monastery. It seems they are aware of the problem because they say they want to give the feeling to be lost in vast lands, hence the introduction of mounts.
Oh wow! You really took on all aspects of art at once, Olbat.
Iām the guy from the other thread who just talked about the UI/UX:
While I mostly agree with your points, I think the main difference between us is that Iāve come to accept certain decisions like open world and mounts becasue I understand what Activision Blizzard is trying to make. Diablo IV is far different from the vision of Blizzard North, who āJust wanted to make cool games while Blizzard Entertainment were trying to build an empireā.
I think your expectations of the current Blizzard is beyond their capability. There are simply too many people to satisfy and big money is involved. What we CAN do is shift them ever so slightly in the right direction without hurting the goal of āappealing to the the widest audienceā and āmaking as much money as possibleā without damaging or exhausting the brand too much.
I still want to reply to your points with as much honesty as possible.
Cinematic
Completely agree. Some parts of the first half of the cinematic felt too much like Hollywood tropes to me. While the priest and Lilith felt more like the cosmic horror that inspired Hellraiser.
Gameplay video
The man sounded fine to me, like heās tired and been through a lotā¦ In fact he sounded way better than the cliche tomb raiders in the cinematic.
Historical timeline
The world of Diablo has a rich history that is far different than the real world. So even though itās inspired by the dark ages, itās okay that they sometimes ābreak the rulesā.
For example, the giant bell you saw belongs to āThe Drownedā, which is a race of legendary undead who toll the bells as they murder people. I donāt think they should kill creativity just to make things realistic.
However, I do agree that in some places, breaking the rules is done because of the lack of historical knowledge rather than the will to spice things up. Like you mentioned, the statue shown has no place in a region thatās inspired by ancient Scotland (Which is where the demo takes place). Runic stones would make more sense. The Stormwind Knight statue is absolutely ridicules to me.
They should definitely pay more attention. Just keep in mind that while Diablo I takes place in a gothic old church, this is no longer the case. You have deserts, eastern forests and celtic looking areas with each of them inspired by a different time period. So it makes sense for the art to sidestep a little bit.
By the way, I also hate big things in Diablo. I donāt like the world bosses. When the camera zooms out it just looks bad. I would love if the character remained in the same distanbce and location from the camera.
World
I agree about the scripted encounters. Itās the same thing we saw in Diablo III and it wasnāt good there either. Very scripted, very predictable. I would like to see more creativity and more visual storytelling rather than texts you can skip because you already read them in other games.
One thing I did like is that some of them have a dark twist to them. Like, you bring a cure to the man and he ends up dying anyway. It ties to the philosophy of Diablo when youāre always a tiny bit too late as evil escapes your grasp.
I agree about the cutscene. There was only one in the demo and it was mostly bad. I kind of liked how it ends as the camera smoothly transition into gameplay, but it didnāt justify how pointless it was. I donāt like when the game zooms in on graphics that were clearly meant to be looked at from isometric angle.
Static maps in the open world are a necessary evil and they probably wonāt change them. They talked about it at BlizzCon. In instanced dungeons, the maps are generated separately for each party, so you can randomize them. The open maps are shared with other members of the server, so they have to be the same for everyone. I donāt like it either, but thatās the way it is.
I agree the map itself doesnāt look too good. Too modern with GPS icons. I do think that the map should be accurate and helpful though. Gameplay comes first. If they wonāt make a functional map, a third party will. The mini map is also fine by me, maybe just change the GPS look.
Inventory
Weāve already talked about it. I wanna see the Tetris from Diablo II make a comeback with big Icons that I care about. The Diablo team say they wanna make management easier because the game is āabout killing demonsā, but I think itās a shallow look on the legacy of the franchise. Iām not sure why a lot of people are against the Tetris inventory.
They make great item art, but then they put it in tiny icons that repeat 4 times on the screen. In the inventory slot. On the hovering tooltip. In the inventoryās āmirrorā of your character and another time in-game.
UI, Labels
Things like social tab, you donāt open as much as inventory. So having it cover the screen is fine as long as you can still see whatās going on in game.
Yes, scrolling text is probably better. This way you can also skip everything at once if you want to. I donāt like different types of speech bubbles in the game. However, I do like the character portraits in town! They look much better than the ones Diablo III had.
Clocks make more sense now because they added day and night cycles to the game. So if they plan to have in-game mechanics that are based on that, it could be cool. Just maybe not with the current look of the digital watch at the corener of the screen.
Labels currently donāt look so good as I mentioned in my thread. As well as the flashy mobs. I also donāt like the gameās logo! Itās basically screaming āLook! Weāre edgy!ā but I kind of let that one slide.
I completely agree on quest rewards! In Diablo II, not every quest is rewarded, but when it does, you can feel the impact of the rewards as they are very special to whoever gave it you. The alchemists makes you a special potion, the warlords commit a mercenary to your side, some of them talk in your favor to drive down prices. I wanna see more of that in Diablo IV
To sum up. I mostly agree with your points, although I refrained from making some of them because I understand postition that Blizzard is taking with the game. They listen to fans of the old games, but they also listen everyone elseā¦
I think they could combine both things. They said some dungeons would be in the open, like a forest for example. So, instanced open world parts: for example the forest, make it to be different each time you go gives a sence of being lost.
If it is a thing of open world vs dungeon, then yes, there is no much to do, but they can do something like what i suggested above.
But if they can do it with the parts of the open world that arenāt shared, then that could add some flexibility to maps. Could create changes done by things like the weather (snow, for example), the shores of beaches could change if not each time you go, could change over time.
They could do things like 2 paths to a world boss, one is shared but longer and with powerful enemies, the other it isnāt shared and is shorter but changes evrey time, and some times it can be close, others can be free, and others can be a powerful boss there.
Donāt get me wrong, I have nothing against mounts, as long as the game keeps a sense of isolation . I was only explaining why I have hope for a less ādenseā world, because the outdoor scenes looked too packed and busy.
Also something that is an immersion killer, the loadbar: https://ibb.co/6HGykmz, itās artificial and there is absolutely nothing computing or loading server-wise.
If a character loads something, then it should be a small animation, or instant!:
or like the stones activating for the cainquest, or staff at durielās altar.
I also would like to mention this scene in the house. The problem with this kind of scene is that itās specific to 1 moment. And this is a scene you will keep repeating everytime you go into this town, itās not right:
Thatās an interesting idea. Iām still waiting to see what they plan to do with weather and night / day cycles. Maybe sometimes the shortcut somewhere is flooded because of rain. Or areas get too dark to see in. Or the river gets frozen and you can now walk over it. Thereās a lot of cool things you can do with static maps, it all depends on the execution.
For the demo I agree. It looked too dense with players and characters.
One thing a dev mention at BlizzCon is that they plan to make some shared areas more āpackedā with players, such as towns and land marks. While other shared areas more isolated where you are less likely to see other players, such as deserts or forests.
I donāt know how they plan to control for the population of players, but they did say they keep that in mind and that they want to retain the feeling of isolation for some parts of the game.
Agreed. This goes back to keeping UI to a minimum and having the player feel the physicality of what heās doing.
Yes, this problem plagues RPGs nowadays. Itās encapsulated on a YouTube series called āEpic NPC Manā about a character forced to relive the same moments over and over again in a game.
Everytime I heard the barkeeper in Diablo III say āThis is killing businessā I died a little inside. Itās best to avoid dialogue if possible and conform to visual storytelling.
That would be great. Not be able to have access to some areas until some conditions happen. Need to wait until the river get frozen to cross it: if the in-game day last 1 hour, that means we have around 7 days/month (real days) of winter during 2 years in-game.
(Edit) Maybe it would be better if the day last 2 hours, that way 1 year is more or less 1 month irl.
Man I was using the dead EU forumā¦ No wonder nobody was drscussing this stuff.
For me, if I get a quest arrow as a constant companion I know I wont be enjoying D4 as I want to. An I really hope the magic, look of items and lore is understated. Bring value with detail and subtle difference. This will make room for way more interesting variety, and give the possibility really making an impact if and when breaking away from this rule.
Below is my thread on the EU forum about the bosses in the demo.
Something does not look right about this scene. Is it because it lacks a specific music? Is it because of the unrealistic amount of expelled blood? It looks like voyeurism.
Can tragedy and gravity be literally be expressed? I rather think itās something indirect, for instance: https://ibb.co/RSy74Mf
In d2, trapped souls, hung corpses, mutilated bodies are self explanatory. No need translations, speaking about them actually normalise the situation. I think cold images speak by themselves. Emotions donāt need much dialog.
i would like to point again with in game texture reflections
they overreacted with texture reflection
every MOB in the game shine like a crystal ball
ibb .co/MydQxzJ
spell effects/combat is too much for eye to watch ā¦ they feels like random explosions and nothing more (its same in d3)
mobs are blinking, too much shine effects, outer glow around mobs when you point with mouse on them
and then dead bodies flying around like airplanes
just too many effects in fight ā¦
