Diablo III - It's official

BTW I really miss amazon type class in Diablo III, but there's still one class to be revealed.

There's a lot of speculation surrounding the final class being ranged DPS. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what unfolded.

Out of curiosity, how come games like this never have room for a healer class? I mean, with the online play the game could totally benefit from a class along those lines.

*edit* Before people begin screaming at me stating there's no room for a healer in a game that revolves solely around hack and slash, I remain curious!
 
Exactly. I'm hoping for a hospitaler type class for that 5th slot.


I think Blizzard's arguments regarding this subject revolve around they want combat to remain fast paced, and the health orbs render healers obsolete. From a lot of the interviews I've seen with Jay Wilson, he tends to specify how the development team wanted this to remain constant.
 
The one aspect where the two projects might clash is the prerendered cinematics - if they want to keep the quality level then it'll be pretty hard to service two projects in parallel, even with the ~100 guys they have in that department.

All high quality CGI scenes in Starcraft II combined are just 2 minutes longer than the two Star Wars The Old Republic trailers, and both of them easily match the CGI quality in SC2 while actually eclipsing them significantly in terms of sheer scope. I'm guessing it didn't take 5 years to make the trailers.
Heck, there was more CGI stuff in Final Fantasy VII - Crisis Core, not to mention FFXIII.
So my guess is that Blizzard should absolutely have the resources to produce a couple of movie scenes for 2 games, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
All high quality CGI scenes in Starcraft II combined are just 2 minutes longer than the two Star Wars The Old Republic trailers, and both of them easily match the CGI quality in SC2 while actually eclipsing them significantly in terms of sheer scope.

That is absolutely not true. Even the Blur guys would instantly agree that there's an order of magnitude difference between their work and Blizzards. For a start there's absolutely no mocap in SC2, everything is manually animated. Then there's the detail, the polish, the artistic values, it's worlds apart.

The entire intro movie of putting together Tychus and his armor is something that neither Blur nor we could really to do today, 3 years after it's been published. It's so complex even Blizzard was barely able to do it, and it took a studio like ILM to match it in Iron Man 1.


You must understand the difference between the approach of Blizzard and that of Blur or us.

We need to deliver 2-4 minutes of stuff in 3-5 months, so we spent years on developing tools and workflows to be able to work as fast as we can. We re-use anything we can (Blur in particular must have a huge model and texture library after 15 years and at least 70-80 projects), we cheat whenever we can, we always take the easy road.

Blizzard on the other hand spends time to get every tiny little detail completely perfect (within their aesthetics of course) and can afford to, having practically no budgetary limits. And it's not just the completely insane complexity of that armor which has more details then all the characters from the SW cinematics put together... Just look at the way the toes or the belly of Tychus moves in that movie, the way the gas freezes on top of the armor when the cables are pulled out, or just how his cigar lights up in the darkness. It's something we would love to add but have no time to do and it does make a difference too. I'm sure Blizzard's movies cost at least 10 times as much money to make per minute as the Blur ones.

I'm guessing it didn't take 5 years to make the trailers.

The intro took an entire year, although they weren't 100 people back then. They've replaced their entire animation and rendering pipeline from Max/Brazil to Maya/Renderman since then, hired a lot of movie VFX guys, and still it took them 3 years time to do the remaining 3 movies plus the Lich King movie and the Diablo 3 trailer.

Heck, there was more CGI stuff in Final Fantasy VII - Crisis Core, not to mention FFXIII.

More, but at a far inferior quality. Most of Square's stuff boils down to good mocap, interesting character and prop/environment design, but they don't do too complex things with them. FFXIII versus seems to be a bit different... but then again, we don't know how much money they sink into their CGI. It definitely costs more then Blur's stuff.

So my guess is that Blizzard should absolutely have the resources to produce a couple of movie scenes for 2 games, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong, and it's based on more then a simple guess.
 
One complaint I repeatedly saw during last year's Blizzcon was how D3's announcement trailers aren't CG. I then took notice of that and it's entirely true. The announcement trailer for the game was rendered in CG, but class announcements and such are all taken from the engine, which is a little silly. What I'd LOVE to see in D3 is CG on par with SC2. I'm talking cutscenes done entirely in CG.

It's a pipe dream. But I can wish.
 
Some of the SC2 engine movies were very good looking though. Not quite at the level of what's possible in CG, but still very cool.

How much CG work they do for Diablo 3 is an interesting question. The general consensus after SC2 was that they've showed off too much (intro, half of the Zeratul movie, the complete story reel of the Kerrigan movie plus a lot of shots from that and the outro) so there was very little new CG material in the actual game.
So they should keep all the D3 CG under wraps until the release, IMHO, especially as it seems to be quite story related, with the girl as some protagonist and Deckard Cain (?) appearing as well.
 
If D3 REALLY has been in development since '01, then...DAYYUM. We didn't even have pixel shader graphics cards back then. A high-end GFX board was a 4 pixel pipes GPU at around 200MHz and perhaps 8GB/s of on-board memory bandwidth from a 64MB 128-bit framebuffer... I think it's a fair guess to say the game's seen quite a bit of re-engineering in that massive timespan.
 
The general consensus after SC2 was that they've showed off too much

I agree 100%.

What was displayed at conventions revealed too much and left very little new material in the final cut. Unless there's something massive for me in store in the finale of the campaign, what I did see, I had seen before.

D3 could benefit greatly from the cinematic experience that was delivered with SC2. I mean, Blizzard CG rendered cutscenes are phenomenal. Even the WoTLK intro is amazing.
 
One complaint I repeatedly saw during last year's Blizzcon was how D3's announcement trailers aren't CG. I then took notice of that and it's entirely true. The announcement trailer for the game was rendered in CG, but class announcements and such are all taken from the engine, which is a little silly. What I'd LOVE to see in D3 is CG on par with SC2. I'm talking cutscenes done entirely in CG.

It's a pipe dream. But I can wish.

I don't understand what it is about some people wanting their video games to be all about really bad movies. I'm all for no CG EVER, in ANY, videogame. There is no point to it, it takes time and resources from the actual game, it break immersion, etc. CG is just plain bad. Its the last refuge of poor game designers.
 
I don't understand what it is about some people wanting their video games to be all about really bad movies. I'm all for no CG EVER, in ANY, videogame. There is no point to it, it takes time and resources from the actual game, it break immersion, etc. CG is just plain bad. Its the last refuge of poor game designers.
You can replace "CG" with "story" and your point is just as invalid. Both take away "time and resources from the actual game(play)".
You play story driven games to advance the story, often story and gameplay are totally seperate so I dont see why the choice of (non-interactive) realtime vs CG cutscenes should be a big issue.
 
There is no point to it, it takes time and resources from the actual game,

Blizzard is a definite exception to that - they can spend as much on their actual games as they want. The CG movies are made because they like to do it, because their fans like to watch it, and it's still some added value. It doesn't break the immersion in the game either, IMHO, in fact it adds to it because they couldn't show such things with the game engine movies.

In the case of most other games, CG is used for promotion, you rarely see any in-game or endgame cinematics done this way. But the entire intro/trailer is always published throughout the internet and on E3 or Gamescom to call attention to the game. Almost every single time we get a job offer, it wants us to make the best trailer of the upcoming show ;)
But the point is that the costs are in most cases related more to marketing and less to the game's development budget.

There's only been a few cases where games have more than one CG movie.
I think we can agree that Halo Wars would've had a very difficult time to tell all its story with the game's 3D engine, and Blur's work really added to the atmosphere by showing the huge spaceships, Forerunner structures, and of course Spartans fighting the Covenant.
Final Fantasy games I don't know much about, and Wolverine wasn't really that good either. But these games are rare and most only have an intro/trailer so I guess you shouldn't have much trouble with them.
 
You can replace "CG" with "story" and your point is just as invalid. Both take away "time and resources from the actual game(play)".
You play story driven games to advance the story, often story and gameplay are totally seperate so I dont see why the choice of (non-interactive) realtime vs CG cutscenes should be a big issue.

no, my point is perfectly valid and CG != story. The point is one of immersion, CG breaks the immersion.
 
In your opinion, that is.
Please allow other people to have different views ;) - few have complained about Blizzard's stuff, just look at how it's considered to be a disappointment that they only had 15 minutes for SC2.
 
Yeah, remember Diablo 2 where it was a 20-minutes long, standalone story that ran in parallel to what the player was doing? Pretty good idea and execution, too bad that nowadays 20 minutes of that for Diablo 3 would be incredibly expensive... but we can always hope :)
 
Meh, I can see his argument but I think there's a fundamental flaw in his examples: none of them are interactive. That's why you can see car reviews saying how the car is good looking but hard to drive. What is the objective, consensus, definition of how well a car drives or should drive?

Likewise, a game might have a great story, great graphics, engaging level design, smart A.I., etc. and still "handle like a whale". That's the gameplay part. Sure, it has subjective meaning, but it generally means the mechanics of the game. For instance, Deus Ex is a masterpiece even though some parts of the gameplay are atrocious.

His designer quote is also a bit selective. Obviously your product manager/IP owner should detail their criticisms other than "gameplay sucks". Likewise on a review, it wouldn't be proper to just say "Game gets a 2/5 because of the gameplay." full stop.

The word itself isn't the problem. The problem may be some people might not want to or be unable to elaborate further. Heck, same thing with graphics and the consensus on a definition there is much stronger. A review shouldn't just say "awesome graphics" and move on to sound design.

But let's say, for argument's sake that the word is horrible, how is putting on a review "the mechanics suck" versus "the gameplay sucks" an improvement? Like I started this post, meh. It's not the word, it's how you use it... or wait, maybe that's another thing. :smile:
 
Back
Top