Big Ideas: On graphics

Posted Apr 1st 2009 2:00PM by Akela Talamasca
Filed under: Culture, Features, Opinion, Diablo III

There is a not-insignificant portion of humans on this planet who love controversy. They love to argue, love to take the contrary position, love to complain. Frequently found on game forums, this breed enjoys nothing more than to explain to anyone who will bother to read them how the latest iteration of their beloved franchise has destroyed the game, and how much better version x was compared with version y.

Sometimes there is even a kernel of truth to their ire, as in games like World of Warcraft, where the developers are constantly updating the game with bug fixes and game balance patches. The word "nerf" is typically heard, and stories of the good old days abound. Functional changes I understand. But occasionally a different sort of complaint is heard, and it's this type of whingeing that puzzles me. How seriously can I take arguments that revolve around a game's graphics?

I am, of course, referring to the latest back-and-forth concerning the state of the graphic style in the upcoming Diablo 3. But this isn't the only time people have complained about a video game's visuals. They did it when the look of Street Fighter changed. They did it when The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker appeared. Any time there's been a significant shift in aesthetic, someone will get upset about it. But why? Is there ever a valid reason to hate a game's graphics?

The most obvious answer is: there's no accounting for taste. If you don't like something, that's just your opinion, and you can't -- nor should you -- be argued out of it. I'm not here to defend Blizzard's decisions, nor am I out to attack anyone's personal likes or dislikes. But I do think it's interesting how vehement the debates can become, and it's precisely this notion of taste that's really at the heart of it all.

Let's take the Diablo series as our example. The look of the game hasn't truly changed that significantly between the first game and the second, let's be honest. The sprites have gotten more detailed, sure, and the spell effects have probably gotten a little flashier. But beyond that, it's the same isometric dungeon crawl it's ever been, and we like it that way. That stuff doesn't seem to have altered for Diablo 3, from the look of the trailer and the screenshots that keep coming out. If we want to pin down specifics, it seems that everyone seems to be up in arms over the third iteration's level of "darkness".

Apparently gamers don't like color. That would certainly explain why so very many of the past few years' games seem to follow a visual formula: use a monochromatic palette of washed-out blues, greys, or browns, with the occasional bright red to make the blood really stand out. One could claim that by limiting the colors in this way, the eyes are free to focus on pure movement, which is arguably the most important part of most games. However, the counterargument is that 1) the game then lacks a unique style, and 2) it's boring as Hell. Or, in the case of Diablo 3, not as Hell.

NEXT >>

Tags: big-ideas, darkness, diablo-3, featured, graphics, joystiqfeatures

3 Comments

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

You bring up some interesting points.

When you think about it, the whiners are still going to buy and play the bloody thing, so you just have to ignore them. I'm pretty sure that's how the developers get by ;)Posted at 11:19PM on Apr 1st 2009 by Gripen40k

Everything you say is valid concerning graphics, but... Diablo fans enjoyed Diablo for its darkness. The land is being consumed by hell and its minions, it's not going to be normal and "colorful". The point isn't that their is to much color so much, more of that it isn't delivered in Diablo fashion. The game to closely resembles Warcraft style graphics opposed to the more realistic and gothic graphics style of Diablo. People like to point out the graphics are great in Diablo3, but that is because its being compared to graphics from 9 years ago. If Blizzard released a Hi-Res/remastered version of Diablo II with added content, I guarantee it would sell quite well. It appears that Diablo has lost its "style" in Diablo 3. Sure the basic mechanics of game play and story are still present, but the way the game is perceived has been completely changed. For some this is good, but for the majority of fans its disappointment. Ever since Blizzard South moved up with North to finish this project, to many "styles" and ideas concerning game visuals were borrowed from Warcraft. I even recall a comment where people were complaining of there being icons and other things similar to WoW in some screen shot or video. Blizzards response was that it was going to be changed and was there in raw form for testing. This just shows how much of the WoW art "style" is rubbed all over Diablo. Games would not be the same if they looked like other games. It's the total package and the way the games looks makes a huge difference. I will stop rambling with my bias to Diablo I & II. >.>Posted at 2:55PM on Apr 2nd 2009 by Garrett

Something I should have mentioned in my above post: Diablo 3 is going to be a great game. Blizzard only makes great games. They take their time and they make it well, but this does not mean that its going to be greater than Diablo I and II. For most Diablo fans, the game will be a great game but it just wont be the same and as appreciated as it could be. I hope Blizzard can prove me wrong, but I do not believe the game will be a great Diablo game. I guarantee sales will sky rocket because it is blizzard, and compared to 2000, many people now have computers with good internet access because of the strong gaming industry, advances in technology, and games like WoW which pulled in more gamers to the industry by the millions. Overall I am disappointed, but this will not keep me from buying a great Blizzard game: Diablo 3. Posted at 3:02PM on Apr 2nd 2009 by Garrett