A Comparison Of Diablo II and Diablo III's Visuals

The only way I can imagine anyone preferring the old design is a result of feelings of nostalgia, or overall fear of change.

D3 looks much more vibrant (not to mention the beautiful cutscenes which draw you in right off the bat), has physics, and streamlines most of the functions within the user interface. Yes, it's WoW influenced, but that's obviously a tried and true method that has been working for years.

Anyone have a rebuttal? =)

I think the word "vibrant" is the problem. It just seems excessively vibrant. For me personally, the visuals don't fit the atmosphere I expect from Diablo.

My thought is this. I am sure nostalgia has a role to play in it, but I think its more like this....the first 2 Diablo games had a more "gothic" art direction where it seems this one took the lighter-wowish approach. I feel like they could have very well accomplished a more gothic scheme in this game and it would have been great. With some more washed out colors and more age in the structures could have left me a little more mentally confortable with the visuals for a game with Diablo's tone. They went from having you feeling like you are playing a gothic horror hack n slash to a graphic novel with spurts here and there of story and a lot of pretty colors. Anyone else agree?

Confession: I only ever played D2 for a few days growing up. My taste in video games has changed since then... plus I have been playing D3 hardcore.

Perhaps I don't have the right perspective, but my knee-jerk reaction was that this game looks better, especially as I glance up at the comparison pic above.

Maybe I'll check out D2 sometime in the future (after I figure out how to make some money at the auction house lol).

Diablo 3 looks like any other fantasy rpg out today. Diablo 2 had a grim, gloomy atmosphere to it that is somewhat unique even today. They should have tried to keep with that style while still delivering great graphics. Only the top couple D3 screenshots come close.

I haven't played Diablo but judging from these screenshots, what you say is true. D2 has a Spartan feeling to it, whereas D3 is too colorful for a game that should borrow more from Dark Souls than from WoW.

Honestly, I'm tired of people on the D3 forums always so negative about everything. Also I'm thankful D3 isn't D 2.5. People really just love the whine when they have the chance.

D2 has sharp precise pixels and colors. D3 has a lot of smooth textures and soft colors. Completely different graphical styles. For being 12 years newer however, D3 is graphically dissapointing.

I agree that in regards to today's standards, D3's presentation is overall very dated.

I still feel that it looks better than D2, but D3 should have looked more like Dungeon Seige III. Save the birds-eye view for RTS genre!

The bottom left picture is from an early version of the game that still used piles of gold.

D2 was beautiful, and with Direct3D, it was amazing. D3 looks kinda outdated, with mainstream graphic designs and textures. It's not terrible, but it's not Diablo.

Meh Im fine with the graphics, the sticking points mainly are your characters similarity to WoWs lvling/ability tree system that irks me. 12 years is a long damn time and for many of us a very large portion of our lives so there was a slim chance whatever they did would live up to our expectations. On the plus side they screwed up so many other things we dont focus on those as much.

Not really interested in Diablo style games anymore but from what I've seen Diablo 3 is pretty bland and it looks like it came out 5 years ago. I'm not saying it's a bad game, I haven't played it, it just looks pretty terrible.

Uh, what? I didn't say you shouldn't like it, I'm sure it's fun if you're into that sort of game.

I feel where you're coming from Wills. I mean, I loved D2 as much as the next guy... but that was over ten years ago. That kind of hack and slash style of game play just doesn't really do it for me anymore. I tried Torchlight when it came out, and I could recognize it was a solid game, the genre just wasn't doing it for me anymore.

I'm unsure of when choosing not to require a two-month old graphics card to play one's game became equivalent to "outdated," but as far as I'm concerned D3 is absolutely beautiful. So much attention was paid to the animations--it really is top class visually, and I can only imagine anyone who says otherwise has not played it.

The graphics don't blow me away, but I really cant justify in saying they look like crap. I think things do look very well done, and appropriate. There is a dark, gritty tone to everything, but the color pallet consists of more than black, gray, and brown. As it should. Most importantly, I am having one hell of a good time, as is evident by how many hours I have sunk into the damn thing.

One thing I will say though..... I greatly miss the skill point system from Diablo 2. The new skill structure isn't bad, I welcome changes...but all the different ways to build a character on Diablo 2 was amazing, and kept me playing for years. I mean, where else can you build a Hammerdin....a paladin whose entire purpose revolved around casting tons of spinning hammers of doom

Don't forget to put elective mode on!!!!!

I thought everyone was tired of "brown" shooters. But after reading the comments it appears everyone wants "brown" isometric RPGs. I love the art style it is graphically and aesthetically pleasing.

DarkD3 should be an alternate color scheme, it literally makes the game look right, but the risk of being banned makes it unpalatable. The REAL problem is the story. It is so dry and banal, I can't stand watching, hearing or seeing the dialogue, it is simply painful to watch that corny cluster****. They need to expand the story for each act. Literally nothing interesting happens with any of the prime evils or angels, both sides are simply too transparent and lacking any of the ambiguity that they had in the first two games.

You could get the same effects as DarkD3 by just turning the damn Gamma down...

I feel like, given how short the content is (not including replaying difficulties) the color palette in D3 helps it seem a little less repetitive than D2. This is all personal opinion, but when replaying harder difficulties, I now feel less like I'm trudging along because there is more variety in the scenery.

As far as the horror hack n slash vibe being gone, the only area that really seems less horrific to me is the Oasis, and living in the SE US, I can tell you swamps can be pretty damn horrific. The desert SHOULD be brighter than it was in D2, because deserts are brown and bright, not brown and muddy. Yes the last act (I'm trying to avoid any possible spoilers) is bright, but that location should be bright. It's also covered in torture victims and blood.

So tl;dr is that I agree it's different, but as a personal opinion, believe it adds, not detracts from the game.

Just looking at these screenshots I would say that D2, despite the desaturated palette, looks much more expressive. The visuals aren't 'pretty' but they do communicate information to the player in an efficient manner. Having played both I know the divide isn't that sharp.

Diablo 3 is Diablo 2 dumbed down in every mechanic; including, apparently, graphics.