Reply With QuotePeople that create cinematics are 2D artists.
A 2D artists could be for concepts, textures, etc.
Blizard north is posting for a 2D artist according to the battle.net site. Could Diablo 3 be 2D still or would this probably be for the cinematics?
People that create cinematics are 2D artists.
A 2D artists could be for concepts, textures, etc.
What would be the benefit of going 3D?
Luddite.Originally Posted by Doug Erickson
While it's not even close to a deal breaker, I would be very disappointed if D3 was 2D.
If you think back, Dark Stone was kinda like a 3D Diablo. =)
I'd say the 3D aspect is more important for cinematics actually. But as I believe you implied, there are 2D aspects as well.
If this is for Diablo 3, it could also be for environment artists. I'm pretty sure the backgrounds in Diablo 1 and 2 were 2D environments.
You should really watch your acronyms, this is absolutely going out of hand. I read this thread expecting ramblings about Doom 3 in 2D.
This is another appeal to cease and desist from using unexplained acronyms wildly.
So, there you got it!! :P
Any texture map in a 3d game is 2d art.
Stop thinking so one-dimensionally (LAWL GET IT!? ONE DIMENSION?)
What about volumetric textures? :P
I have no idea. Aren't they just 2d textures that are faked into looking 3d?What about volumetric textures? :P
Either way, there's still a lot of 2d art that goes into making a 3d game.
Hey, Ajaarg, you still around? Been calling anyone's wife a slut lately, or wishing they'd be gang-raped?
If anyone is wondering what the hell I'm talking about, check out this, from the Internet Archive--it's a saved thread from the Gone Gold boards.
http://web.archive.org/web/200304100...4/ajaarg2.html
It's a few posts from the bottom of the page.
Funny you should mention that, because I clicked on this thread thinking that I would be explaining that Descent 3 was in fact, quite 3D.
Lot of people getting upset over the dark ages. That's a worthwhile argument.
Could be. Probably not textures--those positions are usually labeled as such, since texture art requires a pretty specific skill set. But a 2D artist could be for visualization, character design, storyboards, and concept work. There is an awful lot of that stuff in Blizzard's games, and I wouldn't be surprised if they had an artist (or more than one) that does nothing but that.
Why?Luddite.
While it's not even close to a deal breaker, I would be very disappointed if D3 was 2D.
edit: Just so you know, that's a serious question. How or why would 3D make Diablo a better game, and why would you be disappointed if it kept 2D?
It'd be nice to be able to zoom and rotate, which really only works well with a 3D game. Also, if the graphics quality is high enough, you get better visuals because stuff can happen at whatever angle is "natural," rather than having to deal with the "stepped" nature of sprites (e.g., guy is full-forward, then jumps to 45 degrees left, etc.). So I can definitely see arguments that a game like this can be better in 3D.
OTOH, D2 works just fine as a 2D game, and one of its charms is that it runs well on laptops and low-end systems. Also, 3D is a lot more demanding, so unless you really put in the time and resources, going from 2D to 3D can mean a drop in overall graphics quality just so you can say you're 3D (I doubt Blizzard would have this issue, though). And some games just aren't suited to 3D because of their art style--I really felt that Warcraft 3, for example, suffered badly for moving to 3D.
Nox is 3D, and looks noticably better than Diablo 2 while running even more smoothly (at least for me). I ain't saying that this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that 3D is the way to go, but I certainly don't see why Blizzard shouldn't make the leap.
Whoops - I must admit that Nox doesn't have as many monsters attacking on a constant basis as Diablo 2 did. Although at the same time I'd also argue that it's no less fun because of that.
But now that I mention it, I'm not sure any of that matters. With computers today that you'd consider average, I'm certain you could easily do Diablo 2 in 3D, with Nox's graphical quality, yet suffer no slowdown at all. In fact, I see no reason why Nox *wouldn't* run every bit as well as it already does if it stepped up the number of NPCs/enemies to a Diablo level, unless you play it on a painfully outdated machine. It really runs that liquid-smooth for me, and this is on a 1999 computer (with only a small increase in RAM and a GeForce3 video card, no other enhancements) that barely meets the recommended specs for both games.
I don't understand this comment; Blizzard's (and most everybody else's) cinematics are 3D renders. Sure, there are 2d textures in there, but the majority of the work that goes into are the models, animation, and lighting, all of which are 3D disciplines.
The job description on the site is pretty clear -
So I think it's pretty obvious this job is a texture artist position, and it definitely sounds like a 3d game.The 2D artist contributes to the design and creation of a game’s interface and all related 2D artwork. Additionally, the 2D artist will be called upon to texture 3D assets when needed.
That's because I'm an idiot and meant to type "3D artists."
The point is: the Diablo meme doesn't need to be 3D. D2 works just fine the way it is. I don't see any point in being able to, or HAVING to, rotate the camera like an idiot in one of Diablo's hyper-melees. To hell with that.
And Darkstone wasn't that hot.
--scharmers
3D adds a lot of GOOD eye candy and makes things a lot easier in general for the developers.
I'd say there's no question at all that Diablo 3 will be 3d. It would be crazy for it not to be.
3-D w/o stupid camera-control issues = 2-D
I don't see the problem here.
- Alan
No kidding. Who cares about being able to rotate/zoom the camera? I only did so while playing the PS2 Diablo clones because they (tragically, IMO) did not give you the option of dithering your character/enemies/loot that might wind up placed behind a barrier of some kind due to your camera placement, thus rotating became a necessity.
Diablo 2 "works fine" but it's ass-ugly. So why object to making it look far better while keeping the game intact?
Ajaarg! Setting the standards for permaban on Gone Gold... glad to finally learn your story.
btw, you fucking suck. :lol:
For starters, drastically better animation - in the same memory footprint, you can easily store dozens more animations in 3D than in 2D.
Weather effects would be easier and higher quality.
It doesn't take much imagination to concieve of how much more dynamic, detailed, and awe-inspiring magic would be with true dynamic lighting and a powerful 3D particle system...
The other big part of Diablo - making your character look cool and unique by outfitting yourself with nifty times - would be a lot cooler in 3D. The camera could zoom down low when you go to a shop and you could get a much more detailed look at how that new armor/helm/weapon/boots/belt makes you look. Maybe that's not "gameplay" but a whole lot of players pride themselves on looking cool and unique in that game.
Oh, and 2D art could be for lots of things. Interface elements, concept art, instruction manuals, web art...
Haha that link was great. What were we talking about, again?
The fact that you guys don't really have anything better to do than drag up flamewars from over two years ago really speaks to why I found better ways to spend my time.
Also, jesus guys, it wasn't worth remembering for two years. Grow some thicker skin.
Posting Permissions