diablo2 graphics

They are sprites. They are not 3D models when in the game. They probably have been modeled and animated with a 3D package though. But in the game they are simply bitmaps.

Diablo II is a 2D game, there is no 3D.

Hope this helps,
Patrick Lafleur

i thought some people had said that diablo2 was done in 3D with a fixed camera perspective

"I pity the fool, thug, or soul who tries to take over the world, then goes home crying to his momma."
- Mr. T

quote:

---

Original post by ncsu121978

i thought some people had said that diablo2 was done in 3D with a fixed camera perspective

"I pity the fool, thug, or soul who tries to take over the world, then goes home crying to his momma."
- Mr. T

---

Diablo 2 was a strictly 2D game, but they did take advantage of some hardware acceleration features of 3D cards. They also did sort of a nifty parallax trick that makes it seem more "3D-ish", but it is really just a 2d isometric game. (The fact that it is such a popular game without being 3d should show people that once again, game design is MUCH more important that poly counts)

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster


Then the image is reduced down to 256 colors! (using a median cut I heard) (for software mode and some 3d modes) and displayed. So yeah, if you are playing software mode each and every frame can have a different set of 256 colors. It is very stupid. I do not suggest doing whatever it is they did

---

Now, now. I believe that part of the descision to use 256 color sprites and only offer one resolution has to do with the size of the artwork. Diablo II install is 1 GB, most of which holds the game graphics. If you had a smaller art set, you could render everything at 24 bit, and at multiple resolutions, but one of Blizzard''s big concerns was the size of the art set.

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster

They ended up with a 640x480x256 2d game that has higher system requirements than just about any game released at the time. Blizzard North is a bad studio and they tarnished the Blizzard name with their glorified gauntlet.

---

I just love how anonymous posters say things like this. Nevermind the fact that this ''glorified gauntlet'' is still in the top 5 selling PC games 9 months after its release.

well Anon Poster.........If you can create a game just like Diablo 2 in your spare time but you dont have any. Well then you make some extra time and I will pay you to make a game like that for me. Then I will turn around a sell it.
Please, if you could make a game like that in your spare time then you would. And of course the guys are doing it for the money. They have bills to pay too. Some of them might like to make a pc tic-tac-toe game........but they aint going to.


"I pity the fool, thug, or soul who tries to take over the world, then goes home crying to his momma."
- Mr. T

Oh dear lord. You guys, DiabloII isn''t a big hit because of it''s game design or it''s aweomeness or anything like that. Diablo was a great game and a good hit...people bought DiabloII because it was supposed to be a lot better. I see a few things better in DiabloII, but not a lot. And I agree with Anon that it isn''t that hard to make. I could also make it in my spare time. This is because I am a programmer, not an artist. The programming in the game is about as great as that bug I just killed. The art in the game however is a whole lot better. I have made an isometric game both 2D and 3D. The 2D one was nice because it allowed for more resources to be saved. The 3D one however looked a bit more real and allowed some nice hardware acceloration such as lighting. From there all you have to do is manage your resources, which D2 doesn''t even do that well. I am on a Pentium4 1.5GHz with a GeForce2 and 128MB of RDRAM. This bad boy can handle resources better than any other computer. Games like Asheron''s Call are entirly 3D and handle a much more vast scene due to better resource management. If I had some artists that could pound out some D2-quality art, I could easily give you a much better D2. As far as game play goes in D2, why even have armor? The armor value doesn''t actually weaking the attack against you, it lets you dodge more. Armor in real life isn''t like that, and it makes no seince to do it the way they did. Then to rub things in, as soon as you start moving your armor value is set to 0. You might as well take your armor off and leave it where you started running from. The quests are annoying and the game isn''t all the fun. In all honesty D2 isn''t a very good example of skill in any category other than art.

quote:

---

Original post by invective
Original post by Anonymous Poster
Then the image is reduced down to 256 colors! (using a median cut I heard) (for software mode and some 3d modes) and displayed. So yeah, if you are playing software mode each and every frame can have a different set of 256 colors. It is very stupid. I do not suggest doing whatever it is they did
Now, now. I believe that part of the descision to use 256 color sprites and only offer one resolution has to do with the size of the artwork. Diablo II install is 1 GB, most of which holds the game graphics. If you had a smaller art set, you could render everything at 24 bit, and at multiple resolutions, but one of Blizzard's big concerns was the size of the art set.

---

Actually, the reason only 640x480 was produced was becuase they were hand cutting each individual sprite and pasting themin to their appropriate resource files. (That info comes from the Post-Mortem at Gamasutra.) This was one of those extremely few instances where the art guys would have delayed the release had all the planned features (specifically 800x600) been implemented. Of course I don't know why they hadn't figured they'd need a tool to help out after making the original Diablo.

Edited by - SonicSilcion on April 8, 2001 11:46:14 PM

I thought I''d also jump in here and just add that I really LOVE the new feature of Diablo2 where I can die just by entering a dungeon and not touch a key!

Isn''t it great how before the level has finished loading, the monsters have swarmed you and mauled you to death?? what fun!

Wazoo

What''s so bad about Zelda 64? If you ask me, though, A Link to the Past was the best in the series. Certainly, both are better than Diablo II. They just don''t make games like they used to.

i loved A Link to the Past........actually to tell the truth...my favorite was the original Legend of Zelda for the NES. And yes, The Adventure of Link was terrible.


"I pity the fool, thug, or soul who tries to take over the world, then goes home crying to his momma."
- Mr. T

Wazoo69 - What the hell is your computer using for a processor??? For god sake, my gaming computer is an E-Machine 333 with 32mb RAM. It is SHIT on the tech scale and it ran D2 just fine.

I, for one, enjoy D2 greatly. I also liked all the zelda''s except 2.

Oh well,

Landsknecht

Just giving some thoughts, please no flame. Well if you guys can create a game better than Diablo II so how come I don''t see any of them out there, in the shelves or in the shareware or freeware market?

Landsknecht - I''ve got a pretty kick ass machine! P2-450 with 128 MB of RAM and a 64 MB GeoForce2...handles every other LAN 3D game just fine..

I''m just talking about the LAN speeds...I mean with the speeds you get from games like Warcraft2 or Starcraft, I was VERY disappointed with the LAN stuff in Diablo2...the lag should NOT be that bad!! Didn''t ANYBODY comment on this during testing??

And ZeldaII is nothing but a lesson in frustration. The better game was the original Zelda64...THAT kicked some serious ass!

Not flaming the developers as I know how hard it is to code high performance games...but c''mon. Design decisions SOMEWHERE went really wrong...

Wazoo

quote:

---

Original post by DefaultUser

Just giving some thoughts, please no flame. Well if you guys can create a game better than Diablo II so how come I don''t see any of them out there, in the shelves or in the shareware or freeware market?

---

Seems to be a lot of talk in this thread about how easy it would be to write a better Diablo II. I agree with DefaultUser. If the guys who claim that they could write a better Diablo II in their spare time would do such a thing, then I might believe them. But I for one respect the many thousands of man-hours that went into the development of Diablo II and would never seek to belittle their efforts by making such claims without some sort of evidence to back me up.

Steve ''Sly'' Williams  Code Monkey  Krome Studios

they just saying they could code a better game not draw a better game. theres a big difference. the coding in diablo probably took them o 6-8 months at most but the artwork took then probably 3 years thats why most games take so dam long to make