Really liking Darkd3

  • 55 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Redsox44 (487 posts) -

I really like the way Diablo 3 looks but I kinda do wish it was darker and more detailed. So I decided to give this darkd3thing I've been hearing about since beta. I chose balanced settings with effects on and shader on. It took a little while to get used to but now I don't think I'll ever go back. It really does make environments and characters look more detailed and everything looks less washed out. It's really nice that it's easy to toggle on and off too. Here's some screens, click to enlarge as it's a pretty subtle difference. It even makes the character select look better!

Default
Dark - Balanced
Default
Dark - Balanced
Default
Dark - Balanced
Default
Dark - Balanced
Default
Dark - Balanced
Default
Dark - Balanced

The difference really does stand out when playing, at least to me. All of these screens are with all settings on high and I just toggled the shader on and off. Wondering how many other people on GB are using it or prefer the normal look of the game.

#2 Edited by Brendan (8124 posts) -

Game changing.

#3 Posted by WMWA (1162 posts) -

Lol. Well if it's noticeable to you and enhances your experience then more power to you, Duder

#4 Posted by StealthRaptor (531 posts) -

@Brendan said:

Game changing.

Scathing.

#5 Edited by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

Ugh... contrast and a sharpness filter isn't what D3 lacks. It's grit and a certain detailed jaggedness to the texturework. It's too smooth and painterly, compared to how evil the series looked before.

#6 Posted by gamefreak9 (2417 posts) -

Anyone else can't see the difference?

#7 Posted by Dallas_Raines (2222 posts) -

I like colors.

#8 Posted by Seedofpower (3949 posts) -

In the first 2 pictures default looks darker than dark.

#9 Posted by BionicRadd (616 posts) -

@MrKlorox said:

Ugh... contrast and a sharpness filter isn't what D3 lacks. It's grit and a certain detailed jaggedness to the texturework. It's too smooth and painterly, compared to how evil the series looked before.

Seriously, I run around and D3 and it feels like D2, only with way higher graphical fidelity. I mean, honestly, how can anyone look at a Wretched Mother and say Diablo 3 went soft?

What's hilarious to me is when D2 came out, I was defending how "bad" it looked to people on the internet, since even for the time, it was a pretty low res game. Now D3 is out and it is "too pretty"? Whatever, though. Diablo 3 feels like a Diablo game to me, in every way. I can't think of anything they changed that I actually miss.

#10 Posted by Scottish_Sin (227 posts) -

If it works for you then more power to you. Can't say I notice the difference personally though.

#11 Posted by wemibelec90 (1828 posts) -

I still think everyone that thinks Diablo 3 looks not as "dark" as 2 does so because the original ran at a crappy low resolution (by today's standards) and made everything look different because of it.

#12 Edited by TheHT (11769 posts) -

Looks good. Most of the stuff I've seen like this, particularly in Amalur, sharpen too much. Don't get why it's called Darkd3 since it doesn't really look darker per se, just sharper and also like they washed out the colour a bit.

That said, I don't remember the game looking as blurry and low contrast as some of those shots...

#13 Posted by BionicRadd (616 posts) -

@wemibelec90 said:

I still think everyone that thinks Diablo 3 looks not as "dark" as 2 does so because the original ran at a crappy low resolution (by today's standards) and made everything look different because of it.

Lets be honest, 800 x 600 was awful even back then. Actually, didn't D2 launch at 640 x 480? Seems like they added 800 x 600 with LoD.

#14 Posted by Subject2Change (2966 posts) -

The difference is noticeable to me; however as someone who worked as a colorist before I can tell. To me it's unnecessary. You could literally do those adjustments in your graphic card settings/monitor. Lower the brightness, adjust the contrast.

#15 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

Most intriguing! Pictures!

#16 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -
@BionicRadd: I never said it was "too pretty". It just doesn't look as satanic or evil as the low res Diablo 1 and 2. Again, the vividness of the color palette has absolutely nothing to do with it.
#17 Posted by buft (3320 posts) -

I really like the art direction Diablo has taken, sure its not the same as before because they added things like color lighting which probably weren't possible in D1 or D2 and yeh its not as Gothic as before in some of the areas but in dungeons and caves you still see that Diablo flavor with its tall arches, great big statues, moss covered caves and creepy crypts. The way they use color to distinguish the enviroment is genius, nothing in the older caves has come close to one particular moment in Act 2 or 3 when the place you enter has very little light except for a red flicker every few seconds.

#18 Posted by Subjugation (4740 posts) -

I seriously don't notice any significant difference. Guess I'll be sticking with default.

#19 Posted by mordecaix7 (657 posts) -

If you go to the actual DarkD3 website, you can see the difference. It's huge. I'm going to try it not... not sure if my system can handle the change :/ need a better video card.

#20 Edited by Tennmuerti (8174 posts) -

I can definitely see the difference.

But don't think it appeals to me personally.

#21 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8605 posts) -

Barely noticable, but I never was a graphics whore or anything, Nintendo taught me that much! <3

#22 Edited by JP_Russell (1174 posts) -

Does Diablo 3 use that same anti-aliasing Crysis 2 used that smoothed out jagged lines with little performance loss, but also blurred all the hard edges and made everything look less distinct? That's kind of what it seems like.

#23 Edited by Ubersmake (754 posts) -

, I haven't heard about this before, so thanks for the link. I'll give it a shot. Even if I don't end up seeing a massive visual difference, it's nice to have options.

#24 Posted by Galiant (2195 posts) -

No significant difference. The whole "too bright" complaint is so incredibly silly in the first place - I love the way D3 looks.

#25 Edited by Redsox44 (487 posts) -

@Galiant: Well I have this turned on mostly because light just looks like it's smacked onto everything from all angles and doesn't look natural to me this creates a better sense of place for me, or maybe I'm just weird lol. I like it, if anything it's another option to change up the look on a subsequent playthrough. And if anything click the link I put to their site as like I said I didn't pick the most extreme change and went with the balanced look.

#26 Posted by CaptainCody (1521 posts) -

@Brendan said:

Game changing.

#27 Posted by redefaulted (2835 posts) -

@wmaustin55 said:

Lol. Well if it's noticeable to you and enhances your experience then more power to you, Duder
#28 Edited by Istealdreams (155 posts) -

How do you easily toggle this on and off? the only thing i can think of is to remove the files, and that requires quitting out of the game

edit: NM found it= the pause/break button

#29 Posted by MacEG (256 posts) -

@MrKlorox said:

Ugh... contrast and a sharpness filter isn't what D3 lacks. It's grit and a certain detailed jaggedness to the texturework. It's too smooth and painterly, compared to how evil the series looked before.

I think... I think you mean how..... D3VIL IT LOOKED!

#30 Edited by Redsox44 (487 posts) -

@Istealdreams: In the read me it tells you that to toggle it you press the pause key which is the right of scroll lock

I'm gonna try and get some new screens of dungeons or something to show the difference because these are all old pics I took pretty much right when I started using it.

#31 Posted by Chemin (633 posts) -
@wemibelec90 said:

I still think everyone that thinks Diablo 3 looks not as "dark" as 2 does so because the original ran at a crappy low resolution (by today's standards) and made everything look different because of it.

You, sir, are wrong. It's not about technical prowess, it's almost purely aesthetic.
 
 Diablo 3, or WoW, or Torchlight even? Who can say.
 Diablo 1
If you can't spot the difference in style between these two pictures, I don't have anything else to say. 
 
Sure, Diablo 2 was a bit lighter than Diablo 1 even, because of the added environments, but it still kept the serious tone. Don't get me wrong, Diablo 3 looks... good. It just lacks the gritty, gothic and satanic look from the earlier games. Which I miss.
#32 Posted by Bane122 (810 posts) -

I've been using this but only for the sharpness filter. I like the rest of the look of the game just fine.

#33 Posted by Matiaz_Tapia (290 posts) -

@Chemin said:

@wemibelec90 said:

I still think everyone that thinks Diablo 3 looks not as "dark" as 2 does so because the original ran at a crappy low resolution (by today's standards) and made everything look different because of it.

You, sir, are wrong. It's not about technical prowess, it's almost purely aesthetic.

Diablo 3, or WoW, or Torchlight even? Who can say.
Diablo 1
If you can't spot the difference in style between these two pictures, I don't have anything else to say. Sure, Diablo 2 was a bit lighter than Diablo 1 even, because of the added environments, but it still kept the serious tone. Don't get me wrong, Diablo 3 looks... good. It just lacks the gritty, gothic and satanic look from the earlier games. Which I miss.

That's a bit of a bullshit comparison. There's plenty of blood and corpses lying around on D3, if you want to compare corpse piles, you should compare corpse piles.

#34 Posted by wemibelec90 (1828 posts) -

@Chemin: Okay, sure. I can understand a bit of a tone shift. That doesn't make Diablo 3 a worse looking game. It just means the art department went in a different direction this time. Perfectly acceptable.

#35 Posted by BionicRadd (616 posts) -

@Chemin said:

@wemibelec90 said:

I still think everyone that thinks Diablo 3 looks not as "dark" as 2 does so because the original ran at a crappy low resolution (by today's standards) and made everything look different because of it.

You, sir, are wrong. It's not about technical prowess, it's almost purely aesthetic.

If you can't spot the difference in style between these two pictures, I don't have anything else to say. Sure, Diablo 2 was a bit lighter than Diablo 1 even, because of the added environments, but it still kept the serious tone. Don't get me wrong, Diablo 3 looks... good. It just lacks the gritty, gothic and satanic look from the earlier games. Which I miss.

OOOH. It's the Hot Topic pentagrams yall are talking about. I guess I am weird in that I thought they made Diablo 1 and 2 really cheesy. All the overt Satanic imagery in a game that was otherwise creating it's own world seemed corny. Basically, I thought Diablo 1 and 2 tried way too hard to be "evil" and it crossed into the land of camp. Different strokes for different folks, though. It is a valid complaint in the sense that, yea, that stuff is definitely not present in D3.

#36 Posted by Deusx (1910 posts) -

I can´t believe you people can´t see the difference. You should get that checked out.

I think this is awesome. Diablo 3 needs to look darker. Thanks for this!

#37 Posted by Chemin (633 posts) -
@Matiaz_Tapia: No, it's not bullshit, as it's not a matter of the quantity of corpses or gallons of blood. Or brightness. The art direction is radically different. That's what people are talking about. There are tons of corpses in Torchlight also, but that doesn't make it similar in aesthetics to Diablo 1 or 2. Ok, Diablo 3 isn't in the same overly cartoony category as Torchlight per se, as it is a lot more serious, but it does utilize a somewhat toony art style. The butcher in the picture I embedded proves that point. Of course no game in this debate can be totally serious, it's fantastical beings and what not after all. Heck, you fight the devil. Still, Diablo 3 is more in lines with what Blizzard does nowadays (no shit, I guess), and has done ever since Warcraft 3. They found an art style that appealed to a lot of people, and worked for almost all target groups - of course they are going to use it. Even if they did darken it down a lot for Diablo 3. Then again, the Blizzard that is today isn't the "Blizzard" that made Diablo 1 and 2. That was Blizzard North. Those people are long gone. So it's not chocking.
 
@wemibelec90: No, absolutely not. Diablo 3 doesn't look bad. It's just different. And for some old fans, like myself, it's a big disappointment. Not game-breaking, but atmosphere-breaking in a sense. It's just personal preference.
 
@BionicRadd: The Devil itself is just as much a religious symbol as the pentagram, but I guess you wouldn't whine on that, with it being the name of the game and all. And I personally found the evil religious minimalistic style to fit very well. But, no, it's not only about the pentagrams. When I said "satanic look" I didn't really mean it in a literal sense. It fits, but I was out of adjectives at the moment. They probably could've used their own evil symbolism and imagery and captured the same dark atmosphere. Sure, pentagrams and the like seemed like pure evil to my eight year old self back in 1996, but that's not the major player in the difference in tone between the old and the new games. Come on.
#38 Posted by BionicRadd (616 posts) -

@Chemin: I am mostly just ribbing ya, a bit. I can't put my finger on it, because honestly, I don't see the change in tone you speak of. The game is still as dark and somber as it gets, from where I am sitting.

#39 Posted by RedRavN (414 posts) -

While I think diablo 3 is often a beautiful game, the art direction is just not diablo to me. I really don't think diablo 3 looks dark and somber, not even close. It looks more like a high fantasy land than anything. I would argue it looks closer to wow/ kingdoms of amalur than any of the previous games. Path of exile is closer to what I envisioned a 3d diablo game to look like.

#40 Posted by ravenleighhh (4 posts) -

Will do this definitely!

#41 Posted by Korolev (1725 posts) -

I can see "a" difference between the screen shots....

hey, if it makes you happier with the game, then great!

#42 Posted by jasonefmonk (346 posts) -

I see the difference, but it doesn't entice me. To each their own.

#43 Posted by Vonocourt (2164 posts) -

Couldn't you do the same thing with the contrast and sharpness settings on your monitor?

#44 Posted by guiseppe (2842 posts) -

See the difference, but prefer default.

Online
#45 Posted by phampire (289 posts) -

Default looks better imo.

#46 Posted by Panpipe (477 posts) -

This is utter madness.

The contrast has been upped and there's a slightly different temperature/saturation. Settings that most monitors can change.

I cannot understand this.

#47 Edited by Redsox44 (487 posts) -

@Panpipe: Hey man, I play tons of other games on this monitor and Diablo 3 is the only one that gives the look that someone turned the brightness too high, I don't want to have to keep changing my monitor settings back and forth.. So I love this because it gives me an option and really it's a super tiny file so it can't hurt to try it out.

#48 Posted by StarvingGamer (8549 posts) -

I guess this mod is for people that like it better when it's slightly overcast outside.

#49 Posted by Panpipe (477 posts) -

@Redsox44 said:

@Panpipe: Hey man, I play tons of other games on this monitor and Diablo 3 is the only one that gives the look that someone turned the brightness too high, I don't want to have to keep changing my monitor settings back and forth.. So I love this because it gives me an option and really it's a super tiny file so it can't hurt to try it out.

Okay okay. But the change is so subtle that I still don't understand it. Who's to say that your monitor isn't already a little darker than the guy's who made DarkD3? Let's get out the professional colour calibration tools!

By all means, continue, I just think you're slightly bonkers.

Also, it's sad that you can't apply a filter to the story to make things remotely dark.

#50 Posted by RIDEBIRD (1233 posts) -

It looks good, but I think it's good to remember that FXAA kills children. Literally. The color/brightness ain't worth the blur vs 4xMSAA+2xSSAA.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.