Slashdot Mirror
Ask Author David Craddock About the Development of Diablo, Warcraft
The original Warcraft and Diablo games hold a special status in the hearts of many gamers. Each game brought its genre into focus, and their success elevated the status of Blizzard Entertainment and Blizzard North to the point that further games are still hotly anticipated more than 15 years later. In an effort to discover and document that part of gaming history, author David L. Craddock conducted extensive interviews with early Blizzard developers. His intent was to investigate how both of the Blizzard studios succeeded at breaking into a saturated and competitive industry, and how their design process influenced both their acclaimed releases and the projects they discarded along the way. He's writing a series of books about the history of Blizzard, titled Stay Awhile and Listen. The first is due out on October 31st, and David has agreed to answer your questions about his investigation into those early games. David will be joined by Blizzard North co-founders David Brevik and Max Schaefer. As usual, ask as many as you'd like, but please, one question per post.
I'd love to ask a question, if only I knew one to ask!
Can we get another Lost Vikings game?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If there is one thing you could go back and change in any of Blizzard's games, what would it be?
I can't think of how else they could have learned to make them so addictive.
Scuse me, time for my dailies.
at the time the original warcraft came out PC's cost $2500 to $3000 or more for a decent gaming model. Figure $5000 in today's dollars
the people buying them wanted something more than today's brainless run through a maze and shoot continuously at everything that moves experience
How did you determine the best game speed for WarCraft? Do you feel the increased speed in the sequels detracts from the strategy element?
What would you say was the biggest learning experience you had before developing Diablo & Warcraft?
in the 80's there was an arcade game similar to diablo. can't remember the name but it allowed up to 4 people to play at once with a choice of 4 classes
Gauntlet. Highly addictive. A quarter sink for sure.
Will there ever be a fully 3D Diablo? I was hoping for that when III was announced, but it was just more of the same.
...
Gauntlet.
Wizard needs food, badly.
gauntlet. they made a decent 3D version in like 99/00.
...
You're probably thinking of Gauntlet.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
If click click click yo click click click were click click click designing click click click Diablo click click click today click click click would click click click you click click click still click click click make click click click it click click click such click click click a click click click click-fest?
click click click click click click click click click click click click
Since it was announced that Diablo III would be ported (and has been ported) to consoles, has there been discussion as to whether WoW would/could be ported as well?
To all you virgins: Thanks for nothing.
Plaid is my favourite. And it's spelled COLOUR, you egg-salad wannabe
Were you inspired by earlier computer games like Rouge and NetHack? What elements of these games did you feel were fun and why, and how did that influence your design choices? Recasting the question, what elements didn't work or were tedious?
As a developer of one of the WoW emulators, I am curious if Blizzard made a conscious decision to randomize the opcodes used by WoW (and the many other protections that were put in place). Up until the Cataclysm expansion, there was no real protection against reverse engineering the WoW client. As of Cata, blizz seems to have gone out of their way to prevent any emulation of WoW. Cata, and MoP take a lot of work, but we will still be able to provide decent emulation *eventually*. Also, why hasn't Blizzard removed GRUNT? That would completely eliminate ALL emulation of WoW as Battle.net has yet to be broken.
-- Brian
-- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
God damn it! You shot the food!
if you were to remake WoW, how would you incorporate micropayments in a way that preserved the gameplay?
Did you know it took 631 spear chucks from a single Orc spear chucker to destroy the human castle at the end of a level?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I call bullshit. You could build a gaming rig at that time for less than a grand.
I think at swap meets with FOB new parts I was able to put one together for under 300-500 (possibly reusing the case/psu or hard disk, but you could find almost any component in some form for 100 or less at that point.)
I'm curious as to what was the motivation behind over simplifying nearly every aspect of the game World of Warcarft. I believe WoW is losing subscribers so it seems at some point the balance between RPG technicality and an arcade game was perhaps slanted too much towards being an arcade like game to me that enough interest was removed from what made it popular to begin with. I remember spending time devising the best spec, which had profound impact on the play style and numbers, this seemed to be replaced with a glorified glyph system(as well as glyphs). Leveling poisons for a rogue or weapon skills for a melee character, last time I played in my tests, weapon speed seemed to have no impact on abilities or as much as it once had so there was no reason to garner a variety of weapons. As I hear it now I could start an alt and it would have access to the golden phoenix mount(the 100mount cheev, can't remember the exact name now) that I spent time acquiring on my main. Also, in the time it takes to finish BRD nearly half the content of one of the last expansions could be cleared. Seems like enough of the RPG experience was removed in favor of a more arcade like experience that I soon couldn't find enough reasons to continue to play or pay $15/month. In case I droned on too much, to reiterate my question, what was the motivation for the drastic change in play style from a more technical RPG to style to a more "arcade" style game. Thanks
Did the acquisition by Vivendi or the merger with Activision change the way that Blizzard approached making games?
I'm a lifetime and thoroughly addicted gamer, starting when my dad hoisted me up to PacMan when I was 3. If you combine all my time coding, playing games, and designing, I'm probably in the tiptop of developers. The problem is that even though I've coded heavily since I was 12 and been seeking since I was 16, I have only ever gotten one video game developer interview in 20 years!(just this past week)
What is the secret to getting a starter job in the video game developing industry? I've been doing indie stuff since 1992 when I was trying to write a MMORPG. The key is that I attempt large scale projects that normally take dozens of programmers, and then I couldn't find artists to contribute when my code was pushed forward.
To me, it seems like Indie is the only way to go if you're passionate about games anymore since there are not too many game development houses, and the competition is fierce.
Is there some secret to breaking into the gaming industry if that is all you've done your entire life? Or should we all resolve ourselves to doing Indie titles and starting our own companies? I mean I do have 15+ artists working with me on my current project due to cracking the code on revshare, but I'd rather have a steady paycheck and a higher mountain of source code for better games.
God spoke to me
Speaking of Gauntlet, try out my tribute to Gauntlet Flash Game: Dungeon Run
God spoke to me
Just because a question is generic, doesn't mean it's a bad question. Maybe Craddock has an unexpected answer, maybe he doesn't. But until we know, don't attack the questioneer.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
Having seen games evolve in positive ways, it seems that gaming has either gone one of two paths:
The first path is the console game. The game is usually a late beta, so requires patching. Then, for content, unlike in the past where expansions were as good as the original game, one is inundated with DLC purchases they have to make. Want to play an orc? That's 9.99. Want the rocket gun? That's another ten-spot. Want another level? $29.95 please. So, to play a game that was released to the fullest, it can easily be hundreds of dollars for gameplay that on earlier games, came with the game.
The second path is free to play, play to win games. Yes, one might be able to get a canoe to play for a pirate's game, but if one actually wants to advance, they will have to spend hundreds to purchase a decent ship, not to mention cannons, and so on.
These two paths seem to be what 99.9% of the gaming industry seems to be going. Games tend to be cookie-cutter.
I tend to bag on WoW, but even though WoW is a MMO, Blizzard does a great job with expansions, providing not just endgame stuff, but additional things to do 1-cap. MoP had an additional class and race, Cata had two races, WotLK had another class, BC had two races and classes (debatable, but regardless of faction, you had another class to choose from.) Other MMOs miss this and might toss in a few expansion zones, some raids, and call it done, but WoW does a good job at the whole 1-cap game.
Another good game that did it right was Neverwinter Nights 1. The expansions not just added gameplay, but added to almost every facet of the game. The later modules were smaller, but added a good amount of content that was worth playing. One didn't have to spend $10.00 for the ability to get a ninja turban, or $20.00 to play a drow.
My question:
Is there a market niche for "old school" games (think Baldur's Gate) that one bought the game, then down the road, perhaps a significant expansion or two. Not "junk" DLC that might be required to win, such as $10.00 for a sword or $100.00 for uberness? Or are we pretty much doomed to keep getting nickled and dimed by pointless [1] DLC regardless.
[1]: There is useful DLC, such as the NWN1 modules, then there is pointless DLC as having to buy the privilege to see and use a rocket launcher in order to survive at a multiplayer FPS.
If there is one thing to bring to Starcraft 2 from Warcraft 1, what would it be? I'm thinking along the lines of an ability, a type of unit that doesn't exist anymore, a simplified or more complex resource management, a slower game pace to allow more unit control instead of deathball vs. deathball.. that sort of thing.
I miss my old shaman where there was a use for almost every single totem and ability, just to eek out a small amount of group benefit in certain situations
Only problem was that if you didn't research "the" way to skill your class, and "the" rotation for it, you got abused and told to "learn your class" by idiots. Before the skills became homogenized by decree, they were homogenized by peer pressure.
Not to mention the classic non-arcade version, as well. That's how I became familiar with it, anyhow.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
When you guys were part of Blizzard, it was, not small but smallish and succeeded through attention to detail, accessibility, and providing an amazing experience. Do you feel that the behemoth that Blizzard has become has tamped down any of the core attributes that were key to Blizzard's early success?
As a software engineer, I can't help but wonder what developing a game at Blizzard was like back then and how it's evolved over time to whatever it's like today. I'm really interested in the technical side of it, but not necessarily just that.
what were you guys thinking when you made diablo 3 always online only? Most the people I know who love the first 2 installments used the game as single player or at lan parties. sure multiplayer is fun but why the necessity to always be on? the RMAH has been such a flop that it is being removed from the game so there is 0 reason that the game needs to be online to play a single player game
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The original Warcraft and Diablo games hold a special status in the hearts of many gamers. Each game brought its genre into focus,
That sounds a bit exagerrated. Maybe it's true for Diablo, but in the RTS genre, Dune II was pretty high-profile and came out 2 years earlier. In comparison, Warcraft felt like a knock-off, with little innovation, and less balanced (once the catapults started rolling out, it often became a game of chance, depending on which catapult would insta-kill a bunch of difficult-to-control units that were running around erratically). Bilzzard later redeemed itself big time with the epic StarCraft and Warcraft III, but the original Warcraft? Meh!
Since the release of Torchlight II and the announcement there won't be another Torchlight a year ago, it's been awfully quiet. Is the company doing OK? Are you still working on something? If yes, can you reveal something, a hint, anything?
Exactly when did you guys suckle from EA's "Always on DRM" and "Nickel and Dime your customers to death" twin teats?
Back in the day when I first loaded Warcraft on my PC and started playing, I noticed from the start it was something special. It was a solid game, but more than that you had paid attention to all the details that took it from being a good game to a great game. Same thing with Diablo. From the title screen with the music that absolutely set the mood, I could just tell that it was going to be a great game. What made both of these games so great was the time and effort put in by people committed to making a great game.
In today's era of multimillion dollar blockbuster games coded by hundreds of faceless drones working 12h days, it seems like the indie developers have brought us back to the core of gaming that was crystal clear back in the Warcraft days: games should be fun.
Why do you think that so many of the large developers and publishers have gotten away from this fundamental concept (see the current incarnation of WoW, Diablo 3 and any number of other big name publisher games)?
Is there going to be a warcraft 4?
There's a company that pretty much does nothing but sell non-DRM old school games. It's called GOG.com.
Both Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 as well as Torchlight 1 and 2 have many classes and 3 skill trees per class. Much like the early days of WoW with assorted attributes (strength, agility, etc...) the player is constantly having to make a "best guesstimate" as to what the next power to choose should be to get the most bang for your buck. How do you approach the balance of the game when there are so many options for the player? How do you make sure that one power doesn't overwhelm either other players in a pvp sense or completely destroy the enemies? How was it decided what 'tier' an ability would be (i.e. 5 points in frost unlocks the next set)?
On the heels of "Why is Diablo 3 online only?", the inverse question: has there ever been any serious discussion into an offline mode for WoW? I've heard rumors, but can't recall any official sources talking about it.
Diablo was a very dark game, even up to Diablo III. There was a real feeling of hopelessness that went as far as being built into the mythology of the world. The most obvious example I will give is how everything you do in Diablo I is just playing into the prime evil's hands. Would you say that this is a special feature of the Diablo Universe, or just how a certain genre of video games are made? I understand WoW has similar themes and so do some other games that came out around the same time period. Still, if felt remarkably unsatisfying knowing that after everything I did in the first game, I just became the villain.
I feel that video games like Diablo fundamentally require a strong focus on the story being told; you can't just say, "Go kill things." Or rather, you can, but you lose a lot doing that. Yet whenever I play an RPG, I feel tempted to just skim the text and hit the 'accept quest' button. I know I'll get EXP, gold, and items. And even in games where your choices alter the ending, the text feels generic and entirely ignorable. Is there a better way to tie the player to their character and what choices they make? To make them say "Hold on, I want to understand what's going on here, and what my Orc Barbarian is getting himself into."?
I've found that the process of making memorable characters is not straightforward. Do you approve of what Blizzard has tried to do with this (a goal of DIII, supposedly, was to make more memorable characters than just Deckard Cain and Tyrael)? Can you give some insight on the general process? It seems like a character doesn't have to do much to be memorable. Deckard Cain is just a kind old man who offers advice and identifies items. Griswold was a blacksmith with a Scottish accent. These are hardly DEEP characters but I would still say they're memorable. Could it be that creating a simple, likable character without 10 pages of background story makes it easier for an audience to see where they're coming from?
I have mixed feelings about this and was wondering what you thought. It is true that in a world where the character can do anything they want, let's say Elder Scrolls as an example, you get a bit of decision overload. But some games seem to put you on a linear course that offers no option to change the story. Should games offer more or less choice? Diablo offers so much variety in terms of builds/skills/items, it's almost surprising that in the end you do the exact same thing. At a bare minimum, this costs a lot of replay value.
I won't ask the obvious question of constantly-connected, in part because I think it's futile and in part because someone already asked it. But in a more general sense, do you think games that provide X, without the ability for players to add anything more, are still viable? In my opinion, asking a company to make one game that appeals to everyone is just silly; each player will have slightly different expectations. Some will want a different class, a bigger sword, an additional option in the storyline, etc. Getting developers to do this for you using mods seems like the biggest boon to gaming, and is being staunchly defended by people like Gabe Newell. Do you think that this will ultimately take over? Or is the average gamer satisfied with just X, and willing to move onto a different game altogether once this one gets old?
Specifically, I'm talking about how skills are restricted to classes. I don't think this is a good idea in terms of game experience, although I can see how it forces a player to keep playing to experience everything. In Diablo I, almost all spells were open to everyone, provided you had the magic. In Diablo II/Torchlight/Torchlight II, this went away and each class was given their own skill. This doesn't make sense to me. If a Barbarian comes across a Druid, why can't the two sit down and teach each other? In that case, the barbarian should have access to the shapeshifting skill and the Druid to, say, whirlwind. The current approach actually makes games less realistic and immersive to me. Are these different classes in fact different species? Why aren't their skills open to each other? Granted, a single warrior taking down hordes of monsters was never that realistic to begin with, but still... I feel Diablo I got this right, and later games messed it up. Will future games attempt to fix it, or are you satisfied with the result?
Is there a chance of ever obtaining the Diablo I code so we can mess with it? I doubt Blizzard is making that much money off of it.
Gauntlet Legends was 1998 and wasn't really 3D. It was top down isometric. It got ported to the different consoles in 99/00.
It's only a quarter sink for those that didn't figure out the patterns, especially for the food reward. Some people could play for 6 hours on a single quarter. The had to eventually reduce the food and health to get them down to 6 hours. Once you know the patter, you could play for quite some time. The elf was the easiest to play, followed by the valkyrie.
What twisted mind conceived this terrible boss creature. His words, "Mmmmm, fresh meat," were spine tingling. It's one of the earliest moments of terror I had in videogames.
you're right. damn my fried brain!
...