Slashdot Mirror


Book Review: Stay Awhile and Listen

Many of today's adult video gamers grew up with a gaming industry that was still trying to figure itself out. In the early-to-mid 1990s, most of the gaming genres we're familiar with today were still indistinct, half-formed concepts waiting for that one game necessary to define them. Thus, many players sat up and took notice when a relatively unknown company named Blizzard managed to exemplify not one, but two separate types of game in quick succession. Warcraft: Orcs and Humans put real-time strategy on the map, and Diablo set the standard for action RPGs. The two games immediately elevated Blizzard to the top of the industry, and many gamers wondered how one studio could put out two games like these so quickly. As it turns out, it wasn't one studio; it was a blending of two very different but extremely creative groups who had a passion for making video games. In Stay Awhile and Listen, author David Craddock lays out the history of the two groups, from how they first got into the gaming business to their eventual success launching now-legendary games. Read on for our review of the book. Stay Awhile and Listen author David Craddock pages 399 publisher DM Press rating 9/10 reviewer Jeff Boehm ISBN 978-0-9884099-0-3 summary A look into the humble beginnings of Blizzard

Before going into the content of the book, I want to discuss its form. Stay Awhile and Listen, unlike most books that chronicle past events, flows almost like a documentary film. Craddock conducted years worth of interviews with former Blizzard staff, and the story of what happened is tightly interwoven with actual quotes from those interviews. The effect is illustrative; during the narrative parts, it's easy to imagine, for example, a group of young developers hunched in front of faintly glowing screens. During the quotations, you can picture the older and wiser industry veterans sitting in front of a camera and explaining those early days with smiles on their faces.

The structure of the book itself is rather unusual as well. Because of the author's extensive research, the sheer volume of historical material is almost overwhelming. In order to keep it focused on the development of Blizzard's early games, Craddock narrowed down the main story to only the most relevant events. However, to preserve all of the extra background information without cluttering the pages with endless footnotes, he added a secondary section appropriately named "Side Quests." When the author or the one of the developers mention a side-topic, there's a small link noting the availability of a Side Quest. Hitting the link takes you to the exact page it's on, and when you're done, there's a link returning you to the exact page you left. Some of these excerpts are even sourced with shortened URLs, in case you want to dive even more deeply into the history.

The Side Quests contain anecdotes, lessons on game design, technical bits from early development, and even information on content that never made it into the games. When reading Stay Awhile and Listen, I was struck by how nice it was for somebody to finally take advantage of the flexibility of digital books. One of the advantages of real books over ebooks is that it's much easier to flip backward or forward with a physical copy. The links within this book made that a non-issue. In addition to the Side Quests, there are a few extra chapters called Bonus Rounds, which contain background on the parts of the gaming industry that supported Blizzard during its rise.

For somebody who played a lot of the early Blizzard games, I was still surprised by a lot of the information in this book. I remember years ago firing up Diablo and seeing the Blizzard North logo. I wondered what made that group different from the "normal" Blizzard developers. It's easy to look at a company and assume uniform identity or uniform goals, but Stay Awhile and Listen makes clear that Blizzard Entertainment and Blizzard North were two fundamentally different studios that had their own ways of doing things, and strong opinions about how their games should work. Fortunately for them (and for us), the biggest thing they had in common was a real love for gaming, and for making the best game they could. This let them work well together despite their frequent and contentious debates.

Getting a look into the development of Diablo and Warcraft was interesting as well. Usually, when we think about design decisions, we imagine the developers debating the finer points of the finished product. (Do we let players use a rail gun or a rocket launcher? Is our last class a Paladin or a Mage?) So, learning that some of the most basic aspects of these games were almost very different was fascinating and perplexing. For example, Dave Brevik conceived of Diablo as a graphical interpretation of the text-based dungeon crawlers of the 80s. These games were largely turn-based — and so was the earliest incarnation of Diablo. Looking back on it now, it's jarring to think of Diablo as a turn-based game. It's like finding out that Looney Tunes was almost stop-motion animated, or that pizza was almost salad. Stay Awhile and Listen provides perspectives on the game's transition, and a fascinating description of how, once the decision was made, Brevik sat down and hammered out the code necessary to turn the game into the Diablo we now.

It was also nice to read about some of the technical details behind the games. Strip away the last 20 years worth of lessons in how to develop software, and you end up with talented programmers putting out brilliant, but ugly and hard-to-maintain code. I'm always curious to know what technologies underpin the software I use; if you're the same way, you'll enjoy reading about what they used and how they decided to use it. (Necessity is a powerful thing.) At the same time, you'll get a feel for how shaky the whole business proposition was to start. Nowadays, Blizzard is largely inscrutable as a business. But budding game developers will be heartened to see how a successful company arose from humble beginnings.

Stay Awhile and Listen is incredibly well sourced. Over three dozen former Blizzard employees contributed to this book. This goes all the way to the top — Dave Brevik, Erich Schaefer, and Max Schaefer were the three co-founders of Condor Inc., which became Blizzard North, and all three feature prominently. We also hear from Mike Morhaime, Frank Pearce, and Allen Adham, who founded Silicon & Synapse, which went on to become Blizzard Entertainment. There are also discussions with Blizzard veterans like Pat Wyatt (whose anecdotes we've discussed before), Bill Roper, and composer Matt Uelmen.

The book is well-written, and the story flows well. If you played these games when you were younger and you're interested in how they came to be, Stay Awhile and Listen is well worth picking up. It'd also be useful to anybody jumping into game development (probably start-up software development, too), as it gives a perspective on how Blizzard adopted the ideals it still holds to this day, like "we'll release when it's finished," and "if you can defend your idea, everybody will consider it." It's also the first in a series documenting Blizzard's history; future volumes will focus on StarCraft, World of Warcraft, and the continuation of each franchise.

Stay Awhile and Listen is published by DM Press on the Kindle and iBooks platforms, and will soon be available for the Nook as well. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews (sci-fi included) — to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

15 of 66 comments (clear)

  1. really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm an adult who grew up with video games and I feel like the industry knew more of what they were doing in the early 90s than they do today. Now, it's like the industry doesn't have a clue.

    1. Re:really? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh no, they have a clue, but their clue is that more marketing=more money. Better game = not much more money. The real problem we have today is that the "games industry" has gotten into the same degree of consumeristic manipulation as other industries.

      Also, video games used to target a more intellectual audience, because there was a time when you had to be seriously interested in computers to play most games.

    2. Re:really? by umafuckit · · Score: 2

      Oh no, they have a clue, but their clue is that more marketing=more money. Better game = not much more money.

      They learned this from Hollywood and, if Hollywood is anything to go by, things in the AAA game field will only get worse. If the movie industry analogy pans out, which it more or less seems to be doing, then we end up with two clusters: 1) A load of expensive, technically impressive, but derivative titles. 2) Titles that are cheaper and less technically impressive (i.e. shorter, less content, graphically simpler) but more creative, more thoughtfully made, etc. The rare happy moments occur when 1 & 2 meet in a single title.

      The other thing the game industry and the movie industry have in common is that they both flood the market with shit and it's down to the consumer to navigate their way through the cess pool to find the hidden gems.

      Also, video games used to target a more intellectual audience, because there was a time when you had to be seriously interested in computers to play most games.

      Are you sure this isn't the rose-tinted glasses talking? Was the NES more intellectually stimulating than the Wii? Ditto with PCs. You used to get flight sims back in the day and you still get them now. Civ has continued to come out at regular intervals and has spawned clones. There were shitty platformers and cheaply made crap back in the Amiga days and you still get that now. The difference with now and then is that there is much more of everything now. In particular there is more marketing and, like with Hollywood, most of the marketing in gaming is promoting the blockbusters.

    3. Re:really? by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 3, Informative

      If there is a veritable 'horde' of deviants, if there are so many of them, could it be that perhaps they should be heard?

      You know, being a straight male (arguably young), I somehow do not feel emasculated by these 'perverse individuals'. If you do, perhaps that's *your* problem to deal with.

    4. Re:really? by Frigga's+Ring · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're definitely correct about most of your references, but I want to mention that, while some of the characters in Borderlands 2 are typical of the male power fantasy, there are a number of important characters who are gay but not defined by their sexual orientation: something the other games you list can't also claim. Also, I might also argue that most of the male characters are showed as flawed or inferior to their female counterparts. Compare the stories in Borderlands 2 of BL's male playable characters to Lillith or the one-sided Scooter and Marcus to Ellie. I would even go so far as to say that the game does more to parody and mock the male power fantasy (see Mr. Torque) than to perpetrate it.

      I may be acting nit-picky here, but if I had the mod points, I would have just modded you up instead.

    5. Re:really? by Clsid · · Score: 2

      It's not even the marketing that bugs me, more of an issue with DRM taking down whole games like Anno 2070 for instance. One hell of a game but so screwed up by DRM that in my case there was a gamesave file corruption that wouldn't go away even if I reinstalled the whole PC, since it was in their cloud tied to my account. And for some strange reason they would even refuse to reset my account back to normal.

  2. Re:Hm. I am not so sure about the two games. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For me, Diablo always looked like Nethack with fancy graphics, and when I first saw Warcraft, I thought: Hey, they used the Dune II engine and replaced the SF artwork with a fantasy one...

    As a consequence, I never played Diablo, and I only played one map in Warcraft.

    I noticed the same things, but I played through the games. I enjoyed their new take on old ideas.

  3. Stay awhile... by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stay FOREVER! "Many of today's adult video gamers grew up with" THAT!

  4. Re:Blizzard advertising? by N0Man74 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree that Blizzard wasn't a pioneer, but to claim that they succeeded due to marketing is selling Blizzard short.

    What originally made Blizzard great was their attention to detail, production value, and they didn't cater exclusively to high-end gaming PCs. They had quality art, sound, music, refined gameplay, placing impressive (for the time) video cut scenes, lots of whimsy and flavor, and were just overall solid games that ran stable.

    Even their instruction manuals were well made and aesthetically pleasing. Their games showed they cared about the craft of games, and their presentation.

    They still have some of these qualities, but over time there seems to be an increasing amount of the business becoming prioritized over the craft.

    Saying Blizzard was all about marketing is like saying Apple's success was all marketing. I'm not a big fan of Apple, but they obviously did more than market.

  5. Re:Hm. I am not so sure about the two games. by stewsters · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately those same people have continued to streamline newer Diablo release far past the point they should have. When i play a character based rpg, I don't want to respec for each area I go through. It breaks my sense of character, and they all feel the same. I really enjoyed playing Skyrim, but after a while it turns into a 'follow the waypoint' sort of game, and even though every character has individual stories, I don't end up caring.

    Personally, I prefer something like Brogue, Sil, or Dwarf Fortress. Even if they have ascii graphics, the emergent gameplay is far more in-depth than AAA titles.

    There must be some happy middle ground where we can have the depth but also acceptable graphics.

  6. Re:Hm. I am not so sure about the two games. by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

    Actually it was Moria with fancy graphics. The problem I had with Diablo is the same one I had with Moria. Each time you went down into the dungeon, the map was different. Nethack saved the levels so going through them was the same each time you went, for that character's incarnation. I was much more of a fan (and programmer for a bit) of Nethack.

    [John ]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  7. where's the research by Sebastopol · · Score: 2

    I realize this is a history of Blizzard, but I find it disappointing when authors write histories of video games and stop at 1990. Diablo didn't set the standard. Wizardry, Ultima, and Might and Magic set the standards for RPGs. Diablo successfully "Michael Bay"d them with 3D and 'splosions and the most robust, practically uncrashable game engines ever seen.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  8. Re:Blizzard advertising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    StarCraft is pretty original
     
    ...if you hadn't already played Total Annihilation.

  9. Sorry but... by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "most of the gaming genres we're familiar with today were still indistinct, half-formed concepts waiting for that one game necessary to define them."

    This is a bunch of nonsense. Genre's were well defined very quickly, if anything the more mainstream games became the more watered dowm the genre's have become. Just one look at Mass effect is overwhelming proof of this. You can't look at any modern FPS and pickup old 90's FPS games and say modern fps are 'more well formed'. The reality is modern games are movies with a small bit of gameplay. The game parts of videogames have been stripped out to expand to the mainstream audience because the mainstream audience doesn't get or like gameplay.

  10. Re:Hm. I am not so sure about the two games. by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

    Well, that is what I said.

    'i kan reed', eh :)

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!