Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]
graybeardgames.com
graybeardgames.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VscdPA6sUkc
and for those averse to Google: https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023469/Classic-Game-Postmorte...
Note: typo corrected.
I am inevitable</thanos>
I keep trying examples because it's such a strange (and popular) hole in my tastes.
Games I've tried:
- Diablo
- Diablo II
- Nox
- Dungeon Siege
- Divinity
- A few others I'm probably forgetting.
Reason I say this is because if the parent comment is looking for something to try, it is important to keep in mind that PoE is really difficult for beginners to get into and play casually.
But yeah it gets immensely complicated in the endgame. I've been playing for about a year now and am barely just starting to understand it.
That said, it's still a lot of fun. It took me a while to get over the frustration but once I did, it became one of my all time favorite ARPGs... and games, period.
It's totally free too. You only pay for cosmetics and optional extra bank (stash) space. A really fair monetization model that doesn't sacrifice the player experience, so on that front I totally support what they're hilding. (They are, however, owned by Tencent now sadly.)
Diablo 3 (after all the changes of its first year) also plays very smoothly and is much easier to get into D2.
There are other titles too but they're mostly similar to the ones you've already disliked. Maybe it's just not your genre? No biggie
But I get what you mean; I've tried PoE and didn't get very far at all, just lost interest. I've spent a bit more time with Grim Dawn, but that game seems to just drag on, I've tried two playthroughs and didn't get behond the second chapter/act I think. I don't know what it's missing, I'm sure it's a great game if people are into that kind of game.
For me that's when i get bored and lose interest. The problem with D3 is that you can skip pretty much all the boring prep and just hit max. lvl in minutes and then play a couple hours to get the needed items.
Path of Exile fundamentally changed my view on the genre and enabled me to retrospectively re-evaluate many of the ARPGs I had played to this point.
The granular level of control you have over your playstyle and strategy is incredible; it is insane how rewarding it is to be the first person to create a new approach to playing a character and have this build succeed in combat.
I highly recommend giving it a shot if you at all enjoy the cerebral, long term planning aspects of gaming.
That is, until you reach the end game and you realize how much you have to grind because of their completely random crafting system.
PoE is the game that weaned me off "but the microtransactions are cosmetic". It's simply designed to keep you ingame for so long that you get bored and buy a few hideout skins and character skins.
If you mean the skill tree, most people just follow a guide.
At the beginning? Sure. Eventually though a boredom does set it and a player seeks their own fun be it lore, own builds or something else like gauntlet. I am saying this as a person, who spent too much time on it already.
It's just like lootboxes but you farm them ingame. Still boring.
Analogy: You don't try to brute force passwords as it takes far too long, you look for smarter options. Same in PoE - you NEVER roll your gear with chaos orbs, you look for vectors to increase your chances.
The whole game is one optimization simulator and it tingles that part of my brain.
The only difference is you don't use the relatively common chaos orbs but the much less common <whatever orbs>. Time spent grinding is the same.
Still a nope.
I dislike the entire Genre EXCEPT Torchlight 1&2
And I've never really been able to put my finger on why
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_role-playing_game#Histo...
A similar comparison is saying that Apple didn't invent touchscreen phones - sure, but the iPhone had such an overwhelming impact that it shook up the entire industry. Relevant phone comparison image: https://www.cultofmac.com/145083/what-phones-looked-like-bef...
Definitely not, there were many successful Japanese ARPGs long before that, like Dragon Slayer, Hydlide, The Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy Adventure, Secret of Mana etc. Diablo may have created its own subgenre.
Edit: Maybe the influence of Diablo is more that it effectively ended the era of Western/PC turn-based RPGs. For Japanese RPGs, turn-based (non-action) RPGs did hang on for longer, e.g. in form of Final Fantasy.
I'm not sure why this sort of thing is so difficult to understand.
"Fact of the matter is that tree today generally means a birch-like plant"
From the wiki page about ARPGs:
> Diablo's effect on the market was significant, inspiring many imitators. Its impact was such that the term "action RPG" has come to be more commonly used for Diablo-style games, with The Legend of Zelda itself slowly recategorized as an action-adventure.
Zelda-type games were popular before Diablo-type games became the standard for the genre. Ys is an action RPG but I don’t think Ys is the type of game the average person means when they say ARPG.
Ha, no. Legend (1992), Tower of Souls (1995), Dragonstone (1994),... And that was just on the Amiga/Atari/PC. I guess people more familar with consoles have many more examples.
> Ha no.
This is unceremoniously ungracious and an obvious misinterpretation. Being the first is not the same as genre creation^. The games prior to Diablo 1 shared features, but weren't considered a formula for generating revenue beyond the novel mechanics.
^Herzog Zwei had elements of the modern RTS, but it is not considered genre defining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet_(1985_video_game)
I always chose the sexy role, myself ..
Not only did he cover that they wrote the whole damn thing in assembly, but also exactly as you say: everyone else there thought that making it real-time instead of turn-based was a great idea, but David wasn't convinced.
So he instead spent a weekend (I think it was less than one day even) changing it so that it ran a "turn" per "tick" of time to experiment and I remember him saying something along the lines of "after I finished making the change, that first time I clicked on a skeleton and my character just walked over and smashed his sword into the skeleton I was convinced".
So, 11 people for a year for Diablo. Meanwhile Diablo 4 took 300+ people 6+ years. So over 150x the cost, not accounting for the fact that game developers are paid much more now as well. People pretend it’s the same industry but it’s evolved dramatically.
But there are still indie games developed with such small teams. So, that is still a viable possibility.
So no, Hollow Knight wasn't developed by three people "including all the programming". It uses Unity. Unity is worth billions and employs thousands of people, many of them certainly programmers.
I agree though that very few people are needed nowadays for the art. With generative AI, even less. (But that's also sort of an [open source] giant to stand on the shoulders of with countless contributing artists.)
Almost no software is written in a vacuum, but it doesn't really make sense to always include all preexisting dependencies in work estimates.
Diablo was more fun.
Diablo 2 is pretty great. My only complaints about it surround harder difficulties. Those of us with accessibility issues (like me with a gimped hand) found hell to be super challenging.
Diablo 3 sucked when it launched, however, right now, it is absolutely amazing. Blizzard has absolute gold with the tiered difficulty/rift/season design. Unsure why they didn't improve upon it...
Diablo 4 has potential, but many of the great systems developed in 1-3 are gone.
What made previous diablo games great:
A fixed level/difficulty system
Randomly generated levels
A way to measure yourself against both yourself and others. Potential for multiple unique build paths for every class. An awesome loot/gear system that eventually makes you feel overpowered until you aren't.
Diablo 4 has none of those.
Diablo 1-3 have some combination of those.
Paragon points are only granted around level 50, and skill points stop making much difference around level 20-30 when all the core skills are unlocked. I got so bored of combat I stopped playing at around level 40. Particularly annoying is after getting a few items with good aspects, it's rare to find another item with the same or better aspect, so I have a choice of either sticking with the old item with bad stats and the good aspect (and dying really quickly due to low armor), or picking a new item with better stats but no good aspect. Yes it's possible to extract the aspect from an item and use it on another, but that can only be done once.
But different strokes for different folks. :)
Some game designers think it’s a great idea though - hence it’s in D4. I’d love to hear their take.
Even though it still feels weird I can see why they did it: since the game is not linear at all (I think you can even do the first 3 acts in any order) compared to other Diablo games (didn't play 3) they kinda need to do this so you don't breeze through zones. It also helps when playing with under/over leveled friends since they just use the same system to prevent you from rushing them.
Personally I prefer linear narrative and gameplay for Diablo (it's like making linear games is a sin nowadays) but it's probably a wise choice given other design choices? Or at least understandable. It allows them to send you back and forth across regions and still present a challenge.
Anyways: I'm liking D4 (I'm surprised to say this of a Blizzard game in 2023) so not the worst design ever.
If I'm level 70 and I go to a level 15 area, how would that solve that I'm just going to cut through the area like butter?
Why put any effort in making sure player locality influences the surrounding quest level, if player can go anywhere, let's put level appropriate enemy everywhere.
Dungeon siege approach was so much better, even if the game was not as solid: minibosses or higher difficulties quests barred the access to higher difficulties areas. Within a zone, progression and choices were non linear. Item and enemies and xp reward were leveled to the zone, so the player had an incentive to not stick around in low level zones farming aimlessly.
What makes little sense is if wildlife you've encountered before suddenly can take 4x more damage, or the same badly equipped guard suddenly fights back a lot better.
That's not how it works in Diablo 4, enemy scaling only comes into play if you go to an area that is naturally lower level than yours. Looking at the world map and hovering over areas shows their minimum "recommended" level, and enemies there will start at that level.
So you absolutely can go as a lvl 10 character to an area that expects you to be 40+ and get smacked down in a few hits by a basic lvl 40 minion.
When you move around in the overworld, you sometimes run into another player. They're fighting some enemies, you jump in to help (or vice versa) and it's amazing. Those are some of my favourite moments in the game, and the only reason it works is because of the level scaling. Even if my character is only level 10 and theirs is level 40, we can fight the same enemies and have roughly equal impact, because for me those enemies are level 10, and for them those same enemies are level 40! It's really clever, and I think they felt the sense of progression was an necessary sacrifice to enable that kind of improvised cooperative play.
"But ordinary, you said they screwed it up!" Yeah, they did. Because what happens when the enemies are dead? You continue towards your quest, and they continue towards theirs, and poof, you're all alone again. These brief moments are tantalizingly close to true pick-up experience: you start playing, meet a few people, team up, and have a blast together for an hour or so, just like you could in Diablo 2.
Oh, and even if you do happen to have the same quest, unless you took the relatively scary step of formally inviting them to your (1-person) party, the moment you enter a dungeon, you each get your own instance, and you're torn apart.
And finally, there's no global chat, so the only real way you have of communicating with people you meet prior to inviting them to a party is a Hearthstone-style emote wheel. There are at least 3 quests that require you to use the emote wheel, so they really wanted you to know it's there and to learn to use it, but in practice no one does and it's useless.
Taken together, it just barely doesn't work and it's really unfortunate. And counterintuitively those brief moments of comradery make the game feel more lonely than if you never met anyone at all. Because time and again, you're confronted with the fact that people are out there! Having fun, kicking ass, taking names. Just... you know, not with you.
The only thing I can't quite figure out is why they didn't attempt to 'matchmake' players of similar levels together. There are literally millions of people playing Diablo 4 at any one time, surely there's someone who's doing the same quest at about the same level as me? Why don't I meet those people? Or maybe the odds just don't work out, even at that scale.
Compare that to finally reaching hell Diablo in Diablo 2... or scratch that... finally getting past the blacksmith in act 1 hell :)
Nothing ever automatically matches your power level. You choose what difficulty to challenge yourself with. You choose whether you just want something easy (for your power level) to farm, or something difficult to see if you can clear it or how long it takes you. You always know the challenge you're going to get and how strong you are compared to it over time. That's something that level scaling fundamentally breaks and there's no way to avoid that.
I don't know how you can equate D3 with D4 in any way and say that D3's system had no progression or was in any way worse than what's in D4. It's just false, a complete misrepresentation of what the game is like.
Like my other comments about PoE, I'm talking about what passes for endgame. Where you have all the recommended gear and can do mostly everything.
I know that you first need to acquire the epic set that matches what build you want to play and matching non set items. I've done it a couple seasons.
But afterwards it's exactly what I described.
So ... like PoE? I'm not sure what you want here. Every game in the genre is like this. PoE doesn't do it any better. What you described is just wrong.
D4 HC mode might as well just be a waterboarding simulator with regard to the player's experience.
Diablo 4 is unbelievable imo. Easily the pickup where Diablo 2 left off. It’s super complex while being simple. Really good game!
This is the central aspect of fun for me in an ARPG. When I come back through that starting story area at level 40, I expect to absolutely melt the enemies I run into. If I get super fucking lucky on a roll and pick up a legendary (i.e. against the story/balance team's wishes), I should be able to have a goddamn romp through the world for quite a bit. This emergence of potentially-unintended gameplay outcomes in an ARPG results in the fun for me.
Maybe there's a way to do the multiplayer-friendly scaling thing that my dopamine loop would enjoy but I haven't seen it yet. Ultimately, it feels like Blizzard tried to solve a cursed problem and walked right into the predictable outcome.
To generalize, indie games focus on the core gameplay loop, AAA games on high effort visuals.
I think it's fair enough that modern games take much more effort; we have much higher expectations as gamers/consumers than we used to.
A lot of games since include every quest in every playthrough (or change it based on what choices you make), and games like the Witcher 3 nailed having really well written side quests that weren't just filler. But enough players are completionists that it can feel exhausting to play those, and if you're a completionist the game often becomes less challenging because you're earning extra experience/gold.
Diablo (and much more so its sequels) was focused pretty hard on replayability. After beating the game once, the player is encouraged to play the again with the same character, continuing to level it up. Keeping some content back for those later playthroughs is a way to make the second or third trip through more interesting. The very nature of the randomly generated levels is a big part of this.
Games like Witcher 3 or Skyrim, on the other hand, are focused on one single, giant play session, chock full of content. You should be able to do nearly everything (except perhaps choosing a build) the first time. The exceptions are choices in particular quests, which need to have different results so that the players have a feeling of agency.
To the point that you need to play chapter 2 twice to get the whole story.
Then Witcher 3 went more mainstream.
IIRC a couple of quests had branches that were mutually exclusive on some conditions though (mostly either you get reward A xor B)
There are 16 quests in 6 groups, and 1 random quest from each of the first five groups is removed.
But honestly, its a bit of a catch-22. No one wants to "roll a bad playthrough" and devs don't want to work on content that only a subset of players will be able to experience.
I remember reading about various techniques to adapt online trainings to each learner's performance by offering additional exercises and content when certain performance thresholds weren't met and from a technological standpoint this seemed exciting but in practice it meant learners could not be reliably expected to have received the same knowledge (which is bad for any form of compliance) and their results might be difficult if not impossible to compare (which is bad for any form of analytics, not to mention actual conclusions about individual performance).
It's cool and flashy and you can make great demos but when it comes to actual hands-on experience, the drawbacks usually outweigh the benefits, plus you end up creating a lot of content most people don't actually ever get to see.
For games the only counter-example I can think of is cosmetic changes like Zelda TOTK's dialog lines changing to take weather, time of day and sequences of events (e.g. getting a fetch quest for an item you already have in your inventory) into account. But those are fairly cheap to implement, add minimal extra code paths (which is important for QA) and don't change the overall experience.
I do remember slight confusion as some things were the same and others weren’t.
https://rpgwatch.com/files/Files/00-0208/Torment_Vision_Stat...
Love the choice of words here. This sounds so very retro today; it's reminiscent of the early days of computing on several levels.
Before savegames, before checkpoints, before cloud... there was simply the hard-drive, and you erased stuff from it. Fascinating.
Fortunately, they weren't able to implement any of it -- probably, among other reasons, because the logistics of physical disc distribution and merchandising were too complicated -- but perhaps it could be said that they were 15 years ahead of their time.
I'd say loot boxes are closer to Magic booster packs than what the document describes as they both contain random content and may yield duplicates of what you already have, whereas the document describes themed sets of items and cosmetics. This is closer to the DLCs from publishers like Ubisoft that typically contain a small set of mostly cosmetic extra content and maybe some related side missions.
Now Diablo is one of the biggest franchises in gaming, and its early pitch document looks quaint compared to what it’s become.
Also neat to see what made it in, what didn’t, and when things that seem essential to Diablo were being discussed that early.
I was shocked to learn how little the dev team was financially rewarded (besides the owners).
2018, 89 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16685795
2016, 112 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11322912
Compare it to Path of Exile and the difference is night and day
D3 and D4 are games made for people in their 30s who grew up playing D1 and D2 and now only have a couple of hours a day to play, and that's fine
Let’s see what happens I suppose
No thanks.
With the current system, you actually end up getting weaker as you level up
In D4 when you pass through or go back to a zone you've been in, and the monsters are tougher, it feels awful.
But what strikes me most is the sales pitch: it's not intended to simply be another game, it's basically a game generator and players would be expected to buy expansion packs (what we would now call DLCs) which add a handful of things to the generator. The document even compares this to Magic The Gathering.
Considering the actual game only received one (rushed) expansion and that expansion was very different in scope (offering two additional, smaller, dungeons, one new character class (including two unfinished ones left in the source code) and a handful of new features and content) this seems honestly the most surprising to me.
This design document is pretty much built to sell the idea of content pack DLCs a decade ahead of their time. I wonder what finally caused the change of heart.
It was planned to be a totally 2D game in the vein of Diablo, but as this brief lays out, the amount of 2D assets required for all the rotations of the characters gets out of hand extremely quickly. After we started development we figured this out and decided to switch the characters to 3D and keep the backgrounds 2D. So I had to write a whole 3D engine and toolchain from scratch in two weeks. Those were the days.
Still, took three years to get that pig out of the door.
Just insane amounts of work and data. There's a cool video they did about the part of the process that comes before that - creating the models from the character artist's 2D art. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYJ6d1ifSqA
Switching to 3D gave us unlimited movement but bought us multiple other problems like low poly count, lack of solid integration with 2D backgrounds, and difficulties in combining huge 2D and 3D rendering pipelines.
It's more like lean product development of a car or other product: you have design targets and may do concurrent engineering / spikes to explore the design space iteratively, but eventually you converge on what will be achievable (or you get stuck in game development hell), which point its a matter of bug fix triage and endless tweaks from game testing feedback. It's iterative but not what one would call "agile"
> one chief programmer and two junior programmer
Way too modest by today standards. Also, I would say chief programmer will spend most of the time teaching juniors, unless then "junior" was what we call senior today.
It really could have flopped or just barely breezed by as a passing game. You'd never really know for sure. Leap of faith.
> The world of Diablo will have a dark, evil tone. Initial levels will be set in an abandoned Gothic church. A marble mausoleum and progressively darker, dingier crypts and catacombs follow.
As someone who has been down in the crypt of an abandoned Victorian Gothic church, I can confirm that they definitely do not look like the level in Diablo does!
Diablo 1 for Web Browsers(https://github.com/d07RiV/diabloweb) 449 points|nsoonhui|10 months ago|109 comments
It's actually kind of sad, that Brevik effectively stole the basic design of a FOSS game and commercialized it, but the end result is very much a better game for it.
To wit, Angband is supposedly the fortress of Morgoth, but it's an empty mine where the enemies are blobs and ants for any n levels. Diablo fixed this by actually gradating the dungeon as strata rather than the same level type over and over again. They likewise reduced the monster types to thematically fit. In Angband you can still encounter level 1 monsters on the 100th dungeon level
Angband had one set of artifacts (random artifact sets came later). There were and are very few that actually appear before well into mid-game. Diablo I did this, discovered that it was pretty boring and added in rares and sets in Diablo II that were accessible immediately.
Angband decided to have big loot that was dropped by unique monsters, but because the drop rate was too low and the unique list too small, made "vaults" of rooms that are loaded with artifacts. Diablo II just allowed you to grind uniques with decaying drop rates, as well as adding in super monsters and chests.
Angband is 100 levels of sameness. Diablo I cut it down to 16, if I remember correctly, whereas Diablo II took the 100 level formula and broke it up into three difficulties and made it a linear adventure rather than only a descent. And even though you repeat it three times, there's enough time between repetition that it feels fresh.
Diablo II did the exact same thing with base items as well. In Angband, there's a dagger (1d4). From dungeon level 1 to 100, a dagger will only be 1d4. Diablo II gave you three tiers of base items that actually made using them feasible.
In Angband, gold becomes useless because the stuff you can buy in town is pegged to level 1 beginner gear. Diablo I had level scaled gear gambling and Diablo II made tiers of cities with scaled equipment and also included gambling.
In Angband, you can haul around 99 potions of various tiers of healing. In Diablo I/II, you are capped to what can reasonably fit into your inventory, with rapid access limited to belt size.
There are dozens if not hundreds of other decisions that were the right ones to make that Diablo I/II made that Angband didn't that makes Angband look like an archaic dinosaur that deserved to have its lunch eaten.
Now, Angband is still being updated, but instead of making the type of choices that Diablo made, they've been just "streamlining" it and bugfixing. The ID game is almost completely gone, you no longer sell gear in town by default, and the majority of players skip the middle 70 levels of the game.
I recently added in needed quality of life improvements to a fork of Angband like DCSS-style autoexplore and tab-combat (no one seemed to actually try it) but the game needs a drastic overhaul to coopt all the improvements that Diablo I/II made on the town-dungeon-sell-loop game so that the game's player base doesn't die off completely. Currently, the only two *band games with sizable player bases are Sil-Q (a tightly designed "modern" and Tolkien-faithful Angband) and FrogComPosBand (a kitchen-sink variant), but Angband's is all but dead.
Unfortunately, the current maintainer and grognard player base want to keep the design fixed roughly at the norms of 1992 with a cleaner code base. So it goes I guess.
Angband: The game that invented epic loot: http://homebrewhomunculus.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-game-that...
My fork: https://github.com/3m4r/angbandv
It must have been easier to write then his/her game all the time - and also more pleasant to read.
I think it makes/made perfect sense.