Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't disagree more. Played all of them, and the story in D4 is fantastic, not to mention the amazing cinematics. Well worth the asking price.
This is interesting to me, because I always figured the Diablo series was prized for its moment-to-moment gameplay, rather than for its story or cinematics.
Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]
21–30 of 184 posts
Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]
#22It was a different time: “Condor plans to spend one year in the development of Diablo. Personnel will consist of: one designer, one chief programmer, 2 junior programmer, 2 art director/artists, 1 illustrator/sculptor, 3 pixel artists, and 1 sound FX person” 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 pa…
But there are still indie games developed with such small teams. So, that is still a viable possibility.
Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]
#23My favourite story of Diablo's development (as relayed by David Brevik in the Diablo Postmortem - see below) is the part where Diablo was made real-time. He passionately championed that it should be more like Rogue or Moria purely turn-based and permadeath. That was until he implemented real-time movement in an afternoon and attacked a skeleton. This was a directive from Blizzard, and it effectively created the ARPG…
Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]
#24Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]
#25[removed]
Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]
#26My favourite story of Diablo's development (as relayed by David Brevik in the Diablo Postmortem - see below) is the part where Diablo was made real-time. He passionately championed that it should be more like Rogue or Moria purely turn-based and permadeath. That was until he implemented real-time movement in an afternoon and attacked a skeleton. This was a directive from Blizzard, and it effectively created the ARPG…
A trivial aside, and for which I apologise in advance - not least because it may have been merely a typo - but the correct phrase is "averse [to Google]", not adverse. "Averse to Google" == "disinclined to Google"; "Adverse to Google" == "has negative effects upon Google". I am assuming you meant the former. https://grammarist.com/usage/adverse-averse/ https://www.dictionary.com/e/adverse-vs-averse/
Note: typo corrected.
Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]
#27An underrated choice of the original diablo is that it would only show you a subset of story quests and boss monsters in a single play-through. A few (like the butcher) would always show up, but for most others there'd be multiple options for which story quest would be in the game. 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…
There are 16 quests in 6 groups, and 1 random quest from each of the first five groups is removed.
Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]
#28[removed]
Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]
#29An underrated choice of the original diablo is that it would only show you a subset of story quests and boss monsters in a single play-through. A few (like the butcher) would always show up, but for most others there'd be multiple options for which story quest would be in the game. 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…