Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

graybeardgames.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 184 posts

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#91

Post by bashwizard »

klodolph wrote: post #27
meitros wrote: post #5

An 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…

The Butcher did not always show up. It just had a 2/3 chance of showing up. It’s easy to test for yourself, because you can restart the game and you only have to walk as far as the cathedral entrance to see if the quest appeared. It always appeared in multiplayer, but the quests are not randomized in multiplayer. There are 16 quests in 6 groups, and 1 random quest from each of the first five groups is removed.

What? I've played D1 about 50 times and not once have The Butcher not showed up.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#92

Post by denvrede »

pixel_tracing wrote: post #84
logicchains wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's literally an endless grind because enemies scale with you as you level up, so all mobs feel the same and there's no sense of progression.

This, part of building your character is the power fantasy you get when you go to weaker zones and absolutely obliterate everything. With the current system, you actually end up getting weaker as you level up

But why should I do that? I don't get that argument. I've never went back to a low level zone in any game just for the purpose of "obliterating everything". If there is a quest I missed, sure. But what's the point doing that?

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#93

Post by chungus »

fabiensanglard wrote: post #32

If you enjoy the topic, try to take the time to read "Stay Awhile and Listen" by David L. Craddock ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07ZQQRWS9?notRedirectToSD... ). I was shocked to learn how little the dev team was financially rewarded (besides the owners).

Thanks! I loved reading the first of these books, years ago, but this sequel has slipped past me! It feels like a good time to read it. Very nice format too, feels good in your hands, big pages, lot of quotes and optional reading paths.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#94

Post by Cthulhu_ »

aidenn0 wrote: post #50
bexsella wrote: post #7

My 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…

I have no clue why, but the Diablo style dungeon-crawler ARPGs are literally the only subgenre of game that I have not found a single game from which I like. 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.

Which part is it that you're not vibing with? For me personally, I think the story of e.g. Diablo 3 is gash, but it's when you're higher level, get a great gearset and can just whirlwind through levels and zone out where it comes into play.

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.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#95

Post by Cthulhu_ »

meitros wrote: post #5

An 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…

In hindsight, I'd call it a roguelite; it's got the RNG and different playthroughs, but it's focused more on combat and you don't have to start from scratch when you die.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#96

Post by mdemare »

meitros wrote: post #5

An 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…

Also which spells you could use was determined by which books you happened to find.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#97

Post by Cthulhu_ »

kosei wrote: post #15

It 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…

Counterpoint: indie games, they will often have similar sized teams or smaller and come out with great games. AAA games build on top of gameplay mechanics from either older games or indie games, but need the extra staff and investment due to higher quality (and quantity) assets.

To generalize, indie games focus on the core gameplay loop, AAA games on high effort visuals.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#98

Post by Cthulhu_ »

ricardobayes wrote: post #89
kosei wrote: post #15

It 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…

Definitely. This complexity creep is very visible with certain franchises which churned out a new game steadily every 3-4 years but not a peep for 10+ years now. (Elder Scrolls, Grand Theft Auto etc)

Said franchises - well, mainly GTA and now D4 - also are a live service though, in that they have recurring income from in-game purchases - in the case of GTA 5, it paid off to spend hundreds of millions on development, given it's earned the company billions ($6bn according to wikipedia).

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#99

Post by Cthulhu_ »

jonhohle wrote: post #46

It’s always nice to see humble beginnings like this. It can be hard at the start of a greenfield project to get ideas out without feeling like it’s amateur hour having to explain basic concepts that may or may not be novel to the people who need to be convinced to let the project move forward. Now Diablo is one of the biggest franchises in gaming, and its early pitch document looks quaint compared to what it’s become…

Just reading this description makes it sound like a really generic dungeon crawler; somewhere during development they came up with things that made it click for a lot of people. Probably moving away from being turn-based, and / or the loot system.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#100

Post by nvarsj »

logicchains wrote: post #65
eek2121 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet I have to say this: 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 upo…

Diablo 4 has no sense of progression because enemies level up as you do. In fact they increase in power faster than you, under the assumption you'll be itemising optimally, so if you level up but don't update your items fast enough, you'll find that mobs actually get harder and harder to defeat as you increase in level.

The level scaling is a really bizarre design choice. Every game with this feels bad. There is no sense of progression as your character gets punished for levelling up.

Some game designers think it’s a great idea though - hence it’s in D4. I’d love to hear their take.

Post reply on HN