Live data from Hacker News

Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

graybeardgames.com

161–170 of 184 posts

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#161
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No-one would call Zelda an ARPG. You just need to live with the fact that the term has come to mean something else.

Zelda II even had experience points, and Wikipedia counts all the other games I named as ARPGs. There is no way in which Diablo was the first ARPG. 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.

Fact of the matter is that ARPG today generally means a Diablo-like game. It defined the genre that we know today as ARPGs. You can name other games ARPGs if you want, but it has nothing to do with Diablo or the genre that Diablo defined.

I'm not sure why this sort of thing is so difficult to understand.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can't say D3 had any sense of progression either because you simply did the same rifts with a bigger number attached to them. You got bigger numbers on your gear and then added some numbers to the rift level. Compare that to finally reaching hell Diablo in Diablo 2... or scratch that... finally getting past the blacksmith in act 1 hell :)

I just can't agree. There is clear progression from first reaching the level cap and clearing T6 and eventually getting good enough gear to finally clear T16. Then continuing to improve your build and gear until you do GR70, 100, 130. Like, I'm never wondering if I'm actually getting stronger, because I know that if I try T6 on a fresh capped character, I'm going to get demolished. If I clear T6 successfully, I know that I've gotten stronger and the stronger I get, the easier T6 will continue to become and the easier it'll be to clear higher difficulties.

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.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#164
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I believe (with zero supporting evidence) that Blizzard implemented level scaling reluctantly, in order to better facilitate ad-hoc group play. Unfortunately, they kind of screwed it up.

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.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#165
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I historically have not been a major fan of ARPGs and share with you the list of games that haven’t moved the needle for me. 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…

I'm actually a huge fan of ARPGs (e.g. Seiken Densetsu), just not the kind that are in the Diablo line. I definitely have unusual sensibilities for RPGs in general because I didn't like Planescape Tormet either (though I enjoyed the SSI Gold Box games when I was younger).

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#166
post #50
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.

I enjoyed the customization multiclassing in titan quest. It's also a different theme, using greek mythology.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#167
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't say D3 had any sense of progression either because you simply did the same rifts with a bigger number attached to them. You got bigger numbers on your gear and then added some numbers to the rift level. Compare that to finally reaching hell Diablo in Diablo 2... or scratch that... finally getting past the blacksmith in act 1 hell :)

I just can't agree. There is clear progression from first reaching the level cap and clearing T6 and eventually getting good enough gear to finally clear T16. Then continuing to improve your build and gear until you do GR70, 100, 130. Like, I'm never wondering if I'm actually getting stronger, because I know that if I try T6 on a fresh capped character, I'm going to get demolished. If I clear T6 successfully, I know…

So you're happy with bigger numbers? Because the content is absolutely identical from T1 to T2484... and there's absolutely no other way to increase the x in Tx except grinding lower levels to increase some stat on your gear by a small amount.

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.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it is pretty fair to say that Diablo 1 did effectively create the genre as far as the history of gaming is concerned. 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.

I mean I am not sure if I would even call diablo an RPG. What roleplaying is there to do?

There are extensive skill trees and itemization choices. The roleplaying is choosing which skills and items you wish to use in your quest to vanquish demons.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#169
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was an honest typo, but it did make me think that at some point with the heat of the idea of the "Metaverse" in some circles, that Google could roll out a competing "Adverse". Note: typo corrected.

Oh god please don't give them any ideas. Delete this ASAP

This thread has already been ingested by OpenAI, so if not GOOG, then MSFT.

I am inevitable

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#170
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 went to one of his talks at an NZGDC ages ago and it was super great.

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".

Post reply on HN