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

121–130 of 184 posts

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#121

Post by nottorp »

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.

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 :)

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#122

Post by uzerfcwn »

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.

Sacred 1 really stood out for me as a cool open world ARPG with dungeons and lots of side quests. It gets too grindy later on though.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#123

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #94
aidenn0 wrote: 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.

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 tr…

Doesn't this just show the fundamental problem with the genre? In the time it takes to get a high level character with good gear in DIII you could have played another, shorter, game to completion. If you have to play through an entire game's worth of bad content to get to the good bits, why not just play a game that's good from the start?

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#124

Post by lloeki »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #18
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…

There's a fascinating trade-off there. 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…

My memory is very blurry about it but IIRC in Skyrim you can reset your build with a spell or something, and even change class with a side quest (possibly even appearance, or even race, but that one may have been a mod), so you can really do everything in one playthrough with one character (Ship of Theseus notwithstanding)

IIRC a couple of quests had branches that were mutually exclusive on some conditions though (mostly either you get reward A xor B)

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#125

Post by avereveard »

nvarsj wrote: post #100
logicchains wrote: post #65

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.

It's the lazy way out to world design for non linear games.

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.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#126

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

kaoD wrote: post #104
nvarsj wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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've come to terms with this. 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.…

Level scaling isn't necessary for a nonlinear game. Plenty of games have nonlinear areas and no level scaling because they have relatively flat progression curves. D4 only 'needs' level scaling because it also 'needs' to be Cookie Clicker and Lootbox Simulator with an ARPG wrapped around it, and neither of those systems work with flat progression curves.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#127

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

jayd16 wrote: post #71
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…

AAAs are paying for consistency. The marketing budget is fixed. This makes the goal something that's certainly good enough and hopefully great.

They may pay for consistency, but they're not really getting it. There hasn't been a year since 'AAA games' were a concept that hasn't had multiple high-profile titles that failed to deliver.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#128

Post by kaoD »

YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #126
kaoD wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've come to terms with this. 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.…

Level scaling isn't necessary for a nonlinear game. Plenty of games have nonlinear areas and no level scaling because they have relatively flat progression curves. D4 only 'needs' level scaling because it also 'needs' to be Cookie Clicker and Lootbox Simulator with an ARPG wrapped around it, and neither of those systems work with flat progression curves.

Sorry I don't see what you mean with flat progression curve or how it solves anything here.

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?

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#129

Post by detaro »

avereveard wrote: post #125
nvarsj wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's the lazy way out to world design for non linear games. 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…

To a degree you can also "hide" it in places where it is logical. E.g. if a game has an enemy faction that goes out of its way to attack the player, it does make sense that these attacks get stronger - if someone causes a faction more trouble, he gets more attention and stronger assets are sent to take them out, guards are reinforced, ... And maybe in reverse, weaker intelligent enemies make a point of avoiding the player (would some badly-equipped bandits really ambush a party that's clearly better prepared for combat than them?). That's then somewhat satisfying: clearly those enemies are stronger, and you now can beat them!

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.

Re: Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]

#130

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

kaoD wrote: post #128
YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Level scaling isn't necessary for a nonlinear game. Plenty of games have nonlinear areas and no level scaling because they have relatively flat progression curves. D4 only 'needs' level scaling because it also 'needs' to be Cookie Clicker and Lootbox Simulator with an ARPG wrapped around it, and neither of those systems work with flat progression curves.

Sorry I don't see what you mean with flat progression curve or how it solves anything here. 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?

By not making level 70s cut through level 15 enemies like butter. If your level 70 is only 50% stronger than a level 15, if the enemies were challenging for a level 15, they won't be trivial for the level 70.
Post reply on HN