Has Everyone Seen D3 Developers Stumped By HOZ Video?

General Discussion
01/11/2015 12:18 AMPosted by Momo
D2 is relevant because we are talking about game designers, not programmers, not managers

How can they know that they've built a better trade system than D2 if they don't understand D2 trade culture? They dont, they remove trading

How can they know that they've built better PVP than D2 if they don't understand D2 PVP? They don't, they design brawling

How can they build a better item system than D2 if they don't understand D2 item systems? They don't, they remove runewords, cubing, etc. they RNG every item. Etc.


You fail to understand - and I mean completely fail, on every point, why you're wrong about this.

Your failure comes from one simple thing: You are trying to compare D3 point by point, to D2. That is wrong. In fact, as a game designer, that's TERRIBLE.

It is not about copying D2 and "doing it better". That's a terrible way to approach it. Maybe it's what you personally want, but it's a terrible way to approach game design.

The first question you ask is what makes a game a diablo game?

The answer is two things. #1: The type of gameplay. (D3 nailed that for the most part). #2: The plot/lore/story. You can argue either which way on how D3 handled it, but you cannot argue that it follows the D2 story. (And by extension, D1).

So, that pretty much makes it a diablo game. Trading does not make it a diablo game. PVP does not make it a diablo game. How the individual game systems work on a micro (not macro) scale do not make it a diablo game.

Once you've identified what makes a game a diablo game, you design around that. But what do you design? Quite literally, anything you can think of. There are no rules, and the idea that you should be following some rule of "Copy D2! but better!" is just dumb.

I will say they failed pretty hard at a lot of the ideas they implemented - they also succeeded on a number of them too. But your insistence that knowledge and understanding of D2 is required to make D3 good, is just... well, it's just wrong. There's no other way to say it. You are wrong.
01/11/2015 12:27 AMPosted by whistler
The answer is two things. #1: The type of gameplay. (D3 nailed that for the most part). #2: The plot/lore/story.


Plot / Lore / Story is only a major point for movies. As far as gameplay goes, Diablo 3 also nailed the gameplay of a Gauntlet game. Should we call it Gauntlet as well?

No, there were many facets to Diablo 2 gameplay, D3 didn't nail nearly all of them, which is where threads like this come from.

01/11/2015 12:27 AMPosted by whistler
I will say they failed pretty hard at a lot of the ideas they implemented - they also succeeded on a number of them too. But your insistence that knowledge and understanding of D2 is required to make D3 good, is just... well, it's just wrong. There's no other way to say it. You are wrong.


No, you are wrong. Compelling argument, this.
01/11/2015 12:18 AMPosted by Momo
How can they know that they've built a better trade system than D2 if they don't understand D2 trade culture? They dont, they remove trading

How can they know that they've built better PVP than D2 if they don't understand D2 PVP? They don't, they design brawling

How can they build a better item system than D2 if they don't understand D2 item systems? They don't, they remove runewords, cubing, etc. they RNG every item. Etc.


Please, establish for me how either guy in that video was personally responsible for and had creative control over any of those decisions.
01/11/2015 12:34 AMPosted by Logos
No, you are wrong. Compelling argument, this.


No, no, I'm really not.

Here's the problem.

The people like you, who are making this argument.

You didn't want D3. You wanted D2 with updated graphics. If that came out, you'd be happy to play along.

D3 is SUPPOSED to be a new game. It was never intended to be a D2 clone. I'm sorry that's what you wanted, but it was never going to happen, you just need to get over that.

And as far as calling it "gauntlet". Notice how I included lore/story, which would automatically disqualify it from that. But way to ignore that when it doesn't fit your personal narrative.

And saying plot/lore/story is only important for movies is hilarious. I guess it would have been ok if the story of D3 was Demons... IN SPACE! Who have to save the princess from the evil Kupa! While collecting magical pieces of a triangle!

That's all ok because story doesn't matter apparently!
01/11/2015 12:39 AMPosted by whistler
No, no, I'm really not.


Yes you are.

01/11/2015 12:39 AMPosted by whistler
The people like you, who are making this argument.


What argument am I making?

01/11/2015 12:39 AMPosted by whistler
You didn't want D3. You wanted D2 with updated graphics. If that came out, you'd be happy to play along.


I wanted an improved D2, I don't give 2 craps about graphics.

01/11/2015 12:39 AMPosted by whistler
D3 is SUPPOSED to be a new game. It was never intended to be a D2 clone


I don't want a D2 clone. Making D3 while stripping out core mechanics of D2 is like people writing a new Star Wars movie without knowing what the hell a Jedi is.

01/11/2015 12:39 AMPosted by whistler
And as far as calling it "gauntlet". Notice how I included lore/story, which would automatically disqualify it from that.


Gameplay wise, it is a Gauntlet game, not a Diablo game.

01/11/2015 12:39 AMPosted by whistler
And saying plot/lore/story is only important for movies is hilarious. I guess it would have been ok if the story of D3 was Demons... IN SPACE!


Sure would. All I care about is game play, since we are having a conversation about.... gasp... game design!

And you're still wrong.
01/11/2015 12:42 AMPosted by Logos
Sure would. All I care about is game play, since we are having a conversation about.... gasp... game design!

And you're still wrong.


See. Now I know that's just a flat out lie. You're either trolling, or intentionally lying to try and further your point. That's just ridiculous. No you would not have been "ok with it", you, and everyone else here would have been up in arms, complaining about how they ruined the game - and even trying to suggest otherwise makes me laugh.

What you wanted was a new D2. What you got was D3 instead.

It could be the best game ever made, but you're unhappy because it's not a D2 clone. That's just absurd, and you're absurd for thinking that way. And you're even more absurd for refusing to admit it. And it's even more absurd to think that someone not knowing one item off the top of their head in some video is important in any way at all.

The lot of you. absurd.
01/11/2015 12:52 AMPosted by whistler
See. Now I know that's just a flat out lie.


Not really. "Space" as a dimension was already introduced somewhat in D2 (The Arcane Sanctuary). Not hard to make a lore reason to visit more in depth. Hell anything is probably better than Cain getting killed by butterflies.

01/11/2015 12:52 AMPosted by whistler
That's just ridiculous. No you would not have been "ok with it", you, and everyone else here would have been up in arms, complaining about how they ruined the game - and even trying to suggest otherwise makes me laugh.


Laugh all you want. We spend how much time playing the campaign at the moment? Zero? Thought so.

01/11/2015 12:52 AMPosted by whistler
What you wanted was a new D2. What you got was D3 instead.


What I wanted was a new Diablo game. What I got was Gauntlet with demons and butterflies.

01/11/2015 12:52 AMPosted by whistler
It could be the best game ever made, but you're unhappy because it's not a D2 clone.


It could be, but it's still not Diablo. I would acknowledge it as the best game ever made by its true name.

01/11/2015 12:52 AMPosted by whistler
That's just absurd, and you're absurd for thinking that way


You're absurd for not understanding that different franchises have their own unique core mechanics.

Champions of Norrath series on Playstation is a franchise in the same genre as Diablo. Core differences: You can be immune to frontal damage while blocking with a shield, and you can carry more items according to your strength. Remove those, and it isn't a Champions game. Core mechanics are what properly seperate franchises. Failing to acknowledge such is short sighted and folly.

01/11/2015 12:52 AMPosted by whistler
And it's even more absurd to think that someone not knowing one item off the top of their head in some video is important in any way at all.


I don't care about that. I can just see why people would associate that with the current predicament of the game.

01/11/2015 12:52 AMPosted by whistler
The lot of you. absurd.


No, you're absurd.
01/11/2015 12:39 AMPosted by whistler
D3 is SUPPOSED to be a new game. It was never intended to be a D2 clone. I'm sorry that's what you wanted, but it was never going to happen, you just need to get over that.


I see this remark a lot, and your point of view on it is wrong.

Diablo 1 and 2 have had similar key game mechanics introduced into the games that made them fun and unique. Diablo 3 is not unique, and did not share any of the core mechanics, and like Logos said, it plays more like Gauntlet than Diablo. Simply put, there was no need to completely redesign what was never broken, which is one of many reasons why people are disappointed with how Diablo 3 turned out.
Logos,

First, I'd like to ask you also:

01/11/2015 12:36 AMPosted by SPDCPA
Please, establish for me how either guy in that video was personally responsible for and had creative control over any of those decisions.


Personally, I'm a bit of a quiet, reserved, gamer type myself, and if I were in charge of things then I would send a low man on the totem poll to go do a live broadcast aimed at pleasing the fanbase stemming from a player input gimmick.. Please establish how this specific design administrator, who did not immediately jump at the name of a 15 year old item, is personally responsible for and has/had creative control over any specific ills you perceive in D3.

01/11/2015 12:42 AMPosted by Logos
What argument am I making?


That designers don't immediately recognize any/every given item from a 15 year old game therefore that is the reason why you dislike one or more aspects of the current game.

01/11/2015 12:42 AMPosted by Logos
Gameplay wise, it is a Gauntlet game, not a Diablo game.


I only remember 2 buttons in Gauntlet, attack and magic. One changed melee/ranged depending on things near you, and one was based on expendable potions you collected. Please explain how choosing 10 skills out of many, changing them at will, collecting and equipping different sets and items, resource generation/consumption, and skills with durations and cooldowns fit the Gauntlet model.

01/11/2015 12:42 AMPosted by Logos
I don't want a D2 clone. Making D3 while stripping out core mechanics of D2 is like people writing a new Star Wars movie without knowing what the hell a Jedi is.


I'd like to suggest to you that they kept many/almost all of the same game play mechanics of D2, while ripping out the skill trees and respecs in favor of the ability to change skills at will. If you'd like to get into detail about it I can start citing specific examples about how the D2 classes evolved into the D3 classes, but I don't think it should be necessary.

01/11/2015 12:34 AMPosted by Logos
Plot / Lore / Story is only a major point for movies. As far as gameplay goes, Diablo 3 also nailed the gameplay of a Gauntlet game. Should we call it Gauntlet as well?


I strongly disagree on this point. Planescape: Torment is still one of the greatest games I've ever played, because the story, settings, lore, and characters were that well fleshed out and awesome. Endure. In Enduring Grow Strong. IGNUS BURNS What can change the nature of a man?
Let Play the Family Feud with your host Steve Harvey.

Steve: Hey OP.
OP: Hi Steve.
Steve: Name the most common thing that comes to mind when someone says the phrase "Diablo 3 Development Team".
OP: World of Warcraft developers.
Steve: No...no... "Diablo 3 Development Team".
OP: No Steve I mean World of Warcraft developers.
Steve: Um... Let me rephrase the question.
OP: The have no clue about Diablo 2 cuz they didn't play it. They played/developed World of Warcraft and were transferred to the D3 dev team.
Steve: Um... yeah...about that...
OP: They don't know what Herald of Zak is!
Steve: hmm... survey says....
01/11/2015 12:59 AMPosted by EnkerZan
01/11/2015 12:39 AMPosted by whistler
D3 is SUPPOSED to be a new game. It was never intended to be a D2 clone. I'm sorry that's what you wanted, but it was never going to happen, you just need to get over that.


I see this remark a lot, and your point of view on it is wrong.

Diablo 1 and 2 have had similar key game mechanics introduced into the games that made them fun and unique. Diablo 3 is not unique, and did not share any of the core mechanics, and like Logos said, it plays more like Gauntlet than Diablo. Simply put, there was no need to completely redesign what was never broken, which is one of many reasons why people are disappointed with how Diablo 3 turned out.


Never Broken! Then why did we not see an xpac after LoD? From a developers point of view broken would be a kind word for D2. It was completely trashed and in most part by the very community that wanted D3 to follow D2. D2 was totaled.

Heavily pirated, and hacked due to the offline play. Named games were use as the delivery system for the third party sites, the basis of the botted chaos and Baal runs and the development platform of the dupers. Multiple games and accounts were abused to death. The Hellforge and socket quest were also exploited to death as was the ability to jump acts. You think it is Coincidence. that we did not see adventure mode until after the advent of BoA.

Of course trading by the 3rd party sites was the major source of thousands of compromised accounts which were then used to bot , dupe and spam.

Bots in D2 were able to be set to farm specific items by name of quality. They were used to get that perfect white to make an Enigma for example. Remember every item or runeword like enigma only varied due to the quality of the base item used to make the runeword, all other
stats were the same. Enter RNG to combat this.

Then trade. third party sites aside we were offered trade in D3. The flippers exploited the ah, people went to those sites just so they could buy that 2b item. They gave us the rmah to counter and people were going to the 3rd part sites to save pennies on the dollar to buy items and gold. The D3 community welcomed the 3rd party sites with open arms, and so came the loss of the ah's and BOA. Blizzard had already seen the downward spiral unlimited trade causes in D2.

Then the skill tree is obsolete. Runewords were fun but they had done them to death already. When they opened up the D2 development can nothing but rot was in it.

Not broken if you were a duper, hacker 3rd party site or a $$$ player.
01/11/2015 01:45 AMPosted by BossDogg
Let Play the Family Feud with your host Steve Harvey.

Steve: Hey OP.
OP: Hi Steve.
Steve: Name the most common thing that comes to mind when someone says the phrase "Diablo 3 Development Team".
OP: World of Warcraft developers.
Steve: No...no... "Diablo 3 Development Team".
OP: No Steve I mean World of Warcraft developers.
Steve: Um... Let me rephrase the question.
OP: The have no clue about Diablo 2 cuz they didn't play it. They played/developed World of Warcraft and were transferred to the D3 dev team.
Steve: Um... yeah...about that...
OP: They don't know what Herald of Zak is!
Steve: hmm... survey says....

Survey says what? Survey says what?! Tell us!
01/11/2015 03:49 AMPosted by DeadRu
01/11/2015 12:59 AMPosted by EnkerZan
...

I see this remark a lot, and your point of view on it is wrong.

Diablo 1 and 2 have had similar key game mechanics introduced into the games that made them fun and unique. Diablo 3 is not unique, and did not share any of the core mechanics, and like Logos said, it plays more like Gauntlet than Diablo. Simply put, there was no need to completely redesign what was never broken, which is one of many reasons why people are disappointed with how Diablo 3 turned out.


Never Broken! Then why did we not see an xpac after LoD? From a developers point of view broken would be a kind word for D2. It was completely trashed and in most part by the very community that wanted D3 to follow D2. D2 was totaled.


We did not get a second expansion, because the plot regarding the events following the Destruction of the Worldstone required a completely new game to tell the full story.
"No barrier between heaven, sanctuary and hell" would not fit into one act.

The engine was faulty, there were bugs.
And yet it was the 6th best RPG -- not 6th best action RPG -- but 6th best RPG ever made.

It IS the best Action RPG ever made, even with all it's flaws.

Heavily pirated, and hacked due to the offline play.


Diablo 3 is not heavily pirated.
Because it's a bad game.

If it was good -- more people would've pirated it.
Because you DO know it was pirated already in Beta, right? And that you can play it offline right now -- and that, because the game does not allow you to play offline by default with the default installation, that the only way legitimate owners of the game can play offline is by supporting pirates?

Bots in D2 were able to be set to farm specific items by name of quality. They were used to get that perfect white to make an Enigma for example. Remember every item or runeword like enigma only varied due to the quality of the base item used to make the runeword, all other
stats were the same. Enter RNG to combat this.


Just like bots in Diablo 3.

Botters in Diablo 3 earned far more on Diablo 3, and botters in World of Warcraft currently do earn more, than they ever did in Diablo 2.
The server architechture and lack of safeguards was the problem that caused duping to be possible, not the game.

Then the skill tree is obsolete. Runewords were fun but they had done them to death already. When they opened up the D2 development can nothing but rot was in it.

Not broken if you were a duper, hacker 3rd party site or a $$$ player.


Does it hurt when you try to think objectively?

Diablo 2 IS STILL the best action RPG ever made -- and Diablo 3 is not even an action RPG, because it lacks fundamental RPG components.
If Diablo 3 is a roleplaying game, then so is Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare.
Because you get to select "skill" (perks) and level up to unlock new skills (perks).
The only difference is that weapons are unlocked in one, and found in the other.
Finding loot has nothing to do with RPGs; Finding loot is not a core component of a roleplaying game.
Choice with consequences is.
01/10/2015 05:21 PMPosted by SPDCPA


I still couldn't tell you today what HoZ does.


Great. No one gives 2 flying !@#$s what some random person on an internet forum knows or doesn't know.

The people developing the game, should know however.
01/11/2015 01:31 AMPosted by SPDCPA
First, I'd like to ask you also:


His title in the video says "Associate Game Designer". I know his influence is greater than that of a janitor, but bounded somewhere below that of the Lead Game Designer Josh. Without actually working at Blizzard, no one can be more specific than that, but as far as I'm aware, the design by committee anyway, so no one person has a substantial amount of influence.

The argument being made in this thread, *Note that this is not even MY argument* is that if you have an Associate Game Designer publicly getting information like this wrong, who ELSE in the team might be this clueless about the franchise? So in that sense, your question really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

I do agree the argument is silly. Just because a good segment of the dev team (by assumption, I have no idea) was not knowledgeable about D2 core mechanics does not make the dev team incapable of making a Diablo game. All it takes is one or two designers to be advisors. Sons of Anarchy is case in point for this. The writer on the show was NOT in a motorcycle gang. He did lots of research to familiarize himself with the culture. At least one member on the actual cast of the show WAS from the local culture the show was based around.

01/11/2015 01:31 AMPosted by SPDCPA
That designers don't immediately recognize any/every given item from a 15 year old game therefore that is the reason why you dislike one or more aspects of the current game.


I didn't make that argument, nor am I tacitly supporting such an argument. This is a common mistake in debate. Just because I do not support a refutation of an argument, does NOT mean in converse that I think the argument refuted is good. What that guy was saying was ridiculous on its own, despite the current context. Thus I worked on dissenting that piece first, because I felt that viewpoint more harmful to this sort of discussion than the original argument being put forth.

01/11/2015 01:31 AMPosted by SPDCPA
I only remember 2 buttons in Gauntlet, attack and magic.


In the newer gauntlets they had several. You could walk up to people and auto melee, you could cast your standard attacks, you had two cooldowns per class (Archer for example had multishot as their small one, and a piercing bazooka as their large one.), and you could throw potions. That was just on the N64 version of Gauntlet, they've made many more iterations of the series since then.

Regardless, the guy I was arguing with claimed this was a "Diablo type game" simply because you "Kill monsters, and get *AWESOME* loot". If that's the basis for his deciding this is a DIABLO GAME, rather than coming out of any ARPG franchise like Champions of Norrath, or Dungeon Siege, I figured at worst I'd use a little hyperbole to send them a reality check.

01/11/2015 01:31 AMPosted by SPDCPA
I'd like to suggest to you that they kept many/almost all of the same game play mechanics of D2


Runewords, gone.

Interesting procs on gear such as "Cast amplify damage on striking" along with the actual NEED for such gameplay mechanics, gone.

Immunities, gone.

Trade, gone.

Treasure Classes and Drop Tables, gone.

Distinction between physical (weapon based damage) and spell based damage, gone.

Uniques being actually unique with fixed affixes, gone.

Charms, gone.

Give me a few hours I can probably double this list if you want. These things are not small mechanics. I could write a 20 page paper summarizing all the core gameplay mechanics that each one of these added to the core game of Diablo 2. Removing them, removed much depth from the game, even before we get into skill trees.

01/11/2015 01:31 AMPosted by SPDCPA
f you'd like to get into detail about it I can start citing specific examples about how the D2 classes evolved into the D3 classes, but I don't think it should be necessary.


Pease, let's. This thread or another one, I don't care. I have a Master's in Math, analyzing detail is literally what I do for a living. This should be fun.

01/11/2015 01:31 AMPosted by SPDCPA
I strongly disagree on this point. Planescape: Torment is still one of the greatest games I've ever played, because the story, settings, lore, and characters were that well fleshed out and awesome.


By that logic, Star Wars: A New Hope, and the Twilight Saga are probably some of the best games ever played, because their stories are so popular. Games are literally defined by a series of choices by a player in which set of conditions (probably with at least the mathematical structure of a lattice) greet the player with a series of "better or worse" outcomes depending on the substance of their choices relative to the core game mechanics.

Story matters in Bioware games because player choices in story end up dictating other gameplay elements such as gear, who ends up in your party or who you end up fighting, etc. But as a litmus test, if I can youtube the "let's play" for a game and get the exact same experience from the story, relative to someone playing the game, because I CANNOT DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT, then the story isn't part of the defining characteristics for the game as a GAME.
So I read this thread, seriously this is the first thing that jumped into my mind...

https://screen.yahoo.com/star-trek-convention-000000768.html

Who gives a !@#$ if a developer today isn't able to refer to an item in a 14 year old game. The only problem with this game is the people that do.
01/10/2015 07:07 PMPosted by DeadRu
01/10/2015 06:29 PMPosted by Superchang
Actually, this speaks volumes about the lack of care for the older games in the series and a focus on arcade style play of the newer Diablo.

Isn't that guy a senior producer?


His title says associate producer.
Responsibilities
• Manage incoming requests from various departments within Blizzard.
• Coordinate, track, and manage the activities of personnel to ensure that project tasks are completed on time.
• Liaise with different departments to facilitate communications.
• Partner with anvil leadership to identify strategic goals and measure progress against those goals.
• Work with existing personnel to determine resources necessary to see projects through to completion.
• Provide motivation and direction to ensure that project goals, objectives, milestones, and deliverables are achieved.
• Help to establish a work environment that effectively deals with challenging workloads while maintaining a positive work / life balance.
• Supply updates to stakeholders, including status reports, phone calls, in-person meetings, and regular ...

As you can see their functions are at a different level. I developed ICT software and the test fixtures to test circuit boards. I never expected my support engineers or my Engineering Manager to know what the function of the components on the board did.

Now in regards to D2 , in that video they did not play a pally so never really used a HOZ. It was a pretty obscure Pally only shield, very rare drop and was used mostly for the +2 to skills. I'm pretty sure this has no bearing on how d3 was developed.

D3 is not D2, was never meant to be D2 so why should this even matter. The skill tree is obsolete , much of D2 development led to it's ultimate demise. The piracy, hacks, dupes, in the game were very much real to the point that they destroyed the game, but nobody lays them at the feet of the d2 developers.

These are the things that Blizzard rightfully addressed and why D3 is as it is today. Not lack of knowledge of the HoZ.


I can agree to a point. But the people who are currently developing for TF2 over at VALVe are fans of the franchise and know the old games. It would help as it would show the devs what people really wanted.

Of course the original D3 team played D2 but in the end you would think a development team would at least get to know the old products they are working from.

Still it is what it is. I have met people who don't know what Warcraft is but play WoW and people who don't know what a NES is. It is just how time moves on.
01/10/2015 08:58 PMPosted by DeadRu
Really, the money they got from the console is peanuts compared to the PC. D3 on the PC shares very little with the console if you look at them. If it came to dropping the consoles or the PC the consoles would be gone in a heartbeat.

Also you have to realize that Blizzard does not actually market the console. it is ms and sony that supply the servers. I imagine they pay royalties to blizzard but they most likely get the lions share of the console profit. How much do you pay to play on Bnet? now go as the xbox and ps2 people how much they pay for services?


You can pay absolutely nothing and still play xbox or playstation Diablo 3. OFFLINE. AMAZING. SUCH SMART.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum