-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
[Kotaku] The Past, Present, And Future Of Diablo by Jason Schreier
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
Or maybe I played diablo for different reasons than you, imagine that.
Or do you think everyone complaining about every streamlining decision in Diablo 3 compared to Diablo 2 had a point saying "well this isn't really diablo anymore"?
What an incredibly dumb and narrow minded view.
To me it's all about the loot game and having fun making different builds with whatever the items allow you to. Nioh very much leans into that(although it can improve a lot in those aspects too). To me having unengaging click combat is not really what the essence of Diablo is if you think differently sure. But you just don't really have a point given how franchises can evolve and how diablo 3 has changed significantly from diablo 2 already.
I saw full the interview. Probably one of the best i've ever seen. He was years ahead of everyone else.
As much as i dislike Activision, I cant really blame them for trying to improve Blizzards output. Except for the WoW expansion team, Blizz is probably the most inefficient studio on the planet. Give any other dev the same luxuries of unlimited time and resources, and they would probably run circles around Blizzard.
The most worrying thing will be that diablo immortal will do wonders in terms of profit despite the negative press.
"One ongoing conversation, for example, has been whether to keep the isometric camera angle or use the over-the-shoulder third-person view that was prototyped for Hades. Recent builds of the game have been isometric, like previous Diablo games, according to three people familiar with Fenris, but questions remain over whether that should change."
Sounds like it still can go third person (but not like Souls).
A part of me wants to see them announce a Souls-like Diablo just to see the reaction ha ha. Although the idea is intriguing, I don't think Blizzard has the chops to compete with From and Team Ninja with that type of combat. They are the masters in the isometric style combat that Diablo is known for and I think they should stick to that. Also the beauty of Diablo is fighting a massive horde of enemies so I don't know how they would achieve that with a Souls-type camera. It was the right move to cancel that I think.
The concept for 4 sounds so much more interesting than 3. Hated the art style among other things. The whole game felt to cartoony to me. OTS dark souls type game would be really cool, but everyone would be disappointed. Actually looking forward to the announcement of this game.
Troubling to say the least; there's obviously a (forced) transition to a full focus on games as service at Blizzard. Diablo 4 as nothing more than a better version of Diablo 3, that has a typical Blizzard development cycle most likely won't cut it from the shareholders' perspective.
I can't see Diablo Souls making it through without much backlash (even though it would be awesome).
Well, if we did want to play Devil's Advocate, there's a really obvious example of where Activision stepped in.
At Gamescom 2017, Blizzard announced they were going to do a bunch of CG shorts for Hearthstone.
This was around the same time that Activision started their "spend more money hiring additional game developers and cut costs elsewhere" initiative.
Since then, we've only had one extremely short CG short that reused almost all it's assets from the original video, and then no one ever spoke of these CG again. It's pretty clear they got canned. Generally speaking, these things cost millions per short.
However, Blizzard did hire a bunch of new staff for Hearthstone, including quite a few for the people working on the singleplayer content, and just unveiled their most ambitious singleplayer experience yet.
Was Activision's decision wrong here?
Well, if we measure the success of a game development studio by the games they put out, then its not very hard to find a way to justify that specific decision. The obvious example here would be to say that its a move towards a greater focus on what matters, namely the games themselves.
I just think its a bit early to assume that Activision is stepping in like some caricature dictator and stifling expression and creativity left and right. In the article, Jason mentioned how certain employees described these structural changes as wake-up calls, saying things like "this wouldnt have happened 3-4 years ago". In light of Blizzards recent track record however, with all of their scrapped and rebooted projects, these statements sound almost childish to me, like a rejection of accountability. I mean i get it, when you have enjoyed total freedom, any move towards improved efficiency will seem like an infringement, but that doesnt mean that its a reasonable expectation to have.
Great article as always Mr. Schreier. Surprised Blizzard went so far with the cancelled version of Diablo IV. Wonder how Blizzard's & Activision's relationship will continue to unfold...
They were both isometric games where you click enemies until they die and then loot comes out. On a fundamental level they looked and played very similarly and changing the perspective changes a lot. It's a similar deal to what happened to god of war but arguably even bigger as the gameplay would change quite a bit.
I'm not particularly enthused about a non-isometric diablo either.
I mean as I said that's fine if you don't like the direction they're going I just disagree hard on the smart ass response of how I actually don't want to play diablo when it's pretty clear that there isn't like a very clear narrow definition of what makes diablo, well diablo given how much already changed. Like what do you say to people that loved the whole aspect about making a character. That got 100% lost in diablo 3 due the need to reroll for different builds being lost. That's a pretty fundamental thing when it came to the diablo 2 experience. Guess diablo 3 isn't diablo anymore *shrug*.
Basically it's just a very strange response when it's in the goddamn article with them trying Hades and even now still debating about what perspective is going to be used.
Seems like a definitive statement on what the designers themselves feel potentially makes the essence of diablo and isometric isn't necessarily part of it.
Nioh to me is like if Hellgate(something that came out of people trying to evolve diablo) was actually good. The issue really is in a way it's limited given you don't really get to fulfill the fantasy of playing a distinct class the biggest thing differentiating you just being your main weapon.
I wonder what the corporate reaction to the controversy of Immortal will be. I mean, will they push up the Diablo 4 schedule to have it announced sooner? Or maybe put together something new for Diablo 3?
I suppose "nothing" is the most likely answer. Blizzard can't exactly shift people resources around to address a bad announcement. Cancelling a second expansion for D3 is just insanity to me, especially since it would have been a separate bit of purchasing revenue for console too.
And I'm guessing this rumored Diablo 2 remake/remaster is just nothing? The mobile game was heavily rumored but there's no actual reporting on a remaster in this article, so I guess it's not a thing. Bummer.
I suppose "nothing" is the most likely answer. Blizzard can't exactly shift people resources around to address a bad announcement. Cancelling a second expansion for D3 is just insanity to me, especially since it would have been a separate bit of purchasing revenue for console too.
And I'm guessing this rumored Diablo 2 remake/remaster is just nothing? The mobile game was heavily rumored but there's no actual reporting on a remaster in this article, so I guess it's not a thing. Bummer.
Given the fact that diablo 2 was made by a different team. A team that understood the genre and the merits of it's unique mechanics, unlike the current team. Who instead of building upon the previous team's foundation and improving, were it needs be. They gutted it an made it unnecessarily easy, after making the right decisions of improving combat. Then after they went head long down the wrong path. Of course all that is despite the hyped up sales and first looks, diablo 3 still collapsed under the weight of it's own fundamental weaknesses, even with a "expansion" like ROS. Something that would help the game in someways but still didn't fix the difference. Don't get me started on how skills, items, armour, character builds and power-levels were handled (streamlining).
Overall given the tone and talking points in terms of their general indecision in the article, about rather being isometric is the essence of diablo. Makes me question the designers understanding of ARPG's, just like i questioned them after diablo 3 and seeing the disconnect there as-well. Like now all of a sudden they want go back to the aesthetic that truly helped make diablo, what it is? Even though that should have been a no-brainier, there shouldn't be a question of it being a big factor in a diablo title. But even if they go that route (finally), i don't have that much confidence in their execution.
Especially not after the butchering of diablo's main theme's story-wise, in terms of lore and the mishandling of it's characters.
So no i don't think that they understand what made diablo, diablo in totality. A major factor to me in regards to their experience/thinking in terms of WOW-MMORPG's. Instead of having a full-on ARPG's focus, so them thinking or wondering if that they should go ahead and change it's POV, even though they still don't get diablo as a franchise. Is a red flag.
It mean's their still doing it backwards.
Like...first they have to actual make a good diablo game.
Last edited:
If that's your stance that's fine(I mean I myself didn't like diablo 3 at all I haven't even bought the expansion that fixed everything cause I soured on the base game so badly) but then the reality seems and here I can throw it back at you, it's you that really doesn't want to play diablo. Diablo 3 is what it is Diablo 4 will be what it will be but it's clear the team doesn't seem to just want to recreate diablo 2 as it was with better graphics they want the series to move forward in some shape or form. So at that point it's the semantic game of is anything with the franchise name that doesn't conform closely to diablo 2 not a diablo experience?
All in all the line of thinking of "that isn't diablo" seems kinda stupid it reminds me of stuff like FF15 isn't a true final fantasy as someone that doesn't even like 15 very much(although I can appreciate parts of it) that always struck me as an incredibly stupid thing to say vs hey I don't like that they're pulling back the focus on characters/story telling etc.
Basically I have no issue if people feel like the click combat is part of diablo's essence I can understand to me it's not a core aspect. For me diablo is more about the gothic vibes through the design/visuals/music coupled with a solid loot mechanics and I guess last but not least selling the fantasy of classes. And attempt at making the general combat just a bit more engaging is something I'd welcome, the core game loop in nioh was basically taken from diablo but what it did for me was force me never to 100%(maybe only 50%) zone out of combat and that made farming a ton more fun.
All in all the line of thinking of "that isn't diablo" seems kinda stupid it reminds me of stuff like FF15 isn't a true final fantasy as someone that doesn't even like 15 very much(although I can appreciate parts of it) that always struck me as an incredibly stupid thing to say vs hey I don't like that they're pulling back the focus on characters/story telling etc.
Basically I have no issue if people feel like the click combat is part of diablo's essence I can understand to me it's not a core aspect. For me diablo is more about the gothic vibes through the design/visuals/music coupled with a solid loot mechanics and I guess last but not least selling the fantasy of classes. And attempt at making the general combat just a bit more engaging is something I'd welcome, the core game loop in nioh was basically taken from diablo but what it did for me was force me never to 100%(maybe only 50%) zone out of combat and that made farming a ton more fun.
I just don't want to play diablo 3 2.0 with more diablo attached. That's what i don't want to play. I want to play a diablo that understands, why diablo was good in the first place. That's my stance.
Because even with how amazingly done POE has been over time and how much love it gets from it's developers. It doesn't grip me like diablo did in totality, which to me includes it's pov and many of the things you mentioned; "Basically I have no issue if people feel like the click combat is part of diablo's essence I can understand to me it's not a core aspect. For me diablo is more about the gothic vibes through the design/visuals/music coupled with a solid loot mechanics and I guess last but not least selling the fantasy of classes."
Plus despite FF15 issues and it's changes. To me it's still a final fantasy game, a relational evolution of the processes. But given it's development cycle and it's general lack of focus in terms of knitting everything in a more coherent way (i use that lightly ;p). It's still final fantasy.
While diablo 3 is diablo only in name and general aesthetic. Which doesn't just mean diablo 2 but also diablo 1.
Last edited:
The article talks about Activision wanting Blizzard to put out more games at a consistent basis. I wonder if Diablo III on Switch and to some extent, Warcraft 3 Reforged are part of that initiative. Ports and remasters are one way to increase output at relatively cheaper cost.
Did a company ever react to mobile backlash? It happens every single time, unless accompanied by something else (Gears of War on E3). The only case I can point out is the Command & Conquer remaster initiative and even then I am not sure it was something the company said to be done because of the negative reaction to the mobile game.
Ooooff. Well that reinforces what a lot of people were suspecting and fearing about Activision exerting more of its growth/profit focused ideals onto Blizzard's decision making.
I saw this thread popping up and assumed it was just some ho hum article. Then I just saw Bellular's video on this article, holy shit. Activision is trying to bleed the fucking soul out of Blizzard. Quantity over quality. Monetization is king. We could have had a 2nd D3 expansion but it was canceled - likely due to no monetization opportunity. Holy fuck, cancerous pricks.
This article scared me but it confirmed what I knew to be true. Activision wants "growth" and microtransactions, not good games. Made me laugh when I read that. Where's the money going from the initial sales of the game? Is that not enough? These companies just want more and more.
I can't believe they wanted to make a Diablo game with a behind the back camera like Dark Souls. As a spin off, sure, it sounds awesome, but not as a mainline Diablo game. Also, the fact that they restarted development multiple times shows they still have no idea what they are doing. I just want Diablo II with new classes who all have multiple skill trees and builds and a game with great graphics. Other than the cartoonish elements, I didn't much mind the painterly look in D3. I kind of got used to it. I just want something with deep RPG aspects. I want the character stats back and I want spells to have their own damage not tied to weapons. That is just the dumbest thing. I have a mighty axe so now my fireball does more damage....what?
I can't believe they wanted to make a Diablo game with a behind the back camera like Dark Souls. As a spin off, sure, it sounds awesome, but not as a mainline Diablo game. Also, the fact that they restarted development multiple times shows they still have no idea what they are doing. I just want Diablo II with new classes who all have multiple skill trees and builds and a game with great graphics. Other than the cartoonish elements, I didn't much mind the painterly look in D3. I kind of got used to it. I just want something with deep RPG aspects. I want the character stats back and I want spells to have their own damage not tied to weapons. That is just the dumbest thing. I have a mighty axe so now my fireball does more damage....what?
I mean you say that as if Diablo is dead when the article specifically says they are working on Diablo 4 (project Fenris) and right now its back to a more darker tone like D2 which is what people wanted.
I don't get blaming Activision entirely for what is going on with New Blizzard, this is a hole Bliz has dug themselves into. The golden age of Blizzard was almost 20 years ago, the staff they currently have is drastically different than the ones that created their biggest hits. Look at this output - Starcraft + Expansion in 1998, D2 in 2000, D2 Expansion 2001, Warcraft 3 in 2002, W3 Expansion 2003, World of Warcraft 2004. Four massive successes back-to-back in a relatively short time-frame, is there any other company with such a track record? Success has defeated them, the drop off post WoW is real. Blizzard has been increasing their use of micro-transactions without the influence of Activision. WoW started with a monthly fee, which is the standard for MMOs so fair play. They then started charging for server transfers, switching factions, changing appearance / race, etc. Finally they added the in-game shop where you can pay $20+ for pets, mounts and other cosmetics. Their newest games (Hearthstone, Overwatch) are geared towards micro-transactions and they even retooled HotS to have loot boxes. I don't buy these were Acti's idea and Blizzard fought the noble fight against it.
What is wrong with this? I don't see how some extra pressure to get things moving is bad, too much freedom can be a detriment. Seems like they still have plenty of freedom to maintain quality (cancelling titan, rebooting D4 at least once).
I don't see how one can be excited for D4 until actual gameplay footage is shown. D3 has shown the people that made D2 are gone and they don't know what Diablo is, the troubled development of D3 is well known. They are running into the same problems and don't have a clear idea of where to go.
What is wrong with this? I don't see how some extra pressure to get things moving is bad, too much freedom can be a detriment. Seems like they still have plenty of freedom to maintain quality (cancelling titan, rebooting D4 at least once).
I don't see how one can be excited for D4 until actual gameplay footage is shown. D3 has shown the people that made D2 are gone and they don't know what Diablo is, the troubled development of D3 is well known. They are running into the same problems and don't have a clear idea of where to go.
I'm with you man. People sees this whole debacle as a sign of Blizzards decline.
No! Blizzard started declining after WoW in 2004. Both SC2 and Diablo 3 felt like major letdowns compared to what came before, and WoW just fell into a vicious cycle of trying to maintain subs. Heartstone and Overwatch was certainly successes, but I never cared for them like I did with with the other franchises.
What makes me optimistic is the return of Allen Adham. Interview any of the old-school Blizzard employees (pre-2004) and they will lavish that guy with praise. He left right before WoW's release, and is finally back to set this company straight. While I'm not sharing his enthusiasm for mobile, I can certainly see where he comes from:
We all fell in love with Blizzard in our youth, and today a huge chunk of that crowd is on mobile. It's arrogant to deny them to experience Blizzard games because we prefer everything to be on PC/Console.
I did read the article, and it does not give me confidence in either the Diablo 4 team or their management.
Also I personally have no nostalgia for the "darker" tone of D2.