13 ms·
Diablo Pitch Document (1994) [pdf]
- westoque 3y agoAs a software engineer, I wonder how accurate they stuck to their said schedule at the last page.
- Cheezmeister 3y agoAs a gamer, I am pretty sure they didn't ;)
- Reason077 3y agoWell, it's a 12-month development schedule. This pitch was dated 1994. Diablo was released in 1997... doesn't seem too bad.
- qingcharles 3y agoI wrote the isometric engine for this game in about 1996: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination:_The_Nemesis_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination:_The_Nemesis_Proje... It was planned to be a totally 2D game in the vein of Diablo, but as this brief lays out, the amount of 2D assets required for all the rotations of the characters gets out of hand extremely quickly. After we started development we figured this out and decided to switch the characters to 3D and keep the backgrounds 2D. So I had to write a whole 3D engine and toolchain from scratch in two weeks. Those were the days. Still, took three years to get that pig out of the door.
- Salgat 3y agoI like the way Diablo 2 did it, where they created 3D models then had a script render to create the animation frames at all the different angles. I did something similar for my very amateurish attempt at a game, and it saved a massive amount of time. http://salgat.blogspot.com/2014/12/new-2d-sprite-model.html http://salgat.blogspot.com/2014/12/new-2d-sprite-model.html
- nlawalker 3y agoAh, that reminds me of this post about Hades: https://steamcommunity.com/app/1145360/discussions/0/1864993755183591660/#c1864993755185620425 https://steamcommunity.com/app/1145360/discussions/0/1864993... Just insane amounts of work and data. There's a cool video they did about the part of the process that comes before that - creating the models from the character artist's 2D art. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYJ6d1ifSqA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYJ6d1ifSqA
- qingcharles 3y agoWe actually had it set up like that to start as we had some creatures built in Max, but the sheer amount of graphic data was far too much for the available RAM once you started added more beasties and some of them were the size of the screen. Switching to 3D gave us unlimited movement but bought us multiple other problems like low poly count, lack of solid integration with 2D backgrounds, and difficulties in combining huge 2D and 3D rendering pipelines.
- low_tech_love 3y agoJust a quick note, but cross-checking that article with your profile here makes it quite obvious who you are… I hope you’re ok with it?
- sakd 3y agoThe schedule looks very waterfall to me. I wonder if games are developed more iteratively/agile these days.
- parasubvert 3y agoGame development once you have the core technology in place is mostly iterative with content and play testing .. but requires a lot of waterfall foundational work - production design, sound , engine , core gameplay and graphical design ideas aren't really something that evolves from requirements discovered from a customer or PM that come at you gradually. It's more like lean product development of a car or other product: you have design targets and may do concurrent engineering / spikes to explore the design space iteratively, but eventually you converge on what will be achievable (or you get stuck in game development hell), which point its a matter of bug fix triage and endless tweaks from game testing feedback. It's iterative but not what one would call "agile"
- green_man_lives 3y agoYeah the Gantt chart almost feels amateurish with how simple and optimistic it is. I would love to know how development actually went. I can't imagine building an entire game from scratch in just a year like that with such a small team.
- A_D_E_P_T 3y agoThe "Marketing" section practically describes modern DLC. Fortunately, they weren't able to implement any of it -- probably, among other reasons, because the logistics of physical disc distribution and merchandising were too complicated -- but perhaps it could be said that they were 15 years ahead of their time.
- treve 3y agoIt actually sounds more like loot boxes to me!
- theresistor 3y agoIt sounds like it’s taken pretty directly from Magic the Gathering booster packs, which makes sense given the timeline.
- hnbad 3y agoCertain games do have "content pack" DLCs like that though. I remember "horse armor" being somewhat of a running joke when DLCs were a fairly new concept because the game "Oblivion" released a DLC merely containing visible armor for the player character's horse. I'd say loot boxes are closer to Magic booster packs than what the document describes as they both contain random content and may yield duplicates of what you already have, whereas the document describes themed sets of items and cosmetics. This is closer to the DLCs from publishers like Ubisoft that typically contain a small set of mostly cosmetic extra content and maybe some related side missions.
- meitros 3y agoAn 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 nailed having really well written side quests that weren't just filler. But enough players are completionists that it can feel exhausting to play those, and if you're a completionist the game often becomes less challenging because you're earning extra experience/gold.
- CobrastanJorji 3y agoThere'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 big part of this. Games like Witcher 3 or Skyrim, on the other hand, are focused on one single, giant play session, chock full of content. You should be able to do nearly everything (except perhaps choosing a build) the first time. The exceptions are choices in particular quests, which need to have different results so that the players have a feeling of agency.
- nottorp 3y agoFunny because Witcher 2 had the audacity to have a completely different chapter 2 (like 1/3 of the game) based on a choice at the end of chapter 1. To the point that you need to play chapter 2 twice to get the whole story. Then Witcher 3 went more mainstream.
- lloeki 3y agoMy 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)
- bobmaxup 3y agoNot loading for me, but I assume this is it? https://archive.org/details/diablo_pitch/page/n7/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/diablo_pitch/page/n7/mode/2up
- jconnop 3y agoIt's the same document, yes
- bexsella 3y agoMy 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 genre. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VscdPA6sUkc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VscdPA6sUkc and for those averse to Google: https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023469/Classic-Game-Postmortem https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023469/Classic-Game-Postmorte...
- crtified 3y agoA trivial aside, and for which I apologise in advance - not least because it may have been merely a typo - but the correct phrase is "averse [to Google]", not adverse. "Averse to Google" == "disinclined to Google"; "Adverse to Google" == "has negative effects upon Google". I am assuming you meant the former. https://grammarist.com/usage/adverse-averse/ https://grammarist.com/usage/adverse-averse/ https://www.dictionary.com/e/adverse-vs-averse/ https://www.dictionary.com/e/adverse-vs-averse/
- bexsella 3y agoIt 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.
- warent 3y agoOh god please don't give them any ideas. Delete this ASAP
- SgtBastard 3y agoThis thread has already been ingested by OpenAI, so if not GOOG, then MSFT. I am inevitable</thanos>
- cpeterso 3y agoTo find out what happened next, check out Diablo developer David Brevik’s postmortem presentation at GDC 2016: https://youtu.be/VscdPA6sUkc https://youtu.be/VscdPA6sUkc
- pixel_tracing 3y agoHow things have deviated since Diablo 2, I’m so saddened by the lack of creativity in D4 compared to path of exile
- aliasxneo 3y agoCouldn't disagree more. Played all of them, and the story in D4 is fantastic, not to mention the amazing cinematics. Well worth the asking price.
- fargoth 3y agoThis is interesting to me, because I always figured the Diablo series was prized for its moment-to-moment gameplay, rather than for its story or cinematics.
- haint_ 3y agoWhat? The cinematics are absolutely incredible. Would definitely pay to watch a full Diablo movie.
- pixel_tracing 3y agoPretty much this +1 it was less about story or cinematics. I really enjoyed the build dynamics in D2
- bpicolo 3y agoBlizzard cinematics have always set a high bar. The WoW expansion teasers are always phenomenal.
- jimbob45 3y agoHere’s the one for Planescape: Torment if anyone is interested. https://rpgwatch.com/files/Files/00-0208/Torment_Vision_Statement_1997.pdf https://rpgwatch.com/files/Files/00-0208/Torment_Vision_Stat...
- markus_zhang 3y agoDa Fucking Plot. Nice.
- Solvency 3y agoWhat always bemuses me is how, if I were evaluating this pitch in 1994 and had absolutely zero future knowledge, I could very easily have brushed this aside with a "meh." And Diablo is one of my favorite franchises ever. It really could have flopped or just barely breezed by as a passing game. You'd never really know for sure. Leap of faith.
- kosei 3y agoIt 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 paid much more now as well. People pretend it’s the same industry but it’s evolved dramatically.
- hourago 3y agoThe results are also vastly different as the expectations, the number of platforms to support, the quality of the cut-scenes, ... and the revenue. But there are still indie games developed with such small teams. So, that is still a viable possibility.
- mikepurvis 3y agoAnd there's a massive trickle-down in terms of what very small teams are able to accomplish now by leveraging modern tools, engines, and art pipelines. It astonishes me to this day that Hollow Knight was basically developed by three people, including all the writing, art, design, and programming— there's definitely more content in that game than what passed for triple-A in the PSX era, maybe even PS2.
- hypertele-Xii 3y agoIt's easy to say "oh this modern indie game was made by only X people!" forgetting that the [open source] stack it was developed on has hundreds if not thousands of contributors. So no, Hollow Knight wasn't developed by three people "including all the programming". It uses Unity. Unity is worth billions and employs thousands of people, many of them certainly programmers. I agree though that very few people are needed nowadays for the art. With generative AI, even less. (But that's also sort of an [open source] giant to stand on the shoulders of with countless contributing artists.)
- 3y ago
- deepsun 3y ago> to spend one year in the development > one chief programmer and two junior programmer Way too modest by today standards. Also, I would say chief programmer will spend most of the time teaching juniors, unless then "junior" was what we call senior today.
- 29athrowaway 3y ago[removed]
- Rzor 3y agoIt was almost thirty years ago.
- NamTaf 3y ago“His” as the default gender pronoun is a semi-old-fashioned but very widespread convention.
- 1123581321 3y agoHis at the time meant the same thing as singular they does now.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wsc981 3y agoI think in case of most games, maybe 90% of the already audience (if not more), was male. It must have been easier to write then his/her game all the time - and also more pleasant to read. I think it makes/made perfect sense.
- winddude 3y agoone of the greatest games.
- fabiensanglard 3y agoIf 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?notRedirectToSDP=1&ref_=dbs_mng_calw_1&storeType=ebooks https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07ZQQRWS9?notRedirectToSD...). I was shocked to learn how little the dev team was financially rewarded (besides the owners).
- scruple 3y agoThanks for posting that, I didn't know these books existed. I bumped them to the front of my reading backlog. I'm always fascinated by the human stories behind these software efforts.
- chungus 3y agoThanks! 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.
- cm2012 3y agoAside: Diablo 4 is an incredible couch co-op game, the best made in ages. My wife and I are having a blast with it.
- pyinstallwoes 3y agoWait is it built in to support co op ?
- jonhohle 3y agoIt’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. Also neat to see what made it in, what didn’t, and when things that seem essential to Diablo were being discussed that early.
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoJust 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.
- notbeuller 3y agoI recalled that this made the rounds a while back - caused me to purchase the assets (again!) to play. Diablo 1 for Web Browsers(https://github.com/d07RiV/diabloweb https://github.com/d07RiV/diabloweb) 449 points|nsoonhui|10 months ago|109 comments
- diogenescynic 3y agoAre there any good books on Diablo series? I'd love to read more.
- cris007 3y agoSo, from the pitch document, it seems that the game was initially envisioned as a turn-based action-point based movement affair.
- cris007 3y ago[flagged]
- Semaphor 3y ago2020, 6 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24844666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24844666 2018, 89 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16685795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16685795 2016, 112 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11322912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11322912
- anacrolix 3y agoif you want the turn based experience like the document describes, try Castle of the Winds. Nailed it
- wewtyflakes 3y agoI loved that game (and its sequel). I have the original box!
- Anders_A 3y agoWow. This is extremely similar to what we actually got. I'm glad they ditched the turn based stuff though :).
- bobsoap 3y ago> If one of those arrows ends up killing the fighter, that character will be erased completely from the hard-drive and the player must start from scratch. Love the choice of words here. This sounds so very retro today; it's reminiscent of the early days of computing on several levels. Before savegames, before checkpoints, before cloud... there was simply the hard-drive, and you erased stuff from it. Fascinating.
- seabass-labrax 3y agoFrom the document: > The world of Diablo will have a dark, evil tone. Initial levels will be set in an abandoned Gothic church. A marble mausoleum and progressively darker, dingier crypts and catacombs follow. As someone who has been down in the crypt of an abandoned Victorian Gothic church, I can confirm that they definitely do not look like the level in Diablo does!
- 3m4r 3y agoWhat's astounding to me is how well the Diablo and Diablo II team took the design decisions that Angband made (and Brevik based Diablo on Angband, not Moria) and were able to fix almost all of them. It's actually kind of sad, that Brevik effectively stole the basic design of a FOSS game and commercialized it, but the end result is very much a better game for it. To wit, Angband is supposedly the fortress of Morgoth, but it's an empty mine where the enemies are blobs and ants for any n levels. Diablo fixed this by actually gradating the dungeon as strata rather than the same level type over and over again. They likewise reduced the monster types to thematically fit. In Angband you can still encounter level 1 monsters on the 100th dungeon level Angband had one set of artifacts (random artifact sets came later). There were and are very few that actually appear before well into mid-game. Diablo I did this, discovered that it was pretty boring and added in rares and sets in Diablo II that were accessible immediately. Angband decided to have big loot that was dropped by unique monsters, but because the drop rate was too low and the unique list too small, made "vaults" of rooms that are loaded with artifacts. Diablo II just allowed you to grind uniques with decaying drop rates, as well as adding in super monsters and chests. Angband is 100 levels of sameness. Diablo I cut it down to 16, if I remember correctly, whereas Diablo II took the 100 level formula and broke it up into three difficulties and made it a linear adventure rather than only a descent. And even though you repeat it three times, there's enough time between repetition that it feels fresh. Diablo II did the exact same thing with base items as well. In Angband, there's a dagger (1d4). From dungeon level 1 to 100, a dagger will only be 1d4. Diablo II gave you three tiers of base items that actually made using them feasible. In Angband, gold becomes useless because the stuff you can buy in town is pegged to level 1 beginner gear. Diablo I had level scaled gear gambling and Diablo II made tiers of cities with scaled equipment and also included gambling. In Angband, you can haul around 99 potions of various tiers of healing. In Diablo I/II, you are capped to what can reasonably fit into your inventory, with rapid access limited to belt size. There are dozens if not hundreds of other decisions that were the right ones to make that Diablo I/II made that Angband didn't that makes Angband look like an archaic dinosaur that deserved to have its lunch eaten. Now, Angband is still being updated, but instead of making the type of choices that Diablo made, they've been just "streamlining" it and bugfixing. The ID game is almost completely gone, you no longer sell gear in town by default, and the majority of players skip the middle 70 levels of the game. I recently added in needed quality of life improvements to a fork of Angband like DCSS-style autoexplore and tab-combat (no one seemed to actually try it) but the game needs a drastic overhaul to coopt all the improvements that Diablo I/II made on the town-dungeon-sell-loop game so that the game's player base doesn't die off completely. Currently, the only two *band games with sizable player bases are Sil-Q (a tightly designed "modern" and Tolkien-faithful Angband) and FrogComPosBand (a kitchen-sink variant), but Angband's is all but dead. Unfortunately, the current maintainer and grognard player base want to keep the design fixed roughly at the norms of 1992 with a cleaner code base. So it goes I guess. Angband: The game that invented epic loot: http://homebrewhomunculus.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-game-that-invented-epic-loot.html?m=1 http://homebrewhomunculus.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-game-that... My fork: https://github.com/3m4r/angbandv https://github.com/3m4r/angbandv
- hnbad 3y agoIt's interesting of course to see such outlandish features as the complex race/sub-class system for character creation (which was replaced with a handful of predefined distinct archetypes) or the turn-based combat system. But what strikes me most is the sales pitch: it's not intended to simply be another game, it's basically a game generator and players would be expected to buy expansion packs (what we would now call DLCs) which add a handful of things to the generator. The document even compares this to Magic The Gathering. Considering the actual game only received one (rushed) expansion and that expansion was very different in scope (offering two additional, smaller, dungeons, one new character class (including two unfinished ones left in the source code) and a handful of new features and content) this seems honestly the most surprising to me. This design document is pretty much built to sell the idea of content pack DLCs a decade ahead of their time. I wonder what finally caused the change of heart.
- Prunkton 3y agoImagine making a pitch on 8 pages contains 5 out of 7 pictures with random daemons/monsters and being overly successful with it. Damn!