Diablo 3 - David Brevik Comments

[Cerberus]

I don't think that's the case - you get passionate about your creations on things like this, and it's all too easy to see comments from ex-colleagues etc. as negative. This looks like a very human reaction to me.

That's also true. Oh well, who knows.

 

[killias2]

Yes, well. I was sitting in the toilet the other day, for some reason I had forgot I had no toilet paper and I was in the middle of taking a shit. I'll tell you what I did. I walked into the computer room ass bare, dug out my copy of Diablo 3, took the manual and went back to finish my shit.

Now I'm not saying Diablo 3 was wasted money or bad quality. I'm simply saying that for it's use it is a tad bit expensive.

Obviously, I think you're greatly overstating your case, but I'll give you bonus points for style. +10


"How exactly was he out of the line? He did not say a single thing about the game we haven't already heard elswhere. His criticisms directly echo many gamers complaints that you can read on every forum. "

Some anonymous 12 year old saying "UR GAEM IS TEH SUXXORZ" on a forum or a comment thread is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY DIFFERENT than a fellow game designer, a former coworker (for at least some of the people involved), and a former employee echoing said comments. And, yes, some of these comments are highly critical, even if they are couched in friendly rhetoric.

For example: "I am also a little happy, which I hate to say, it shows that the people that were involved in Diablo really did matter, and so I am happy that it has come to light that how talented that group was and how unique and special that group was. "

In other words, he's happy Diablo 3 isn't well liked because it shows how much better his design team was than the current design team.

Keep in mind, Diablo 3 has the same review scores as Diablo 2 (which was strongly criticized on release for instability, lack of balance, abuse/cheating, and lack of innovation). Also, the main unpopular changes (always-on, auction house) were almost certainly the result of publisher involvement, and the version of D3 he was working on in 2003 almost certainly had always-on. However, he doesn't focus on this. He attacks the design team as being so flawed and inexperienced in the genre that it shows how great his was.


Imagine if, after Hellgate came out, top Blizzard execs were like, "It makes us feel good that it failed because it showed how important our resources and management practices were to the success of Diablo 2." Would that have been cool to say? No. It would've been in INCREDIBLY bad taste, and there (rightfully) would've been a big response. But Brevik gets a pass because he's picking on everybody's favorite whipping boy, even if he's attacking the (largely competent -and- innocent) design team rather than the publisher.


Honestly, RPG Watch is all over the place. JVC gets a place of honor, despite being in charge of the F2P bastardization of Command and Conquer. Brevik's comments are taken as gold, even though he hasn't done a damn thing in 10 years. Meanwhile, Boyarsky is, what, garbage to you for working on D3?

Let's face it, if Brevik worked at Blizzard, D3 would be mostly the same, which is why this shit is so absurd to begin with.

 

[DArtagnan]

In other words, he's happy Diablo 3 isn't well liked because it shows how much better his design team was than the current design team.

You're reading things into this. He's talking about the Diablo games in particular, not the overall talent of the D3 developers.

Basically, he's saying that Blizzard South might not have been the best choice for this particular game - and that's all he's saying.

I think he's absolutely correct.

Also, he's being honest about being a little happy about the backlash against D3. Isn't it reasonable, considering he was one of the key people who invented this incredibly popular game and has lost all control of it? Of course he's happy. Most people would not be honest about it - but he says it openly. That's a million times more appealing than the usual PR bullshit line.

If you actually watch the video - you can see the interviewer bait him into being unusually frank - and that's what we're seeing.

Also, Hellgate was a fantastic core design that was marred by poor PR and an atrocious launch state. If Brevik was a lead on that game - he's got some serious design talent when it comes to the ARPG genre.

Jay Wilson strikes me as a company yes-man who can get things done as he's directed, but who doesn't understand the longterm appeal of Diablo.

 

[killias2]

You're reading things into this. He's talking about the Diablo games in particular, not the overall talent of the D3 developers.

Basically, he's saying that Blizzard South might not have been the best choice for this particular game - and that's all he's saying.

I think he's absolutely correct.

Also, he's being honest about being a little happy about the backlash against D3. Isn't it reasonable, considering he was one of the key people who invented this incredibly popular game and has lost all control of it? Of course he's happy. Most people would not be honest about it - but he says it openly. That's a million times more appealing than the usual PR bullshit line.

If you actually watch the video - you can see the interviewer bait him into being unusually frank - and that's what we're seeing.

Also, Hellgate was a fantastic core design that was marred by poor PR and an atrocious launch state. If Brevik was a lead on that game - he's got some serious design talent when it comes to the ARPG genre.

Jay Wilson strikes me as a company yes-man who can get things done as he's directed, but who doesn't understand the longterm appeal of Diablo.

I don't completely disagree with anything you're saying here. However, I think there are two main issues I have with his comments:

1. Would Diablo 3 be much different with Brevik around? Or even with old BN still in existence?

Honestly, it's hard to say, but the plan was to make it an MMORPG. So that "always-on" thing that -everybody- cites as their absolute biggest problem with D3? It would've been there regardless. Publisher involvement would've been there regardless.

His comments come off as him attacking the design team, when I think the publisher is the real source of D3's issues. I wouldn't really care at all if he was criticizing some of Blizzard's policies, especially as Vivendi's decisions led him and the other BN leadership to leave to begin with.

2. Those in glass houses...

You may agree with his comments about the D3 design team. I agree with the comment I made up in my last post about Hellgate. Hellgate almost certainly suffered due to the lack of resources the team had been used to at Blizzard.

That doesn't mean I think either set of comments are "legit" for allegedly professional developers/peers/former co-workers to throw around at one another.

Brevik is being highly critical of another product, while his only successes were made with Blizzard dollars. Sure, Diablo 1 was mostly made pre-purchase of Condor, but, by the same token, why do you think Condor was sold to Blizzard to begin with? Just for giggles?

 

[DArtagnan]

I don't completely disagree with anything you're saying here. However, I think there are two main issues I have with his comments:

1. Would Diablo 3 be much different with Brevik around? Or even with old BN still in existence?

Honestly, it's hard to say, but the plan was to make it an MMORPG. So that "always-on" thing that -everybody- cites as their absolute biggest problem with D3? It would've been there regardless. Publisher involvement would've been there regardless.

I think Hellgate represents what Diablo 3 was supposed to have been - in terms of the design paradigm.

Vivendi was unhappy with that - so that couldn't happen.

Obviously, if they had still been with Blizzard - we'd be in an alternate reality where they'd be completely different people.

His comments come off as him attacking the design team, when I think the publisher is the real source of D3's issues. I wouldn't really care at all if he was criticizing some of Blizzard's policies, especially as Vivendi's decisions led him and the other BN leadership to leave to begin with.

He's being asked upfront what he thinks about Diablo 3 - and the interviewer is goating him into being undiplomatic. He's being open about his issues with Diablo 3 - and yet he tempers his criticism.

I can only say Blizzard should be very happy I wasn't the one being asked

That doesn't mean I think either set of comments are "legit" for allegedly professional developers/peers/former co-workers to throw around at one another.

I don't live in this world where you can't be honest because you might hurt the feelings of your former co-workers. Honesty is the way to go - pretty much always.

Brevik is being highly critical of another product, while his only successes were made with Blizzard dollars. Sure, Diablo 1 was mostly made pre-purchase of Condor, but, by the same token, why do you think Condor was sold to Blizzard to begin with? Just for giggles?

Who cares about his successes? Do I need to be successful to have an informed opinion about games? What matters is my knowledge and experience - not how much money a product I've been involved with has made. What a pointless standard that says nothing about design competence.

If an opinion is uninformed or deceitful - that's a problem, and then you respond with intelligent and logical arguments.

But if an opinion is informed and honest - then that's the best we can get, and we're talking about the creator of Diablo talking about a Diablo sequel that's facing a very serious backlash by the core fans.

His comments are as legit as any comment is likely to get in the media.

 

[killias2]

"I think Hellgate represents what Diablo 3 was supposed to have been - in terms of the design paradigm.

Vivendi was unhappy with that - so that couldn't happen.
"

From what I've read in interviews with the Schaefers and Brevik, Diablo 3 was looking to become an MMORPG version of Diablo 2. Hellgate more-or-less was an attempt to innovate the action-RPG space and try to retake the crown.


"Who cares about his successes? Do I need to be successful to have an informed opinion about games? What matters is my knowledge and experience - not how much money a product I've been involved with has made. What a pointless standard that says nothing about design competence."

I guess my main issue is this: he suggests that he would've done better, and I don't see any evidence that suggests that. Sure, he was involved with Diablo 1 and Diablo 2, but that only means so much. LoD came out 11 years ago. I mean, over the same period, Bioware went from BGII to DAII. At some point, you need to prove that you still have it (or that you ever had it to begin with), -especially if you're openly claiming to be capable of doing a better job-.


"But if an opinion is informed and honest - then that's the best we can get, and we're talking about the creator of Diablo talking about a Diablo sequel that's facing a very serious backlash by the core fans."

Not all informed and honest opinions should be freely shared. Again, if Blizzard responded to the failure of Hellgate with a "It makes us feel good that it failed because it showed how important our resources and management practices were to the success of Diablo 2," that would've been informed and honest of them. However, that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been entirely rude and disrespectful.

 

[DArtagnan]

From what I've read in interviews with the Schaefers and Brevik, Diablo 3 was looking to become an MMORPG version of Diablo 2. Hellgate more-or-less was an attempt to innovate the action-RPG space and try to retake the crown.

I was talking about the design paradigm - and Hellgate WAS an action RPG "MMO" - at least that's how they tried to market it and it had an optional subscription for extra content.

I guess my main issue is this: he suggests that he would've done better, and I don't see any evidence that suggests that. Sure, he was involved with Diablo 1 and Diablo 2, but that only means so much. LoD came out 11 years ago. I mean, over the same period, Bioware went from BGII to DAII. At some point, you need to prove that you still have it (or that you ever had it to begin with), -especially if you're openly claiming to be capable of doing a better job-.

Ehm, what more do you need than Diablo, Diablo 2 and Hellgate? YOU may not think much of those games - but I certainly do.

Brevik was talking about design choices - not production values or polish. Hellgate is vastly superior to Diablo 3 in terms of design, but it was marred by poor PR and a very bad launch state. You can blame Brevik (as a designer) for that - if you want, but I wouldn't.

Most fans seem to think Diablo 2 is clearly superior to Diablo 3. Are you saying Brevik can't opine that Blizzard North would have made a different game that THEY would have liked better? He's saying that the fan response is such that maybe his team would have been better for the franchise. I'm not sure what more he needs to be allowed to have that opinion.

Not all informed and honest opinions should be freely shared. Again, if Blizzard responded to the failure of Hellgate with a "It makes us feel good that it failed because it showed how important our resources and management practices were to the success of Diablo 2," that would've been informed and honest of them. However, that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been entirely rude and disrespectful.

This is where we disagree in a very big way. I WANT honest opinions when people are asked to give it. I WANT to know the truth - instead of "respectful" PR bullshit.

If Blizzard thinks Hellgate sucks and it makes them feel good, I WANT to know that - not some political lie.

You can call it "not very smart" to be honest - because people are fickle and they don't respond well to "disrespectful" remarks even when not knowing shit about the background for those remarks.

But I think that's where people are wrong - not the honest remark being responded to by people.

 

[killias2]

"You can blame Brevik (as a designer) for that - if you want, but I wouldn't."

Designers aren't just supposed to design great things. They're also supposed to be realistic. All creative endeavors involve weighing ambition against reality. Whether or not you think there was potential, game design problems were -central- to Hellgate's failure. If they had designed a game slightly more in line with Flagship's resources and capabilities, Flagship could still be around right now.


"Most fans seem to think Diablo 2 is clearly superior to Diablo 3. Are you saying Brevik can't opine that Blizzard North would have made a different game that THEY would have liked better?"

Like I said, between D2 and D3's launches, Bioware went from making BGII to DAII. This is despite having much of the same leadership and core staff, and while Bioware went through a -suspiciously similar- process as Blizz (with EA instead of Acti). BN was great and all 12 years ago, but I'm not going to jump to the assumption that they'd make a kick ass sequel just because it seems to make sense to fans of the series, especially as the single least popular aspect of D3 was going to be present regardless (always-on DRM).


I'd be a lot more open to the idea that Brevik could make a better game.. if he had any sort of record of achievement post-Blizzard.


At the end of the day, I think hardcore gamers have -tons- of misconceptions about game designers and game quality. I mean, let me ask you this: how many classic PC game designers (i.e. - 80's and 90's) can you think of that have made an unambiguously GREAT game in the last 5 or 6 years?

Sid Meier? No. Boyarsky? No. Brevik? No. Schaefer bros? No (sorry Torchlight fans, TL2 may click, but TL1 was mediocre at best). Gollop brothers? No. Bioware? At best, DAO, but probably a no. Jon Van Canegham? No.

Your best bets are all over at Obsidian because FNV was bitchin'.

The fact of the matter is that neither game development studios nor game developers age in a way that hardcore gamers understand. BN, circa 2012, would not be the same BN that made D2 -even if it had most of the same core talent-. Why? Because the core talent went from late twenty-somethings and early-thirty-somethings with passion and fire and a desire to have an impact… to forty-somethings looking for a 9-5 and a weekly paycheck.


Edit:
"If Blizzard thinks Hellgate sucks and it makes them feel good, I WANT to know that - not some political lie."

Alright, well, there you go. Jay Wilson et al. just gave a pretty open, honest opinion about Hellgate and Dave Brevik. I personally think it was rude, disrespectful and out of line, but you get what you ask for.

 

[drae]

Your best bets are all over at Obsidian because FNV was bitchin'.

No, just no. Your best bet is with DA:O. FNV was better than Fallout 3, but in no way was it a great game. Obsidian's been pretty disappointing actually.

 

[Drithius]

No, just no. Your best bet is with DA:O. FNV was better than Fallout 3, but in no way was it a great game. Obsidian's been pretty disappointing actually.

Will never understand people's high praise of DA:O. Beyond the first hour or two of a character's origin story, it was just the same hackneyed story-telling that we've come to expect from Bioware (but with far fewer skills and enemy types than their D&D work).

Nice to see mention of Hellgate in this thread. The game had so much potential; a couple more months of design time + some meatier sound effects would have gone a long way. Even so, it kept my interest far longer than D3.

 

[drae]

Will never understand people's high praise of DA:O. Beyond the first hour or two of a character's origin story, it was just the same hackneyed story-telling that we've come to expect from Bioware (but with far fewer skills and enemy types than their D&D work).

In terms of story-telling ability Bioware are without peer in the Western market.

 

[Drithius]

To each their own; I've been bored with all their releases since Jade Empire.

 

[DArtagnan]

Designers aren't just supposed to design great things. They're also supposed to be realistic. All creative endeavors involve weighing ambition against reality. Whether or not you think there was potential, game design problems were -central- to Hellgate's failure. If they had designed a game slightly more in line with Flagship's resources and capabilities, Flagship could still be around right now.

So, you're saying a designer should be able to predict the future as well as any and all future problems with development and resource limitations, including audience response to marketing and payment options?

I see.

Like I said, between D2 and D3's launches, Bioware went from making BGII to DAII. This is despite having much of the same leadership and core staff, and while Bioware went through a -suspiciously similar- process as Blizz (with EA instead of Acti). BN was great and all 12 years ago, but I'm not going to jump to the assumption that they'd make a kick ass sequel just because it seems to make sense to fans of the series, especially as the single least popular aspect of D3 was going to be present regardless (always-on DRM).

What has your opinion of what BN is capable of got to do with Brevik's opinion? I don't understand that.

He's in a pretty good position to estimate what he and his former co-workers would have been capable of. In fact, he's probably one the best people in the world to estimate that.

He was asked his opinion about Diablo 3 - and how he would have done it differently.

You're basically saying he can't speak about that - because YOU don't necessarily believe he'd do what he thinks he'd do.

Do you have any idea how unreasonable that sounds?

I'd be a lot more open to the idea that Brevik could make a better game.. if he had any sort of record of achievement post-Blizzard.

He's not talking about a better game - but a different game that might be better for the intended audience. Also, he's not saying he's absolutely certain he would make a better game - he's just giving his opinion of what he'd have done, and he'd already done a lot of it back with the original D3 design. Basically, he's ALREADY done what you're asking for.

At the end of the day, I think hardcore gamers have -tons- of misconceptions about game designers and game quality. I mean, let me ask you this: how many classic PC game designers (i.e. - 80's and 90's) can you think of that have made an unambiguously GREAT game in the last 5 or 6 years?

I think all gamers have misconceptions about game designers and each have their own opinion about game quality.

There are no unambiguosly great games in the world. It's all down to opinion and personal preferences.

If you want to hear MY opinion of great games by experienced designers in the past few years - then here are a few examples off the top of my head:

Skyrim
Hellgate London
Risen
Secret World
Civilization 4
Company of Heroes
Mass Effect

Of course, all that is completely irrelevant - but there you go.

Sid Meier? No. Boyarsky? No. Brevik? No. Schaefer bros? No (sorry Torchlight fans, TL2 may click, but TL1 was mediocre at best). Gollop brothers? No. Bioware? At best, DAO, but probably a no. Jon Van Canegham? No.

So, you're bringing up a few names of people who haven't made a game to your satisfaction in a few years - and you expect this to be some kind of support for your increasingly vague point?

Your best bets are all over at Obsidian because FNV was bitchin'.

I thought it was average, but that's just me.

The fact of the matter is that neither game development studios nor game developers age in a way that hardcore gamers understand. BN, circa 2012, would not be the same BN that made D2 -even if it had most of the same core talent-. Why? Because the core talent went from late twenty-somethings and early-thirty-somethings with passion and fire and a desire to have an impact… to forty-somethings looking for a 9-5 and a weekly paycheck.

I find your theory interesting and agree with some of it, but I have to say the way you present it as a fact that tranlsates directly to the impossibility of the people involved still being capable of creating a game that THEY like better than D3 - is incredibly weak - and about as unconvincing as it can be.

But you're right that people change and a lot of people can't retain the same level of passion as they had in their youth. But I have no idea why that means Brevik can't honestly state his opinion about what HE would have done. It's not like he's asked for a guarentee that would convince someone like you.

Alright, well, there you go. Jay Wilson et al. just gave a pretty open, honest opinion about Hellgate and Dave Brevik. I personally think it was rude, disrespectful and out of line, but you get what you ask for.

It wasn't articulated in a convincing way - and came off as petty lashing out, very much unlike Brevik's reasonably detailed explanation of what he'd have done differently.