Diablo 3 - David Brevik Comments

IncGamers interviewed ex-Blizzard North alumnus David Brevik about his current title - which we don't cover - but they also asked him about Diablo III:

IncGamers: Do you think they bought the wrong people in? As we understand, Jay Wilson, for example, his background was RTS. From our point of view it looked like they misunderstood what kept people playing, The type of loot drops, which has been a big issues. One of the other issues is they have not listened to their community, and they have not analysed what makes up that addictive Diablo experience. What are your thoughts on that?
David Brevik: Well, the loot system. They made some decisions with the loot system that were very different than the way that we did it in Diablo 2 and I think that obviously the community has been upset with some of the decisions they made. Having all of your powers work off your main weapon and things like that, to having blues that are more powerful than yellows. Eventually the auction house and how that worked, even something as simple as when you equip an item and it’s bound to your character permanently would have totally changed the dynamic of the game.
It seems odd that they have not really responded in a quick fashion to some of these things. I think they are very well aware of the problems at this point and are trying to fix some of this stuff. It’s a shame that they had to learn some of these painful lessons.

Click to expand...

This apparently lead to current Blizzard staffers responding on Facebook, including an unhappy Jay Wilson. You can read about it that at Kotaku.
More information.

On one hand, I think some of Brevik's comments are unfair. Some of the less popular design decisions are likely the result of publisher interference (which would've also happened under Brevik's watch), and he tells a strange version of history. For example, he blames Blizz for shutting down BN, but apparently forgets that he, along with the other founding staff of BN and Bill Roper, left to found Flagship. Over thirty employees left then, although only a subset went to Flagship. I guess he could still be angry at Vivendi for whatever disagreements helped steer BN's leadership (and Roper) to leave, but that has precious little to do with Blizzard (or "Blizzard South" has he strangely calls it) or the current development team.

Speaking of "Blizzard South," that whole element seems strange too. I mean.. they took Bill Roper with them to Flagship, despite the fact that he was the head honcho at Blizz. Also, the only Blizzard South attribute he even mentions is that they.. place more emphasis on story? Really? Since when? D3 really doesn't have any more story than D2.

Also, let's face it, Brevik's hasn't really wowed us lately. Nothing he's made since D2 is better than D3. Hell, I tend to think that some of Blizzard's current problems were present even before D2. I'm of a minority that remembers the lukewarm reception D2 had upon release and who thought the original was far more revolutionary.

Still, despite all of this, WTF IS UP WITH THE BLIZZ EMPLOYEE RESPONSE? I mean, yeah, you can point it out as a negative, but "Fuck that loser"!!! That's the kind of shit people get fired for, and rightly so.

Wilson has never had class, that I could see. Color me unsurprised.

killias2 said:

On one hand, I think some of Brevik's comments are unfair. Some of the less popular design decisions are likely the result of publisher interference (which would've also happened under Brevik's watch), and he tells a strange version of history. For example, he blames Blizz for shutting down BN, but apparently forgets that he, along with the other founding staff of BN and Bill Roper, left to found Flagship. Over thirty employees left then, although only a subset went to Flagship. I guess he could still be angry at Vivendi for whatever disagreements helped steer BN's leadership (and Roper) to leave, but that has precious little to do with Blizzard (or "Blizzard South" has he strangely calls it) or the current development team.

Speaking of "Blizzard South," that whole element seems strange too. I mean.. they took Bill Roper with them to Flagship, despite the fact that he was the head honcho at Blizz. Also, the only Blizzard South attribute he even mentions is that they.. place more emphasis on story? Really? Since when? D3 really doesn't have any more story than D2.

Also, let's face it, Brevik's hasn't really wowed us lately. Nothing he's made since D2 is better than D3. Hell, I tend to think that some of Blizzard's current problems were present even before D2. I'm of a minority that remembers the lukewarm reception D2 had upon release and who thought the original was far more revolutionary.

Still, despite all of this, WTF IS UP WITH THE BLIZZ EMPLOYEE RESPONSE? I mean, yeah, you can point it out as a negative, but "Fuck that loser"!!! That's the kind of shit people get fired for, and rightly so.

Click to expand...

Er what? Blizz got rid of Blizz north long before they founded flagship iirc. Blizzz south definitely placed more emphasis on story there really want much in Diablo 2. As for games not being better than D2, that was a result of publishers pehing out games before they were complete. Still though that "London" game was shit. But mythos is exceptional.

It's no secret, that the amount of people, who can take ANY kind of criticism isn't exactly large in this industry. Look no further than Bioware's biweekly butthurt antics during the release of DA2.

His criticism was pretty tempered and honest, as far as I can see. It's his "baby" - and it's hardly unexpected that he's not happy with the direction they've taken it. He could have been much, much harsher - and yet he kept it low-key.

Their response to it, however, is incredibly juvenile and weak.

They simply didn't understand the game when designing D3 - and that's all there is to it.

That said, they're learning quickly - and the upcoming 1.04 patch looks like a lesson well learned.

Sounded to me like a manager defending and promoting the values of his former studio. He can't argue with the financial success of Diablo 3 but he can say that his team would've done things differently. It was certainly a frank interview, but I didn't see a lot of direct attacks against the D3 team.

The D3 team's response, however, was highly entertaining and extremely unprofessional... as expected. Once again, the perception is that the gaming industry is run by a bunch of very intelligent but also very spoiled and angsty children... which, of course, it is.

Damian said:

Er what? Blizz got rid of Blizz north long before they founded flagship iirc. Blizzz south definitely placed more emphasis on story there really want much in Diablo 2. As for games not being better than D2, that was a result of publishers pehing out games before they were complete. Still though that "London" game was shit. But mythos is exceptional.

Click to expand...

Blizz North closed in 2005. Flagship opened in 2003. Like I said, his version of history is just weird. He makes it sound like Blizz arbitrarily decided to get rid of the whole studio, when most of the talent left because they wanted to form a new company. I'm sure disagreements with Vivendi (which, IIRC, doesn't even exist now) played a role, but I also get the sense, from comments made during and after, that there was at least some sense of "wanting to do something new."

I don't think it was a result of publishers. Hellgate basically ran out of money. They weren't told to hurry up. They just failed to budget their resources and time correctly. Although he has a few credits since Hellgate, it doesn't appear that he played a major role, and neither of the games seems like it was ever destined for greatness anyway.

In any case, I think what gets me is that, even if he and a bunch of BN came back to do Diablo 3, I honestly doubt it would be much different. The publisher (Activision) would've still pushed for certain unpopular features (always on DRM, most importantly), and people would've been angry no matter what.

Also, I honestly think people remember D2 being way better than it actually is. Have you played public multi in the last 5 years? CONSTANT bots asking to sell you gold. If you want to know why the RMAU was put into place, I seriously recommend just a few minutes of open multi on D2. People also forget the middling reviews (same MC score as D3), the constant nerfs (which you really couldn't respec to deal with), the seemingly open stat system that only allowed a few reasonable builds, and the big drop in atmosphere from Diablo 1.

Still, I greatly respect Brevik, the Schaefer brothers, and everyone else who made Diablo 1 happen. It was a revolutionary, awesome game, which created a whole genre of clones.

killias2 said:

….

Also, I honestly think people remember D2 being way better than it actually is. Have you played public multi in the last 5 years? CONSTANT bots asking to sell you gold. If you want to know why the RMAU was put into place, I seriously recommend just a few minutes of open multi on D2. People also forget the middling reviews (same MC score as D3), the constant nerfs (which you really couldn't respec to deal with), the seemingly open stat system that only allowed a few reasonable builds, and the big drop in atmosphere from Diablo 1.

Click to expand...

I don't recall D2 that fondly to be honest, but when I played on a LAN with my friends there was no need for an auction house or internet servers or a permanent connection. That was the style of play that I wanted, which D3 does not support. There is no need for a AH or anything else extraneous if you are on a LAN playing coop with your mates and simply having a good time decimating critters.

booboo said:

I don't recall D2 that fondly to be honest, but when I played on a LAN with my friends there was no need for an auction house or internet servers or a permanent connection. That was the style of play that I wanted, which D3 does not support. There is no need for a AH or anything else extraneous if you are on a LAN playing coop with your mates and simply having a good time decimating critters.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree that always-on and lack of LAN are definite negatives. The thing is, I'm guessing these aspects would be there whether BN made this or Blizz proper. The worst parts of Diablo 3 are the result of publisher interference, which is a constant, not an incompetent dev team. Honestly, the game itself is fine. I wish there were more actual RPG elements, and I think they're only now making Unique items interesting and adding an end-game. Still, it's nowhere near the mess that Brevik insinuates, especially given his lack of successful projects for, oh, ten years or so.

killias2 said:

Blizz North closed in 2005. Flagship opened in 2003. Like I said, his version of history is just weird. He makes it sound like Blizz arbitrarily decided to get rid of the whole studio, when most of the talent left because they wanted to form a new company. I'm sure disagreements with Vivendi (which, IIRC, doesn't even exist now) played a role, but I also get the sense, from comments made during and after, that there was at least some sense of "wanting to do something new."

Click to expand...

Blizzard North got scrapped because Vivendi didn't like what they were doing with Diablo 3 (which was more or less staying true to Diablo 2). This is also the reason why people say Diablo 3 has been in the makings for over a decade. And about Vivendi, it's ridiculous you would think that they don't exist now, they own most of Activision Blizzard and somewhat recently it was announced they wanted to sell their holdings. The rest of your post is gunk not worthy of highlighting.

Riddam said:

Blizzard North got scrapped because Vivendi didn't like what they were doing with Diablo 3 (which was more or less staying true to Diablo 2). This is also the reason why people say Diablo 3 has been in the makings for over a decade. And about Vivendi, it's ridiculous you would think that they don't exist now, they own most of Activision Blizzard and somewhat recently it was announced they wanted to sell their holdings. The rest of your post is gunk not worthy of highlighting.

Click to expand...

1. Actually, you're right about Vivendi. It was tangential to most of my commentary, as the publisher certainly made some bad calls regardless.

2. However, most of BN left after all of the leadership left in 2003. BN in 2005 was not the same BN that made Diablo 2. The leadership was -all- gone, and most of the mid-tier grunts and staff. It's sort of like how Infinity Ward still technically exists now.

3. I'm not sure why you're taking such offense. From the first post, I noted that Jay Wilson should probably be fired for his response, and I've consistently criticized Acti's bad choices with Diablo 3.

My argument is that the actual development team, for the most part, seems to have done a fine job, and Brevik, lacking any sort of accomplishment for ten years, is really out of line with his comments. I also thought his version of history seemed.. well.. very strange.

But, whatever. I'm some random guy on the internet, so you can be a douchebag without consequences. Savor it douchebag. Enjoy every moment of your consequence-free douchebaggery. MHMMMMMMMM!

Edit: http://www.diablopodcast.com/the-diablo-podcast-episode-one/ - According to the Max Schaefer, the early BN version of Diablo 3 was set to be an MMORPG. Also, from his re-telling, there are three distinct versions of Diablo 3: the initial version (2000-2003), which ended when they all left for Flagship; the second BN version (2003-2005), which had little overlap with the original and which had mostly new talent; and the Blizz Irvine version (2005-2012).

killias2 said:

1. Actually, you're right about Vivendi. It was tangential to most of my commentary, as the publisher certainly made some bad calls regardless.

2. However, most of BN left after all of the leadership left in 2003. BN in 2005 was not the same BN that made Diablo 2. The leadership was -all- gone, and most of the mid-tier grunts and staff. It's sort of like how Infinity Ward still technically exists now.

3. I'm not sure why you're taking such offense. From the first post, I noted that Jay Wilson should probably be fired for his response, and I've consistently criticized Acti's bad choices with Diablo 3.

My argument is that the actual development team, for the most part, seems to have done a fine job, and Brevik, lacking any sort of accomplishment for ten years, is really out of line with his comments. I also thought his version of history seemed.. well.. very strange.

But, whatever. I'm some random guy on the internet, so you can be a douchebag without consequences. Savor it douchebag. Enjoy every moment of your consequence-free douchebaggery. MHMMMMMMMM!

Edit: http://www.diablopodcast.com/the-diablo-podcast-episode-one/ - According to the Max Schaefer, the early BN version of Diablo 3 was set to be an MMORPG. Also, from his re-telling, there are three distinct versions of Diablo 3: the initial version (2000-2003), which ended when they all left for Flagship; the second BN version (2003-2005), which had little overlap with the original and which had mostly new talent; and the Blizz Irvine version (2005-2012).

Click to expand...

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.

killias2 said:

My argument is that the actual development team, for the most part, seems to have done a fine job, and Brevik, lacking any sort of accomplishment for ten years, is really out of line with his comments. I also thought his version of history seemed.. well.. very strange.

Click to expand...

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.

Ah all this drama still makes me glad I have never bought nor intend to play Diablo 3. Yes you read right I didn't bitch and moan and still buy it like many others.

Couchpotato said:

Ah all this drama still makes me glad I have never bought nor intend to play Diablo 3. Yes you read right I didn't bitch and moan and still buy it like many others.

Click to expand...

Buying it gives you perspective to bitch and moan.

Same story as always.

So in the question, the issue is said to be that the developpers did not listen to their communauty.

In the answer, the auction house feature is brought up.

The demand for an auction house came from the communauty.

The issue is not (from a gameplay's perspective, not from a business perspective) they did not listen to their communauty. The opposite. They listened to their communauty.

They were rewarded with very strong sales but in return, the game has to bear the consequences of including an auction house as an ingame feature.

Blizzard will laugh all the way to the bank. D3 is not an MMORPG so selling it and having people enjoy it short term and stop playing long term is brilliant from a business perspective.

With psychopaths like Bobby Kotick and egomaniac & arrogant pricks like Jay Willson calling the shots.. things look bad for Blizzard, then again - it's been like that for quite some time now.

On a more serious note, if any of them felt good about the design as a whole and secure in the quality of what they shipped, they wouldn't see 'insults' where they don't exist.

Cerberus said:

On a more serious note, if any of them felt good about the design as a whole and secure in the quality of what they shipped, they wouldn't see 'insults' where they don't exist.

Click to expand...

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.