We've always known from the infamous leak (courtesy of Gaming Steve) that Blizzard has been lying when they've said that D3 has only been in production for 3 years. He said things that would put its production closer to 6 or 7 years now.
My question is Why? Why bother lying about something like that?
Also, there's a few pieces of artwork that are from '06, one or two from '08 and plenty of '07s - but not a single '05. Either that year was focused on an unannounced act (and therefore unadvertised) in the game or that's the year of transition from North to Irvine.
Of course someone here knows when the North staff officially moved to Irvine and/or closed and it's most likely not in 2004 or 2005, but I'm still having a hard time figuring out what the true production timeline for this game has been.
I know the game has gone from a few years in North to a few in Irvine, but why won't Blizzard just say so? Why keep it all mysterious and hostile? I feel an unseen but certainly present tension between branches of Blizzard that no one will honestly address.
Anyway... just wondering if anyone wanted to share their insight on the closet history of Diablo 3's production, or if anyone hadn't noticed the inconsistancies between the press releases' dates and the real dates. Or if anyone cares at all.
I all the interviews I've read with the question "How long have you been working on it?" I remember them replying with something that ended with "About 3 years" and thinking to myself "What a crock of shit."
there was two major changes in art direction in the past. My guess is that they were working on story line in 2002, and art direction in 2003. Then a redirection in 2005, then the move to irving in 2006 where everything was revamped and threw a bunch more ppl on the project.
there was two major changes in art direction in the past. My guess is that they were working on story line in 2002, and art direction in 2003. Then a redirection in 2005, then the move to irving in 2006 where everything was revamped and threw a bunch more ppl on the project.
I'd like to say that this is how it probably went down.
Or very similar to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watching 240 guys talk trash about cavaliers is like two retards having a slapfight over a sippy cup.
Where did it say this was near completion sometime back?
If it was near completion and Blizzard Irving took it over; re-did it, how long could it take to be completely finished?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watching 240 guys talk trash about cavaliers is like two retards having a slapfight over a sippy cup.
Yea nothing I can find says or points to 3 years of production. The only thing that could say that would be a question about the art direction or something. Also, concept art doesn't mean it was in production. Production means actually being worked on the game itself and being supported by Blizzard.
Not to mention, who cares? Whether or not its been in production for 6 years or 3, it is what it is and the only date that really matters is when it comes out honestly.
yeah we know for fact that it was started not to long after LoD with bill roper and the blizz north team but it got scraped along with blizz north. Anything that states they've only been working on it for three years is probably them referring to reviving the project.
Maybe the answer was 3 years because the question said "how long have YOU been working on it"?
I remember Wilson saying that they scrapped the project of D3 because they didn't feel like it was Diablo.
Now let me remind you Blizzard North was working on D3 and their ideas were shot down it thats why most of them left and created Flagship studios to make their own game.
Take a good look at Hellgate London because that feel of it was the same feel of their version of D3 and why Wilson shut the doors on Diablo 3 for awhile.
It wasn't until the success of World of Warcraft which they started up again.
And by production that could just be concept art, story, laying the ground work, ect.
Thanks for the info. I didn't know any of this, and was wondering myself when the production actually started. I agree there was probably a lot of restarts on actual direction, but I'm sure they started working on the story and other things much earlier. However, if there were people working on it that long I would think there would have been a leak somewhere or other. No one can keep quiet that long. I do remember reading a trademark documentation of Blizzard trademarking the "Diablo" name again a few years back (no more than 4-5 years ago). Perhaps that was when they started working on it?
"I just got an interesting update about Diablo 3. Rumor has it that the current work on Diablo 3 was canceled and that the game is going to be completely reworked. My tipsters tell me that Blizzard North's work on the game was, to put it kindly, below expectations. While this is mildly disappointing, it's nice to know that Blizzard still so zealously guards their name."
I think the issue is not lying but just more logical explanation of D3's true development cycle. Probably following LOD Blizzard-North was working on the conceptual design of D3. Irvine didn't like what they had come up with and after a couple of years decided to scrap Blizzard North, which led to the divide.
When they say "3-4 years" their probably talking about the development cycle of the version of D3 that we see today, the one Blizzard is obviously supporting and going to finish. In TOTAL the dev cycle would be 6-7 years but in terms of this iteration of D3, 3 years is probably accurate.
Interesting how Bill Roper kinda bashed how Diablo looked (very politically, though). This probably stems from their (likely) more original darker tone to D3, which Blizz-Irvine didn't like or felt wasn't robust enough to spark the new Diablo game with, and moved development to their headquarters.
I probably would. Roper and his team created D2, one of the most acclaimed games of all time, were given the greenlight to make the sequel and then basically were told it wasn't good enough, the entire Blizz North office was closed and the divide happened.
Stupid move on Roper's part to start a new company. I understand the disagreement, but he could have done so much more with Blizzard instead of some new company where he has to etch out a place in the market. Blizz has the manpower, the financial backing and the name to make any kind of game they want, and to make it good.
^I believe that is about accurate. But Diablo 3 seems to have had stopped and restarted production on multiple occasions so who knows what if anything is left from 2001-2002 (probably nothing) and then mostly just conceptual work from 2003-2004. The bulk of the development we have seen I assume is from 2005 to now. If this is true a 2010 release seems likely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."
^I believe that is about accurate. But Diablo 3 seems to have had stopped and restarted production on multiple occasions so who knows what if anything is left from 2001-2002 (probably nothing) and then mostly just conceptual work from 2003-2004. The bulk of the development we have seen I assume is from 2005 to now. If this is true a 2010 release seems likely.
I'd tend to agree. If they decided Blizz North's version wasn't up to par, its not beyond Blizz to scrap it all and start over. Conceptual work would be the only stuff that lasted because it still represented the right ideas. The problem is that the outcome of what they developed wasn't up to par. They got the resources and they won't accept a game that isn't simply FUN and well made. Lesser companies would likely just try to make a few changes without scrapping current progress.
It's DEFINITELY not coming out in 2009 (no chance) and for it to come out in 2011 seems even long by Blizz's standards (that means pretty much 20 months more from here on), so I'm thinking mid-to-late 2010 for D3's release. Who knows though. It could easily go into 2011 if the beta test is extensive.
As long as it's a great game, I'll be good to go. I wish I was still in middle school or something, so that when D3 came out I'd be in easy ass high school and not college.
Interestingly enough, even Blizzard has proven that their numbers are flat lies in their Artwork section.
http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/_images/artwork/ss25-hires.jpg
http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/_images/artwork/ss52-hires.jpg
http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/_images/artwork/ss60-hires.jpg
All three pieces of concept art by Victor Lee, two of them date 2004 and one of them 2003.
My question is Why? Why bother lying about something like that?
Also, there's a few pieces of artwork that are from '06, one or two from '08 and plenty of '07s - but not a single '05. Either that year was focused on an unannounced act (and therefore unadvertised) in the game or that's the year of transition from North to Irvine.
Of course someone here knows when the North staff officially moved to Irvine and/or closed and it's most likely not in 2004 or 2005, but I'm still having a hard time figuring out what the true production timeline for this game has been.
I know the game has gone from a few years in North to a few in Irvine, but why won't Blizzard just say so? Why keep it all mysterious and hostile? I feel an unseen but certainly present tension between branches of Blizzard that no one will honestly address.
Anyway... just wondering if anyone wanted to share their insight on the closet history of Diablo 3's production, or if anyone hadn't noticed the inconsistancies between the press releases' dates and the real dates. Or if anyone cares at all.
Maybe I'm just wrong. Whatever.
I'd like to say that this is how it probably went down.
Or very similar to it.
Where did it say this was near completion sometime back?
If it was near completion and Blizzard Irving took it over; re-did it, how long could it take to be completely finished?
Not to mention, who cares? Whether or not its been in production for 6 years or 3, it is what it is and the only date that really matters is when it comes out honestly.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
my religion.....
I remember Wilson saying that they scrapped the project of D3 because they didn't feel like it was Diablo.
Now let me remind you Blizzard North was working on D3 and their ideas were shot down it thats why most of them left and created Flagship studios to make their own game.
Take a good look at Hellgate London because that feel of it was the same feel of their version of D3 and why Wilson shut the doors on Diablo 3 for awhile.
It wasn't until the success of World of Warcraft which they started up again.
And by production that could just be concept art, story, laying the ground work, ect.
edit: doh, posted on the wrong thread...
from 2005?
When they say "3-4 years" their probably talking about the development cycle of the version of D3 that we see today, the one Blizzard is obviously supporting and going to finish. In TOTAL the dev cycle would be 6-7 years but in terms of this iteration of D3, 3 years is probably accurate.
Interesting how Bill Roper kinda bashed how Diablo looked (very politically, though). This probably stems from their (likely) more original darker tone to D3, which Blizz-Irvine didn't like or felt wasn't robust enough to spark the new Diablo game with, and moved development to their headquarters.
I probably would. Roper and his team created D2, one of the most acclaimed games of all time, were given the greenlight to make the sequel and then basically were told it wasn't good enough, the entire Blizz North office was closed and the divide happened.
Stupid move on Roper's part to start a new company. I understand the disagreement, but he could have done so much more with Blizzard instead of some new company where he has to etch out a place in the market. Blizz has the manpower, the financial backing and the name to make any kind of game they want, and to make it good.
I'd tend to agree. If they decided Blizz North's version wasn't up to par, its not beyond Blizz to scrap it all and start over. Conceptual work would be the only stuff that lasted because it still represented the right ideas. The problem is that the outcome of what they developed wasn't up to par. They got the resources and they won't accept a game that isn't simply FUN and well made. Lesser companies would likely just try to make a few changes without scrapping current progress.
It's DEFINITELY not coming out in 2009 (no chance) and for it to come out in 2011 seems even long by Blizz's standards (that means pretty much 20 months more from here on), so I'm thinking mid-to-late 2010 for D3's release. Who knows though. It could easily go into 2011 if the beta test is extensive.
CyberPunk RP Nexus