I think the jump from D2 to D3 is closer than the jump from D1 to D2. So to answer your question... yes?
That wasn't the question.
He asked if the transition from D1 -> D3 would have been more seamless, than D1->D2
I never played D1, so I have no idea. I thought about playing it once, but the graphics were so terrible I instantly turned it off.
Diablo 1 was one of the best looking games when it came out, absolutely stunning to look at. I'm playing an old game now called Grim Fandango, sure it looks like crap by today's standards but it is still a great game.
each game was different, an expansion is meant to relate to the previous one like d2 and d2 lod, but d1 to d2 and d2 to d3 you're comparing 3 different games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you don't have a TV, then what is all your furniture pointed at?"
I think the jump from D2 to D3 is closer than the jump from D1 to D2. So to answer your question... yes?
That wasn't the question.
He asked if the transition from D1 -> D3 would have been more seamless, than D1->D2
I never played D1, so I have no idea. I thought about playing it once, but the graphics were so terrible I instantly turned it off.
Diablo 1 was one of the best looking games when it came out, absolutely stunning to look at. I'm playing an old game now called Grim Fandango, sure it looks like crap by today's standards but it is still a great game.
Well when I thought about playing D1, it was a good a year or more after D2 LoD came out, so it was quite old by then. I never even played the original D2, I started off with LoD.
I just looked it up and D2 LoD came out almost exactly 3 years after D1. So I was looking at the game about 4-5 years after it was released. The thing is that computing power increases exponentially, and at the time of D1 graphics were still in their infancy. In contrast, I can play D2 LoD now, nearly a decade after its release and although the graphics are bad its still quite playable. Eventually games will get to the point where years won't seem to make much improvements graphically speaking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One is never hurt by being given additional choices, only by taking them away. A QUADRILLION MAGIC FIND is worthless if you can't kill shit!
I think the jump from D2 to D3 is closer than the jump from D1 to D2. So to answer your question... yes?
That wasn't the question.
He asked if the transition from D1 -> D3 would have been more seamless, than D1->D2
I never played D1, so I have no idea. I thought about playing it once, but the graphics were so terrible I instantly turned it off.
Diablo 1 was one of the best looking games when it came out, absolutely stunning to look at. I'm playing an old game now called Grim Fandango, sure it looks like crap by today's standards but it is still a great game.
Well when I thought about playing D1, it was a good a year or more after D2 LoD came out, so it was quite old by then. I never even played the original D2, I started off with LoD.
I play LoD, but when it first came out I hated it. The original had a certain balance to it. No runes, no runewords, no charms; just good old rares, sets, and uniques!
Honestly it's all the same continuing story, so it doesn't really matter ultimately.
But, yes, I would agree that Diablo 3 is a much closer brethren than D2 is to D1. Diablo 3 is, I feel, the pinnacle of the entire series. It brings together all the best features from both titles (maybe even a cow level?), whilst leaving out the tacky ones and even adding in it's own new twists. Diablo 2 seemed to have forgotten it's roots and really tried to be the better game, pushing D1 aside like an old toy. With this new release upon us, it feels like we'll finally be able to enjoy that classic Diablo gameplay we know and love. Dark levels, eerie music, and horrific demons to smash.
It's sad to think that such an amazing story will come to an end with this release.
Meh. I've adored the entire series and expansion (even Hellfire was fun). Diablo 3 will be no different. Each game has its own unique charm and style. Diablo was "the first", with just 3 classes, a small town, and a very basic combat system. Diablo 2 added skill trees and classes with more of a niche. Frankly what I love the most about Diablo3 is how they've scrapped the idea of Attack and Immunities. Attack was just horrible, I hated whiffing left and right, it did not feel heroic. And immunities! Ugh! Don't get me started.
Playing any physical class was just a pain in the ass early levels, especially in Diablo 2, unless you twinked the hell out of that character, which required you to roll a Sorc and farm Nightmare Mephisto over and over. And then runewords came and just made the game absolutely insane in late levels.
Actually, I read that on the old Blizzard forum, not certain about the source. Vivendi did sack the North team, they didn't leave on their own volition.
Right, no link or source. And another repeat of the bizarre claims that "vivendi" (as if a global conglomerate that included french water rights, a giant cable channel and african cell phone companies was a person) reached through 3 layers of management, over the heads of Irvine execs, a full 9 months after WoW had been established as a smash hit with over 3 million subs at that point. Got it.
...
What I find particularly funny about this grouping of brain-dead memes is the associated idea that the remaining people at Blizzard were somehow responsible for the success of the earlier games, yet they haven't released anything except shinier versions of games released back when those older devs were still around and Clinton was still in office. I don't know if that qualifies as "irony", or just stupidity on the part of the fanbois.
http://www.diablowik...ory#cite_note-5
There you go, now you can die happy.
If you'll read interviews by Roper and the 'Big Four', you'd know that they wanted a say in what Vivendi did with the company, and that's the main reason they were dissolved. Then again, you don't believe a company that owns another has a say in it's comings or goings, so there's just no discussing this with you.
Swingin' Ape was bought out in 2005, and we haven't seen a game from this team... yet. It was soon after this that Project Titan supposedly went into development, and at a stage they were supposedly working on more titles, most were cancelled for not being up to standard. If you followed BlizzCon you'd know this. And you you're also making assumptions that the team was closed down, then again you favor spewing insults, so I guess having a rational discussion just doesn't function in your world.
Oh yes, we are bashing screenshots, but can you explain why Blizzard scrapped everything North did on Diablo 3, choosing to start fresh. They kept nothing, If their D3 was such a gem, then why not keep it, or at least the majority of the structure. Yeah, that's right, because the fact remains that it just wasn't that great.
You know what I find particularly funny, it's that you accuse the company of rehashing old games with shinier graphics, and yet the rumors released by Chris Hartgraves indicated that they were going the way of WoW, make it more of an MMO, and Max Schaefer confirmed that they were making it more of an MMO, so it's not that much of a stretch. And those screenshots makes one believe that they were doing D3 in more of a 3D kinda way. So they were going the way of WoW. Yet D3 is really pushing the bar, some even cry that it's no longer anything like D2. So no, it's not a rehashed product with shinier graphics.
So I don't know if ironic that the last part of your statement was a contradiction or blatant stupidity that your brain-dead insults have no ground, but firstly D3 stands as an evolution on the Diablo system so no its not just a shiny new coat, and secondly, Blizzard wanted nothing to do with the old D3, which does raise a great deal of suspicion, and lastly, they were going to turn D3 into an MMO with communities and guilds and possibly even mounts, kinda like WoW. No thank you.
So I don't know if ironic that the last part of your statement was a contradiction or blatant stupidity that your brain-dead insults have no ground
So, from your post, we gather:
- Vivendi directly stepped in and made decisions over the heads of bliz execs about how to run their subsidiaries
- The events in 2003 are more or less the same as ones a little more than two years later in this regards
- The cash-geyser struck in late 2004 didn't give Irvine any different relationship with Vivendi
- "Face-saving" statements by the flagshippers should be taken at face value
- Swingin-Ape may still "make a game" - the fact that their offices were literally emptied out as of the end of 2005 is just a detail...
- A probable portfolio image from a single artist is just as good as an actual in-game screenshot for representative purposes
- There's a connection between Swingin' Ape and Titan (oh yeah... they definitely wanted to staff Titan with those guys... because "ratchet and clank" is really the template. That or an arcade speedboat game...)
- Rumours from Chris Hartgraves are a great source
- Max Schaefer has a lot of insight into what the team was up to two years after he left
- D3 was going to have mounts, until cooler heads prevailed.
Thanks for the recap! And all the links that aren't just a compendium put together by Flux and Rushster in a few minutes.
- Vivendi directly stepped in and made decisions over the heads of bliz execs about how to run their subsidiaries
- The events in 2003 are more or less the same as ones a little more than two years later in this regards
- The cash-geyser struck in late 2004 didn't give Irvine any different relationship with Vivendi
- "Face-saving" statements by the flagshippers should be taken at face value
- Swingin-Ape may still "make a game" - the fact that their offices were literally emptied out as of the end of 2005 is just a detail...
- A probable portfolio image from a single artist is just as good as an actual in-game screenshot for representative purposes
- There's a connection between Swingin' Ape and Titan (oh yeah... they definitely wanted to staff Titan with those guys... because "ratchet and clank" is really the template. That or an arcade speedboat game...)
- Rumours from Chris Hartgraves are a great source
- Max Schaefer has a lot of insight into what the team was up to two years after he left
- D3 was going to have mounts, until cooler heads prevailed.
Thanks for the recap! And all the links that aren't just a compendium put together by Flux and Rushster in a few minutes.
Have a drink for me.
So, I gave link, and now it's not good enough...
Yes, Vivendi did step in, or what's you're explanation as to what happened? Was the Diablo that North worked on so mind-blowing, the team feared it was just too good for the public, so they disbanded? If not, then what? Read the news reports on what happened with Blizzard North, since you don't believe wikipedia, hopefully the countless other articles will persuade you. Vivendi were making executive decisions in the company, which is why North stood up to them and has since disbanded. In the end, Vivendi merged with Activision to now form Activision Blizzard, it was their choice, or do you presume Blizzard had a huge say in any of it?
A few guys from the North team did merge with Blizzard, but look up the rest of the scattered employees' accomplishments:
Flagship made that mess of a game Hellgate London, then they went on to Runic Games to make Torchlight, a game that's virtually Diablo without Diablo himself in it. Castaway and Hyborial died even before their first games came out. The only employees who found success elsewhere are the few who're working on Guild Wars, so kudos to them.
Now it forces one wonder why all of this happened. Was Blizzard responsible for the team's success, or were the first two Diablo games merely flukes.
Still, you're saying that Blizzard had no hand in the success of Diablo. You're saying that if they never stepped in and Diablo came out in claymation and was turn based, then the game would have met the same success it's met today?
You're also saying Swinging Ape never did anything inside the company, never participated in any of the now cancelled titles, and you're definitely alluding that they're not involved in Titan? Alright, based on what, an assumption? So, I can't make assumptions, but you're qualified to do so. Do you have proof that none of the Swinging Ape employees found work at Blizzard, not working on any Blizzard product, or are in fact not working on Titan?
Perhaps Hartgraves may not be the most reputable source, but now you're trying to discredit Schaefer?
I don't know what point you're trying to make there, but in the Schaefer interview, they were referring to what North was busy with before they disbanded. The time he said it doesn't matter because he was talking in hindsight of what they were working on, so I'd damn well hope he has insight into what North was doing.
Schaefer (if you want to believe what an actual North team lead has to say) did confirm that the game was going into MMO territory, the screenshots showed a 3D game world (much like any MMO), and Hartgraves (even before the Schaefer interview) said the game would have MMO tropes. So, I'm saying that I'm doing more than forming assumptions, I'm drawing conclusions. Then again, I'm not allowed to form assumptions.
So, no thanks, I let hotheaded people do their own drinking.
Yes, Vivendi did step in, or what's you're explanation as to what happened?...since you don't believe wikipedia, hopefully the countless other articles will persuade you. Vivendi were making executive decisions in the company, which is why North stood up to them and has since disbanded.
Can you find a single source that isn't from someone on the flagship side about "Vivendi stepping in". I know you're a little confused - you've mixed up events going all the way from early 2000 to late 2007 here - but did you maybe think that as of the release of WoW, a title already showing signs of being the most profitable game ever, they would let Blizzard make their own decisions?
In the end, Vivendi merged with Activision to now form Activision Blizzard, it was their choice, or do you presume Blizzard had a huge say in any of it?
Uh, yeah, I think they were given a ton of money to go a long with it. In fact, I know they were - ATVI is public, as are all those deals, mostly in K-1s. I don't know if you're familiar with them.
A few guys from the North team did merge with Blizzard, but look up the rest of the scattered employees' accomplishments:
Flagship made that mess of a game Hellgate London, then they went on to Runic Games to make Torchlight, a game that's virtually Diablo without Diablo himself in it.
OK - you're describing about ten guys from a team of sixty, and then only two guys from that team that went on to runic.
Castaway and Hyborial died even before their first games came out. The only employees who found success elsewhere are the few who're working on Guild Wars, so kudos to them.
Now it forces one wonder why all of this happened.
Oh yeah - it definitely forces one wonder. Why they not make glorious game for benefit of all Diablo fan? If you weren't mixing up the arena.net guys, who were never at North and left in 2000 with people that left in 2002, 2003, 2005, etc etc... I would take this a little more seriously. But, sure, not having all the luck, timing and elements to keep an independent studio alive definitely means that you're a horrible coder/artist/designer, as is everyone you ever worked with. Solid logic.
Still, you're saying that Blizzard had no hand in the success of Diablo. You're saying that if they never stepped in and Diablo came out in claymation and was turn based, then the game would have met the same success it's met today?
The "claymation" meme is beyond stupid. Almost one hundred people worked on the core North team. One remains. You think maybe that kind of insulting silliness - which has absolutely no source on the North side which you'll find, because it doesn't exist - has something to do with it?
You're also saying Swinging Ape never did anything inside the company, never participated in any of the now cancelled titles, and you're definitely alluding that they're not involved in Titan? Alright, based on what, an assumption? So, I can't make assumptions, but you're qualified to do so.
Yeah, I am, though that really isn't saying much. Do you know what their background was? Do you know the kind of elite, senior person on the MMO? Yeah, it's a powerboat game. In space. Work with your facebook buddies and get better power boats.
Do you have proof that none of the Swinging Ape employees found work at Blizzard, not working on any Blizzard product, or are in fact not working on Titan?
Uh oh... kid genius is accidentally pondering the idea that maybe North's closure had more to do with management resources and other projects than the quality of their work! Broken clocks and all that.
Schaefer (if you want to believe what an actual North team lead has to say) did confirm that the game was going into MMO territory,
And maybe an "always online" game with persistent characters seems an awful like an MMO - especially from the design perspective of 2002. But, of course, D3 didn't end up being li... wait, nevermind.
the screenshots showed a 3D game world (much like any MMO), and Hartgraves (even before the Schaefer interview) said the game would have MMO tropes. So, I'm saying that I'm doing more than forming assumptions, I'm drawing conclusions.
Yes, you're drawing conclusions that the leaked screenshots-which-are-not-screenshots are an MMO. "Screenshots" that don't show a single NPC, and never show more than one player character at a time. But where's the mounts? Brilliant!
The thought has served me well, it allowed me to judge Diablo 3 for what it is, rather than compared to Diablo 1 or 2. Otherwise I would feel disappointment instead of anticipating a pleasant time together with friends.
That's a smart approach, and impossible to argue with. It's a 99% different team, with a development cycle a full dozen years later, and should be enjoyed as its own creation. It probably would be an even better game without the attempt to shoehorn things in like Cain, Exocet, etc, but those are all just frosting on the cake.
Kid genius you say...
You know, it would be easier to converse with you as if you're an actual human being were you not vomiting insults like such a condescending manner. Then again, have you ever conducted yourselves civil in any form of discussion or debate, or do you always insult people to make you feel like your winning an argument?
http://www.gamespot....d-north-6030882
The article is sourced from Routers, dating back to 2003. As you can see, Vivendi stated that they were looking to sell Blizzard, which affected the employees directly. Or do you even trust Vivendi on this? No one knows exactly why the merger happened, it surprised a lot of people. There's no point in speculating, but the point still stands, two major companies made a huge deal, so why do you think Blizzard -- just one of the companies owned by Vivendi -- had any say in this. Clearly North had issues with "Vivendi Universal's public efforts to sell its game division, including Blizzard", which happened even before the merger, and as the North guys said, they wanted a say and that didn't work out. Like Vivendi stated, it made the North team unhappy, so clearly they had no say in it, so they disbanded. It can't get clearer than that.
I may have overestimated the importance of the employees who went to ANet, they were merely doing some programming on Diablo. What I find funny though is how you give acclaim to all of the employees involved. They didn't call the lead designers the 'Big Four' for nothing, you know. They were the heart and soul of Diablo 2. That's why people followed Flagship so intently. Castaway studios actually had 13 of the North employees, yet they received almost no attention. The reason so few people cared about them was because, although they had a hand in creating D2, they weren't in charge of the vision that was carried out in D2. That was up to the lead designers, which is why people followed the Big Four, and not Chris the artist or Doug the programmer, not because they were bad, but because they didn't represent the heart and soul of Diablo.
The fact still remains, Castaway and Hyborial had some artists and programmers from North, and both studios fell through. Flagship had the heart of the North team and Hellgate was horrible. I am actually curious what went wrong here, and I mean that sincerely so please keep your forked tongue comments in check.
So, are you now discrediting the early claymation designs (hows it a meme??). So, in the 15th anniversary video of Diablo, that whole part about it being claymation is s lie, in your opinion? That doesn't even make any sense. You seem a bit overly paranoid to me, like a conspiracy hunter. Well, this is no conspiracy. It's in a documentary showing the history of Diablo, what more proof is needed?
Are you kidding me? If a game always needs to be online, then it may as well be an MMO? Assassins Creed 2 has multiplayer and requires a persistent online connection, does that then make it an MMO. D3 is less of an MMO than GW and even ANet is reluctant to call GW an MMO. D3 has max four players per game, so where is the massively part exactly? "Especially in the design perspective of 2002?" MMOs did exist in 2002, or are you saying the designers back then didn't know the difference between a true MMO like Everquest and an instanced game like GW, or even D2 for that matter?
Alright, previously you said the screenshots were still very early on, pre-Alpha, and doesn't reflect the product, now you're asking where the NPCs and other PCs are? That's quite a contradiction. Those are shots from a very, very unfinished product, so why would they include complicated mechanics like NPCs, or even mounts(why the hell would they implement mounts that early in development)? Schaefer (a guy who actually worked on the early D3 build) did say they were planning to go into a larger open MMO setting, so guild houses, or even mounts, wouldn't seem a stretch to be included in future builds, since these are MMO concepts.
Glad to see you're so interested in learning about the subject, and you write really well in English, considering it isn't your first language.
But if you believe that those 4 guys were "the heart and soul of Diablo", and that the claymation is anything but a stupid dig, completing your education on the subject may well be impossible. Notice how there isn't a single person from the Diablo core team in that 15 year video? Of about 80 guys, no one bothered to be interviewed, least of all the guys comprising the "heart and soul of Diablo".
You may also want to learn the difference between a portfolio shot and a true screenshot - this would be the third time I've tried to help you there. And the difference between an anonymous, unattributed quote and a company statement, while you're at it.
I feel like you've made some progress, slow as it may be. Keep it up!
... completing your education ... I feel like you've made some progress ...
Wow, that's quite a smug attitude you have there. Do you perhaps enjoy the smell of your own farts?
So, it seems you admit that Vivendi did lay off North, the scattered ex-Northers struggled to recapture the fire of D2, and D3 isn't really an MMO. I fail to see the 'progress' you're making here, so state it however you will, if it pleases you, but your education appears to be working the other way around.
Still you persist on berating the claymation video and the screenshots. No, it's not a portfolio shot, this isn't a modelling agency. Calling them early promo or pre-alpha shots, or even early gameplay renders would be more apt. Though call it whatever you like, this wont change the fact that the stills were intended to reflect what D3 was supposed to represent, and they were lukewarm at best. Dancing around whatever you name it doesn't change that.
The reason the Big Four were never represented in the video is something we don't know. It could be because Blizzard created a company specific video, made by Blizzard employees, and the Big Four were no longer Blizzard employees. The small video wasn't made by an external source, it wasn't an outsider documentary, so it only makes sense that they didn't include people who no longer worked at the company.
Or it could be because the Four departed with bad blood staining their relations with Vivendi, and approaching them might have cause friction between Vivendi and Blizzard. Or the Big Four were asked to be a part of it, but declined due to the reason stated in my previous point.
Maybe, Blizzard didn't ask them for their opinions because the Four were responsible for Hellgate London, the most disgusting atrocity in recent RPG memory. We don't know, it could be anything.
I wish I never brought up Hartgraves, but it's odd how you keep hammering on this one, single point, while Schaefer (you remember, the guy who worked on D3, at that time) has stated that when they were laying the ground work for D3, they were intent to create an MMO environment. So, hammer on about mounts in futility and ignore what the legitimate ex-employee said. Nonetheless, if North did end up creating D3, then it would have featured large open environments filled with rampaging players, stealing kills and PKing however they saw fit, not to mention it would have been online as well. So, it's funny how you're comparing the current (instanced) D3 and WoW, since North's open world concept sounds far more like WoW than the actual D3 we're getting in less than two weeks.
Seems like you're grasping at straws. Ignoring Schaefer's comments to rather focus on Hartgraves, focusing on the fact that the sceenshot is actually an early rendering, or denying the claymation fact just because the original designers weren't invited to a company they left on bad terms to talk about a project they no longer have any part in.
As fun as these exchanges are, I find it rather vexing, and I think we can agree that we're at an impasse. You find cover-ups, lies and secrets in everything you're told, while I consider what Blizzard tells us and choose to believe it.
I consider Diablo 2 to be the sequel to Diablo 1. I do not consider Diablo 3 to be a sequel to either, it's a separate game that just happens to be made by the same company and with a similar name.
It's not that it's not a nice game, it is one. I just don't consider it as good as the former 2 (compared to their release time) and different enough that it's simply not the sequel.I still plan on enjoying it though.
Huh???
Diablo III has taken as long as it has because (I believe) Blizzard have taken the best parts of the previous two games, and mixed them all together with a whole lot more content and lore. And also because of the amount of effort that has been put into detailing the story. Such amounts of detail cannot be slapped together in the amount of time that it took to go from D1 to D2 (4 years?).
Too many people think D3 started in 2008, when in fact, if you look at some of the early concept artwork, you can see development started as far back as 2003!
I also do not believe that D3 is as good as D1 or D2. It's way better!, in more ways than can be put forth in this post without creating a wall of text.
One point I will make is that Old Tristram in D3 looks more like Tristram did in D1 than that "Squared Off" town in D2.
I had more fun in the 19+ hours playing the D3 open beta than I ever did in the 11 years playing D2 and it's expansion. And all the while I even found some subtle and not-so-subtle references to both D1 and D2. If the Beta could impress me so, then I think the final release is going to be positively astounding!
Anyone who claims D3 is not a sequel to either D1 or D2, is either lying or just not telling the truth. Diablo 3 should rather be named Diablo3., it's that much better than anything the previous games ever where.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Peter Alexander DzomlijaDo you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as you die, so shall I be Reborn...
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
He asked if the transition from D1 -> D3 would have been more seamless, than D1->D2
I never played D1, so I have no idea. I thought about playing it once, but the graphics were so terrible I instantly turned it off.
A QUADRILLION MAGIC FIND is worthless if you can't kill shit!
Diablo 1 was one of the best looking games when it came out, absolutely stunning to look at. I'm playing an old game now called Grim Fandango, sure it looks like crap by today's standards but it is still a great game.
Well when I thought about playing D1, it was a good a year or more after D2 LoD came out, so it was quite old by then. I never even played the original D2, I started off with LoD.
I just looked it up and D2 LoD came out almost exactly 3 years after D1. So I was looking at the game about 4-5 years after it was released. The thing is that computing power increases exponentially, and at the time of D1 graphics were still in their infancy. In contrast, I can play D2 LoD now, nearly a decade after its release and although the graphics are bad its still quite playable. Eventually games will get to the point where years won't seem to make much improvements graphically speaking.
A QUADRILLION MAGIC FIND is worthless if you can't kill shit!
I play LoD, but when it first came out I hated it. The original had a certain balance to it. No runes, no runewords, no charms; just good old rares, sets, and uniques!
But, yes, I would agree that Diablo 3 is a much closer brethren than D2 is to D1. Diablo 3 is, I feel, the pinnacle of the entire series. It brings together all the best features from both titles (maybe even a cow level?), whilst leaving out the tacky ones and even adding in it's own new twists. Diablo 2 seemed to have forgotten it's roots and really tried to be the better game, pushing D1 aside like an old toy. With this new release upon us, it feels like we'll finally be able to enjoy that classic Diablo gameplay we know and love. Dark levels, eerie music, and horrific demons to smash.
It's sad to think that such an amazing story will come to an end with this release.
Playing any physical class was just a pain in the ass early levels, especially in Diablo 2, unless you twinked the hell out of that character, which required you to roll a Sorc and farm Nightmare Mephisto over and over. And then runewords came and just made the game absolutely insane in late levels.
There you go, now you can die happy.
If you'll read interviews by Roper and the 'Big Four', you'd know that they wanted a say in what Vivendi did with the company, and that's the main reason they were dissolved. Then again, you don't believe a company that owns another has a say in it's comings or goings, so there's just no discussing this with you.
Swingin' Ape was bought out in 2005, and we haven't seen a game from this team... yet. It was soon after this that Project Titan supposedly went into development, and at a stage they were supposedly working on more titles, most were cancelled for not being up to standard. If you followed BlizzCon you'd know this. And you you're also making assumptions that the team was closed down, then again you favor spewing insults, so I guess having a rational discussion just doesn't function in your world.
Oh yes, we are bashing screenshots, but can you explain why Blizzard scrapped everything North did on Diablo 3, choosing to start fresh. They kept nothing, If their D3 was such a gem, then why not keep it, or at least the majority of the structure. Yeah, that's right, because the fact remains that it just wasn't that great.
You know what I find particularly funny, it's that you accuse the company of rehashing old games with shinier graphics, and yet the rumors released by Chris Hartgraves indicated that they were going the way of WoW, make it more of an MMO, and Max Schaefer confirmed that they were making it more of an MMO, so it's not that much of a stretch. And those screenshots makes one believe that they were doing D3 in more of a 3D kinda way. So they were going the way of WoW. Yet D3 is really pushing the bar, some even cry that it's no longer anything like D2. So no, it's not a rehashed product with shinier graphics.
So I don't know if ironic that the last part of your statement was a contradiction or blatant stupidity that your brain-dead insults have no ground, but firstly D3 stands as an evolution on the Diablo system so no its not just a shiny new coat, and secondly, Blizzard wanted nothing to do with the old D3, which does raise a great deal of suspicion, and lastly, they were going to turn D3 into an MMO with communities and guilds and possibly even mounts, kinda like WoW. No thank you.
So, from your post, we gather:
- Vivendi directly stepped in and made decisions over the heads of bliz execs about how to run their subsidiaries
- The events in 2003 are more or less the same as ones a little more than two years later in this regards
- The cash-geyser struck in late 2004 didn't give Irvine any different relationship with Vivendi
- "Face-saving" statements by the flagshippers should be taken at face value
- Swingin-Ape may still "make a game" - the fact that their offices were literally emptied out as of the end of 2005 is just a detail...
- A probable portfolio image from a single artist is just as good as an actual in-game screenshot for representative purposes
- There's a connection between Swingin' Ape and Titan (oh yeah... they definitely wanted to staff Titan with those guys... because "ratchet and clank" is really the template. That or an arcade speedboat game...)
- Rumours from Chris Hartgraves are a great source
- Max Schaefer has a lot of insight into what the team was up to two years after he left
- D3 was going to have mounts, until cooler heads prevailed.
Thanks for the recap! And all the links that aren't just a compendium put together by Flux and Rushster in a few minutes.
Have a drink for me.
Yes, Vivendi did step in, or what's you're explanation as to what happened? Was the Diablo that North worked on so mind-blowing, the team feared it was just too good for the public, so they disbanded? If not, then what? Read the news reports on what happened with Blizzard North, since you don't believe wikipedia, hopefully the countless other articles will persuade you. Vivendi were making executive decisions in the company, which is why North stood up to them and has since disbanded. In the end, Vivendi merged with Activision to now form Activision Blizzard, it was their choice, or do you presume Blizzard had a huge say in any of it?
A few guys from the North team did merge with Blizzard, but look up the rest of the scattered employees' accomplishments:
Flagship made that mess of a game Hellgate London, then they went on to Runic Games to make Torchlight, a game that's virtually Diablo without Diablo himself in it. Castaway and Hyborial died even before their first games came out. The only employees who found success elsewhere are the few who're working on Guild Wars, so kudos to them.
Now it forces one wonder why all of this happened. Was Blizzard responsible for the team's success, or were the first two Diablo games merely flukes.
Still, you're saying that Blizzard had no hand in the success of Diablo. You're saying that if they never stepped in and Diablo came out in claymation and was turn based, then the game would have met the same success it's met today?
You're also saying Swinging Ape never did anything inside the company, never participated in any of the now cancelled titles, and you're definitely alluding that they're not involved in Titan? Alright, based on what, an assumption? So, I can't make assumptions, but you're qualified to do so. Do you have proof that none of the Swinging Ape employees found work at Blizzard, not working on any Blizzard product, or are in fact not working on Titan?
Perhaps Hartgraves may not be the most reputable source, but now you're trying to discredit Schaefer?
I don't know what point you're trying to make there, but in the Schaefer interview, they were referring to what North was busy with before they disbanded. The time he said it doesn't matter because he was talking in hindsight of what they were working on, so I'd damn well hope he has insight into what North was doing.
Schaefer (if you want to believe what an actual North team lead has to say) did confirm that the game was going into MMO territory, the screenshots showed a 3D game world (much like any MMO), and Hartgraves (even before the Schaefer interview) said the game would have MMO tropes. So, I'm saying that I'm doing more than forming assumptions, I'm drawing conclusions. Then again, I'm not allowed to form assumptions.
So, no thanks, I let hotheaded people do their own drinking.
Should have stopped there.
Can you find a single source that isn't from someone on the flagship side about "Vivendi stepping in". I know you're a little confused - you've mixed up events going all the way from early 2000 to late 2007 here - but did you maybe think that as of the release of WoW, a title already showing signs of being the most profitable game ever, they would let Blizzard make their own decisions?
Uh, yeah, I think they were given a ton of money to go a long with it. In fact, I know they were - ATVI is public, as are all those deals, mostly in K-1s. I don't know if you're familiar with them.
OK - you're describing about ten guys from a team of sixty, and then only two guys from that team that went on to runic.
Oh yeah - it definitely forces one wonder. Why they not make glorious game for benefit of all Diablo fan? If you weren't mixing up the arena.net guys, who were never at North and left in 2000 with people that left in 2002, 2003, 2005, etc etc... I would take this a little more seriously. But, sure, not having all the luck, timing and elements to keep an independent studio alive definitely means that you're a horrible coder/artist/designer, as is everyone you ever worked with. Solid logic.
The "claymation" meme is beyond stupid. Almost one hundred people worked on the core North team. One remains. You think maybe that kind of insulting silliness - which has absolutely no source on the North side which you'll find, because it doesn't exist - has something to do with it?
Yeah, I am, though that really isn't saying much. Do you know what their background was? Do you know the kind of elite, senior person on the MMO? Yeah, it's a powerboat game. In space. Work with your facebook buddies and get better power boats.
Uh oh... kid genius is accidentally pondering the idea that maybe North's closure had more to do with management resources and other projects than the quality of their work! Broken clocks and all that.
And maybe an "always online" game with persistent characters seems an awful like an MMO - especially from the design perspective of 2002. But, of course, D3 didn't end up being li... wait, nevermind.
Yes, you're drawing conclusions that the leaked screenshots-which-are-not-screenshots are an MMO. "Screenshots" that don't show a single NPC, and never show more than one player character at a time. But where's the mounts? Brilliant!
That's a smart approach, and impossible to argue with. It's a 99% different team, with a development cycle a full dozen years later, and should be enjoyed as its own creation. It probably would be an even better game without the attempt to shoehorn things in like Cain, Exocet, etc, but those are all just frosting on the cake.
You know, it would be easier to converse with you as if you're an actual human being were you not vomiting insults like such a condescending manner. Then again, have you ever conducted yourselves civil in any form of discussion or debate, or do you always insult people to make you feel like your winning an argument?
http://www.gamespot....d-north-6030882
The article is sourced from Routers, dating back to 2003. As you can see, Vivendi stated that they were looking to sell Blizzard, which affected the employees directly. Or do you even trust Vivendi on this? No one knows exactly why the merger happened, it surprised a lot of people. There's no point in speculating, but the point still stands, two major companies made a huge deal, so why do you think Blizzard -- just one of the companies owned by Vivendi -- had any say in this. Clearly North had issues with "Vivendi Universal's public efforts to sell its game division, including Blizzard", which happened even before the merger, and as the North guys said, they wanted a say and that didn't work out. Like Vivendi stated, it made the North team unhappy, so clearly they had no say in it, so they disbanded. It can't get clearer than that.
I may have overestimated the importance of the employees who went to ANet, they were merely doing some programming on Diablo. What I find funny though is how you give acclaim to all of the employees involved. They didn't call the lead designers the 'Big Four' for nothing, you know. They were the heart and soul of Diablo 2. That's why people followed Flagship so intently. Castaway studios actually had 13 of the North employees, yet they received almost no attention. The reason so few people cared about them was because, although they had a hand in creating D2, they weren't in charge of the vision that was carried out in D2. That was up to the lead designers, which is why people followed the Big Four, and not Chris the artist or Doug the programmer, not because they were bad, but because they didn't represent the heart and soul of Diablo.
The fact still remains, Castaway and Hyborial had some artists and programmers from North, and both studios fell through. Flagship had the heart of the North team and Hellgate was horrible. I am actually curious what went wrong here, and I mean that sincerely so please keep your forked tongue comments in check.
So, are you now discrediting the early claymation designs (hows it a meme??). So, in the 15th anniversary video of Diablo, that whole part about it being claymation is s lie, in your opinion? That doesn't even make any sense. You seem a bit overly paranoid to me, like a conspiracy hunter. Well, this is no conspiracy. It's in a documentary showing the history of Diablo, what more proof is needed?
Are you kidding me? If a game always needs to be online, then it may as well be an MMO? Assassins Creed 2 has multiplayer and requires a persistent online connection, does that then make it an MMO. D3 is less of an MMO than GW and even ANet is reluctant to call GW an MMO. D3 has max four players per game, so where is the massively part exactly? "Especially in the design perspective of 2002?" MMOs did exist in 2002, or are you saying the designers back then didn't know the difference between a true MMO like Everquest and an instanced game like GW, or even D2 for that matter?
Alright, previously you said the screenshots were still very early on, pre-Alpha, and doesn't reflect the product, now you're asking where the NPCs and other PCs are? That's quite a contradiction. Those are shots from a very, very unfinished product, so why would they include complicated mechanics like NPCs, or even mounts(why the hell would they implement mounts that early in development)? Schaefer (a guy who actually worked on the early D3 build) did say they were planning to go into a larger open MMO setting, so guild houses, or even mounts, wouldn't seem a stretch to be included in future builds, since these are MMO concepts.
But if you believe that those 4 guys were "the heart and soul of Diablo", and that the claymation is anything but a stupid dig, completing your education on the subject may well be impossible. Notice how there isn't a single person from the Diablo core team in that 15 year video? Of about 80 guys, no one bothered to be interviewed, least of all the guys comprising the "heart and soul of Diablo".
You may also want to learn the difference between a portfolio shot and a true screenshot - this would be the third time I've tried to help you there. And the difference between an anonymous, unattributed quote and a company statement, while you're at it.
I feel like you've made some progress, slow as it may be. Keep it up!
Well, if Emma Watson asked me about this material in person, I'd probably obfuscate a little less.
So, it seems you admit that Vivendi did lay off North, the scattered ex-Northers struggled to recapture the fire of D2, and D3 isn't really an MMO. I fail to see the 'progress' you're making here, so state it however you will, if it pleases you, but your education appears to be working the other way around.
Still you persist on berating the claymation video and the screenshots. No, it's not a portfolio shot, this isn't a modelling agency. Calling them early promo or pre-alpha shots, or even early gameplay renders would be more apt. Though call it whatever you like, this wont change the fact that the stills were intended to reflect what D3 was supposed to represent, and they were lukewarm at best. Dancing around whatever you name it doesn't change that.
The reason the Big Four were never represented in the video is something we don't know. It could be because Blizzard created a company specific video, made by Blizzard employees, and the Big Four were no longer Blizzard employees. The small video wasn't made by an external source, it wasn't an outsider documentary, so it only makes sense that they didn't include people who no longer worked at the company.
Or it could be because the Four departed with bad blood staining their relations with Vivendi, and approaching them might have cause friction between Vivendi and Blizzard. Or the Big Four were asked to be a part of it, but declined due to the reason stated in my previous point.
Maybe, Blizzard didn't ask them for their opinions because the Four were responsible for Hellgate London, the most disgusting atrocity in recent RPG memory. We don't know, it could be anything.
I wish I never brought up Hartgraves, but it's odd how you keep hammering on this one, single point, while Schaefer (you remember, the guy who worked on D3, at that time) has stated that when they were laying the ground work for D3, they were intent to create an MMO environment. So, hammer on about mounts in futility and ignore what the legitimate ex-employee said. Nonetheless, if North did end up creating D3, then it would have featured large open environments filled with rampaging players, stealing kills and PKing however they saw fit, not to mention it would have been online as well. So, it's funny how you're comparing the current (instanced) D3 and WoW, since North's open world concept sounds far more like WoW than the actual D3 we're getting in less than two weeks.
Seems like you're grasping at straws. Ignoring Schaefer's comments to rather focus on Hartgraves, focusing on the fact that the sceenshot is actually an early rendering, or denying the claymation fact just because the original designers weren't invited to a company they left on bad terms to talk about a project they no longer have any part in.
As fun as these exchanges are, I find it rather vexing, and I think we can agree that we're at an impasse. You find cover-ups, lies and secrets in everything you're told, while I consider what Blizzard tells us and choose to believe it.
Huh???
Diablo III has taken as long as it has because (I believe) Blizzard have taken the best parts of the previous two games, and mixed them all together with a whole lot more content and lore. And also because of the amount of effort that has been put into detailing the story. Such amounts of detail cannot be slapped together in the amount of time that it took to go from D1 to D2 (4 years?).
Too many people think D3 started in 2008, when in fact, if you look at some of the early concept artwork, you can see development started as far back as 2003!
I also do not believe that D3 is as good as D1 or D2. It's way better!, in more ways than can be put forth in this post without creating a wall of text.
One point I will make is that Old Tristram in D3 looks more like Tristram did in D1 than that "Squared Off" town in D2.
I had more fun in the 19+ hours playing the D3 open beta than I ever did in the 11 years playing D2 and it's expansion. And all the while I even found some subtle and not-so-subtle references to both D1 and D2. If the Beta could impress me so, then I think the final release is going to be positively astounding!
Anyone who claims D3 is not a sequel to either D1 or D2, is either lying or just not telling the truth. Diablo 3 should rather be named Diablo3., it's that much better than anything the previous games ever where.