Among the interview discussion came up that monster encounters are random generated such as Rare and Champions popping up here and there (or mini-bosses as Jay puts it).
Jay wants the outdoor world to be static in contrast with the random generated outdoors in Diablo II. This helps creating a better and unique look, adding objects, doodads, etc. that could be nigh impossible to place in a random generated landscape. More importantly, making a static world outdoor helps greatly the adventure system, and trigger-driven encounters.
Thus far, the interview didn't shed much about Battle.net. Jay said he didn't want to steal that thunder, which definetely means Battle.net 2.0 details will be unveiled at BlizzCon 2008 on October 10th. Diablo 3 in comparison with the other two franchises is the only game that could possibly be translated to Consoles, but currently Blizzard doesn't have the manpower to focus on console porting Diablo 3. Hopefully some time in the future it could make it, but as of now it's just not happening.
Crispy Gamer has a four-pages interview with Jay Wilson discussing the art style, random generation, Console port, and more.
Crispy Gamer: Are the dungeons still going to be randomly generated?
Wilson: Yes, we have a ton of random generation in the game. All the dungeons' layouts are randomly generated. The exteriors are not. We have a new system of adventures that allows us to cut sections out of the terrain to put random -- whatever -- in there. We can put random terrain, we can put in scripted events -- we wanted to add a lot more scripted events into the game.
For example when they first left the dungeon, the angle of the terrain wouldn't be very helpfull if you exited in the opposite direction. If your camera was parallel you couldn't see anything.
nothing in computing is
if there was to be "random" outdoor maps, there would just be multiple versions of the map that the game picks, same goes for indoor dungeons
I'll hold you to that word. But it better not be just false promises.
Yes, he meant that there won't be anymore runewords but whoever transcribed the interview made a typo. Actually most fans rejoice hearing that they are removing the most cancerous element that destroyed D2.
Do you have any relationship with some blizzard employee?I'm just curious.
I like the way its gonna be already.
And thank god no runewords..
For the sake of being objective, you're going to put words in my mouth, and then engage in ad hominem attacks?
Listen up, dime - and you can use google to back this up from multiple sources, if that isn't too challenging:
Diablo began with David Brevik's obsession with a game called "Angband". The crew he and his business partners hired in the bay area (absolutely none of whom work at Blizzard now) made it into a solid mid-90s step-time computer game. Allen Adham, who was head of Blizzard, which was the publisher of the game before Blizzard went ahead and bought Dave's crew - Condor - had the great idea of pushing to make the game real time. Mike O'Brien and Patt Wyatt cleaned up the code a little and made it robust enough for what was the internet circa 1996.
"Angband" is ALL about randomness. With Diablo II, the idea was just to expand everything - more classes, more areas, and, most of all MORE RANDOMNESS.
Of course, none of the people mentioned above have worked at Blizzard for years.
It's a bummer that this current incarnation looks to take a step backwards in regards to what is arguably the origin and essence of the series, but that may be par for the course.
How do I know this? I met most of the above guys at a few trade shows ten years ago or so, including the show in Atlanta right after the original "Diablo" shipped. Good times.
Look, Dimebog, more about the essence and history of the series than you could possibly have hoped to know in one concise post free of ad hominem attacks! Let this be a model.
The News feed has been feeding us old news lately.
Whats up with that?
Still grateful though.
The world map (which is what you are talking about- when you make a new character and arrive in the Rogue Encampment in Act I) is not going to be nearly as random as the dungeons. The reason for this is because scripted events will be nearly impossible to make for completely random maps, to instill a sense of traveling the world, and because with 3D environments made of floors that can be any elevation it's pretty much impossible to have them randomly linked together properly. Basically, technology is not at the point necessary for everything to be completely random (or, as random as a computer program can make it) without tons of conflicting issues that 3D engines would bring.
The dungeons, however, because of their linear nature and lack of the more robust scenery of the outdoors, and also because most dungeons would be man-made and thus be able to be rendered in multiple levels instead of hills and valleys, are naturally able to be randomly generated.
Item statistics and bonuses, as well as prefixes and suffixes, are also easy to make randomly generated, simply because its just string and numeric data randomly assembled (of course, they pre-program rules to prevent items like "+3 to all skills, +3 to Barbarian skills, +3 to Warcries"... you get my drift.)
Lush 3D environments, however, if they are going to be worth viewing (unlike the drab, boring, and completely uninteresting Diablo II "living" world- that is, the world outside dungeons), cannot be randomly generated with the limitations with current engines, computer space, etc.
Exactly, sometimes I would load a save and go out to some place only to have to go throughout the perimeter before finding the next area. Obviously I became more familiar with the various set ups as time went on, but the main point is that the outdoors are simply too big to be randomly generated. The purpose of random generation is to keep the game fresh, not to get you lost if you come across a set up you haven't seen before.
Exactly. Travincal is a perfect example of what was possible with the graphics at least in DII. I never tire of playing Travincal - even though it is static it. It has frustrating pathways for characters who cannot teleport, a nice placement for the WP, opportunity for the monsters to hide, and slightly tricky if you are needing to retreat in a hurry, the potential to be swamped if you rush the entrance way to the DoH but most of all it has beautiful artwork.
Won't DIII be marvellous if it has detailed above ground landscapes like Travincal (I'm talking about "detail" here) linking the dungeons together.
Yes and Act 1 in DII is a real drag. So many of the same tiles slapped together randomly. It LOOKS thrown together because it literally is thrown together!
In a dungeon - man made (dare I say monster made? :D) environment - we don't expect walls and floors and other stuff to be completely different - it just has to be the same as buildings are built in a modular way to conform to a style. So seeing the same tiles repeated doesn't jar the senses.
But above ground we don't want paths of grass and the trees and the stone hedges and so on to be the same as it IS jarring to our real world experience.
Thus it makes a hell of a lot of sense to randomise the dungeons at the penalty of seeing a little repetition and concentrate the "sumptuous" artistic efforts on some real above ground eye candy, detailed like Travincal.
Slightly annoying for me as once we had the way points I never had to search for the entrance again. It only took away from the game, it didn't add to the game.
------------
I never hear anyway saying that the Act III town - Kurast - was boring because it never changed in layout each time played. Same with Harrogath - which I love.
I never spend too much time in town anyway to get bored with them.
But the first few times I played Kurast and Harrogath I recall waking around and feasting on the eye candy. That's one of the good things I like about Diablo. In essence it is HnS of course. But it's great to take a breather and enjoy the great art work.
They are expanding the IP, but i don't see how that has anything to do with a subscription platform. Widening the universe only improves the game, and Wilson says they decide the payment model after the game is done, and decide what works best.
And in D2 the randomness was pretty much always terrible. So many areas were so bland and boring, just a random maze of fence. And having the major monuments move around randomly takes away a lot, especiialy from the believability. Landmarks don't just move.
The map-hack in D2 was so widespread because it's exactly what people didn't want; to have to be endlessly wandering around to find a place you've already been.
The new system is a huge improvement. You have essentially static outdoors, creating a much more believable, and better looking, world. And then you have random adventures, which is a much better random element. Instead of just figuring out which way to run, you actually have mini-quests.
And I don't see how having a rainbow is "wowification". I'd call it adding realism and contrast.
It has everythiing to do with potentially laying the groundwork for a future MMO. There's nothing wrong with that, but I would hate to think that some "Diablo" game elements were sacrificed in order for that to happen, i.e., this project was really more about creating and defining features of a "universe" at the expense of just making a tight game. That isn't just because I hate the idea of sacrificing anything in the quality of the game itself, but because the whole idea of seeing it as secondary to some larger IP which includes movies, card games, figurines is a big part of why Blizzard has only released patches and expansions to one game in the past 45 months, and has only released content from one gaming universe in the past 8 years.
As for whether or not it is a good design concept to have randomness outside of just dungeons, I think it is, and think it is one of the things where Diablo II genuinely moved forward from Diablo in a good way. I like the fact that you don't go out of the Rogue Encampment in the same direction every time, it increases replayability and the general sense that every game represents a "new" world. I won't argue that the implementation of this was often bad and uninspired in DII, but that doesn't change the fact that WHEN it works, it really adds to the game experience. I also think that this is exactly the kind of thing a sequel should be about - taking the original concept and moving it forward, especially in terms of making things work which weren't totally functional in earlier versions. Taking something which is challenging like making exterior features work and then punting is just a bad sign, and really kind of pathetic for a company with Blizzard's incredible resources, both in terms of time and money.
Judging by some of these posts, I may be in the minority on all of those opinions, but it is cool that you were able to express yours like an adult, unlike some here.
I agree with you.Hope that blizzard won't be EA.