Sirian,
Thanks for your reply. As always, you've put a first-class effort into rebutting my points. Of course, I have re-rebuttals, which I will insert into your text. As a veteran of BBS "discussions", I know that this will not resolve the issue, but I love to argue about games (perhaps "debate intelligently" is a better word than "argue). I think we should probably start a new thread after this post if we want to continue, as this one is becoming ridiculously long and cumbersome.
I'm posting from home today, as I have to watch after my dog who is dying of cancer. It sucks bad, but that's part of the bargain. Life is a series of highs and lows, and today I'm getting a bit of both, with the high coming from the "official" release of LOD.
For the purposes of practicality, I'll snip some of your post and only keep what I'm responding to. In no way am I ignoring the rest of it, but, well, it's really long.
}Thanks for responding. Sincerely. I'm sorry
}that your first post here
}comes over a confrontational issue.
}I'd rather have been introduced
}to you under other circumstances,
}but I'll take this as it comes.
Agreed. I would have been nice to "meet" under better circumstances, but a good game debate isn't the worst place to start. I must admit to having come in to this with mixed feelings about you. You have undeniably enhanced the Diablo community with your expertise, and obvious knowledge of the game. Your efforts in this regard are very much appreciated. At the same time, we react like any human when attacked. In the past, it is my opinion that you've crossed the line once or twice as a result of vehement disagreement with our decisions. I really don't like to read things like "F--- you Blizzard." Normally, I would ignore permanently anyone who says that, but this is a special case, and you've been extremely civil here. Everyone goes overboard once in a while, and I'm no exception. So, at this point, I consider it a non-issue.
}}Do we "encourage" people to PK?
}}... there is almost no
}}effort given to "encourage" PKing,
}}other than not preventing it.
}}
}}
}}1) The entire game is set
}}up to kill your player.
}
}No, it's not. If you wanted
}to, you could impose on
}the player a challenge that
}could not be overcome. You
}COULD kill the player at
}any time you see fit,
}simply by making it happen.
}You could make it happen
}with or without corresponding in-game
}rationale to "explain" it.
}
}As far it goes, yes, the
}game elements are there to
}kill you. However, that description
}is oversimplified PAST the point
}of validity. It misses vital
}elements, and paints a false
}picture.
}
}Closer to the truth is this:
}The entire game is set
}up to threaten your player.
}If the player fails to
}respond adequately, he will be
}killed. Some few circumstances may
}be put in there to
}pose extreme risks, with the
}express intent of daring players
}to see if they can
}find ANY way to survive.
}Even so, that a player
}should have options, even if
}feeble or inadequate, is essential
}to the game.
}
}The hostility system fits that paradigm
}well enough. You've included options:
}town is a safe harbor.
}There are password games if
}you want to play privately.
}There's squelch to shut up
}the rude and the aggressive.
}So even the PK option
}the way you have designed
}it is intended only to
}threaten, not to kill outright.
}It's up to players to
}survive. At least, that's how
}I read your view of
}it: PKs are just another
}threat to be managed.
That is correct. It is just a threat to be managed, and I would venture to say it is quite manageable.
}On one condition, though. I'll come
}back to that in a moment.
}
}Every monster, boss, and trap has
}as it's only goal the
}death of your player. The
}addition of the occaisional anti-social
}player only adds to the
}feeling of tension and fear
}that makes the rewards of
}success that much better.
}
}IF the player subscribes to the
}challenge, yes, tension and fear
}that can be entertaining, rewarding.
}
}If that challenge is unwanted, on
}the other hand, no. It
}DOES NOT add even a
}shred of entertainment, only frustration,
}anger, resentment, and feelings even
}more hostile.
You could say the same thing about every game feature.
}There is a difference between playing
}at hostility and true emotional
}hostility mano a mano. PKing
}crosses that line. I know
}it, you know it.
I disagree. Even the PKs in Diablo are engaging in a role-playing fantasy. I would hope that they aren't out killing people in real life.
Sure, some people will not welcome this aspect of the game, and would rather not have to deal with it. They can, with passworded games, single-player, and LAN games. I'll explain later why a PK switch would disallow real choices.
I'm fascinated by the sociological aspects of this game genre. In a sense, this is a less artificial environment than many real-life social constructs. People can really choose to be whoever they want to be in an on-line game. No matter how anti-social, no matter what "crimes" people commit, it's just a game, and when you're done, nothing is gained but memories, and nothing is lost but time.
}In Diablo 1, without secure servers,
}this was completely out of your hands.
}
}In Diablo II, you took control.
}The Realms. Secure servers. You
}could still not control everything,
}but you came very close
}(and nice job, well done).
}That puts the full burder
}of responsibility for the results
}squarely on your shoulders. You
}admit that, yet... no, you
}don't quite admit it.
Absolutely I do. I take responsibility for the game-play results. The emotional reactions of the players are not my responsiblitly, however. People choose to play this game, and it is obviouly not necessary for survival. We have simply added the option of playing Diablo to people's lives. Nothing more.
}}Remember this: the world of Diablo
}}II is not a safe,
}}warm place. It is a
}}place of great evil, and
}}even greater good.
}
}Riiiight.
}
}You play on the Realms, so
}be honest. What percentage of
}players you've played with bother
}to role play in the
}SLIGHTEST? As many as two
}percent? I don't think so.
I disagree. It depends on how you define role-playing. Like I mentioned above, our customers are not out killing people in real life. What they do in our game is role-playing, even if it doesn't involve peppering their speech with "thee's and thou's."
I used to play the D&D's and similar pen and paper games. One of the things I liked about them is the freedom to be whatever you want to be. The same is true in Diablo. We provide a construct, a history, and an environment, but we don't tell you who YOU are. That's up to you to determine.
}This is an arcade game for
}the home PC. There are
}a great many quintessential similarities
}to Gauntlet -- far more
}than, say, to Pen and
}Paper Role Playing Games (PPRPGs)
}like Dungeons and Dragons, Dark
}Consipiracy, Gurps, or even computer
}RPGs like Ultima. Sure, people
}can play Diablo like an
}RPG, but people can also
}pick up silverware and use
}them as puppets.
It's an honor to be compared to those titles. Thanks! But again, there are different interpretations of true "role-playing." In too many computer RPGs, I'm forced to play a particular character who's traits are determined by the game developer. I am often given three choices of how to respond to (usuallly abysmally written) NPC speeches. When I feel the story is already written, and I'm just fulfilling the author's fantasy, I don't feel I'm role-playing. Rather, I'm just solving a simplistic puzzle while being led through a story. It can be entertaining, but it's not role-playing to me.
}I'm not persuaded in the least
}by a role playing argument,
}since role play is at
}best tangential to the gameplay
}of your product.
}
}So what about a mechanical argument?
}The gameplay? You say:
}
}}4) A story about heroes and
}}conquests needs villians. Hordes of
}}identical monsters do not fulfill
}}this requirement in my opinion
}
}A story? This isn't a story,
}it's a game. The cinematics
}are well scripted and beautifully
}done, and some of the
}NPC dialogue is well characterized.
}The story stops there. "What
}story?"
}
}Diablo II is not a novel.
}It wouldn't even pass for
}a short story. If you
}got any sales at all,
}out of the millions of
}copies sold, on the basis
}of the "story", I would
}be shocked.
}
}That is not to say that
}the atmosphere is irrelevant. The
}music, the artwork, the themes
}of the towns and various
}areas all enhance the game,
}but come on. Story? Do
}you honestly believe you are
}telling a story here? Is
}story even in the top
}ten priorities for the production?
No! And that's the point. YOU write the story, not me. That's what makes it compelling. There's a story in playing Diablo, but it's different for every player. In the end, you write the story; the dialogue is yours to create, and the events of the game determine the plot. We try to provide the tools: the location, the items, the vendors, the heroes and the villians.
The more we let the player do, the less it is like a TV show. Role-playing should not be a passive activity. We don't seek to spoon-feed anyone exactly what they should do next.
}You've done a good job
}setting a mood. Good enough,
}certainly, for the masses of
}players who bought your game
}to play the game, including me.
}
}So if story amounts only to
}dressing and backdrops against which
}to play the game, how
}can you trot out story
}as a justification for diminishing
}the game experience for a
}large number of your customers?
}Forgive me for being blunt
}here -- I'll remain polite.
}We're not that simple, Max.
}We're not that gullible. The
}game is the thing, and
}we both know it. A
}lot of players like to
}duel, some enjoy the thrill
}of facing human competitors --
}yes, I admit, some like
}to be hunted by PKs
}-- but there are many
}who have no interest whatsoever
}in PvP.
That's a bit of a straw-man. I am not trying to fool anyone, and I know you're not gullible. We provide a construct that in our opinion is the most conducive to interesting adventures. Not everyone will agree with our choices. It is not our intent to please everyone. No business works that way.
}You are stating flat out that
}you know what's best for
}your customers. Customers who enjoy
}battling "Hordes of identical monsters"
}are apparently defective in your
}view. Something must be wrong
}with them, or else they
}are unenlightened, not yet aware
}of the "joys" of the
}PK hunt. So force it
}on them, because they "need"
}a bunch of real life
}villains to spice up their
}gaming experience. You know what's
}best for them, better than
}they themselves know it? Is
}that it?
Not at all. Obviously, we think fighting "hordes of identical monsters" is important. But not for the sake of role-playing. The kill-reward structure of monster combat is about two things: fun skills and spells, and finding cool items.
That's a huge part of Diablo, and among the main reasons I like to play. Defective? Hardly. We wouldn't have put so much effort into it if we thought that.
But yes, we do think we know what's best for our customers. We have to, we make games for a living! We're not putting out questionaires and making games based on the result. We're indulging in our own preferences and fantasies, and then making them public for those who choose to participate.
}Whatever happened to "the customer is
}always right"? That does not
}seem to apply to Blizzard,
}as I understand you.
Correct, the customer is not always right. We have no animosity towards anyone, but we feel we do know better than our customers how to make games. Perhaps it's arrogant, but how could we confidently enter three-year+ development cycles if we didn't think this way? Not that I'm comparing us to the masters, but did Picasso consult the public before painting? Was he a failure if the public didn't like his work? Obviously, what we do isn't near as important or historically significant as Picasso, but this is our creative expression, and as such it's a little self-indulgent.
}That's too much to swallow. I
}can't imagine you actually believe
}that. And if you don't...
}yes, I'm going to say
}it. Hypocrisy. If you are
}here spouting a PR line
}you yourself don't even believe,
}that's the very essense of
}hypocrisy, and you'd have done
}better to ignore me.
Obviously, I'm not spouting a PR line. If you knew me, you'd know I'm inherently hostile to the corporate culture. It would be easier to ignore you, and probably better from a PR perspective.
}On the other hand, my imagination
}has failed me before. So
}I'll set aside my disbelief
}and presume you are sincere.
}Not just for the sake
}of argument, either. I'll presume
}you mean it, that you
}think you do know what's
}best, that somewhere inside you,
}YOUR imagination is failing YOU,
}in that you can't comprehend
}that a LARGE segment of
}your fans do in fact
}enjoy the hordes of monsters,
}without end, with no desire
}or use for intrusions by
}"real life" villains to interrupt
}that pastime.
I understand that. But it is my opinion that the intrusions you speak of are less significant than what the PK adds to the Diablo atmosphere. That's my opinion, I don't state it as fact. With the 2-million copies of LOD, there are about 8 million sales of Diablo games, and every week sets a new record for people on battle.net. Maybe it could have been more, and maybe you're right, but allowing the PK cannot be viewed as a deal-breaker, given the game's success.
}But it's true, there are countless
}thousands of us out here,
}attracted to the "dull" part
}of your game, the monsters,
}and not the least bit
}interested in fighting off ambush
}players who have designed their
}characters specifically for player killing,
}with every possible advantage they
}can angle toward, to ensure
}that the fight (if you
}give them one) is as
}far from anything resembling fair
}as they can manage. If
}you wish, I can show
}you some of the email
}I got in response to
}the protest I mounted. I'll
}send it to you, flames
}and all, or flame free,
}whatever you want. A drop
}in the bucket by your
}company's standards, but then... every
}customer counts, right? Right? ...
}
}Right?
Hehehe. Believe me, I've felt the flames. I'll tell you something: I'm attracted to the "dull" portion of the game. I've never PKed another individual. Ever. I've dueled consentually once or twice, but I'm not even very good at it.
But, and it's a big "but", I like the fact that the PK is out there. Even though I rarely ever encounter them, it's satisfying to me to know that the trust I have in other players is earned, not forced.
}}The last thing we want is
}}to force people into some
}}idealized regimen of "proper" role-playing.
}
}OK, now hold on just a
}minute here. Which is it,
}Max? Do you, or do
}you not, want to force
}people out of how they
}want to play, and into
}how you think they ought
}to play?
}
}You lay out your view of
}"story", which you expressly state
}MUST include direct human conflict
}to be of any value
}(that being the corollary to
}the AI monsters as insufficient
}opposition), and now you want
}to step back and claim
}you have no interest in
}forcing a particular way of
}playing on the customer?
I believe you've misunderstood my stance on "story", and refer you up a notch for clarification. My belief is that the POTENTIAL for human conflict is intriguing and compelling. It is a part of the construct we've created. I don't put the issue in absolute terms, however.
}Those who like to duel, let
}them.
}
}Those who like to fight the
}sad AI monsters, let them
}have the choice of doing
}that without having someone else
}insist they NOT do that,
}and instead play PvP.
}
}And those who want to chase
}PvM players, let them do
}so against willing targets.
}
}Everyone will have more fun, except
}the few whose SOLE intent
}is to intrude upon, irritate,
}bully and swagger.
Here's the short version of why I think this doesn't work: We implement a PK switch, and the message is sent that the games that don't have PK turned off are specifically for PvP, and the others are PvM. PKers will all only invade the no-PK-switch games, rasing the percentage precipitiously, and upsetting the natural balance. People will think that if they want to play normally (fight monsters), they must use the PK switch. And their games will be just a tad more flat as a result.
We have a theory in the office that if we added the option of a button that made your character invincible, nearly everyone would push that button. They'd rampage accross the lands, killing everything with nary a worry. Then they'd get bored and put the game on the shelf, never to play again.
}The "story" argument was BS. So
}is the "we don't want
}to force on people" when
}that's exactly what the current
}system does. The "we threw
}you some bones, be happy"
}argument, harkening back to Diablo
}1 and how bad it
}was there, doesn't float either,
}because it doesn't negate the
}fact that you have deprived
}those who want to play
}strictly against monsters the option
}of doing so in public
}games -- because of your
}personal bias against that sort
}of gameplay. Three arguments you
}made, all three failed to
}persuade me.
Sirian, I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. I'm just giving you a glimpse into our thought process. I have no expectation of resolving this issue for you, although I suppose there's always hope. I would prefer that you were persuaded.
}I've never asked for the hostile
}system to be scuttled, though.
}I just want a choice
}for myself and others. Let
}each player choose what the
}greater annoyances and dangers are
}for them, instead of you
}choosing for them. Many here
}at the Lounge have passionately
}described why they would continue
}to choose to play in
}games with unilateral hostility, even
}though their primary concern is
}PvM. I can have a
}mutual-hostility or no-hostility game without
}depriving them of their unilateral
}hostility... IF you guys at
}Blizzard decided to code that in.
}
}So why not do it?
I believe it would dilute the experience. I believe that anyone, especially an intelligent person like yourself, can avoid the PK if you really want to. A PK switch would do more than give options to people. It would alter the whole dynamic, and, IN MY OPINION, render the experience just a bit less satisfying.
}I'm not asking you to provide
}me a place of total
}safety, protect me from all
}harm and all intrusion, and
}coddle me like an infant.
}I'm just asking for the
}SAME consideration given to the
}PvP players: the option to
}play the game -I- want
}to play, without being forced
}to abandon it or to
}defend it in what is
}invariably an unfair fight. You
}see, in this regard, you're
}forcing one MORE thing on
}your customers: that they should
}build their characters sturdy enough
}to stand up to the
}rigors of PvP. Yeah, thanks.
}"Father knows best" once again.
}Sorry. I have next to
}zero interest in the mind-numbing
}tedium of leveling up a
}PvP build through a cakewalk
}series of games, just for
}the dubious privilege of being
}better prepared when someone wants
}to pick a fight. You
}put thirty skills in the
}game for each class, but
}a bare handful of those
}can stand up in (I'm
}going to say it) this
}woefully imbalanced PvP game. Sure,
}each class has a few
}options, but the players had
}to invent their own balances.
}
}Instead, I enjoy the challenge of
}exploring all the skills, especially
}the weaker ones. If you've
}read about my character Ember,
}then you already know what
}I'm talking about. If not,
}then I cordially invite you
}to visit my site and
}see just how interesting and
}creative of a challenge can
}be made out of the
}"Hordes of identical monsters".
}
}http://sirian.warpcore.org/diablo2/ember.html
}
}With characters like this, I'm undertaking
}to create my own "higher
}difficulty" by adjusting my character's
}power downward, passing up the
}cakewalk options and even the
}easy options, to go for
}the moderately challenging options. Chars
}like that don't fit into
}the PvP game at all
}-- and therefore I DESERVE
}second class treatment because I
}sometimes play this way? It's
}"enhancing" my gameplay to be
}bullied around, or at least
}intruded upon and forced out
}of my own game? Is
}it your official position that
}Variant characters (and players?) are
}"weak" and thus fair game
}to be preyed upon?
First of all, you are a better Diablo player than I am. You are a more hardcore gamer than I am. But I'm the same as you to a lesser degree. I have no interest in building a perfect PvP character. I like to experiment with variants. I like to fight monsters and find cool items. I'm simple that way.
I also like unstructured human interaction. I get a little rush when I encounter a PK. Even if my responce is to go to town, and then get up and get a slice of pizza or make a phone call. (PK's ALWAYS leave if you go to town and remain silent a few minutes.) I don't fight, but I don't allow myself to be bullied either.
The structure we've set up makes the PKer the second-class citizen. They're damn near powerless. Everything in the Diablo universe is tailored to you and me, not the PK. But they add spice, a little danger, a volutary challenge, and they offer a fascinating glimpse into the darker recesses of the human psyche.
}4) A story. A story? Well
}maybe. You said: "Rather, we
}sought to make a game
}where people create their own
}fantasies and adventures." Ember would
}fall into that category. Thousands
}have read her adventure, and
}I have piles and piles
}of fan mail to show
}for it.
And Ember is the sort of character I'd like to party with!
}I'm no slouch at competition, when
}I care to compete. I've
}been ranked #1 in the
}world at Descent 1 and
}2, at one point in
}my past. Sure, that was
}a much smaller playing community
}than for Blizzard games, but
}internet gaming STARTED with Descent,
}with Kali, and I'm sure
}you know at least a
}bit about that, as your
}own service, battlenet, bucked the
}trends and followed Kali's lead
}in the area of one-time-fee,
}then free for life (for
}Kali, twenty bucks, for you,
}buy a game) and it
}helped build your company to
}where you stand now. However,
}while I enjoy competing at
}Descent, I find Diablo PvP
}completely uninteresting. There's no fear,
}no thrill, just an element
}of your game I don't
}care for. Yet you know
}better than I do what
}I will find fun? That
}you need to set your
}game up to ensure that
}public games MUST mean PvP
}games at all times?
Again, you are a hardcore gamer. I respect that, and admire it. I can confidently say you are even a better Diablo player than I am. But all I can do is make what I think is fun. Undoubtably, you would be a fine game designer. I wish you would do so, in fact. The game industry needs people with passion and a vision, and quality titles are few and far between these days.
But you would be your best as a game designer by making the games that you feel are the most fun. That's all we're doing. Maybe we could do it better, and maybe you could do it better than we do. I'd welcome that. But in the end, we have to assume that we know best for OUR games.
}A story needs heroes and conquests
}need villains, but frankly you
}don't understand your own game
}if you think the players
}are at all role playing
}here. They're killing monsters, hunting
}up treasure, and passing time
}in an arcade game.
}
}So... if your first four arguments
}all fall flat, that leaves
}your final argument:
}
}}5) Diablo II and the expansion
}}are the games that we
}}at Blizzard want to play.
}}That is our formula for
}}success.
}
}Amen. Kudos. Applause. Very fine games,
}too, even if I find
}a few things about them
}quite annoying and/or frustrating.
}PKing stops being a game. Remember
}how I started this reply.
}The game is NOT about
}killing the player, it's about
}threatening the player, forcing him
}or her to respond skillfully
}to survive. The PK, on
}the other hand, IS about
}killing the player. Killing the
}player by surprise ambush, "dirty
}tricks", by way of bugs
}and loopholes in the game.
}Remember the town portal bug?
}What about loading lag at
}waypoints, always fun stuff to
}be dead before your machine
}can load hoggy graphics and
}sounds. One-shot-kill weapons, skills, moves.
}Characters far higher in level
}than the target. Teams of
}PKs working to ambush one
}player. On and on and
}on the list goes, NONE
}of it sporting or meaningful.
}It's all about the cheap
}shot, and yes I'll say
}it again: it's slimy, top
}to bottom.
The PK is a slimy sort. That's what makes them compelling to me. Obviously, we fix bugs and loopholes as we can, and endeavor to make it as fair as possible. But I honestly feel the experience is enhanced by real danger.
}You say the avoidance of PKs
}is a relatively trivial matter
}-- sure, if you suck
}it up and surrender control
}of the game. Your quest,
}your progress, the people you
}may have been playing with,
}the mood of your gaming
}session, all STOLEN away by
}an aggressive PK who has
}the power to impose his will.
}
}Yeah, trivial. Nice to know that
}you think the interests of
}PvM gamers are trivial.
Now hold on. I never said that. I said avoiding PKs is trivial. Especially for a smart guy like you, it should be almost effortless. I've never had to quit a game because of a PK. Even if I do in the future, it's no big deal in the end.
}You have a lot to be
}proud of with your games,
}Max. But where you find
}it unfathomable that somebody would
}get anything meaningful out of
}the endless hordes of rather
}inept monsters and traps you've
}laid out, I find in
}incomprehensible that you'd put so
}much care into making the
}PvM game entertaining, yet despise
}it as you seem to
}do, and feel it necessary
}to force all your customers
}to engage in the rather
}shoddy (by comparison) PvP side
}of the game -- or
}jump through hoops to avoid
}that.
You are mistaken. I find the PvM the best part of the game. It's what I engage in. I think the game would be almost as good with no PK at all. Almost.
}When Bolty convinced me NOT to
}shut down my site permanently
}over this, but instead to
}take a more complex and
}weighted approach to my objections
}on this matter, he said
}something I won't soon forget.
}He said, and I'm paraphrasing
}because I don't have the
}exact quote: "There are countless
}people who buy this game
}because it's big, it's hyped,
}it's everywhere -- casual gamers
}who buy only bestsellers. They
}try it, log on, get
}suckered/ambushed/deceived/bullied by some rude PK,
}decide they don't need that
}sort of gaming experience, and
}log off, never to buy
}another Blizzard product or be
}heard from again. As much
}money as Blizzard makes off
}PKs, they lose even more.
}They are so big now,
}their games reach beyond genre
}to the masses, yet they
}don't provide those new customers
}much incentive to stick around.
}How they can NOT see
}that is beyond me."
I have nothing to apologize for here. Of all the games that have come out in the past 10 years, we've done as much as anyone to bring the casual gamer into the fold. The RPG genre was dead before we started, and we were told over and over that there is no money in PC-based RPGs. I've even been told by makers of some of the other large RPGs that have come since D1 that their projects were saved from the corporate hatchet by the success of Diablo.
I'm glad you didn't take down your site. It is a welcome and appreciated addition to the Diablo community.
}I object. I disagree. I've made
}my case. My protest will
}continue for as long as
}I remain unsatisfied about this
}issue.
I'd rather you felt otherwise, but I accept and appreciate your stance. If nothing else, I'd like to focus on where we agree (which is probably almost everything but PK) going forward.
Best Regards,
Max Schaefer
VP, Blizzard North
PS: If you want to continue, let's start a new thread!
Click this link to Read Sirian's Second Reply to Max
| Sirian's Diablo II Page | Sirian's Expansion Page |