More Early Diablo Tidbits from David Craddock


David Craddock continues to leak interesting early D1/D2 tidbits via ShackNews, in promotion of his long-awaited book about the history of Blizzard North. This week’s info concerns the class options for Diablo I and II, and some details about how Tristram and the NPC merchants were almost very different in Diablo II. A quote:

“The sub-class idea would have seen three archetypes that boiled down to fighter, rogue, and spell caster,” Craddock said. “The rogue branched into sisters (of the Sightless Eye, the rogue guild) and rangers, or hunters; the fighter into templar, or paladin, and berserkers; and the spell caster into sorceress and necromancer. North decided against the idea because multiple genders would mean building and animating 10 character models.

That’s a significant undertaking for any game, but Diablo 2’s designers had also come up with the component system, a way of displaying individual pieces of gear to give each character a unique appearance–purple skull helm, red leather boots, gold body armor, and so on. Piling on male and female versions of each class would have put too great a strain on the already-bogged-down character art team.”

Additional teases are coming each Monday until the end of October, when ShackNews will be posting a full interview with David Craddock and a whole chapter from his book, which is now due in early 2013. If you want more, I interviewed him for the Diablo Podcast a few months ago.

Tagged As: | Categories: Blizzard North, Diablo 1, Diablo 2

Comments

You're not logged in. Register or login to post a comment.
  1. Perhaps it is time to interview the cleaning woman who worked for Blizzard North once …

    Should be an interesting read how the poop of Brevik and Bill Roper looked like.

    Seriously, D2 was published 4 years before a full 3D rendered WOW with that one a seamless loading world to conquer.

    When I read texte like “but Diablo 2?s designers had also come up with the component system, a way of displaying individual pieces of gear to give each character a unique appearance–purple skull helm, red leather boots, gold body armor, and so on…”

    For God’s sake D’2 present day look is one of the most dated one of all video games coming out since 2000…

    • There’s one thing that seriously questions my intelligence. How the hell did you get to be such a Diablo III fanboy if you dislike so much Diablo II?

      Man, DII was a huge success. It was/is a really good game, in spite all the gibberish that the DIII developer team said about this and that. It had a perfect timing as well. Why can’t people analyze things as they are?

      One of the main reasons DIII is becoming more and more of a disappointment is the complete lack of maturity, understanding and critical analysis capability of the developing team. And you just go along with their speech.

      Come on! DII had 12+ years of activity. That is success. That is a good game. I seriously wish DIII has the same success, but it won’t if people continue to be stupid to the point of not understanding that DII had a formula that worked.

      What an insanely lack of maturity and intelligence. No wonder the world is upside down. It’s fanboism just because; it’s trash talk just because…

    • “Perhaps it is time to interview the cleaning woman who worked for Blizzard North once ”

      well I’m sure here responses would be more intelligent than yours

    • Thrall, you read my mind. How does this information affect anything today?

  2. For God’s sake, D2 was one of the most well-played, enjoyable game that lasted years and years even when games moved into the realms of 3D, people still play D2 and use it as a benchmarks against other AARPGs that came out.

    Just because something is brand new doesn’t mean it merits more attention than something ancient. That why there’s history and people interested in. There are people interested in Diablo’s history and what could-be. The people who designed the game has insight and knowledge that can be beneficial and fun to read. The game is the product; the people behind the product are sometimes more important. Besides, their ideas are not out-dated or of not any merit. The three base classes and having specializations later? The idea is now found in the Old Republic. Just because they thought of it ten years ago doesn’t mean it’s outdated.

    That D2 came before WoW or any 3D games doesn’t diminish its importance, and most importantly fun.

    So what if a game is old? It’s the old game ideas that are getting people’s attention nowadays. Fallout 2 was an extremely old game by your reckoning; people threw money at its creators at a Kickstarter for a spiritual sequel.
    Dota is an ancient game; people are willing to support the team that does Dota 2 because some of its creator are behind it. Old != valuable.

  3. I find it interesting that their subclass idea ended up in Hellgate London. I liked the idea, but there was not enough differentiation between the Blademaster/Guardian subclasses.

  4. sorry to tell u this but Ultima Online did a better job at character components and it came out 4 years before Diablo 2 and 6 months after diablo 1 did i think they did a better job personally

    • But Ultima Online is a MMO where character lifetime is way longer than in an AARPG. It’s like comparing a MacDonald beef patty to a steak at a high-class restaurant.

      That said, UO was the first MMO. It stands tall among the games of that period.

Comments are closed.