Blizzard's Rob Pardo Comments by Rob Fahey

Oooh first..

Really nice article, Rob :)

As a designer myself it really inspires me to read interviews with industry veterans like Rob Pardo. Back in the day it was Diablo 2 that first got me interested in online games in the first place and although not specifically an MMO, I remember the same feeling playing that as I did playing WoW for the first time.

OK I prefer LOTRO now but you simply got to hand it to Blizzard for defining an era.

Interesting interview and article. However, by concentrating on the multiplayer aspects of the game first, if they are to ensure integrity between single player and multi-player elements they have to maintain game play conventions established for multiplayer that may limit the single player experience. It obviously seems to be working for them but I would have thought it would have been better to have a engine team generating the core technology and then two sub-teams (although with a high degree of staff interchangeability) working on the multi and single player elements in parallel to give the most rounded product.

Hhhhm I have to disagree.. Although the system sounds unorthdox, the guys at Blizzard tune and hone the multiplayer system creating an already fantasic player experience. As Pardo explains, that gives the designers an amazing set of tools - controls, animations, gameplay flow, mechanics etc even before they touch the single player experience. I think it's a stroke of genius tbh.

Ok, but say for instance you had a planned sequence in the single player that called for a giant stompy robot attacking the player and it was integral for the plot. Because there was no giant stompy robot in the multiplayer game, it couldn't be added, or at the very least wasn't as impressive as hoped, damaging the experience. You couldn't really retrofit it to the multiplayer because it would mess up the unit balance, and its not cool making it single player only because the player will be 'ooohhh if only I could use that in multiplayer'.

Now if the multiplayer was developed alongside the single player, they could implement said robot, and make sure that it was sufficiently balanced with the other units meaning that both experiences benefit.

@Concrete

But if you look at Warcraft III, that had a single-player experience that didn't assume co-op at all. We could do a lot of things in the single-player, including this idea of having sub-races like the demons or the naga. They had their own buildings and their own AI around them, but they weren't in multiplayer at all and were special cases in the single-player. We have the opportunity to do things like that if we want to, where and when we want to. It doesn't mean that you have to give up the multiplayer game to do it.

Special instances of units are a good way of getting round the problem, especially when they are 'add-on' forces, that are associated with, but not integral to the forces under the player's control, as they can be explained as part of the plot. However, I am wary of showing/giving players 'toys' that they become attached to, only to remove/limit their usage. The classic example that stands out for me is the original Mario Kart, it used to annoy the hell out of me that each character had a special weapon that only their AI could use, and was not available to the player.

Now for me, co-operative single player content is a different debate. I love working with friends as a team in games (my favourite gaming experience ever was playing two player System Shock 2), but there are definite compromises to be made to single player experiences in facilitating co-operative play, all the way from the top, plot and progression structure consequences, right the way to the bottom, making sure doors can be re-opened or implementing work a rounds. Definitely great putting it in if you can without sacrificing single player though, and I'm glad that more devs are doing so these days.

So just because I am "casual" that automatically means I enjoy shallow gamedesign?

I would almost say it could be harder to make good (not shallow) gameplay for the casual players and easier to make something for the hardcore because they will play pretty much anything even if its unbeatable or not-interesting if only to get some sort of bragging rights.

And when he says "make that stuff much more accessible" is that like raising the level cap in WoW and thereby making some dungeons soloable? If thats the case I cant really take him serious.

And the "a more casual, broad-market gamer - they're not going to put fifty-five hundred hours into a game, right?" statement/question is just plain wrong. I know many casual WoW-players that have put a LOT more than 100 hours into the game.

To me it just looks like you let him off really easy in the interview.

Their design of the starting levels of draenei and blood-elves in TBC is so far as I can remember the only real example of an attempt from their side to implement something that was more focused on casual players than the hardcore in WoW. And I bet that wasnt an easy task for them.

Invite him back for another round and let him answer some more challenging questions :-D

The StarCraft II team must be one of the last in the world still wrestling with the implications of a move from 2D to 3D.

Can someone name a truly 3D RTS? Height is always a limited measurement, is it not? I've yet to play a really free 3D RTS.

One thing I can say is that I've enjoyed every Blizzard game I've played, although I think a remake of Rock n' Roll racing is well overdue. They do have an impressive history, just one that maybe WoW dominates these days.

True 3D RTS . . err, hostile waters? Although that was mainly perspective, and didn't really affect game play a great deal.

And when he says "make that stuff much more accessible" is that like raising the level cap in WoW and thereby making some dungeons soloable? If thats the case I cant really take him serious.

You seem to make quite an effort to deliberately misunderstand him. Why do you pick out one single, unimportant aspect, which obviously isn't even what he means at all, because he talks about the pre-release development process? Pretty obvious that WoW is played by millions of "casual" gamers, and lots of not so casual raiding guilds. Just like Starcraft is and was played by Korean hardcore E-Sports gamers and millions of casuals who played singleplayer and enjoyed the story and cutscenes just as much as the campaign.

Sorry, but for me Blizzard are only successful in one area and with one game - World of Warcraft

I think you'll be hardpressed to find another company who has so many games released that are still actively played so many people years after their release. That's the definition of success for me.

I personally do not put them in the same league as the truly great gaming companies like Capcom, Konami and Sega who have produced a wide variety of great games for decades and made video games what they are today.

I put them two leagues ahead of any of those you mentioned, none of which played a big role in my gaming career. Horses for courses. :)

@Fightclubber

You're kidding right? Starcraft has sold millions and is still one of the most-played games in the world. It's a National Sport in Korea with its tournaments major tv events ffs!

Whilst they haven't made as many games as some of the big producers such as sega, or capcom, they've only been around half as long, every single game (pretty much) they have ever made has been a huge seller and their revenue alone (mostly from warcraft, it must be said) makes up over 1/3 of activision's revenue. Which is why its activision/blizzard and not just activision. They are a huge player in the PC market.

Blizzard are famous for perfecting other peoples ideas, simple as that. They cherry pick what they see as the best of other peoples work and implement them better.

@Nephirion: True, but show me a single games developer that hasn't just refined existing ideas from other games? No game is truly 100% original apart from genre-firsts.

I'm pretty sure they were the first to invent instanced dungeons though in MMOs, and RPG-style Hero units in RTS

Blizzard are the best PC dev by far.

"Blizzard are famous for perfecting other peoples ideas, simple as that. They cherry pick what they see as the best of other peoples work and implement them better."

Oh for the love of god. That is all every RPG maker had done since Ultima III - that does not devalue the exercise in any way.

Nice article. I get the feeling that their approach to game design, when you boil it right down, is the same as all the greats. They just spit and polish the shit out of the game until they're happy with it, and then they release it.


Like Mario games, or Half-Life games or ICO games. They somehow have the latitude to spend as much time cooking their game until they're happy with it.


Their approach sounds similar too I think. They seem to have spent plenty of time playing around with workable gameplay elements to make sure they work. I approve of this gameplay first make-up later idea. :)

@FWB: Well there are probably better examples, but Men of War springs to mind somewhat. Some of the stuff in there works in 2D too (a la Sudden Strike), but most of it would be really really weird in 2D. I don't think 2D would've allowed for the detail that Men of War has, for example tank shells penetrating buildings.

I see what you mean though... most RTS games are really quite oblivious to whether they are 3D or not.

@Fightclubber: Not so many people cared about in the mid-90s... were you alive back then? Because me and my friends played it over and over again. Everyone from my generation with even the slightest interest in computer games seems to have played StarCraft to some extent. It was just huge, and I still remember the intro with the space redneck, or the racing course with all the sheep.

Anyway good article. I would like to see more "meet the designer" articles. How games are created and what goes into it is very interesting, makes you appreciate them more.

"Can someone name a truly 3D RTS? Height is always a limited measurement, is it not? I've yet to play a really free 3D RTS."

Truly 3D? What do you want to say with that, that the genre doesn't need it? It isn't always necessary but if you want "truly 3D" play Homeworld then. If you want the game world and units to behave like in 3D with some real "weight" and simulated weapon physics to them then play Total Annihilation. While StarCraft II looks cool and has a very nice visual style I don't see much that couldn't have been done with a 2D engine. I think it's a shame to be honest.

"How the world's most successful studio makes games."

Within cubicles made of money.

@FWB: Well there are probably better examples, but Men of War springs to mind somewhat. Some of the stuff in there works in 2D too (a la Sudden Strike), but most of it would be really really weird in 2D. I don't think 2D would've allowed for the detail that Men of War has, for example tank shells penetrating buildings.

I see what you mean though... most RTS games are really quite oblivious to whether they are 3D or not.

MoW definitely does a lot on 3D - variable terrain, craters formed on the battlefield and you can actually make snipers climb up trees IIRC - but you don't have units running up and down house levels or fighters (as there is no air combat) alternating altitude. Granted it might be really difficult to control. I wasn't really criticising the genre, just pointing out the current limitation in "true" 3D. :)

Truly 3D? What do you want to say with that, that the genre doesn't need it? It isn't always necessary but if you want "truly 3D" play Homeworld then. If you want the game world and units to behave like in 3D with some real "weight" and simulated weapon physics to them then play Total Annihilation. While StarCraft II looks cool and has a very nice visual style I don't see much that couldn't have been done with a 2D engine. I think it's a shame to be honest.

I'm not actually saying much with it other than that the majority of RTSs haven't moved to full 3D. Not a complaint as such, since the focus of their combat doesn't really need it and in many cases it'd just be a pain... organising men on house levels in CoH would just be annoying. No doubt I'd rather SC2 had gone down the 3D path more. Guess I'm just being pedantic in my wording. :)

"The StarCraft II team must be one of the last in the world still wrestling with the implications of a move from 2D to 3D. "

3DRealms?

@Ryuken
Yes mate I can.
It was published by Activison and developed by Pandemic around 10 years ago. It was called Battlezone, and was followed up by a more swish (but less enjoyable) iteration called Battlezone II. back then there was no information super highway, but Battlezone was multiplayer, up to 4 players, over a modem.
Full 3D RTS, including base building, resource mining, 3rd person and 1st person realtime fighting.
It was the dog's bollocks, way ahead of its' time, but sadly a bit too hard on the brain cells for the average gamer back then. They were playing Crash Bandicoot on their Playstations.

It's important to remember that most of the nay-sayers and claims of Blizzard being a one-trick pony probably come from 17 year old gamers who know nothing from Blizzard other than WoW. The last full game release from Blizzard prior to WoW was Warcraft III in 2002. That's *seven* years ago. When many of us were enjoying Warcraft III, or Diablo II, most of the Blizzard-haters were probably outside playing kiss-chase.

The quality of Blizzard's games easily surpases any other company, on console or PC. That's pretty much undisputed (go and look at average review scores if you care). However, they are far, *far*, from being the most prolific so it shouldn't be surprising that many of today's gamers don't 'get' the excitement behind Starcraft II.

Darkjinxter, I forgot about that one. Hoho, the joys of BattleZone in MP on a 56 k modem, skimming around in the Grizzly.
http://www.planetbattlezone.com/battlezo...

Blizzard are the most consistently, albeit slow, top-notch producers.

Warcraft- Class
Diablo- Class
Warcraft 2- Class
Starcraft- Class
Diablo 2- Out of this world
Warcraft 3- Class
WoW- Class
Starcraft 2- Class?
Diablo 2- Class?

This is why PC gaming is still the best.

I'm reading this site on a netbook. I thought it said 'Rob Paedo'. Tee hee.

whereas pc gaming bores me rigid. consoles are where it's at.

Well, everyone to the best of his abilities, eh.

I just wish someone other than blizz (and possibly valve) could make a solid pc game with high replayability and (even vaguely) balanced multiplayer.

And BadgerFiend, if Diablo 2 is the first online game that got you interested, you must be a very young/lucky games designer!

The thing is with Blizzard not having made a game in the last 7 years it's somewhat doubtful how well their design will work in the modern world. If Company of Heroes was out when Warcraft III was released I doubt Warcraft III would have warrented a moments notice. If Blizzard haven't somehow managed to refine their process considerably in the past 7 years then they will have become utterly redundant.

They did WoW? Or does that not count as a game anymore? I think they know very well what people want, as is evident by the enormous beast that is WoW.

So there will be playable goblins in the next World of Warcraft (WoW) expansion, you say?

#38 Rubarack wrote: "The thing is with Blizzard not having made a game in the last 7 years it's somewhat doubtful how well their design will work in the modern world. If Company of Heroes was out when Warcraft III was released I doubt Warcraft III would have warrented a moments notice. If Blizzard haven't somehow managed to refine their process considerably in the past 7 years then they will have become utterly redundant."

I seriously doubt that. While Company of Heroes got good reviews it sold way less than any Blizzard RTS.
Just face it - Blizzard doesn't have to look at their competitors - they can just do their own thing and they will sell amount of copies that Relic and co only can dream of.

While other focus on invention, Blizzard focus on fun and game play, which at the end of the day is whats important.

No LAN in D3 and SC2 means I'll pirate them for sure.

Thanks for shitting on your most hardcore fans, Blizzard.

Interesting article..yet I read it without my heart in it (ok that sounds lame). I was always going to buy Diablo 3...the hours and hours I spent in Diablo 2 single player...let's hope Diablo 3 has the same magic!

As for Starcraft 2 I think I'll rather wait for the zerg expansion to come along. While I loved the original I only played through the Terran campaign once...I just prefer the Protoss and Zerg more and I don't think that's about to change with the second one (so maybe I can pick up some kind of boxset that includes all three when they release the 3rd part...probably around 2014 or so).

Excluding LAN is painful...but I guess I have complained enough everywhere else I could so I'm not going to repeat it here again - let's just hold out and see how their new battle.net system pans out.

I'll be keeping an eye out when Starcraft 2 releases (since I won't be buying it at release time)...maybe Co-op LAN will still make it's way into Diablo 3 though..still buying that one on release day though!

I have an Xbox 360 and a PS3 and I play a wide range of games on them (mostly on the 360) but as far as PC gaming goes its pretty much all Blizzard games. I love WC3 and TFT and am addicted to World of Warcraft. Looking forward to Diablo 3 and SC2.