Build for hardcore first, says Blizzard

By Oli Welsh Published 1 July, 2009

Pardo argues accessibility can come later.

In an interview with Eurogamer, Blizzard's game design chief Rob Pardo has argued that it makes more sense to build a game with the hardcore gamer in mind first, and then improve its accessibility later.

"It's not really any different for StarCraft than it is for World of Warcraft, Warcraft III or Diablo, to be honest," Pardo said. "We really try to serve both audiences.

"One of the ways we do that is that we build for the depth first - for the hardcore first... Then, what we do gradually once we have that basic game - which is really fun to all of us, because a lot of the people here are pretty hardcore - then we really start trying to make the game more and more accessible."

It's easier to design for more casual players, Pardo explained, and therefore easier to add those features to a strong hardcore design than the other way around.

"The reason we build the game in that order is because you can easily come up with game design concepts or ideas or mechanics that are shallow and designed for a more casual, broad-market gamer - they're not going to put fifty-five hundred hours into a game, right? But we really want to make sure that we build in those features that have a lot of depth and a lot of replayability first, because we can always make that stuff much more accessible for someone that's not going to put in the same amount of hours."

Elsewhere in an interview covering the current development of StarCraft II and Blizzard's design philosophy in general, Pardo reveals that Blizzard similarly - and contrary to the way many other studios work - builds and tests multiplayer components before developing the single-player side of its games, and prioritises having a playable version of a game up and running over creating detailed design documents.

"We very much believe in not making a mammoth design document and then just having a team make that to spec and shipping the game," Pardo said, and added that "I think that if you want to have a great multiplayer game and have a great single-player game, you should build the multiplayer first.

"The challenge a lot of console games have is that they think about the single-player, they build that game, and then they try to tack the multiplayer on at the end - which I don't think is ever going to be very successful."

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (11) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Canyarion #1 3 years ago

    Sounds like it makes a lot of sense.

    But please Blizzard, just hurry up...

  • lolife.se #2 3 years ago

    Sort of like porn, then.

  • Canyarion #3 3 years ago

    @EarlBasset
    This was out a few hours before the interview was posted. But you're right, it's not very useful.

  • Rack #4 3 years ago

    Oh wow. Just goes to show what kind of cack headed idiocy can be obviated by protracted development. Great game design demands that minimising excess complexity be built into the very foundation of the game. If you throw rules in at random and try and sort through the mess later it will take an inordinate amount of time to make anything even partway competent.

  • Shinji #5 3 years ago

    That's almost exactly the same argument that Pardo was making, Rack. He was talking about creating tight, clear gameplay systems with huge depth from the outset, and polishing them and getting them right before adding on the extra fripperies and design-candy that boosts the experience for players who are less concerned about depth.

  • Darkjinxter #6 3 years ago

    "It's easier to design for more casual players"
    It's a damn sight easier to state the bleeding obvious on gamers websites though, which is why I'm still in a non-job, making a few bob for talking shit.

  • Red-Moose #7 3 years ago

    @lolife.se: damn you!!!!

  • Rack #8 3 years ago

    Hmm, that wasn't really clear from what he said, it really sounds like they threw in rules to try and make a deep experience, and then stripped out unnecessary fluff and tried to refine it until it would make sense. That's pretty much exactly what they did with WoW after all, but I thought that was more to do with using Everquest as a template.

  • Mox #9 3 years ago

    I believe it was Dogbert who once said "Be wary of advice from successful people, for they do not desire company."

  • butler` #10 3 years ago

    This article should be emailed to all lead designers the world over.

  • actionfitz #11 3 years ago

    aye, makes me think of how Call of Duty World at War shipped with the already excellent Multiplayer system of COD4 and then reskinned it for WW2 and made single player content.
    With the Xbox live play already tested and immediately familiar to fans it was almost a sure thing for success.
    He talks sense.