|
Part 2 contains the SC2 specific discussion
https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/rob-pardo-part-2/
Part 1 discusses Blizzard's earlier titles and Ultima, D&D talk, and a little gem about BNet2 and Sc2.
https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/rob-pardo-part-1/
Part 2 is 2 Hours of Rob Pardo discussing WC3, WoW, SC2, MOBAs, D3, Hearthstone
Altogether this is a 4 hour discussion about SC2, D&D, the Ultima series, SC, SC:BW, Diablo 1&2, WC3, WoW, MOBAs, D3, and Hearthstone.
lalush posted this interview on Reddit and i don't know why it is not a thread on here yet.
Thanks to lalush: this interview is incredible.
Rob Pardo was the Chief Creative Officer at the time he resigned in July 2014. He was a key game designer within Blizzard for 17 years.
Pardo was "Lead Designer" for WoW, WoW:TBC, WC3:RoC, WC3:FT, SC:BW, and now we know 2/3s of SC2.
Some highlights from the SC2 Talk:
-Pardo was lead designer through the first 2/3s of SC2's development. Browder was brought in and promoted to Lead Designer for the final 1/3.
-an explanation as to why SC2 took so long to make. ( Pardo's comment not mine.. his view is.. the game took "so long to make")
-he explains that high expectations created a lot fear in the design team.
-an account of how unlimited unit selection got put in SC2.
-in part 1 of the talk Pardo states SC2 was delayed almost a year because they wanted BNet2 to ship with SC2.
Great insights from a great designer.
If you wish to delve even deeper into Rob Pardo:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/460977-rob-pardo-leaves-blizzard-entertainment
the part about SC2 being delayed almost a year i distinctly remember. i recall in February 2009 Dustin Browder triumphantly announcing "we're in the home stretch". well the beta wasn't until March 2010.
http://www.geek.com/games/starcraft-2-is-in-the-final-stretch-695871/
|
I saw that couple days ago, but never posted it here because I don't have 4 hours to spare listening to design decisions. If I didn't listen to the entire thing, I don't think I should post it here.
I did listen to part of it, and what I heard is interesting.
|
-in part 1 of the talk Pardo states SC2 was delayed almost a year because they wanted BNet2 to ship with SC2.
I don't even... How did it take almost a year longer than the development of the core game to make bnet 0.2? Especially in it's form at the beginning of WoL.
|
There are a million ways to FUBAR a software project. especially when there are 3+ other important projects going on at the same time.
Blizzard is not perfect. However, they get enough right, often enough that i keep coming back to play their games.
BNet2 is miles better than anything you can get with C&C or CoH or AoE.
|
I agree, most of my problems with it are on a design level rather than the underlying architecture of battle net. My main gripe is that it on top of delaying the game they managed to make it so uninviting.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/471497-huge-list-of-fixes-sc2-needs-in-order-to-be-great
There are too many things on that list that easily could of been accomplished during the original development.
But yeah, Blizzard is above and beyond every other developer for RTS games. Just finished exams and gonna play through WC3 campaign all night 
|
On December 16 2014 14:19 AC3 wrote:Show nested quote +-in part 1 of the talk Pardo states SC2 was delayed almost a year because they wanted BNet2 to ship with SC2.
I don't even... How did it take almost a year longer than the development of the core game to make bnet 0.2? Especially in it's form at the beginning of WoL.
Writing lines of code.
|
On December 16 2014 14:19 AC3 wrote:Show nested quote +-in part 1 of the talk Pardo states SC2 was delayed almost a year because they wanted BNet2 to ship with SC2.
I don't even... How did it take almost a year longer than the development of the core game to make bnet 0.2? Especially in it's form at the beginning of WoL.
Because things that look simple on the outside are usually incredibly complicated below the surface?
|
The quality is pretty low I don't know if I can listen to it for 4 hours. Sounded interesting the little bit I listened to.
|
On December 17 2014 01:16 SigmaoctanusIV wrote:
The quality is pretty low I don't know if I can listen to it for 4 hours. Sounded interesting the little bit I listened to.
The quality was fine, I just wished it was transcribed so I can skim and read what I want, and not be forced to listen to the entire 4 hours.
|
United States12240 Posts
Just finished this up. Some cool insights from Rob although I get the feeling he might have inserted himself into some areas of development where maybe he wasn't as directly involved. For example, one of my friends was on the Starcraft Strike Team and was so proud that his big contribution to the game was suggesting slowing the Overlord speed to Terran building levels. About 40 minutes into the interview, Rob takes sole credit for that change. I'm not taking away from his substantial influence but there were a few instances where I thought to myself "hmmm, there were prooobably other people involved in that discussion."
Thanks for posting this though, a lot of cool stuff in here.
|
This is far from comprehensive but will get you started. There are other topics discussed in between the bits Ive tagged etc.
Starcraft 1 relevant bits:
Part 1, Starcraft 1 sections:
00.38 (game balance)
00.46 (Zileas using reavers)
00.51 (fastest game speed)
00.55 (apm)
01.07 (Maps)
01.10 (Broodwar specifically as opposed to starcraft vanilla)
01.18 (Amount of hours he worked)
01.21 (Meaning of balance, Boxer using vultures)
01.22 (emergent gameplay, spellcasters, move and shoot units)
Part 2
01.26 on part 2 (unlimited unit selection for starcraft 2)
|
On December 16 2014 14:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
There are a million ways to FUBAR a software project. especially when there are 3+ other important projects going on at the same time.
Blizzard is not perfect. However, they get enough right, often enough that i keep coming back to play their games.
BNet2 is miles better than anything you can get with C&C or CoH or AoE.
Yes, but the old B.net was also, arguably, better than the new one.
|
I think I'll revisit this thread to see what other people give away about the talk (particularly sc2) to find out if i'm interested enough to go wading through any of it :p Interest is definitely piqued.. but where's the insider juice that competes with the current sony e-mail leaks XD
|
On December 17 2014 12:55 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 14:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
There are a million ways to FUBAR a software project. especially when there are 3+ other important projects going on at the same time.
Blizzard is not perfect. However, they get enough right, often enough that i keep coming back to play their games.
BNet2 is miles better than anything you can get with C&C or CoH or AoE. Yes, but the old B.net was also, arguably, better than the new one.
i like the BNet2 ladder system and how my opponent is assigned a loss when he pulls the network chord
|
It feels like this interview just makes the devs seem even more confusing.
It's weird how they could have held one little item with such regard (6 months to decide unit selection limits?) yet gun down other old dev decisions like high ground with hardly any forethought. This company is so damn weird.
|
On December 21 2014 02:43 PineapplePizza wrote:
It feels like this interview just makes the devs seem even more confusing.
It's weird how they could have held one little item with such regard (6 months to decide unit selection limits?) yet gun down other old dev decisions like high ground with hardly any forethought. This company is so damn weird.
All companies with large teams are like this. Some decisions and actions take months to decide on, even though they end up being minor in the long run. You have to get through so many items every 2-3 weeks, and everybody has their own items to spearhead first. Some things face resistance from the team faced with programming it, or the team(s) procrastinate on it in favor of their dear projects.
|
the reaver nerf is interesting... now i know why the reaver doesnt instant fire after being dropped..
|
On December 20 2014 23:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 12:55 HellRoxYa wrote:On December 16 2014 14:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
There are a million ways to FUBAR a software project. especially when there are 3+ other important projects going on at the same time.
Blizzard is not perfect. However, they get enough right, often enough that i keep coming back to play their games.
BNet2 is miles better than anything you can get with C&C or CoH or AoE. Yes, but the old B.net was also, arguably, better than the new one. i like the BNet2 ladder system and how my opponent is assigned a loss when he pulls the network chord
He's obviously talking about the UI side of things and the front-end of BNet2.
|
The warcraft3 bnet, whatever you call it, was far superior to the so-called bnet 2.0 on launch. It even had chatrooms.
edit: Oh but I'm loving the interview haha 
|
srsly blizz game design philosophy is turning into fast food, they want games to be over quicker.. and rob doesnt understand why mobas are pop lol...
|
On January 15 2015 21:38 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2014 23:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 17 2014 12:55 HellRoxYa wrote:On December 16 2014 14:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
There are a million ways to FUBAR a software project. especially when there are 3+ other important projects going on at the same time.
Blizzard is not perfect. However, they get enough right, often enough that i keep coming back to play their games.
BNet2 is miles better than anything you can get with C&C or CoH or AoE. Yes, but the old B.net was also, arguably, better than the new one. i like the BNet2 ladder system and how my opponent is assigned a loss when he pulls the network chord He's obviously talking about the UI side of things and the front-end of BNet2.
i'm talking about why top execs like Pardo think BNet 2.0 is good relative to competing products.
i also like the automatch system. BNet 1.0 didn't have automatch.
relative to the other ranking, and automatch systems of their competitiors in the RTS genre i think Blizz did a nice job with it.
|
Bisutopia19307 Posts
On January 16 2015 00:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 21:38 KeksX wrote:On December 20 2014 23:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 17 2014 12:55 HellRoxYa wrote:On December 16 2014 14:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
There are a million ways to FUBAR a software project. especially when there are 3+ other important projects going on at the same time.
Blizzard is not perfect. However, they get enough right, often enough that i keep coming back to play their games.
BNet2 is miles better than anything you can get with C&C or CoH or AoE. Yes, but the old B.net was also, arguably, better than the new one. i like the BNet2 ladder system and how my opponent is assigned a loss when he pulls the network chord He's obviously talking about the UI side of things and the front-end of BNet2. i'm talking about why top execs like Pardo think BNet 2.0 is good relative to competing products. i also like the automatch system. BNet 1.0 didn't have automatch. relative to the other ranking, and automatch systems of their competitiors in the RTS genre i think Blizz did a nice job with it.
It's original design was very harmful to the UMS(Arcade) community. The WC3 bnet was amazing for people who didn't play competitively. SC2 bnet has improved, but was no where near as rewarding to map makers in the beginning and lost a good portion of the community.
|
On January 16 2015 00:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 21:38 KeksX wrote:On December 20 2014 23:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 17 2014 12:55 HellRoxYa wrote:On December 16 2014 14:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
There are a million ways to FUBAR a software project. especially when there are 3+ other important projects going on at the same time.
Blizzard is not perfect. However, they get enough right, often enough that i keep coming back to play their games.
BNet2 is miles better than anything you can get with C&C or CoH or AoE. Yes, but the old B.net was also, arguably, better than the new one. i like the BNet2 ladder system and how my opponent is assigned a loss when he pulls the network chord He's obviously talking about the UI side of things and the front-end of BNet2. i'm talking about why top execs like Pardo think BNet 2.0 is good relative to competing products. i also like the automatch system. BNet 1.0 didn't have automatch. relative to the other ranking, and automatch systems of their competitiors in the RTS genre i think Blizz did a nice job with it.
wc3 had automatch?!
|
On January 16 2015 00:33 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 00:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On January 15 2015 21:38 KeksX wrote:On December 20 2014 23:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 17 2014 12:55 HellRoxYa wrote:On December 16 2014 14:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
There are a million ways to FUBAR a software project. especially when there are 3+ other important projects going on at the same time.
Blizzard is not perfect. However, they get enough right, often enough that i keep coming back to play their games.
BNet2 is miles better than anything you can get with C&C or CoH or AoE. Yes, but the old B.net was also, arguably, better than the new one. i like the BNet2 ladder system and how my opponent is assigned a loss when he pulls the network chord He's obviously talking about the UI side of things and the front-end of BNet2. i'm talking about why top execs like Pardo think BNet 2.0 is good relative to competing products. i also like the automatch system. BNet 1.0 didn't have automatch. relative to the other ranking, and automatch systems of their competitiors in the RTS genre i think Blizz did a nice job with it. It's original design was very harmful to the UMS(Arcade) community. The WC3 bnet was amazing for people who didn't play competitively. SC2 bnet has improved, but was no where near as rewarding to map makers in the beginning and lost a good portion of the community.
did Rob Pardo work directly on BNet2? i don't think he did. when the top creative guy is not working directly on the product in question this is what happens. there was a lead game designer for SC2 and a Lead Designer guy for BNet2. There never was any kind of guy assigned to making sure the UMS(Arcade) community would have an improved experience. All we got were general statements about how "everything will be better". and they promised map makers and modders they could sell their stuff in the arcade.
i think Blizzard's unkept promises regarding the arcade boil down to the "lack of development band width" that Pardo mentions in his talk. The part where he discusses why Blizzard never made a moba or partnered with the guys making Dota1.
when the mapmakers left; do you know where they went? is there another SC2/ModKit/Bnet2 structure that competes with Blizzard for talent?
|
On January 16 2015 01:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 00:33 BisuDagger wrote:On January 16 2015 00:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On January 15 2015 21:38 KeksX wrote:On December 20 2014 23:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 17 2014 12:55 HellRoxYa wrote:On December 16 2014 14:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
There are a million ways to FUBAR a software project. especially when there are 3+ other important projects going on at the same time.
Blizzard is not perfect. However, they get enough right, often enough that i keep coming back to play their games.
BNet2 is miles better than anything you can get with C&C or CoH or AoE. Yes, but the old B.net was also, arguably, better than the new one. i like the BNet2 ladder system and how my opponent is assigned a loss when he pulls the network chord He's obviously talking about the UI side of things and the front-end of BNet2. i'm talking about why top execs like Pardo think BNet 2.0 is good relative to competing products. i also like the automatch system. BNet 1.0 didn't have automatch. relative to the other ranking, and automatch systems of their competitiors in the RTS genre i think Blizz did a nice job with it. It's original design was very harmful to the UMS(Arcade) community. The WC3 bnet was amazing for people who didn't play competitively. SC2 bnet has improved, but was no where near as rewarding to map makers in the beginning and lost a good portion of the community. did Rob Pardo work directly on BNet2? i don't think he did. when the top creative guy is not working directly on the product in question this is what happens. there was a lead game designer for SC2 and a Lead Designer guy for BNet2. There never was any kind of guy assigned to making sure the UMS(Arcade) community would have an improved experience. All we got were general statements about how "everything will be better". and they promised map makers and modders they could sell their stuff in the arcade. i think Blizzard's unkept promises regarding the arcade boil down to the "lack of development band width" that Pardo mentions in his talk. The part where he discusses why Blizzard never made a moba or partnered with the guys making Dota1. when the mapmakers left; do you know where they went? is there another SC2/ModKit/Bnet2 structure that competes with Blizzard for talent?
my guess would be that they just left because the system was awful.
the guy who kept developing dota went to valve (THANK GOD HE DID THAT); a fairly known diablo 2 modder wanted to keep on making mods for diablo 3 but thats not possible. i think he worked/works on path of exile
|
Listened to it all now, very enligtening. Seems he is the one responsible for making Broodwar great rather than merely good. I especially enjoyed learning about the specific design elements that he championed.
On an almost unlrelated note I also learned that Zileas was the guy who invented the reaver micro, who then went on to working on his own rts, Strifeshadow, who is now apparently working for Riot. I remember having a short email discussion with him when Strifeshadow was announced. So, that's cool lol.
|
Some stuff about Starcraft, Warcraft 3 and deathballs from the end of part 1.
"There's a lot of things in Warcraft 3 that didn't quite get where I would want it to be ... just how clumpy the combats were, like that, and I don't know how to solve it again."
"Can you be more specific about what the problem is?"
"What I mean is, so the thing that I think is really cool in starcraft is you can have multiple engagements all over the map. You know, you can have like two units exploring over here, you can have a small skirmish fight happening here and defending something back in your base. Warcraft 3 doesn't really have that, it had, you know, you basically always travel round with a big stack, you always have your big army. In that way it was very much like heros of might and magic, you know, and I just wish that there was a way to not have that be the way you always have to play the game."
"You think that's inherent to, like, having the heroes? Because, like -"
"Yea, I don't know, might be."
"- why would you have your guys not be with your hero, I guess, basically"
"That's the thing because heroes, it ends up being the backside of some of your design goals, you know. We wanted heroes to be in every battle, we wanted them to be powerful and meaningful, but then that necessitates then, well, you're almost stupid to have units without a hero now. And then the other thing about it too is, it also is a function of the third resource of the game that is never tracked on a leaderboard is experience, you know, which is a super important, valuable resource and you don't want to be out killing things without absorbing the experience for your hero also. That's another reason why you're always going to travel in a stack, but I think it makes kind of the battles and the tactics, you know, not as interesting as something like in a starcraft"
|
Canada11439 Posts
On January 16 2015 02:43 Osmoses wrote:
Listened to it all now, very enligtening. Seems he is the one responsible for making Broodwar great rather than merely good. I especially enjoyed learning about the specific design elements that he championed.
I don't know. I'm kinda with Exaclibur regarding him possibly inserting himself into some areas he maybe wasn't directly involved. I listened to his podcast, but I've also read Patrick Wyatt's coding blogs, and I think a lot of what made BW fundamentally good came in the vanilla game. I'm sure Rob did all sorts of good thing for BW, but I think it's harder to find a superstar when its such a collaborative process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
