Interview Diablo III Interview with Jay Wilson at Gamasutra

[Crooked Bee]

Tags: Blizzard Entertainment; Diablo III; Jay Wilson

Gamasutra has done a huge interview with Diablo III's director Jay Wilson. In the interview, Jay discusses the game's development, the design philosophy behind it, fan feedback, and many other things -- among them design documents:

Did Diablo III have an official design document?

JW: No, not really. I certainly had a PowerPoint that I put together, which described high-level pillars of the project, and was seven things that we considered to be the core of the game.

Do you remember what those were?

JW: Those seven things were: approachable, powerful heroes, highly customizable, great item game, endlessly replayable, strong setting, and cooperative multiplayer.

We basically said these are the pillars we have to live by. Each one has a description of what they mean. And any time that we have a question about what the game should be, we just look back at those pillars. And that was our goal. That was how we set the project up.

We had some others, too, that were more [about] what we're adding to the project. And they were more feature-based, so for example, the PvP mode was one. The bigger focus on RPG elements was one, because we wanted it to be a more story-based game, without getting in the way of the action. So there were a few more like that.

But we didn't have a formal design document. I don't believe in the big design bible. I've done it before, and nobody reads it. I think the only purpose for having a design bible like that is for the guy who wrote it. If you, as a designer, you write a bible to get your head around your vision and your idea, write your bible. But don't ever expect anyone to read it. Don't even show it to anybody. Nobody reads that.

A lot of people are saying that; it's not just you. I think that a lot of people in interviews like this, with the industry press, talk about that. Or you see them at GDC, and they give a presentation; it's definitely not just you that's saying "screw design documents." They're talking about getting the actual feel down, iterating and iterating. How do you even start with that?

JW: Well, so what we did was we wrote those pillars. I think those pillars are really important. Because they're also things that everybody can hold in their head really easily.

There's a presentation. You don't hand a document to people. People won't read. That's the key. People do not read; doesn't matter what. Nobody wants to read a document, and if they do read, reading a document doesn't get them excited. And game development's all about getting people excited. Games are cool. Reading a document's not cool.

Reading a book is cool. [laughs] I don't want to put the message out there that reading is not good. But what I mean is, if I want to read, I want to read something cool. And a design document for a game, no matter how you spruce it up, ain't cool.

But I can sit here and tell you about a game, and I can get you excited about it. And that's what it should be. It should be about the team talking to one another, and should be about core ideas that everyone works to realize.​

I dunno, personally I love reading design documents. I mean, you can talk the talk, but can you write the write?

 

[asper]

approachable, powerful heroes, highly customizable, great item game, endlessly replayable, strong setting, and cooperative multiplayer.

They succeeded in all of those (except "strong setting") and the game IS STILL SHIT

 

[Castanova]

That's funny asper. Do you have an advance copy of the full game in order to make that judgement? How lucky of you!

I, for one, will start playing the full game tomorrow and odds are I'm going to fucking enjoy it. :haters:

 

[nihil]

I don't think it will be shit, but judging from the beta, it's disappointing in a number of ways.

 

[SerratedBiz]

The bigger focus on RPG elements was one, because we wanted it to be a more story-based game, without getting in the way of the action.

Now we only have to shove the RPG out of the way and some decent games might start to pop up.

 

[Castanova]

Actually, the odds are not a single fucking person is going to enjoy it tomorrow. (server issues in case you're retarded)


Generally, everything this faggot says is what's wrong with design. If you can't get your employees to read a design document, or better yet, fail to engage your employees with your "vision", the end result is something like Diablo 3. While technically you've addressed the issues you set out to hit as the "pillars" of your game--it still fucking sucks.

You can't teach people how to put heart and soul into games (or art in general) the goal is to inspire them to lend themselves to the project. So... yeah... give it 110% guys. There's no "I" in team. Corporate jargon and tented-finger-speeches inspire fuck all.

Unlikely, considering SC2 and the latest WoW expansion both launched with no major problems.

Another guy talking out of his ass.

Thanks for the review, Sovard. It's nice that both you and Asper got to play the game in advance. I didn't realize RPG Codex had so many connected people.

 

[Excommunicator]

But we didn't have a formal design document. I don't believe in the big design bible. I've done it before, and nobody reads it. I think the only purpose for having a design bible like that is for the guy who wrote it. If you, as a designer, you write a bible to get your head around your vision and your idea, write your bible. But don't ever expect anyone to read it. Don't even show it to anybody. Nobody reads that.

As Awor would say Jesus Fucking Christ. This is supposed to be the best of the best of game development and design. Here we have the director of one of the most successful* game franchises ever, of the most successful* game company ever and he says BS like this. There is just no integrity to this industry

The game industry is just a bunch of fucking clowns pretending to know what to do and just making shit up as they go. It is fucking disgrace to all those disciplines out there that are built upon extremely technical understandings, years of skill refinement and foundational theory, and a real striving for excellence. This man should be demoted to junior designer at once.

* Commercially.

There's a presentation. You don't hand a document to people. People won't read. That's the key. People do not read; doesn't matter what. Nobody wants to read a document, and if they do read, reading a document doesn't get them excited. And game development's all about getting people excited. Games are cool. Reading a document's not cool.

Reading a book is cool. [laughs] I don't want to put the message out there that reading is not good. But what I mean is, if I want to read, I want to read something cool. And a design document for a game, no matter how you spruce it up, ain't cool.

I hope I am around to see the day when your kind are shamed out of this industry by people who actually respect their fucking discipline.

 

[aris]

approachable, powerful heroes, highly customizable, great item game, endlessly replayable, strong setting, and cooperative multiplayer.

They succeeded in all of those (except "strong setting") and the game IS STILL SHIT

Said as if you've played it

 

[Menckenstein]

Let me write the design document for Diablo 4:

LAN SUPPOR--what's that Mr. Morhaime? I'm fired? Shit...

 

[Metro]

Not going to be as bad as most people here make out but it will be wholly underwhelming given the massive wait/development time. Meanwhile the indie developers will produce content of similar quality for a third (if not zero) of the cost, e.g., Torchlight 2, Grim Dawn, and Path of Exile. Blizzard is all hype now. It's an unstoppable juggernaut that can do no wrong so there is absolutely no market pressure on them to produce a quality game with any degree of depth.

 

[aris]

It's an unstoppable juggernaut that can do no wrong so there is absolutely no market pressure on them to produce a quality game with any degree of depth.

Hmm. Well, that seems pretty contradictory to that they (according to this developer at least) spent 2 years polishing the games. If it were true, why didn't they just make a farmville clone, place 60$ tag on it, and call it a day?

 

[Metro]

Polishing for 2 years? Meanwhile in the 11th hour of the beta they scrap a bunch of talent features and the game ships without PvP? Yeah, okay. I daresay the average Blizzard employs 'works' no more than four or five hours a day. Reading those 'day in a life' pieces they featured on their website was hilarious. It's a huge sprawling 'campus' where they just goof off half the time.

As far as 'Farmville' goes (last line):

 

[The Village Loon]

Approachable is synonymous with

 

[Menckenstein]

Call of Duty China

Skylanders MMO incoming?

 

[MicoSelva]

don't hand a document to people. People won't read.

That actually explains a lot.

 

[sea]

As Awor would say Jesus Fucking Christ. This is supposed to be the best of the best of game development and design. Here we have the director of one of the most successful* game franchises ever, of the most successful* game company ever and he says BS like this. There is just no integrity to this industry

The game industry is just a bunch of fucking clowns pretending to know what to do and just making shit up as they go. It is fucking disgrace to all those disciplines out there that are built upon extremely technical understandings, years of skill refinement and foundational theory, and a real striving for excellence. This man should be demoted to junior designer at once.

There are a lot of developers who design on paper before-hand and follow their documentation, so I don't think this is something you can pin on the whole games industry. What works for one developer also may not work for another, as well - it's possible Blizzard has experience with using detailed design documents and it never worked out for them.

That said, I fully understand that what works on paper doesn't always work in practice... but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't have a clear and defined vision of something before entering production, and understand why that vision works in the first place. Inspiration for your employees is important, but it's also a job. Most of making game content is work and requires tons of time and revision, and little of that is actually fun. That comes with any project of such a scale and isn't something that can be avoided.

And you know what? Even if going the document-less route works to produce better games... there's still something to be said for not spending 10 years on a 20 hour game, even if it does sell like hotcakes. There really is no good reason Diablo III didn't come out back in 2002, other than shitty management, wasting time, etc.

 

[Castanova]

So which of you Eurotrash posters is playing the game right now?

 

[Excommunicator]

There are a lot of developers who design on paper before-hand and follow their documentation, so I don't think this is something you can pin on the whole games industry.

I'm not trying to pin it on all individuals. Those people who have real pride and discipline don't need me to defend what they do. They will agree. When a man in his position can speak like an ADD high school student and have the interviewer respond along the lines of "You aren't the only one saying this. Lots of people I talk to say the same!" then something is clearly wrong with the industry as whole.

What works for one developer also may not work for another, as well - it's possible Blizzard has experience with using detailed design documents and it never worked out for them.

Look, you can pull apart the creative prerogative all you want and use the defense that you do whatever happens to work, but that does not change the fact that all respectable disciplines are based on an understanding of the fundamental principles, regardless of how closely you decide to follow them in the end. He isn't even saying "Do what works", he just said DON'T SHOW DESIGN DOCUMENTS TO PEOPLE.

"...game development's all about getting people excited... "
"I think the only purpose for having a design bible like that is for the guy who wrote it."

He is actually rejecting such a fundamental idea outright. He is just a marketing man.

There are thousands of people out there right now wanting to get into the game industry, reading what he has said, who are going to go forward with the belief that they just make up ideas as they go, they don't need to do planning, they don't need to read large amounts of text or have any deep understanding of an idea, and should even reject a big design document if they are handed one because it JUST ISN'T COOL ENOUGH.

Perhaps the most poisonous result of saying or believing such a thing is the way that it confirms the underlying feelings of other people like him. They actually don't care what it takes to do really good design, and they don't care about really learning their discipline or training all the various skills they may need, they just want to do what's fun and screw anything that is boring and not cool. They will read this and it will make them feel justified in their lazy and amateur ways.

He is fostering a culture with this way of thinking and it disgusts me.

 

[sea]

I'm not trying to pin it on all individuals. Those people who have real pride and discipline don't need me to defend what they do. They will agree. When a man in his position can speak like an ADD high school student and have the interviewer respond along the lines of "You aren't the only one saying this. Lots of people I talk to say the same!" then something is clearly wrong with the industry as whole.

Look, you can pull apart the creative prerogative all you want and use the defense that you do whatever happens to work, but that does not change the fact that all respectable disciplines are based on an understanding of the fundamental principles, regardless of how closely you decide to follow them in the end. He isn't even saying "Do what works", he just said DON'T SHOW DESIGN DOCUMENTS TO PEOPLE.

"...game development's all about getting people excited... "
"I think the only purpose for having a design bible like that is for the guy who wrote it."

He is actually rejecting such a fundamental idea outright. He is just a marketing man.

There are thousands of people out there right now wanting to get into the game industry, reading what he has said, who are going to go forward with the belief that they just make up ideas as they go, they don't need to do planning, they don't need to read large amounts of text or have any deep understanding of an idea, and should even reject a big design document if they are handed one because it JUST ISN'T COOL ENOUGH.

Perhaps the most poisonous result of saying or believing such a thing is the way that it confirms the underlying feelings of other people like him. They actually don't care what it takes to do really good design, and they don't care about really learning their discipline or training all the various skills they may need, they just want to do what's fun and screw anything that is boring and not cool. They will read this and it will make them feel justified in their lazy and amateur ways.

He is fostering a culture with this way of thinking and it disgusts me.

While I think you might be reading a bit too much into this - it's not clear how "seriously" he was speaking or in what setting/capacity, and he's just relaying his own experiences, most likely confined to Diablo III. People have opinions that change all the time. Who knows, maybe someday soon his "design documents don't work" strategy will blow up in his face and he'll suddenly be in favor of them again. It's not really worth condemning the guy as an idiot just because of a couple of comments made. We have his games as far better proof.

I can also certainly understand his perspective in terms of keeping people motivated. Fact is that usually, words on a page aren't very exciting and people will lose interest when they don't have inspiration. And, to be fair, design documents have a reputation for constantly falling out of date and nobody ever reading them not because people don't like reading, but because usually decisions are made faster than the person responsible for maintaining the documentation can keep up. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have design documents, but I think it's an argument that a good leader will be able to inspire beyond the design document, and more importantly will know how to go beyond it and when. That comes both from charisma and experience and I think, judging even from this interview, that Jay Wilson has both.

That said - I completely agree with you beyond that. Especially if you have a team that needs lots of flashy presentation, inspiring speeches, and a strong figurehead to even have the will to move forward and be productive - that is a serious problem and speaks to the fact that you have a weak team behind you.

Moreover, if your idea of success in a discipline is to more or less fly by the seat of your pants and see what works, well... I guess that's what it takes to work at Blizzard, and coincidentally also what it takes to make a 15-hour button-masher action-RPG with a 10 year development cycle. If nothing else, having a near-infinite budget, having fantastic office space with tons of perks, no release date to work towards, etc., all of that likely breeds stagnation and a culture of infinite testing, prototyping, etc. And, if that's the attitude your boss has, then what are the people underneath going to learn about making games, and about general project management, organization and work ethic for that matter?

I think the most dangerous thing is that this sort of attitude breeds a general lack of respect and understanding for actual game mechanics. It's very trendy and fun and popular in game design to talk a lot about big ideas, things that are cool, etc., but it's far more rare to actually see people who understand why something is fun and how to build games around those ideas in a logical and structured way. You can do it through arduous playtesting, trial and error and sheer dumb luck (and those are all useful), but I have always held the opinion that a good design should have at the very least the potential to be fun on paper (and, in the case of many game genres, fun in a tabletop-type setting as well).

If your design relies too much on fluffy ideas, like "cool art style", and is reactive rather than proactive (i.e. "let's make a shooter and then change/get rid of everything that doesn't work" instead of "let's make a game based upon these mechanics and build on them in interesting ways, picking aesthetic and genre qualities where they make sense") then that is a serious problem. There's a lot to be said for good ideas, but having the critical capacity to know why they work and how to make them better is a different thing entirely and I don't think all designers have that. I also think it's a good case for having a creative director and a lead designer in separate roles - creative director is the "cool stuff" guy, designer is responsible for play mechanics. In too many situations they're both one and the same.

Funny thing is I've actually seen far more disciplined design out of huge studios like Ubisoft than I have on a lot of the smaller, "free" indies. For instance, I've actually heard Ubisoft puts its designers through training programs and makes them learn certain methodology. There needs to be much more of that, both in schools that teach game design (the vast majority are useless degree mills that give you a UDK crash course and send you on your way), as well as within studios themselves.

 

[Excommunicator]

While I think you might be reading a bit too much into this - it's not clear how "seriously" he was speaking or in what setting/capacity, and he's just relaying his own experiences, most likely confined to Diablo III.

I'm not reading too much into it at all. I'm simply holding him to the impeccable standard he needs to be held to at the top of the food chain.

People have opinions that change all the time. Who knows, maybe someday soon his "design documents don't work" strategy will blow up in his face and he'll suddenly be in favor of them again. It's not really worth condemning the guy as an idiot just because of a couple of comments made. We have his games as far better proof.

This is where you are seeing it differently. He isn't an intern designer. As far as the current industry is concerned, this man cannot progress any higher as a designer (which is exactly what a director should be first and foremost). He is at the top of his field. On that basis, he should be an absolute master in ways that other people can barely appreciate. Do you really think it would be appropriate for him to throw out his entire philosophy (which is apparently not based on the experience or understand of any of his forebears, few as they are) just because he suddenly realised now, after all these years at the top, that it doesn't even work?

That said - I completely agree with you beyond that. Especially if you have a team that needs lots of flashy presentation, inspiring speeches, and a strong figurehead to even have the will to move forward and be productive - that is a serious problem and speaks to the fact that you have a weak team behind you.

This is why it is plainly irresponsible to expect the design document to do that on its own. You are the leader - the visionary - and you make the team believe they can change the world as long as they do what you say. They are supposed to believe that it is a bible of an almost sacred quality - something that can provide them with the knowledge of masters, and they, as the students and disciples, should be eager to absorb every last bit of it.

I also think it's a good case for having a creative director and a lead designer in separate roles - creative director is the "cool stuff" guy, designer is responsible for play mechanics. In too many situations they're both one and the same.

I don't agree here. The problem is not that they are often the same thing, it is that there is no agreed understanding about what either position should be, and no standard that says what either one needs to master and understand. Not only do I think design is king, but I think the designers should have the broadest knowledge of any members on the team. The director should - more than anything else - be a good designer, as well as having enough understanding in all other areas to be able to direct people who are themselves experts in their field. You don't need a "cool stuff guy". You most certainly don't need to pay someone an exorbitant salary as a "cool stuff guy", and then put them alongside the designer like they have equal value. You need exceptional people with great technical skills in their field (design more than anything), the right creative abilities to stand out from the rest, and the skills to lead a team and they should be the director, whether technical, creative or overall (as would be most appropriate).

Let us be completely realistic; these are complex games, and the mechanics are the essence. That should always be the priority of the leader - and by extension, the team - and therefore that should be the area that the leader knows best, and appreciates most.


Anyway, I can see you mostly understand and agree, I just like to be very clear about where I stand on these things. Ignorance in general is the singular cause of this problem we have


Also,

This is what I find most disturbing about the image. It really speaks for itself. There is nothing left for Blizzard.

 

[asper]

That's funny asper. Do you have an advance copy of the full game in order to make that judgement?

approachable, powerful heroes, highly customizable, great item game, endlessly replayable, strong setting, and cooperative multiplayer.

They succeeded in all of those (except "strong setting") and the game IS STILL SHIT

Said as if you've played it

Open Beta. More than enough to form an impression of the game.

 

[circ]

Well, someone's always gotta shill. It'a almost like they were paid for it.

 

[Azrael the cat]

There are a lot of developers who design on paper before-hand and follow their documentation, so I don't think this is something you can pin on the whole games industry.

I'm not trying to pin it on all individuals. Those people who have real pride and discipline don't need me to defend what they do. They will agree. When a man in his position can speak like an ADD high school student and have the interviewer respond along the lines of "You aren't the only one saying this. Lots of people I talk to say the same!" then something is clearly wrong with the industry as whole.

What works for one developer also may not work for another, as well - it's possible Blizzard has experience with using detailed design documents and it never worked out for them.

Look, you can pull apart the creative prerogative all you want and use the defense that you do whatever happens to work, but that does not change the fact that all respectable disciplines are based on an understanding of the fundamental principles, regardless of how closely you decide to follow them in the end. He isn't even saying "Do what works", he just said DON'T SHOW DESIGN DOCUMENTS TO PEOPLE.

"...game development's all about getting people excited... "
"I think the only purpose for having a design bible like that is for the guy who wrote it."

He is actually rejecting such a fundamental idea outright. He is just a marketing man.

There are thousands of people out there right now wanting to get into the game industry, reading what he has said, who are going to go forward with the belief that they just make up ideas as they go, they don't need to do planning, they don't need to read large amounts of text or have any deep understanding of an idea, and should even reject a big design document if they are handed one because it JUST ISN'T COOL ENOUGH.

Perhaps the most poisonous result of saying or believing such a thing is the way that it confirms the underlying feelings of other people like him. They actually don't care what it takes to do really good design, and they don't care about really learning their discipline or training all the various skills they may need, they just want to do what's fun and screw anything that is boring and not cool. They will read this and it will make them feel justified in their lazy and amateur ways.

He is fostering a culture with this way of thinking and it disgusts me.

Agree totally. For all the talk about the game industry becoming run by suits and being overly market-focused, it shows a lot of signs of undercompetitiveness - leaving sizeable market chunks completely untapped, marginal consumer influence over business models, and now shit like this. Even in industries that lack any creative component - say if you had a business bottling and distributing soft drink - its standard practice to write down your company ideology, your product strategy, your marketing strategy (not advertising so much - I mean more in terms of what market segments you intend to target and how you think you can dominate in them) and when creating a new product/service you have a document stating your strategy for that particular product. And you make it a job requirement that everyone reads it and knows what they're working towards. Even small businesses these days have policy books - I can't see how it's any less important to set out that stuff when making a creative product like a computer game.

If the documentation isn't being read, or there's a general consensus that it's useless, that's often because it's being done as an exercise and not as a serious plan, with the result that you're putting lots of stuff in there that is irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with keeping things brief and simple - one of the best corporation founding directives I've heard is 'Our aim is to maximise the wealth of shareholders and senior executive.' It just states the company's honest intention - it isn't being founded by folks with specialised expertise in one area, so why wank on about 'bringing quality to X industry' if you couldn't give a shit what you're selling, so long as it's making you the most money possible? Why lie to the general staff when it's going to be blatantly obvious that if a staff member doesn't know the board personally, you couldn't give a shit about them? If the documentation reflects your actual intentions, rather than being something that's done to 'look the part', then it will be useful (as simple as that example is, it provides a point of reference if there's an argument 10 years later about whether the company has an obligation to service its traditional industry, when it can make more money by replacing its staff and repurposing its factories to go into a new and more promising industry - it means that everyone in the room knows that if you're in this company your decisions are supposed to benefit shareholders and senior officers, and if you're feeling bad about making 1000 factory workers unemployed then you should be with the company down the road that has 'a secure work environment for our employees' in its objectives).

Then add the creative component to this - think how many people work on a game like Diablo 3. It's like a major construction project. Can you imagine someone managing to build the Sydney Opera House without architectural and engineering plans? Just a bunch of different designers, engineers and construction workers building the different parts without an agreed-upon plan of what it is supposed to end up as?