View Full Version : Outside levels are mostly non-random
There will still be portions that are randomly generated, but for the most part outside environments will be pre-crafted (http://www.battle.net/forums/thread.aspx?fn=d3-general&t=306004&tmp=1#post306004). It sounds like the dungeons will still retain their randomness.
Pros:
better looking levels
improved gameplay
cleverer monster placement/chokepoints
more monster randomization
more memorable locations
elaborate/unique/dramatic environmental triggers
Cons:
less Diabloesque
fewer surprises (ostensibly)
smaller levels?
longer development time
At first I was a bit disappointed to hear this, but Flux's Best Area decahedron (http://diablo.incgamers.com/columns/675677/fluxs-decahedron-5-the-ten-best-areas-in-d2x) is a good reminder of what you can pull off when you get away from random building blocks - only two of the ten areas mentioned are randomly generated.
Hopefully it will be worth the trade off.
As long as the enemies are randomized and the areas are slightly randomized (like the chaos sanctuary, river of flame, monestary, etc.)
I think HGL is a good example of how randomized levels can work against you. If they're randomized you run the risk of them seeming too similar, and actually having the randomization can lead to monotony, particularly if they all seem the same (follow the path from point a to point b, repeat to infinity)
Sein Schatten
23-07-2008, 14:53
That's a real bummer. Static outdoor maps suck (for Diablo)... I hope, the most action will be in dungeons.
sicilian
23-07-2008, 15:33
I'm on the fence about this one... I love randomized things, and would sacrifice a little bit of eye candy in order to have it.
That being said, if he means the outdoor LANDSCAPES are static, that still leaves the door open for random monsters, lootable corpses/items, rock and tree placement, etc.
Even random scripted events could show up... like maybe one area always has a long, narrow valley. Sometimes you pass through with nothing but a few mobs, other times halfway through you get ambushed from all sides and have to fight off a huge wave. Just the fact that it could happen would add excitement to every run, event though the terrain is the same.
The main storyline areas should be set, and the areas for optional quests/side story items should be random.
Sein Schatten
23-07-2008, 15:41
I'm on the fence about this one... I love randomized things, and would sacrifice a little bit of eye candy in order to have it.
That being said, if he means the outdoor LANDSCAPES are static, that still leaves the door open for random monsters, lootable corpses/items, rock and tree placement, etc.
But would you completely explore the map again? I mean, you know where the start and end is.
This is a letdown. :(
sicilian
23-07-2008, 15:55
But would you completely explore the map again? I mean, you know where the start and end is.
This is a letdown. :(
Yeah, that's one of the first problems I thought of too... I mean, does anyone actually explore all of the Palace Cellar in Act 2? Nope, they run as fast as they can through... I don't even get the waypoint usually because there's another one right at the beginning of the Arcane Sanc.
What worries me (and I know it was a pre-fab demo, but still), is how linear the level design seemed. If the outdoor areas are going to be all one path, then it would seem the exploration aspect is played down even more :(
You underestimate how fugly a fully randomized environment looks in 3d. It's not a sight I want to see in Diablo 3. If Blizzard feels they can't do it well yet, they shouldn't waste time trying.
Pros:
better looking levels
improved gameplay
cleverer monster placement/chokepoints
more monster randomization
more memorable locations
elaborate/unique/dramatic environmental triggers
more surprises
more unique and interesting levels?
Cons:
less Diabloesque
bit more linear
longer development time
Fixed the pros and cons!
Sein Schatten
23-07-2008, 18:42
You underestimate how fugly a fully randomized environment looks in 3d. It's not a sight I want to see in Diablo 3. If Blizzard feels they can't do it well yet, they shouldn't waste time trying.
I liked the maps of HG:L. Not ugly, imo. Why do you think all random environments in 3d look ugly?
Apocalypse
23-07-2008, 18:44
That's a real bummer. Static outdoor maps suck (for Diablo)... I hope, the most action will be in dungeons.
imo diablo games should mostly take place in dungeon enviroments anyway. i am ok with the outside world being the same layout all the time if they still randomize the monsters and possible events that show up there.
HG:L environments were, for the most part, a string of boxes. That may look good in a sprite game, and alright in an FPS game, but in an isometric 3d game that will not look good.
Outdoor environments shouldn't be confined to a bunch of basic shapes. I can see them making dungeons fully randomized (it's almost modular, just crate a large variety of rooms, walls, bridges, balconies, arches, etc.), but I really would rather have outdoor environments handcrafted to prevent the "Check it out, the road from New Tristram to Lut Golien is a bunch of fenced in box shaped fields strung together by implausible 6 feet wide passages!" syndrome.
It's a question of boundaries, really. The dungeons don't suffer this problem anywhere near as much as a supposedly open, breathing, and supposedly natural environment does.
Mcwhopper
23-07-2008, 21:04
This is good news: I don't know how anyone else feels: But as far as I know, most landscapes do not change everytime I visit them. Would be a problem if they did: Hell how could I go from A to B everyday?
I mean dungeons are twisted magical places, no problem with them varying. You can actually build a dungeon if your into that kind of thing. Building an actual landscape however....
Not to mention that you can't have a 3d shifting landscape that will both look great and be randomized : They said so themselves. I think Bashiok has his marbles together:
On a very slight technical note - for random map generation you're essentially creating a bunch of rooms that can all fit together in various ways. It works quite well for a dungeon which is essentially a series of rooms any way. For an outdoor environment though it tends to make it either fairly bland, or fairly linear just by how the edges have to line up. You're either running zig-zag patterns to find the map edges, or you're running down a narrow pathway. Neither are extremely compelling, and at the same time you're losing the visual grandness that could come from a fully hand-crafted and artistically realized environment.
sicilian
23-07-2008, 22:27
HG:L environments were, for the most part, a string of boxes. That may look good in a sprite game, and alright in an FPS game, but in an isometric 3d game that will not look good.
Outdoor environments shouldn't be confined to a bunch of basic shapes. I can see them making dungeons fully randomized (it's almost modular, just crate a large variety of rooms, walls, bridges, balconies, arches, etc.), but I really would rather have outdoor environments handcrafted to prevent the "Check it out, the road from New Tristram to Lut Golien is a bunch of fenced in box shaped fields strung together by implausible 6 feet wide passages!" syndrome.
It's a question of boundaries, really. The dungeons don't suffer this problem anywhere near as much as a supposedly open, breathing, and supposedly natural environment does.
Good points. Now that I think about it, D2 didn't really have truly "random" outdoor areas either. Every area had a couple of different layouts it could have, then the exit was placed on a random direction and the ground was littered with random stuff. The actual terrain and pathing was almost always the same.
Sein Schatten
23-07-2008, 22:44
Good points. Now that I think about it, D2 didn't really have truly "random" outdoor areas either. Every area had a couple of different layouts it could have, then the exit was placed on a random direction and the ground was littered with random stuff. The actual terrain and pathing was almost always the same.
Huh? No, not really. You had a lot of squares but that is a non-issue. Heck, even a math-noob like me can create wonderfull stuff with CellulatAutomaton[rule,init,t] and TuringMachine[rule,init,t] from Mathematica. Imagine what professionals can do. You only need to create 2D anyway. And map a way like -> to several possible corridors and so on.
Or, if you don't have Mathematica, google labyrinth maker. With proper parameters you can make good stuff.
Amyway, what I wanted to say is, that this sounds more like the easy way out. I prefer Act2 maps over static BG2 "maps".
edit: I am drunk, so if you don't understand what I want to say, no problem.
sicilian
24-07-2008, 00:13
Huh? No, not really. You had a lot of squares but that is a non-issue. Heck, even a math-noob like me can create wonderfull stuff with CellulatAutomaton[rule,init,t] and TuringMachine[rule,init,t] from Mathematica. Imagine what professionals can do. You only need to create 2D anyway. And map a way like -> to several possible corridors and so on.
Or, if you don't have Mathematica, google labyrinth maker. With proper parameters you can make good stuff.
Amyway, what I wanted to say is, that this sounds more like the easy way out. I prefer Act2 maps over static BG2 "maps".
edit: I am drunk, so if you don't understand what I want to say, no problem.
Haha, alright then...
My point was, things weren't completely random outside in D2, and it still had a fresh feel most of the time. Bashiok said they won't be completely static in D3, so it stands to reason it'll work just fine.
Wish I was drunk too, but it's my anniversary tonight :P
Sein Schatten
24-07-2008, 14:52
Haha, alright then...
My point was, things weren't completely random outside in D2, and it still had a fresh feel most of the time. Bashiok said they won't be completely static in D3, so it stands to reason it'll work just fine.
Wish I was drunk too, but it's my anniversary tonight :P
;)
I think it will be a static map, similar to BG2 and all placements are random. I guess that even entrances from and to other maps are random. :)
If it's the randomness of Halls of Vaught, that's fine, if it's randomness of Halls of Pain, that's basically just giving everyone who's ever been through an area a couple of times before maphack. If the latter, I hope at the least that the areas aren't too linear... in (original) Dungeon Siege terms, more like the MP campaign than the SP campaign.
Totally and partially random is pretty much the same to me though... look at HGL; they take D2's randomness, but the end result was the entire game looking almost exactly the same, 6 different shades of (metaphorical, I'm not talking about the rather dull palette here) grey. As long as you don't know exactly what direction your area exit is from the moment you've reached the area entrance that's fine, and there are certainly advantages to hand crafting areas a bit more.
Minervian
24-07-2008, 16:28
I remember back in the days of D2, I was already somewhat unimpressed with act 1's football fields and the overly angled rivers of flame in hell. Only Kurast came across as looking sort of natural.
Bashiok's explanation really contains exactly the point:
With the outdoor environments we felt we could get a lot more out of them by crafting large and visually impressive scenes, which random map generation really just doesn't allow for all that well.
I think that by the standards of today's graphically rich computer games, football fields and 90-degree bends in rivers simply won't pass.
Well, act 5 actually managed to look decent, but it wasn't as randomized as the first 4 acts.
Brother Laz
24-07-2008, 19:02
You underestimate how fugly a fully randomized environment looks in 3d. It's not a sight I want to see in Diablo 3.
Yes, if you are Flagship.
It can't be too hard to connect terrain blocks, then randomise building placement... or even randomise the buildings themselves (door, windows, roof), or use something like the War3 random terrain generator to make hills and then add random buildings, generate a path between the start and end, place lanterns along the path and then randomly fence off a few areas with mountainside blocks.
But then D3 is being made on the cheap, compared to the huge effort that went into D2 in 1997-2000! Classes: five. Stats: exactly the same. Combat: still the same old blatantly unrealistic health and mana system like in 1985. Randomisation: huge step backwards.
Remind me why we are so excited again?
......
I think that by the standards of today's graphically rich computer games, football fields and 90-degree bends in rivers simply won't pass.
Yeah, that's why god invented 3D so the angles don't have to be 90° and the ground isn't necessarily flat.
If they did the exact same thing as D2 only with 3D blocks, no right angles and some elevation differences, it could be good. But no... let's take the lazy way out and just throw the masses of modellers they seem to have at the problem.
Ever played the racing game series Trackmania? The latest Nations Forever is the most popular online PC racing game, and probably online racing game period. Yet all it offers are right angle turns with a variety of radiuses... and this is because it has a track editor and about 200,000 usermade tracks, so you never have to race the same thing twice.
This keeps the game fresh, and therefore no one cares that you can't make diagonal roads.
......
With the outdoor environments we felt we could get a lot more out of them by crafting large and visually impressive scenes, which random map generation really just doesn't allow for all that well.
Well, considering they also have respecs, it isn't too hard to understand why they forsake replayability in this particular area too.
Well, considering they also have respecs, it isn't too hard to understand why they forsake replayability in this particular area too.
Because the road being on the north south east or west side of the blood more really increased the replayability?
Clearly knowing the map destroyed the replayability also, that would explain why such a large number of people used maphack right?
It's cool to just say "it's easy to make random 3d environments" but we have yet to see any natural random 3d environment in a game.
Having a big square, putting the exit in the middle of the north south east or west side doesn't make the environment more natural or more fun.
Brother Laz
24-07-2008, 19:56
Clearly knowing the map destroyed the replayability also, that would explain why such a large number of people used maphack right?
In D1, almost everyone duped because there was an easy dupe bug that was never fixed. Wonder of all wonders, the game was abandoned after a short time.
It's cool to just say "it's easy to make random 3d environments" but we have yet to see any natural random 3d environment in a game.
15 years ago, we had yet to see decent 3D period. Who's going to innovate if not Blizzard?
Having a big square, putting the exit in the middle of the north south east or west side doesn't make the environment more natural or more fun.
I expect more from Blizzard than big squares.
In D1, almost everyone duped because there was an easy dupe bug that was never fixed. Wonder of all wonders, the game was abandoned after a short time.
How is that here or there? D1 was destroyed by the fact that 90% of items were hacked, and a large number of people used trainers and character editors. To blame the downfall of bnet on dupes is excessive.
15 years ago, we had yet to see decent 3D period. Who's going to innovate if not Blizzard?
Again, that's neither here nor there.
I expect more from Blizzard than big squares.
Yet you're touting a move away from big squares as a backward step in advancement.
There were a large number of areas in D2 that were essentially static or minimally randomized. I don't see why this announcement is any different or in any way a step backward from what we've already seen.
Sein Schatten
24-07-2008, 20:53
It's cool to just say "it's easy to make random 3d environments" but we have yet to see any natural random 3d environment in a game.
http://cs.elderscrolls.com/constwiki/index.php/WorldBuilding_101
http://www.nbos.com/products/mapper/fwe.htm
"Randomly generate worlds, or create them from scratch."
Angel_of_Wrath
24-07-2008, 21:38
The D2 worlds weren't all that random and you could just run the path or the edge to get to the next area. If Blizzard maintains good random mob placements, with random champion mobs, good randomized loot and some randomized locations for caves/dungeons, plus some random scripted quests or events... then I think having a mostly static overworld shouldn't be too much of an issue to replayability because it will still be a bit different everytime.
IIRC Titan Quest had all the enemy spawns almost the same in the exact same static world every time... for me the replayability on that is very low. Only the loot might be different.
"Randomly generate worlds, or create them from scratch."
There is a difference between generating an open terrain and generating a game usable constricted environment that looks good enough to feel in tandem with handcrafted locations.
*I am not saying that Blizzard can't do a randomly generated overground environment. I am just saying that making that would be a massive pain in the ***; with lower returns than creating a mostly static map and randomizing stuff within it. The latter option provides a great looking environment with sufficient replayability. The former wastes resources for little gain and a large possibility of a crappy looking game.
Sein Schatten
24-07-2008, 23:43
Yeah? Well, Tamriel (Oblivion) looks pretty awesome. It is possible, it was done and it works.
BTW, konfeta, back to work on D3. Less forum browsing, more programming. :P ("I am just saying that making that would be a massive pain in the ***")
Well played, sir. I will stop pretending I know about the capabilities of the Diablo 3 development team now.
But I still stand by my belief that designing a quality RMG for a Diablo like game, where detail matters, is an exercise in fail during these days. Titan Quest spoiled me with it's environmental beauty. Until they make a random map generator that is capable of doing an enviroment that good looking, they shouldn't even bother trying.
in some of the panels they talked about level randomization, and the gist of it was that outdoor levels wouldn't be so randomly shaped, but would have random elements. Like you would get random connections between hubs, but the main hubs would be pre-done art, but filled with randomized events or objects. One time you'd get a quest there, one time a boss monster, one time random monsters, one time just a pretty view, etc.
The concept seems to be that they can design much prettier outdoor levels, with waterfalls and rivers and bridges and such, if they're not all random. But they can still randomize what you encounter in that area.
snugglson
25-07-2008, 04:56
anybody else think that this is being done in the best interests of a future MMO? There were no real landmarks in D2 because everything was random and the objects that did exist, like the underground passage, were all in random locations. this way, they can make static landmarks that we will all recognize when they release the diablo MMO 5-10 years down the road.
God I hope there will never be a Diablo MMO.
popodomo
25-07-2008, 05:45
God I hope there will never be a Diablo MMO.
Could be. It went from War3/ExpPack to WoW right? They are working on a new MMO so it could be a continuation from D3/Eventual exp.
I, for one, don't care. I'll buy pretty much anything Blizzard.
I would much rather have a Diablo singleplayer game like Neverwinter Nights than a MMO. I mean MMOs are ok I just hate how nothing really changes. It doesn't matter what you do as soon as your done with the quest everything goes back to normal. Feels like wasted effort. Anyway this is off topic so whatever. As for the topic, I think static outdoor areas will work out fine. If monster locations are random as well as the random scripted events they talked about it should still be replayable.
Angel_of_Wrath
25-07-2008, 22:11
The concept seems to be that they can design much prettier outdoor levels, with waterfalls and rivers and bridges and such, if they're not all random. But they can still randomize what you encounter in that area.
Don't forget the rainbows and bunnies.... :whistling:
I like random over repetition.
Random generation shouldnt be used to slow down progress to the next area by playing pin the exit on the map.
It should be used to fill a mostly premade map with random encounters that you WANT to search out on the map. That improves replayablilty substantially, much more than just wasting time.
Besides, you dont need to fully randomise a map. You only need to change a few key things to avoid doing exactly the same thing over and over. I've never really noticed any difference in the random maps in D2 other than which way i run to find the exit. It all looks exactly the same for the most part.
They could always just do 3-4 premade maps for each area and randomly choose one rather than actually randomly generating the terrain.
mouseman
26-07-2008, 08:06
This is one of the things I'm most excited about!!
It allows the player to know the environment and decreases the "need" to use maphack - you can always go to your favorite dungeon, it is there where you last saw it. It's a very good compromise with the random generated dungeons.
It has a slight risk to make the outdoor ares boring in-betweeners but I trust Blizzard to figure something out. It certainly has a lot of potential. And I agree that the best areas of Diablo 2 were fixed or only moderately randomized. Combining randomized and non-randomized sounds great for me! And it's kind of a return to Diablo 1 ;)
I like random over repetition.
I like detailed and realistic over random.
valheru1337
26-07-2008, 12:13
This is easily the worst news on D3 so far.
Diablo is all about replayability and that can only be achieved through as much randomization of content as possible. This is why most Diablo clones failed, going away from its roguelike roots even further.
I guess it depends on the outdoor:indoor ratio they'll have going, but it's not looking good.
If less random zones would make you lose interest in a game faster then you have bigger problems. Character development was what made Diablo 2 as long lasting as it has been. I haven't heard anyone say "yeah, I'm still playing Diablo 2 because the randomness of the maps makes it so that each act is like an entirely new experience each time through". I don't see how it matters if the exit to the next zone is in the north one game and in the west the next, you're still trudging through the exact same thing as last time. Locations are meaningless, they don't make it so that the game has a longer lasting appeal. Act 1 is Act 1 no matter where the waypoints are, and if you've cleared it a thousand times I don't see how that'll make the difference for you.
If the randomness was your excuse for clearing through the entire area well, you can make yourself do that on a static map as well. If you need the exp or are going through in a single-play you're gonna need to clear the entire thing anyways.
Honestly, I didn't mind the randomness of Diablo 1/2 maps but honestly, the outdoor areas in Act 1/2 looked awful. Each map was some type of square, everything had 90 degree angles. I would gladly take a static map that looks more realistic than a football field with a perfectly straight river in the middle.
The fact that something like 80% of people get their characters rushed also does a lot to counteract the argument that the randomized areas are what has kept the game so fresh.
Having randomized encounters in the areas will do a LOT more to increase replay value of specific areas than simply randomizing tree, rock, and bush placement in a giant square.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.