Rob Pardo talks about how WoW gets developed
by Mike Schramm 
Jul 28th 2008 at 4:00PM
Rob Pardo sat down to chat with PC Gamer recently about all things Blizzard, but as you might expect, WoW got a nice chunk of the conversation. He talks mostly about design -- after saying that PC gaming isn't dead (duh), he talks about the lore of a dungeon, and says that whenever you step into an instance, even if you haven't researched all the lore of it, and read all the quests for it, Blizzard wants you to know that the story is there.He also talks a little bit about how Blizzard works as a team -- everyone working on the game has the power to veto something if they don't feel it works right, which is probably why we haven't seen things like player housing yet. It also explains why Blizzard takes their time -- when anyone can step in and say, "This isn't working" at any time, you get a lot of iterating and a lot of unreleased content. But as Pardo says, it pushes the whole team to do it better -- he can go to the people he'll know will have a problem with a certain mechanic and work with them to make it right.
Finally, they chat a little bit about whether, as Raph Koster is quoted, "the singleplayer game is an aberration." Pardo calls out Super Mario Galaxy's co-star mode as an example of a terrific singleplayer game that incorporates multiplayer in an innovative way, and says that singleplayer isn't gone forever -- it's just going to look a little different.
[via WorldofWar]
Filed under: Blizzard, Instances, Expansions, Lore, Hardware
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Badger Jul 28th 2008 4:05PM
"He also talks a little bit about how Blizzard works as a team -- everyone working on the game has the power to veto something if they don't feel it works right, which is probably why we haven't seen things like player housing yet."
If you actually believe this is how things work on the Development Team, please say, "Aye."
...
*crickets*
...
Anyone?
eillind Jul 28th 2008 4:11PM
Aye
makishima Jul 28th 2008 4:15PM
While I doubt that it's exactly like he said, I also don't doubt that everyone has a say. Maybe not an outright veto like Rob said but most of the time if something isn't working, I would imagine it goes more like this
"So does anyone have a problem with that?" Rob
"I really don't think it would work for X, Y,Z reason." Dev A
"Yeah I didn't think about Z" Dev B
"And if you do Z, A&B won't work right" Dev C
"Ok so how can we change it to make it work?" Rob
And back to the drawing board they go.
Badger Jul 28th 2008 4:15PM
Well, maybe it does. I just see too much stuff in the live game that strikes me as though it would have really met with a lot of resistance, if this "Veto" method was permissible. The entire Arena system, for example (and no, I'm not saying Arenas are bad, I'm just saying that they seem like a 99% Tom Chilton thing and a 1% "Eh, Whatever, I Guess We Have The Time To Program This, We'll Worry About Balance" thing).
Burgdorn Jul 28th 2008 4:23PM
I think that your considering that everyone could see how the arena system would pan out. For one it is extremely successful in keeping people on a more even playing field overtime. The system does have some flaws but I would argue that is due to player abuse, not to design mechanics. So I can see Blizz team being all gun-ho about this choice.
makishima Jul 28th 2008 4:29PM
@Burgdorn Exactly. There is no way to foresee exactly what players will do with something once it's live.
Badger Jul 28th 2008 4:34PM
"While I doubt that it's exactly like he said, I also don't doubt that everyone has a say. Maybe not an outright veto like Rob said [...]"
"There is no way to foresee exactly what players will do with something once it's live."
This is very well said. Kudos to both of you.
Coincidentally, if I seem bitter, it's because I work in a corporate environment that is particularly notorious for utterly destroying the credibility of a system like what Pardo suggests - that is, where management PRETENDS to encourage this type of communication, then DISREGARDS everything submitted and goes ahead with what a few higher-ups believe is most profitable. So, I'm a little jaded toward corporate interests who publicly claim that they involve everyone in the decision-making process, then essentially take a giant shit on them and move on, regardless.
I think you're right though. It may be that this is the exact reason why the company has not only survived, but thrived.
makishima Jul 28th 2008 4:50PM
I don't really have anything else to add, I just wanted to echo Badgers kudos to both Burgdorn and Badger. It was refreshing to have a civilized conversation here on WI without it devolving into bickering or complaining. ^_^
Badger Jul 28th 2008 4:52PM
"It was refreshing to have a civilized conversation here on WI without it devolving into bickering or complaining. ^_^"
Thanks! We have those occasionally, hehe.
On a note more directly related to the subject of the above post: Do you suppose that all of their creative departments have the same sort of design philosophy? It would be pretty awesome if they got the writers together for a meeting every now and then to discuss what worked or didn't work as a plot point or an elaborate quest line, rather than saying, "Call Metzen, he's sure to have some ideas for filler."
makishima Jul 28th 2008 5:00PM
That's an interesting point Badger. I would hope that their writing team would have this same level of veto power over Metzen. Really you could conjecture that if that were the case, the retcon for the Draenei may have been a decision of the group as a whole since it was Metzen that wrote the original story part in the vanilla WoW booklet. Would be a cool question to try and con Schramm into asking at Blizzcon.
Burgdorn Jul 28th 2008 5:01PM
I also must agree having civil conversations tend to really bring a smile to me. I wouldn't be surprised if the writing department would do something similar but its probably a much more closed circle. If you have too many people putting input into the real solid lore then it might become... more jumbled then it already is. Still I wouldn't be surprised since some of the just fun quest tend to have a relaxed story line that is well developed.
Burgdorn Jul 28th 2008 5:12PM
@makishima and Badger
I think the retcon is related to a few aspects of Warcraft lore. For one it's had many retcons, where the Orcs were originally just some slime thing that came from Swamp of Sorrow. Later they were from a portal, then they were not completely evil but were being corrupted.
The lore has actually become more stable overtime and I think it shows how the brand has matured. Thankfully they haven't lost there wit along with the more serious concepts they have placed into the WoW lore.
I'm just annoyed with how little the encylopedia in the WoW site has been left to die. Seriously that thing needs to be worked so that the lore team can start really putting lore facts out there for everyone to see. It would also help them keep their facts straight too, or so I would imagine.
Kz Jul 28th 2008 5:43PM
Rob Pardo said, "singleplayer isn't gone forever -- it's just going to look a little different."
This is an interesting comment coming from a designer overseeing singleplayer gaming in Blizzard.
Rob saying, "Single player isn't gone forever", seems to imply Rob thinks it is gone in the near term. So when single player comes back in the future what does Rob think: "it's just going to look a little different."
I believe more is implied here than is said. Blizzard is intimately aware of both forms of gaming. My best guess is there is going to be a lot of integration of both forms of gaming within Blizzard and Rob doesn't want to spill the beans. The starting area of the Deathknight certainly has elements of a single player game. Whether this type of integration continues is to be seen.
Badger Jul 28th 2008 6:06PM
Kz,
That's an excellent point - especially given the "instanced" setting of the Death Knight starting area, as you said. Given some of the previews that have made it into the community of 'SC2' and 'D3,' I think it's safe to say that you're pretty spot on about Blizzard's ongoing efforts to integrate the look and feel, the mechanics and appeal, of online gaming into single-player gaming, or vice versa.
The best example of this would almost certainly be the idea of multiplayer in "Diablo III." It's essentially a single-player game with the capability to expand and adapt to suit entire parties of players, with its loot system, interface, and everything.
Gotta be careful not to over-analyze things, though. Rob Pardo isn't Steve Jobs; he's not always hiding something up his sleeve.
Burgdorn Jul 28th 2008 4:17PM
One thing that is a sad truth in the world is that most development houses do not do this. This is why Blizzard is very good at what they do. They get the whole group invested in the project by giving them such power and sway over gameplay mechanics. They put as much time as they can by letting constructive critiques to flow freely. Rob is one of the smarter people in the game industry because he still knows how to work with others as equals and not as a mastermind boss.
makishima Jul 28th 2008 4:24PM
Actually kinda reminds me a lot of the system that Valve uses to make their games. Everyone works on everything. That's why if you ever look at the credits for a Valve game, no one has an actual title.
Burgdorn Jul 28th 2008 4:30PM
It actually is something that "should" be taught at all art institutions, still some push extreme individuality. Regardless its a good method that teaches people to be mindful of others concerns, and it gives co-workers/friends and open forum to disagree and comment on others. Valve is another good development house that can have long development cycles, so I wouldn't be surprised if they had a similar system.
Badger Jul 28th 2008 4:36PM
"It actually is something that "should" be taught at all art institutions, still some push extreme individuality. Regardless its a good method that teaches people to be mindful of others concerns, and it gives co-workers/friends and open forum to disagree and comment on others."
Again, this is the exact system that I hear espoused all the time as the strongest and most successful way to do things, but that I never see.
I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone this by now, but if you're looking for jobs, stay away from the American southeast. Down here we do things by the "Good Ol' Boy" system.
Burgdorn Jul 28th 2008 5:06PM
@Badger, Even though I push for group development it still can be a hassle. I'm doing graphic design for a organization in DC and sometimes the graphics team just get frustrated. Business works more by committee and is efficient like that, which is why I'm considering to create my own design firm.
Just saying I can agree with you about the pain of the upper head, especially if the head can't figure out what the body part is saying. Its frustrating but I know my team is open to ideas in our department, just we get smacked down by the upper heads who have no idea what they're doing.
Rob's one of the best managers and has a great understanding on how to work with people. I haven't seen the products he oversees really suffering from too much control.
Braundo Jul 28th 2008 5:27PM
Raph Koster can say whatever he wants about single-player games; we all win in the end because WE didn't have any part in designing Star Wars Galaxies.