In fact, during my conversation in Paris with Chief Operating Officer Paul Sams, he said that the company is more than friendly with console manufacturers:

"We have constant conversations with the console manufacturers. We speak to them all the time and talk about the different things that are coming down the pipe. I think all of them would like to see Blizzard games on their systems, but for us it's all about making the right game for the right platform, and thus far we haven't found the right one for our franchises."

I also asked Sams about how merging with a top console game maker might affect the platforms they work on. And while Vice President of Game Design Rob Pardo told Eurogamer that a port of "Diablo" was "theoretically possible," Sams didn't think ports of existing games were the way to go for Blizzard's foray onto those platforms.

On merging with Activision, one of the top console game makers:

Sams: For the development decision-making process, Blizzard is going to continue to control its destiny on what products we do and what platforms we're on. We'll certainly interact with and collaborate with Activision folks, but as it relates to whether or not they're going to say, "You need to work on a 360 version of this game." That's not something we're going to see happen.

"If we come up with a game concept... that makes sense on one of the consoles, whether it be 360 or PS3 or anything else, then we would do that."

All of us [at Blizzard] play console games, and are always intrigued about the idea of having our games on consoles. However, we have to make sure that the platform we're on is right for the game. We don't go onto something saying, "All right we're going to make an Xbox 360 game. What is it going to be?" It's actually the other way around. We say, "What game do we want to make? What is the gameplay experience? Okay, what platform makes the most sense for it to be on?" And that's what really drives it. If we come up with a game concept with one of the teams coming off one of the other games that makes sense on one of the consoles, whether it be 360 or PS3 or anything else, then we would do that.

On porting Blizzard games to consoles:

"In the earlier days of Blizzard, we did a number of ports onto console. While I think that they were good ports, they were ports."

Sams: Back in the earlier days of Blizzard, we did a number of ports onto console. We did a port of "Diablo" and a port of "Warcraft II" to the PlayStation, and also to the Saturn, and those were straight ports. While I think that they were good ports, they were ports; they really didn't take the gameplay experience to a different level. And for us, if we were going to go to one of the other platforms, we really want to make sure that the gameplay experience was really right for that platform and for the control device.

***

Amid the festivities, I sat down with Blizzard execs Paul Sams, Chief Operating Officer, and Frank Pearce, Executive Vice President of Product Development. The pair, in separate interviews at the event, gave me their insight about several topics, including:

• Why "Diablo III" isn't an MMO
• Making another MMO to compete with "World of Warcraft"
• The player overlap between their games
• The time between their game releases
• Creating a new game franchise
• And more

Read on for the details...

On why "Diablo III" isn't an MMO:

Sams: When we're deciding what type of game we're going to make, we look at what the gameplay experience is going to be. We talked to the team a lot and say, "What is it you want to play? What is it that you want to make?" And we really felt like "Diablo" is a franchise that is very cooperative in the manner in which you play it. We felt like the gameplay experience that we had delivered historically with being in a non-persistent world was the right way to do it for this particular product. I think a lot of people expected us to say that this is going to be an MMO -- maybe an obvious choice in a lot of people's minds. But really, the bottom line is we thought the right game to make was "Diablo III" in the way that we've announced it.

On making another MMO that would compete with "World of Warcraft":

"If we wanted to make was another MMO, then we would do that. I don't think we're scared to do that."

Sams: Well, it's certainly a conversation that we've had. The idea of doing games that could compete with "World of Warcraft" is something that I think a lot of people would say, "Geez you shouldn't do that." But I do believe that if the game that we wanted to make was another MMO, then we would do that. I don't think we're scared to do that. And I think that if our developers come up with the next great game that they want to make and it's an MMO, then we'll do that. We would go about trying to make the best MMO of all time, and to try to eclipse "World of Warcraft," if we were ever to do such a thing. But it really all comes down to what type of game we want to make, and the people that we have working at the company.

Pearce: Whether or not it makes sense to have another subscription-based MMO competing against "World of Warcraft" within the Blizzard space is hard to say. At some point, some product's going to come along and cannibalize the "World of Warcraft" player base, and if it's going to happen, it'd be better for us to cannibalize our own player base compared to having another publisher do it. But our hope is that "Starcraft II" and "Diablo III" will be games that can be enjoyed by our fans simultaneously with "World of Warcraft."

On the player overlap between their games:

"It'd be better for us to cannibalize our own player base compared to having another publisher do it."

Pearce: I'm not sure exactly how much overlap there would between the "Diablo" player base and the "World of Warcraft" player base. We've found that there's not a large overlap between the "Starcraft" player base and the "World of Warcraft" player base. But it's really hard to say. Our hope is that we can build a big online community, like the Battle.net online service, that would give us the opportunity to introduce all our fans to all of our different franchises across all the different genres.

I'm sure our marketing group is ready to do some research about how many people would migrate from the "World of Warcraft" to "Diablo III," but those aren't necessarily the data points that we use for decision-making when it comes to the games that we want to make. What's most important to us is that we're servicing our community and our fans with great games and so if we come out with a new great game where some people playing on existing games will migrate to the new game, they're still our fans, they're still our players, and we're still happy about it.

On the Activision merger helping with having three announced games all at once:

"As it relates to what games we're going to make and how many we're making, it really doesn't have anything to do with the Activision-Blizzard merger."

Sams: I think [the merger] certainly gives us access to more talent and experience in the industry. There's a lot we can learn from them, and I think vice versa. So I think that's an opportunity to gain strength in retail and gain strength in the manner in which we market out games and make our games available to customers. But as it relates to what games we're going to make and how many we're making, it really doesn't have anything to do with the Activision-Blizzard merger. ... Right now, we've been able to build up one of the best group of development teams in the industry, and we feel like we're in a place right now where we have the necessary and requisite talent to be able to do a few games simultaneously.

On the time between game releases:

"I think that there will be a little bit less time [between Blizzard releases]."

Sams: I think that there will be a little bit less time, but we'll continue to take our time to make sure that they're right. I don't see there being any differences in our thought processes as it relates to that. We're going to make sure that we put the time and the energy and the money and the resources into making the best games in the world that we can. And do I think because we have multiple development teams that the release dates will go closer together for Blizzard releases? Probably a bit. But I don't think our development cycles will shrink on any of the projects that are going on; it would just be that there's more product flow.

On creating new mobile and web applications:

Sams: Those are areas that are very much booming -- the phones, the iphones and the web apps. Certainly, it's an area that we've looked at and that we've explored. I can see us looking at those further but I don't know if that will be a core focus of ours. We're really focused on doing the types of games that we do -- the RPGs and RTSs and MMOs -- and doing them on platforms that really allow us to spread our wings and do the best games we possibly can. There's more limitations on some of those devices, so I don't know if we'd be able to deliver the types of experiences that we would want to on those devices just yet. If that changes and we find that it's the right platform for us to be on, then certainly we would look at it. We'll see, but I think that it will probably be a bit of time.

On creating mobile applications connected to existing games, like being able to check "World of Warcraft" auctions [news that MTV Multiplayer broke at DICE in February]:

Sams: At this point we don't have anything that we can share about that. I can say that's certainly something that we've explored and are continuing to examine. And if we think we can do something that's compelling and will be of value to those that play our games, then we certainly would look at that. Standalone type of apps, probably not so much, but the type of apps you're referencing where they're connected to other parts of the games -- that's possible. We'll have to see though. We're still exploring it.

On creating a new game franchise:

"We have a lot of developers that would be really enthusiastic about the idea of doing a new intellectual property."

Pearce: We have a lot of developers that would be really enthusiastic about the idea of doing a new intellectual property. Everyone at the Blizzard offices loves the "Warcraft" franchise, loves the "Starcraft" franchise, loves the "Diablo" franchise but we've been doing a lot of that for a long time, and I know there's a lot of guys that at some point would love to have the opportunity to do something new. When the current development teams roll off what they're working on, we'll involve them in the decision-making process for what game they're going to make next. And we'll be having those discussions when those teams are rolling off "Starcraft II" and "Diablo III," but that's a ways down the road.

***

However, other fans were angry that a petition was even made to ask Blizzard to change what they had done. So what did they do? They started a petition. Well, two of them, actually.

One petition says that the new art direction is "stylish," "a breath of fresh air" and allows the game "to stand out from the crowd of brown and grey games, or 'realistic' (e.g. boring) looking games." The other simply states, "Diablo III looks like an absolutely amazing game and the colours should NOT be changed. You're doing a wonderful job. Keep up the great work."

These sentiments echo some of the comments made on our blog -- how the color is a natural progression of the game's evolution and story (with the three Prime Evils dead and gone), and how ultimately, gamers should trust Blizzard to make a great game. So far there are about 1,000 signatures total on both petitions. Who do you think will win?

At the Blizzard Worldwide Invitational in Paris, lead producer Keith Lee ran down the story and gameplay details on "Diablo III" so far, including some information about the different classes they'll include (or possibly exclude) and the new art style.

Note that he talks about increased randomization in terms of the environments, quests and encounters. Do you think those features will offer the element of surprise that people seemed to credit to "Diablo II"'s darker settings?

(Videos not viewable by users logging in from Canada or the U.K.)

Why did Blizzard choose an art style for "Diablo III" that would anger so many fans? I got answers in Paris last weekend before people were really asking the question.

And I know of at least 14,000 people who'd like an answer. Those are the thousands of diehard "Diablo" fans who have signed a petition against the game's new art direction (with more than 1,000 signatures added every hour).

When I asked lead producer Keith Lee about "Diablo III'"s new art style at the Worldwide Invitational in Paris, he explained why Blizzard went in that direction.

Some context first, if you're not familiar with the old "Diablo" titles: they featured dark, shadowy landscapes and dungeons (in which the player-characters needed a radius of light to see), and an overall realistic art style. With "Diablo III," the environments and textures are noticeably more vibrant and colorful, both inside and outside dungeons. Blaming the influence of "World of Warcraft," the petitioners complain that the game is too "cartoon'ish" with "unrealistic elements" and "outside scenarios with vivid colors, beautiful forests with colorful vegetation, shinny [sic] and beautiful waterfalls where even rainbows take place." (The petitioners have a full laundry list of complaints and suggestions here.)

"A great analogy is like in 'Lord of the Rings' -- not everything is dark."

So this is what Lee had to say about the art direction when we spoke in Paris: "One of the things that we considered when we were working on the visuals for 'Diablo III' is the fact that color is your friend. We feel that color actually helps to create a lot of highlights in the game so that there is contrast. A great analogy is like in 'Lord of the Rings' -- not everything is dark. It allows you to see what a creepy dungeon can be like but if everything is dark it doesn't allow you to have a lot of contrast."

He continued: "'Diablo I' and 'Diablo II' are darker, and I think that the one of the main reasons why is the fact that in 'Diablo I,' you're basically in a dungeon the whole time. And in contrast to 'Diablo III,' you'll be exploring outdoors, you'll be in dungeons, you'll be experiencing so many different areas. We want to bring as much variety as we can when you're playing the game so that you're excited to check out new environments. We don't want everything to look the same and that's really what we're trying to aim for.

"We don't want everything to look the same and that's really what we're trying to aim for."

"What we also tried to do is create very clean textures so that you can really focus. It's a stylized feel and in that sense, it's very sort of a Blizzard philosophy. It's just really pushing the envelope in terms of the visuals so that everyone is excited about how everything looks. We think that 'Diablo III' is going to be better in so many different ways. We're just building and improving upon the the first and second 'Diablo' games."

I also asked Lee about how and when the dev team will take fan feedback into account. He wouldn't go into specifics, but said:

"We're very involved, because everyone's very passionate about our games. Blizzard employees, we spend a lot of time actually iterating on [the game], and so in terms of the next phase, what we'll try to do is a proof on concept on lot of different gameplay aspects. And we really want to get as much feedback as possible so that we can improve on the game and ensure that we meet Blizzard quality for our fans and for ourselves as players."

"Diablo" fans: Do you like "Diablo III'"s new style or do you side with the petitioners? What do you make of Blizzard's explanation for it?

[Update: "Diablo III" fans have started a petition urging Blizzard to keep its new art direction for the game. Check out the story here.]

This post was originally published on July 1 but was temporarily removed because of technical issues with our commenting system.

One thing that fans of the "Diablo" franchise love is the various character classes they can choose from to play (and re-play) the game. At the Blizzard event in Paris over the weekend, the company announced "Diablo III" along with a brand-new character class, the Witch Doctor.

The Witch Doctor uses ancient tribal magic with the ability to summon minions and use curses, like scaring enemies away and building a wall of zombies for protection. All of these abilities are very similar to those of the beloved Necromancer class featured in "Diablo II." Aside from the melee warrior class the Barbarian (also in "Diablo II") no other classes have been announced at this time.

I asked lead producer Keith Lee one of our readers' burning questions: Is the Witch Doctor the new Necromancer?

He said: "We have five distinct character classes... Ultimately, for 'Diablo III,' we want to focus on great replayability, an awesome epic storyline and five really cool heroes that you'd be excited to play. And I think that one of the things that might be hard is the fact that we might have to give up a few character classes that people loved in 'Diablo I' and Diablo 'II.' But we're at the point right now that we are still considering the balance of the game and trying to see what other three characters we want to work on. Those will be revealed in due time."

What other three classes would you like to see? What do you think about the Witch Doctor possibly replacing the Necromancer? If you played "Diablo II," does it really matter to you?

How similar are "Too Human" and "Diablo III"? Before fans of either series hurl harsh words at us, bear in mind that we didn't make the comparison first. Both recent and early impressions of Silicon Knights' "Too Human" have said that the upcoming Xbox 360 title's loot, skill tree and combat systems are similar to that of past "Diablo" titles. Some previews even proclaimed that "Too Human" is "Diablo III" before the Blizzard game was even announced.

While in Paris this past weekend, I asked "Diablo III" lead producer Keith Lee what his reaction was to these comparisons to "Too Human."

He denied having heard much about it:

"I haven't heard much about other games being similar to 'Diablo III,' but what I can say is that no other company can make 'Diablo' the way we do, and I think you'll be very excited to see it get released. I don't really know too much about the other games that are being compared with 'Diablo.'"

I haven't had a chance to play the most recent build of "Too Human" (though Stephen Totilo has). Now that "Diablo III" is official, what do you think? Is "Too Human" trying to fill "Diablo"'s shoes on consoles? Could it be better than "Diablo III"? Or is there no comparison?

Jet lag's no fun. And neither are long lines. If you missed out on the 2008 Blizzard Worldwide Invitational held in Paris over the weekend, you can check out our handy video re-cap of the event, including the announcement of "Diablo III" ...all without the hassle.

(Videos not viewable by users logging in from Canada or the U.K.)

Couldn't make it out to Paris for Blizzard's big event?

You can live vicariously through my collection of photos from the two-day Worldwide Invitational which featured some interesting cosplay (of course), Video Games Live performing, and Blizzard bigwigs turned rockstars (Level 70 Elite Tauren Chieftain!).

And yes, I even fulfilled a reader's request. Click for all the images.

He promised that "Diablo III" will stay true to the spirit and gameplay of previous "Diablo" games. Overall, they want to improve "Diablo" by adding more fast-paced action and expanding the RPG experience without sacrificing the ease of play. He said there are new systems, but they're not talking about them this weekend.

However, Wilson did speak about plenty of other "Diablo III" game design elements, such as:

• Increased randomness for replayability. One of the features of past "Diablo" games was random environments. Every time you visit a dungeon or area, it will be in a new layout to the player as well as more random monster encounters and items. What's new for "Diablo III" will be random adventures, where scripted bits will appear almost anywhere in the game, prompting new quests. Examples that Wilson gave: players may meet a caravan that needs protecting for a short period of time, or run into an enemy camp with a boss. "Every time you go through the game, we want you to experience something different and have something to keep coming back to," he said.

• More powerful heroes. "Diablo III" will support large-scale combat with characters who can deal with a lot monsters. Characters will not only have impressive new skills, but players will feel more powerful just by sounds and effects. It will feel "crazy and over the top," he said.

• Strong and unique archetypes. The dev teams want to create cool, distinct characters with class-specific tactics, hence the introduction of the new Witch Doctor class. He said that all the classes got a "fresh start." There's also no final decision on the number of classes, and they will not necessarily bring back all the classes of "Diablo II."

• Large-scale combat. The game will have many on-screen monsters with sounds and effects to make the players' characters feel "crazy and over the top." The game will still be a "mouse killer," but it won’t be "as carpal tunnel as 'Diablo II.'"

• Accessibility. "If you can click on a mouse, you can play 'Diablo,'" Wilson said.

• Co-op play. As in the past, the game will focus on co-op play but with the new version of battlenet premiering with "Starcraft II," the communication and connection between players will be easier and able to support more massive co-op battles.

• Cheating. The new and improved battlenet will also attempt to stop cheating. "That's one of our biggest focuses," Wilson said.

• Improved controls. With the addition of the hotbar, the game will focus on using diverse skills versus potion use. Players in previous games could simply smack the potion button until they defeated a boss. "It was a battle of attrition, and that's not the most fun way to play a game," Wilson said. There will be no use of the complex "F" keys of the past. The mouse wheel or the Tab key will let players swap between skills.

• New health system. Wilson said the dev team experimented with a lot of different ideas, including the "Halo" shield system. However it caused players to leave combat to recover health, which is what the designers didn’t want. They also didn't want to use the "World of Warcraft" system of stopping and drinking or eating because it slows down the pace of the game. "No downtime is one of our goals," he said. Thus, the health globes are there for players to easily recover their health. Also, in co-op play, if a player picks up a health globe, any friends nearby receive the same benefits.

• Better story. Wilson said they wanted to improve the story but not lose the feeling of the "Diablo" franchise. However, if you're not interested in the story, you're not going to be subjected to mountains of text. But if you are, it’s there for you. The inclusion of voices for the player-characters will also help drive the story forward, as well as more engaging NPCs.

• Group size. Though the team hasn't decided how many people will be in a group, Wilson said to expect four to five players.

• Inventory size. While the final inventory system isn’t final, Wilson promised a improved trading system between a player's multiple characters as well as other players.

• Considering "WoW" players. During the Q&A session, when someone asked if they were considering "WoW" players in making the game, Wilson said matter-of-factly, "Not really. We want to make a game for 'Diablo' players and people who love 'Diablo.' We don't worry about finding an audience, and we don't worry about 'WoW' either. It will just continue to do well. We think there's plenty of room for both [games].”

• Hardcore mode. The mode hasn't been thought about yet, but Wilson said, "I don't see why we wouldn't [bring it back].”

• Group loot. When a boss was killed in the old games, the player with the fastest connection would typically grab the loot first. However, in "Diablo III," the loot will generate and drop for each player.

• Respecing skills. Wilson said they won't be talking about the skill system and specs yet, but he revealed, "I will say I think it's a bad idea to not let you respec your character."

• System specs. There are no system specs yet, but the game is expected to support the broadest set of systems possible. "We'll go as low as we can," he said.

What do you think of the new "Diablo III" design so far? If you have any questions for lead producer Keith Lee let me know by June 28 at 4 a.m. EST, and I will try to fit your question into my interview.