Like many people I was desperate to play the latest addition to the Blizzard family, Diablo 3. I have loved Diablo since the original and I was eager to see how an entirely new game engine would lend itself to the lore of Diablo. While Diablo has always had a simple story, told primarily through cut scenes and short snippets of dialogue, the premise of the game world has lent itself to a world rich with lore. There was never really a need to hit the player over the head with a comprehensively developed story, the game did the leg work and let a players imagination take over. However, I had high hopes that Blizzard was going to deliver a story that built on its predecessors and delivered a unique and engaging plot to enhance what turned out to be addicting and fun as hell gameplay. This sadly did not occur.
I guess Blizzard set itself up for failure. Everyone cool is dead. Mephisto, Baal, and Diablo have all been defeated and all that is left are the two lesser lords of hell. Azmodan and Belial are the two token bosses to defeat and we are expected to understand why. Blizzard doesn't even make mention of either of them in an early cutscene to give the story some direction. Instead you are for some reason a travelling hero who decides that life would just be boring if you didn't hunt down a minor lord of hell. Is the world currently in danger? Nope, but better get at it just to be sure. About mid game Azmodan gets an amazing cutscene that finally gives the game its first burst of excitement, but you kill him about two hours of game time later so it never really gets kicking.
The story of Diablo is, to put it mildly, terrible. You begin as a hero searching for a mysterious fallen star, which turns out to be the fallen angel Tyrael. You meet up with the familiar character Cain and his niece Leah and begin a quest to find the star and delve into the history of the original fall of Tristram. Sounds good so far. So what the hell happened?
I knew things were going wrong when the fairly large town of New Tristram turned out to have only three characters of any substance, Leah, Cane, and a blacksmith named Haedrig. You can chat briefly with other characters but they are clearly stock characters. This would be forgivable if not for the fact that with each following Act you are introduced to one new character and everyone else is window dressing. The entirety of the story of Diablo 3 is told through a small cast of perhaps six or seven characters, many of which have no real purpose other than selling equipment. In fact, the blacksmith and jeweler decide to join you for the flimsiest of reasons. I was immensely disappointed when Haedrig asks you to kill his wife, accompanies you while you do so, and then shows no reaction when you hack her to pieces. "I guess I better go with you as that is what my wife would have wanted." Yes, I'm sure your wife would have wanted you to travel with a stranger bent on diving into the most dangerous situations possible with the person who murdered her instead of at least trying to find a way to save her. Good call buddy.
Situations such as this would be completely forgivable if Blizzard used the smaller cast to focus the story. The characters of Leah and Tyrael are interesting and have the potential to make a story without focus engaging. Both allow for some token moments of interaction but neither really give any indication of what drives them. The brief moments we spend with Cain are the best story moments in the game, simply because it is so easy to understand his motivations. Tyrael was a mysterious and impossible to read angel from Diablo 2 who gave you just enough information to keep you going, but seemed to have some knowledge you lacked. Turns out, he is just as dumb as everyone else. He has no fucking clue what is going on, and decides to join the human race because big daddy Imperious doesn't like his style. Wait, who is Imperious you ask? Who the hell knows! A badass looking angel with anger issues makes for an interesting take on the angelic host but we see him for about three minutes of total game time. Do we hear anything about why he exists? Does the story use him as a plot device? Does heaven benefit from his presence in any way? NO! He gets really angry at you for some reason but then passes out so you can go merrily on your way to kill Diablo...wait Diablo????? I thought I killed that guy twice already.
Turns out Diablo isn't dead...again. He is a clever mother fucker who planned the events of the entire first two games as a massive ploy to gain ultimate power and destroy heaven. Wow! That is so cool! How the hell did he do that? Well all he had to do was die twice, sleep with Adria (the witch from Diablo 1) and conceive a daughter that would have the power to get shit done. Slightly convenient plot device but what the hell, the big red guy is smart. Too bad this forces the story to essentially have no point until the final Act. Adria betrays you-don't ask why-and Leah dies to let big daddy take over. Your major connection to the story is dead and now you are to acknowledge the wonderful plot twist and finally kill the demon grand master of strategy. The Lord of Terror is so meta that your brain starts to hurt if you think about it too much. This guy isn't just making due with the bad situation of having being beaten two times, he actually set up those losses. HE WANTED YOU TO WIN SO HE COULD BEAT YOU NOW!!! Blizzard wants to make sure the title character is sufficiently bad ass to deserve having his own series. Too bad I don't fucking care. I haven't been thinking about Diablo at all this entire game so I guess Blizzard expects me to say "Ohhhhhhh, Diablo you crafty fuck, you got me." This must be some story telling genius I don't understand, deny the story any kind of interesting motivation so that for the last hour you can think about how well the story of the past two games built to this. I guarantee someone at Blizzard thinks this is cool. Too bad it isn't; its fucking dumb.
And that is why the story of Diablo 3 is so terrible. In Diablo 2 you spend every cutscene and moment of the story following the Dark Wander. A hero tortured by his attempt to contain the Lord of Terror who eventually turns into Diablo. You spend every moment chasing the big bad boss man and it makes you feel connected to each location you travel to. You can see how intelligent and all knowing he is by following his actions. In Diablo 3 you do the exact same thing, except Blizzard doesn't let you know what you are doing, leaving you to wander aimlessly killing random demons who get only seconds of story development instead of building to an interesting villain.
There are a million other complaints I could make about the story. It has moments of brilliance, such as its sad attempt to make the Angelic side of the equation interesting, but it comes off a little like angelic power rangers instead of true characters. The plot twist could have been interesting if you weren't left with gaping plot holes. Is Leah dead? What the fuck happened to Adria? What the hell is a black soul stone and how did some random mage dude create it? Diablo 3 could have been amazing but I can't help but think that Blizzard is caught up in its own brilliance. Perhaps they have bought into their own hype, believing every idea is awesome instead of sorting through bad ideas to find the gems.
Could I do better? Who knows, but it isn't my job to. Blizzard needs to get the magic back, but I think it is probably too late. Diablo 3 is fun and I'll keep playing it, but unlike its predecessors it hasn't captured my imagination in a way that inspires fanatic devotion. An era is over; Blizzard has lost its mojo. Sigh.
On May 22 2012 13:57 m3rciless wrote: Have you even played D2? Did it have 'substantive characters'? I dont even remember which npcs had scripted dialog, because I DIDNT GIVE A FUCK.
No one sits in the rogues encampment chatting with fucking npcs, this isnt mass effect.
Its been twelve years. You think they could have upped their game. Just a thought.
On May 22 2012 13:57 m3rciless wrote: Have you even played D2? Did it have 'substantive characters'? I dont even remember which npcs had scripted dialog, because I DIDNT GIVE A FUCK.
No one sits in the rogues encampment chatting with fucking npcs, this isnt mass effect.
Counterpoint: anyone who's played D2 can probably name the NPCs and remember at least one line from them. Because they actually were something, unlike D3 which has pretty much nothing to give character to each town/environment.
On May 22 2012 13:57 m3rciless wrote: Have you even played D2? Did it have 'substantive characters'? I dont even remember which npcs had scripted dialog, because I DIDNT GIVE A FUCK.
No one sits in the rogues encampment chatting with fucking npcs, this isnt mass effect.
Counterpoint: anyone who's played D2 can probably name the NPCs and remember at least one line from them. Because they actually were something, unlike D3 which has pretty much nothing to give character to each town/environment.
That's a good point. I can't even name any of the merchants; heck I don't even remember the follower's names lol. I was largely disappointed not only with the story, but how poorly done it all seems. The game itself is super glitchy, and it really comes off poorly to the consumer.
On May 22 2012 13:57 m3rciless wrote: Have you even played D2? Did it have 'substantive characters'? I dont even remember which npcs had scripted dialog, because I DIDNT GIVE A FUCK.
No one sits in the rogues encampment chatting with fucking npcs, this isnt mass effect.
Counterpoint: anyone who's played D2 can probably name the NPCs and remember at least one line from them. Because they actually were something, unlike D3 which has pretty much nothing to give character to each town/environment.
In the Rogue Encampment: Akara, the priestess and resident boring person who told you much of the backstory and progressed the quest line; Kashya, the warrior leader who tells you about Blood Raven; Charsi, the naive young blacksmith woman who asks you to return her mallet so that she can forge you a piece of magical armor; the caravan master Warriv who dispensed idioms; and Gheed, the greedy, underhanded merchant who wanted nothing more than to get out of there.
In Lut Gholein: Fara the Paladin, who said little and kept her past mysterious; Elzix the scoundrel-turned-innkeeper; Drognan the wizard, arrogant in his abilities; Fara, the woman who lost her family and asks you for revenge; Meshif, the ship captain who will later take you to Kurast; Jehryn, the young Sultan and lord, who failed to protect the young harem girls from their fate; Lysander, the nearly deaf alchemist who snaps at you at a moment's notice...
I could go on (highlights include Alkor the Alchemist and Ormus the "mad" mage in Kurast, and Nihlathak in Act V for being a misguided tool who thought he was doing the right thing), but I think I've made my point.
If you didn't give a fuck about the story, then stop responding to a topic about the story. Some of us have fucks to give.
On May 22 2012 14:26 Sc2Corpse wrote: I don't know about the story but the game itself is so repetitive and got boring after beating it the first time, kinda regret wasting 60$
Did you expect an entirely dynamic world that is always changing? Go play WoW. Diablo has and will always be "repetitive" - that is why is it what it is. You repetitively farm and repetitively craft the same items hoping for better stats, that is what Diablo is.
Honestly I didn't buy Diablo for the background characters, the lore from Blizzcon was far far more interesting (and more understandable) than what is in the game, so I guess I was also disappointed on that front when you are told to kill these bad guys without much of a reason while at Blizzcon they explained an epic universe.
I really think Blizzard has gotten rid of all the wrong people, I was pretty disappointed with a lot of things about Diablo 3, but yet I still find it enjoyable to play with friends.
D2's story was not amazing, neither was diablo 1's.
With that said i think diablo 1 is the only diablo that i actually cared about talking to the npc's every time i went to town. They did a great job in the first diablo making the characters worth something. I used to love just playing through the single player and going through the story and listening to all the npc's and getting the history of the town. I think much of this was due to the fact that there was only one town, and not many.
This wasnt the case for diablo 2, although the story if paid attention to had substance. I certainly didnt expect it in diablo 3. The story does suck hard in diablo 3 but.... i dunno, its a minior speed bump. If it was there the game would be greatly enhance though.
And when i say talk to all the npc's, i dont mean just the quest line conversations. The gossip aswell.
Well metro uk does say that the game is basically all about hack and click all the time ...
In Short: Still the definitive dungeon crawling experience, and although controversial the changes to upgrading characters only makes it more accessible and customisable.
Pros: Expertly crafted as only Blizzard knows how, with great attention to detail. Highly versatile customisation options and character classes, with excellent co-op options.
Cons: Extremely linear and relatively short. Limited enemy artificial intelligence for enemies. Ultra nerdy story and dialogue. Always-online features have obvious drawbacks.
I agree with op about the story. Chasing the wanderer, felt really good. But then if you look at the ending of D1 it was already planned by b-north to have an expo/sequel, so they had something in place. Whereas there was nothing clear guiding the story in D3, and it felt like they just had to find a way to get diablo back to do a game, and they did it in a very unconvincing way that made it feel extremely forced. the story might have been bad in D2, but it had a certain charm to it. They tried to get some mileage out of nostalgia by recalling some of the older characters like leoric etc, but then it didnt really do much.
On May 22 2012 13:57 m3rciless wrote: Have you even played D2? Did it have 'substantive characters'? I dont even remember which npcs had scripted dialog, because I DIDNT GIVE A FUCK.
No one sits in the rogues encampment chatting with fucking npcs, this isnt mass effect.
Counterpoint: anyone who's played D2 can probably name the NPCs and remember at least one line from them. Because they actually were something, unlike D3 which has pretty much nothing to give character to each town/environment.
That's a good point. I can't even name any of the merchants; heck I don't even remember the follower's names lol. I was largely disappointed not only with the story, but how poorly done it all seems. The game itself is super glitchy, and it really comes off poorly to the consumer.
Good blog post, I enjoyed reading it.
I can remember gheed, that's it.
The d2 story was unrelenting garbage, the d3 story is even worse garbage except the templer and rogue storylines are actually quite nice. Doesn't matter, incredibly fun game.
I actually liked the story of Act1 & 2. Sure the reasons why the heroes visit Tristam seems artificial, but honestly - it's the typical "you dont know the backstory of the hero" plot device. And I can even agree with my monks reason "The gods send me there to check the fallen star".
The whole find the star, help the stranger, Magdha is evil, Magdha gets betrayed - go kill Belial story was kinda fun (and yes it was obvious who Belial was - but who cares^^).
But then Act 3 and the transition to Act 4 (Act 4 itself is kinda fine apart from gold armor guy). The siege is kinda okay (but too long imho) so the rest of the act seems rushed ("Oh btw plz go to hell and kill Azmodan - but be back before dinner, dont worry it's just around the corner!"). The whole witch betrayal was also kinda stupid, because the same thing already happened in Act 1 & 2. Evil witch & betrayal! How about: Leah is just too weak and - while the hero & Tyrael were running around killing demons (or doing whatever i.e. searching for something which is needed to destory the Black Soulstone) - she is overwhelmed & the demons take over (and since Diablo is the badass he's in control).
Oh and one thing: "Turns out Diablo isn't dead...again." He's not dead. Again. He'll be back. I mean you even see the soulstone staying intact in the ending cinematic But I dont care about that
Yea I feel like they had a lot of lore to play around with and make it totally kick ass, but unfortunately incorporating it into a game that's based on such a simple dynamic (gain levels, get loot, get skills, click click), I can kinda see why it gets boring. The boss fights are just more clicking too ): I heard in WoW that some bosses had to be killed in certain stages and with certain tactics, I think that would have been awesome. I use to play Ragnarok, and there were a couple of bosses that were (at the time) only killable with certain kinds of.. exploits I guess, like luring a boss into a corner with 1 tank, trapping him into a 2 block radius with certain skills, and then using 2 teams to keep the tank alive while also dealing damage. The fact that you can kill any boss with 2 (or even 1) guy, regardless of class, kinda takes away from how dynamic boss fights can be. Even things like puzzles could have been incorporated, but I was a bit sad with the overall product.
People said on opening day that streamers wouldn't really get viewers because they either didn't care or were playing it for themselves, but I watched a ton of d3 streams to see if i could find some aspects I really liked. Unfortunately not the case.
Still think it would be a really fun experience with friends on skype though
The OP expresses more or less my own thoughts. Only, I can see the meeting in my head where they were discussing the story.
- <random guy> "Let's make Tyrael som evil mastermind that has plotted the destruction for millennia". - <boss>" No, that's not propery. Everyone knows that Angels are good. We'll have parents calling us every hour of the day. We can't have that. That'll cost us money." - <random guy> "Well let's make him a Jesus figure?" - <boss> "Good, next point". - <random guy> "Jesus figure that somehow fights Diablo. Noted, then the cast then." - <random guy3> "Well I'm out of idéas. Which characters do we have?" - <random guy2> " Some merchants, a mysterious witch, an old lady, some mercenaries. If we go back really long, and it pains me to do this, we could use the wanderer again." - <random guy> "Oh, let's have the wanderer mate with the witch, bring forth diablo, and the mercenaries can help throughout the game". - <random guy2> " Awesome, then we can fire the script writer tomorrow!" - <boss> "Fired. Next, c'mon guys, this costs money." - <random guy> "Final point of the day. How much time should the voice talents get to rehearse." - <boss> "Well, they get paid for half an hour each, they can rehearse as much as they want. Done". - <random guy> "OK we're done." "Oh boss you seem distant?" - <boss> "I was just thinking of how jealous the EA executives are for my new fine DRM".
Joke aside, what I really dislikes the most it the "Liv Tyler" scene ("I choose, a mortal life.").
On May 22 2012 13:57 m3rciless wrote: Have you even played D2? Did it have 'substantive characters'? I dont even remember which npcs had scripted dialog, because I DIDNT GIVE A FUCK.
No one sits in the rogues encampment chatting with fucking npcs, this isnt mass effect.
Counterpoint: anyone who's played D2 can probably name the NPCs and remember at least one line from them. Because they actually were something, unlike D3 which has pretty much nothing to give character to each town/environment.
In the Rogue Encampment: Akara, the priestess and resident boring person who told you much of the backstory and progressed the quest line; Kashya, the warrior leader who tells you about Blood Raven; Charsi, the naive young blacksmith woman who asks you to return her mallet so that she can forge you a piece of magical armor; the caravan master Warriv who dispensed idioms; and Gheed, the greedy, underhanded merchant who wanted nothing more than to get out of there.
In Lut Gholein: Fara the Paladin, who said little and kept her past mysterious; Elzix the scoundrel-turned-innkeeper; Drognan the wizard, arrogant in his abilities; Fara, the woman who lost her family and asks you for revenge; Meshif, the ship captain who will later take you to Kurast; Jehryn, the young Sultan and lord, who failed to protect the young harem girls from their fate; Lysander, the nearly deaf alchemist who snaps at you at a moment's notice...
I could go on (highlights include Alkor the Alchemist and Ormus the "mad" mage in Kurast, and Nihlathak in Act V for being a misguided tool who thought he was doing the right thing), but I think I've made my point.
If you didn't give a fuck about the story, then stop responding to a topic about the story. Some of us have fucks to give.
This is silly. Diablo was NEVER about the story. It's like you're saying OH NOES, MINESWEEPER 3'S STORY WAS QUITE SHALLOW. And everyone else is like well it's not like there was much of a story to begin with. And if you think that there was an actual story in Diablo 2, just cause you can name the characters, only means you see things through nostalgia tinted glasses.
I played d1 and d2 and believed LoD had the perfect ending to the story with the defeat of the 3 brothers, destruction of the world stone.
It absolutely had no opening for speculation of a sequel but somehow blizzard pulled this one out of their butts. I agree with the OP 110% and glad I didn't buy this game.
On May 22 2012 13:57 m3rciless wrote: Have you even played D2? Did it have 'substantive characters'? I dont even remember which npcs had scripted dialog, because I DIDNT GIVE A FUCK.
No one sits in the rogues encampment chatting with fucking npcs, this isnt mass effect.
Counterpoint: anyone who's played D2 can probably name the NPCs and remember at least one line from them. Because they actually were something, unlike D3 which has pretty much nothing to give character to each town/environment.
In the Rogue Encampment: Akara, the priestess and resident boring person who told you much of the backstory and progressed the quest line; Kashya, the warrior leader who tells you about Blood Raven; Charsi, the naive young blacksmith woman who asks you to return her mallet so that she can forge you a piece of magical armor; the caravan master Warriv who dispensed idioms; and Gheed, the greedy, underhanded merchant who wanted nothing more than to get out of there.
In Lut Gholein: Fara the Paladin, who said little and kept her past mysterious; Elzix the scoundrel-turned-innkeeper; Drognan the wizard, arrogant in his abilities; Fara, the woman who lost her family and asks you for revenge; Meshif, the ship captain who will later take you to Kurast; Jehryn, the young Sultan and lord, who failed to protect the young harem girls from their fate; Lysander, the nearly deaf alchemist who snaps at you at a moment's notice...
I could go on (highlights include Alkor the Alchemist and Ormus the "mad" mage in Kurast, and Nihlathak in Act V for being a misguided tool who thought he was doing the right thing), but I think I've made my point.
If you didn't give a fuck about the story, then stop responding to a topic about the story. Some of us have fucks to give.
This is silly. Diablo was NEVER about the story. It's like you're saying OH NOES, MINESWEEPER 3'S STORY WAS QUITE SHALLOW. And everyone else is like well it's not like there was much of a story to begin with. And if you think that there was an actual story in Diablo 2, just cause you can name the characters, only means you see things through nostalgia tinted glasses.
There actually is a story. Sure you wont' get something like Half-life or Portal quality but there is a story. Have you watched the cinematics in between the acts? Paid attention to the NPC dialogue? Combined together they actually piece together a pretty satisfying story. Also I quite liked the NPC dialogues. Back when I was playing diablo 2 i used to talk to them in between runs when someone was tp'ing to the throne for example, there were some pretty good lines such as larzuk inventing hot air balloons for scouting.
Sure the story is second priority in Diablo but there definitely was one. Perhaps you should go and play the game again.
The story of D3 is just as good (bad) as D2, it's ridiculous how people let nostalgia mess up their perspective, especially when it goes as far as people saying they regret buying the game because the story is bad.
Stuff from the earlier Diablos is classic. it kind of reminds me of prequels/sequels of Star Wars. In Diablo 1 we have Cain for the first time. Dumb, boozing Farnham. Gentle Pepin the healer. Token blacksmith Griswold. Adria the mysterious witch who you have to walk so far to meet. Even the random guy who dies outside the Cathedral. Please... listen to me. The Archbishop Lazarus... and by then you could close the window and have the first quest. The Butcher and Skeleton King were great the first time around.
In D2 you obviously aren't supposed to know your hirelings at all. There's a town in each of the acts (I always wish one act was big enough for two towns or something, with actual friendly NPCs). You don't really care about the potions guy, the armor guy, or the hireling guy, but this is because there are more NPCs to begin with. It doesn't mean you are less interested in the NPCs. Cain is back. Tyrael evokes mystery every time you meet him. Especially the avarice he shows in Act 4 taking all your gold for resurrections. Nihlathak is basically synonymous with traitor. The same problem was in SC2. The first time you do something, it's classic, but if you simply rehash it or make it even more Disney, you've instantly ruined your story by being cliche.
The fact that the story isn't necessary to the replay value doesn't mean that D1/D2 didn't get things right about the story. For instance, you also won't replay BW or SC2 for the story, because you know what happens. You're doing it so you can conquer the maps with some new handicap or on a new difficulty or you want some achievement. But you're not doing it entirely for that, it's because you know you felt satisfied that first time when Arcturus left Kerrigan behind and then you beat the shit out of Korhal and Alpha Squadron to escape. I don't know. Rehashing can work, but this jumps out to me as milking.
I forgot... the entire mystery of the Dark Wanderer. The glimpse you get in Act 3. This trailer, so well done:
They could have been more creative with the final fight. It's supposed to be against all the lords of hell at once, instead you fight a crappy minidiablo screaming 'I am legion' while being the exact opposite. And the nightmare world part of that fight was an idea i first saw in a devil may cry boss fight. Oh well...
Also, not all classes are suited for higher difficulties (most likely WD and barb) and that's a flaw in planning, although i don't know if they just wanted to make it dependant on teamwork. But you can't just make the WD minions useless, come on. Make their hp scale with something.Had to switch to a DH for these reasons, at least it's really fun to play.
The overall story is a bit meh, but i found many dialogs to be quite funny.Especially with the companions.
^^^^ HIS NAME WAS MARAUDER SHIELDS. Never forget that he tried to stop you. His noble sacrifice, in vain, to try and prevent you from that horrible ending.
Also, OP, please to be reading Gheed's blog - A Polemic Diabo 3 Review. It makes a number of very good points about this specific issue.
I mean, it's kindof like complaining that Notch really botched the story in Minecraft.
To all of the people that say the story doesn't matter in the Diablo series: STOP IT! You are not the only person on this planet who played this fucking game. I, and many others, as can be seen in the countless threads here on TL and everywhere else, do care a great deal about lore and the story of the Diablo universe. So quit trying to trivialise our opinion. It's an opinion for sure, but just saying that all our opinions are invalid (because you don't care about the story) is the worst kind of debating. It's kindergarten level.
On May 22 2012 18:37 surfinbird1 wrote: To all of the people that say the story doesn't matter in the Diablo series: STOP IT! You are not the only person on this planet who played this fucking game. I, and many others, as can be seen in the countless threads here on TL and everywhere else, do care a great deal about lore and the story of the Diablo universe. So quit trying to trivialise our opinion. It's an opinion for sure, but just saying that all our opinions are invalid (because you don't care about the story) is the worst kind of debating. It's kindergarten level.
Story doesn't matter in relation to the gameplay and atmosphere. In that regard, the game was an absolute success.
I saw your little speech, but in the end the lore and story are secondary. Not just in my opinion of the game, but for the series as a whole.
How the hell did he do that? Well all he had to do was die twice, sleep with Adria (the witch from Diablo 1) and conceive a daughter that would have the power to get shit done.
This was the winning quote.
Oh and I just wanna click SPAM a buncha monsters from hell until a big dude whacks me into a pile on the ground. After that, I want to do that again but from a farther distance and pussying out until the mob becomes thinner. Then get 3,000 mf, lots of sick golds (Goldenrod? Amber?), and flash all that stuff doing crazy things.
Just like action movies have very little plot and very big explosions, so does Diablo III have very little plot and very big explosions. I mean have you seen Diablo die? Or a mob with exploding palm? There's even that one that releases a buncha worms when he dies. AWESOME!
The preceding post has been written in a heavily sarcastic style. The author has embellished some aspects of his desired gameplay in an attempt to inject humor into the post.
On May 22 2012 18:37 surfinbird1 wrote: To all of the people that say the story doesn't matter in the Diablo series: STOP IT! You are not the only person on this planet who played this fucking game. I, and many others, as can be seen in the countless threads here on TL and everywhere else, do care a great deal about lore and the story of the Diablo universe. So quit trying to trivialise our opinion. It's an opinion for sure, but just saying that all our opinions are invalid (because you don't care about the story) is the worst kind of debating. It's kindergarten level.
Then what are you guys whining about? You care about the story and lore in games with bad story and weak lore with very few story elements. In D3, you actually got some real story for that lore you want!
Honestly, I just don't see where the critique is coming from. Story sucked in all diablo games and it sucks in the third one apparently, so now everyone is mad because they bought D3 for the story? Wow.
I remember that in d2 i tried to get through everything faster to find out what happened to the wanderer. In d3 it felt more like "oh god, another pointless cutscene... oh, and it's the trailer they already showed 50 times in their ads... and again it's the enemy telling you exactly where to go and what to do like any good villain would"
I also remember enemies of D2 a lot better than those of D3 eventhough i haven't played D2 in maybe 10 years, even minor bosses like Blood Raven.
On May 22 2012 13:55 Hungry Cerberus wrote: And that is why the story of Diablo 3 is so terrible. In Diablo 2 you spend every cutscene and moment of the story following the Dark Wander. A hero tortured by his attempt to contain the Lord of Terror who eventually turns into Diablo. You spend every moment chasing the big bad boss man and it makes you feel connected to each location you travel to. You can see how intelligent and all knowing he is by following his actions. In Diablo 3 you do the exact same thing, except Blizzard doesn't let you know what you are doing, leaving you to wander aimlessly killing random demons who get only seconds of story development instead of building to an interesting villain.
Hmm, I would say Diablo 3 gives you a different reason to be connected to each area. Act 1 - finding the fallen star, Act 2 - overthrowing the corruption of Belial, Act 3 - fending off the siege of Asmodan, Act 4 - Heaven is being wrecked by Diablo. Seems to me that Blizzard is letting you know exactly what you are doing, unless you mean the fact that you aren't told that you are in fact putting all the pieces in place to revive Diablo as the prime evil, in which case it would be absolutely stupid to tell you what you are doing because that would defeat the purpose of it being a twist.
On May 22 2012 13:55 Hungry Cerberus wrote: And that is why the story of Diablo 3 is so terrible. In Diablo 2 you spend every cutscene and moment of the story following the Dark Wander. A hero tortured by his attempt to contain the Lord of Terror who eventually turns into Diablo. You spend every moment chasing the big bad boss man and it makes you feel connected to each location you travel to. You can see how intelligent and all knowing he is by following his actions. In Diablo 3 you do the exact same thing, except Blizzard doesn't let you know what you are doing, leaving you to wander aimlessly killing random demons who get only seconds of story development instead of building to an interesting villain.
Hmm, I would say Diablo 3 gives you a different reason to be connected to each area. Act 1 - finding the fallen star, Act 2 - overthrowing the corruption of Belial, Act 3 - fending off the siege of Asmodan, Act 4 - Heaven is being wrecked by Diablo. Seems to me that Blizzard is letting you know exactly what you are doing, unless you mean the fact that you aren't told that you are in fact putting all the pieces in place to revive Diablo as the prime evil, in which case it would be absolutely stupid to tell you what you are doing because that would defeat the purpose of it being a twist.
Fair point. My complaint is the game lacks the grand sweeping narrative. In Diablo 2 you are given little pieces of a major plot. In this game I think Blizzard forgot to make Azmodan and Belial seem like major villians. There is no reason you couldn't make them seem like the end all be all of the game and then include the major plot twist. I definately think their are moments of brilliance but they just don't do a good job of setting up an interesting premise for the overall story. The Azmodan cutscene is AMAZING but they wait until the game is mostly over. Great cutscenes are all you really need and Diablo 2 was fantastic at this. Perhaps the actual ingame story wasn't that great but the story of the Dark Wanderer was a great way to build towards the final encounter.
Also I feel I need to point out that I should have mentioned the best part of Diablo 3's story. The lore/letters are great and give hints at a deeper backstory. I think those are amazing and I would have given Blizzard more credit for them if they hadn't had years to develop a game that was something more than its predessors. Diablo 3 is a good game, just not the mind blowingly spectacular game that Blizzard needed it to be.
My only question is why the hell do you people spend so much time on a game that you think is bad, not only did you seem to play it through, you even start blogs about it talking about how bad it is. It's insane.
On May 22 2012 18:37 silentreality wrote: All I remember is..
"Stay a while and listen"
For me it was Rakanishu !!!!!
I remembered Bishibosh! I was so disappointed that Rakanishu made a re-appearance (at least I found his sword but not him yet), but not Bishibosh.
Anyway most of these complaints are just nostalgia. D1 and D2 were lightyears ahead of the competition, while the competition is much more stiff for D3. If a player totally new to the Diablo series were to play these previous games, I'm pretty sure he'll go "Dafuq?"
On May 22 2012 22:36 Integra wrote: My only question is why the hell do you people spend so much time on a game that you think is bad, not only did you seem to play it through, you even start blogs about it talking about how bad it is. It's insane.
I bet he spend just as much time writing this blog as he played the game. I mean, it's obvious that the fun starts after playing it through on normal difficulty. As he states himself, he didn't play on higher, because the story was so dissapointing. This means, that he bought the game for the story, which is like buying HOTS for the story.. come on.. the story is long over.
I for one played diablo 3 just for the story, Not everyone is like "oh i want all the loot". I to be honest can't be bothered to grind through the same thing over and over and over again because there is no higher goal. So what happens than when you have the best gear?
On May 23 2012 00:55 Knap4life wrote: I for one played diablo 3 just for the story, Not everyone is like "oh i want all the loot". I to be honest can't be bothered to grind through the same thing over and over and over again because there is no higher goal. So what happens than when you have the best gear?
The e-peen. I mean, if a hypothetical person doesn't give a damn about the gameplay and only bothers about the story, he might as well go read a book. Surely you admit you were interested in some aspects of the gameplay, although maybe less about grinding, which is a part of almost every RPG, or even every game.
On May 23 2012 00:55 Knap4life wrote: I for one played diablo 3 just for the story, Not everyone is like "oh i want all the loot". I to be honest can't be bothered to grind through the same thing over and over and over again because there is no higher goal. So what happens than when you have the best gear?
The e-peen. I mean, if a hypothetical person doesn't give a damn about the gameplay and only bothers about the story, he might as well go read a book. Surely you admit you were interested in some aspects of the gameplay, although maybe less about grinding, which is a part of almost every RPG, or even every game.
Yes you are right , i played for one more reason besides the story and that is the visuals.The world and the monsters.I don't give two shits about gear.
On May 22 2012 18:37 silentreality wrote: All I remember is..
"Stay a while and listen"
For me it was Rakanishu !!!!!
I remembered Bishibosh! I was so disappointed that Rakanishu made a re-appearance (at least I found his sword but not him yet), but not Bishibosh.
Anyway most of these complaints are just nostalgia. D1 and D2 were lightyears ahead of the competition, while the competition is much more stiff for D3. If a player totally new to the Diablo series were to play these previous games, I'm pretty sure he'll go "Dafuq?"
I found Bishibosh, you just haven't looked good enough.
I'm sorry but I skipped a lot of posts so forgive me if someone's already mention this...
My biggest issue with Diablo III?
Why on Earth are Azmodan and Diablo so fucking vocal. Act 4 just drives me nuts because of Diablo constantly taunting you or the fact that you can somehow magically hear what he's telling his minions. For example the 2nd boss in Act 4. How exactly are you listening to his conversation with his minion? It's like a little kid decided to design this aspect of the game. You know what enjoyed about Diablo I and II? The Demons were mostly silent and you didn't learn a whole lot about them. There is sometimes greatness in silence and this game failed to aknowledge that. Now we're left with two act bosses who sound extremely insecure. "If you destroy my hell rift my demons will tear you apart!" - You destroy it. Nothing happens...
I can perfectly understand why Belial is vocal because it's his character. He's based on lies and malipulation.
It may seem like a minor complaint but christ it bothers me.
Few other complaints...
Why are the bosses so HUGE and "EPIC". I was thoroughly disappointed when I saw the butcher. They took my nostalgia and shit all over it.
On May 23 2012 01:28 matiK23 wrote: Wait there's an actual story to this franchise? You mean there's more to it than farming? Whoa mind blown.
This is taken from wiki
Background The setting of Diablo includes the world of Sanctuary, as well as Heaven and Hell. After eons of war between angels and demons, the ascension of man prompted the three Lords of Hell (including Diablo himself) to seek victory through influence, prompting their exile into the mortal realm. There, they sowed chaos, distrust, and hatred among the humans of Sanctuary until a group of magi trapped them in soulstones. Diablo's soulstone was buried deep in the earth and a monastery was built over the site. Generations passed and the purpose of the monastery was forgotten. A small town named Tristram sprang up next to the monastery's ruins. When King Leoric rebuilt the monastery as a cathedral, Diablo manipulated its archbishop to destroy his soulstone prison. Diablo subsequently possessed the king, sending out his knights and priests to battle against peaceful kingdoms, and then possessed the king's son, filling the caves and catacombs beneath the cathedral with creatures formed from the young boy's nightmares. Tristram became a town of fear and horror, where people were abducted in the night. With no king, no law, and no army left to defend them, many villagers fled.[9] [edit]Plot The game starts when the player's character arrives in Tristram. The labyrinth under the Cathedral descends from a simple dungeon to catacombs to the dark caves and finally the fiery pits of Hell itself, each full of the undead, monsters, and demons. Leoric has been re-animated as the Skeleton King, and the hero must kill him so he can be released from his curse. The hero must also kill Archbishop Lazarus, and eventually fight Diablo himself. At the end of the game the hero kills Diablo's mortal form, leaving Diablo trapped in a soulstone once again. The hero then drives the soulstone into his own skull in an attempt to contain the Lord of Terror. Diablo II continues the story, with Diablo having possessed the warrior hero who killed him.
I don't know what you are trying to do here but op has a point and I played diablo 1 and 2 there is a definitely a story line .So you have been playing diablo all the time and yet know nothing about aforementioned storyline and background that's happening ? that's great.
On May 22 2012 18:37 silentreality wrote: All I remember is..
"Stay a while and listen"
For me it was Rakanishu !!!!!
I remembered Bishibosh! I was so disappointed that Rakanishu made a re-appearance (at least I found his sword but not him yet), but not Bishibosh.
Anyway most of these complaints are just nostalgia. D1 and D2 were lightyears ahead of the competition, while the competition is much more stiff for D3. If a player totally new to the Diablo series were to play these previous games, I'm pretty sure he'll go "Dafuq?"
I found Bishibosh, you just haven't looked good enough.
Holy sheeeeeeeeeetttt!! Where did you find him? I gotta go say hi to him.
On May 23 2012 02:10 Krohm wrote: I'm sorry but I skipped a lot of posts so forgive me if someone's already mention this...
My biggest issue with Diablo III?
Why on Earth are Azmodan and Diablo so fucking vocal. Act 4 just drives me nuts because of Diablo constantly taunting you or the fact that you can somehow magically hear what he's telling his minions. For example the 2nd boss in Act 4. How exactly are you listening to his conversation with his minion? It's like a little kid decided to design this aspect of the game. You know what enjoyed about Diablo I and II? The Demons were mostly silent and you didn't learn a whole lot about them. There is sometimes greatness in silence and this game failed to aknowledge that. Now we're left with two act bosses who sound extremely insecure. "If you destroy my hell rift my demons will tear you apart!" - You destroy it. Nothing happens...
I can perfectly understand why Belial is vocal because it's his character. He's based on lies and malipulation.
It may seem like a minor complaint but christ it bothers me.
Few other complaints...
Why are the bosses so HUGE and "EPIC". I was thoroughly disappointed when I saw the butcher. They took my nostalgia and shit all over it.
I have to agree with the taunting stuff. All the popups are so fucking annoying, especially Azmodan's because I can't hear what the heck he is mumbling. I've gotten into a habit of auto-pressing escape, I need to find out how to disable all npc chat (or someone can tell me =D) Worst part is the chat blocks the screen when you're fighting something. There's a million complaints about D3, but for some reason I never seen any comment about this haha.
ive been watching alot of player streams, and gameplay looks unchanged from previous games. just gonna wait till it drops to 20. looking forward to guild wars 2 instead. if it wasnt for nostalgia reasons, i probably wouldnt even buy it
On May 23 2012 02:10 Krohm wrote: I'm sorry but I skipped a lot of posts so forgive me if someone's already mention this...
My biggest issue with Diablo III?
Why on Earth are Azmodan and Diablo so fucking vocal. Act 4 just drives me nuts because of Diablo constantly taunting you or the fact that you can somehow magically hear what he's telling his minions. For example the 2nd boss in Act 4. How exactly are you listening to his conversation with his minion? It's like a little kid decided to design this aspect of the game. You know what enjoyed about Diablo I and II? The Demons were mostly silent and you didn't learn a whole lot about them. There is sometimes greatness in silence and this game failed to aknowledge that. Now we're left with two act bosses who sound extremely insecure. "If you destroy my hell rift my demons will tear you apart!" - You destroy it. Nothing happens...
I can perfectly understand why Belial is vocal because it's his character. He's based on lies and malipulation.
It may seem like a minor complaint but christ it bothers me.
Few other complaints...
Why are the bosses so HUGE and "EPIC". I was thoroughly disappointed when I saw the butcher. They took my nostalgia and shit all over it.
I had the same experience as you. The storyline seemed like it was trying WAY to hard to match some cliche over the top Hero VS. Bad guy, and then takes it to the extreme cheese factor of having the bosses talk to you like some bad saturday morning cartoon.
Another thing about bosses that really bothers me is that...
A. The bosses are all in their nice little rooms all by themselves, easy to engage and easy to kill. D2 bosses (bael and that other guy being the exception) were IN the dungeon, like right IN the shit. Mephisto and Diablo in D2 had these huge rooms they occupied with a shitload of underlings, most of the times champion or rare packs right in the room with them. Made it so much more imposing then just a boss room with a boss all alone , packaged up for you.
B. WTF are there health pools in the rooms with bosses for. The bosses are easy enough as is compared to the elite and champion packs, and it's downright insulting they think they need to add regenerating health pools in the room to garuantee that people will kill them.
I just think WoW has tooken over way too many design styles, there are some things they carry over to D3 that just make it a worse game and less Diablo, then the franchise has established. This game feels much less like a Diablo sequal and much more like World of Warcraft.....Diablo Edition.
That being said, I love the gameplay (minus the way bosses were handled and the way PVP is being handled) and have really no other complaints , everything is fluid, the combat is good, the skills/ spells are fun and I'm really enjoying the 'meat' of the game. It's just a shame that the story could not deliver the same style as previous diablo games. Instead it comes off very shallow and too 'try hard hero cliche".
Sure Diablo 2 didn't have a good storyline but it wasn't constantly shoved down your throat either. In D3 Diablo, Azmodan, Maghda and who ever else are constantly appearing on your screen spewing endless lines of shitty dialogue at you.
If the focus of Diablo 3 isn't story fine but if that's the case then the development team screwed up by continually reminding you just how bad it is.
Well I bought the game, I've played through it. I guess I can make an opinion now huh.
Some people like it, some people defend it with their lives. Good for you I'm glad you got your money's worth, I really do mean that, no hidden sarcasm. But I didn't like it at all. I took a risk, and got burned for it. This game isn't for everyone, and I was one of unfortunate ones who didn't enjoy the game as much as others have. Oh well sucks for me...
There, a negative opinion that shouldn't upset anyone right?
On May 22 2012 18:37 silentreality wrote: All I remember is..
"Stay a while and listen"
For me it was Rakanishu !!!!!
I sense a soul in search for answers.
Greetings good master. Welcome to the Tavern of the Rising Sun!
Well, what can I do for ya?
..... be right back re-installing diablo 2....
U know those quotes are from Diablo 1 right? -_-
Quote 1 is Adria, Quote 2 is.. crap how do you spell his name?... Ogden! the inn keeper. Quote 3 is griswald, the boss blacksmith who saved wirt, minus a leg.
I love diablo 1, replayed it again before D3 dropped.
Never played D2, but I can feel a lot of what OP is saying. I feel like Blizzard has taken a dive off the deep end after TFT and hasn't recoverred since. Quite a sad situation really.
On May 22 2012 13:57 m3rciless wrote: Have you even played D2? Did it have 'substantive characters'? I dont even remember which npcs had scripted dialog, because I DIDNT GIVE A FUCK.
No one sits in the rogues encampment chatting with fucking npcs, this isnt mass effect.
I did. I enjoyed the story. I also liked the tiny jungle pygmies running around with voodoo masks. And which npcs were copulating in D2? I missed that part.
I lost Theo! I lost my best friend! We were playing over by the river, and Theo said he wanted to go look at the big green thing. I said we shouldn't, but we snuck over there, and the suddenly this bug came out! We ran away but Theo fell down and the bug grabbed him and took him away!
Aside from the online DRM failures, Diablo 3 performed exactly as expected and advertised. I don't think many of us were expecting anything different, and if you were, then perhaps you were misguided.
I wouldn't have given a shit about the story if Leah wasn't the worst female lead character in all of Video game history. Holy shit I wanted to kill her less than 1 hour into the game. As someone who doesn't really give a shit about the story and only focused on gameplay, when a main character that's in every act makes you want to punch your monitor to shut her up it detracts from gameplay, that's how bad Leah is as a character. The whole cheesiness turned up to lvl 100 sucked too but that only annoyed me at the final cutscene which didn't interfere with gameplay.
I kinda hoped that Blizzard wouldve done something innovative to keep Diablo III more interesting. If you take starcraft for example, you had your basic game (campaign, 1v1's 2v2's etc.) but also a world of freedom in all the awesome custom games. I dunno, I just feel that they couldve added something new to the DIII mix to improve the replayability, because tbh im kinda getting bored with running through the same level again and again and again and again...
On May 26 2012 22:56 Count9 wrote: I wouldn't have given a shit about the story if Leah wasn't the worst female lead character in all of Video game history. Holy shit I wanted to kill her less than 1 hour into the game. As someone who doesn't really give a shit about the story and only focused on gameplay, when a main character that's in every act makes you want to punch your monitor to shut her up it detracts from gameplay, that's how bad Leah is as a character. The whole cheesiness turned up to lvl 100 sucked too but that only annoyed me at the final cutscene which didn't interfere with gameplay.
Yeah I totally agree with you. The sole reason I thought the 3rd (I think?) cinematic was the best since that was when she finally fucking died (I hope). I honestly thought she would be a likable character since the cinematic team said (blizzcon October 2011) that they worked a great deal on trying to make her lovable. Too bad they still managed to make me want to strangle her.
Running Mephisto/Pindle was like a drug. It was addicting watching gear drop that you've worked hours for. It isn't the nostalgia speaking because I've gone back and replayed every new ladder every single season, including the most recent. I'm not sure how much longer I can stand D3. It just doesn't feel as rewarding.
On May 27 2012 03:54 See.Blue wrote: really? getting bent out of shape about the plot of a diablo game? sigh.
They're obviously trying to put plot into the game, so why shouldn't it be criticized for being bad? It's not like they kept it to a minimal style similar to D1/2.
On May 22 2012 13:57 m3rciless wrote: Have you even played D2? Did it have 'substantive characters'? I dont even remember which npcs had scripted dialog, because I DIDNT GIVE A FUCK.
No one sits in the rogues encampment chatting with fucking npcs, this isnt mass effect.
Counterpoint: anyone who's played D2 can probably name the NPCs and remember at least one line from them. Because they actually were something, unlike D3 which has pretty much nothing to give character to each town/environment.
In the Rogue Encampment: Akara, the priestess and resident boring person who told you much of the backstory and progressed the quest line; Kashya, the warrior leader who tells you about Blood Raven; Charsi, the naive young blacksmith woman who asks you to return her mallet so that she can forge you a piece of magical armor; the caravan master Warriv who dispensed idioms; and Gheed, the greedy, underhanded merchant who wanted nothing more than to get out of there.
In Lut Gholein: Fara the Paladin, who said little and kept her past mysterious; Elzix the scoundrel-turned-innkeeper; Drognan the wizard, arrogant in his abilities; Fara, the woman who lost her family and asks you for revenge; Meshif, the ship captain who will later take you to Kurast; Jehryn, the young Sultan and lord, who failed to protect the young harem girls from their fate; Lysander, the nearly deaf alchemist who snaps at you at a moment's notice...
I could go on (highlights include Alkor the Alchemist and Ormus the "mad" mage in Kurast, and Nihlathak in Act V for being a misguided tool who thought he was doing the right thing), but I think I've made my point.
If you didn't give a fuck about the story, then stop responding to a topic about the story. Some of us have fucks to give.
This is silly. Diablo was NEVER about the story. It's like you're saying OH NOES, MINESWEEPER 3'S STORY WAS QUITE SHALLOW. And everyone else is like well it's not like there was much of a story to begin with. And if you think that there was an actual story in Diablo 2, just cause you can name the characters, only means you see things through nostalgia tinted glasses.
LoL what you talking about? Diablo 1 and 2 has some of the most memorable dialogue ever. The story of D2, pursuing the Dark Wanderer into the 4 initial realms and then heading off to kill the remaining Baal is epic and a classic.
In Diablo 3, I killed the Skeleton King (who isnt related to the story AT ALL), then again some dungeons, killed the Butcher (great creativity Blizzard! ...), travelled through a desert world, then a siege, some snow, and then just hellish environment until the final boss. The characters are completely negligible. The char building is so unbelievably simplistic: just focus on main attribute(s) = ticket to inferno ez pz. And so much other stuff it would need another thread like this to list.
No way can anybody have played Diablo 2 and say that Diablo 3 is a good standalone game. Even Titan Quest, completely shits over Diablo 3. It's a gigantic game too.
Funny to see people actually trying their hardest, and actually getting upset like you, to justify the money they spent on this mess of a game.
Torchlight 2 and Path of Exile. That's all I've got to say.
I disagree. While Diablo II had a strong narrative hook and cool perspective storytelling, Diablo III does an adequate job of making sure your character seems like a satisfying bad-ass. Given that they killed off all the relevant evil, their shift of focus towards the protagonist was the best they could do with the lemons they gave themselves.
On May 27 2012 03:54 See.Blue wrote: really? getting bent out of shape about the plot of a diablo game? sigh.
They're obviously trying to put plot into the game, so why shouldn't it be criticized for being bad? It's not like they kept it to a minimal style similar to D1/2.
Agreed. There is only so much badness a man can handle. If a job is worth doing then it is worth doing properly. In D2 the story set the atmosphere and added to gameplay. It was secondary but still had an effect.
To all those woh said D has also been point click, you telling me you spent all that money, put up with shitty DRM for a point click game?
The Prime Evils, Baal Mephisto and Diablo were probably in the end cooler characters but they were the only ones that deserve that distinction. The other demons, Andariel, Duriel etc. got no more story development than any of the bosses in this game and actually one in particular Maghda had more plot time devoted to her than any of the bosses save Baal and Mephisto did in Diablo 2.
The game's story is just as good as Diablo 2's. Take the time to talk to the NPCs and go through all the side dialogue and then go back and play Diablo 2 and directly compare. They are about the same. The only reason people are giving so much praise to diablo 2 now is because of nostalgia vs immense hype.
On May 27 2012 09:06 Futabot wrote: I disagree. While Diablo II had a strong narrative hook and cool perspective storytelling, Diablo III does an adequate job of making sure your character seems like a satisfying bad-ass. Given that they killed off all the relevant evil, their shift of focus towards the protagonist was the best they could do with the lemons they gave themselves.
You serious? Have you listened to the dialogue the templar and wizard girl have? It's mindboggling how bad it is.
Templar: "It will take great wit to defeat such dread foes." Wizard: "Good. Wit is something we are not in short supply of."
Seriously? That's the best they could do for dialogue? Horrendous.
I feel like Marius' stuggles were far more enticing than anything that came up in D3. The end cinematic with Baal and Marius is one of my all-time favorite cinematics for gaming.
On May 27 2012 09:06 Futabot wrote: I disagree. While Diablo II had a strong narrative hook and cool perspective storytelling, Diablo III does an adequate job of making sure your character seems like a satisfying bad-ass. Given that they killed off all the relevant evil, their shift of focus towards the protagonist was the best they could do with the lemons they gave themselves.
You serious? Have you listened to the dialogue the templar and wizard girl have? It's mindboggling how bad it is.
Templar: "It will take great wit to defeat such dread foes." Wizard: "Good. Wit is something we are not in short supply of."
Seriously? That's the best they could do for dialogue? Horrendous.
Wizard girl has the best lines in the game, idk what you're talking about
I liked that your character is for once not some random hero dude who always gets told how awesomely strong all his enemies are and how weak he in comparison is, while we anyhow still proceed to kill them. I personally found it pretty cool that you're often reminded that your character himself is bad ass powerful.
The problem with the plot is that there's no big story arc which connects all acts. We proceed from "Hey what's that meteor, ah, some dude with who lost his sword.. okay let's find that sword, kk Butcher is dead (why the fuck is that guy even here?)" to "alright, let's free Caldeum and find Belial" to "SUDDENLY GIGANTIC ARMY OF AZMODAN" to "omfg high heavens!!!". There's basically no senseful transition from one act to the other, I mean seriously, getting told that the next act has to be Arreat because Leah had some weird dreams or something? Come on..
In comparison (and really in comparison, not tainted by nostalgia), D2 had a much bigger story arc. Also, the bosses were encountered while following the dark wanderer and each had a senseful place (need to kill Andariel to be able to get over the mountaints; need to find Baal/Tal Rasha before Diablo does, encounter Duriel there who was placed there to exactly wait for us; need to reach Mephisto before Diablo does, fail, need to follow Diablo further to hell which can only be reached through Mephistos very lair, so kill Mephisto to get through). Where's that connection in D3? I wondered why we even had to kill the Butcher, did that lift some sort of blockade or what and I missed it? The main motivation for most stuff is Leah having some dreams and stuff and we just follow that.
Also, the plot-twist was somehow... strange. Leah, whose dreams and stuff were basically the most important tool in storystelling, just dies. Cool. Also, Adria pulls off some weird "I collected essences or whatever from the 3 prime evils and they're somehow now in this soulstone which everyone else seems to have forgotten or didn't care about".. obviously one has to retcon the D2 story a bit to allow for Diablo and his boys to resurge, but come on? How lame was that? Shouldn't it be somewhat harder to get the 3 prime evils back or into some soulstone that just "collecting" some crap they "left behind"?
Don't get me wrong, I think D3 is a great game and I enjoy it a lot. Even the genereal act stories and tier settings aren't too bad. It is just lacking a big story arc with some serious motivation for the player/character to do as he does (I personally think that starting by searching after the meteor was perfectly fine, but with Tyrael around there should have been some bigger purpose. Even Adrias betrayal could have been placed in the story even if it was clear that we are hunting Diablo again, I guess..).
I hated the Nephalem idea and thought all the ennemies were ridiculous. Why diablo is always so weak I wonder. He is the strongest ever, with the souls of all other evil within him, but you still kill him. Was it too hard to build an entire story line around the idea that diablo crush you and that you need something to lower his power ? Let's find the artifact X so that Y could tune down Diablo ? No it's all RUN AFTER HIM, KILL HIM, ABSORB INTO SOUL STONE, PROCEED ONTO NEXT EVIL.
But the real problem are the loots, they are just bad. You just can't tune your hero up because you will end up being fully stuffed out of random yellow items with no charisma at all.
On May 27 2012 01:38 B.I.G. wrote: I kinda hoped that Blizzard wouldve done something innovative to keep Diablo III more interesting. If you take starcraft for example, you had your basic game (campaign, 1v1's 2v2's etc.) but also a world of freedom in all the awesome custom games. I dunno, I just feel that they couldve added something new to the DIII mix to improve the replayability, because tbh im kinda getting bored with running through the same level again and again and again and again...
This is probably one of my biggest issues with D3, even though it isn't an issue with the game at all, just the framework. See, D2 had a couple of mods which were quite popular, such as Median XL. At least one Blizzard employee has officially stated he loves Median XL and the whole team used to play mods a lot. Cool. So where's the official mod support for D3?
At least path of exile has tons of different leagues where there will be different rulesets (and I think TL2 will have something similar). D3 has 2: normal and hardcore. It's so unimaginative.
I haven't actually watched any of the cutscenes since Act 2 halfway, but the story seems pretty sweet to me. Maybe I just have lower expectations and read books and stuff.
EPT
