deathmars wrote
"
The second this is the fact how similar the acts are so far. In act 1 Diablo 2, we have the Rogue Encampment, a sunny happy place with forests and fun cute animals. In act 2, we have Nigeria and Iran put together in the medieval ages."
<-- you must be idiot or just a troll.Go home noob.
Are you from Iran or Nigeria? I am sorry if I insulted your fucking nationality by mentioning it in a paragraph dumb ass. And go home? You should actually kiss my ass and leave your home for once. Fucking Trolls.
Anyways, maybe you people can't read or are still struggling with middle school English. I merely stating that the layout of Diablo 3 is almost identical of Diablo 2. I never said I don't like it.
I don't usually say this, but go read some lore ^^
Sure it would be possible, but they would have to rewrite pretty much all Diablo lore, and how can we call D3 a sequel to D2 if tons of lore is waaaaay different.
Why?
we didn't have to rewrite Chinese history because, Chinese didn't know Europe, the Americas, Australia, Africa existed.
or European history because they didn't know China, the Americas, etc existed
I'm sorry, I mean, You will have to understand that blizzard isn't Here to make new "fresh content" If you do not like playing the best mmorp you will have to go see somewhere else, Blizzard Is a Inc. company, the only wants to make money and if by the way the can make some game to gather more money maybe they will. Maybe you will dont love the game, but you will have to understand that they are creating Diablo 3 NOT SRHOIFSHJOISHSGHS 3.... You understand what I mean? they recreating Diablo for the third time to improve it, they make sever change, WT'F they have to do about the mapping... for my self i never did the whole act3.... or even act 2 in part...so what as all the "saharah" and "forest" to do about Diablo 3, Diablo is killing monster leveling gathering gold getting better gear and say "hey n00b I killed your mom last night, eheh come with me in the forest ill show you my big boobs" That is what the game is bout lol......
So there ill show you my point... as short as it could be...
From the DIablo 1 To the Diablo 2 To the Diablo 3
all the Diablo 3 Characters historic:
1st created ever character:Amazon went amazon to another Bowman or ranger.
2nd: The Barbarian went Barbariand And Barbarian again to Become The best know character from Diablo And will be the most play on the first day.
3th: The Sorceress went sorceress to Wizard. According to blizzard the 3 from diablo 1 haven't much improve, but i think it was only they wanted to make just another game a bit bigger not to make it different.
4th: The Monk, for my own, i consider de monk as a variant of the paladin since they playing combo in some way both and they have same kind of fight.
5th: The necromancer became Witch Doctor. This is no surprise. I think after the pally the necromancer was the most loved hero in Diablo 2. Not such a jurk like the trapp ass or blink barb or a hammy could be... but in playability or for fun...
Finnaly my point is, Diablo is a KILL, GATHER ALL THE DIABLO 3 ITEMS AND PLAY GAME, Blizzard wanna make money and we want it out soon as possible so fuck the act 1 forest (btw it will be a no loading world) and dechu and of course to join the fuckin BEST DIABLO 3 CLAN GUILD.
So what happened to the whole "Heaven vs. Hell" thing in Diablo 3 anyways?
The Heaven and Hell themes are a subplot of the Diablo universe. The story is about the continuation of Sanctuary, not Heaven or Hell, and so Humanity is the main character. But, in any case, they make mentions of Heaven and Hell all over the main website, with a lot of allusions to demons and their kind. Nothing was really given as far as the story is concerned, anyway, and it will probably stay that way (or there wouldn't be a point to playing through the story).
The Heaven and Hell themes are a subplot of the Diablo universe. The story is about the continuation of Sanctuary, not Heaven or Hell, and so Humanity is the main character.
This is not true. Conflict is central to every story. Heaven and Hell is where that conflict arises. If it's just about Sanctuary continuing, the game might as well be about farming the land and making endsmeat. Diablo Tycoon.
Central to the story will be the conflict of Heaven and Hell with Sanctuary caught in the middle. In other words, if it weren't for either waging war for control of us, we wouldn't have a story. There are deeply spiritual (and very apparent) connotations to everything in this game. So Blizzard will inevitably drive part of the plot line through Hell, Heaven, or maybe both.
No, the game is about humanity overcoming its limitations and maintaining Sanctuary. You don't fight Hell for Heaven's sake or vice versa, your character fight for the endurence of Sancutary. The conflicts of Heaven and Hell come in to play as teh story develops. Diablo and Diablo II are event-driven stories- a major indication of the focus of such stories is the events at the open and close of them- in Diablo, you do not come in to the story with Diablo's rebirth, you come in as a Hero after most of the evil pre-story has come to pass. In Diablo II, your story, the story of the hero, is the one you play through, and you fight against Hell for the perserverance of Sanctuary- all the quests along the way, with the exception of two, are about the survival of Sanctuary and its peoples. The story is not about Heaven or Hell, it's about your heroes, who represent the endurance of Sanctuary. Heaven and Hell are thresholds and stimulators.
Now, if you were talking about the Sin War books, then yes, that conflict would be the purpose of the story. In the games, however, this is not so.
I somewhat agree that Diablo 3's act environments appear so far to be a bit too much like Diablo 2's areas although the type of desert area in Diablo 3 is clearly of a different nature than Diablo 2's. Just as Diablo 3's forest area is very different from Diablo 2's. But similarites can't be denied and it is somewhat annoying.
But I'm more worried about other things. Blizzard bringing back the Barbarian for one. I'm afraid Blizzard may be resting on Blizzard North's laurels a bit with Diablo 3 and not putting their full creative power into the game. Yes, it will be very polished and fun I'm sure, but I'm afraid it will be a little soulless.
The reappearance of Tristram as more than just a nice cameo as seen in Diablo 2 is also a bit disturbing. We now seem to have an entire act built around New Tristram which no doubt will have much of the same features and atmosphere as the original village. We also re-visit the cathedral. Indeed, from what we've seen of Act One, much of the act is simply re-visiting Diablo's original areas. Blatant re-hashing of creations from previous installments doesn't bode well for the artistic success of the newest game.
Admittedly, Diablo 2 did the same but it was I think, much more subtle about it. For example, each of the characters from Diablo 2 made appearances but it was much more ambiguous whether Blood Raven and the Summoner were actually THE Rogue and Sorceror from Diablo. It was never explicitly spelled out in the game, only hinted at.
But my fears are still at this point only fears and who knows, maybe Diablo will be a game with plenty of soul. But the signs don't seem particularly encouraging if you ask me.
Honestly i agree about a lot of these environment issues with the acts being alike and such. but we don't really know how long the game is going to be or what the plot is like... it may have to do with the evil in these certain sites. do you think Tristram was chosen by diablo for no reason? surely the must be some nexus of evil there. perhaps our hero's must purge these various points of evil while being pursued by the brothers 3.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]I find your lack of faithdisturbing.
I somewhat agree that Diablo 3's act environments appear so far to be a bit too much like Diablo 2's areas although the type of desert area in Diablo 3 is clearly of a different nature than Diablo 2's. Just as Diablo 3's forest area is very different from Diablo 2's. But similarites can't be denied and it is somewhat annoying.
But I'm more worried about other things. Blizzard bringing back the Barbarian for one. I'm afraid Blizzard may be resting on Blizzard North's laurels a bit with Diablo 3 and not putting their full creative power into the game. Yes, it will be very polished and fun I'm sure, but I'm afraid it will be a little soulless.
The reappearance of Tristram as more than just a nice cameo as seen in Diablo 2 is also a bit disturbing. We now seem to have an entire act built around New Tristram which no doubt will have much of the same features and atmosphere as the original village. We also re-visit the cathedral. Indeed, from what we've seen of Act One, much of the act is simply re-visiting Diablo's original areas. Blatant re-hashing of creations from previous installments doesn't bode well for the artistic success of the newest game.
Admittedly, Diablo 2 did the same but it was I think, much more subtle about it. For example, each of the characters from Diablo 2 made appearances but it was much more ambiguous whether Blood Raven and the Summoner were actually THE Rogue and Sorceror from Diablo. It was never explicitly spelled out in the game, only hinted at.
But my fears are still at this point only fears and who knows, maybe Diablo will be a game with plenty of soul. But the signs don't seem particularly encouraging if you ask me.
The ability to visit Tristram is pretty much a staple of the series now. I'm happy to be able to revisit some of these memorable places from the previous installments. And anyways, we've only seen a very small fraction of 2 areas. Stop jumping to conclusions.
The ability to visit Tristram is pretty much a staple of the series now. I'm happy to be able to revisit some of these memorable places from the previous installments. And anyways, we've only seen a very small fraction of 2 areas. Stop jumping to conclusions.
I'm not jumping to conclusions but from what we've seen so far there is an awful lot of re-visiting. Especially with Act 1 where all we've seen is re-visiting old areas.
I agree that we had to see Tristram sometime again in the game but from what we've seen on the official website, Tristram is now a significant area and New Tristram may even be the hub town for Act 1. I don't like this for the reasons stated in my previous post.
Uhm tristram is where it started which is the only reason it's central to the plot of the game. It will be finished were it started. And from what i've seen New Tristram is totally diffrent alot more darker. And even the cathedral is set diffrently. Just watch the Wizard Gameplay Video. If you remember diablo correctly it was in the middle of well nowhere as it is in D3 but its surroundings are much diffrent. And everyones argument is about the basis for the acts. The acts are all over. From westmarch to the Twin seas. If you know where thos are that goes both east and west of Tristram and far. There's going to be alot more darker and alot lighter areas much diffrent from D2. And your problem of returning to much isn't a problem it's always fun to re-hash our previous encounters. I think Diablo 3 will also have alot of "soul" it seems to be coming together quite well and actually seems better to me than Diabkllo 2 was. So far it's met my expectations and more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
Yea, seriously. I dunno what it was you were expecting... the place is still the same. You couldn't expect Blizzard to go manufacture a whole new world just because you've been to an area before.
The graphics are updated, nay, built entirely from scratch to create these scenarios, and as was said before, they're necessary to the plot of the game. Tristram in particular is hugely important, and the idea that it starts out "happy and cheerful" is an oversimplification.
It doesn't start off happy and cheerful, but they're obviously trying to portray some kind of escalation throughout the game. If it starts off intense and scary, then by the end of the game, there's no contrast.... whereas if you carefully, methodically escalate the threat over the course of four acts, it keeps you more on your toes when the apocalyptic shit goes down at the very end.
Well like I said, I don't mind re-visiting an area. But when the re-visited area forms the basis of an entire act (not saying it is, but it might and there are signs that it could) then I have a problem. I don't like an overt lack of originality in the games I play because it's just lazy. Re-visiting areas is a nostalgic novelty, not something that should be a prominent feature in the game. Then the game doesn't strive for standing on its own artistic merits, it relies on its predecessors to generate its appeal. That's why I hope Tristram and the cathedral won't form the basis of Act One, too much re-hashing is just plain boring once you've gotten over the initial nostalgia.
And yes, the acts take place all over Sanctuary but what annoys people is that they seem to be the same type of area as their corresponding act's area from Diablo 2. This doesn't annoy me so much because within a general area type (desert) there can be a world of difference between two versions of the same area. ex. wild, treachorous desert alla Diablo 3 vs. scorching, barren desert alla Diablo 2. I do kind of wish though that Blizzard had placed the area types in different acts rather than choosing the Diablo 2 progression. A bit of a re-hash job again.
I don't understand the idea that people have that Blizzard is working with a world with very few places to go to. They seem to think that most of Sanctuary has been visited in the previous installments and that Blizzard is bound to have to re-hash places because there just isn't enough room for more cities or towns. I think this is silly thinking. Blizzard could still have an act in Khanduras but it doesn't necessarily have to be in Tristram. There must be many cites and towns in Khanduras which could be created by Blizzard to suit their purpose. It's a big province.
I can't say yet if it's met my expectations yet but you can be sure I'll be watching closely and scrutinizing plenty.
Actually if it did look like Diablo 2 which it doesn't I wouldn't mind at all, as long as there was new content...I still play Diablo II and find it awesome after playing Guildwars (high graphics) and other games with amazing graphics I never get tired of Diablo II...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." Einstein.
Are you from Iran or Nigeria? I am sorry if I insulted your fucking nationality by mentioning it in a paragraph dumb ass. And go home? You should actually kiss my ass and leave your home for once. Fucking Trolls.
Anyways, maybe you people can't read or are still struggling with middle school English. I merely stating that the layout of Diablo 3 is almost identical of Diablo 2. I never said I don't like it.
Why?
we didn't have to rewrite Chinese history because, Chinese didn't know Europe, the Americas, Australia, Africa existed.
or European history because they didn't know China, the Americas, etc existed
and there is always retcons.
English! Do you speak it!!
The Heaven and Hell themes are a subplot of the Diablo universe. The story is about the continuation of Sanctuary, not Heaven or Hell, and so Humanity is the main character. But, in any case, they make mentions of Heaven and Hell all over the main website, with a lot of allusions to demons and their kind. Nothing was really given as far as the story is concerned, anyway, and it will probably stay that way (or there wouldn't be a point to playing through the story).
I think.
This is not true. Conflict is central to every story. Heaven and Hell is where that conflict arises. If it's just about Sanctuary continuing, the game might as well be about farming the land and making endsmeat. Diablo Tycoon.
Central to the story will be the conflict of Heaven and Hell with Sanctuary caught in the middle. In other words, if it weren't for either waging war for control of us, we wouldn't have a story. There are deeply spiritual (and very apparent) connotations to everything in this game. So Blizzard will inevitably drive part of the plot line through Hell, Heaven, or maybe both.
Now, if you were talking about the Sin War books, then yes, that conflict would be the purpose of the story. In the games, however, this is not so.
But I'm more worried about other things. Blizzard bringing back the Barbarian for one. I'm afraid Blizzard may be resting on Blizzard North's laurels a bit with Diablo 3 and not putting their full creative power into the game. Yes, it will be very polished and fun I'm sure, but I'm afraid it will be a little soulless.
The reappearance of Tristram as more than just a nice cameo as seen in Diablo 2 is also a bit disturbing. We now seem to have an entire act built around New Tristram which no doubt will have much of the same features and atmosphere as the original village. We also re-visit the cathedral. Indeed, from what we've seen of Act One, much of the act is simply re-visiting Diablo's original areas. Blatant re-hashing of creations from previous installments doesn't bode well for the artistic success of the newest game.
Admittedly, Diablo 2 did the same but it was I think, much more subtle about it. For example, each of the characters from Diablo 2 made appearances but it was much more ambiguous whether Blood Raven and the Summoner were actually THE Rogue and Sorceror from Diablo. It was never explicitly spelled out in the game, only hinted at.
But my fears are still at this point only fears and who knows, maybe Diablo will be a game with plenty of soul. But the signs don't seem particularly encouraging if you ask me.
The ability to visit Tristram is pretty much a staple of the series now. I'm happy to be able to revisit some of these memorable places from the previous installments. And anyways, we've only seen a very small fraction of 2 areas. Stop jumping to conclusions.
I'm not jumping to conclusions but from what we've seen so far there is an awful lot of re-visiting. Especially with Act 1 where all we've seen is re-visiting old areas.
I agree that we had to see Tristram sometime again in the game but from what we've seen on the official website, Tristram is now a significant area and New Tristram may even be the hub town for Act 1. I don't like this for the reasons stated in my previous post.
The graphics are updated, nay, built entirely from scratch to create these scenarios, and as was said before, they're necessary to the plot of the game. Tristram in particular is hugely important, and the idea that it starts out "happy and cheerful" is an oversimplification.
It doesn't start off happy and cheerful, but they're obviously trying to portray some kind of escalation throughout the game. If it starts off intense and scary, then by the end of the game, there's no contrast.... whereas if you carefully, methodically escalate the threat over the course of four acts, it keeps you more on your toes when the apocalyptic shit goes down at the very end.
And yes, the acts take place all over Sanctuary but what annoys people is that they seem to be the same type of area as their corresponding act's area from Diablo 2. This doesn't annoy me so much because within a general area type (desert) there can be a world of difference between two versions of the same area. ex. wild, treachorous desert alla Diablo 3 vs. scorching, barren desert alla Diablo 2. I do kind of wish though that Blizzard had placed the area types in different acts rather than choosing the Diablo 2 progression. A bit of a re-hash job again.
I don't understand the idea that people have that Blizzard is working with a world with very few places to go to. They seem to think that most of Sanctuary has been visited in the previous installments and that Blizzard is bound to have to re-hash places because there just isn't enough room for more cities or towns. I think this is silly thinking. Blizzard could still have an act in Khanduras but it doesn't necessarily have to be in Tristram. There must be many cites and towns in Khanduras which could be created by Blizzard to suit their purpose. It's a big province.
I can't say yet if it's met my expectations yet but you can be sure I'll be watching closely and scrutinizing plenty.