there is no evil or good, only the way people think of their and others choices...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You fucking retarded ass sonofabitch! You seriously think you could cast a fireball at Gheed just because you were a n00b137 enough to gamble in the beginning of the game? Well i got a few words for you: NOT IN TOWN, MOUTHAFUCKA!
we can sit it virtually all day and discuss the nature of the Human being and/or what it means to be Human, a creature that time and time again has proven it is easily persuaded to do things one might consider evil or corrupt.
so lets get back on to the topic at hand, the ending of LOD and just how open to a sequel it really is...
despite how it may have appeared, the ending is rather open and lends it self to several possible storylines for D3 my post 5 replys up covers most of them (or at least it covers the ones i could think of at the time (plus a random note at the end about Blizzard's game release patterns)), if anyone else comes up with any and not x char is corrupt and/or posessed (esp Tyrael) there has been enough of that in diablo already, besides there are better storylines than that, and ill add it to the list.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
i said once and i say it again the game was left wide open
We know you said this Horus. We are just mearly discussing more about the issue with hypothesis's and ideas. There is nothing else to do but talk about topics that we like.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Those before me shall quiver in my wake as I unleash the fury within!
his body is dead. his soulstone supposedly smashed thus releasing his essence into the abyss. much like that of his brothers.
no one stays in the abyss for ever. he can come back if Blizzard wants.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
Very true. I am sure that any sequel will have the lord of terror himself at least present in the game.
Very true... lol. It would be kind of lame to have a game with the name "Diablo" and there's no Diablo in it, and knowing that Diablo 2 had Diablo in it... well it just kind of makes sense, because D3 would be a sequel... lol :):D
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
no. they were not sent to the abyss. well not that i know of. so they can much easily be ressurected. almost any revive/raise dead/resurrection spell should be able to do the job.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
If Diablo III ends the single-player franchise, so be it, but I hope they give an MMO for it so that the true fans can play Diablo for even longer and pay their respects for the franchise monthly.
I think that when Tyrael destroyed the worldstone, he got stabbed by a peice of it and gained dominant power over all living beings!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The hero fell to his knees as the PKer stood triumphant over his prey, he raised his mighty broad-sword high above his head and decapitated him.or so it may seem but he actually killed himself due too poor recognition of the thorns aura, HA bet you didnt see that one coming!.":)
Maybe the destroyer of the Worldstone (Tyrael) decides and moderates the flow of demons and angels onto Sanctuary. And maybe Tyrael's plan was to destroy the Worldstone to gain that power to use it for the cause of evil - that's why the Heavens are not fond of his decisions.
maybe the destroyer of the worldtone (Tyrael) uses the same sword that he used to destroy the worldstone and kills him self so he is sent to hell, and then he becomes a demonuc arch angel and is brainwashed by that other angel in act 4.
thats just silly. i should flame you for even saying that, but i detest flaming,
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
Sure we all know that at the end Tyreal saves the day. However, Evil cannot ever truly be destroyed for good. I wonder if Blizzard would make D3 about the apocalypse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"All life is void if we do not live to better ourselves." -Me
I really am surprised that more people didn't vote the "Evil is vanquished.." option. I'm just still not convinced of the argument that the destruction of the Worldstone enabled demons to more easily come to Sanctuary.
Which NPC actually states the contrary. I know Tyrael says it will change the world with even consequence he cannot foresee. Malah says the world will change true, but who can say it won't be for the better.
And so I know they all have their own comments on the whole event, can someone quote to me a passage of an NPC that actually leads you to believe that evil will return as a result of the Worldstone's destruction? I'd go check it out myself but I don't have my copy of LOD here.
I want a Diablo 3 as much as anyone else does. But I think some people voted m ore on their hopes rather than their true interpretation of the ending. I really welcome any feedback contrary to my beliefs on this. I just need to be convinced, that's all.
true. the exact effects of the destruction of the worldstone are unknown why couldnt they be good. course we probably wouldnt have a d3 if that happened.
I think some people voted more on their hopes rather than their true interpretation of the ending.
thats possible, i voted wide open because the effects were unknown, plus several of the storylines ive mentioned i nthis thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
Well, that's my point. We all want a sequel so we vote on evil returning.
The more and more I think about it, I actually think it would make more sense at this time if the game were actually a prequel. I know a lot of people cringe at the thought of that, and it's not like I'm denying the writers' abilities to create a reason why and how Diablo would return, but if you think about all the existing Diablo lore from the first and second game, they all legitimize why Diablo II takes place at all.
My example of this is how they talk all about Baal and Mephisto and you know Diablo's soulstone isn't even destroyed by the end of the first game, so it all makes perfect sense why there is a Diablo II.
The large chunk of lore that remains is that of the Sin War. And what about the Sin War Trilogy that's being released? Is it not possible that they are being released at this time to spark an interest in a prequel game? Or even to gauge fan's reactions to it. I'm not saying they didn't want to write and publish the books anyway. But does no one sense maybe an ulterior motive in the content?
so lets get back on to the topic at hand, the ending of LOD and just how open to a sequel it really is...
despite how it may have appeared, the ending is rather open and lends it self to several possible storylines for D3 my post 5 replys up covers most of them (or at least it covers the ones i could think of at the time (plus a random note at the end about Blizzard's game release patterns)), if anyone else comes up with any and not x char is corrupt and/or posessed (esp Tyrael) there has been enough of that in diablo already, besides there are better storylines than that, and ill add it to the list.
no one stays in the abyss for ever. he can come back if Blizzard wants.
Very true... lol. It would be kind of lame to have a game with the name "Diablo" and there's no Diablo in it, and knowing that Diablo 2 had Diablo in it... well it just kind of makes sense, because D3 would be a sequel... lol :):D
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
Which NPC actually states the contrary. I know Tyrael says it will change the world with even consequence he cannot foresee. Malah says the world will change true, but who can say it won't be for the better.
And so I know they all have their own comments on the whole event, can someone quote to me a passage of an NPC that actually leads you to believe that evil will return as a result of the Worldstone's destruction? I'd go check it out myself but I don't have my copy of LOD here.
I want a Diablo 3 as much as anyone else does. But I think some people voted m ore on their hopes rather than their true interpretation of the ending. I really welcome any feedback contrary to my beliefs on this. I just need to be convinced, that's all.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
thats possible, i voted wide open because the effects were unknown, plus several of the storylines ive mentioned i nthis thread.
The more and more I think about it, I actually think it would make more sense at this time if the game were actually a prequel. I know a lot of people cringe at the thought of that, and it's not like I'm denying the writers' abilities to create a reason why and how Diablo would return, but if you think about all the existing Diablo lore from the first and second game, they all legitimize why Diablo II takes place at all.
My example of this is how they talk all about Baal and Mephisto and you know Diablo's soulstone isn't even destroyed by the end of the first game, so it all makes perfect sense why there is a Diablo II.
The large chunk of lore that remains is that of the Sin War. And what about the Sin War Trilogy that's being released? Is it not possible that they are being released at this time to spark an interest in a prequel game? Or even to gauge fan's reactions to it. I'm not saying they didn't want to write and publish the books anyway. But does no one sense maybe an ulterior motive in the content?
Siaynoq's Playthroughs