3: This last is a bit of speculation, but quite interesting I think. The Balance the necromancers are guarding is the balance in Sanctuary. They don't want demons or angels there, but what they do outside of Sanctuary they care little about, so long as it doesn't affect humanity.
Perhaps though there is some other aspect of the balance with is more "global" and connected to all the realms (including those of the unknown beings who stop Trag'Oul from entering Sanctuary in the Sin War). Perhaps humans could fulfill some role there which has not yet been revealed.
This could certainly be possible and I would absolutely welcome it. I'm fond of stories that unexpectedly expand in scope.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
Because the average reader isn't all that interested in getting the whole dualistic message slapped in their face all the time. The books are not primarily meant as tomes of knowledge for lore-fanatics like ourselves but for Diablofans who wish to get a little deeper into the Diablo Universe while at the same time enjoying the story. Mentioning Heaven as an enemy makes no sense when Zayl is pursuing demons.
Hah, wouldn't be the first time that I got carried away about something. Thinking back again to the last scene of The Sin War, the pact between Imperius and Mephisto that was made was obviously broken at some point between its creation and Diablo 1, but yet we still see Heaven react in such a mild manner? Wouldn't it be expected that the moment the Prime Evils broke the pact that Heaven would come streaming in full force?
After sleeping on this topic for a couple of days I decided to pluck through The Sin War books for some answers. Unfortunately, it left me with even more questions about exactly what The Balance really is and how it relates to Heaven. In regards to Hell, it's been made pretty clear throughout all the novels that The Balance involves keeping demons at bay. Heaven, on the other hand, has an undistinguished - or perhaps contradictory - relationship that even looking back through the books has failed to answer.
First I want to use a couple of quotes from the Diablo Wiki regarding the Balance. The first reads, "The followers of Rathma seek to right the balance by ridding the mortal realms of non-mortal intervention altogether. They resent any force that would treat humans as pawns in a cosmic game, though they are apparently willing to ally with the forces of Order but only until such time as the balance is restored." This essentially backs what we've been saying throughout this discussion that the priests of Rathma wish neither to side with Demons or Angels unless the help of one side is needed to counteract the actions of the other. However, I stumbled upon this quote on page 328 of The Veiled Prophet. "You must give humanity a chance. They are capable of many wonderous things, if you will but let them survive! They have the possibility of truly becoming an intergral part of the Balance-" This quote is spoken by Rathma to Imperius just before the Angiris Council decides to vote on the destiny of Sanctuary.
In a sincere attempt to not take the quote out of context, it appears to be a plee by Rathma to convince the Angiris Counil to let Sanctuary live, but if that's the case, why would bringing up the Balance do anything but convince the Angels more that Sanctuary should be destroyed? Surely Rathma is trying to say that he will do all in his power to stop Hell from taking over, but he is also telling Imperius that he will not let his kind take over either. What bothers me is that Imperius completely ignores the meaning of the word "Balance" as if it's not an attempt to keep the forces of Heaven at bay as well as Hell's.
This brings me back to another quote from the Diablo Wiki. It reads, "At the end of the second book of the Diablo trilogy, Rathma and Trag'Oul now know that the High Heavens have discovered Sanctuary. And to them, the angels are no better than the Burning Hells." Again, this backs my claim about what the Balance truly means in Sanctuary. After finally finishing The Kingdom of Shadow (which I thought was great by the way), I've recently started The Moon of the Spider, and already I came upon something that baffles me about what it says about the Rathmian's true beliefs. The quote reads, "Zayl's kind fought against the Darkness, against the Prime Evils, for victory by the forces of Hell would forever send the Balance completely awry." I suppose you can take this quote in a few ways. You could say that Knaak is simply stating a fact about necromancer law, but why does he completely omit anything about the Light and Heaven being a threat as well? This furthers my concern that Blizzard is ignoring a lot of great concepts here for simplicity. I hope I am wrong, having not completed the last book yet, but I can't help but be pessimistic as I've seen them do this kind of thing before.
I'm about a third of the way through Kingdom of Shadow. So far I am intrigued by it; a lot of unanswered questions already and Knaak does a great job of keeping you in suspence.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
Either way, Moon of the Spider is, apart from the Sin War, probably the most interesting book in relation to the games.
Moon of the Spider is actually the one I want to read most but I decided to read them in numerical order to see if I could pick up things that were inconsistent as the story evolved.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
Well there's the theory that the demon we see in the trailer is a fused form of all three Prime Evils. I don't know about that, all I know is that we must see Diablo. Whether his brothers make an appearance or not is another thing.
I don't buy that it's all the Prime Evils in one body, but I suppose it's possible.
You miss my point. I acknowledge that both see Sanctuary as key in winning, however I was merely pointing out that their strategies for utilizing Sanctuary against each other vary. Hell has selected a direct approach by force, while Heaven has a more subtle tactic. Which, I think, could mean they want to foster Sanctuary into a future ally.
Ah, my apologies. I understand what you're saying now.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
No. It'd definately be very interesting to see the point from Rathmians against Heaven. But the keepers of the balance are hardly infallible, as can be seen in the Moon of the Spider. So there's definately room for Blizzard to go both ways there.
Moon of the Spider is one of the two books I haven't read yet actually. I should know more about that in the near future.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
Now what I think seems interesting, I just thought of it, is to have Diablo as the final boss here, and have the expansion focus on Heaven, with an angel being the final boss in the expansion back.
This would be fantastic. I wonder what they are going to do with the other two Prime Evils in Diablo 3. Hopefully it's not another attempt to reunite them to create an "invincible" force.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
That way, the current storyline arc is finished (Diablo banished again, but more severely this time) and we Blizzard prepares the world of Sanctary for a new storyline, in which Heaven is also an enemy. Perhaps in preparation for an MMO of some sorts?
I sure hope you are right on this. I've been saying for a while now that this franchise has MMO written all over it.
This is all operating under the assumption that Trag'Oul is correct. As I doubt he is omniscient, he would be capable of error, and so could be wrong about Heaven's intentions.
I guess it's possible that Trag'Oul is wrong, but if that's the case, why even have these characters in the first place? It would have been just as easy to have the creation of Sanctuary based on totally separate circumstances (i.e not having anything to do with the treachery of certain angels and demons) where the motivations from Hell's perspective would be to spread chaos among Sanctuary's inhabitants and Heaven wanting to simply defend these seemingly helpless mortals due to their good nature. Instead, we have Sanctuary whose existence is a mockery to both Heaven and Hell, and a third party (Trag'Oul and company) whose sole purpose is to defend Sanctuary from anyone who wishes to control it for their own purposes. I've got to think that the Sin War is still the main objective of Heaven and Hell. It would be silly to think that these two realms have been fighting SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME only to just completely forget about it and move on to Sanctuary. Sanctuary is obviously a means to an end no matter what way you look at it.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
Take this scenario. Humanity continues to evolve, and Heaven continues to take a passive role in affars, yet never leaving Sanctuary. Eventually, Sanctuary will reach a point where it will be able to contend with Heaven and Hell on even grounds (sort of like the third realm to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction). At that point, Sanctuary can either take an aggressive stance against both other realms, or join with Heaven against Hell. Ask yourself, what is more likely? If Hell has continuously assailed Sanctuary, while Heaven has not, would it not make sense to ally with Heaven if they extend their hand?
This could surely be possible, but again, I'm not sure that the Rathmians would allow this alliance to be made without a fight. The bottom line is that the Rathmians need both Heaven and Hell to exist to carry out their own cause, so surely they wouldn't stand idle and allow Heaven - or Humans who allied with Heaven - to destroy Hell. And assuming your theory is right for a moment, what would happen after that? I don't recall exactly which Sin War book this quote was in or its exact wording, but I remember Trag'Oul saying to Mendeln that if good has no evil to counter it, then good will eventually turn on itself. If Trag'Oul and the Rathmians allowed this alliance between Heaven and Sanctuary to happen or embraced it, they would be going directly against the teachings of Trag'Oul and The Balance.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
As far as we know, Heaven is only interested in destroying Hell. There's never any solid text stating that Order must be established in Sanctuary, that is merely an extrapolation made by us fans from speeches of Rathmians and similar.
You could be right except for the fact that Imperius and Mephisto agreed to allow Sanctuary to exist. The only reason this could be possible is if both sides thought that Sanctuary was the missing link to winning the War, which means they must both be trying to gain control over it. If that's not the case, then why even allow Sanctuary to exist or care that Hell might take it over?
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
Now, if such a scenario was to take place, it would be a possibility that Trag'Oul, Rathma et. al would be opposed to an alliance between the realms. In that case, perhaps future heroes will join Heaven in a fight against Trag'Oul, and afterwards move on to fight Hell.
This is pretty much in sync with what a I wrote a couple of paragraphs above. What's interesting here is that if this did happen, what angle would Blizzard tell the story from? Do you necessarily think that they would make Trag'Oul and the Rathmians the antagonists? The beauty of this story is that their is more than one possible answer to that question.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
Of course, I don't think we'll ever see a victory for one side over the other in the Diablo universe.
I think this relates to the worry I have that Blizzard won't take this story to its full potential. I agree with you that we probably won't see an ultimate ending to the story other than The Balance being maintained, which means that either Hell is always going to be the antagonist and beaten back, or they'll grow some balls and start bringing some angels into the fray. I think we all know which route they will most likely take.
What I meant was that the conflict is the same as in it's the same war. This isn't a new instance from scratch starting in D3, it's the same period of history as in D2. That means the demons are still on the offensive as of now, and as such will be the main enemy. From a story point it makes sense.
I just thought of something. (SPOILER WARNING SIN WAR).
What if Heaven isn't trying to take over Sanctuary? Think about it for a second. At the end of the Sin War, Tyrael says he wants to let Sanctuary develop outside of control from the other two powers so that they can reach their full potential.
We know that both Heaven and Hell fight against each other, and that Sanctuary has appeared as a third factor all of a sudden. Hell's appoach has been to actively try to subdue the people under their rule, but we haven't actually seen the angels do the same thing. Sure, we have the Zakarum, but the angels were surprisingly placent when Mephisto corrupted it. You'd have thought Heaven would have been more interested in keeping their servants had their approach been to take over Sanctuary.
At the same time, Heaven is seemingly at an advantage as of now. The barriers are down, meaning they can enter just as easy as Hell. However their forces are gathered, while Hell's initial attack was thwarted and their Three leaders banished. On top of that they have a civil war. If Heaven wanted to, they could move swiftly now and take over. But they're not. in fact, as you say, they haven't increased their presence at all.
To me, this sounds as if Heaven believes it is crucial for humanity to evolve to a level much above where they are now if they are to be helpful in finally defeating Hell. Perhaps they are fostering a future ally rather than a subjugate, as opposed to what Hell is doing?
But how many really know of the angels? Hardly anyone in the books or in the game actually thinks of the angels. If their intention was to establish taht picture in the minds of humans, then showing off would be more necessary. Divine appearances, help in battle etc. Right now they're not doing much at all.
A very good theory Phrozen. I think a lot of this will be answered when we finally lay our eyes on the ending cinematic for Diablo 3. If you can recall Warcraft 3: Frozen Throne, you immediately knew from the final cinematic that they were setting up for another game, which, of course, ended up being WoW. I know I am jumping way ahead of myself here, but it would seem impossible for Blizzard to address all of these unanswered questions in the span of one game, and there is no doubt (at least in my mind) that all these questions must be answered if the story is to end respectably. It's probably safe to assume that they are already planning on an expansion to Diablo 3, so it really won't be until then that we find out if we are making this story too complicated or if Blizzard has something massively epic planned.
I'd like to reiterate one thing. No matter what happens in this game (I say that under the assumption that Diablo will be the final boss) the Rathmians must sooner or later get involved. If indeed Heaven is content with simply protecting Sanctuary, then they are also content with Hell's existence. Heaven can't be ok with that, so as I've said numerous times already, Heaven will eventually have to press forward, which means that not only will they have to deal with any straggling demonic forces, but also Trag'Oul and the Rathmians. Tell me, who would be the bad guy in that scenario?
Oh yeah, I would love to fight angels! I want to see them explode into a burst of light and beautiful angelic choir sound. They are so much more terrifying than demons.
Hmm, have you read the Diablo I manual? It explains the angel's intentions a little better. Here's a link.
Angels seem to be fighting for the balance of Sanctuary, but they are actually subtly winning us over to their side. They are not contempt with leaving Sanctuary balanced, they want to rid the world of evil completely. Its just that they use indirect coercion rather than direct force to do it. You'd think its not really working, but I would say they are actually winning. Who on Sanctuary actually regards angels as an enemy? Who wouldn't give anything to be blessed by one? The only ones who wouldn't are those that are either already corrupted by evil, or are a Rathmian who understands the importance of the Balance. The majority of people love angels, and thats why I think the angels are winning.
Or at least, they would be winning, if it wasn't for this nasty business thats about to happen to Sanctuary in DIII. Even though everyone hates demons and knows they are a threat, the demon's force is too strong for men to handle. In this case, identifying a threat doesn't really help.
The angels, on the other hand, are all about identifying. If you can identify the angels as a threat and convince everyone else, then you have won. But come on, thats nearly impossible. The people have no reason to believe the angels mean them harm. They do not understand.
And the angels have been making religions. The Zakarum was founded by the Archangel Yaerius. The Cathedral of Light from The Sin War trilogy was founded by an angel (though I suppose he doesn't really count, since he was independent of Heaven at the time). But since the Triune are back, who's to say the Cathedral or something similar isn't? I'm sure there are many religions on Sanctuary founded by angels that we haven't heard of yet.
Man, I want to fight angels so bad.
I suppose this is is a reasonable scenario; something that could definitely be possible. To me though, it still all comes back to the Rathmians, because if indeed Heaven is winning Sanctuary as you say, then Rathmians surely must be attempting to push them back one way or the other. Yet, in Diablo 2, you have a Rathmian fighting against demons, which proves that Hell was gaining control over Sanctuary at that time. Now with the Prime Evils destoyed, at the very least the balance should be back to even again at the start of Diablo 3.
You make an interesting point about the Zakarum Church. We know it was started shortly before the Sin War because its destruction was Kabraxis' main reason for being in Sanctuary and we know he was first in Sanctuary around the time of The Sin War as said in The Black Road. Now, this couldn't have been before Heaven found out about Sanctuary's existence, so Heaven must have immediately started ordering archangels to start spreading the word of their realm once they found out. This also makes me think about Tyrael. If he is truly fighting for Humanity due to his inspiration at the conclusion of The Sin War, then he must also understand the concept of The Balance, because if the archangels ever start tipping the balance in their favor, Tyrael would know better than anyone what his bretheren are capable of.
I think you're partially right in your assumptions. D3 will most likely consist of massive demon killing, and the Prime Evils will be the main enemies. Not angels.
That precisely is my assumption. My original post states that I think the story for D3 is again going to revolve around demons being the primary antagonists of the story. It's not that I have a problem with this, but it just shows Blizzard's unwillingness to break the mold and really throw us a curveball in the story, which they are more than capable of doing (from a lore standpoint) in Diablo 3.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
While the books certainly depict the angels as bad for humanity, there's more to it than that (from the last book of the Sin War).
You do have a point here. Tyrael is really the only thing stopping Heaven from just coming into Sanctuary and taking it over. The last scene in the book where Tyrael tells the Angiris Council that he will stay and guide Humanity, they are forced to leave Sanctuary alone at least momentarily. Perhaps, if indeed Tyrael is corrupted by Diablo as the theories suggest, then that would eliminate the only possible reason why Heaven would even consider holding back. Depending on how D3 will end, I may eventually get my wish.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
As such, since the conflict in D3 is really the same as in D2, demons will still be the main enemies.
It doesn't have to be the same conflict as in D2, that's my whole point. For all we know the Prime Evils have been destroyed in D2, which means that they can really go in almost any direction at this point.
Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
This both fits into the lore, and it works when selling the game. Killing demons is easier to grasp than killing angels.
This is why I have fear! This story is going to be forced in one obvious direction because it will be an easier profit.
Quote from "Atrumentis" »
Yeah, I don't think we will be fighting hordes of angels, but I am sure angels will be put in a negative light, even if only partially so. I don't think you have anything to fear storywise, because we know that The Sin War trilogy was written as a setup for Diablo III. Why else would the archangels be established if it wasn't to be included in DIII? And as has been said, there is plenty of artwork to suggest angels will be a big part of the story, especially the massive Tryael on the DIII homepage. The game is called 'Diablo III', yes, but thats just because the original was called 'Diablo' and its main focus was Diablo (but even it included talk of angels).
If they were to even "talk negatively" about angels through dialogue then I would be satisfied at least for the moment. Even if the story in Diablo 3 does stay consistent with the lore, eventually Blizzard will have to address the fact that Heaven wants Sanctuary just as much as Hell does and won't stand by and watch it be taken over.
Really there is only one thing that doesn't seem to make sense about what they've told us about Heaven. Why is Heaven seemingly complacent with Sanctuary remaining Balanced? Lets not forget that Trag'Oul, Rathma, and all of their followers would fight even Heaven if they felt that they were tipping The Balance. This would give Heaven every reason to kill Humans if they were trying to be stopped. We know that the Angiris Council was divided when they voted on letting Sanctuary exist, and with The Prime Evils supposedly dead, Heaven has the upper hand. Why wouldn't the angels be moving to take advantage of this? Tyrael? Well if he's corrupted then that option goes out the window. You would at least think that Heaven would attempt to spread some religions around to attract followers for their cause, whether Tyrael is corrupted or not. It would defy logic (based on the fact that Sanctuary is so precious to both Heaven and Hell) for Heaven to just sit back while the Prime Evils try again and again to take over Sanctuary. It's as if the Angiris Council - and ultimitely all of Heaven - have put their trust entirely into the hands of one angel and a bunch of mortals - who at any moment could change sides due to manipulation by The Three or simply just a lust for power - to win a fight over THE PRIME EVILS. I'd seriously like some kind of justification as to why Heaven would even consider taking that risk.
Quote from "Atrumentis" »
But gamewise, somehow there is just something morally wrong about killing angels that Blizzard doesn't seem to want to have in their games. They didn't even want us fighting an angel in DII: the angel (Izual) was trapped inside a demon, so on the surface we were actually fighting a demon, not an angel. I think demons will always be our surface enemy, and angels will be in the background as either our enemy pulling strings or in our towns as a 'friendly' npc.
Again, I have this same feeling that you do about Blizzard not wanting us to fight angels, but it sure would be a change of pace, wouldn't it? I've been saying all along that I think Blizzard will sacrifice more complex story-telling so that they can give us yet another "destroy evil" game. So far, already two of the three responses I've gotten have confirmed my notion that they will make this story less interesting than it could be.
The fact that you disagree with me makes me very happy, because I want nothing more than to be wrong about this. However, the name of the game is Diablo, which to me means that Blizzard is somehow forced to stick with this one character as the focal point of the story. Don't get me wrong, Diablo is an awesome character and the descriptions of him in the novels are very well done, but I think anyone who has read the books realizes that the story is really much, much more than just about Diablo. He is an important character don't get me wrong, but it would be a total injustice to this game if they always made it about Diablo coming back and Humans having to fight him with Heaven having their back.
They did the very same thing in WoW. To keep it simple, they contradicted a lot of Warcraft lore to make a basic two faction MMORPG. There were the Night Elves who allied with Humans and Gnomes despite the fact that elves hate magic users, and Undead - who had no business being allied with anyone - allying with Orcs, Taurens, and Trolls. The storyline for WoW could have been a lot more complex, but instead they tied all the races together with lore that they seemed to pull out of their arse just to make the game consist of only two factions so things were easier to balance. All I am saying is that it wouldn't be the first time that Blizzard has sacrificed good storytelling for simplicity and playability when converting their lore into video games.
It's certaintly possible that I am asking for too much here, but I just really like what they've created with this franchise. In my opinion, the lore for Diablo completely blows their other two franchises out of the water. I'd hate to see it be a victim of simplicity over telling the story the way it should be told.
So as the title claims, I have a fear, but it's not one of worry that Diablo 3 won't live up to all its hype. My fear is that the storyline of this game won't go where I want it to. Now I know this sounds kind of arrogant and selfish, and perhaps it is, but after reading through five of the novels (I am currently working on finishing the other two) I can't help but be amazed at the potential of the Diablo universe.
To illustrate my point, I'd like to point to most other fictional stories. The protagonist and antagonist are almost always made clear, and along with these characters comes a series of "no-brainer" reasons why the protagonist must prevail. In these cases, the story then becomes extremely linear and forces the novel to move in one specific direction. The Diablo universe is set up in such a way where this doesn't have to happen. At any point in time you can have one of three protagonists, but really only one can be given this title at any given time.
This is where the Diablo universe becomes very much unlike anything else. We have Hell, whose ultimate goal is to control Sanctuary and turn the tides of the Sin War in their favor. We also have Heaven, whose goal, again, is to control Sanctuary for their own part in the War. However, the story doesn't end there like many other stories might. In Diablo we have something called The Balance. The Balance, in actuality, is the true protagonist in Diablo, for if either Hell or Heaven were to gain an advantage over the other, mankind would be controlled, thus losing the ultimate desire of Humanity. Free will.
The reason I am explaining all of this is to illustrate a pattern I have seen from the first two games and from at least two of the five novels that I have read so far. Demons have mainly been the antagonists; they have been the ones who - for lack of a better term - been on the offensive as far as tipping The Balance. The archangels have simply been the ones who fight the demons to restore the balance among Sanctuary. If you haven't already figured out what I am about to say, let me make something very clear about archangels. They do not want to see The Balance maintained anymore than demons do! Yet they have taken almost no action to see the Balance tipped in their favor! They have seemed complacent with simply stopping the demons' advances at control over Sanctuary which ultimately benefits Heaven in no way. This goes against everything that was described about archangels in The Sin War Trilogy. Archangels are not good as far as humanity is concerned, simply less evil.
What I hope they do - and what I fear they won't do - is make Heaven play a more active role in the story. Not as Humanity's protection from Hell, which they have never been described as being, but shown for what they really are; another type of higher beings who wish nothing else but for Humanity to be their pawn.
I say a game is a RPG when it uses a RPG game mechanic as one of it's foundational mechanics. In the case of Diablo, your character is governed by a very established RPG game mechanic. Now if this character was only used in the first ten minutes of the game, and then the game became a platformer, I would say that Diablo wouldn't fall into any RPG category. However, your character, who, again, is governed by an RPG mechanic, is the focus of the entire game. It light of that it would seem appropriate (to me anyways) to classify it as some kind of RPG.
Let me use another example to convey my thought. In Zelda, there are times where you need to shoot your bow like a FPS. However, I do not consider any Zelda game (except for that stupid crossbow one for Wii) to be an FPS because that mechanic is not the foundation of the gameplay. I would then say, as was stated before about Diablo, that Zelda is an Action RPG with a slight FPS influence.
Lastly, I would like to go back to my fruit analogy. Something is a fruit when it meets specific criteria that we have defined as necessary for something to be a fruit. To relate this back to the topic, let me use the following logical sequence.
1. An apple is a fruit.
2. An orange isn't an apple, therefore an orange isn't a fruit.
Obviously we know that an orange is a fruit, but really that is the only thing that links them together at all. An apple's color, texture, and DNA are all different from that of an orange, but because they accomplish a similar goal in a similar way,we classify them as both being fruits. All I am saying is that both Baldur's Gate and Diablo use similar mechanics to achieve a similar goal, which ultimately is to entertain and challenge the player. There is no question that Both BG and Diablo implement these mechanics in different ways, but that would be the equivalent of different fruits having different textures and flavors (i.e. citrus fruits or non citrus fruits).
That's going to be my final statement on the subject. Thanks for the civil debate guys, it was fun!:D
This is my reasoning. You don't agree with it, fine.
You know why the whole term "elements" even exists? Because there is this thing called hybrids and non-classical genres. Because not all games fit a certain genre, or they do not fit it completely, or they fit two genres.
Just not seeing where this proves your point. Diablo is listed as an Action RPG because you control your character in real time and you are bound by specific RPG elements. This puts Diablo somewhere - I'm not saying where exactly - in the RPG "realm." I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that.
Quote from "Equinox" »
Leveling and choosing skills is an RPG ELEMENT. But, presence of RPG elements does NOT make a game an RPG. It makes it a game with RPG elements. A true RPG needs EXTENSIVE RPG elements that are the CENTER of the game.
Again with the word "extensive." This isn't telling us anything helpful because no two interpretations of the word "extensive" will ever be exactly the same. Your character in Diablo, who I might add is the center of the game, is governed by an RPG element. How many more RPG elements would your character need to be affected by to bring it into the RPG genre? Three? Four?
Quote from "Equinox" »
Is playing a role anywhere near the center of Diablo? No. Killing monsters and collecitng loot is. I call that Hack&Slash or Point-and-Click or Beat-them-Up or whatever. With RPG elements. Not an RPG. A game with RPG ELEMENTS.
I keep getting the impression that people here don't play other RPG's at all. That nobody here touched Fallout, BG, P:T, Arena/Daggerfall, NWN. Because if you played any of those games you would not say that customization is a big part of Diablo, or that the story is a big part of Diablo, or the role, or whatever, because in those aforementioned games those things are so much bigger, more developed, and important that the contrast simply would not permit one to chuck those two types of games into the same category.
I'm putting Diablo and Baldur's Gate in the same general category because if I didn't then I would be blatantly ignoring the things they have in common. Even if it's only one attribute they share together, that ultimately means that if you go back far enough they come from a common ancestor.
Quote from "Equinox" »
And please don't ask me if "omg are you saying game A is not RPG". I'm not saying anything. Where you draw the line is up to you but Diablo is just nowhere near that line. I can put FF (JRPG) and Zelda (ARPG) into a subtype and I prefer to put heXen (FPS with RPG elements) and Diablo (Hack&Slash) outside. If you believe it is, you have to agree that Baldur's Gate and Diablo play the same and by playing one you would be pretty familiar with the other. Can you say that?
So how is Zelda an RPG? Story is very linear, you don't speak at all except to say yes or no - which is an illusion to begin with because the NPC's won't respond to you until you say yes. We're really just getting into semantics here. I am saying (and Wiki agrees with me by the way) that a game that has RPG elements belongs somewhere in the RPG genre, albeit in a sub genre depending on what other elements affect the gameplay. You would rather me say that it's a Hack and Slash with RPG influence.
Quote from "Equinox" »
I can play one FPS and I can deal with most of them. Aim, shoot, move.
I can play one RTS I can deal with most of them. Build buildings, train units...
I can play Diablo but I played Diablo for ages
(go out, click on monsters, pick up loot, run some more, TP when full; get level up, put points in skill and spam it)
then I opened up NWN I was like "WTF is this?"
(no monsters at first, need to talk to a ton of people, make choices in dialogue and actually pay attention to what people are saying, choose a ton of all these weird feats/skills junk with 5 races and gender and alignment even voice and background)
There was no connection between the two games.
This is the purpose of GENRES. To classify games by how they PLAY and how they FEEL. NWN and Diablo neither play nor feel the same. How can you call them both RPG?
While FF and Zelda are not pure RPG's they at least generally have the same vibe of existing in the game and affecting it rather than mindlessly killing monsters for no purpose other than collecing items and gaining levels or PK'ing other players.
I get that NWN and Diablo are not specifically the same type of game. Apples and oranges are completely diiferent from eachother but they are both still types of fruit. I do not compare NWN and Diablo for any other reason than to say that some of their qualities originated from the same place.
Quote from "Equinox" »
Problem with calling Diablo an RPG is because you're starting to attribute all RPG qualities to Diablo and that doesn't really work. You start argumenting that since Diablo is an RPG it should have or may have this and that. But we're really talking about a completely different game. You're talking about raising a Hack&Slash to the RPG level. It's not going to happen. You can add elements, but "It's an RPG" is not an argument, because either a) you include a huge array of games into "RPG" and it's no longer a useful term, (e.g., you can say let's add a weight system because other TRUE RPG's have it) or you use your own definition which is biased.
Someone gave the wiki definition of an RPG game and I made it fit to relate to Diablo's gameplay. I assume that you're claiming that the connections I made with the definition are not legitimate? I'm not saying that when I think of a RPG that I think of Diablo, or that Diablo is the epitome of a RPG, but that it belongs somewhere in that genre because it contains some (even if it's just one) qualities with other RPG's. Apparently all of the gaming magazines and websites that rated Diablo as an RPG game have no idea what they're talking about. Just lump me in with them I guess.
People keep saying if a game doesn't have any choice in the story then it's not a RPG. You have no more choice on things in FF than you do in Diablo.
As for the worlds, they're about the same amount of "open" you can follow story or go explore side areas.
Clearly not even Equinox and Doppelganger agree on this. I fear I may never know the truth!:P
Being serious again though, some of the quests in Diablo 2 are optional. Can't that be considered side content or "fluff?" For instance, you find out about the Countess from a book in the Black Marsh. As far as I can tell that was a side-plot that had nothing to do with the main story. So technically Diablo has some non-linear qualities but I have a feeling that's not going to satisfy Doppel:P
I use my interpretation of the (pretty ambiguous) definition given to me by wiki. If you're interpretation of the definition of an RPG comes down to pretty much concluding all games are essentially RPG's then obviously something is wrong with your interpretation seeing that the goal of a definition is to actually define something.
Forget the whole "playing the role" thing. I get that. I don't believe that all games are RPG's. However, Diablo uses game mechanics that were originally derived from classic RPG games, so my only claim that is in-part the game is an RPG. Why does that bother you so much? Would it please you more if I said that that Diablo is an action game with RPG influence? We're kind of getting into semantics here aren't we?
Thats a terrible analogy, one of the defining elements of RPG's is that its a game, therefor every game is partially an RPG? I'm sorry but you're way off.
Can you please quote where I said that? You must be mistaken.
Trying to guess which part of what I said made you think that, the "defining element" that I was refering to was not the "G" in RPG but that the mechanical system in which many RPG's (D&D, Baldur's Gate etc...) use is also used in Diablo. Perhaps it's a variation of the original system, but the main concept is still intact; the character's various attributes being valued in numbers.
In D&D, I can't just say that my character is really, really strong in his/her character description and expect that the GM will allow me to lift a boulder over my head that weighs 2,000 pounds. I have to have a number assosiated with my strength so that my strength has some point of reference that tells me what I (my character) can and can't lift. Diablo (the game) doesn't say, "ok, the first one to make contact with the sword wins." It goes by the values of my attributes - variables based on previous choices that I have made - and determines my success or failure. Can we really not agree that this is an established RPG mechanic?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This could certainly be possible and I would absolutely welcome it. I'm fond of stories that unexpectedly expand in scope.
Hah, wouldn't be the first time that I got carried away about something. Thinking back again to the last scene of The Sin War, the pact between Imperius and Mephisto that was made was obviously broken at some point between its creation and Diablo 1, but yet we still see Heaven react in such a mild manner? Wouldn't it be expected that the moment the Prime Evils broke the pact that Heaven would come streaming in full force?
First I want to use a couple of quotes from the Diablo Wiki regarding the Balance. The first reads, "The followers of Rathma seek to right the balance by ridding the mortal realms of non-mortal intervention altogether. They resent any force that would treat humans as pawns in a cosmic game, though they are apparently willing to ally with the forces of Order but only until such time as the balance is restored." This essentially backs what we've been saying throughout this discussion that the priests of Rathma wish neither to side with Demons or Angels unless the help of one side is needed to counteract the actions of the other. However, I stumbled upon this quote on page 328 of The Veiled Prophet. "You must give humanity a chance. They are capable of many wonderous things, if you will but let them survive! They have the possibility of truly becoming an intergral part of the Balance-" This quote is spoken by Rathma to Imperius just before the Angiris Council decides to vote on the destiny of Sanctuary.
In a sincere attempt to not take the quote out of context, it appears to be a plee by Rathma to convince the Angiris Counil to let Sanctuary live, but if that's the case, why would bringing up the Balance do anything but convince the Angels more that Sanctuary should be destroyed? Surely Rathma is trying to say that he will do all in his power to stop Hell from taking over, but he is also telling Imperius that he will not let his kind take over either. What bothers me is that Imperius completely ignores the meaning of the word "Balance" as if it's not an attempt to keep the forces of Heaven at bay as well as Hell's.
This brings me back to another quote from the Diablo Wiki. It reads, "At the end of the second book of the Diablo trilogy, Rathma and Trag'Oul now know that the High Heavens have discovered Sanctuary. And to them, the angels are no better than the Burning Hells." Again, this backs my claim about what the Balance truly means in Sanctuary. After finally finishing The Kingdom of Shadow (which I thought was great by the way), I've recently started The Moon of the Spider, and already I came upon something that baffles me about what it says about the Rathmian's true beliefs. The quote reads, "Zayl's kind fought against the Darkness, against the Prime Evils, for victory by the forces of Hell would forever send the Balance completely awry." I suppose you can take this quote in a few ways. You could say that Knaak is simply stating a fact about necromancer law, but why does he completely omit anything about the Light and Heaven being a threat as well? This furthers my concern that Blizzard is ignoring a lot of great concepts here for simplicity. I hope I am wrong, having not completed the last book yet, but I can't help but be pessimistic as I've seen them do this kind of thing before.
I'm about a third of the way through Kingdom of Shadow. So far I am intrigued by it; a lot of unanswered questions already and Knaak does a great job of keeping you in suspence.
Moon of the Spider is actually the one I want to read most but I decided to read them in numerical order to see if I could pick up things that were inconsistent as the story evolved.
I don't buy that it's all the Prime Evils in one body, but I suppose it's possible.
Ah, my apologies. I understand what you're saying now.
Moon of the Spider is one of the two books I haven't read yet actually. I should know more about that in the near future.
This would be fantastic. I wonder what they are going to do with the other two Prime Evils in Diablo 3. Hopefully it's not another attempt to reunite them to create an "invincible" force.
I sure hope you are right on this. I've been saying for a while now that this franchise has MMO written all over it.
I guess it's possible that Trag'Oul is wrong, but if that's the case, why even have these characters in the first place? It would have been just as easy to have the creation of Sanctuary based on totally separate circumstances (i.e not having anything to do with the treachery of certain angels and demons) where the motivations from Hell's perspective would be to spread chaos among Sanctuary's inhabitants and Heaven wanting to simply defend these seemingly helpless mortals due to their good nature. Instead, we have Sanctuary whose existence is a mockery to both Heaven and Hell, and a third party (Trag'Oul and company) whose sole purpose is to defend Sanctuary from anyone who wishes to control it for their own purposes. I've got to think that the Sin War is still the main objective of Heaven and Hell. It would be silly to think that these two realms have been fighting SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME only to just completely forget about it and move on to Sanctuary. Sanctuary is obviously a means to an end no matter what way you look at it.
This could surely be possible, but again, I'm not sure that the Rathmians would allow this alliance to be made without a fight. The bottom line is that the Rathmians need both Heaven and Hell to exist to carry out their own cause, so surely they wouldn't stand idle and allow Heaven - or Humans who allied with Heaven - to destroy Hell. And assuming your theory is right for a moment, what would happen after that? I don't recall exactly which Sin War book this quote was in or its exact wording, but I remember Trag'Oul saying to Mendeln that if good has no evil to counter it, then good will eventually turn on itself. If Trag'Oul and the Rathmians allowed this alliance between Heaven and Sanctuary to happen or embraced it, they would be going directly against the teachings of Trag'Oul and The Balance.
You could be right except for the fact that Imperius and Mephisto agreed to allow Sanctuary to exist. The only reason this could be possible is if both sides thought that Sanctuary was the missing link to winning the War, which means they must both be trying to gain control over it. If that's not the case, then why even allow Sanctuary to exist or care that Hell might take it over?
This is pretty much in sync with what a I wrote a couple of paragraphs above. What's interesting here is that if this did happen, what angle would Blizzard tell the story from? Do you necessarily think that they would make Trag'Oul and the Rathmians the antagonists? The beauty of this story is that their is more than one possible answer to that question.
I think this relates to the worry I have that Blizzard won't take this story to its full potential. I agree with you that we probably won't see an ultimate ending to the story other than The Balance being maintained, which means that either Hell is always going to be the antagonist and beaten back, or they'll grow some balls and start bringing some angels into the fray. I think we all know which route they will most likely take.
A very good theory Phrozen. I think a lot of this will be answered when we finally lay our eyes on the ending cinematic for Diablo 3. If you can recall Warcraft 3: Frozen Throne, you immediately knew from the final cinematic that they were setting up for another game, which, of course, ended up being WoW. I know I am jumping way ahead of myself here, but it would seem impossible for Blizzard to address all of these unanswered questions in the span of one game, and there is no doubt (at least in my mind) that all these questions must be answered if the story is to end respectably. It's probably safe to assume that they are already planning on an expansion to Diablo 3, so it really won't be until then that we find out if we are making this story too complicated or if Blizzard has something massively epic planned.
I'd like to reiterate one thing. No matter what happens in this game (I say that under the assumption that Diablo will be the final boss) the Rathmians must sooner or later get involved. If indeed Heaven is content with simply protecting Sanctuary, then they are also content with Hell's existence. Heaven can't be ok with that, so as I've said numerous times already, Heaven will eventually have to press forward, which means that not only will they have to deal with any straggling demonic forces, but also Trag'Oul and the Rathmians. Tell me, who would be the bad guy in that scenario?
I suppose this is is a reasonable scenario; something that could definitely be possible. To me though, it still all comes back to the Rathmians, because if indeed Heaven is winning Sanctuary as you say, then Rathmians surely must be attempting to push them back one way or the other. Yet, in Diablo 2, you have a Rathmian fighting against demons, which proves that Hell was gaining control over Sanctuary at that time. Now with the Prime Evils destoyed, at the very least the balance should be back to even again at the start of Diablo 3.
You make an interesting point about the Zakarum Church. We know it was started shortly before the Sin War because its destruction was Kabraxis' main reason for being in Sanctuary and we know he was first in Sanctuary around the time of The Sin War as said in The Black Road. Now, this couldn't have been before Heaven found out about Sanctuary's existence, so Heaven must have immediately started ordering archangels to start spreading the word of their realm once they found out. This also makes me think about Tyrael. If he is truly fighting for Humanity due to his inspiration at the conclusion of The Sin War, then he must also understand the concept of The Balance, because if the archangels ever start tipping the balance in their favor, Tyrael would know better than anyone what his bretheren are capable of.
That precisely is my assumption. My original post states that I think the story for D3 is again going to revolve around demons being the primary antagonists of the story. It's not that I have a problem with this, but it just shows Blizzard's unwillingness to break the mold and really throw us a curveball in the story, which they are more than capable of doing (from a lore standpoint) in Diablo 3.
You do have a point here. Tyrael is really the only thing stopping Heaven from just coming into Sanctuary and taking it over. The last scene in the book where Tyrael tells the Angiris Council that he will stay and guide Humanity, they are forced to leave Sanctuary alone at least momentarily. Perhaps, if indeed Tyrael is corrupted by Diablo as the theories suggest, then that would eliminate the only possible reason why Heaven would even consider holding back. Depending on how D3 will end, I may eventually get my wish.
It doesn't have to be the same conflict as in D2, that's my whole point. For all we know the Prime Evils have been destroyed in D2, which means that they can really go in almost any direction at this point.
This is why I have fear! This story is going to be forced in one obvious direction because it will be an easier profit.
If they were to even "talk negatively" about angels through dialogue then I would be satisfied at least for the moment. Even if the story in Diablo 3 does stay consistent with the lore, eventually Blizzard will have to address the fact that Heaven wants Sanctuary just as much as Hell does and won't stand by and watch it be taken over.
Really there is only one thing that doesn't seem to make sense about what they've told us about Heaven. Why is Heaven seemingly complacent with Sanctuary remaining Balanced? Lets not forget that Trag'Oul, Rathma, and all of their followers would fight even Heaven if they felt that they were tipping The Balance. This would give Heaven every reason to kill Humans if they were trying to be stopped. We know that the Angiris Council was divided when they voted on letting Sanctuary exist, and with The Prime Evils supposedly dead, Heaven has the upper hand. Why wouldn't the angels be moving to take advantage of this? Tyrael? Well if he's corrupted then that option goes out the window. You would at least think that Heaven would attempt to spread some religions around to attract followers for their cause, whether Tyrael is corrupted or not. It would defy logic (based on the fact that Sanctuary is so precious to both Heaven and Hell) for Heaven to just sit back while the Prime Evils try again and again to take over Sanctuary. It's as if the Angiris Council - and ultimitely all of Heaven - have put their trust entirely into the hands of one angel and a bunch of mortals - who at any moment could change sides due to manipulation by The Three or simply just a lust for power - to win a fight over THE PRIME EVILS. I'd seriously like some kind of justification as to why Heaven would even consider taking that risk.
Again, I have this same feeling that you do about Blizzard not wanting us to fight angels, but it sure would be a change of pace, wouldn't it? I've been saying all along that I think Blizzard will sacrifice more complex story-telling so that they can give us yet another "destroy evil" game. So far, already two of the three responses I've gotten have confirmed my notion that they will make this story less interesting than it could be.
They did the very same thing in WoW. To keep it simple, they contradicted a lot of Warcraft lore to make a basic two faction MMORPG. There were the Night Elves who allied with Humans and Gnomes despite the fact that elves hate magic users, and Undead - who had no business being allied with anyone - allying with Orcs, Taurens, and Trolls. The storyline for WoW could have been a lot more complex, but instead they tied all the races together with lore that they seemed to pull out of their arse just to make the game consist of only two factions so things were easier to balance. All I am saying is that it wouldn't be the first time that Blizzard has sacrificed good storytelling for simplicity and playability when converting their lore into video games.
It's certaintly possible that I am asking for too much here, but I just really like what they've created with this franchise. In my opinion, the lore for Diablo completely blows their other two franchises out of the water. I'd hate to see it be a victim of simplicity over telling the story the way it should be told.
To illustrate my point, I'd like to point to most other fictional stories. The protagonist and antagonist are almost always made clear, and along with these characters comes a series of "no-brainer" reasons why the protagonist must prevail. In these cases, the story then becomes extremely linear and forces the novel to move in one specific direction. The Diablo universe is set up in such a way where this doesn't have to happen. At any point in time you can have one of three protagonists, but really only one can be given this title at any given time.
This is where the Diablo universe becomes very much unlike anything else. We have Hell, whose ultimate goal is to control Sanctuary and turn the tides of the Sin War in their favor. We also have Heaven, whose goal, again, is to control Sanctuary for their own part in the War. However, the story doesn't end there like many other stories might. In Diablo we have something called The Balance. The Balance, in actuality, is the true protagonist in Diablo, for if either Hell or Heaven were to gain an advantage over the other, mankind would be controlled, thus losing the ultimate desire of Humanity. Free will.
The reason I am explaining all of this is to illustrate a pattern I have seen from the first two games and from at least two of the five novels that I have read so far. Demons have mainly been the antagonists; they have been the ones who - for lack of a better term - been on the offensive as far as tipping The Balance. The archangels have simply been the ones who fight the demons to restore the balance among Sanctuary. If you haven't already figured out what I am about to say, let me make something very clear about archangels. They do not want to see The Balance maintained anymore than demons do! Yet they have taken almost no action to see the Balance tipped in their favor! They have seemed complacent with simply stopping the demons' advances at control over Sanctuary which ultimately benefits Heaven in no way. This goes against everything that was described about archangels in The Sin War Trilogy. Archangels are not good as far as humanity is concerned, simply less evil.
What I hope they do - and what I fear they won't do - is make Heaven play a more active role in the story. Not as Humanity's protection from Hell, which they have never been described as being, but shown for what they really are; another type of higher beings who wish nothing else but for Humanity to be their pawn.
Let me use another example to convey my thought. In Zelda, there are times where you need to shoot your bow like a FPS. However, I do not consider any Zelda game (except for that stupid crossbow one for Wii) to be an FPS because that mechanic is not the foundation of the gameplay. I would then say, as was stated before about Diablo, that Zelda is an Action RPG with a slight FPS influence.
Lastly, I would like to go back to my fruit analogy. Something is a fruit when it meets specific criteria that we have defined as necessary for something to be a fruit. To relate this back to the topic, let me use the following logical sequence.
1. An apple is a fruit.
2. An orange isn't an apple, therefore an orange isn't a fruit.
Obviously we know that an orange is a fruit, but really that is the only thing that links them together at all. An apple's color, texture, and DNA are all different from that of an orange, but because they accomplish a similar goal in a similar way, we classify them as both being fruits. All I am saying is that both Baldur's Gate and Diablo use similar mechanics to achieve a similar goal, which ultimately is to entertain and challenge the player. There is no question that Both BG and Diablo implement these mechanics in different ways, but that would be the equivalent of different fruits having different textures and flavors (i.e. citrus fruits or non citrus fruits).
That's going to be my final statement on the subject. Thanks for the civil debate guys, it was fun!:D
Just not seeing where this proves your point. Diablo is listed as an Action RPG because you control your character in real time and you are bound by specific RPG elements. This puts Diablo somewhere - I'm not saying where exactly - in the RPG "realm." I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that.
Again with the word "extensive." This isn't telling us anything helpful because no two interpretations of the word "extensive" will ever be exactly the same. Your character in Diablo, who I might add is the center of the game, is governed by an RPG element. How many more RPG elements would your character need to be affected by to bring it into the RPG genre? Three? Four?
I'm putting Diablo and Baldur's Gate in the same general category because if I didn't then I would be blatantly ignoring the things they have in common. Even if it's only one attribute they share together, that ultimately means that if you go back far enough they come from a common ancestor.
So how is Zelda an RPG? Story is very linear, you don't speak at all except to say yes or no - which is an illusion to begin with because the NPC's won't respond to you until you say yes. We're really just getting into semantics here. I am saying (and Wiki agrees with me by the way) that a game that has RPG elements belongs somewhere in the RPG genre, albeit in a sub genre depending on what other elements affect the gameplay. You would rather me say that it's a Hack and Slash with RPG influence.
I get that NWN and Diablo are not specifically the same type of game. Apples and oranges are completely diiferent from eachother but they are both still types of fruit. I do not compare NWN and Diablo for any other reason than to say that some of their qualities originated from the same place.
Someone gave the wiki definition of an RPG game and I made it fit to relate to Diablo's gameplay. I assume that you're claiming that the connections I made with the definition are not legitimate? I'm not saying that when I think of a RPG that I think of Diablo, or that Diablo is the epitome of a RPG, but that it belongs somewhere in that genre because it contains some (even if it's just one) qualities with other RPG's. Apparently all of the gaming magazines and websites that rated Diablo as an RPG game have no idea what they're talking about. Just lump me in with them I guess.
Clearly not even Equinox and Doppelganger agree on this. I fear I may never know the truth!:P
Being serious again though, some of the quests in Diablo 2 are optional. Can't that be considered side content or "fluff?" For instance, you find out about the Countess from a book in the Black Marsh. As far as I can tell that was a side-plot that had nothing to do with the main story. So technically Diablo has some non-linear qualities but I have a feeling that's not going to satisfy Doppel:P
Forget the whole "playing the role" thing. I get that. I don't believe that all games are RPG's. However, Diablo uses game mechanics that were originally derived from classic RPG games, so my only claim that is in-part the game is an RPG. Why does that bother you so much? Would it please you more if I said that that Diablo is an action game with RPG influence? We're kind of getting into semantics here aren't we?
Can you please quote where I said that? You must be mistaken.
Trying to guess which part of what I said made you think that, the "defining element" that I was refering to was not the "G" in RPG but that the mechanical system in which many RPG's (D&D, Baldur's Gate etc...) use is also used in Diablo. Perhaps it's a variation of the original system, but the main concept is still intact; the character's various attributes being valued in numbers.
In D&D, I can't just say that my character is really, really strong in his/her character description and expect that the GM will allow me to lift a boulder over my head that weighs 2,000 pounds. I have to have a number assosiated with my strength so that my strength has some point of reference that tells me what I (my character) can and can't lift. Diablo (the game) doesn't say, "ok, the first one to make contact with the sword wins." It goes by the values of my attributes - variables based on previous choices that I have made - and determines my success or failure. Can we really not agree that this is an established RPG mechanic?