To Hyperversity
Go buy Baldur's Gate II, please. Maybe you'll see the huge abyss between what BG offers and Diablo offers in terms of RPG elements and you'll agree, as well, that they cannot be mixed into the same genre. If you've never played anything like BG I can't really sit here and convince you, it's not going to get anywhere.
To Daemaro
I don't know what you're talking about. FF and Zelda are certainly RPG's. The generally meet my criteria just fine. Both have dialogues, they have open worlds, etc. Maybe not classic but still RPG's. Diablo is just so far away it's a whole other matter entirely.
To Vae Victis
Thanks.
So Diablo doesn't have a single RPG element in it? I just can't agree with that. Every part of what your character can do is represented by a finite number that you can calculate. I wouldn't call Halo an RPG because there is nothing numerical that represents your success or failure; either your real life reflexes and accuracy are good enough to beat the game or they're not. Now I'm not claiming that having your character represented by statistics is the be-all-end-all element of an RPG, that would be foolish, but is it not an element that appears in many if not all non text-based RPG's? I never said that Diablo was the epitome of RPG's but it has, atleast, some properties of them.
I'll quote Wiki again, "A genre of video game is also referred to as role-playing games. Although these games do not involve the playing of roles,[1] they take their name from the settings and game mechanics which they inherit from early role-playing games." So unless one can prove that Diablo's game mechanics were not influenced in any way by past RPG's, then it atleast fits this definition of RPG quite nicely.
I don't understand why you're asking me to compare Diablo to other games because it doesn't seem relevant. All I said is that Diablo technically met the requirements of the definition that was given and any definition I have seen on the subject thus far. Bottom line, there are fundamental elements from the RPG genre that are used in Diablo and therefore make it - perhaps only partially - an RPG game. I'm not 100% French so does that mean I'm not French at all?
Sigh, i'm really getting tired of this shit, you know. "Diablo is an RPG because you assume the role of a character which is one of the primery definitions of a RPG", or to use an analogy "a cat is a plane because a plane has a tail and a cat does to". Do you understand this logical fallacy? You pretty much assume the role of a character in any game, therefor every game can be classified as an RPG? NO.
This isn't my only defense that Diablo is an RPG. I am well aware that you can call any game an RPG because by their very nature you are always assuming the roll of someone else. I was attempting to break down the definition that was given to you in response to your other posts.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
The game doesn't attempt at giving you more things to interact with, let alone giving you things to interact with which support a broad amount of characters and their characterization. The game doesn't attempt at being non-linear. Not because it FAILS at being an RPG, but because the damn game isn't even an RPG to begin with and it was also never meant to be one, its simply not what the game is about. Seriously, i can get why the definition of RPG isn't synonym with "quality product" or "tons upon tons of meaningful C&C", i can get why people try to call Oblivion an RPG, albeit a terribly bland and stupidly dumb one, but implying that Diablo is an RPG is just downright insulting to not only what RPG's are about, but also insulting the capacity of Blizzard making games. Or do you really want to imply Blizzard simply made one of the worst RPG's in history by not giving the player virtually any meaningful interaction and a variety of actions based on roleplaying characters? Because then i might as well tell you Rockstar sucks at making games, seriously, GTA was the worst racing game in history.
Where does it say that an RPG has to be non-linear? If it's just your opinion that it has to be then that's fine but your tone suggests that you have factual evidence that because Diablo is not linear then it's not a RPG.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
You can't be serious. "Participant determine the action of their characters based on their characterization". Are you telling me the extend of Blizzards characterization of which the failure or success of actions are based upon is completely and utterly limited to a hero saving Sanctuary by slaying hordes of monsters? SERIOUSLY? This is like the discussion revolving around how Oblivion isn't non-linear "because you can go everywhere, to the left, and to the right, and backwards, and forwards, and hey, you can even choose to do a quest now, or later...", thats not what "non-linear" means, what you are telling me is not what "failure or success of actions based on characterization" means. There is only one characterization in Diablo, namely that of a hero, you can't play a neutral party, let alone the anti-hero, you don't even have any say in HOW you are a hero, nope, you ARE a hero by slaying monsters, whether or not you want to, THE END. Do i slay them with a sword or an axe, ultimately it doesn't matter, your choice in the matter won't suddenly change the direction, much less outcome of the game, you won't get alternative choices upon failing to slay monsters, the game won't give you the option to "not slay them, if thats the characters you wish to play". The game obviously is not even meant to be an RPG, why won't people get that, jeez...
I'm showing you how the gameplay of Diablo fits the description of the definition that was posted. I Obviously can't convince you that Diablo is dynamic enough to be an RPG, but I did technically fulfill the requirements that the definition says there must be. I never said it was very sophisticated customization, but it is customization nevertheless. I'm not sure where that definition was obtained but it looks like you should take it up with them because clearly it's your opinion that they are selling a "true" RPG game very, very short.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
Yes, and i can also assume the role of NEO (or at least pretend to, thats close enough, right) and press the PLAY button to progress the story of the MATRIX, obviously its an RPG.
I assume you're being facetious? You're watching someone else role play which doesn't make you role playing as well.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
I don't even play tabletop games, or pen and paper games, and no i don't need a million choices in dialogue before i can regard a game to be an RPG, but fucking hell, if i expect to play an RPG then at least give me a FEW archetypically different characters to play around with in a world which acts and reacts upon your chosen character, else, whats even the fucking point in playing an RPG? I call Planescape Torment an RPG, i call Fallout an RPG, i call Arcanum an RPG, i call Deus Ex an RPG, i call Vampire an RPG, i even call Bioware's games RPG's, and i even barely call TES an RPG. FF is NOT an RPG, Zelda is NOT an RPG, WoW is NOT an RPG, GTA is NOT an RPG, Diablo is NOT an RPG. How fucking hard can it be?
Again, do you have some sort of source that makes these claims factual? I'm making comparisons to a definition and you're just getting louder. You're yelling and swearing like it's obvious that Diablo isn't an RPG, but if you're just going to use your definition of RPG then this debate isn't going to progress any further.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
THIS IS NOT A CHOICE.
I'm not going to argue this because frankly it wasn't one of my better points nor was it the backbone of my argument. However, having to be aware of your surroundings within the game is an immersive property. That goes beyond the numbers which, according to you, must exist to be an RPG.
Well as far as I remember, there nothing in the books about it. The other books (excluding Moon of the Spider) were all written before the Sin War trilogy, and so obviously contain no info from those books.
Oh I see now. I didn't realize that the others were written before hand.
So, by this logic, all games under the RPG tier for CRPG's (both computer and console) are types of RPG's and are therefore RPG's (like we're animals with a specific kingdom/phylum/class/order/family/genis/species, but we're still animals).
And that's exactly what I'm getting at. It may not do everything that an RPG of a different type can, (i.e Tabletop RPG) but it is still an RPG.
I'd hate to see demons and angels as playable races/classes/whatever.
You'd see almost no humans, everyone would be a angel or demon, and to me that's not Sanctuary or Diablo. It's about Humans rising up and protecting themselves.
If it were the case that we could only play as humans, I would hope that we would have an equal opportunity to fight both demons and angels in PvE.
Quote from name="Vae Victis" »
Whether you advance in the story or not is not a valid arguement for saying you have an effect on the storyline.
What he means is that you would be given a fork in the path to choose. You make one choice, the story progresses one way. If you chose the other way, a whole different story developes. Rememeber the old Goosebumps books? Where they said "If you want to go down the tunnel, turn to page 154" or "If you want to run like a bitch, turn to page 178". Like that.
It's not like "If you want to continue in the story, turn the page" "If you don't want to continue the story, close the book"
So RPG's are required to have multiple endings? Ok, someone needs to enlighten me what the real definition of an RPG is because apparrently all the Final Fantasy games I've played and the 3 years that I played WoW don't count.:rolleyes:
Customization, control of story, dialogues, choice. Does Diablo have any of these things? Hardly. No, leveling and item collection is not enough. Item collection is not an RPG element to begin with. See heXen II, you can level and collect items in there, and 4 classes to choose from.
Seriously? Diablo has none of these? First of all, listing customization and choice is kind of redundant. Furthermore, I don't see any evidence that validates that there is "hardly" and customization; the game gives you numerous possibilities to choose from every level.
No control of story? Your choices - whether they're skill point allocation or positioning of your character - directly affect the outcome of the story in the most direct way in that if you can't beat a certain level then you cannot advance the story.
Dialogue, assuming your specifically talking about your character's dialogue, is obviously not in the game, but Diablo 3 will be changing that as well.
But wait, i can assume the role of a character slaying hordes of monsters and also the role of a character slaying hordes of monsters, but i can also assume the role of a character slaying hordes of monsters, not only that but i can also assume the role of a character slaying hordes of monsters, also my choices to, um, slay hordes of monsters (or not, because you know you can choose to not play the game or something) affect the direction and shape of the game (it doesn't, but whatever) and also the outcome of the game, namely whether i finish said game or something. YAY, RPGs for everyone!
(On-topic btw, seeing that it directly relates to general ignorance stated in the OP)
You are misinterpreting the definition that he gave you. You are assuming the roll of a fictional character; the one who saves Sanctuary from annihilation by the Prime Evils. Just because there is a limited amount of things you can interact with does not make it any less of a RPG game. The variety of actions that you can do has no bearing on the definition of a RPG - atleast that I can see - which makes your response inadequate to disproving that Diablo is not a RPG.
The "formal system" that the game follows are essentially the monsters' stats, which govern the success - or failure - of the player. The way that you characterize - or improvise - your character's stats and skills (also known as actions) will then be matched up with the "formal system" to result in either success or failure, which is exactly what the definition describes.
The game tells a story by allowing you, the player, to assume the role of one of the main characters to progress the story. This is the absolute essence of any RPG that I've ever played. I get the feeling that you only consider tabletop games and games that give you choices for dialogue to be true RPG's; that is simply not true. No question that D&D and other tabletop RPG's can be much deeper than computer games because the human imagination is much more vast than any computer program.
Well, they could make three factions of humans, or two or whatever.
Horadrim - Led by Tyrael fighting for the high heavens
Zakarum - Led by some twisted evil fighting for the burning hells (some ppl are evil )
Free Nephalem - Fighting for their right to live withour angelic or demon influence
Or something similiar. Do remember that blizzard could choose to go back in history aswell as forward.
I forsee this scenario as the most likely one if they really decide to push a Diablo MMO.
What does that have to do with my post? All I did was tell him that it's foolish to think that Blizzard wouldn't make an MMO out of their other successful franchise.
I was just commenting about what the relationship between a Diablo Action RPG and a Diablo MMO would be. I don't understand why an Action RPG fan would get upset if they made an MMO version of the game. Simply don't buy it if you don't like it.
Because if you think that Blizzard would not take their other famous franchise and turn it into an MMO just because of a group of hardcore Diablo fans, then you're probably wrong.
I don't understand why it has to be one or the other. Can't it just be that Blizzard wants to spread their franchises throughout multiple genres to evolve the story? What's to say that after they make a Diablo MMO that they won't make a "Diablo 4" with Action RPG gameplay?
It was made to be a single player game (Diablo 1). Diablo 2 also followed this line but online play was also of good quality.
I think Diablo 3 will be around the same lines as Diablo 2. Around 4 people playing will be enough. We do have to realize Blizzard makes games for more lower end computers, so that more people can play it.
If 4 heroes were on your screen casting sick spells, it would result in a fps drop.
But for lower end pc it would lag like.. well alot.
I wont mind, but diablo is and will always be a low-multiplayer/singleplayer game.
Don't dare comparing it with WoW.
----
Little input: Diablo 1, 2 and 3 are all RPG games.
I have seen far to many posts with poeple saying it's not.
RPG does not mean online.
RPG = Role Playing Game; you asume the role of a character (in this case a hero).
Most people compare it with I think MMORPG = Massif Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (As in World of Warcraft).
Google it up if you want.
I see no substance to your first argument. Before Warcraft was ever an MMO, it was a RTS game. Did anyone think that when Warcraft 3 came out it was definite MMO material? I know back then that I certainly didn't imagine Blizzard getting into the MMO market, and I can recall many people being very sceptical about how good WoW would be after it was announced.
Quote from "Lydeck" »
As far as people talking about MMO races:
If there was a Diablo MMO, there would not be multiple races. You would be human, and that is it, but there would be a huge plethora of classes.
It would make absolutely no sense to let people be demons and angels. That's not what Diablo has ever been about.
I think this could somewhat depend on how the Diablo 3 story is told. Referencing the novels, it could be realistic to suggest that at a certain point the Naphalem could harness their powers enough to be able to fight angels and demons alike. We see this at the end of The Veiled Prophet where the edyrem are going toe to toe with the immortals during the last battle. Based on what Uldyssian was capable of doing towards the end of the Trilogy, and assuming that a MMO Diablo would take place in the world of Sanctuary, it is conceivable to think that the Naphalem would have some sort of advantage from being in their own realm, thus leveling the playing field even more.
All I am saying is that it's possible that Blizzard could completely open up this storyline if they felt that it would make a great game. As I've said, it's presumable - lore wise - that all three "races" could be equal. And since the Nephalem are capable of spreading their powers to others, it's safe to assume that many of Sanctuary's inhabitants would be "hero-like," hince the MMO feel. Can you imagine what that kind of PvP would be like?:D
I've been wondering if the following books after The Sin War Trilogy were connected to in anyway. I'm glad that Astrogha comes back in Moon of the Spider because it went unanswered as to where Astrogha went after escaping Lilith.
What I want to know from someone is when did the pact made between Mephisto and The Angiris Council at the end of The Veiled Prophet first break? Also, did they ever end up making a seperate pact dealing with the Worldstone which is, again, something they hint to at the end of The Veiled Prophet.
Also before I start ranting I should say thar I kind of enjoyed the books and will probably read the others except the last sin war book. Its like watching a really bad cheesy tv show like Buffy can sometimes be enjoyable.
I certainly don't agree with you here. I thought the politics within The Sin War Trilogy were fantasticly complex, and to point that out I am going to give you the list of the different factions and their interactionsn with one another that web them together.
You have the Three Prime Evils and their relationships with their children and followers, you have Inarius' relationship with both the Prime Evils and Angiris Council, you have Tyrael's relationship with the Angiris Council as well as with the Naphalem which are both seperate entities, and you have the Angiris Council's political relationship directly with the Prime Evils themselves. Not to mention, you have the Naphalem caught in the middle of this who could potentially be a power to be reckoned with, and you have the Mage Clans who up to this point aren't even part of the Naphalem. Oh and don't let me forget Trag' Oul, Rathma, and Mendeln who eventually become yet another faction all by themselves who are tyring simutaneously to keep all the others in check.
How many stories in general leave you a feeling of really not knowing who the bad guy is? You have Inarius betraying Heaven, and Lilith whose betrayal of Hell is essentially just as severe; both the Prime Evils and Angiris Council being equally pissed off about this. The Angiris Council, who supposedly represents total goodness, openely makes dealings with the Prime Evils essentially out of respect. Even the Naphalem could potentially become Sanctuary's worst enemy - as seen by Uldyssian's inability to control his powers - that you can't even rule them out as being the potential villian somewhere down the line. In my opinion, The Sin War Trilogy cleary deviates from the cookie-cutter fantasy stories that we've heard so many times.
Quote from "Calamity" »
Thats the thing that dissapoints me the most ruins the books for me. All the parts with the super powerful mythical beings like Inarius and Lucion, where i expect something really cool to happen, plays out like an episode of a soap opera with some generic fantasy mixed in. The way the author portrays these beings they might as well have been powerful, influential humans, not cold, calculating inhuman overlords determined to enslave the human race to their will.
I sort of see your point here, but we need to remember that they faced Uldyssian, who was clearly created to show us the potential power of the Naphalem to identify them as one of the power houses of the universe. If the humans are helpless or significantly inferior to the Angels and Demons then you don't have a story. Lets also remember that the Naphalem are essentially half angel and half demon; it's not like they are just a normal mortal species like the wildlife in the Torajian Jungles.
Quote from "Calamity" »
Then there is the story of Uldyssian. The unassuming nobody suddenly gains powers and wants to use them for good! Where have I read that before?
Again, you have to look at Uldyssian as the extreme case. His purpose is to show us the maximum potential of the Naphalem's powers, hince why Heaven and Hell would even want to be involved in the first place.[/quote]
Quote from "Calamity" »
The beautiful noblewoman randomly develops a crush on a nobody. What? She had an ulterior motive? Never saw that coming.
Yeah I suppose it was obvious that she was more than she seemed but I thought her story was pretty interesting. Yes she was a demon and did horrible things to Uldyssian, but the Naphalem were her children. How far would you go to save your children? Her story is no where near cookie-cutter in my opinion.
Quote from "Calamity" »
Also, his adventures seem really trivial and stupid. He wins his fights by really wanting to win, and his superpowers just takes care of the rest.
I suppose I was a little dissapointed in how well a mere "human" could match up against immortals from other planes of existence, but we need to remember that Uldyssian altered the Worldstone in such a way that it essentially became his world. I would assume that if they were in Heaven or Hell that he would not be able to accomplish what he did.
Quote from "Calamity" »
Even the subplots suck. A demon in a ancient building in the jungle sends "rage" at him so he goes over ther and wishes it dead. Uh what? Thats it? Can you at least explore the building for a cool artifact?
The book explains why the spirit was restless with rage when it gives you the backstory between the demon and his angel lover. What this does is it adds yet another issue for both Heaven and Hell to focus on instead of just focusing on one another and thus making the story more complex. This "mix breeding" was esentially another way to put angels and demons on the same level instead of clearly making one of them good and one evil.
Quote from "Calamity" »
I also got the books for the cool factor of the Diablo universe, but the author has turned it into generic fantasy. I guess i was just expecting a much darker and complex story.
The "Ask Lore Questions Here" thread is more enjoyable and informative to read than the books, ant to top it off, better written.
As someone else said, arguing about writing styles is futile and very subjective. However, I will respectfully disagree with you that the story is generic and not complex. I would have to say that having a 10-year-old child (Cedric) being skinned alive by Malic so it could be worn by a Morlu as a desguise is a pretty dark element to have in any story. I could go on but I think that illustrates my point.
If this was to happen, I think it should take place during the Sin war, when heaven and hell were at war, and would have Heaven and Hell as playable factions. I think it could be done very well if Blizzard stayed true to the diablo universe.
I wouldn't what it to take place during a time that I eventually know what's going to happen. It should take place after Diablo 3 so that brand new content can be added that we can immerse ourself in.
Not going to happen. Seriously, why would Blizzard produce two MMORPGs? Why do you think they moved Warcraft to MMORPG? Because it competed with Starcraft. Not to mention if they do make another MMORPG, it will be the unnanouced project they have, which won't be Diablo considering its probably going to be released a year after D3 (going by the 1 game a year for the next 3 years deal)
This doesn't make sense to me. How can having two games of the same genre hurt you in any way? You can attract more players who lean towards one setting over the other (i.e fantasy over science fiction) or, assuming the player enjoys RTS's, - which we can assume is the case - you could potentially have one person buying two of your games.
0
So Diablo doesn't have a single RPG element in it? I just can't agree with that. Every part of what your character can do is represented by a finite number that you can calculate. I wouldn't call Halo an RPG because there is nothing numerical that represents your success or failure; either your real life reflexes and accuracy are good enough to beat the game or they're not. Now I'm not claiming that having your character represented by statistics is the be-all-end-all element of an RPG, that would be foolish, but is it not an element that appears in many if not all non text-based RPG's? I never said that Diablo was the epitome of RPG's but it has, atleast, some properties of them.
I'll quote Wiki again, "A genre of video game is also referred to as role-playing games. Although these games do not involve the playing of roles,[1] they take their name from the settings and game mechanics which they inherit from early role-playing games." So unless one can prove that Diablo's game mechanics were not influenced in any way by past RPG's, then it atleast fits this definition of RPG quite nicely.
I don't understand why you're asking me to compare Diablo to other games because it doesn't seem relevant. All I said is that Diablo technically met the requirements of the definition that was given and any definition I have seen on the subject thus far. Bottom line, there are fundamental elements from the RPG genre that are used in Diablo and therefore make it - perhaps only partially - an RPG game. I'm not 100% French so does that mean I'm not French at all?
0
This isn't my only defense that Diablo is an RPG. I am well aware that you can call any game an RPG because by their very nature you are always assuming the roll of someone else. I was attempting to break down the definition that was given to you in response to your other posts.
Where does it say that an RPG has to be non-linear? If it's just your opinion that it has to be then that's fine but your tone suggests that you have factual evidence that because Diablo is not linear then it's not a RPG.
I'm showing you how the gameplay of Diablo fits the description of the definition that was posted. I Obviously can't convince you that Diablo is dynamic enough to be an RPG, but I did technically fulfill the requirements that the definition says there must be. I never said it was very sophisticated customization, but it is customization nevertheless. I'm not sure where that definition was obtained but it looks like you should take it up with them because clearly it's your opinion that they are selling a "true" RPG game very, very short.
I assume you're being facetious? You're watching someone else role play which doesn't make you role playing as well.
Again, do you have some sort of source that makes these claims factual? I'm making comparisons to a definition and you're just getting louder. You're yelling and swearing like it's obvious that Diablo isn't an RPG, but if you're just going to use your definition of RPG then this debate isn't going to progress any further.
I'm not going to argue this because frankly it wasn't one of my better points nor was it the backbone of my argument. However, having to be aware of your surroundings within the game is an immersive property. That goes beyond the numbers which, according to you, must exist to be an RPG.
0
Oh I see now. I didn't realize that the others were written before hand.
0
And that's exactly what I'm getting at. It may not do everything that an RPG of a different type can, (i.e Tabletop RPG) but it is still an RPG.
0
If it were the case that we could only play as humans, I would hope that we would have an equal opportunity to fight both demons and angels in PvE.
So RPG's are required to have multiple endings? Ok, someone needs to enlighten me what the real definition of an RPG is because apparrently all the Final Fantasy games I've played and the 3 years that I played WoW don't count.:rolleyes:
0
Seriously? Diablo has none of these? First of all, listing customization and choice is kind of redundant. Furthermore, I don't see any evidence that validates that there is "hardly" and customization; the game gives you numerous possibilities to choose from every level.
No control of story? Your choices - whether they're skill point allocation or positioning of your character - directly affect the outcome of the story in the most direct way in that if you can't beat a certain level then you cannot advance the story.
Dialogue, assuming your specifically talking about your character's dialogue, is obviously not in the game, but Diablo 3 will be changing that as well.
0
You are misinterpreting the definition that he gave you. You are assuming the roll of a fictional character; the one who saves Sanctuary from annihilation by the Prime Evils. Just because there is a limited amount of things you can interact with does not make it any less of a RPG game. The variety of actions that you can do has no bearing on the definition of a RPG - atleast that I can see - which makes your response inadequate to disproving that Diablo is not a RPG.
The "formal system" that the game follows are essentially the monsters' stats, which govern the success - or failure - of the player. The way that you characterize - or improvise - your character's stats and skills (also known as actions) will then be matched up with the "formal system" to result in either success or failure, which is exactly what the definition describes.
The game tells a story by allowing you, the player, to assume the role of one of the main characters to progress the story. This is the absolute essence of any RPG that I've ever played. I get the feeling that you only consider tabletop games and games that give you choices for dialogue to be true RPG's; that is simply not true. No question that D&D and other tabletop RPG's can be much deeper than computer games because the human imagination is much more vast than any computer program.
0
I forsee this scenario as the most likely one if they really decide to push a Diablo MMO.
0
I was just commenting about what the relationship between a Diablo Action RPG and a Diablo MMO would be. I don't understand why an Action RPG fan would get upset if they made an MMO version of the game. Simply don't buy it if you don't like it.
0
I don't understand why it has to be one or the other. Can't it just be that Blizzard wants to spread their franchises throughout multiple genres to evolve the story? What's to say that after they make a Diablo MMO that they won't make a "Diablo 4" with Action RPG gameplay?
0
I see no substance to your first argument. Before Warcraft was ever an MMO, it was a RTS game. Did anyone think that when Warcraft 3 came out it was definite MMO material? I know back then that I certainly didn't imagine Blizzard getting into the MMO market, and I can recall many people being very sceptical about how good WoW would be after it was announced.
I think this could somewhat depend on how the Diablo 3 story is told. Referencing the novels, it could be realistic to suggest that at a certain point the Naphalem could harness their powers enough to be able to fight angels and demons alike. We see this at the end of The Veiled Prophet where the edyrem are going toe to toe with the immortals during the last battle. Based on what Uldyssian was capable of doing towards the end of the Trilogy, and assuming that a MMO Diablo would take place in the world of Sanctuary, it is conceivable to think that the Naphalem would have some sort of advantage from being in their own realm, thus leveling the playing field even more.
All I am saying is that it's possible that Blizzard could completely open up this storyline if they felt that it would make a great game. As I've said, it's presumable - lore wise - that all three "races" could be equal. And since the Nephalem are capable of spreading their powers to others, it's safe to assume that many of Sanctuary's inhabitants would be "hero-like," hince the MMO feel. Can you imagine what that kind of PvP would be like?:D
0
What I want to know from someone is when did the pact made between Mephisto and The Angiris Council at the end of The Veiled Prophet first break? Also, did they ever end up making a seperate pact dealing with the Worldstone which is, again, something they hint to at the end of The Veiled Prophet.
1
I certainly don't agree with you here. I thought the politics within The Sin War Trilogy were fantasticly complex, and to point that out I am going to give you the list of the different factions and their interactionsn with one another that web them together.
You have the Three Prime Evils and their relationships with their children and followers, you have Inarius' relationship with both the Prime Evils and Angiris Council, you have Tyrael's relationship with the Angiris Council as well as with the Naphalem which are both seperate entities, and you have the Angiris Council's political relationship directly with the Prime Evils themselves. Not to mention, you have the Naphalem caught in the middle of this who could potentially be a power to be reckoned with, and you have the Mage Clans who up to this point aren't even part of the Naphalem. Oh and don't let me forget Trag' Oul, Rathma, and Mendeln who eventually become yet another faction all by themselves who are tyring simutaneously to keep all the others in check.
How many stories in general leave you a feeling of really not knowing who the bad guy is? You have Inarius betraying Heaven, and Lilith whose betrayal of Hell is essentially just as severe; both the Prime Evils and Angiris Council being equally pissed off about this. The Angiris Council, who supposedly represents total goodness, openely makes dealings with the Prime Evils essentially out of respect. Even the Naphalem could potentially become Sanctuary's worst enemy - as seen by Uldyssian's inability to control his powers - that you can't even rule them out as being the potential villian somewhere down the line. In my opinion, The Sin War Trilogy cleary deviates from the cookie-cutter fantasy stories that we've heard so many times.
I sort of see your point here, but we need to remember that they faced Uldyssian, who was clearly created to show us the potential power of the Naphalem to identify them as one of the power houses of the universe. If the humans are helpless or significantly inferior to the Angels and Demons then you don't have a story. Lets also remember that the Naphalem are essentially half angel and half demon; it's not like they are just a normal mortal species like the wildlife in the Torajian Jungles.
Again, you have to look at Uldyssian as the extreme case. His purpose is to show us the maximum potential of the Naphalem's powers, hince why Heaven and Hell would even want to be involved in the first place.[/quote]
Yeah I suppose it was obvious that she was more than she seemed but I thought her story was pretty interesting. Yes she was a demon and did horrible things to Uldyssian, but the Naphalem were her children. How far would you go to save your children? Her story is no where near cookie-cutter in my opinion.
I suppose I was a little dissapointed in how well a mere "human" could match up against immortals from other planes of existence, but we need to remember that Uldyssian altered the Worldstone in such a way that it essentially became his world. I would assume that if they were in Heaven or Hell that he would not be able to accomplish what he did.
The book explains why the spirit was restless with rage when it gives you the backstory between the demon and his angel lover. What this does is it adds yet another issue for both Heaven and Hell to focus on instead of just focusing on one another and thus making the story more complex. This "mix breeding" was esentially another way to put angels and demons on the same level instead of clearly making one of them good and one evil.
As someone else said, arguing about writing styles is futile and very subjective. However, I will respectfully disagree with you that the story is generic and not complex. I would have to say that having a 10-year-old child (Cedric) being skinned alive by Malic so it could be worn by a Morlu as a desguise is a pretty dark element to have in any story. I could go on but I think that illustrates my point.
0
I wouldn't what it to take place during a time that I eventually know what's going to happen. It should take place after Diablo 3 so that brand new content can be added that we can immerse ourself in.
0
This doesn't make sense to me. How can having two games of the same genre hurt you in any way? You can attract more players who lean towards one setting over the other (i.e fantasy over science fiction) or, assuming the player enjoys RTS's, - which we can assume is the case - you could potentially have one person buying two of your games.