Well when exactly was the pact broken that takes place at the end of The Veiled Prophet? I'm wondering if they gave any mention to it since I haven't finished reading all the books yet.
To me it's not logical that it would be Imperius in the meteor for the simple fact that Heaven already knew Sanctuary existed for over 3,000 years; why would Imperius come down to Sanctuary for any other reason then to destroy it completely? I suppose it's possible, but why now? The destruction of the World Stone? The only think it ever did that affected the Angels was mask it's existence from them. But like I said they already knew, so why would Imperius feel like he had to come down personally? I think it's much more logical that Tyrael has fallen, because they give you no other explanation in the final Diablo 2 cinematic or the Diablo 3 one to hint to the player how Diablo comes back, unless you take stock into them showing us the scene where Tyrael destroys the World Stone again.
Also, if we assume that the meteor is something other than a meteor crash landing to earth (i.e Tyrael), then why would Imperius be crash landing anywhere? The Angels from the books seemed to have no problems coming through cracks in the sky into Sanctuary so why all of a sudden does Imperius have this complicated landing into Sanctuary? The meteor - again if we assume it's not just a metoer - suggests that the character in question is in some kind of weakened state if you will. This is not Imperius
There is no shock here, Blizzard Irvine rips off tons of other peoples ideas. Look around you'll see what I mean. Warhammer, Everquest, some others that I can't remember right now but i'm sure most of you can think of.
This argument gets under my skin. Blizzard originated from Games Workshop, so really their ideas are atleast in part owned by Blizzard; obviously not legally but I assume we are talking ethics. Also, it is well known that Blizzard puts "hidden" acknowledgements to Warhammer so there is nothing hostile going on here. There is a saying that goes, "Those who can't do, teach." And in this case it was Everquest who taught Blizzard how to be, atleast right now, 11x more successful than Everquest ever was. Now obviously that is in big part due to technology but I'm sure that not even Blizzard would deny that they took some ideas from Everquest and made them much, much better. This is what we rationalists call evolution.
This is very true. After awhile it is spite for your *nemesis* or the interaction with your friends that keeps you on D2. The fact that it will be an MMO should solve this, in my opinion.
I really hope you are right on this. In my opinion Blizzard has gotten only about 10% of what they could potentially get from the lore that they've created about Sanctuary. The best thing about it is that they keep it very political, and Knaak stresses many times that all good is not good. The Nephelem give the story so much more life because there isn't a clear linear progression to the story like in WoW where the good guys and bad guys are made so obvious. The Diablo universe adresses the dichotomy of good an evil which is probably my favorite philosophical debate. Ok I promise I won't go off-topic anymore lol.
but i also do think that blizzard realizes that WoW is going to lose its thunder with the defeat of Arthas... So many people are complaining that Arthas is what made WoW.. im not one of them but i have heard this alot...
I actually used to wonder that myself, but I don't think it's hard for Blizzard to just simply add new content with new heroes and villians. Having said that, I just finished The Sin War Trilogy in exactly 8 days (couldn't put it down) and I was beyond impressed. It has so many moving parts which open up so many possibilities for story archs and progression; much more than the Warcraft storyline ever had. In my opinion this franchise has MMO written all over it.
To bring this back to my original point though, I really want to see the story spread over more of my characters career. One thing that Diablo 3 should take from WoW that has nothing to do with MMO's, in my opinion, is how they dealt with story progression versus character progression.
Some very good points are being brought up here. I do agree that, at its core, grinding in Diablo is more fun than grinding in WoW. The reason for that is because in Diablo you have more going on at once which gives you more things to focus each time you play. But what makes MMO grinding "fun" for me is that I know that eventually I will need better items because I know that more of the story is yet to be told and I will need to be prepared for it. This is one thing that I wish they can accomplish in Diablo 3.
I think the two in-game things that scare people the most about MMO's is the grinding and the dependence on other players to gain substantial progress in both story and statistics (i.e more hit points, more damage etc...). As an action RPG I don't believe that Diablo 3 should have any of these elements, but what I would like to see is an attempt from Blizzard to give me enough to do so that getting to level 99 isn't repititious.
Diablo 2 is a great game no question about it, but a fundamental flaw in the game for me is that by level 33 I already know everything about the storyline and what happens. At this point I can decide to play through the game again on a higher difficulty to continue leveling but ultimately what's the point? The reason I play RPG games is for story and progression, but I can't say that I like progression for progression's sake alone. I need some kind of "convincing," if you will, that there will be more things to come that I need to prepare myself for.
The way that WoW has implemented this is dwarfed by none in my opinion. The game is easy to learn, hard to master, and they don't tell you everything withing the first 33% of your characters journey to max level. I believe that you can please more people this way because you're still hooking the players that love the character progression, but also luring players that need more than just numbers to encourage them to play. Now is that an "MMO" philosophy? I'm not asking to be required to spend 5 hours a day to get anything meaningful accomplished; the game can still revolve around a single player or small groups. But at the very least the storyline should be strected out much farther than the first 33 levels of gameplay.
Of course we can't stop them all; not even a monthly fee could accomplish that. However do we not all agree that the amount of hacking/exploiting/botting was at a level that directly affected the integrity and difficulty of the game in an online setting? I seriously can't bear to play this game online it is such a joke.
One question I can't help but ask is why Blizzard ever allowed Diablo 2 to get as hacked and exploited as it did? Did they not have the resources to catch the hackers? Were they just lazy? Did they just not care? Did they actually think that it would make the game better by letting people hack it? What will be different about Diablo 3 that would encourage them to "clean up" battle.net?
You guys are rediculous. The game is not going to be too cartoony just look at the gameplay footage. There is plenty of blood and gore and "realism." I'm most afraid of people learning how to hack this game like they did the other installments. That's what completely ruined my experience with Diablo 2 over battle.net. I would gladly pay a $5 a month fee to make it a legitimate online game. I don't spend my time playing online games just to have all my items completely worthless due to hackers and exploiters. That's what we should all be fearing most.
0
To me it's not logical that it would be Imperius in the meteor for the simple fact that Heaven already knew Sanctuary existed for over 3,000 years; why would Imperius come down to Sanctuary for any other reason then to destroy it completely? I suppose it's possible, but why now? The destruction of the World Stone? The only think it ever did that affected the Angels was mask it's existence from them. But like I said they already knew, so why would Imperius feel like he had to come down personally? I think it's much more logical that Tyrael has fallen, because they give you no other explanation in the final Diablo 2 cinematic or the Diablo 3 one to hint to the player how Diablo comes back, unless you take stock into them showing us the scene where Tyrael destroys the World Stone again.
Also, if we assume that the meteor is something other than a meteor crash landing to earth (i.e Tyrael), then why would Imperius be crash landing anywhere? The Angels from the books seemed to have no problems coming through cracks in the sky into Sanctuary so why all of a sudden does Imperius have this complicated landing into Sanctuary? The meteor - again if we assume it's not just a metoer - suggests that the character in question is in some kind of weakened state if you will. This is not Imperius
0
So is it possible to like both games or do we have to choose?:rolleyes:
0
So exactly how would a console be any different from a PC at that point?
0
This argument gets under my skin. Blizzard originated from Games Workshop, so really their ideas are atleast in part owned by Blizzard; obviously not legally but I assume we are talking ethics. Also, it is well known that Blizzard puts "hidden" acknowledgements to Warhammer so there is nothing hostile going on here. There is a saying that goes, "Those who can't do, teach." And in this case it was Everquest who taught Blizzard how to be, atleast right now, 11x more successful than Everquest ever was. Now obviously that is in big part due to technology but I'm sure that not even Blizzard would deny that they took some ideas from Everquest and made them much, much better. This is what we rationalists call evolution.
1
I really hope you are right on this. In my opinion Blizzard has gotten only about 10% of what they could potentially get from the lore that they've created about Sanctuary. The best thing about it is that they keep it very political, and Knaak stresses many times that all good is not good. The Nephelem give the story so much more life because there isn't a clear linear progression to the story like in WoW where the good guys and bad guys are made so obvious. The Diablo universe adresses the dichotomy of good an evil which is probably my favorite philosophical debate. Ok I promise I won't go off-topic anymore lol.
0
I actually used to wonder that myself, but I don't think it's hard for Blizzard to just simply add new content with new heroes and villians. Having said that, I just finished The Sin War Trilogy in exactly 8 days (couldn't put it down) and I was beyond impressed. It has so many moving parts which open up so many possibilities for story archs and progression; much more than the Warcraft storyline ever had. In my opinion this franchise has MMO written all over it.
To bring this back to my original point though, I really want to see the story spread over more of my characters career. One thing that Diablo 3 should take from WoW that has nothing to do with MMO's, in my opinion, is how they dealt with story progression versus character progression.
0
I think the two in-game things that scare people the most about MMO's is the grinding and the dependence on other players to gain substantial progress in both story and statistics (i.e more hit points, more damage etc...). As an action RPG I don't believe that Diablo 3 should have any of these elements, but what I would like to see is an attempt from Blizzard to give me enough to do so that getting to level 99 isn't repititious.
Diablo 2 is a great game no question about it, but a fundamental flaw in the game for me is that by level 33 I already know everything about the storyline and what happens. At this point I can decide to play through the game again on a higher difficulty to continue leveling but ultimately what's the point? The reason I play RPG games is for story and progression, but I can't say that I like progression for progression's sake alone. I need some kind of "convincing," if you will, that there will be more things to come that I need to prepare myself for.
The way that WoW has implemented this is dwarfed by none in my opinion. The game is easy to learn, hard to master, and they don't tell you everything withing the first 33% of your characters journey to max level. I believe that you can please more people this way because you're still hooking the players that love the character progression, but also luring players that need more than just numbers to encourage them to play. Now is that an "MMO" philosophy? I'm not asking to be required to spend 5 hours a day to get anything meaningful accomplished; the game can still revolve around a single player or small groups. But at the very least the storyline should be strected out much farther than the first 33 levels of gameplay.
0
One question I can't help but ask is why Blizzard ever allowed Diablo 2 to get as hacked and exploited as it did? Did they not have the resources to catch the hackers? Were they just lazy? Did they just not care? Did they actually think that it would make the game better by letting people hack it? What will be different about Diablo 3 that would encourage them to "clean up" battle.net?
0