Diablo® III

what's the use of of the Aidan retcon?

And did I read this right are yhou getting overly sensitive because I didnt recongize your time zone. LOL High level of sensitivity I see. Regardless if it's 3pm where you are still wasting your time argueing about a game you never played hahaha


I aint even mad bro about posting in my timezone. You're the one that started commenting how my life was so cool because I was posting at what - 6:30pm at night...?

Please...your life must be so much better because your posting at 4:00am in the morning in 12 different threads just to say Diablo 3 sucks in 12 different topics/contexts. Nice goals you got there kid.

But hey, obviously you're so butthurt about Diablo's story you have to be up at this time and r get it out of your system. Since you know, you must be losing sleeping over it...?

But whatevs, cool lives for everyone in this forum.....


Again you don't know how to read do you? You were being told off for being a fool. I enjoyed doing it. Being put in your place does not = butthurt. Only little kids would think those correlate 100% of the time. So lemme get this straight according to your lack of intelligence anyone who ever is awake at 4 am has no life? Very solid line of thinking there. Blowing off steam and discussing what i dislike about the game for a night = the rest of my life being nothing? You DO realize that people will spend a day every now and then out of 365 just farting around with random nonsense right?

How long has the game been out? And I ONLY spent the last hour or two discussing the story whoaaaaa! Not to mention we're playing a video game it's all one giant waste of time. Difference is I'm not wasting my time being a fool and antagonizing people over something I have no knowledge about like you did.

And actually if you could read you;'d realize I had no problem until you told me what to think when you have ZERO knowledge of the previous game which was being discussed. Keep embarassing yourself though.
Edited by Shingram#1112 on 6/1/2012 11:38 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,018
Diablo 1 barely had a coherent plotline. Retconning throw away dialog to make the Warrior more important doesn't seriously negatively impact the story.

Then again, I recall the same rage when it was revealed that Blood Raven was the Rogue or that the wizard was the Summoner.
Reply Quote
To the guy critiqueing the bs story I wrote in 5 mins as if it was suppossed to be a full length novel please take your hand...reach to your backside and remove the stick that apparently was jammed firmly into your a**.
That was offered as a completely bs hypothetical and it was not offered as a serious demand. It was only offered because of the other guys completely false assertion that making him "Leorics son" with a single line of dialougue is totally important for new fans to the point where it should trump any past continuity. If you're going to completely retcon a character who makes up over 1/3 of the entire franchise you should invest a modicrum of time into it rather than blow a single line on making him "Leorics son".

Again the other guys arguement was that it increases his meaning to new fans (even though it doesn't) so my hypothetical was my way of saying you can retcon to make him seem important but one single line of dialougue isn't going to make an impact at ALL. Instead there should have been either an opening recap (Cinematics are always cool and/or skippable) OR as a HUGE bit of fanservice (and it'd be fanservice alone) have a playable OPTIONAL prolougue. Speaking of fanservice how bout that animation they released? Maybe it would have been an opportunity to explore this crucial revelation?

Perhaps you should also come to terms with the fact that you do not speak for all new gamers because if I'm a gamer new to what is a legendary franchise if i knew about this optional prolougue I'd jump all over it. I'd be very interested. Then again I'm a fan of good story telling and character development which YOU DONT HAVE TO BE. But clearly there is a very large, already established contingent of D fans who DO and we are taking this time to discuss this. It's very sad that you are so selfish you could not realize this and instead had to be a complete jerk. What I was talking about with that recap stuff was doing what would have been right for the already established fans of the series who have waited a decade for this. How could you be so short sighted as to not realize why a new fan has no reason to start telling old fans how to feel on this topic?

If a new fan goes back to D1 they're going to laugh in Blizzard's face for clearly not doing their HW on that one. My own personal feeling is simply that it was an inconsequential, lazy writing decision and that they should have never ID'd him as leorics son.

Everything else about "Aidan" in this game could have stayed status quo and been fine. Leah's father? Check. Fine. No problem. But labeling him leroic's son is actually a mistake. It does in fact contradict everything that had previously been established with the character who btw is central to the entire franchise so this is not a minor character.

The real problem I have as I stated is it seems like they just frankly did not care about this franchise and were simply attaching the name Diablo to it to suck out more money...either that or they are just really uncreative and bad at storytelling which is unfortunate because as I've said countless times this is a great gameplaying experience. No the story does not RUIN it (as I've said countless times) but the story and moreover the EXECUTION of the story was bad...real bad...certain aspects so bad that it's impossible for fans of the series to avoid being aggravated, discussing the flaws and rightfully criticizing them. If you're a long standing fan and you have no problem with it fine. But if you are someone who has never played D1 or either D game then this was not a thread in which you should have been forcing your opinion on others.

No I do not seriously want a playable prologue nor did I legitamately ask for one. As a huge fan of the series technically yea I'd find it real fun but I am in no way demanding they should have actually implement something like that. It was a hypothetical and it is a much better way of retconning a character then randiomly throwing a single line of dialougue out there which is in fact lazy. As for your reasoning that newer players wouldn't want to play it I again have to question you because there is a very very very simple answer to that poorly thought out rebuttal. You DO realize how many games are out there that ask if you would like to skip tutorial type sections? Hell COD had that whole terminal stage you could skip. In half a second what was apparently your only real arguement against what was just an unedited musing on my part has been summarily dismissed.

I had fun taking all of five minutes to write that little tidbit what kind of moron r u for taking something seriously and critiqueing it to that degree when i spent all of 5 minutes on it lol. Blizz on the other hand had what a decade? And we fans of the previous games had to wait all that time? Huge difference between us lodging criticisms over that and you acting like a complete jerk for apparently no reason whatsoever.
Edited by Shingram#1112 on 6/1/2012 12:25 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Diablo 1 barely had a coherent plotline. Retconning throw away dialog to make the Warrior more important doesn't seriously negatively impact the story.

Then again, I recall the same rage when it was revealed that Blood Raven was the Rogue or that the wizard was the Summoner.


If you read the actual game manual there's an enormous backstory which was very enjoyable for many fans of the series and it was perfectly coherent. Saying it was not coherent is just a lie. However if you did not read all the text in game and in the manual then yes I'd agree you wouldn't have gotten any plot whatsoever. Many have also gone on to detail the atmosphere and character development with the Butcher used as a prime example. What you have said indicates you may be a little uninformed or are passing off an opinion as true fact when it is actually misinformed and/or false
Edited by Shingram#1112 on 6/1/2012 12:31 PM PDT
Reply Quote
06/01/2012 12:24 PMPosted by Shingram
How could you be so short sighted as to not realize why a new fan has no reason to start telling old fans how to feel on this topic?


You're mixing me up with someone else clearly because I am an old fan who has played all 3 Diablos. I also love how you say snippy lines all throughout this thread, meant to insult people, and then try to insult them further when they insult you back. It's really a long chain of pathetic. I never insulted you, I insulted your story. Which you already admitted was awful, at least. You also can't forget that you said this, "Bam right there totally impactful, totally IMPORTANT and it satisfies old fans while introducing new fans to this universe in a PERFECT way," at the very end of the post. I don't care if you wrote it in 5 minutes and admit later that it's terrible. You said it introduces things in a "PERFECT way." I felt the need to point out that it was far from that.

And honestly man, I can only take you seriously half of the time. For the most part, you type in proper sentences, spelling out your full words. Then you just start using letters instead of words and making yourself look ridiculous.

06/01/2012 12:24 PMPosted by Shingram
moron r u for taking something seriously and critiqueing it to that degree when i spent all of 5 minutes on it lol


The "r u" killed it for me. I just ended up laughing. And if you're going to pass it off as better than the current scenario, you best believe it's going to get its flaws picked at.

The problem with making it skippable is that people would miss out on a now major part of the story by skipping it! They choose to either have to waste a significant amount of time not yet jumping into their character or miss out on a significant part of the story.

And no, there was not "only one arguement against it" in my post. I also complained about how bad the story would be if you switched Aidan for Tyrael. One, for bringing a character back to life and ruining the integrity of his previous tragedy and, two, for giving characters a different level of insight that would ruin certain betrayal happenings and cause the entire plot to be changed.

I honestly don't think changing one detail, only making an anonymous character known, is a big deal.

"Well, Aidan is not the son of Asylla. After Leoric knocked up his Mother, he send her and her bastard child away, to avoid unnecessary gossip. Alimony payments were of course provided generously, and than Aidan went to military boarding school. He never seen his half brother, and people of Tristram never met him, until he returned after Leoric was murdered by Lachdanan."

I think this post gives you a pretty good explanation and doesn't ruin the story of Diablo at all with Aidan being Leoric's son. Not in that exact wording, I'm sure. Unless you're going to complain that Leoric being unfaithful would be ridiculous.
Reply Quote
Apologies when i said you I meant that one guy who I was ...having a friendly debate with ;). Again learn to read and maybe just maybe use a little common sense. You mad b/c I got in an arguement with ONE person in this thread. ONE. You came out swinging from your very first post towards me. You're a complete jerk in this thread. I had a pretty legit reason to tell him off you on the other hand don't seem to have a reason to come after me and what i wrote the way you did.

If r u killed you then It seems you're not very social since that's kinda common.

Btw the first three paragraphs are totally off topic and it seems like nothing but nitpicking. Try not distracting from the main point for a post.

Again you took something I did in 5 minutes and attacked it like it was suppossed to be the work of Stephen King. I'm sorry in no way was your very antagonistic review warranted especially since your only real critique that I saw seems to be an idiotic one "New fans don't want to play that/see that".

But apparently there was even more from you that made zero sense. If the entire game stayed exactly the same...i repeat EXACTLY the same as it is now...except they ADD this extra informative optional prolougue/recap then if a fan chooses to skip it they are hypothetically receiving the same exact experience they are recieving now. Again i don't give half a horses last sh** about new fans. This optional thing would be meant as fan service for established fans and is in no way something that a new fan would HAVE to see. To suggest that new fans need to see this optional recap/prolougue when they clearly did not get to see one in the current D3...please slap yourself for yet another completely nonsensical rebuttal.

The tyreal arguement you made wasn't acknowledged because frankly I forgot you had said it but yea thats a poor arguement too. The story is already a giant mess I frankly wouldn't give a damn if they res'd him although I recognize perhaps other established fans would. So again easy alternatives that if you spend half a second thinking about it instead of reacting poorly you'd come up with on your own. Diablo has come back to life multiple times and no one complains about that so why would it have been so horrible for Aidan's soul to be tied somehow to D (I dunno insert crazy nonsensical soultones plot) and return as well? Perhaps only his spirit is sent as a source of knowledge to replace Cain. There are ways it could work and it'd make MUCH more sense and be a lot less damaging to the entire D franchise lore then this mortyreal nonsense.

I never said it was a big deal but I did say ina thread about this one thing what I disliked about it and for fun offered an alternative. It technically is a huge deal to continuity because it literally contradicts everything that previously occurred with the character.

"Doesn't ruin the story with Aid being Leoric's son" Yea it still does b/c based on the first game he his not even close to being Leoric's kid and it still leaves you with the question why the hell even do it? Which you have thus far failed to answer in all your ranting against me. And since you're all worried about it how would they present this lore altering change? ANother random line of dialougue from a journal?
Edited by Shingram#1112 on 6/2/2012 3:58 AM PDT
Reply Quote
I thought the warrior = Aidan retcon was done in one of the older novels, not by the D3 team. They were just choosing one continuity path over another when they were already divergent in official sources
Reply Quote
06/02/2012 07:56 AMPosted by Naanomi
I thought the warrior = Aidan retcon was done in one of the older novels, not by the D3 team. They were just choosing one continuity path over another when they were already divergent in official sources
They definitely should've chosen the one established in their own game. This one blows.
Reply Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rqHlp928RE&feature=player_detailpage#t=70s

Here's this voice clip just to add insight. You can say what you want about the first Diablo game not having much story, but there are many things that were established by small bits of dialogue alone.

I guess there are maybe SOME people out there who after killing their father will only refer to him by his name, and then also regard his only brother as simply "that guy's son", all in very distant and detached mannerisms.

A bit of a stretch, though.
Reply Quote
The irony is that an unnamed mercanary looking for good pay makes room for a more interesting story.
The eldest son of the king that comes and tries to save the day makes it simple and takes a step towards cheesines.

Movie? forget about it now Chris.
Reply Quote
The irony is that an unnamed mercanary looking for good pay makes room for a more interesting story.
The eldest son of the king that comes and tries to save the day makes it simple and takes a step towards cheesines.

Movie? forget about it now Chris.


My thoughts exactly Dirk. See it was cool in Diablo II because it felt like Diablo's corruption was absolute, no one was safe from it. He could even corrupt say...the very character YOU PLAYED IN THE FIRST GAME.

But now that we've decided that that character is really the OTHER son of Leoric (it honestly sounds like a cheap write-in for Days of Our Lives), Diablo corrupting him like he did his little brother just makes it seem like a matter of family-related FATE than anything else. And that's more than a bit cheesy.
Reply Quote
Iirc, the loss of Albrect is what sends Leoric into the final fit that ends his life, namely blaming the local town for the loss of his only son and the subsequent executions, leading Lachdanan to kill him. This is a pretty big piece of Diablo 1.

It is also missing young Albrect, the now crown prince, that has Archbishop Lazarus leading the towns folk into the monastery to their death, feeding Diablo their terror that arises from the butchering.

All of the dialogue, for every event in Diablo 1 for the warrior feels out of place. All interactions, all relation... it is just -WRONG-. Simply put, some hacks at Blizzard took a post game novel that introduced a cheezy idea like all of their novels, and they ran with it, not the previous games lore, as cannon.

Aidan even existing is a huge plot hole. It is unnecessary, adds no more depth to the dark wanderer and adds extremely questionable events.

There isn't even a continuity issue with Aidan in the D3 craptastic lore path they chose for Diablo (namely him being a !@#$ing prophet and determining events before they were to even unfold...). If Aidan doesn't exist, it doesn't matter. Leah doesn't become some ruler, she is just some woman who lives with Cain. All that is crucial for the D3 plot, Leah has to be the daughter of Diablo, conceived by the Hero from D1, the Dark Wanderer from D2.

D1 and D2 are continuous in their story... why can't D3?
Reply Quote
05/31/2012 02:30 PMPosted by Melyria
if you didn't read the Book of Cain or read D3 spoilers, you'd maybe be surprised at who Aiden turned out to be.


Not really, there would have still have doubt about it, but yeah, giving the warrior of d1 a name and a backstory kinda help to not give right away the plot twist of the game (even if its an obvious one)

So whats better ?
A. "Aidan came to me last night"
reaction: (Aidan? didn't have any Aidan in D1 as I recall, maybe its the warrior from D1)

B. "The Hero of D1 came to me last night"
reaction: (dah !** ? the dark wanderer is the father of leah ??)

I'll go with A.
Reply Quote
Here's my possibility for this whole thing.

Possibly, Aidan heard of the bad news going around town so he goes in undercover. You know, to investigate and being undercover, no one else would know?
Reply Quote
Melyria 2 questions

1)how many hours/day do you troll story forums
2) what motivates you to be such a juggernaut fanboy that youd wolf-down this terrible plot, thank blizzard for it, and spend said hours/day defending this literary garbage
Reply Quote
Here's my possibility for this whole thing.

Possibly, Aidan heard of the bad news going around town so he goes in undercover. You know, to investigate and being undercover, no one else would know?

But this requires Aidan to actually exist, which he didn't.

For the why: Because dunning-kruger effect.
Reply Quote
Really enjoyed the troll deathmatch between Shingram and Dioblastoise. LET BATTLE BE JOINED >:-O

I personally found the whole Aidan-is-Leoric's-son thing dumb, unnecessary, and detrimental to the story. The warrior was obviously not Leoric's son in either of the first two games; the lore and dialogues would've mentioned it (whether it's in the novels or not). There's no room for creative interpretation there either - making this part of official lore makes every NPC in Diablo 1 (and several in Diablo 2) look like a clueless moron.

I didn't see it adding anything at all to the Diablo 3 story either. The dark wanderer was already one of the most critical and interesting characters in the Diablo story line - he didn't need anything more to give his character flavor or depth. He was a skilled fighter who started as just some guy, but who became a hero by vanquishing the lord of terror, bravely sacrificing himself to contain evil in his own body, and ultimately falling to evil - that's already really interesting. Not everyone significant in a story needs to be part of a royal bloodline - it feels too neat and easy, just like the rest of the writing in this game.

I understand why Shingram was getting all up in arms about it - it isn't a HUGE deal, but for someone who's been a big fan of Diablo since the beginning, the story line and background lore were a lot of what made it so easy to immerse yourself in Diablo games. Diablo 3 should have built upon it, not conveniently ignored and rewritten it. Retroactively changing aspects of the story for no important reason is... just insulting to the people who were most excited about this game. It's almost like if a brand new company bought the rights to a Lord of the Rings sequel trilogy and revealed that OMG Aragorn had been Sauron's grandson the whole time!!!

That's my take. It felt like just another dumb thing that the Diablo 3 writers did, probably because they hadn't played the first two games. And the biggest point is - if they had left out the dumb bit about Aidan being the son of Leoric, new gamers wouldn't have missed anything and Diablo 1&2 fans wouldn't have been annoyed (at least not by this). As it is, it added an insignificant cliche aspect to the story that did nothing for new gamers and pissed off some Diablo 1&2 fans.

Why???
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,770
Lazarus kidnapped Albrecht - the only son of Leoric - and dragged the terrified youth down into the blackness of the labyrinth. Flooding the boy’s defenseless mind with the essence of pure Terror, Diablo easily took possession of the young Albrecht. - Diablo 1 Instruction Manual

Let's all face it, people suck at remembering/researching their own lore, or worse, building upon it.

I just find it incredibly hilarious how the instruction manual foresaw this completely useless retcon.
Reply Quote
In my opinion the only reason they made the Dark Wanderer the son of Leoric was so that Leah could be a princess and the rightful ruler of Tristram. I'm so glad D3's end involved Leah dying, rather than being a fairytale princess who somehow restored Tristram.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]