Diablo® III

Aidan: Ruining previous storylines

90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
06/06/2012 05:08 PMPosted by Vaizel
Retcons are for ailing franchises and mistakes.


Diablo 2 retconned much of Diablo 1's more Christian lore and streamlined it. Warcraft 2 retconned events from Warcraft 1, Warcraft 3 in turn retconned Warcraft 2's events.

I do not blame Blizzard for retconning this story, given the original writers of it quit halfway through developing the game and took the story with them. Basically they left Blizzard with two games worth of build up, then left. Of course Blizzard had to retcon things.
Reply Quote
31 Human Rogue
6485
06/06/2012 05:24 PMPosted by JohnnyZeWolf
There was nothing wrong with WarCraft I's story, yet Blizzard retconned the crap out of it.


WC1 was a first-stab attempt at making an RTS with some story elements.

D1 and D2 have an immensely successful legacy spanning 15 years. By the time the retcons were made in D3, the franchise had become one of the most recognizable in the world.

Don't even try to compare the tweaks they made in WC1 to the lazy retcons of D3.

06/06/2012 05:33 PMPosted by Melyria
Of course Blizzard had to retcon things.


No, they really didn't.
Edited by Hexxus#1912 on 6/6/2012 5:40 PM PDT
Reply Quote
06/06/2012 05:38 PMPosted by Vaizel
Don't even try to compare the tweaks they made in WC1 to the lazy retcons of D3.


They aren't just "tweaks"; they are massive retcons.
Edited by JohnnyZeWolf#1953 on 6/6/2012 5:49 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
D1 and D2 have an immensely successful legacy spanning 15 years. By the time the retcons were made in D3, the franchise had become one of the most recognizable in the world.


You're aware the vast majority of the retcons took place in 2006, right?

06/06/2012 05:38 PMPosted by Vaizel
Don't even try to compare the tweaks they made in WC1 to the lazy retcons of D3.


In WC1 they had a setting that was very much fantasy ingrained with real life. The 'church' was the catholic church, yet there were orcs and demons, who were effectively the devil. WC2 took that world and stripped much of its 'real life' or 'biblical' world and attempted to created a world that was separate from our reality, to the point where the 'church' was its own faith.

Diablo 3 (or rather the Sin War novels, 6 years ago) retconned much of Diablo's more christian backstory and instead gave us a new genesis for the world, separated angels and demons from their 'real life' expectations.

WC2 and D3 attempted the exact same thing.
Reply Quote
06/06/2012 05:49 PMPosted by Melyria
D1 and D2 have an immensely successful legacy spanning 15 years. By the time the retcons were made in D3, the franchise had become one of the most recognizable in the world.


You're aware the vast majority of the retcons took place in 2006, right?

06/06/2012 05:38 PMPosted by Vaizel
Don't even try to compare the tweaks they made in WC1 to the lazy retcons of D3.


In WC1 they had a setting that was very much fantasy ingrained with real life. The 'church' was the catholic church, yet there were orcs and demons, who were effectively the devil. WC2 took that world and stripped much of its 'real life' or 'biblical' world and attempted to created a world that was separate from our reality, to the point where the 'church' was its own faith.

Diablo 3 (or rather the Sin War novels, 6 years ago) retconned much of Diablo's more christian backstory and instead gave us a new genesis for the world, separated angels and demons from their 'real life' expectations.

WC2 and D3 attempted the exact same thing.
Theres absolutely nothing to suggest that the churches in WC1 were Catholic. Nothing. You keep listing your opinions as fact, without any basis or backing, as if they are self evident.

Basically what I'm saying is that you pull a lot out of your !@#, and you should stop, because the only thing you'll find up there is $%^-.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
06/07/2012 12:05 AMPosted by Anima
Theres absolutely nothing to suggest that the churches in WC1 were Catholic. Nothing. You keep listing your opinions as fact, without any basis or backing, as if they are self evident.


Er... except all the mentions about God, angels, demons, Hell and the latin chanting during the church music that translates to an actual catholic prayer hymn, right?

06/07/2012 12:05 AMPosted by Anima
Basically what I'm saying is that you pull a lot out of your !@#, and you should stop, because the only thing you'll find up there is $%^-.


What a big surprise that I've actually done my research and you didn't.
Reply Quote
06/06/2012 05:08 PMPosted by Vaizel
Retcons are for ailing franchises and mistakes. Diablo didn't fall into either of those categories. Therefore, it is a bad retcon. Period, the end.


this! X9000
Reply Quote
I should probably note that one person recognized the Warrior in Diablo one - Ogden. As I recall, he only greets the Warrior with the 'Thank goodness you've returned! Much has changed since you've been away' line.

It's not a stretch of the imagination to believe that any other townspeople who recognize him are dead - the tiny collection of people in the game isn't really enough to call a town.

I imagine the Warrior was present long enough to meet the local tavern owner (Ogden), and then either fled or was exiled when Leoric's insanity became more obvious. Or maybe Lazarus was involved.

"Rest well, Leoric. I'll find your son." may not be all THAT odd if you consider the possibility he might no longer consider himself a family member - maybe there was a falling out of sorts. You know, since the king was crazy and listening to an evil 'priest'.

And complaining about nameless characters being named is just petty.
Reply Quote
When you slay the skeleton king in d1, the character says "Rest well, Leoric. I'll find your son.". Doesnt sound like something a son would say to a father after he slays him. Also, im pretty sure d1 referred to Albrecht as his ONLY son.


This^

I have no problem with giving the Dark Wanderer a name, or even with the majority of the story line in general. However, Stating that Aidan was the eldest son to Leoric is absolutely contradictory to what they established in Diablo 1. Quoted from the Diablo 1 manual, " Lazarus kidnapped Albrecht - the only son of Leoric -".

I don't know were or when Aidan got thrown into the storyline but Blizzard should have done a little bit more research into their own franchise before even throwing that idea around in the first place. Biggest loophole in the storyline IMO.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
When you slay the skeleton king in d1, the character says "Rest well, Leoric. I'll find your son.". Doesnt sound like something a son would say to a father after he slays him. Also, im pretty sure d1 referred to Albrecht as his ONLY son.


This^

I have no problem with giving the Dark Wanderer a name, or even with the majority of the story line in general. However, Stating that Aidan was the eldest son to Leoric is absolutely contradictory to what they established in Diablo 1. Quoted from the Diablo 1 manual, " Lazarus kidnapped Albrecht - the only son of Leoric -".

I don't know were or when Aidan got thrown into the storyline but Blizzard should have done a little bit more research into their own franchise before even throwing that idea around in the first place. Biggest loophole in the storyline IMO.


... seriously? "Biggest loophold"? Some perspective might be needed.

What makes you think Blizzard didn't know about all this dialogue going in? You can retcon something intentionally. Blizzard didn't want the Warrior/Wanderer to be some random shmuck who had no personality, no backstory and no real ties to the game.

He even gets some personality and closure in Book of Cain, thanks to him being Aiden.
Reply Quote
I'm baffled by how intense some of you guys get about this stuff despite seeming not to have paid very close attention. (Maybe you were already mad when you started playing?) Early in Act I, Deckard Cain says that Leoric "lost both of his sons." In the original Diablo you don't know he's Aidan because no one in Tristram knows he's Aidan, for the same reason Marius doesn't know he's Aidan: None of these people ever met him. Leoric moved in, was essentially sequestered by Lazarus, and something (we know not what) became of his sons. I gathered that Leoric ordered them executed along with his wife, Aidan escaped, and Lazarus kept this from Leoric for fear he would turn on him.

This is actually untrue, and while it has been countered above, there is another indication that the townspeople do know the hero in D1. This is an excerpt for Ogden's introductory text crawl:
Thank goodness you've returned! Much has changed since you lived here, my friend.

Huh? What? The hero lived in Tristram before?

And this retcon IS a big deal, because it completely and utterly destroys any impact the "twist" at the end has. You see it coming from a mile away, because the opening cinematic of the game reveals Aidan is the Dark Wanderer, and then Leah tells you she's Aidan's daughter, and then it's revealed later in Act 1 that Adria was apart of Belial's cult. So when Adria is introduced, you know right off the bat that she's going to betray you. Deckard Cain's death only solidifies this notion because they're trying to force the mentor role onto Adria(and did so poorly).
Edited by Novaflare#1252 on 6/7/2012 8:56 AM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
06/07/2012 08:55 AMPosted by Novaflare
Huh? What? The hero lived in Tristram before?


"Lived here" is kinda generic, you have to admit. The cathedral where Leoric lived was a stone's throw from Tristram.

06/07/2012 08:55 AMPosted by Novaflare
and then Leah tells you she's Aidan's daughter, and then it's revealed later in Act 1 that Adria was apart of Belial's cult.


Er... it isn't 'revealed', its foreshadowed. There is a difference. I agree that that it was foreshadowed a tad too much and could've been done better, but lets be honest here. Leah did not say her father was Aiden, she said her father was a warrior who died in the during the events of Diablo 1. Magda doesn't tell you Adria was a member of the Coven, just that another leader left some 20-odd years ago.

The people I know who didn't entirely care about the game, IE people who didn't bother with reading spoilers, were surprised at the reveal that Leah was the Wanderer's daughter. They felt that Adria wasn't on the level, but they weren't sure when and where it was going to happen.

I really think people are judging things based partially on spoilers that they read, using that meta data to view the game. Lets be fair here, if you spoiled one or two of the game's events, you can piece together the narrative fairly quickly.
Reply Quote
06/06/2012 05:08 PMPosted by Vaizel
Retcons are for ailing franchises and mistakes. Diablo didn't fall into either of those categories. Therefore, it is a bad retcon. Period, the end.


By that logic there isn't a franchise that's over 10 years old that isn't failing.
Reply Quote
06/07/2012 12:52 AMPosted by Melyria
Theres absolutely nothing to suggest that the churches in WC1 were Catholic. Nothing. You keep listing your opinions as fact, without any basis or backing, as if they are self evident.


Er... except all the mentions about God, angels, demons, Hell and the latin chanting during the church music that translates to an actual catholic prayer hymn, right?

Basically what I'm saying is that you pull a lot out of your !@#, and you should stop, because the only thing you'll find up there is $%^-.


What a big surprise that I've actually done my research and you didn't.

I don't think you know what 'catholic' means. Christian =/= Catholic. You fail. Again.
Reply Quote


This^

I have no problem with giving the Dark Wanderer a name, or even with the majority of the story line in general. However, Stating that Aidan was the eldest son to Leoric is absolutely contradictory to what they established in Diablo 1. Quoted from the Diablo 1 manual, " Lazarus kidnapped Albrecht - the only son of Leoric -".

I don't know were or when Aidan got thrown into the storyline but Blizzard should have done a little bit more research into their own franchise before even throwing that idea around in the first place. Biggest loophole in the storyline IMO.


... seriously? "Biggest loophold"? Some perspective might be needed.

What makes you think Blizzard didn't know about all this dialogue going in? You can retcon something intentionally. Blizzard didn't want the Warrior/Wanderer to be some random shmuck who had no personality, no backstory and no real ties to the game.

He even gets some personality and closure in Book of Cain, thanks to him being Aiden.
I was going to encourage you to stop posting, but everytime you do I think a little less of you and I get a good chuckle. Please, continue making yourself look unintelligent, delusional, and stubborn.
Reply Quote
06/07/2012 02:57 PMPosted by Anima


Er... except all the mentions about God, angels, demons, Hell and the latin chanting during the church music that translates to an actual catholic prayer hymn, right?



What a big surprise that I've actually done my research and you didn't.

I don't think you know what 'catholic' means. Christian =/= Catholic. You fail. Again.


You go back to the middle ages, which is comparable to when Warcraft takes place, and Catholic more or less = christian. Besides, at this point, your nit-picking.

Any series over 10 years old is going to change even at it's most fundamental levels. The Dark Wanderer being Aiden isn't that big a change, and it actually makes the character better, giving him a personal reason to be there.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
06/07/2012 02:57 PMPosted by Anima


Er... except all the mentions about God, angels, demons, Hell and the latin chanting during the church music that translates to an actual catholic prayer hymn, right?



What a big surprise that I've actually done my research and you didn't.

I don't think you know what 'catholic' means. Christian =/= Catholic. You fail. Again.


Its a catholic hymn. You're trying to nitpick because you don't want to admit you were wrong.

06/07/2012 03:00 PMPosted by Anima
I was going to encourage you to stop posting, but everytime you do I think a little less of you and I get a good chuckle. Please, continue making yourself look unintelligent, delusional, and stubborn.


This coming from the guy who ignorantly shot off his mouth about the church not being catholic without doing an ounce of research prior?
Reply Quote

"Lived here" is kinda generic, you have to admit. The cathedral where Leoric lived was a stone's throw from Tristram.

Leoric did not live in the Cathedral, not even close! I understand what they tried to do with the whole Aidan thing but I tend to agree it's a bad retcon altogether that invalidates a lot of dialogue from D1.


but lets be honest here. Leah did not say her father was Aiden, she said her father was a warrior who died in the during the events of Diablo 1.
In all honesty when my Leah told me that her mother 'Adria' (which lets remember was a key person in D1) told her that a great Warrior from the events of Old Tristram it was painfully obvious that she was Aidans daughter and therefore diablos child, when its revealed at the end of Act III its not even a revelation more so reaffirmation since its the only information that fits with the lore already presented.
Reply Quote
... seriously? "Biggest loophold"? Some perspective might be needed.

What makes you think Blizzard didn't know about all this dialogue going in? You can retcon something intentionally. Blizzard didn't want the Warrior/Wanderer to be some random shmuck who had no personality, no backstory and no real ties to the game.

He even gets some personality and closure in Book of Cain, thanks to him being Aiden.


Now I just want to say that by biggest loophole I mean that its the biggest loophole in the storyline, besides asking what happened to the other two hero's. It does not mean that it's so big it makes the entire storyline incomprehensible.

With that out of the way I would like to draw your attention to the part were I said,

06/07/2012 04:05 AMPosted by DeathWarden
I have no problem with giving the Dark Wanderer a name


Apparently that didn't get read. Like I said I have absolutely no problem with giving him a name,title, and a backstory. However, I do have a problem with contradicting the lore thats already been established. Blizzard could have chosen hundreds of other titles and backstories that didn't effect the previous lore. Imagine if a writer pulled that in a book trilogy; you just finish establishing a storyline and lore for the past two books; then go ahead and change previous character relationships from book 1 while continuing the same storyline.

That idea would never go over well with any publisher or readers for that matter, so why should I give leniency to video game storylines? If you're not going to be true to the previous storyline than you might as well just make a completely different game.
Reply Quote
Go and read the book of cain. It clearly mentions that, "In addition to the rogue and the sorcerer, there were others, who like Aidan, were warriors." So aidan becomes diablo's host. The other two probably went insane and it can be speculated that the rogue became blood raven, and the sorcerer became the Summoner.
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)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]