Diablo® III

"Do not fail me Rakanoth,..."

"Or your fate will be the same as Iskatu's."

So what does it mean?
Rakanoth fails if he loses to the hero. Iskatus' fate was to be defeated by the hero.

So, what Diablo is saying essentially translates to:

"Don't get killed by the hero or you will get killed by the hero."

HURRDURRR! I ARE PRIME EVULZ!

Seriously, Chris Metzen, you're great at creating enganging settings, but please let someone else write villain dialogue.
Edited by Nightbreeze#1246 on 6/13/2012 6:59 AM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
It means even if he manages to survive being beaten, Diablo is going to kill him. Rakanoth was dead either way, unless he won.
Reply Quote
No. He threatens Rakanoth with Iskatu's fate specifically, which was death by the hero.
Reply Quote
^
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
06/13/2012 08:19 AMPosted by Nightbreeze
No. He threatens Rakanoth with Iskatu's fate specifically, which was death by the hero.


Iskatu's fate and the fate of his brothers. Which was death.

If a mobster runs your friend over with a car and says "Get me my money or you'll end up like him." That doesn't mean he's going to hit you with a car too. It means you're going to be dead.

Cripes, you're seriously trying to make a non-issue like this into a reason to hate the story?
Reply Quote
90 Goblin Rogue
11235
I thought I was the only one who had an issue with this line
Reply Quote
"If you run, I will kill you."

Happy? I guess people will find anything to complain about.
Reply Quote
06/13/2012 07:02 AMPosted by Melyria
It means even if he manages to survive being beaten, Diablo is going to kill him. Rakanoth was dead either way, unless he won.


I like how this Melyria troll is just running from post to post defending Blizzard at all costs. Another typical fanboy who isn't getting paid to be their PR Rep but acts like it and secretly imagines that they care.

The story sucks, and you do too for trying desperately and breathlessly to defend it at every angle.

Its like a staunch Republican trying to come up to me now, in 2012, and try to convince me (an Iraq veteran) that the Iraq war was justified and that Bush was a visionary for going in there. Not only do I know better (like the playerbase does here with D3), but he comes across as a try hard schmuck (you)
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
I like how this Melyria troll is just running from post to post defending Blizzard at all costs. Another typical fanboy who isn't getting paid to be their PR Rep but acts like it and secretly imagines that they care.



Hi.

Tyrael was the most boring character in the game.
Act 2 was botched so heavily and deserved to be two acts, not one.
Cain's death was mishandled.
Diablo was too wordy.
The Act 3/4 cinematic was pointless.
The atmosphere in D3 is not as grim or gritty as it was in D1 and D2.
Eirena I find to be grating.
Act 1 felt reversed and the Skeleton King should've probably been the Act boss.
Belial was predictable and transparent.
We didn't get to see the other Sin Lieutenants.
We didn't get to see enough of the other Evil's presence within Diablo Prime.
I have a problem with Tyrael staying behind as you face Diablo.
I have a problem with Magda expositing about the next sword fragment being int he Nephalem temple.
I have a problem that the Betrayal was not shown in cinematic.
I have issue with how open ended the final cinematic is.
Not enough ambient lore via journals.
The plot hole with the Soulstone and Mephisto and Diablo's soul.
Zoltun Kulle being killed.
Lack of build up and explaination for the Triune Cult.
Too much foreshadowing for Adria and Leah's twists.
Act 3 and 4 were too short.
Cain's beastiary should've been read by Leah, not Cain.
The voice acting for Magda, female Barbarian, female witch doctor, female monk and Emperor Hakkan II (when will people learn not to hire child voice actors)


Would you like to shut up now?

06/13/2012 09:37 AMPosted by Zeratul
The story sucks, and you do too for trying desperately and breathlessly to defend it at every angle.


Nitpicking a line that has a logical outcome (If you fail, you're dead) and trying to take it too literally, is not a good argument for why the game is bad.

If somebody did the same thing but attempting to make the game look like a 5star story, I'd be slapping down that argument too.

Maybe I just happen to dislike bad logic, poor arguments and nitpicking.
Reply Quote
06/13/2012 09:43 AMPosted by Melyria
I like how this Melyria troll is just running from post to post defending Blizzard at all costs. Another typical fanboy who isn't getting paid to be their PR Rep but acts like it and secretly imagines that they care.



Hi.

Tyrael was the most boring character in the game.
Act 2 was botched so heavily and deserved to be two acts, not one.
Cain's death was mishandled.
Diablo was too wordy.
The Act 3/4 cinematic was pointless.
The atmosphere in D3 is not as grim or gritty as it was in D1 and D2.
Eirena I find to be grating.
Act 1 felt reversed and the Skeleton King should've probably been the Act boss.
Belial was predictable and transparent.
We didn't get to see the other Sin Lieutenants.
We didn't get to see enough of the other Evil's presence within Diablo Prime.
I have a problem with Tyrael staying behind as you face Diablo.
I have a problem with Magda expositing about the next sword fragment being int he Nephalem temple.
I have a problem that the Betrayal was not shown in cinematic.
I have issue with how open ended the final cinematic is.
Not enough ambient lore via journals.
The plot hole with the Soulstone and Mephisto and Diablo's soul.
Zoltun Kulle being killed.
Lack of build up and explaination for the Triune Cult.
Too much foreshadowing for Adria and Leah's twists.
Act 3 and 4 were too short.
Cain's beastiary should've been read by Leah, not Cain.
The voice acting for Magda, female Barbarian, female witch doctor, female monk and Emperor Hakkan II (when will people learn not to hire child voice actors)


Would you like to shut up now?

06/13/2012 09:37 AMPosted by Zeratul
The story sucks, and you do too for trying desperately and breathlessly to defend it at every angle.


Nitpicking a line that has a logical outcome (If you fail, you're dead) and trying to take it too literally, is not a good argument for why the game is bad.

If somebody did the same thing but attempting to make the game look like a 5star story, I'd be slapping down that argument too.

Maybe I just happen to dislike bad logic, poor arguments and nitpicking.


Nitpicking, yes that is what I would characterize as you responding to every single post or question in a thread (correction, quoting each sentence individually as well), and then taking devils advocate stances or flat out opposing each of them for no reason except that you are some weird kid who uses the forums as escape.

Actually nitpicking isn't the right word, butthurt dweller is a bit more accurate. But yeah man, show these forums whos boss! There can only be one! (High-nerd-er)
Reply Quote
Sounds like you're the butthurt dweller. Mel's arguments are usually more reasonable and understandable than the flock of whiners he responds to. As for the quote, the OP needs some reading comprehension to understand it pretty much means diablo will ENSURE rakanoth dies should he fail. But again anyone who hurrdurs in a thread is usually trolling.
Reply Quote
Lol.

Malaria isn't making a lot of friends.

Honestly, it´s not a good idea to defend the game or it´s story at this point.
Reply Quote
90 Human Paladin
17285
06/13/2012 10:59 AMPosted by Dirach
Honestly, it´s not a good idea to defend the game or it´s story at this point.


"Why make constructive posts when we could be circlejerking over how bad this game is?!"
Reply Quote
When I first heard that line, I thought "Diablo's brothers, the other Prime Evils, were assimilated into Diablo. Therefore, this threat means that if Rakanoth fails, he will die by Diablo's hand or by the heroes and then be assimilated into Diablo." That's my explanation, and I'll always stick with it.
Reply Quote
06/13/2012 11:19 AMPosted by Egrem
Honestly, it´s not a good idea to defend the game or it´s story at this point.


"Why make constructive posts when we could be circlejerking over how bad this game is?!"


What´s the point of constructive criticism when the game is released and it´s story is done. The only thing you can hope for now is for the expansion story to be better.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
06/13/2012 11:46 AMPosted by Dirach


"Why make constructive posts when we could be circlejerking over how bad this game is?!"


What´s the point of constructive criticism when the game is released and it´s story is done. The only thing you can hope for now is for the expansion story to be better.


Throwing a hissy fit is not constructive criticism. I've said this repeatedly: Blindly hating a game down to the very last element, just because, and refusing to see any good in it is not constructive. Being so heavily biased is not constructive. Demanding Metzen's resignation is not constructive. Making illogical, vague arguments you refuse to defend with any degree of detail is not constructive.

It really seems to me that right now you're the one who's being told to stop posting, not by me but by multiple other people.
Reply Quote
No. He threatens Rakanoth with Iskatu's fate specifically, which was death by the hero.


Iskatu's fate and the fate of his brothers. Which was death.

If a mobster runs your friend over with a car and says "Get me my money or you'll end up like him." That doesn't mean he's going to hit you with a car too. It means you're going to be dead.

Cripes, you're seriously trying to make a non-issue like this into a reason to hate the story?

Why would that threat (death) be effective when the condition of the threat (if you are killed by the hero) renders it pointless? The OP is 100% correct, I immediately noticed the nonsense as well. A sentence by itself doesn't make a difference, but it just perfectly encapsulates the poor dialogue in the game.
Edited by Hells#1558 on 6/13/2012 4:39 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
06/13/2012 04:37 PMPosted by Hells
Why would that threat (death) be effective when the condition of the threat (if you are killed by the hero) renders it pointless?


And what if Rakanoth survives? Or he flees? The implication (and the false one) is that you think that all demons would fight to the death against a clearly superior foe.

Diablo was saying that if Rakanoth fails, he's dead either way. If he survives, Diablo kills him (or worse, consumes him), if he fights and dies, he dies anyway. In other words, the only way Rakanoth can live is if he fights and wins.
Reply Quote
I think you are all wrong. If he fails he is sent to Diablo's realm of the Hell's to be tortured for his incompetence.
Reply Quote
06/13/2012 10:57 AMPosted by Biomanz
As for the quote, the OP needs some reading comprehension to understand it pretty much means diablo will ENSURE rakanoth dies should he fail.

If Rakanoth fails, he's dead anyway. That's what failing means in this situation.
It's not like the hero is gonna spare his life.
Edited by Nightbreeze#1246 on 6/14/2012 2:08 AM PDT
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]