Diablo® III

Lets talk about the writers...

06/18/2012 01:07 AMPosted by Covered
For the life of me, I do not know if this is a troll... Please please please, for my sanity, be a troll.


I'm not trolling, I'm demonstrating by ironic argument how dumb Blizzard thinks you are, and at the same time demonstrating how dumb the story is.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
Posts: 13,320


Well, how else do you know there are two Hell Rifts, smart guy?

Without the bad guys expositing what you need to do to defeat them, you couldn't.


For the life of me, I do not know if this is a troll... Please please please, for my sanity, be a troll.


In every case there needs to be exposition to lead you from point A to point B. Now, you can argue that having Diablo exposite was a bad idea (I think Izual doing it, acting as field general to Diablo would've been good) but the actual exposition was needed.
Edited by Melyria#1246 on 6/18/2012 6:54 AM PDT
Reply Quote


For the life of me, I do not know if this is a troll... Please please please, for my sanity, be a troll.


In every case there needs to be exposition to lead you from point A to point B. Now, you can argue that having Diablo exposite was a bad idea (I think Izual doing it, acting as field general to Diablo would've been good) but the actual exposition was needed.


Nah, it couldn't have come from the demons and still made any sense. Better for angels to come to you (the ones that still trust you) and tell you they located another "over that way." Bad guys giving away their tactical tools, on purpose no less, should be reserved for top hat-wearing, mustach-twirling, cartoon masterminds ;) and apparently Azmodan. :(
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
Posts: 13,320
06/18/2012 07:55 AMPosted by Gaiawolf
and apparently Azmodan. :(


Azmodan had you beat. The only reason you were able to even get into the crater was because you had an ace up your sleeve he couldn't have foreseen.

And my point was that exposition still needed to happen. At least in my scenario it introduced Izual a bit more than what we got in D3.
Reply Quote
06/18/2012 07:58 AMPosted by Melyria
and apparently Azmodan. :(


Azmodan had you beat. The only reason you were able to even get into the crater was because you had an ace up your sleeve he couldn't have foreseen.


He knew we had Tyreal. I'm sure we could have figured out another way in anyway. In act 1 a flimsy gate kept us from progressing into a cemetery with a crumbling stone wall. By your logic we would have never gotten into the cathedral if Leah didn't have the key even having access to meteors, giant cleavers, and disintegration beams that can melt 15-foot armored demons in seconds.


And my point was that exposition still needed to happen. At least in my scenario it introduced Izual a bit more than what we got in D3.


But the real point is that good, or at least decent, exposition is preferred over what we were given. The whole point of this and similar threads is that we demand better story, and not just lazy Saturday morning cartoon writing.

I agree more Izual would have been good, tho. Maybe have him dive bomb usa few times like the vultures in Act 2 before the final showdown, or a cut scene with him and Tyreal.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
Posts: 13,320
06/18/2012 08:29 AMPosted by Gaiawolf
He knew we had Tyreal


Actually, one of his missives implies he doesn't know who is leading Bastion's Keep.

06/18/2012 08:29 AMPosted by Gaiawolf
I'm sure we could have figured out another way in anyway. In act 1 a flimsy gate kept us from progressing into a cemetery with a crumbling stone wall. By your logic we would have never gotten into the cathedral if Leah didn't have the key even having access to meteors, giant cleavers, and disintegration beams that can melt 15-foot armored demons in seconds.


A massive, demonic gate powered by a hell glyph is not the same thing. And you know it. Stop grasping for straws.

06/18/2012 08:29 AMPosted by Gaiawolf
I agree more Izual would have been good, tho. Maybe have him dive bomb usa few times like the vultures in Act 2 before the final showdown, or a cut scene with him and Tyreal.


You complain about 'cartoon villain' antics but you want the enemy to toy with us before we actually get to kill him? That would be how many bosses now? Magda, Cydaea and now Izual?
Reply Quote
85 Blood Elf Paladin
6795
Posts: 413
If you want character development, compelling story line, and deep philosophical issues being examined in an environment of corruption and horrors, then might I suggest reading some Shakespeare, Dante, or even Stoker.

A little perspective is needed here. Diablo 3 is primarily a video game with a story line added so it’s more entertaining and not entirely like Whimsyshire. The writing, for its purpose, is spot on. Despite not being a real fan of the game, I have to give Blizzard credit for putting as much character background and character personality as they have. They have put much more thought, time, and expense to giving these games stories than the vast majority of games out there.

And the Mr. Jangles flick sounds awesome.
Reply Quote
He knew we had Tyreal


Actually, one of his missives implies he doesn't know who is leading Bastion's Keep.\

Then he's a garbage tactician (Which we already knew), a good one would have assumed the worst and prepared for it.

In any case, as was stated, it never makes sense for a demon to be telling you how many hell rifts are left. An angel should have done so -- The same one that told you about the first would be an ideal candidate.

The only reason Diablo doing it didn't feel out of place is that the demons have been pointlessly handing us their plans the entire game, so him continuing to be completely stupid fit right in.

06/18/2012 09:00 AMPosted by Cyira
A little perspective is needed here. Diablo 3 is primarily a video game with a story line added so it’s more entertaining and not entirely like Whimsyshire. The writing, for its purpose, is spot on. Despite not being a real fan of the game, I have to give Blizzard credit for putting as much character background and character personality as they have. They have put much more thought, time, and expense to giving these games stories than the vast majority of games out there.

And in the process created a much less engaging story than Diablo 2 had, with terrible dialogue (Probably because they already purchased the voice over and then couldn't change the lines to make them better) Trying to present that story also took what had been a game that included aspects of exploration (Not a lot, but some) and put it on the On-rails Express: One Line to Victory. Zzzzzzzzz.
Edited by Bianary#1174 on 6/18/2012 9:21 AM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
Posts: 13,320
06/18/2012 09:17 AMPosted by Bianary
Then he's a garbage tactician (Which we already knew), a good one would have assumed the worst and prepared for it.


No angel has ever become a mortal and Heaven has been resigned to their non-engagement pact.

This is like if South Korea invade North Korea... and then suddenly facing down American troops defending S.Korea. Its illogical, near impossible and you just can't plan for that.

In any case, as was stated, it never makes sense for a demon to be telling you how many hell rifts are left. An angel should have done so -- The same one that told you about the first would be an ideal candidate.


They have names you know.

06/18/2012 09:17 AMPosted by Bianary
And in the process created a much less engaging story than Diablo 2 had,


D2's story was a series of 'go here, kill this, collect this'. Atmosphere does not equate to a good story.

Trying to present that story also took what had been a game that included aspects of exploration (Not a lot, but some) and put it on the On-rails Express: One Line to Victory. Zzzzzzzzz.


Excuse me?! Diablo 2 was just as on rails as D3. Both have side-caves, both are randomly generated. The only thing less 'on rails' about D2 was that it was filled with non-essential, pointless side-quests that barely (if at all) tied to the main story, forcing the story to the backburner repeatedly. In D3 these side quests tend to be replaced with random events.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Rogue
11905
Posts: 13,320
06/18/2012 09:36 AMPosted by Mastagopha
But what do the fans think?


Do you really think that the 100 or so people that post on these forums are an accurate sample size?

Here's the thing. The vast majority of people who enjoy this game's story will not rush to the Story Forum to complain about it. They will continue to play the game and enjoy the story.

Do you not think Blizzard has the ability to find out what people think, aside from the forum? Because, frankly, the forums tend to draw people who want to complain and, thus, aren't a really good view into what the general public think.

This is like going to the complaint department of a store and asking how many people were happy with their customer service.
Reply Quote
06/17/2012 03:11 PMPosted by Gurgi


But, what was the original Diablo story?

Diablo 1's story was basically "I heard Diablo is hiding under that church. I'm'a go get him."

Diablo 2's story was basically "I heard Diablo went that way. I'm'a go get him."

If you didn't like the story, then you have just missed the point.


If you don't know what their stories were I suggest you spend a few minutes and go look them up... It's kind of ironic to have someone suggest that disliking D3's story could only be the result of having "missed the point." in the same post as utterly missing the point of the first 2 games...



>Hacks
>An American Tale

Right.


As someone else noted Fievel Goes West was, while a fun kids' movie, not even remotely comparable to the original American Tale which was a phenomenally made film. I'd even call the sequel a bit trashy and insulting to the original work. In the original you have a allegorical story of Jewish flight from persecution in Eastern Europe and Russia during the 19th and early 20th century. It's a surprisingly dark work about prejudice, discrimination, identity, greed, family and assimilation.

Compare it to its sequel which was basically a silly Western that capitalized on the already popular characters of the previous film by inserting them into a completely new circumstance that feels almost entirely irrelevant and unrelated to the first movie. While I enjoyed the movie as a child, as an actual work of cinema and storytelling it's pretty awful when compared to the first film.

So actually I think it's quite appropriate that one of the writers of D3 is a guy who has a history, apparently, of writing sequels that remove all subtlety, sophistication, and meaning and replace them with cheap spectacle. The rest of his history looks like Saturday morning cartoons, which sounds about right for this game as well...


Holy hell does that entire second paragraph sound exactly like D2-> D3. Love how mel is so stupid that he actually proved everyones point this time. What a friggin idiot.
Reply Quote
"That's not the ONLY hell rift"

lol 1 more hellrift


Well, how else do you know there are two Hell Rifts, smart guy?

Without the bad guys expositing what you need to do to defeat them, you couldn't.


Yup no other way... Jesus what a moron
Reply Quote
But what do the fans think?


Do you really think that the 100 or so people that post on these forums are an accurate sample size?

Here's the thing. The vast majority of people who enjoy this game's story will not rush to the Story Forum to complain about it. They will continue to play the game and enjoy the story.

Do you not think Blizzard has the ability to find out what people think, aside from the forum? Because, frankly, the forums tend to draw people who want to complain and, thus, aren't a really good view into what the general public think.

This is like going to the complaint department of a store and asking how many people were happy with their customer service.


Hey look same tired strawman arguement. I'd say the droves of fans leaving the game, the metacritic score (though unfairly influenced is still notable) and the fact that the people who post here are near unanimous in their agreement that this game story is a joke speaks volumes doesn't it (if you have any sort of ability to reach logical conclusions without being influenced with some kind of unknown bias or need to troll). Let's put it this way person with elementary school level intelligence: Would the fact that nearly everyone hates the story here indicate more people likely are enjoying the story or would it more likely indicate that more people greatly dislike the story?

It would indicate more people dislike the story so you keep clinging to your last bastion of denial while the rest of us point and laugh at the brainless fool.

Try using your brain for a post troll or y'know keep making improper comparisons without proof in order to support what might be one of the dumbest opinions i've ever seen expressed at a rate which would indicate you have zero life whatsoever.
Edited by Shingram#1112 on 6/18/2012 10:07 AM PDT
Reply Quote
06/18/2012 09:31 AMPosted by Melyria
In any case, as was stated, it never makes sense for a demon to be telling you how many hell rifts are left. An angel should have done so -- The same one that told you about the first would be an ideal candidate.


They have names you know.

Oh, I know they have names. I just don't remember them because their characters were so meaningless (In the game. I'm sure if I did a bunch of external reading I'd find a wealth of meaning to them. This is a discussion about the game.), and I'm not going to bother looking it up when you already know perfectly well who I'm talking about.

06/18/2012 09:31 AMPosted by Melyria
Excuse me?! Diablo 2 was just as on rails as D3. Both have side-caves, both are randomly generated. The only thing less 'on rails' about D2 was that it was filled with non-essential, pointless side-quests that barely (if at all) tied to the main story, forcing the story to the backburner repeatedly. In D3 these side quests tend to be replaced with random events.

Well drat, I must have missed the part of D3 where I could collect the sword pieces in any order.

Or maybe I missed the part of D2 where I could get the amulet then the staff then the cube. Or the brain then the heart then the eye. Or even reverse that. However I felt.

Yes, Diablo 2's story is linear. But Diablo 3's story is on rails. There is a difference between the two terms.
Edited by Bianary#1174 on 6/18/2012 10:10 AM PDT
Reply Quote
06/18/2012 07:58 AMPosted by Melyria
and apparently Azmodan. :(

Azmodan had you beat. The only reason you were able to even get into the crater was because you had an ace up your sleeve he couldn't have foreseen.

And my point was that exposition still needed to happen. At least in my scenario it introduced Izual a bit more than what we got in D3.


In this terrible story thats how it played out...in a better story there would have been a better way to reach this point. of course you would fail miserably to understand this
Reply Quote
74 Undead Mage
0
Posts: 2,359
heh diablo 2 fanboys thinking d2 story was any better than this. i dunno what people expect out of a blizzard game. d3 to me feels like a regular blizzard story. cheesy dialogue, hammy people and all that jazz.
Reply Quote
06/18/2012 10:15 AMPosted by Zong
heh diablo 2 fanboys thinking d2 story was any better than this. i dunno what people expect out of a blizzard game. d3 to me feels like a regular blizzard story. cheesy dialogue, hammy people and all that jazz.

I can summarize why D2's story was better, even if it was just as bad:

It wasn't forced in your face through the entire game with additional dialogue and cutscenes every time you encounter a boss.

Edit: I mean, seriously. The game is about farming. NV is about farming. Why are we having our farming interrupted for cutscenes and forced dialogue on replays through the content we already beat? That's a huge part of why (For me) D3's story is bad, rather than just okay -- all the irritants in it really come to the front when I see it over, and over, and over, and ... etc.
Edited by Bianary#1174 on 6/18/2012 10:33 AM PDT
Reply Quote

Do you really think that the 100 or so people that post on these forums are an accurate sample size?
...
Do you not think Blizzard has the ability to find out what people think, aside from the forum?
...

I didn't like the main story (esp. the presentation), since you think that everyone who doesn't post here is happy with the BS I should post I guess ;).

As for Blizzard - yeah they found people who liked it, according to their interviews. Where is the question, did they just hunt down mice who reallly like cheese?

---

Re. Diablo 2 linearity; I think we could run up to cathedral without doing Den of Fallen. Oh, and there wasn't any character who alternately doesn't believe in Uncle Cain's stories and remembers the time they ran from skeletons lmao.

I enjoyed the follower interactions, random occurrences & side quests (still have to hunt down Lord of Goats!) etc. Haven't looked up the credits, but I am sure that the people responsible for these were a different group to those who wrote the main storyline, and I wish they were also given responsibility for that POS instead.

Azmodan having the failings of 'Pride' is well & good; but the bad part is everyone in Sanctuary thinks of him as a great commander. If someone could zerg me from safety, I still wouldn't think to call him a 'great' commander when all he does is taunt, and hasn't used any strategies of note.

As for Butcher, it was a letdown in D2 to find that he's just one of many. After that they bring back the confined room similar to how he was encountered in D1, which actually works - but he's listening to Maghda?! When did Butcher join in Belial's cadre when his forte is brute force and Belial is (supposedly) finesse.
Reply Quote
85 Human Paladin
0
Posts: 133


For the life of me, I do not know if this is a troll... Please please please, for my sanity, be a troll.


In every case there needs to be exposition to lead you from point A to point B. Now, you can argue that having Diablo exposite was a bad idea (I think Izual doing it, acting as field general to Diablo would've been good) but the actual exposition was needed.


It was Auriel who first told you about shutting down the Hell Rifts, instead of Diablo revealing the second Hell Rift (why would he tell you that...), it could easily have been another angel, which would make more sense. i.e. Auriel, "the demons are still pouring in, there must be another Hell Rift"

06/18/2012 07:58 AMPosted by Melyria
and apparently Azmodan. :(


Azmodan had you beat. The only reason you were able to even get into the crater was because you had an ace up your sleeve he couldn't have foreseen.

And my point was that exposition still needed to happen. At least in my scenario it introduced Izual a bit more than what we got in D3.


I read your posts in another thread about Azmodan, too. I agree that his strategies were good and created a winning situation, and also his pride compels him to brag. But still, telling your enemies everything is bad tactics. If instead of Azmodan telling the player exactly how to beat him, we have Tyreal present the same information to push the story forward, it would have made Azmodan look a lot smarter. i.e. instead of Azmodan "I've sent units to below your keep, come and kill them to progress", we can have Tyreal "The monsters have breached the depth, we must secure the keep". Pushing the story this way would make Tyreal more useful, and Azmodan less silly.
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]