Is D3's story good?

General Discussion
Cain was killed by butterflies.
Look! More hidden footprints!

D3's story was bad and so was the dialogue.

D1/D2 the setting, the music, the dread and hopeless in the dialogue, and the adventure itself told a much better story.
12/05/2018 02:31 PMPosted by traja
...You are telling me that D3's story is as bad as THAT?...


No I am saying that it is worse than that. Warcraft, despite all of its absurdity, never elevates you above all the main characters in the story. It does massage your ego but it never makes you a superhero that can end Khadgar with a mere stare. It's still terrible writing but D3 takes it a step further.


True, we can't kill Khadgar.

We were, however, leader of all the druids, or all the hunters, or all the death knights, or whatever. (With that last one, don't you beat Lady Liadrin one on one, btw?) And we've gone from that to being just another soldier taking orders from Anduin or Sylvanas. And we can get one-shotted by Jaina, despite us having established ourselves as one of the most powerful people on Azeroth in Legion.

EDIT: My point is that at least D3 is consistent instead of being like "You were strong enough to beat Belial! But now you're weak as a kitten and stand no chance against Azmodan, and we're not going to give a reason for it." Which is what WoW did.

And yeah, I get that making our characters too powerful is a bad idea. It's the reason why a lot of superheroes aren't as powerful as Superman or The Hulk, because ideally the hero should have a difficult time beating her enemies.

What I think they should do going forward is to keep us just beneath the power level of Archangels and of both Prime and Lesser Evils. As in "Yes, you're a nephalem, yes, you're strong enough to possibly defeat these guys, but only if you make no mistakes. You're definitely not powerful enough to ask for their best shot and then give them yours; their best shot will kill you if you just stand there and try to take it."

Also, one of the things they do with superheroes that are arguably too powerful is to give them villains on the same power level or with a greater one. Now, if the future of this world involves more and more nephalem being born, then problem solved: there will be nephalem all over Sanctuary, and your character won't be stronger than everybody else any more.
In my opinion it was really not that good. Not terrible, but Blizzard had the time and money to make it absolutely great, and it's really not that good. Blizzard seems to be wanting to go in the kid-friendly Disney kind of direction. StarCraft and Diablo are what made me a Blizzard fan, and those were adult, gritty, realistic-not-cartoonish, mature games. For example, when Leoric appears in Diablo 3, he looks and sounds like a bad Saturday morning cartoon villain, and not intimidating at all.

I was unable to forgive Blizzard and I still have not purchased the expansion, Reaper of Souls. Even though people say it's better and Blizzard tries to make amends with it, I needed more. I know I'm greedy, but I really held Blizzard above most others and expected more justifiably so. More than just one more character class (the crusader) who I don't care about might have sold me. But I'm mostly a StarCraft guy, and it's the same issue with StarCraft 2, so I'm quite disappointed in Blizzard. StarCraft 2 and Diablo 3 really lack world-building and character development of a wide variety of characters (there are only a handful of very predictable characters). They felt cartoonish.
12/05/2018 02:31 PMPosted by traja
...

No I am saying that it is worse than that. Warcraft, despite all of its absurdity, never elevates you above all the main characters in the story. It does massage your ego but it never makes you a superhero that can end Khadgar with a mere stare. It's still terrible writing but D3 takes it a step further.


True, we can't kill Khadgar.

We were, however, leader of all the druids, or all the hunters, or all the death knights, or whatever. (With that last one, don't you beat Lady Liadrin one on one, btw?) And we've gone from that to being just another soldier taking orders from Anduin or Sylvanas. And we can get one-shotted by Jaina, despite us having established ourselves as one of the most powerful people on Azeroth in Legion.


True, and it is really, really stupid writing. We are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel here as it comes to story, But where D3 goes even below Warcraft is in elevating you above everyone. If Legion had followed the D3 style of writing you would have defeated Sargeras in single combat.
...

True, we can't kill Khadgar.

We were, however, leader of all the druids, or all the hunters, or all the death knights, or whatever. (With that last one, don't you beat Lady Liadrin one on one, btw?) And we've gone from that to being just another soldier taking orders from Anduin or Sylvanas. And we can get one-shotted by Jaina, despite us having established ourselves as one of the most powerful people on Azeroth in Legion.


True, and it is really, really stupid writing. We are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel here as it comes to story, But where D3 goes even below Warcraft is in elevating you above everyone. If Legion had followed the D3 style of writing you would have defeated Sargeras in single combat.


I agree with some parts of what you're saying, but I don't agree with the Sargeras analogy.

Because Sargeras was never presented as vulnerable in the same way that the Lord Of Terror was. The first two games established that Diablo could be beaten in single combat. That's never been the case with Sargeras.

In the third game Diablo is stronger because of the Black Soulstone, but the player character is also stronger because the Worldstone isn't weakening them any longer, so it balances out.
I mean at the end of Reaper of Souls you have just killed Death Itself and are explicitly referred to as the most powerful being ever to exist. This is some next level power creep. Right up there with Kerrigan literally becoming god in the horrible ending to Starcraft 2.
12/05/2018 03:23 PMPosted by Aguy
...

True, and it is really, really stupid writing. We are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel here as it comes to story, But where D3 goes even below Warcraft is in elevating you above everyone. If Legion had followed the D3 style of writing you would have defeated Sargeras in single combat.


I agree with some parts of what you're saying, but I don't agree with the Sargeras analogy.

Because Sargeras was never presented as vulnerable in the same way that the Lord Of Terror was. The first two games established that Diablo could be beaten in single combat. That's never been the case with Sargeras.

In the third game Diablo is stronger because of the Black Soulstone, but the player character is also stronger because the Worldstone isn't weakening them any longer, so it balances out.


It's not about the vulnerability of characters in the story but the relative strength of you character to the world around. In Warcraft you are a champion of your faction and class but still just another mortal in whatever race you picked. That is stupid enough but in D3 you are a superior being above the angels and demons.
12/05/2018 03:35 PMPosted by TheBentOne
I mean at the end of Reaper of Souls you have just killed Death Itself and are explicitly referred to as the most powerful being ever to exist. This is some next level power creep. Right up there with Kerrigan literally becoming god in the horrible ending to Starcraft 2.


Remember that you needed help to do that, though. At first you weren't any more capable of even giving Malthael a little scratch than Tyrael had been in the intro.

So just the nephalem's power alone wasn't stronger than Death Itself.
Diablo 3's story, narrative and dialogue is beyond awful.
Diablo 1: Unsuspectingly enter the Butcher's room and get decapitated.
Diablo 2: Face Andy and Duriel unprepared and start running for your life.

Diablo 3: Here's a giant window telling you exactly what's to come. Here, let me tell you what I'm doing. HOW TASTE YOU FEAR NEPHALEM? I'm about to do a sneak attack on you, here's the exact location. My Hell Rift will consume you! (You proceed to destroy it and nothing happens)
Is it good?

Sorry, I'm still pissed they took a chapter and threw it on a phone in the name of China.
It may be hard to imagine, but if D3's story was told in the style of D1/2, overall it may actually be better than D1/2. D1/2's story depth would feel lacking compared to D3's. The problem was Blizzard killed D3's story just through style alone.
I think there was definitely some moments in there that weren't terrible but could have been better. I was ok with the follower stories. Would have liked to have some closure on the Lyndon storyline but obviously Blizzard has no plans for this game.

They failed to capture the dark, grittiness of the original games. Both from a looking perspective and in the dialog itself. I tried to do the story mode as all the heroes to see their reactions and personal dialog and I eventually did accomplish that.

It was definitely not a great experience, some games I can play the story mode multiple times and have fun doing it. To beat this one each time as a new hero was just not exciting enough. I do think the huge layoff from D2 to D3 was part of the problem. Like there was such a buildup waiting for this game and it just didn't quite hit as hard as we wanted it to which makes us feel like it's actually worse than it is. Maybe thats true, maybe its not. I guess I'll be nice to Blizzard and answer the OP's question with "Below Average".
Arguably the most iconic character in Diablo got killed off by a disposable butterfly villain. One of the many issues with the story. If you are going to knock off a major character, it has to feel significant. This felt no different than if Cain decided to walk off a cliff randomly.

If these were the 1980s, then the story might be acceptable. By 2010s standards, it is pretty poor. And I'm benchmarking it against the average game story out nowadays, not with gems like The Last Of Us.
12/05/2018 01:50 AMPosted by Aguy
I don't mean compared to the story of 1 or 2, I mean if a similar story of similar quality were released outside of the Diablo franchise, would you like it? Would you feel that it was above average, average, below average, awesome, complete crap, or what?

I'll withhold my opinion on it for now.
It’s not bad but not as good as diablo 1 and 2 storyline.
It's as good as a saturday morning cartoon which is really bad for the ambient and setting of the game. The expansion reaper of souls fixed that by giving us a more pertinent act V, but I to IV (specially III with Azmodan) are extremely cheesy and cartoonish plot
No
If you look at the classic structure of a story each act could be it's own (mini)story in D3. They have their own conflicts that they player resolves, and moves on. Some backstory if the player chooses to explore. While each Act is also being a part of a larger story as a whole.

It has area's it could probably improve, but is overall not bad.
Anyone who enjoys the Diablo 3 story is not a true Diablo fan.

good riddance
12/05/2018 04:52 PMPosted by Bradlas
Would have liked to have some closure on the Lyndon storyline but obviously Blizzard has no plans for this game.


Yes, I was disappointed too. And as we learned recently, they DID plan to continue the story in a second expansion, but the higher-ups axed it. :(

12/05/2018 11:14 PMPosted by Krine
Anyone who enjoys the Diablo 3 story is not a true Diablo fan.

good riddance


You're probably old enough to get this reference if you're old enough to have nostalgia for the first two games: I bet you were telling everybody who liked the black album that they weren't real Metallica fans, too.

EDIT: Let me explain exactly what I mean by that before somebody says "Seriously? You're comparing the worst third installment in the history of any franchise since Alien 3 to the masterpiece of an album that gave us 'Enter Sandman'?"

No, I'm not saying that they're equal in quality, but I was a teenager when the black album came out and I remember hearing a lot of people talking about how it wasn't REALLY a Metallica album because even though it was still metal it wasn't as metal as the stuff they released before. That the band had sold out and become commercial and their best days were behind them and all this other stuff. That the album just SUCKED.

Now obviously, if you have the ability to listen to and enjoy music outside of one very specific genre, you will not think that the black album sucks. Maybe it's a departure from what they did before, and maybe it's not as hardcore, but that doesn't mean it's the crappiest thing ever made.

And this is what I get reminded of when people talk about how awesome the games were when Brevik was still around and how the most recent installment is the crappiest thing ever made. It's different. It's got its own set of problems and, I'll dare to say it, its own set of good points. (I mean, getting away from the story now, but anybody who says that D3's inventory system isn't an improvement over D2's is lying.) It's no more the crappiest thing ever made than the black album was.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum