Anyone else let down with ACT Environments?

Lore and Story
But on Sanctuary they have real magic and demons and angels and stuff...imagine the possibilities of ancient man's architectural abilities if they had magic!
And don't be surprised when a spaceship full of Draenei crash land into Sanctuary in the fourth expansion.
07/03/2012 11:50 AMPosted by JohnnyZeWolf
It doesn't matter where they are located; forests will still be forests, ruins will still be ruins, and so on.


Are you kidding me ?

07/03/2012 11:53 AMPosted by Omacron
A pine forest looks very different from a bamboo forest and ruins can vary greatly based on the culture that originally built them.

...
07/03/2012 12:17 PMPosted by JohnnyZeWolf
Unless Blizzard send Diablo into space, there's so much they can do with existing settings.


I just told you two ways to add different settings and flavor to D3.
And yet, you refuse to understand, with arguments like "a forest is a forest" and "ruins are ruins".

Well, with this kind of logic, we can say that Slayer = Iron Maiden, because both are metal bands.
Sanctuary is essentially Earth.

Unless Blizzard send Diablo into space, there's so much they can do with existing settings.

You don't travel much, do you?
I don't "refuse to understand". I'm just saying that all the typical settings have already been covered, and all Blizzard can do now is coming up with variants. Which is what they did with D3.

Sure, they could go with asian-style architecture as suggested earlier, but that would only slightly affect the way villages and cities look; the wilderness would still look similar to the forest/desert/mountains settings seen in the previous games.
I don't "refuse to understand". I'm just saying that all the typical settings have already been covered, and all Blizzard can do now is coming up with variants. Which is what they did with D3.

Sure, they could go with asian-style architecture, but that would only slightly affect the way villages, cities and maybe ruins look; the wilderness would still look similar to the forest/desert/mountains settings seen in the previous games.

They've done vaguely Arabian/Egyptian desert twice, European temperate zone twice, Scandinavian tundra twice, Indian/Mesoamerican jungle once...

There are so many more biomes on Earth with so many different cultures within them.
Still, this is Diablo we're talking about, not National Geographic: Sanctuary Edition.
07/03/2012 12:54 PMPosted by JohnnyZeWolf
Still, this is Diablo we're talking about, not National Geographic: Sanctuary Edition.

I don't get your point. You're saying that Blizzard has all this real world inspiration to draw from but shouldn't because... why?
I'm not saying they shouldn't; I'm saying it wouldn't make much of a difference in the end.
07/03/2012 12:44 PMPosted by JohnnyZeWolf
all Blizzard can do now is coming up with variants. Which is what they did with D3.


No. D3 Settings are not variants of D2 settings. They are the same. The amount of variation is minimal.

Sure, they could go with asian-style architecture, but that would only slightly affect the way villages, cities and maybe ruins look; the wilderness would still look similar to the forest/desert/mountains settings seen in the previous games.


Even if its only the way villages, cities and ruins look, it still would be better that what we have with D3. You know, it would give us a different taste, and a feeling that D3 is really a new game.

But you can explore more. You can do all kind of crazy stuff. It's not only the way villages, cities and ruins look. You can have different types of monsters based on geographical locations, you can have different quest plots based on the cultural traits of that region. The NPCs can have different accents.
07/03/2012 01:04 PMPosted by Zero
Even if its only the way villages, cities and ruins look, it still would be better that what we have with D3. You know, it would give us a different taste, and a feeling that D3 is really a new game.


And have people complain about D3 not feeling like a Diablo game because it looks different.

07/03/2012 01:04 PMPosted by Zero
No. D3 Settings are not variants of D2 settings. They are the same. The amount of variation is minimal.


Wortham kinda looks different than New Tristram, the Fields of Misery look different than the Weeping Hollows, the Catacombs look different from the Nephalem Temple (can't remember the name), Tristram's Caves look different than the lair of the Spider Queen, and so on... And that's just for Act I.

Wortham kinda looks different than New Tristram, the Fields of Misery look different than the Weeping Hollows, the Catacombs look different from the Nephalem Temple (can't remember the name), Tristram's Caves look different than the lair of the Spider Queen, and so on... And that's just for Act I.

Then you've disproven your own theory. If they can make two towns in the same geographic area look sufficiently different, imagine what they can do with two towns in completely opposite ends of the world with different flora, fauna, culture, climate and building materials.
Variants of previous settings?
07/03/2012 01:20 PMPosted by Omacron
Then you've disproven your own theory. If they can make two towns in the same geographic area look sufficiently different, imagine what they can do with two towns in completely opposite ends of the world with different flora, fauna, culture, climate and building materials


This.

Also, Im not saying that they should make everything, every setting, monster and whatever, new. I just wanted to see more new things, because like the OP said, the only real new area in D3 is the High Heavens. If we had two new Areas (or acts) instead of one, this would be a good balance... like, 50% old sutff with some variant and 50% completely new areas. Or perhaps, the game could have 5 Acts, and more new stuff.
07/03/2012 01:34 PMPosted by Zero
Then you've disproven your own theory. If they can make two towns in the same geographic area look sufficiently different, imagine what they can do with two towns in completely opposite ends of the world with different flora, fauna, culture, climate and building materials


This.

Also, Im not saying that they should make everything, every setting, monster and whatever, new. I just wanted to see more new things, because like the OP said, the only real new area in D3 is the High Heavens. If we had two new Areas (or acts) instead of one, this would be a good balance... like, 50% old sutff with some variant and 50% completely new areas.

I dunno about you but I paid for a new game. I'd have liked the vast majority of the game's environments to not be rehashes from the previous ones. After reading the book of cain and seeing the map of Sanctuary and some of the concept art I was real excited to go to new areas. I mean they put all this work into fleshing out the world, so why not celebrate that?
07/03/2012 01:39 PMPosted by Omacron
I dunno about you but I paid for a new game. I'd have liked the vast majority of the game's environments to not be rehashes from the previous ones. After reading the book of cain and seeing the map of Sanctuary and some of the concept art I was real excited to go to new areas. I mean they put all this work into fleshing out the world, so why not celebrate that?


I undestand that they had to do some rehash, to connect with the previous games, and make the players feel at home. But yeah, the amount of really new content is short. Perhaps, the game could have 5 Acts, and more new stuff. And definitely, I don't undestand the world map at all... I mean, it is just a map, I don't know if they really tought about every region, and developed lore and culture to each location.

About the book of cain... the desire to buying it left me when I finished the game the first time. The story, or execution of the story, was such a turn off for me.
Caldeum is already a "completely" new area, as it wasn't featured in the previous games.

The "rehashed" environments you're complaining about look already very different than D1/D2. And of course, there's a fairly large part of the fanbase who hasn't played/doesn't remember D1/D2, and thus won't mind seeing the franchise's most iconic locations with brand new graphics, effects and lightning.

Also, keep in mind that Blizzard has not one but TWO expansion sets planned: it makes sense that they would start with familiar settings for the sake of introducing/re-introducing the players to the franchise.

There's no point in making new stuff for the sake of novelty.
07/03/2012 02:04 PMPosted by JohnnyZeWolf
Caldeum is already a "completely" new area, as it wasn't featured in the previous games.


C'mon dude, Caldeum is almost like Lut Gholein from D2. In fact, the entire D3 Act2 is like D2 Act2. You know, quests in the sewers, in the deserts... even Zoltun Kulle is somewhat like the "The Summoner" from D2. The Snake-like monsters from D3 were already in D2... hell, the entire Act 2 from D2 has more personality, with a more Egyptian flavor.

In D3 defense, I liked the Bees and the sand worm monsters. That was cool.
About the "brand new graphics, effects and lightning", yeah, there is a very small novelty in that. But this absolutely not enough to make Caldeum feels like a "completely" new area.

07/03/2012 02:04 PMPosted by JohnnyZeWolf
There's no point in making new stuff for the sake of novelty.


Don't be such a demagogue. You undestand what we are complaining about here. The point in new sutff is to make the game feel fresh. This is a valid point.
Sanctuary is essentially Earth.

Unless Blizzard send Diablo into space, there's so much they can do with existing settings.


OH MAN THERE IS YOUR EXPANSION RIGHT THERE. Diablo 3: In Space! Chase the prime evil (who already looks like he belongs more in Starcraft than Diablo) through the stars on an intergalactic journey that pushes the Diablo Universe to new frontiers.

Just to clarify, I only think this is a viable option because the writing in D3 was such a joke. With that in mind, why not send us to a Saturn-esque planet to battle Diablo and his might moon monsters!!!

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum