I'll specify that I'm not saying "my viewpoint is valid, yours isn't" and indeed, back to Terminator 3 for a moment, I'll admit that on its own, it's an enjoyable action movie, albiet one I greatly dislike because of how it feels like a 180 of the previous films in some cases, and a hollow echo of the second in others (see further down). But back to StarCraft II and Diablo III...
Well, concerning WoL, there's twelve years between releases. People change. Technology changes. Lots of stuff changes, and while I'm not saying that one should discard a universe's essence, I accept that things change. To me, WoL feels like a natural evolution from the days of the original.
Concerning Diablo III, not only has there been 11 years between it and LoD, but it's a case of Blizzard taking over from Blizzard North, and it would have been even harder to maintain a style. I can comment on it less, but having finished D2 and moved on to LoD, I can already see that the 'essence' of it has become quite different. I admit I'm in a different position to Diablo here than you in that I was drawn to the setting by the D3 trailer, and my induction into the universe hasn't been chronological. So while I can see that D3 has drifted further away from D2, further away than even LoD did, I can't summon the same level of emotional attatchment, or lack of it.
Guess it's also worth mentioning that I had a similar experience with Warcraft III-it was the game that got me invested in the Warcraft setting, though I had a friend who'd followed it from at least WC2 and quite disliked WC3, citing the divergence in gameplay style (think mainly the lack of naval combat and the new focus on hero units). Having since gone back and played WC2 (and WC1...unfortunately..), I can sympathize, but again, I can't entirely see things from his perspective due to coming to WC3 first.
Guess that's something about Blizzard, how the 'essence' of its games seems to change, or at least its 'big three.' Guess there's both pros and cons to that.
Seriously, Skynet's uprising has 'merit?'Originally Posted by Turalyon
I mean, even with the T-X activating the T-1's, even with Skynet taking control of the UAVs, why are they even kept loaded with ammunition? And for that matter, why is Skynet rebelling anyway? In T2, its reasons were explained, and while starting a nuclear war might not have been the best thing to do, it was at least an understandable act of self-preservation. In T3, Skynet wants to wipe out humanity because...it's evil like that.
And that "wishy washy" take on fate was what part of what made the films previously so good. The time loop idea is sort of valid but it's established from the first film that time travel results in alternate timelines/realities rather than changing the pre-existing one...sort of. You know, I wouldn't mind so much if T3 simply had John failing, but it seems the film, from everything from it reversing the themes of the first films to being a hollow echo of T2 (e.g. compare the two minigun scenes in T2 and T3-which is better?), it's as if the fans of the original films were being given the finger at every opportunity.