Diablo 3 15 may

[Turalyon]

This pretty much sums it up. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I hope you realise that a more impartial judge would've awarded me my medal by now.

It could, and might have been if not for the hybrids. Even if one didn't unlock Dark Origin on their playthrough, it's still explicitly stated in the prologue that Kerrigan was aware of a new threat on the horizon (or words to that effect).

The great thing about Starcraft is despite all the cool sci-fi stuff, the original story is quite weighty and focused on interpersonal relationships. BW seems to definitively bring it all to ahead and put forth an audacious ending through the severing of all those relationships (each and every character effectively become separated from each other to forge their own path and/or wallow in misery). Sure, the plot may dictate that there is an open-ending in the Hybrids that needs exploration but it is not necessary in terms of what I just said above. Indeed, the Hybrids are plot device to artificially generate more drama - which is perhaps one of the reasons why some feel a little distanced with how some of the characters are presented in WoL.

Oh and by the way, I think you meant epilogue.

And as for whole Kerrigan doing nothing and the Dominion's recovery, it's covered in material such as the Dark Templar Saga and Ghost Academy respectively.

The curse of the EU strikes again. SC1's enjoyment does not hinge on having to read the manual. It may draw on it a little but never is it required to make sense of things which aren't already apparent as the story unfolds during the game. As a re-introduction, WoL offers nothing of the sort for the veteran of the games only and a new-comer alike aside from "it just is". Just look at the installer text and see what it omits to tell you what BW plainly shows: the decimation of Mengsk's power structure and the imminent threat of Kerrigan finishing everyone off. The game then just hand-waves by saying it's been "4 years and all is better than ever before...except for Raynor".

Of course, if Blizzard North really wanted to wrap things up the Worldstone would never have been destroyed or corrupted at all, but still, I think I might have been content with the ending of the game/series had I played it when it first came out.

True. Indeed, the Worldstone needn't be explored at all to understand the threat of Baal and the need to stop him. Diablo didn't need to threaten some "figurehead for the masses" to be treated as a very-real threat. Also, being called the Lord of Destruction is enough for us to consider Baal a threat to be stopped lest he be left alone unchecked.

It's also quite funny considering that in D2, Tyrael destroys the Worldstone in order to stop the forces of Hell spilling into Sanctuary. Yet it, ironically, is the one thing that allows Azmodan to invade Sanctuary. Go figure.

Guess I could argue against all the villains being dead though, as Belial and Azmodan were never seen in the games until Diablo III, despite them featuring heavily in background material. Not that it would have been essential to feature them, but certainly Azmodan was to appear in the original conception of Diablo III.

Those remaining villains have been minor at best in terms of importance to the games. The games are about the main villains - which we have all defeated by the end of LoD. One would normally think that this is a fine and natural way to end the story. D3 just gives off a "but wait, there's more!" type feeling in order to continue its story.

[Hawki]

The curse of the EU strikes again. SC1's enjoyment does not hinge on having to read the manual.

As someone who played StarCraft 64 before the PC version, I'd have to disagree.

Just look at the installer text and see what it omits to tell you what BW plainly shows: the decimation of Mengsk's power structure and the imminent threat of Kerrigan finishing everyone off.

Kerrigan never struck me as being an imminant threat at the end of Brood War. Got more of a sleeping giant vibe.

True. Indeed, the Worldstone needn't be explored at all to understand the threat of Baal and the need to stop him. Diablo didn't need to threaten some "figurehead for the masses" to be treated as a very-real threat. Also, being called the Lord of Destruction is enough for us to consider Baal a threat to be stopped lest he be left alone unchecked.

I'm going to have to disagree here. Baal may be the Lord of Destruction, but there's always been a goal for him and the other Evils to follow, and if Baal wants to destroy Sanctuary/humanity despite the fact that two of his brothers have bit the bullet, well, there goes his credibility as a villain.

And again, Diablo never struck me as a credible villain in Diablo II. This argument has been done before, but I'll emphasise the nature of the previous bosses of the game. Andariel feels credible because we see what she's done to the Sisters of the Sightless Eye. Baal feels credible because we see what's happened to Aranoch due to his presence. Mephisto feels credible because we see what's happened to Kurast and the Zakarum because of him-I'll admit to whispering "holy shit" once I entered the Durance of Hate and seeing the pools of blood and piles of bodies.

And then there's Diablo. We're 'told' that bad stuff will happen if his plan (whatever it really is, it's still vague even after Izual tells you about the soulstones), but there's nothing in Act IV to suggest he's much of a threat at all. He's left Sanctuary. Yet I'm here in the outskirts of Hell. Tyrael does nothing, the other heroes in the Pandemonium Fortress say nothing and the act seems to be telling us indirectly that Azmodan and Belial are almost as incompetant as Diablo himself, who's skulking around in the Chaos Sanctuary. If he's marshalling demons to restore his rule in Hell...why should I care what happens bar Izual's "you're doomed" speech?

It's also quite funny considering that in D2, Tyrael destroys the Worldstone in order to stop the forces of Hell spilling into Sanctuary. Yet it, ironically, is the one thing that allows Azmodan to invade Sanctuary. Go figure.

Well, better allowing demons to exist to slaughter humans than having humanity do the slaughtering for them.

[Turalyon]

I'm going to have to disagree here. Baal may be the Lord of Destruction, but there's always been a goal for him and the other Evils to follow, and if Baal wants to destroy Sanctuary/humanity despite the fact that two of his brothers have bit the bullet, well, there goes his credibility as a villain.

So Baal's credibility as a villain is gone if he doesn't do what is inherently natural and expected (ie:destruction) of him? What?

I get that the Three Brother's goal in being exiled to Sanctuary was a way to get humanity to either side with them against Heaven or destroy them if they didn't want to (lest they be converted by Heaven). Each of the brother's did this in the way they knew best: hatred, terror and destruction. With Baal left at the end of D2, what else do you expect him to do but invite more destruction if not for revenge for his brothers being defeated? That alone is threat enough for humanity to try and stop him. Afterall, Baal is still following his agenda of converting those who want to be converted through his methods of destruction while also killing those who would resist or join Heaven.

And again, Diablo never struck me as a credible villain in Diablo II. This argument has been done before, but I'll emphasise the nature of the previous bosses of the game. Andariel feels credible because we see what she's done to the Sisters of the Sightless Eye. Baal feels credible because we see what's happened to Aranoch due to his presence. Mephisto feels credible because we see what's happened to Kurast and the Zakarum because of him-I'll admit to whispering "holy shit" once I entered the Durance of Hate and seeing the pools of blood and piles of bodies.

You have to remember that Diablo was the one who set all this in motion. Andy, Duriel, Mephisto and Baal's strengthened presence in Sanctuary were not possible until Diablo was free to walk around again and either summon them (andy and Duriel) or free them (Mephisto and Baal). The horrors that you face are all due to Diablo having walked ahead of you.

And then there's Diablo. We're 'told' that bad stuff will happen if his plan (whatever it really is, it's still vague even after Izual tells you about the soulstones), but there's nothing in Act IV to suggest he's much of a threat at all.

If he's marshalling demons to restore his rule in Hell...why should I care what happens bar Izual's "you're doomed" speech?

Not much of a threat? What about his pink lightning?

What's so vague about Izual's speech? At this point, it is Diablo's plan to marshal the forces of Hell so that they can go invade Sanctuary proper. Given all the shite he had kicked up to bar your way, all of that would be nothing if D can rally Hell to his side and allow limitless numbers of demons to enter Sanctuary. That enough of a threat for you?

He's left Sanctuary. Yet I'm here in the outskirts of Hell. Tyrael does nothing, the other heroes in the Pandemonium Fortress say nothing and the act seems to be telling us indirectly that Azmodan and Belial are almost as incompetant as Diablo himself, who's skulking around in the Chaos Sanctuary.

Act IV in D2 has long been infamous for it's gimped length, lack of polish and rushed feel. I told you not to expect anything spectacular didn't I?

I know they are revealed to be as such in D3 but what's this Act IV "telling us indirectly that Belial and Azmodan are almost as incompetent as Diablo" thing you're talking about? Is it because they're skulking around in Hell as well?

I thought you of all people would've known that Azmodan and Belial are not involved in the Three's plan because they don't want to go to Sanctuary to meddle with dirty humans. They wanted to fight Heaven directly while the Three wanted to subvert humanity which led to the exile (which was apparently planned from the beginning by Mephisto) of the Three. After that, they then got busy fighting each other because they each wanted to rule over Hell. How does this makes them as incompetent as Diablo?

[Hawki]

So Baal's credibility as a villain is gone if he doesn't do what is inherently natural and expected (ie:destruction) of him? What?

It's lessened if he doesn't have a specific goal behind it. I mean, if he wanted to destroy all of Sanctuary and its people to prevent them from joining Heaven's side, that's still a goal, of sorts. But if he couldn't reign his desire to cause destruction in at all, then he'd have spent his whole time fighting Hell instead of Heaven because they're the closer target.

You have to remember that Diablo was the one who set all this in motion. Andy, Duriel, Mephisto and Baal's strengthened presence in Sanctuary were not possible until Diablo was free to walk around again and either summon them (andy and Duriel) or free them (Mephisto and Baal). The horrors that you face are all due to Diablo having walked ahead of you.

I'd actually give Mephisto the credit in that through the corruption of the Zakarum, Lazarus got sent to Tristram, who freed Diablo. Diablo might have done the 'dirty work' on the treck to Kurast but it was Mephisto who made his release possible.

Not much of a threat? What about his pink lightning?

Not as much buildup in the same way. As a boss himself, he was one of the most annoying bosses I've ever faced, Diablo II or otherwise.

What's so vague about Izual's speech? At this point, it is Diablo's plan to marshal the forces of Hell so that they can go invade Sanctuary proper. Given all the shite he had kicked up to bar your way, all of that would be nothing if D can rally Hell to his side and allow limitless numbers of demons to enter Sanctuary. That enough of a threat for you?

Alright, maybe not vague, but more empty boasting. I've defeated everything Hell's thrown at me so far, and Izual himself isn't spectacular as a boss bar his enourmous HP. Not to mention that theoretically at this point, Hell could have spilt over at any time. The reason the Prime Evils didn't was that it would alert Heaven and Sanctuary would be lost to both sides. In foresight we're given info on the dampening effects of the Worldstone and the like, and it can be implied from Lord of Destruction that corrupting the Worldstone would make the whole corruption thing easier, but at this point, it feels like hollow boasting.

Act IV in D2 has long been infamous for it's gimped length, lack of polish and rushed feel. I told you not to expect anything spectacular didn't I?

If you did, I forgot. Unfortunately...

I know they are revealed to be as such in D3 but what's this Act IV "telling us indirectly that Belial and Azmodan are almost as incompetent as Diablo" thing you're talking about? Is it because they're skulking around in Hell as well?

I thought you of all people would've known that Azmodan and Belial are not involved in the Three's plan because they don't want to go to Sanctuary to meddle with dirty humans. They wanted to fight Heaven directly while the Three wanted to subvert humanity which led to the exile (which was apparently planned from the beginning by Mephisto) of the Three. After that, they then got busy fighting each other because they each wanted to rule over Hell. How does this makes them as incompetent as Diablo?

I knew they descended into civil war wanting to be the sole ruler from the start. That alone speaks of the ammount of competency they have. But no, it goes further:

*Andariel and Duriel, among other demons are joining the Prime Evils willingly. The Primes are on the mortal plane right now and they strike them as the winning side.

*Entering Hell, I find Izual wandering around. You'd think that Izual would have been kept incarcerated even as the civil war rages. But no. Either Azmodan and Belial can't keep him incarcerated or they think he's of no further use, in which case, kill him, send him into the Abyss or, if they can do such a thing, Void. And if he does escape on entirely his own merits, it's never mentioned.

*Act IV seems to take place on the outskirts of Hell, as in, on the other side of the gates of Hell. The vulnrable side. The side that Heaven would have free reign of with a sizeable force given that most of the demons strike me as outcasts or wild creatures. So with this all being said...why is the Hellforge on the other side of the Gates of Hell? Heck, it's like Faramir bringing Denethor the One Ring, and Denethor deciding to keep it locked away on the Pelenor Fields instead of Minas Tirith. Granted, Denethor's crazy like that, but you get my drift.

You know, at least Izual could escape on his own merits. But whose bright idea was it to have the Hellforge, a device that can forge weapons of incredible power, be situated out in the middle of nowhere where anyone could claim it bar the comparatively few demons guarding it? Either a demon moved it from the start (stupid) or all throughout the Great Conflict, it's been there out in the open, which means that not only are all the Lords of Hell morons (doubtful), or Azmodan and/or Belial basically tossed it out like a piece of wrapping paper. Considering that the Primes have struck me as competant foes on Sanctuary, I'm going to point the finger to Azmodan and Belial. Oh, and if it was indeed left out in the open the whole time, how the heck did Izual get captured while assaulting it in the first place? And since the plot dictates going to the Hellforge, how about opening up a portal and doing a quick in and out mission? Possibly contrived, but makes far more sense IMO.

You know, it's funny. It's kind of like the whole "prophecy in SCII OMG no!" argument when not only prophecy has been around beforehand, but it's hardly a big step from a universe of psionic powers and the Void. Here, we've got people arguing about Belial and Azmoan being incompetant in DIII where, even if that's valid, I have to say I got a sense of that in DII if not in the DI manual. Heck, at least in The Order Belial came across as a credible threat. Despite the disapointment others reported it to be (and I myself found it average) I'll at least give Kenyon credit for making Belial actually live up to his moniker of Lord of Lies.

[Turalyon]

It's lessened if he doesn't have a specific goal behind it. I mean, if he wanted to destroy all of Sanctuary and its people to prevent them from joining Heaven's side, that's still a goal, of sorts. But if he couldn't reign his desire to cause destruction in at all, then he'd have spent his whole time fighting Hell instead of Heaven because they're the closer target.

Ah, so you don't like the prospect that Baal doesn't have a goal in mind for all his destruction? Well, not all motivations need specific goals. People do things all the time without rhyme or reason and yet we still have a measure of control over ourselves. One would then think that a demon that is naturally predisposed to destruction (or at the least the personification of it) will do it with out without purpose like a force of nature.

Think of it like Warhammer's Chaos God Khorne. He has no real goals but killing. Anything that leads to more killing such as scaring/coercing/convincing others into killing and denying others from joining rival idealogies through their deaths all help the main goal of killing. Baal's ideology is similar - it's just called destruction instead.

It may come off as feeling petty but what's wrong with a demon being petty? Baal has good reason to try and destroy Sanctuary since his Brothers were defeated by humans. Besides, there's also a precedent. The Evils have been fighting Heaven for an eternity only because they are "good" and supposedly diametrically opposed. That seems pretty petty to me (but in keeping with their nature). It's like "What? You guys just can't talk it through and leave each other alone?"

I'd actually give Mephisto the credit in that through the corruption of the Zakarum, Lazarus got sent to Tristram, who freed Diablo. Diablo might have done the 'dirty work' on the treck to Kurast but it was Mephisto who made his release possible.

This is true but you're missing the point I was making that that "dirty work" Diablo does is enough for us to consider him a viable threat throughout D2 that warrants us to try and stop him.

Alright, maybe not vague, but more empty boasting.

Hmmm, if you feel that way already then this doesn't bode well for your venture into D3...

I've defeated everything Hell's thrown at me so far, and Izual himself isn't spectacular as a boss bar his enourmous HP. Not to mention that theoretically at this point, Hell could have spilt over at any time. In foresight we're given info on the dampening effects of the Worldstone and the like, and it can be implied from Lord of Destruction that corrupting the Worldstone would make the whole corruption thing easier, but at this point, it feels like hollow boasting.

Hold on a sec. It's a hollow threat that the Hells would spill into Sanctuary because you've single-handedly defeated armies of demons so far? What you've said here touches on the problem of all games (or fiction anywhere really) featuring a singular hero surmounting what is supposed to be impossible odds - that is, any threat (no matter how hyped their threat level is) is generalised as being no threat whatsoever when compared to/facing your hero.

D1 is effective in subverting this since you're meant to defeat Diablo and become him. But if D2 suffers this issue, then so does LoD. The 'foresight' of the Worldstone's importance makes no difference because it still makes the threat of Hellish invasion "hollow". Your complaint that in D2 is that the threat from Hellish invasion is hollow because the hero is more powerful than anything, but this is even despite the (yet to be revealed at his point) Worldstone still being intact and supposedly dampening the Nephalem's power (the negation of which is the reason given for why the heroes in D3 are able to do what they do throughout the game). Following that reasoning, you should then start complaining about why Baal would bother to corrupt the Worldstone or why Tyrael should fear that if he doesn't destroy the Hell's would pour through because the hero is the "bee's knees". Surely, you must realise that there is a hole in your reasoning here.

But no, it goes further...

I'm not sure how some of those examples you've provided is proof that they are incompetent. Either that or you haven't explained yourself properly. From what I can tell, you seem to be railing against the Demon's choices in hindsight. How can you blame them for not knowing what's going to happen in the future?

The Hellforge issues you have are valid ones. The majority of those complaints can be laid squarely on the length and general poor design issues of the Act itself (you may get a sense of deja vu when you get to Act IV of D3). Being fair though, the Hellforge isn't just within reach of the Pandemonium Fortress. You have to walk through the Outer Steppes, Plains of Despair, City of the Damned and half-way through the River of Flame before you find it. This is not even mentioning that it is close to Terror HQ (the Chaos Sanctuary). If the Act was much larger, I'd expect some of those complaints regarding the Hellforge being on the outskirts/so close/lightly defended to disappear. I guess you'd just have to use your imagination to make up for it.

It's kind of like the whole "prophecy in SCII OMG no!" argument when not only prophecy has been around beforehand, but it's hardly a big step from a universe of psionic powers and the Void.

Here we go again...

You would be hard pressed to convince anyone in saying that there was direct evidence in Sc1 of any prophecy before Sc2. All you have is Duran's purposefully vague statements which most of the pro-prophecy arguers go on to say is strict fact. It is often the same people who express such rigidity in that claim but then go on to discount statements made by other characters (Raynor's vow). Talk about double standard. Anyway, all I can take from this is that nothing that anyone has said or shown before can ever be taken for granted. This is bad in more ways than one...

Here, we've got people arguing about Belial and Azmoan being incompetant in DIII where, even if that's valid, I have to say I got a sense of that in DII if not in the DI manual.

That's a bit of a stretch. You haven't provided one lick of evidence that directly proves incompetency on the part of Azmodan and Belial in either D1 or D2 which isn't just assumption on your part and/or due to poor game design/implementation.

[Hawki]

Ah, so you don't like the prospect that Baal doesn't have a goal in mind for all his destruction? Well, not all motivations need specific goals. People do things all the time without rhyme or reason and yet we still have a measure of control over ourselves. One would then think that a demon that is naturally predisposed to destruction (or at the least the personification of it) will do it with out without purpose like a force of nature.

Think of it like Warhammer's Chaos God Khorne. He has no real goals but killing. Anything that leads to more killing such as scaring/coercing/convincing others into killing and denying others from joining rival idealogies through their deaths all help the main goal of killing. Baal's ideology is similar - it's just called destruction instead.

It may come off as feeling petty but what's wrong with a demon being petty? Baal has good reason to try and destroy Sanctuary since his Brothers were defeated by humans. Besides, there's also a precedent. The Evils have been fighting Heaven for an eternity only because they are "good" and supposedly diametrically opposed. That seems pretty petty to me (but in keeping with their nature). It's like "What? You guys just can't talk it through and leave each other alone?"

I think something got lost in translation here. I'll address it in point form.

*I wouldn't have an issue with Baal resorting to destruction if there was no other recourse avaliable to him. However, even if there was no Worldstone to seize, he could still take over from Diablo by rallying loyalists in Hell. He can destroy Sanctuary, but such action would ultimately attract Heaven's attention and as sizeable an army he can create from his actions on Sanctuary, I don't see it having much chance against the Heavenly Host. But as there is recourse open to him via the Worldstone, it's kind of a moot point.

(At least that's how I interpreted their meeting. Mephisto stays in the 'control node' of Kurast, Diablo rallies their forces in Hell, Baal corrupts Sanctuary. Or rather, searched for his soulstone first but hey, same goal in the end.)

*Khorne isn't that good a comparison to Baal, or rather any of the Prime Evils. The Chaos gods aren't even really characters in the same way the Prime Evils are, but rather manifestations of emotion. More towards the C'thulu archeatype, things hiding in the background, directing their will simply because it's what their essence dictates. To my knowledge, they've never been written for or directly depicted in either the fantasy or 40K settings and IMO, it should stay that way.

Hold on a sec. It's a hollow threat that the Hells would spill into Sanctuary because you've single-handedly defeated armies of demons so far? What you've said here touches on the problem of all games (or fiction anywhere really) featuring a singular hero surmounting what is supposed to be impossible odds - that is, any threat (no matter how hyped their threat level is) is generalised as being no threat whatsoever when compared to/facing your hero.

D1 is effective in subverting this since you're meant to defeat Diablo and become him. But if D2 suffers this issue, then so does LoD. The 'foresight' of the Worldstone's importance makes no difference because it still makes the threat of Hellish invasion "hollow". Your complaint that in D2 is that the threat from Hellish invasion is hollow because the hero is more powerful than anything, but this is even despite the (yet to be revealed at his point) Worldstone still being intact and supposedly dampening the Nephalem's power (the negation of which is the reason given for why the heroes in D3 are able to do what they do throughout the game). Following that reasoning, you should then start complaining about why Baal would bother to corrupt the Worldstone or why Tyrael should fear that if he doesn't destroy the Hell's would pour through because the hero is the "bee's knees". Surely, you must realise that there is a hole in your reasoning here.

My reasoning is that in the first three acts, I see evidence of the evil I'm dealing with. It's absent in Act IV because for all Izual's talk that Hell is poised to spill over, there's no evidence of it in the Act itself. And in the end, Diablo has to deal with Azmodan and Belial before getting control of Hell again. Compared to the dire situations faced before, I feel like I've got far more breathing room.

The Hellforge issues you have are valid ones. The majority of those complaints can be laid squarely on the length and general poor design issues of the Act itself (you may get a sense of deja vu when you get to Act IV of D3). Being fair though, the Hellforge isn't just within reach of the Pandemonium Fortress. You have to walk through the Outer Steppes, Plains of Despair, City of the Damned and half-way through the River of Flame before you find it. This is not even mentioning that it is close to Terror HQ (the Chaos Sanctuary). If the Act was much larger, I'd expect some of those complaints regarding the Hellforge being on the outskirts/so close/lightly defended to disappear. I guess you'd just have to use your imagination to make up for it.

You know, I don't really have problem with the design of Act IV per se. It's short, and clearly suffered from being rushed as far as I can tell, what with the limited gossip options from Tyrael and Cain and the mute heroes in the fortress. But it makes sense that one is on the outskirts of Hell because it makes it believable that the hero/heroes aren't torn apart immediately and that it gives Diablo a credible power base via the Chaos Sanctuary. But the Hellforge just doesn't make sense and what gripes me more is that the issue could have so easily been gotten around with the portal thing I mentioned. You know, from Tyrael or instance. Give the angel something to do bar tell us mere mortals that we have to save ourselves, thank you very much.

(If it isn't clear by now, I really dislike Tyrael in Diablo II. At least Cain has an excuse for not doing anything bar info dump given his age.)

Here we go again...

You would be hard pressed to convince anyone in saying that there was direct evidence in Sc1 of any prophecy before Sc2. All you have is Duran's purposefully vague statements which most of the pro-prophecy arguers go on to say is strict fact. It is often the same people who express such rigidity in that claim but then go on to discount statements made by other characters (Raynor's vow). Talk about double standard. Anyway, all I can take from this is that nothing that anyone has said or shown before can ever be taken for granted. This is bad in more ways than one...

We've had this argument before, so I'll spare a lecture that prophecy was established well before SC2, even discounting SC1. And Raynor's statement isn't discounted because it's specifically stated in his bio that he gave up his quest for vengeance.

Now before you say it, yes, I agree this could have been handled better. It's a violation of the "show, don't tell rule" and considering the plot of WoL and Raynor's decision to spare her at the end, the whole 'letting go of vengeance' thing could have easily been addressed in the game, even if he's not actively searching for it. But I can't fault the issue entirely because it was at least addressed, just not adequately. Just like Tassadar. I don't have a problem with his resurrection per se, in that if I did, I would have complained about it after reading Twilight. But I certainly feel it could have been handled better than it was in the game. And even at the end of the day, while I understand the behind the scenes reasoning, I don't feel it was necessary at this point in time. He's no Medivh, so to speak.

[Turalyon]

He can destroy Sanctuary, but such action would ultimately attract Heaven's attention and as sizeable an army he can create from his actions on Sanctuary, I don't see it having much chance against the Heavenly Host.

Then again, it still doesn't take this option off the table. Baal's threat of infecting the Worldstone is the same as his possible general goal of destruction since they both accomplish the same thing. How you can imply bringing more demons into Sanctuary is not the same thing as more destruction in general, I do not know. And yet no other Angel except Tyrael, who is revealed to be a renegade working on his own while the other angels sat back and watched, would lift a finger to help even then.

As to the Heavenly host being a match for Hell's forces, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. They've been fighting each for millenia to a stand-still - Hell's forces must be doing something right or the Heavenly Host are pansies. Also, you have to keep in the mind that Heaven and Hell are both vying for control of the power (the souls if you will )that is held in Sanctuary. An army mustered from Sanctuary would be the tipping point for whomever can do such a thing. With the Evil's already seemingly having a leg-up on this front, you'd expect the Heavens to be worried.

Khorne isn't that good a comparison to Baal, or rather any of the Prime Evils. The Chaos gods aren't even really characters in the same way the Prime Evils are, but rather manifestations of emotion.

I'm not asking for a straight comparison or saying they're the same. I was using Khorne as an illustration of the elemental/primal nature for what "destruction" stands for.

My reasoning is that in the first three acts, I see evidence of the evil I'm dealing with. It's absent in Act IV because for all Izual's talk that Hell is poised to spill over, there's no evidence of it in the Act itself. And in the end, Diablo has to deal with Azmodan and Belial before getting control of Hell again. Compared to the dire situations faced before, I feel like I've got far more breathing room.

What more evidence are you looking for? Do you want the Act to be impossible to finish due to every sqaure inch of Act IV being covered in demons as your evidence? I honestly don't know where your expectations are going with this.

The dire situation has always remained the same as before. The PC is tasked to stop Diablo because of the damage his rampage has caused. In that sense, Andy, Duriel and Mephisto can be considered as roadblocks and/or the result of Diablo's passage. The threat of demonic invasion should be considered the cherry on top in the magnitude of threat that Diablo possesses. Since your PC knows nothing of Hellish politics, as far as the PC's concern, Sanctuary is in trouble one way or another if he/she doesn't stop Diablo.

You know, I don't really have problem with the design of Act IV per se. It's short, and clearly suffered from being rushed as far as I can tell, what with the limited gossip options from Tyrael and Cain and the mute heroes in the fortress. But it makes sense that one is on the outskirts of Hell because it makes it believable that the hero/heroes aren't torn apart immediately and that it gives Diablo a credible power base via the Chaos Sanctuary. But the Hellforge just doesn't make sense and what gripes me more is that the issue could have so easily been gotten around with the portal thing I mentioned.

I'm not sure how you can dismiss obvious design faults that you yourself have noted and then go on and say (I'm paraphrasing you) the Hellforge is in the wrong place, which incidentally is another minor design issue. I'm rightly surprised that you don't complain as well that the Chaos Sanctuary (the seat of Terror HQ) is too damn close to the Pandemonium fortress/outskirts of Hell. Or is that next?

You're tantamount to saying that the Hellforge is way too convenient being where it is in relation to the importance it has. I agree with you there in part (because I do think Act IV in D2 is kinda lame in its entire design) but I also feel the same way about the Sc2 artifact and yet I see that you don't appreciate the similarity in the issues presented there...

And Raynor's statement isn't discounted because it's specifically stated in his bio that he gave up his quest for vengeance.

But I can't fault the issue entirely because it was at least addressed, just not adequately.

I'm not sure you understand the magnitude of those statements. Surely, you can't blame others for not reading every tid-bit of info before playing the game, can you? A game that supposedly focuses on one individual in a sequel no less (which one would think have some sort of continuance) fails to even appropriately address where he came from since we last saw him in what was a pivotal moment in his life.

Even if it does say such a thing, there are numerous problems with how that particular problem is solved in terms of wider continuance issues. First, it's in a vague spot with no-one ever indicating that it contains a piece of important information about characterisation that will not be explored in the game itself. Second, it's a slap in the face for the dramatic tension that ended with Raynor's speech. Raynor wasn't just making a vow, he was becoming a new man by stepping out of the shadows and putting an end to his victimisation by others. When WoL starts, he's a victim of circumstance (again!). Third, people are rightly complaining that they can't pin Raynor's headspace either from the start or even straight to the end of WoL. Some information as to how he changed within the game may have alleviated some of that.

I don't have a problem with his resurrection per se, in that if I did, I would have complained about it after reading Twilight.

I don't think I even want to know....

[Hawki]

What more evidence are you looking for? Do you want the Act to be impossible to finish due to every sqaure inch of Act IV being covered in demons as your evidence? I honestly don't know where your expectations are going with this.

Demons in the background maybe? A cinematic? I don't know if the game engine would have allowed for in-game cutscenes the same way Warcraft III did (conveying the rampage of the Burning Legion for instance) but either I feel the act needed something to back up the claim, or Izual's wording could have been altered. That Diablo was going to rally Hell's forces rather than saying "Hell is poised" to attack Sanctuary, which conveys that Diablo's already in charge of Hell or something when he clearly isn't.

I'm not sure how you can dismiss obvious design faults that you yourself have noted and then go on and say (I'm paraphrasing you) the Hellforge is in the wrong place, which incidentally is another minor design issue. I'm rightly surprised that you don't complain as well that the Chaos Sanctuary (the seat of Terror HQ) is too damn close to the Pandemonium fortress/outskirts of Hell. Or is that next?

You're tantamount to saying that the Hellforge is way too convenient being where it is in relation to the importance it has. I agree with you there in part (because I do think Act IV in D2 is kinda lame in its entire design) but I also feel the same way about the Sc2 artifact and yet I see that you don't appreciate the similarity in the issues presented there...

What faults? I said the act was rushed, but that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't make sense in its own context. Again, why is the Hellforge on the outskirts of Hell?

And since you bring it up, I don't have an issue with the Chaos Sanctuary, because it's a military base for all intents and purposes, and miltary bases can be located outside borders. Let's treat it like an RTS. If the Chaos Sanctuary is a battle structure, I can put it on the frontlines. But if the Hellforge is my proverbial barracks or command center, I'm going to put it well behind the battle structures, so to speak.

And if there's a similarity betwen the Hellforge and relic, I don't see it. The relic pieces were hidden, sequestered on planets light years apart, meant to be hard to find, and as far as we know, the xel'naga weren't using it for themselves. In contrast, the Hellforge isn't hidden. You can rely on secrecy or force to guard your McGuffin, but the Hellforge has neither.

I'm not sure you understand the magnitude of those statements. Surely, you can't blame others for not reading every tid-bit of info before playing the game, can you? A game that supposedly focuses on one individual in a sequel no less (which one would think have some sort of continuance) fails to even appropriately address where he came from since we last saw him in what was a pivotal moment in his life.

Even if it does say such a thing, there are numerous problems with how that particular problem is solved in terms of wider continuance issues. First, it's in a vague spot with no-one ever indicating that it contains a piece of important information about characterisation that will not be explored in the game itself. Second, it's a slap in the face for the dramatic tension that ended with Raynor's speech. Raynor wasn't just making a vow, he was becoming a new man by stepping out of the shadows and putting an end to his victimisation by others. When WoL starts, he's a victim of circumstance (again!). Third, people are rightly complaining that they can't pin Raynor's headspace either from the start or even straight to the end of WoL. Some information as to how he changed within the game may have alleviated some of that.

I'll go in point form here:

*I was never "blaming" anyone for anything. Like I said, it's a violation of the show don't tell rule.

*Even if we ignore the bio, even if we're going by actual products, we've seen Raynor in DLC missions (2 by my reckoning in regards to actual story), a comic series, a manga book and a tabletop RPG in a chronological sense, of events taking place between Brood War and Wings of Liberty. Even if one takes an exclusionist approach to product purchase, I find it hard to believe that over the 12 years that were in-between events, they were completely in the dark. If people had an issue with Raynor's character development, they had 12 years to vent their spleens and I never saw it. Certainly I did when his time in the Alliance was marginalized via the comic series but no-one cared then.

And since it's approached the topic, if you want to make the argument that EU fiction should be bereft of plot-relevant material (or rather, material that changes the status quo), that's another argument entirely. But if I'm a writer, and given an option of a) wait 12 years to pile everything into a large work or b) spread it out over shorter works while working towards said larger work, I'm going to go with b. Granted, it could be with my writing style and approach to multi-chaptered stories (again with the fanfic thing), but even so, if we're having an old vs. new argument, we had 12 years to get used to the new, similar to the gap between D2 and D3.

*I never had a problem with Raynor over the course of WoL. Or, rather, I never had a problem with it in the sense of how the story is meant to flow. If you're making the argument that it's inconsistant, then IMO, the game mechanics get the blame. And if I did take that argument, then I'd be obliged to criticize every other slightly open game where things are open for the player to deviate from the plot, even if events in the plot are meant to be urgent.

I don't think I even want to know....

You do realize I was referring to the Dark Templar Saga book, not the vampire one, right?

[Turalyon]

That Diablo was going to rally Hell's forces rather than saying "Hell is poised" to attack Sanctuary, which conveys that Diablo's already in charge of Hell or something when he clearly isn't.

This is hair-splitting. The threat still is and has always been this since Act IV starts: Hell is going to invade Sanctuary and Diablo is going to make this happen. He must be stopped. How are you not getting the inherent urgency in such a scenario? It doesn't even need to be stated really. There is nothing in there that even gives the remotest impression that the PC can kick back for... oh, say a year or two before the invasion starts as you seem to imply.

Again, why is the Hellforge on the outskirts of Hell?

I'm surprised you can't fancon a solution to this. Here's one if you're struggling: The Hellforge is not there primarily and conveniently for you to just smash Soulstones on it. The Hellforge is a place where all the weapons of Hell are made. It makes sense that it is on the outskirts because it can then equip the demons as they pass through and assault the Pandemonium fortress. It has a logistics value. There, was it that hard?

And since you bring it up, I don't have an issue with the Chaos Sanctuary, because it's a military base for all intents and purposes, and miltary bases can be located outside borders.

It's funny how you can just take Hadriel's description of the Chaos Sanctuary as "Terror's lair" and "Diablo's innermost sacntum" and just relegate that as being "some run-of-the-mill military post". Taking this further, you might as well start asking about why Diablo is even there and so easy for us to reach and even assault him.

And if there's a similarity betwen the Hellforge and relic, I don't see it. The relic pieces were hidden, sequestered on planets light years apart, meant to be hard to find, and as far as we know, the xel'naga weren't using it for themselves. In contrast, the Hellforge isn't hidden. You can rely on secrecy or force to guard your McGuffin, but the Hellforge has neither.

The similarity lies in the convenience in which they are found. Contrary to what you say, the artifact pieces are not all that well hidden ("Oh look, the next mission is another artifact piece. Let's go!") and are easily recovered by a rag-tag bunch of ill-equipped Terrans.

Besides, you have to consider that the Hellforge is actually located in Hell. Just take a minute and think on that a bit. Why does it even need to be hidden? Who the hell is crazy enough to invade Hell aside from Angels, all of whom have failed to ever reach it? It's not as if the Hellforge is completely unguarded, either - there's generic demons and a unique monstrous armourer there, too.

If people had an issue with Raynor's character development, they had 12 years to vent their spleens and I never saw it.

Maybe it's because no-one cared for them. I certainly wasn't aware of this other stuff until much later and by then, I had heard things that made me not even want to go down that path. The game is what I liked and it is the game I would turn to for answers. The thing with gaming EU's is that they are always highly inconsistent with what was in the game because they are written by others after only being given a general direction by the original creator, if even that (I can imagine Metzen just saying "Yeah, whatever" to any idea thrown his way). Saying, "well, it's canon" just makes it worse because then you're beholden to brush up on the lore. This, in turn, affects the game sequel because the creators then feel obligated to bring all this EU stuff in. As a result, the game sequel punishes you for not knowing things you should've known and what you're saying really does amount to "Well, it's your fault for not knowing/complaining earlier". That's just bs IMO.

You do realize I was referring to the Dark Templar Saga book, not the vampire one, right?

Now I do! I haven't read either of them, so I'm glad for the clarification. I was starting to get worried...

[Hawki]

This is hair-splitting. The threat still is and has always been this since Act IV starts: Hell is going to invade Sanctuary and Diablo is going to make this happen. He must be stopped. How are you not getting the inherent urgency in such a scenario? It doesn't even need to be stated really. There is nothing in there that even gives the remotest impression that the PC can kick back for... oh, say a year or two before the invasion starts as you seem to imply.

In a word, it tells. It doesn't show. The first three acts showed us what each Evil did, whereas all there is in Act IV are the claims of individuals such as Tyrael and Izual. I mean, I believe them to an extent, but there isn't much direct evidence that Diablo is amassing his forces. There's demons in the Chaos Sanctuary that I assume are loyal to him (as opposed to the stragglers that encompass most of the act) but it's hardly an army in the making.

I'm surprised you can't fancon a solution to this. Here's one if you're struggling: The Hellforge is not there primarily and conveniently for you to just smash Soulstones on it. The Hellforge is a place where all the weapons of Hell are made. It makes sense that it is on the outskirts because it can then equip the demons as they pass through and assault the Pandemonium fortress. It has a logistics value. There, was it that hard?

I shouldn't have to fancanon. No-one should have to. And quite frankly, that strikes me as stretching things. Any assault made by Hell is going to originate from their own side of the Gates of Hell, so if your logistics argument is valid, set it up there. Maybe they have to carry their weapons a bit longer, but somehow, I don't see that being an issue.

It's funny how you can just take Hadriel's description of the Chaos Sanctuary as "Terror's lair" and "Diablo's innermost sacntum" and just relegate that as being "some run-of-the-mill military post". Taking this further, you might as well start asking about why Diablo is even there and so easy for us to reach and even assault him.

He can hardly have a more secure lair at this point in time. He can't just walk into Hell and expect Azmodan and/or Belial to bow down. The Chaos Sanctuary makes sense in that it gives Diablo a place to appropriate, marshal his forces and then attack.

Besides, you have to consider that the Hellforge is actually located in Hell. Just take a minute and think on that a bit. Why does it even need to be hidden? Who the hell is crazy enough to invade Hell aside from Angels, all of whom have failed to ever reach it? It's not as if the Hellforge is completely unguarded, either - there's generic demons and a unique monstrous armourer there, too.

So, a bunch of rag-tag adventurers can take control of the Hellforge long enough to shatter Mephisto's soulstone, then do the same with Diablo's...and an entire host of angels can't?

Maybe it's because no-one cared for them. I certainly wasn't aware of this other stuff until much later and by then, I had heard things that made me not even want to go down that path. The game is what I liked and it is the game I would turn to for answers. The thing with gaming EU's is that they are always highly inconsistent with what was in the game because they are written by others after only being given a general direction by the original creator, if even that (I can imagine Metzen just saying "Yeah, whatever" to any idea thrown his way).

So, access to series story bibles, regular email correspondance with creators counts and numerous re-writes is "general direction?"

You do realize that it's Metzen or his equivalent in any current EU that's developing the story, that the authors are effectively ghost writers, right? Certainly they're allowed their own imput and ideas but they need clearence first. Or, if it's a story that isn't meant to change the status quo (e.g. the Frontline and Legends series, or the Diablo novels prior to The Sin War), then while the author is given wriggle room everything has to get clearence first. And even then there's the stuff written by the creators themselves.

There's the occassional blunder or typo, but small goofs such as I, Mengsk stating that Dylar is a gas giant (minor error, only in passing and irrelevant to the plot) are hardly on the same level as, say, the Mass Effect novel Deception (how that got past Bioware I don't know because apart from that, the Mass Effect EU is under similar editorial control as the above examples). And if there isn't oversight, it's usually due to the EU being set in an AR context, such as the Infiltrator trilogy of the Terminator setting or the various Sonic the Hedgehog comics and cartoons and even then, Sega has oversight over the end results.

Saying, "well, it's canon" just makes it worse because then you're beholden to brush up on the lore. This, in turn, affects the game sequel because the creators then feel obligated to bring all this EU stuff in. As a result, the game sequel punishes you for not knowing things you should've known and what you're saying really does amount to "Well, it's your fault for not knowing/complaining earlier". That's just bs IMO.

I'm going to have to go with "to each their own" because inclusionism and exclusionism are mutually exclusive. As an inclusionsit, I call bs on Diablo III for not referencing Wrath for instance which would have made the shot feel justified beyond telling me what I already know about the Angiris Council and average fight scenes.

I should probably specify that I'm not giving either game a free pass in EU links, or the lack of it. I can't entirely bring myself into the mindset of someone who wasn't familiar with preceeding material (insert solipsism quote here) but I'd still feel that the games stand on their own merits. Even if we didn't have interveening character development for Raynor for instance, it's established from the start that a) four years have passed and b) things haven't gone well for him. It takes time to build up his character, so even if you want to argue that he lacks character development, it still allows us to get used to his character now. Kind of like Han Solo in The Empire Strikes Back. Whatever may have occurred in the 3 years between A New Hope and said movie (stuff does, even when the movies were being made, but I haven't read that much Star Wars material), whatever may have provided a bridge to explain why he's still with the rebels and has developed an infatuation with Leia, the movie itself still takes time to show the character as he is now. If you want an example of EU done wrong, I'd point to Bay's Transformers movies, what with me having had the woe of seeing Revenge of the Fallen recently. Among its many flaws IMO is that apart from only a select few Autobots or Decepticons, I have no idea who the majority of the new 'bots are, such as the motorbike Autobots. I know that there's interquel material between the first and second film, but if it tells me who these characters are, it's irrelevant, because no time is taken in the movie to establish them the same way the previous examples do.

Now I do! I haven't read either of them, so I'm glad for the clarification. I was starting to get worried...

Actually, I've read both. Or half of vampire-Twilght at least. It's clearly for the teenage female demographic, but I wouldn't call it outright "bad." Haven't read the other novels or seen the movies though, so maybe the apparent universal loathing is justified.