Diablo 3 15 may

[Visions of Khas]

@Tychus, you or anyone else hear any favorable reviews for Diablo: The Order? Wondering whether I should get it or not.

[Gradius]

Now I'm only like halfway through, and I haven't played other Diablo-style games so I don't have anything else to compare this to, but I definitely don't think it's worse than SC2. Blizzard's trademark story flaws of the player-character being a god damn unstoppable badass, cheesy dialog, and the enemies uttering generic empty threats suits this type of game more than it did SC2. This was made up for IMHO with the good worldbuilding i.e. the lore lying around and all the people you can talk to. And hey, for a game where the whole point is to kill thousands of enemies with your single character, the enemies don't end up looking like such retards.

[Hawki]

Seriously, when I want a story I get it through books. Seeking it through a game which where it is gimped for the sake of gameplay has never made sense. If you don't like reading, watch a movie or a TV show.

If you want a good Diablo story, read the books. A new one came out on the 15th. You're never going to find a good story in 10 second cutscenes that heavily hindered by the game's emphasis on "rhythmic demon killing" as the developers called it.

Oh boy. The age old gameplay vs. story debate.

Of course, everyone has their own opinions on the topic, and I'll concede that for games, gameplay always has to come first. I'll also concede that games don't need a story to be fun, or certainly nothing more than backstory-certainly I never cared about the 'story' of Super Smash Brothers (at least for Melee, understand there's a story mode of sorts for Brawl) and I was far more concerned with Sonic beating Robotnik back in the 2D era than going into depth as to why he was doing it bar "good guy fights bad guy, have fun."

On the other hand, as I've grown older, I've found myself attracted to games with story and/or lore in them. Perhaps it's because games have become more expensive and I have to be more selective, but either way, I've come to see their value and select games based on them-even games with simple stories (ala platformers) are still good in my eyes in that there's actually a story being told within the game. This may also be due to the fact that I have to rely on lots of playthroughs due to the lack of ownership of any working current generation consoles, and I usually get console games instead of PC ones if I have a choice.

With games as a storytelling medium, I kind of see them as a bridge between movies and books, with the visuals of the former but the pacing of the latter-a movie's story generally has to be told in a few hours, while that of a game and book can go on at the player/reader's pace. On the other hand, games have to be less tightly plotted than movies due to gameplay and you're not going to get the same depth of narrative as books because they're still a visual medium. And there's also the question of how game stories might hinder gameplay-as much as I like(d) the series, I'll concede that Metal Gear's cutscenes, while doing much to tell the story, really take one out of the gameplay due to their length for instance. I think Portal and its sequel are probably the best examples of story never really getting in the way of gameplay IMO, in that it's told on the move, but this is the exception rather than the rule. From what I've heard, this is kind of similar in Diablo III, where bar cinematics and a few cutscenes, most of the story is told on the move as well, with additional lore being like a codex.

All in all, I admit that games aren't the best media in the world to tell stories. But different medias have different pros and cons, and I don't exempt games from story quality (or lack of it) if they're trying to tell a story in the first place.

you or anyone else hear any favorable reviews for Diablo: The Order? Wondering whether I should get it or not.

Positive review on Blizzplanet (probably part of the job description though) and it seems to have good feedback on Amazon, but it's probably a bit early to gauge general feedback. That being said, if Tychus has anything to say, I'd be glad to here it-certainly it's on my 'to get' list.

[broodmywarcraft]

Now I'm only like halfway through, and I haven't played other Diablo-style games so I don't have anything else to compare this to, but I definitely don't think it's worse than SC2. Blizzard's trademark story flaws of the player-character being a god damn unstoppable badass, cheesy dialog, and the enemies uttering generic empty threats suits this type of game more than it did SC2. This was made up for IMHO with the good worldbuilding i.e. the lore lying around and all the people you can talk to. And hey, for a game where the whole point is to kill thousands of enemies with your single character, the enemies don't end up looking like such retards.

which is why you should play the first two and read their manuals. Then you'll understand.

I'm too tired right now to go in-depth as to why I hate this game even more so than Starcraft 2, even though Starcraft is my favorite game story...

Maybe later in the week...

[TheEconomist]

I'm too tired right now to go in-depth as to why I hate this game even more so than Starcraft 2, even though Starcraft is my favorite game story...

Allow me to explain to you what went wrong, even if you don't. Your expectations were too high. Diablo has never had a good story in-game. Never. It's had ambiance. It's had environments. It's had lore. It's NEVER had a good story. Diablo 1 was get to the lowest floor and kill Diablo. No story, but really epic ambience and envronments. In Diablo 2, its just a copy and pasting of 'The Gunslinger' where you follow around a hooded black-robed man who leaves demonic traps behind for you. Diablo 3 actually has a plot, and, no matter how you feel about it, the fact that there even is one is an improvement.

The thing I loved the most about Diablo series was the ambiance. Diablo 1 did this, by far the best, It really gave off the feeling of being alone and fighting demons. It was just you, maybe a party, and then a few towns folk who explained to you the horrors going on around you with epic dialogue. Diablo 2 lost this for the sake of a larger world and bigger environments. Diablo 3 is even larger and has sacrificed more. It no longer feels like a dark horror fantasy but more like a darker WarCraft. Diablo 3 is vastly improved in all areas except for ambiance, but, as much as I hate the new light artstyle, it is an absolute must for game play.

I definitely don't think it's worse than SC2

Diablo's never had story. Never. All of it came in the form of the manuals and side books. It had epic dialogue akin to StarCraft, but the content of that dialogue was mostly, "The demons came in the night. Ripped apart my family." It gives a GREAT feeling of ambience but it is no plot or story.

Because of this basic difference, Diablo 3 is vastly improved even if the game's story is no longer interesting because of the loss of ambiance.

I knew broodmywarcraft would have this reaction from the very moment he said he was going to focus on the SP. That's why I lulz'd at it. It makes no sense to play Diablo for the story. I bet only nostalgia has allowed you to think that Diablo has ever had a good story in-game.

In the end, the only way for Blizzard to match player's expectations in story is to move to a style of game that would allow for this. When they move to a Dragon Age style RPG framework, and can cutscene the whole game away at the expense of pacing, then you can hope for a good story and then be disappointed if you don't get it. Until then, you CANNOT and NEVER WILL get a good story in a game where you mash some buttons, from a top town perspective, and listen to NPCs for a few seconds while selling your gear in town so that you can push through a dungeon for an hour and then watch/skip a ten second cutscene told through the same isometric perspective.

@Tychus, you or anyone else hear any favorable reviews for Diablo: The Order? Wondering whether I should get it or not.

Nah, haven't heard anything. I'm dual reading the Night Angel and Dune series so I can't get started. I have, however, read all of the other books. And, the Sin War trilogy is as good as a tie-in to a video game could possibly be. So, if you haven't read it yet, then get it. Legacy of Blood is also decent. It is the best for ambiance since it was made during the Diablo 1 era of the lore, before the release of Diablo 2.

[TheEconomist]

Oh dear, I've caught spamclickitis from Diablo 3 and double posted!

[Twilice]

Well there are a lot of books inside the game, but maybe I'm confusing lore and story of being to close related. I've played it through a lot of times now and it still amazes me that I can find books that seems to be drawn closer to what was going on behind the scenes in Diablo 1 and Diablo 2. I know most of the books found is focused on the lore, but for example some of the different archangel books/diaries are a directly related to the story.

And the plot twist in act 2 was just hilarious. The "pretend to be evil to pretend to be good to be evil" thing was pretty fun. It became a bit obvious quite fast, but it was still a good moment in the story since it was seen that the hero you played seemed to understood she was Belial all along at about the same time you knew, but still played a long because it was best to not give information away.

I miss a information of how exactly Belial took over Caldiem though, maybe I've missed a few books there as well or didn't talk to the correct people at the correct times. I didn't play Diablo 3 for the story though, so I haven't searched every corner possible. And still it felt like I didn't have to do much to know what was going on.

[TheEconomist]

@Hawki: I've been known to enjoy game stories as well. They, too, are also important to me and if its a genre that is conducive to it, I judge a game quite heavily upon that.

However, games like Diablo 3 favor gameplay so far ahead of storytelling that I just don't see why people would play it with much hopes for it. I'd rather get that from somewhere else. The same goes for most genres and games with the exception of the obvious likes of The Witcher, Mass Effect, and adventure games.

[broodmywarcraft]

Shut up Tychus. I don't need you to tell me what went wrong, I know what went wrong, the game did.

Don't assume that it's Nostalgia on my brain regarding the first two games, I played them last year to refresh myself and they were still damn good as single player experiences.

I went into Diablo 3 expecting good dialogue, good ambiance, and overall competent writing. I was expecting the atmospheric minimalism that made the first two games so good. That is a good singleplayer experience and considering I got that from the first two games, it's not 'setting expectations too high' to expect that from the third entry.

Instead, I got a noisy, shallow, clumsy, and frankly rushed experience.

The dialogue is laughably uneven to the point of abysmal. The bosses have been turned into comedical supervillians who can never seem to shut up. Compare that to Diablo 2 where the lack of dialogue made them more terrifying and it helped you didn't get some setup cinematic nearly every DAMN time you encountered one. I'm sure Duriel would have been scarier if I knew he was coming

And of course there were those retcons and outside lore changes. The worst of them being that the humans were actually conceived by Angels and Demons, thus had great power within them which led to quite possibly the worst line of dialogue ever when you encounter the cult in their lair when they say no mortal could possibly have taken out so many of them. So even though a mortal managed to take out the Prime Evils and their minions years before the world stone was destroyed, somehow a 'mere mortal' can't possibly take them out. Does Metzen specialize in ruining things? I think so.

Diablo 3 is nothing more than a rehash of Diablo 2 because Metzen is the George Lucas of the Video Game in Industry, and like Lucas with the prequels, if the old stuff was successful, let's rehash it with the new stuff, because hey, it worked before.

Act 1 in Diablo 3, Tristram, Deckard Cain, and having to fight down catacombs to reach a boss.

Act 1 in Diablo 2, Tristram, Deckard Cain, and having to fight down catacombs to reach a boss.

Act 2 in Diablo 3, Desert City, a magical artifact, The Crucible, that can combine jewels, and a Mad Wizard we must seek the aide of by locating his tomb.

Act 2 in Diablo 2, Desert City, a magical artifact, The Horadric Cube, that can combine jewels, and a Mad Wizard who must seek the aide of by locating his tomb.

Act 3 in Diablo 3 is just a combination of Acts 4 and 5 of Diablo 2 in reverse, where we must battle a legion of demons in Mount Arreat and dive into hell to kill an evil.

Act 4 in Diablo 3, we must stop the Prime Evil who is leaving a path of destruction from corrupting the Crystal Arch.

Act 5 of Diablo 2, we must stop a Prime Evil who is leaving a path of destruction from corrupting the Worldstone.

And let's pop in Izual at the end for some reason because he was in the last one and thus should be in this one too.

And what is the rush part you wonder? Well, when I am with my Templar, in Act 4, he says it is good to have Tyreal by our side...there is no Tyreal...but then when Tyreal does join me, he repeats that, however, in the text box, Tyreal replies, but it is saying that the Templar replied...when it's ready my ass!!

So get off your high horse Tychus! And by the by, I suspected that you'd react like that to my reaction

[TheEconomist]

I don't need you to tell me what went wrong, I know what went wrong, the game did.

You say that, then proceed to agree with me, word for word, exactly how I said it days/weeks/months ago, and then act as if I was way off base. Expecting anything more than what you got was foolish, from the beginning. No amount of sugarcoating can change that. Go read the Sin War trilogy.

I went into Diablo 3 expecting good dialogue, good ambiance, and overall competent writing.

Hence the problems.

I was expecting the atmospheric minimalism that made the first two games so good.

It was pretty obvious from the very first reveal that this was not going to happen. They first comments on the game were, "We want to expand the unverse." I know exactly what that means. Then they proceeded to explain what they had in plan for the series. I'm guessing you were busy with StarCraft 2 information back then,

The worst of them being that the humans were actually conceived by Angels and Demons

I knew this in 2005, when I read about the Sin War trilogy. It's been six years since this plot was explained clearly in a length novel, and you call yourself a lore fan? Apparently, there's a lot of lore you've missed so, instead of getting upset that Diablo 3 wasn't up to your expectations, you should go read the books that are out.

So even though a mortal managed to take out the Prime Evils and their minions years before the world stone was destroyed, somehow a 'mere mortal' can't possibly take them out.

So you consider it a plot hole when a boss says, "You will never make it out alive," and yet you do?

I can tell from the rushed speech you're using that you're cranky and tired. So I'll forgive the out burst. But, just know, I warned you how ever long ago it was that you were setting yourself up for disaster. I went into the game with realistic, clear expectations set by the previous games, and I was, again not disappointed. That is why I enjoy SC2 and D3 more than other people. Nostalgia is the ruiner of fun; not just Chris Metzen. When I first played Diablo 2, I was disappointed this the setting. It was no longer dark and terrifying and that's what the entire series is about. Therefore, how could expect anything less after seeing a screenshot?