Diablo 3 15 may

[Hawki]

Okay...I've got time on my hands...time to have fun and criticize. There's only so much I can comment on because I want to leave certain responses to a point where I've played the game. Usually I'm not this mean spirited, but it seems there's an inordinate reliance on pre-existing myth on one hand, and general ignorance on the other:

The tone implied by previous installations of the series (which, might I add, are also mechanically superior) has always been characteristically Gothic. This is easily evidenced by the art direction. The musical composition is heavily influenced by Gothic era northern European orchestration. The chronological setting and obvious derivations from roman-catholic mythology -- specifically that of John Milton and [an obtusely literal misinterpretation of] Dante Alighieri -- point to a narrow band of human history.

Um...what? Sanctuary isn't Earth. You can't compare Sanctuary's history to Earth's history because the former is a fantasy world and is under no obligation to conform to the real world.

The failure here begins with the fact that it's a linear story that has, until now, maintained an overall commitment to a dark and serious aesthetic that is both Gothic in theme and tonality. Diablo 3 breaks this form. It seems to be ambivalent or confused as to whether it should maintain its own mythological ambiance or make hundreds of cheap, stupid
puns, anachronistic pop-culture references, obnoxious swagger, and exploitation of trite contemporary action movie clichés -- and that barely even scratches the surface. At the very least breaks canon in tone and theme. Never break canon.

Not sure how "canon" can be applied to aesthetics. Not in the sense the article is making the reference to.

The player is here under somewhat ambiguous reasons, but that can be good since it leaves it open to the player to create their own backstory. One of the fundamental requirements is that the character does not behave in a way that breaks this image. It's quickly revealed, however, that all the player characters are conceited, unlikable cliché caricatures. What if my character was supposed to be guile incarnate, not an
arrogant child?

Again, incorrect. The Barbarian is there searching for purpose. Valla is there because the Demon Hunters dispatched her. Li-Ming is there because she saw the texts in the Yshari Sanctum, noticing the Fallen Star and investigated. The monk is there because the Patriarchs sent him to investigate. The witch doctor is there because he's on a quest for knowledge, broadly speaking, said knowledge hopefully resulting in the freedom of the Umbaru from spiritual slavery. All five characters have backstory. If you're creating backstory, that's headcanon, so the argument is redundant.

It's beyond obvious that the game's universe is primarily based on Judeo-Christian mythology. But it's extremely unevenly applied. Abstract concepts are taken from this mythology and used in an implicitly identical context, but are missing integral and defining components from the universe that need to exist to give the concept any meaning at all. Whether directly or indirectly, you've based the game's lore largely off of Milton, but you
seem to have a great deal of confusion about the nature of hell, domains, devils and demons.

Again, as a fantasy setting, it's under no obligation to apply a certain level of reference. Take The Chronicles of Narnia for instance which melds Christian mythology with paganism memes. Odd mix, but works well.

We already know Belial is probably the worst liar in the universe, but how is his domain made manifest for his encounter? Are all the poison and snakes a judeo-christian mythological allegory based on the Edenian legend? If so, was it not Diablo [Read: Satan]that took the form of a snake and lied to Eve. Would it not be then, Diablo who is Lord of Lies?

Diablo isn't Satan, Tathamet is. As for Belial's realm, don't know how his 'realm' appears in the game, but we have a description from Book of Cain, so it's a moot point.

Diablo/Satan plot to overthrow god, only because they know that god will not allow their freedom. Of course, against the omnipotence of a monotheistic god, they fail to achieve victory. Thus god creates hell as a domain of eternal torture and banishes Satan/Diablo, Sin and all their co-conspirators to that place. The angels banished by god
ave 'fallen out of the grace of god', hence the term 'fallen angel' a.k.a. devil.

Sigh...

Anu is "god" in the Diablo universe. Anu is gone from said universe, as is Tathamet. Tathamet never sought to "overthrow" Anu, they battled because they were diametrically opposed essences. Again, this is operating under the assumption that Diablo has to follow Paradise Lost to the letter.

The exiled angels/devils are spread out over hell and tied to various forms of sadistic torture for eternity. After many aeons, some of them manage to free themselves from their bonds and quickly discover that they are not alone. Terrible creatures exist in this domain that are living (unliving?) embodiments of pain, fear, malice, etc. -- creatures created by god for the sole and dedicated purpose of terrorizing and harming the fallen angels/devils. These creatures are known as demons.

I'm going to go out on a limb that if I mentioned "Izual" and "Inarius" to the writer...well, I don't want to be mean, but he's stating things that are not true in the Diablo setting and never have been. Angels were never banished to Hell in the setting. Hell wasn't created by Anu. Gah!

How does one influence a being [read: angel] that lacks the freedom of choice into becoming an abomination created by an angry god, who's sole purpose is to terrorize the very creature they are acting in accord with? According to the mythology that you've inaccurately plaigarized, this is
impossible. The only thing that defines divinity in this matter is that the angels that do exist, exist because they are extentions of god's will, physically incapable of any kind of defiance of nature.

Again with the mythology...and that Anu didn't create angels. They're spawned from the Crystal Arch, which has never been implied to have any sentience behind it. And angels have defied their nature before, such as Tyrael and Inarius.

Mythologically speaking, Diablo's purpose for helping in part to create organization in hell was for the purposes of formulating and executing an escape plan from the realm of eternal torture and to return to heaven, where they could once again experience happiness and serenity forever. The motivations of the story's antagonists are contradictory, unfaceted, shallow and completely unbelievable. Nothing in the
history of the known universe operates on the principal of evil-for-the-sake-of-evil. Nothing. No writer worth his salt exploits this.

Oh, bloody hell...

No, that's not a pun. Diablo didn't create organization in Hell. Mephisto was the main ringleader and even then, he played Baal and Diablo against each other. They weren't trying to "return" to Heaven, the main goal in the Great Conflict was the Worldstone. That's the goal.

So Adria supposedly gained access to the Black Soulstone in Kulle's lair at some point in the last 20 years, after meeting Aiden/Diablo and presumably after giving birth to Leah. She then proceeds to search the earth, casting Soul Trap on the other Lords of Hell. Since Adria has pledged her loyalty to the Lord of Tear-roar[sic], and since it was Diablo's wish
to free his brothers why wouldn't she have freed Baal then and there as per Diablo's wishes?

Because Diablo was working his own plan. To become the Prime Evil. If Adria frees them, working in league in the confines of that plan...derp. Plan ruined if they see through her. Concerning the other chronology, we do know some time passes between conception and the Dark Wanderer becoming...well, the Dark Wanderer. Adria has the headstart because just because she becomes pregnant doesn't mean she can't do stuff.

Azmodan, the Lord of Sin, and supposed 'Master Tactician', completely fails as a tactician. Sun Tzu, he is not. He fails not against superior tactics, cunning or strategem,but against a single person (canon) who casually facerolls his/her way down the train tracks in plain sight.

Canonically, it's a group of heroes actually, not just one.

Azmodan's encounter is difficult to fathom, because one must ask: 'How does one make manifest the dominion of going against the will of a tyrannical god [read: sin]?'

Um...was Azmodan's realm really 'spilling over' in the Arreat Crater? Because we know what the Realm of Sin looks like and the crater area doesn't fit the bill.

Diablo has wide, child-bearing hips. Diablo has firm, round, peachy buttocks

Because Leah's his host. Because he's got the essences of seven evils in him, not one. Because Andariel's part of that mix.

Diablo is telepathic.

Nah, really? I suppose we never knew that before. I suppose we've never seen demons doing that before...

(Hits head.)

We again need to emphasize the fatuous notion that Diablo has been wringing his hands to destroy the paradise he was banished from, and has sought to return to. What is there to gain?

Again, Diablo was never banished. As for gain...well, victory? I don't know, but if I would go down my own religious angle route as opposed to the writer, Diablo is about opposition. Light and dark with shades of grey both without and within. Diablo is doing the one thing he can do, bereft of goal. As did Imperius with his legalistic tyranny and the like.

Isn't heaven an immortal realm? If someone dies in
heaven, where do they go? You have already established in previous diablo games that souls are divided amongst heaven and hell after they depart The Great Incoming basket that is the earth. We've been in hell plenty of times and have seen the damned sould chained and tortured there. It's in your canon. It's been established that heaven and hell are the two diametrically opposed afterlife options, with the possibility of purgatory.

I...I don't...I can't...

Look, there's a difference between "claiming" souls and "place of residence for souls." It's been established that angel essences respawn from the Crystal Arch, demons from the Black Abyss. Human souls go to an unknown realm, where Anu is believed to reside. They don't go to Hell or Heaven based on merit, said merit being preached by the Zakarum. And "purgatory?" Um...kind of think that's "Pandemonium" in the Diablo setting...

Same realm as Anu's? No. But I'm not taking terms out of my arse.

###

Speaking broadly, this isn't my usual style of writing. I don't like being this mean spirited. He's probably got some valid points, but until I play the game, I can only comment on so many of them. But what really irritates me is that the writer strikes me as someone who wants media x to be media y, and if it isn't, criticizes it because of it. Do I dislike the themes of Paradise Lost, of the fall of Man/demons/angels? Wouldn't say so-wouldn't really say I dislike any myth per se (no offense intended with "myth" terminology). But the themes if Diablo are radically different. They've been so for years. Even if those themes were first fully explored in The Sin War Trilogy, the meme was present from day 1. Angels on one side, demons on the other, not demons stemming from angels. Choice between light and dark, not the quest to get out of dark to get to light. So when one bases their argument on themes that don't exist, they lose a large ammount of credibility in my eyes.

[TheEconomist]

@Hawki: You have to find the story in Diablo 1. You need to go back to town constantly to get new dialogue, not just when you get and end a quest.

If so, was it not Diablo [Read: Satan]that took the form of a snake and lied to Eve.

Wow, and he was doing so good. This is beyond retarded. Might as well compare Dracula to satan.

Because Leah's his host. Because he's got the essences of seven evils in him, not one. Because Andariel's part of that mix.

True, but its still a bastardization of the character like what they did to Kerrigan and Zeratul in SC2, just probably worse.

[Pr0nogo]

So this game is boring.

[TheEconomist]

Far from it.

[Hawki]

@Hawki: You have to find the story in Diablo 1. You need to go back to town constantly to get new dialogue, not just when you get and end a quest.

I did, but it's background material, not story material. I'm not faulting it, but it doesn't drive the story forward, only adds to said background. I went back every time to every character practically...except Wirt sometimes. Bought about one item off him, the little scammer.

True, but its still a bastardization of the character like what they did to Kerrigan and Zeratul in SC2, just probably worse.

Not sure how aesthetics really change character. Then again, I didn't see any "bastardization" of either Kerrigan or Zeratul either. And to be honest, at least in terms of characterization, Diablo had little to no character to begin with anyway.

[TheEconomist]

I did, but it's background material, not story material.

Background information IS story material. What you're referring to is plot material. A fanfic writer should know this. Besides, for a game like Diablo, its entire premise is based on background material. You ARE getting there after the fact and the game was too primitive to have curscenes. Plus, this isn't some JRPG trash.

Before you played the game, I told you that the game was based around setting up an environment and that the dialogue creating immersion. You can't then go into it expecting it to be a linearly led plot.

Not sure how aesthetics really change character.

*sigh* *sigh* *sigh*

Diablo is the Lord of Terror, what about "child-bearing hips" is terrifying?

Then again, I didn't see any "bastardization" of either Kerrigan or Zeratul either.

Must be the fanfic writer in you. You haven't written any StarCraft fanfics have you? I hope you didn't turn the characters into SC2 trash. Because honestly, and no offense, the way you COMPLETELY miss the point of several series tells me that you would probably not make a good story in any given universe.

And to be honest, at least in terms of characterization, Diablo had little to no character to begin with anyway.

He had no character development but he had DEFINITELY been set up to be terrifying, which was his purpose, which was assraped in Diablo 3.

[Gradius]

Now I agree that Diablo is under no obligation to follow any existing mythology to the letter, but I think the author compared the two to show that where demons have purpose in one mythos (to return to paradise), in Diablo their only goal is evil for the sake of evil. His point was that if they're going to take inspiration from a certain mythos, they shouldn't change character motivations to be so base and pointless.

Diablo isn't Satan, Tathamet is.

Wasn't Diablo theorized by Tyrael to basically be Tathamet reborn after he became the prime evil? So again, what is Diablo doing in heaven? You claim his goal is to get the worldstone, but it was destroyed, and he's only there for victory for the sake of victory, or evil for the sake of evil. Imperius has the excuse of the noble goal of wanting to destroy evil at least.

- Angels are helpless wimps.

Honestly, this irritated me alot. You see one of them fighting those winged demons 1v1 for like 2 minutes, only to get almost crushed when two more come, only for Imperius to warp in and save their sorry asses. They should be slaughtering those guys by the bushel, but instead they fare no better than regular humans (and Bastion's Keep actually surviving Azmodan's onslaught was totally unbelievable for me as well). Anyway, I have never seen a mythos where regular angels are just so damn unimpressive (graphics aside).

But hey, I guess it's not the worst offender in a universe where a human (nephalem, whatever) can punch a hole through the combined might of all evil. It's like, I want to get into Diablo lore, but because of stuff like this, I can't treat it as a serious & coherent fantasy universe.

Its a shame you were introduced to Diablo through Diablo 3 Gradius. Truly, truly sad.

I played through D1 a little bit after it but didn't get far, and I watched the D2 cinematics. I can see why the author might have taken it personally. What I don't see is why Blizzard has to take all their inspiration nowadays from world of warcraft, and turn everything into a juvenile "end of the world" story.

So this game is boring.

Not in my opinion. I've played it for over a hundred hours. But I'm quitting now since I don't feel like farming the rest of my life to beat inferno. I'm either supposed to miracle up 50 million gold or just lose all of my pride & respect to buy gear from the auction house with real money.

[Hawki]

Background information IS story material. What you're referring to is plot material. A fanfic writer should know this. Besides, for a game like Diablo, its entire premise is based on background material. You ARE getting there after the fact and the game was too primitive to have curscenes. Plus, this isn't some JRPG trash.

Background material effectively becomes story material when it becomes relevant to said story. Otherwise, it remains background material.

Consider Lord of the Rings for instance, how the first chapter ("Concerning Hobbits") is largely an info dump. A technique that if published today, I doubt Tolkien would get away with. It's background material, but only becomes relevant to the plot once it covers Bilbo finding the One Ring. At this point, background material effectively becomes plot material. Until then, the background material is simply info the story itself doesn't need-we don't need to know the three kindreds of hobbits for instance because we only ever see one of them and while Gollum/Smeagol is of the Stoor branch, we don't need the ammount of information that we do.

Diablo is like this first chapter in a nutshell, at least in regards to the actual game. The manual's background material becomes plot material because it covers Diablo, his imprisonment and quest to get free. The actual game however doesn't give a plot at all really until the staff of Lazarus is found. It's simply a case of "recieve a quest, get background on said quest, do quest and have no-one mention the aftermath of said quest." No-one mentioned my defeat of the Butcher. Farnham didn't cheer when Lazarus was killed. I'm not expecting intricate cutscenes, but there could have so easily been a core narrative to string things together. The key change is the Lazarus bit because his defeat logically leads into the Diablo fight. But until then, there's nothing really to seperate primary from secondary quests. Heck, I could probably beat the whole game after only beating Lazarus and Diablo. Bad move really, due to needing XP, but still...

At the end of the day, I wasn't really put off by the lack of story. I knew it didn't have much from the start and I grew to know the villagers themselves for instance, and was interested in what they had to say. But I can't say that Diablo had a good story because while it didn't have a bad one per se, there's too little story in the first place for me to call it "good."

*sigh* *sigh* *sigh*

Diablo is the Lord of Terror, what about "child-bearing hips" is terrifying?

The hips angle is that it's Leah's fears made manifest. Similar to how when he possessed Albrecht, he was his fears made manifest. While Diablo has a core form, it does take on aspects of the host to various extents. Plus, his DIIi form has to take on aspects of seven Great Evils, not just one. Terror has to co-exist with the other six.

Must be the fanfic writer in you. You haven't written any StarCraft fanfics have you? I hope you didn't turn the characters into SC2 trash. Because honestly, and no offense, the way you COMPLETELY miss the point of several series tells me that you would probably not make a good story in any given universe.

Um, yes? Yes I have written StarCraft fiction, as established ages ago. If I turned characters into "SC2 trash..." well, if I did, I wouldn't be the one to know it, would I? All I can really say is that I was writing for StarCraft before StarCraft II was even announced so I've dealt with the old and the new. This involves canon characters as well.

And completely missing the point of several series? Um...well, StarCraft and Diablo seem to be two, but that isn't several, and of course the "point" of a series can vary from person to person. And I'm not obliged to reflect those themes in fanfic material because a) it's varied, ranging from serious to the sattirical and b) it's fundementally non-canon at the end of the day, so I can explore what ideas I want.

Now I agree that Diablo is under no obligation to follow any existing mythology to the letter, but I think the author compared the two to show that where demons have purpose in one mythos (to return to paradise), in Diablo their only goal is evil for the sake of evil. His point was that if they're going to take inspiration from a certain mythos, they shouldn't change character motivations to be so base and pointless.

Wasn't Diablo theorized by Tyrael to basically be Tathamet reborn after he became the prime evil? So again, what is Diablo doing in heaven? You claim his goal is to get the worldstone, but it was destroyed, and he's only there for victory for the sake of victory, or evil for the sake of evil. Imperius has the excuse of the noble goal of wanting to destroy evil at least.

Sorry for offering you as the sacrificial lamb Grad, but in regards to the earlier "missing the point" angle, this is kind of it.

The lack of true motive behind Heaven and Hell is a key plot point in itself. From the outset, they're fighting over the Worldstone. And if it's gone, they keep fighting. Why? Because that's what they do. It's all what the average angel and demon can do. It's what they're fated to do. This was an idea explored years ago and explored well. Trag'Oul sums it up best IMO, where he explains to Mendeln the folly of Sanctuary truly trying to emmulate Heaven or Hell, or Man picking a side. Paraphrased "A world of pure order would stagnate. A world of pure chaos would consume itself."

And he's right. After the Sin War, what happens? Hell descends into civil war, resulting in the Dark Exile. Heaven becomes stagnant-Imperius, bereft of the chance to fight, becomes a legalistic tyrant. If the theme of Paradise Lost is to reclaim paradise, that Hell is not to be chosen over Heaven, the theme of Diablo is that neither are preferable. That Balance is. That mankind should be free to establish its own place and not be influenced by Heaven or Hell in the process.

Which is why the ending of DIII irks me slightly in that Tyrael is declaring that "we shall stand as one" when this is a move that's without precedent (Hell defeated, as far as we know) or without desire. But the fact of the matter is that Tyrael is an exception in the same way that Inarius and Lilith though. And he only became an exception after Uldyssian's sacrifice. The entire point of the series is that Man is a deviation from the norm. But it's a deviation worth having. It's a deviation that wouldn't result in Diablo or Imperius blindly following their true nature, even if at the end, that's all they can do.

###

Sorry if this comes across as a shameless plug, but the fanfic/point angle twisted me the wrong way. Or rather, I feel guility saying that "I've written this stuff, I know what I'm talking baout, yarg!" Anyway:

http://fanfiction.wikia.com/wiki/User:Hawki#Diablo
http://fanfiction.wikia.com/wiki/User:Hawki#StarCraft

Course the quality/lack of it will vary in that both have works stemming over years (hopefully the quality's improved over that time) and not everything I've written encapsulates the "point" of each series, not to mention that numerous works have been rendered null by canon over time, but...meh. Proof is in the pudding and all that.

[TheEconomist]

The hips angle is that it's Leah's fears made manifest

Doesn't matter. It's fucking stupid.

Um...well, StarCraft and Diablo seem to be two

Predator, Star Wars to name a few that I can remember. Probably more.

of course the "point" of a series can vary from person to person

Derp, but some of the stuff you say is about as off the mark as saying that Chronicles of Riddick was a story about Indonesia in the 1800s. Everytime I see you comment on a series, you tend to comment more on what you want it to be than what it actually is. Nothing fundamentally wrong with that but when talking about the drastic changes that Blizzard has been making to its series, its important. Hence, I bring up the fanfic writing.

Also, just say you wanna advertise your work. I have absolutely no problem with that but you making excuses for something natural is a bit ... annoying is strong of a word.

[Hawki]

Predator, Star Wars to name a few that I can remember. Probably more.

What point? For Predator, I said I liked the original more than Predators but still consider the third film to be decent. For Star Wars, while I consider the original trilogy superior, I think the prequel trilogy has some good things in it as well. When was the "point" of either brought up?

(I think "themes" may be a better term than "point" in this context, but that's nitpicking.)

Also, just say you wanna advertise your work. I have absolutely no problem with that but you making excuses for something natural is a bit ... annoying is strong of a word.

Well I don't really want to advertise really. The above post, I only brought out the links because the fanfic topic had already been let out of the proverbial lamp. Fanfic is something I'm happy to leave to the side. Now whether fanfic writing gives me different perception from someone who doesn't is another matter, but as I only have the one conciousness, I can't really make a call. Course there's medias that I like/dislike that I haven't written for though.