Diablo 3 15 may

[Hawki]

I guess this is what I'm trying to say about Blizz's recent stuff with WoL and D3. They seem like completely different worlds compared to the original sources but have familiar names, places and such to tie them so they're not really different afterall. The "dislike" you mentioned is due solely because of those tie-ins and the expectation of sequels being supposedly continuous with one another. I wonder how WoL and D3 would have been received by the "story-lover" had they been completely new IPs.

I can understand the viewpoint, but I just don't share it.

I'll specify that I'm not saying "my viewpoint is valid, yours isn't" and indeed, back to Terminator 3 for a moment, I'll admit that on its own, it's an enjoyable action movie, albiet one I greatly dislike because of how it feels like a 180 of the previous films in some cases, and a hollow echo of the second in others (see further down). But back to StarCraft II and Diablo III...

Well, concerning WoL, there's twelve years between releases. People change. Technology changes. Lots of stuff changes, and while I'm not saying that one should discard a universe's essence, I accept that things change. To me, WoL feels like a natural evolution from the days of the original.

Concerning Diablo III, not only has there been 11 years between it and LoD, but it's a case of Blizzard taking over from Blizzard North, and it would have been even harder to maintain a style. I can comment on it less, but having finished D2 and moved on to LoD, I can already see that the 'essence' of it has become quite different. I admit I'm in a different position to Diablo here than you in that I was drawn to the setting by the D3 trailer, and my induction into the universe hasn't been chronological. So while I can see that D3 has drifted further away from D2, further away than even LoD did, I can't summon the same level of emotional attatchment, or lack of it.

Guess it's also worth mentioning that I had a similar experience with Warcraft III-it was the game that got me invested in the Warcraft setting, though I had a friend who'd followed it from at least WC2 and quite disliked WC3, citing the divergence in gameplay style (think mainly the lack of naval combat and the new focus on hero units). Having since gone back and played WC2 (and WC1...unfortunately..), I can sympathize, but again, I can't entirely see things from his perspective due to coming to WC3 first.

Guess that's something about Blizzard, how the 'essence' of its games seems to change, or at least its 'big three.' Guess there's both pros and cons to that.

To cut my defence of it short (hell, it's really the only thing that has merit), the only worthwhile thing T3 has is the ending where Skynet takes the upper hand and actually rules over the world, thereby making the events of T1 and T2 even possible (through a causal time loop) and saying that fate is really immutable in the end (take that T2 and your wishy-washy take on fate!).

Seriously, Skynet's uprising has 'merit?'

I mean, even with the T-X activating the T-1's, even with Skynet taking control of the UAVs, why are they even kept loaded with ammunition? And for that matter, why is Skynet rebelling anyway? In T2, its reasons were explained, and while starting a nuclear war might not have been the best thing to do, it was at least an understandable act of self-preservation. In T3, Skynet wants to wipe out humanity because...it's evil like that.

And that "wishy washy" take on fate was what part of what made the films previously so good. The time loop idea is sort of valid but it's established from the first film that time travel results in alternate timelines/realities rather than changing the pre-existing one...sort of. You know, I wouldn't mind so much if T3 simply had John failing, but it seems the film, from everything from it reversing the themes of the first films to being a hollow echo of T2 (e.g. compare the two minigun scenes in T2 and T3-which is better?), it's as if the fans of the original films were being given the finger at every opportunity.

[Turalyon]

Guess that's something about Blizzard, how the 'essence' of its games seems to change, or at least its 'big three.' Guess there's both pros and cons to that.

Given the large time frame between the previous and current installments and the evolution of things resulting in the change of the "essence" of the whole franchise, the more cynical would see this as proof that sequels with the above criteria are just capitalising on nostalgia and hype generated by the importance of the previous works.

Seriously, Skynet's uprising has 'merit?'

Only in the sense of it's overall consequence. I was not primarily concerned with the how and why.

The time loop idea is sort of valid but it's established from the first film that time travel results in alternate timelines/realities rather than changing the pre-existing one...sort of.

Not really. If time was alterable (as in creating alternate timelines or, as people mistakenly take time travel as, parallel universe jumping), the Terminator would have won in T1. It did not. In fact, in a roundabout sort of way, Skynet cemented its fate (it's defeat) by creating a situation that which would lead to its defeat (the creation of John Connor).

T2 tries to buck this by saying that there is no fate and punctuate this with the destruction of the proto-Skynet meaning that there would be no future war at all. Unfortunately, time does not work like this. It is a continuum. Something that comes from the future must mean that fate exists, therefore, it can never be destroyed in the past. In short, Skynet and the future war cannot be prevented as this will also invalidate what has happened in T1 and T2 (there would be no robots in the future to time-travel nor any logical motivation for why the events of T1 and T2 would even occur). Likewise, Skynet can never win by looking to change the past. Otherwise we get that grandfather paradox and reality will be unmade. The ending of T3 supports this notion and that is why it is also responsible for making T2 temporally logical. Otherwise we get that grandfather paradox and reality will be unmade - we know that didn't happen after T2 (unfortunately it seems) so the rise of the machines must happen (as terribly depicted in T3).

[Hawki]

Given the large time frame between the previous and current installments and the evolution of things resulting in the change of the "essence" of the whole franchise, the more cynical would see this as proof that sequels with the above criteria are just capitalising on nostalgia and hype generated by the importance of the previous works.

If you're capitalizing on nostalgia, doesn't that suggest the work itself is sub-par? The metacritic scores of both games would suggest otherwise.

Not really. If time was alterable (as in creating alternate timelines or, as people mistakenly take time travel as, parallel universe jumping), the Terminator would have won in T1. It did not. In fact, in a roundabout sort of way, Skynet cemented its fate (it's defeat) by creating a situation that which would lead to its defeat (the creation of John Connor).

Except it's explicitly stated that time is alterable in the series.

This may be a tech thing, but due to time travel being theoretical, I'm willing to follow whatever 'rules' a series has for time travel, as long as it stays consistant with those rules (an exception is Doctor Who, but that's a different kettle of fish). And the 'rules' of time travel in the Terminator series is that time is not only malleable, but that changes to the timeline will result in alternate timelines.

Back to T1 for a moment, how Reese tells Sarah that he's "from one possible future." He gets out of the "tech stuff" by mentioning he doesn't understand it but as he's a grunt, he doesn't have to. T1 does seem to have a pre-destination paradox going in that Skynet and John can't seem to exist without one another. If there was a beginning to it it would be that Stan Morsky was John's original father, Skynet developed independently, the war happens, it sends the T-800 back in time, Reese becomes the new father, and the paradox is set up. A new timeline is created but it remains the same timeline for who knows how long. Yet "the no fate" line is established in T1 itself.

T2 is the crux point. The point where "no fate" is taken to its logical conclusion. Going into nerd territory, I think it could have changed as early as when Sarah was captured as alluded to in the film, as Reese mentions that they were in hiding before the war. But either way, stuff happens in T2 that leads to the destruction of proto-Skynet. I say the crux, because when one looks at every piece of Terminator fiction that came afterwards, T2 is usually the point of divergence. The creation of alternate timelines. In some cases, Judgement Day comes later (e.g. Terminator 3 and Infiltrator). In some cases, it comes earlier (not sure how, but a few comics and games had things that way). In some cases, it never comes (deleted ending of T2...pretty much a timeline in its own right). The most well-known example is The Sarah Connor Chronicles-a spinoff that I detest even more than T3 but I admit can be fine on its own merits, that's explicitly stated to effectively stem from the T2 point of divergence, and even has mulitple timelines within the show itself.

So all in all, the Terminator series corresponds to the alternate reality/timeline theory of time travel. It's why when I review Terminator stories on ff.net (laugh it up) I rarely, if ever write "this is canonically wrong" when I see errors because unless every piece of fiction in the series is grouped into distinct timelines/universes, any irregularities can be choked up to being an alternate timeline/setting. So while T3 is but one of many timelines, I'm still not fond of it from a fan POV because not only is it in movie canon (core canon) but again, it effectively disregards the whole "no fate" message. Plus other things of course.

[Hawki]

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/08/the...getting-worse/

Little thing thought you might be interested in, given how the whole 'essence' thing has become the focus of this discussion. Made for...enlightening reading.

[Turalyon]

If you're capitalizing on nostalgia, doesn't that suggest the work itself is sub-par? The metacritic scores of both games would suggest otherwise.

It depends on who you're asking and not necessarily. Besides, the metacritic scores take everything into account are but we have only restricted our discussion on only one aspect of the game. And who said the whole game was "sub-par"? That There are plenty of cases of reboots and different spins on old stuff (movies, films and comics have been doing that for ages) that are lovingly crafted by their new creators which remain relevant in their time and become memorable. It remains to be seen whether D3 or Sc2 will be memorable because of their own merits or because they were just updates of a former glory.

Except it's explicitly stated that time is alterable in the series.

Stating a mantra does not necessarily make it true especially when it comes to something as immutable as time. I can go on saying "I'm not going to die today" but that does not necessarily mean I'm completely safe.

And the 'rules' of time travel in the Terminator series is that time is not only malleable, but that changes to the timeline will result in alternate timelines.

No. T3 confirms that the Terminator universe is only given the illusion of malleability.

Back to T1 for a moment, how Reese tells Sarah that he's "from one possible future." He gets out of the "tech stuff" by mentioning he doesn't understand it but as he's a grunt, he doesn't have to.

You've just highlighted the fact that Reese has openly admitted to being an unreliable narrator. What he says is supposition and personal belief. This is by no means objective qualifier that fate doesn't exist.

[QUOTE=Hawki;179655]T1 does seem to have a pre-destination paradox going in that Skynet and John can't seem to exist without one another.[QUOTE=Hawki;179655]

The funny thing with pre-destination and ontological paradox's is that they are only make sense and work if there's a concept of fate - that is past, present and future are one continuum and denying such things as true free will and cause and effect. These paradox's are not relevant if the conceit is that you're altering/creating a parallel universe/timeline because you are not actually "time-travelling".

T2 is usually the point of divergence. The creation of alternate timelines.

This is the main problem with so-called time-travel stories. The person who goes back in time to change things does not really change anything because they are affecting another universe. If they were truly successful in changing the past they would create a grandfather paradox (ie: they wouldn't exist in the future to come back and alter their origins for existence). Their very existence and continued presence in the alternate timeline relies on the fact that the original timeline is fated to be the same (otherwise, he can't exist anywhere). If that is so, their journey to the alternate time-line is ultimately meaningless because they're not doing what the initially intended when they "time-travelled" (to change their original timeline - which is impossible)

So all in all, the Terminator series corresponds to the alternate reality/timeline theory of time travel.

I'm not disputing the alternate reality theory because it is the only logical explanation for what is actually going on. However, I am disputing that what is happening in T1 and T2 is about time-travelling in the strictest sense because of T2 being incompatible with that idea. Because of the anomaly that is T2 (in context of time-travel in the strictest sense), everything that is mentioned there about Skynet's "history" should be considered false. T3 brings this into line by consolidating that time is a continuum since T1 suggests this to be.

So while T3 is but one of many timelines, I'm still not fond of it from a fan POV because not only is it in movie canon (core canon) but again, it effectively disregards the whole "no fate" message. Plus other things of course.

Hey, I didn't say I liked it either. That is beside the point however and not relevant to the defense of why T3 can be considered important. I didn't say it was going to be flawless and good defense. Where's my medal?

[Hawki]

No. T3 confirms that the Terminator universe is only given the illusion of malleability.

What? It's explicitly stated by the T-850 that Judgement Day was postponed. It's outright stating that time is malleable, but conforms to a single continuum.

This is the main problem with so-called time-travel stories. The person who goes back in time to change things does not really change anything because they are affecting another universe. If they were truly successful in changing the past they would create a grandfather paradox (ie: they wouldn't exist in the future to come back and alter their origins for existence). Their very existence and continued presence in the alternate timeline relies on the fact that the original timeline is fated to be the same (otherwise, he can't exist anywhere). If that is so, their journey to the alternate time-line is ultimately meaningless because they're not doing what the initially intended when they "time-travelled" (to change their original timeline - which is impossible)

I wouldn't say there's a problem with time-travel stories. There's only a problem if they break their own rules and even then, whether there's understandable rules at all isn't a requirement either.

In regards to the paradox thing, it's a valid line of argument, but it's often casually ignored in such time travel stories and I don't think there's a requirement for them to follow the rules any more than it's a 'rule' that the light-speed barrier can't be circumvented through some means in sci-fi. Getting around the issue of paradoxes, one thing I've seen is that the timeline is changed where only those who changed it remain aware of original events. It would be great to have a diagram but take point a (past) point c (present) with point b representing the line between points a and c. The time traveller goes from point c to point a, taking an external line (d) to a. A is changed, but b isn't invalidated. Rather, b is supperimposed upon by a new timeline (b2). B2 flows to c2, to which the time travellers return to c2 via d. From this point on, b1 and c1 are forever cut off, but still exist 'beneath' the ropes of time to allow the alterations to be made. Only those who have 'seen' the changes via d are aware of them.

I don't know if this is based on any real-world theory, but if I were to put some time travel stories in a certain light, that's how I'd do it. If fiction has a single timeline, and changes to the timeline don't result in alternate timelines/realities, then I guess that's how I see them working.

I'm not disputing the alternate reality theory because it is the only logical explanation for what is actually going on. However, I am disputing that what is happening in T1 and T2 is about time-travelling in the strictest sense because of T2 being incompatible with that idea. Because of the anomaly that is T2 (in context of time-travel in the strictest sense), everything that is mentioned there about Skynet's "history" should be considered false. T3 brings this into line by consolidating that time is a continuum since T1 suggests this to be.

Wait, so you're saying that there's both a single time continuum and alternate realities?

Hey, I didn't say I liked it either. That is beside the point however and not relevant to the defense of why T3 can be considered important. I didn't say it was going to be flawless and good defense. Where's my medal?

I said you'd get a medal if you justified T3. And even if I agreed with you that the essence of T3 had to be told, if I agreed that Judgement Day is indeed inevitable and all that, even then, it's a story that was told prior to this, through novels and comics and the like. Now one can argue that movie canon is above EU canon and therefore the movies needed to tell the story in the core canon, but IMO, the only core canon the series has is the first two films. Aside from that, everything's just as valid, taking place in its own setting.

[Turalyon]

What? It's explicitly stated by the T-850 that Judgement Day was postponed. It's outright stating that time is malleable, but conforms to a single continuum.

Simply put, Skynet, the terminators and the future people are ALL misinformed. What they say does not gel with the fact that Judgement Day actually happens during T3 (like it or not, this is canon). The important fact is that Judgement Day is inevitable. The exact date and time of the original Judgement Day as explained in T2 is rendered moot (and nonsensical) because it does not actually happen at all - something that the future people, you'd think, should know. The information and consequential actions that T2 posit are exposed as imprecise as it should've been.

Remember that all future people are proof that fate exists (to understand this explanation you have to take on board "time" as being an immutable whole - past, present and future are one), so what they say about upcoming events that lead to their own creation MUST happen as they say so (otherwise they wouldn't exist to time travel), unless they are misinformed or lying. Sure, it sounds silly to say they were lying and/or misinformed but that is the only way to reconcile the timeline (excepting of course, the parallel universe creation you suggested - but that is not, strictly speaking, time travel). Judgement Day was not postponed (that notion does not make sense nor possible with this concept of time), it happens inevitably where it was supposed to. T2 essentially amounts to a grandfather paradox that T3 corrects.

Wait, so you're saying that there's both a single time continuum and alternate realities?

See above.

In terms of answering the question generally, I can only speculate. The original (if that can truly be said considering we are accepting the concept of parallel universes) timeline is just one of many alternates. We can only see one timeline at a time so our perspective is skewed. So the answer would be no. However, if we were able to distance ourselves and be able to look at all possible alternate realities at once, it is possible that that "ball of stuff" may all exist under one dimension of time (any physicists that back me up here?). So the answer could also be yes.

I said you'd get a medal if you justified T3. And even if I agreed with you that the essence of T3 had to be told, if I agreed that Judgement Day is indeed inevitable and all that, even then, it's a story that was told prior to this, through novels and comics and the like. Now one can argue that movie canon is above EU canon and therefore the movies needed to tell the story in the core canon, but IMO, the only core canon the series has is the first two films. Aside from that, everything's just as valid, taking place in its own setting.

Yes, but I have justified it because you haven't fully deconstructed and discounted my justification. It doesn't matter if you liked it or not (the movie or my attempts to justify it) or whether it was already told elsewhere because that is irrelevant to the particular context we have been discussing (is the movie, as a sequel, have a canonical place?). You just don't want to handover the medal.

I know where you're getting at though. T3 is largely superfluous and ultimately an unnecessary addition, but not completely devoid of importance. I feel the same way about SC2s direction and D3.

[Hawki]

Simply put, Skynet, the terminators and the future people are ALL misinformed. What they say does not gel with the fact that Judgement Day actually happens during T3 (like it or not, this is canon). The important fact is that Judgement Day is inevitable. The exact date and time of the original Judgement Day as explained in T2 is rendered moot (and nonsensical) because it does not actually happen at all - something that the future people, you'd think, should know. The information and consequential actions that T2 posit are exposed as imprecise as it should've been.

Remember that all future people are proof that fate exists (to understand this explanation you have to take on board "time" as being an immutable whole - past, present and future are one), so what they say about upcoming events that lead to their own creation MUST happen as they say so (otherwise they wouldn't exist to time travel), unless they are misinformed or lying. Sure, it sounds silly to say they were lying and/or misinformed but that is the only way to reconcile the timeline (excepting of course, the parallel universe creation you suggested - but that is not, strictly speaking, time travel). Judgement Day was not postponed (that notion does not make sense nor possible with this concept of time), it happens inevitably where it was supposed to. T2 essentially amounts to a grandfather paradox that T3 corrects.

I've seen this argument before. And again, all opinion, but it's very much grabbing at straws IMO. If one wants to argue that Judgement Day was always meant to happen in 2003/'04 (heck, even the dates vary for T3-go figure), and that it was never postponed at all, then, as you said, the people are either a) misinformed or b) lying. And to both of those, I say, "why?"

-What motivation is there for Reese or Uncle Bob to lie? If Reese tells Sarah that JD is to happen in 1997, a fact that Bob doesn't refute, then you're giving a false pretense. She and John will be in hiding at the wrong time, nothing will happen, and chances are that when the bombs do fall, they'll be vapourized. What possible motivation could there be for giving an intentionally wrong date? And when JD becomes imminant, why does the T-850 never mention this? He says it was postponed. He's keeping up a lie that leads to John and Kate nearly getting killed.

-Misinformed is iffy, because you're making the argument that the series is conforming to a single time continuum (more on that later). If changes are made to a timeline, people wouldn't know. But the argument again, is that nothing changed at all. So if everyone in the future, from Skynet to John, never experience any change, then where does the misinformation arise?

-Back to the parallel universe thing. It seems that this fits the series best because if one ascribes to "no fate," then there had to be a point in time where Reese wasn't John's father. Yet by the time T1 happens (as in, the actual movie), the paradox has occurred, because the mention of Sarah and John being in hiding before JD can't concievably happen without motive. And there's the fact that parallel timelines/realities are outright stated to exist and in some cases, even shown (e.g. in Redemption). Even if you what to ignore novels and tv series, even if you want to keep to movie canon, Skynet itself seems to be aware of this in Salvation, mentioning to Marcus how it had tried to kill John before, and John outright stating that this is a different future from the one that originally existed.

This of course raises the question of why, if Skynet knows that time travel can't make changes to the timeline where said travel originated from, why it even bothered in the first place. My theory would be is that it only becomes aware of alternate timelines after its first attempt, or set of attempts. However, I ascribe this to the series itself in that it was outright stated, if not implied in T1 (depends on which version you're watching) that its time travel attempt was a last resort. A desperate attempt. T2 stretches things, but it's at least implied that the T-800 and T-1000 go back in similar timeframes, at least within the same year. But come Sarah Connor Chronicles for instance? Time travel has stopped being a last resort and has become something that both sides use casually. Even in T3, the T-X is sent back to eliminate John's lieutenants because they're the next best thing.

Last resort? What's that?:

In terms of answering the question generally, I can only speculate. The original (if that can truly be said considering we are accepting the concept of parallel universes) timeline is just one of many alternates. We can only see one timeline at a time so our perspective is skewed. So the answer would be no. However, if we were able to distance ourselves and be able to look at all possible alternate realities at once, it is possible that that "ball of stuff" may all exist under one dimension of time (any physicists that back me up here?). So the answer could also be yes.

If you're talking about the real world, then yes, so far, we can only see one timeline/reality/set of possibilites. If we're talking about the series, they know, they're capable of being observed, at least by Skynet itself.

Yes, but I have justified it because you haven't fully deconstructed and discounted my justification. It doesn't matter if you liked it or not (the movie or my attempts to justify it) or whether it was already told elsewhere because that is irrelevant to the particular context we have been discussing (is the movie, as a sequel, have a canonical place?). You just don't want to handover the medal.

I'm not discounting your justification, I'm disagreeing with it. Ultimately, it seems that we're coming from different angles. The only way T3 can be justified as having needed to be made in my eyes is if I'm somehow convinced that the timeline can't be changed in the series no matter how hard you try and that somehow the whole lying/misinformation thing is the correct explanation. And there's something else to bring up in that Cameron didn't direct T3, twelve years passed between T2 and T3, he wasn't involved and the only reason he cut out the alternate ending of T2 was that it felt like something too bright to round up a dark movie (forget the exact quote), not out of the belief that the past shouldn't be altered. As far as I know, there was never any indication of him wanting to do more with the series.

And even if T3 is necessary for the sake of science, then again, that's not really a justification, because we've already suspended our disbelief from the get-go. As I've said, time travel has different rules for different series, and I'd rather those rules be followed then real-world ones if they're relevant to the story (same as with other sci-fi concepts such as FTL travel and artificial gravity).

I know where you're getting at though. T3 is largely superfluous and ultimately an unnecessary addition, but not completely devoid of importance. I feel the same way about SC2s direction and D3.

Pretty much. Though I'm not quite sure if one can call SC2 or D3 superfluous in the same way. I mean, if you have issues with their direction that's fine, but BW and LoD hardly wrapped things up in either case (where I would argue T2 did). Personally I'd call story after D3 superfluous given the ending, but it's established that the series will continue, and it's pretty clear IMO as to where said series will go.

Um, yay?

[Turalyon]

If one wants to argue that Judgement Day was always meant to happen in 2003/'04 (heck, even the dates vary for T3-go figure), and that it was never postponed at all, then, as you said, the people are either a) misinformed or b) lying. And to both of those, I say, "why?"

The simplest explanation for this is to use the analogy that everyone (skynet included) involved are "string puppets" played by the invisible hands of fate. The "puppets" can guess and make fine estimations but they do not really know how things turn out. The "puppets" are sincere in that they feel they are not misinformed and are not lying intentionally about what they know. However, an outside observer (us) of said "puppets" and the actual mover of strings (fate) know that what the "puppets" say are actually unintentional misinformation and lies (a better word perhaps to encapsulate that notion is 'misguided').

What motivation is there for Reese or Uncle Bob to lie? If Reese tells Sarah that JD is to happen in 1997, a fact that Bob doesn't refute, then you're giving a false pretense. She and John will be in hiding at the wrong time, nothing will happen, and chances are that when the bombs do fall, they'll be vapourized. What possible motivation could there be for giving an intentionally wrong date? And when JD becomes imminant, why does the T-850 never mention this? He says it was postponed. He's keeping up a lie that leads to John and Kate nearly getting killed.

As mentioned above, they are not intentionally lying. Because the players are part of a cosmic game of fate, they are dancing to a tune not of their making and misinterpreting what they are seeing as they "dance".

If changes are made to a timeline, people wouldn't know. But the argument again, is that nothing changed at all. So if everyone in the future, from Skynet to John, never experience any change, then where does the misinformation arise?

You're right, nothing changes nor can it be. The misinformation lies in the feeling that the "puppets" think they have control, when in actuality they do not. If Skynet truly comprehended time as a continuum, then it wouldn't have bothered even considering time travel at all because it is pointless.

... if one ascribes to "no fate," then there had to be a point in time where Reese wasn't John's father. Yet by the time T1 happens (as in, the actual movie), the paradox has occurred, because the mention of Sarah and John being in hiding before JD can't concievably happen without motive.

Unfortunately, fate (which in this case I'm assuming is incontrovertible given that we are talking specifically with time travel) pays no heed to what one ascribes to. Motive/ choice/ cause and effect and free will are all denied. T1 is an example of a predestination paradox that is fulfilled, implying that fate exists. T2 is the anomaly and downright impossible, especially in consideration with the above and moreso if considered to be the final movie. T3 seems to continue the invalid concept of "alterable history" (ie: JD being moved) but it actually is about fate and inevitability (Skynet is actually built by someone else with no ties from the future and JD happens) which is in-line with T1s fulfilled predestination paradox and aptly accounts/"corrects" prior information given by characters in T1 and T2 (who are skewed and actually misled by their interpretation of time-travel) about Skynet and JD as the impossible events that they really are.

This of course raises the question of why, if Skynet knows that time travel can't make changes to the timeline where said travel originated from, why it even bothered in the first place. My theory would be is that it only becomes aware of alternate timelines after its first attempt, or set of attempts.

Skynet only attempts time travel on the misguided hope that it can change the past. What it doesn't realise is that doing so creates an impossible to fulfill grandfather paradox ('defeated' Skynet is essentially trying to kill itself so that a 'successful' Skynet takes its place - impossible because 'defeated' Skynet must always exist) and a fulfilled predestination paradox. If it really knew that time is immutable, it wouldn't bother considering time-travel.

I'm not discounting your justification, I'm disagreeing with it. Ultimately, it seems that we're coming from different angles. The only way T3 can be justified as having needed to be made in my eyes is if I'm somehow convinced that the timeline can't be changed in the series no matter how hard you try and that somehow the whole lying/misinformation thing is the correct explanation.

It's okay to disagree. You wanted a justification and I've given one. The theory is sound whether you choose to believe it or not. As you've mentioned, the parallel universe is perhaps the neatest explanation but you have to keep your mind open that it is not the only viable one.

As I've said, time travel has different rules for different series, and I'd rather those rules be followed then real-world ones if they're relevant to the story (same as with other sci-fi concepts such as FTL travel and artificial gravity).

Sci-fi generally gets the concept of 'time-travel' wrong. What it really is in most cases is "parallel universe jumping/creation". Besides, there are no real-world rules for time-travel because it does not exist.

I mean, if you have issues with their direction that's fine, but BW and LoD hardly wrapped things up in either case (where I would argue T2 did).

BW's ending can be interpreted very easily as the ending of all endings. Kerrigan has won and will soon destroy everyone. Sure, it's not a very happy way to wrap things up but it's quite definitive. The way that this scenario is subverted when WoL starts is wholly unnatural because of plot device (Kerrigan essentially does nothing for 4 years and the Dominion recovery is impossible to believe).

LoD presents a somewhat more open ending, but no less definitive in terms of finishing off the only major story arc. All the main villains are dead and the destruction of the Worldstone could just have easily interpreted as the cutting off of Sanctuary from Heaven and Hell and humans would live in prosperity (or whatever) without the troubling presence of extra-planar intervention forever.

In the context of my time-travel interpretation, T2s wrap-up/ending is just pretense.

[Hawki]

It's okay to disagree. You wanted a justification and I've given one. The theory is sound whether you choose to believe it or not. As you've mentioned, the parallel universe is perhaps the neatest explanation but you have to keep your mind open that it is not the only viable one.

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

BW's ending can be interpreted very easily as the ending of all endings. Kerrigan has won and will soon destroy everyone. Sure, it's not a very happy way to wrap things up but it's quite definitive. The way that this scenario is subverted when WoL starts is wholly unnatural because of plot device (Kerrigan essentially does nothing for 4 years and the Dominion recovery is impossible to believe).

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).

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.

LoD presents a somewhat more open ending, but no less definitive in terms of finishing off the only major story arc. All the main villains are dead and the destruction of the Worldstone could just have easily interpreted as the cutting off of Sanctuary from Heaven and Hell and humans would live in prosperity (or whatever) without the troubling presence of extra-planar intervention forever.

Agree sort of...more of, actually. Looking up quest dialogue, as far as I can tell, while it's established that Baal's corruption of the Worldstone would screw Sanctuary over by allowing Hell to spill over, there's no definitive word in Lord of Destruction as to what would happen, if anything, with its destruction, its full dampening effect being explored in later lore. 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.

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.