The Roles of Azmodan and Belial in D3 [Archive]

permaximum

07-05-2010, 20:12

I read some posts about the war in Hell between Belial and Azmodan will play a critical role in the next game. This is a false prediction and it cannot happen... Let me explain the events of dark exile from the beginning.

“Seven is the number of the powers of Hell, and Seven is the number of the Great Evils.”

The Lesser (http://www.diablowiki.net/Lesser_Evils) of the Great Evils
Duriel, the Lord of Pain
Andariel, the Maiden of Anguish
Belial, the Lord of Lies
Azmodan, the Lord of Sin

The Prime Evils
Mephisto, the Lord of Hatred
Baal, the Lord of Destruction
Diablo, the Lord of Terror

With the ascension of Man, Diablo and his brothers thought man would play a critical role in the Great Conflict and they devoted their energies to the perversion of mortal souls. But they didn't want the Heaven to intervene their plans about the mortal world so that they planned the Dark Exile. They started to manipulate Lesser Evils and all Hell to revolt against them. In the end All of Hell went war against the Three Brothers. The Prime Evils had to play their parts in the war to not take the attention of the Heaven so that they fought with all of the savagery of the Underworld, and to their credit, annihilated a third of Hell’s treacherous legions. In the end, however, they were overcome by the Horned Death led by the traitors Azmodan and Belial. And they were sent to the mortal world. Just like they planned...

This would known as The Dark Exile.

In the mortal world they needed bodies to use their true powers. With the information they got from fallen angel Izual, they tricked the Heaven and Tyreal to use soulstones against them. So they were captured by Horadrim (with the help of Tyreal) and trapped within the soulstones. Then Diablo -leader of the three- eventually broke free and manipulated the warrior from Diablo I to gain a stronger body. So far everything had gone to his wishes and the events of D2 began.

Meanwhile in the Hell, after the Dark Exile, civil war had begun between the forces of Azmodan and Belial. Here comes the most important point. We have seen in the ending cinematic of act 3, Diablo went to the Hell and have sent his terror. In the act 4, it seemed Diablo got control of the Hell again and he was waiting for us.

So, in fact there is not a war between Azmodan and Belial in Hell anymore. Diablo got control of the Hell again ( we don't know whether he punished Azmodan and Belial or not, like he did for Andariel and Duriel ) and he got defeated. It's unknown to us what's going on in Hell after the events of D2. But we do know that the war in hell that started after the dark exile, did end with the return of Diablo. Meaning, this won't be a part of Diablo 3.

Blizzard confirmed that Azmodan and Belial will be in D3. But i don't think they will be there for their own wishes. I guess if Diablo returns, they will be in the command of Diablo.

Zeek

10-05-2010, 22:02

Why would he need to take back control. It was all a ruse. They weren't really kicking him out. They weren't traitors. They were playing the role they were meant to play.

permaximum

11-05-2010, 11:47

Nope. They were traitors. Although the prime evils manipulated them to prepare a revolt against the three, they did not know the plan and they really wanted to banish the prime evils out of Hell and take control of the Hell for themselves. They were playing the given role but they were unaware and willingly did their parts.

We do know that after the resurrection of Diablo in the Earth, Duriel and Andariel feared of him and they re-allied with Diablo and accepted Diablo's punishment for them. Andariel had to take control of Rogues and stay in Rogue Monestery to keep it safe from other forces. Duriel's punishment was to protect the tomb of Tal Rasha and preventing Tyreal from getting free by the help of andventurers or in his own.

Sass

18-05-2010, 16:44

I read some posts about the war in Hell between Belial and Azmodan will play a critical role in the next game. This is a false prediction and it cannot happen.
Blizzard confirmed that Azmodan and Belial will be in D3. But i don't think they will be there for their own wishes. I guess if Diablo returns, they will be in the command of Diablo.You do know that this still hinges on their civil war right? I'll explain.

Meanwhile in the Hell, after the Dark Exile, civil war had begun between the forces of Azmodan and Belial. Here comes the most important point. We have seen in the ending cinematic of act 3, Diablo went to the Hell and have sent his terror. In the act 4, it seemed Diablo got control of the Hell again and he was waiting for us.We only saw that he went to Hell. We have no knowledge of where in Hell except for the Chaos Sanctuary. We didn't see Mephisto, Belial, Azmodan, Duriel, nor Andariel. We saw only a fraction of Hell. Assuming what we saw was all of his domain, we've seen only 1/7th of Hell.

This is not enough to assume he came back and conquered all of it.

So, in their corners of Hell, they would be fighting when he steps through.

Diablo is still weak from his Exile and banishment. When we fight him, he is sealed away and not at full strength--he's still in a possessed body of the Wanderer. Either somebody else imprisoned him, or he is recuperating. He's in no condition to siege Hell all over again.

This leaves 20 years of waiting, where Hell has not sprung to flood Sanctuary. Now is the time where it is plausible (likely), that the civil war has been put to rest. The Triune has returned, and is backed by two others of the Great Evils. In this time, Azmodan and Belial are re subdued.

How does this translate to their war being pivotal? Simple.

They were bickering throughout D2, and once all 3 are back, they are now back under the control of the Prime Evils. This leaves them focused not on themselves, but the Sin War once again.

They are...persuaded...to corrupt human souls to serve their armies. Now, we see Belial playing his part to replenish the ranks lost during the Exile with his rituals and deception.

But we do know that the war in hell that started after the dark exile, did end with the return of Diablo. Meaning, this won't be a part of Diablo 3.AFAIK, the events are before D3, and with Belial being in A2, that wouldn't have made sense that they'd be in Hell fighting at this time.

permaximum

31-05-2010, 22:44

All Hell is his domain according to the lore. No doubt that when he returns to Hell, all demons have to obey him. Otherwise they would already went war against him and even if they did, it seems Diablo was in control again. Mephisto exactly says "Send your terror into Hell"...

Three brothers single-handedly coud beat all Hell during the riot but they had a plan and they followed it. It wouldn't be so hard for the greatest prime evil ( even if he was weakened but i do not agree with that statement) to conquer all Hell especially without Andariel and Duriel with their forces.

We do know that Diablo's mission in mortal realm is to become The Lord of that world. (From Diablo I). He would use brutality and terror to make them obey and use the strong evil souls against the Heaven while sending others to Hell for their eternal torture. Means he is the absolute ruler of hell just like it's stated in D1 manual.

I don't think Azmodan and Belial could do anything to the most powerful being in the universe. They very likely obeyed him.

I assume that a plan was set in motion when he went to Hell in D2, probably something involves Azmodan and Belial just like he punished Andariel and Duriel. That's why demons have waited for 20 years.

Sass

01-06-2010, 02:05

Other than the weakened statement, none of that was being contested. You just said irrelevant facts. o.O

We do know Diablo is in a weakened form though. He didn't even have a body. The Diablo we fought was some warrior who traveled to Tristram being possessed. I'm sure even you would think that the real demon's form would be more powerful than a puppet body.

Also, Diablo is the most powerful demon, but not the most powerful being. Uldysian defeated him, as did our chars (the returning Barb I suppose). With the Uldysian example, even Diablo is afraid of something.

Moreover, there wouldn't be a stalemate if Diablo was the most powerful being. If he was, the Great Conflict would have been over before the Sin War could have begun. As you can see, it's still going on, and the High Heavens still aren't defeated.

permaximum

01-06-2010, 23:26

Sass

02-06-2010, 03:00

First and foremost there is no Uldyssian in Diablo universe. That's just a fiction written by Richard A. Knaak based on Diablo universe after 2 games 1 expansion and clear lore. Although Metzen said the books are cannon like games, books even conflicts with each other. You'll see this in Diablo 3. The books won't be taken as the base lore. But if you say Diablo lore changes with each step i can agree with that. But it won't be releated to the books. And most importantly the books conflict with game lore so seriously. There are so much difference with the series lore and the books.The books were semi-canon. They tell the story of what happened, but didn't do it by actually following those events, just mentions of the past.

In that, they're canon, but not the execution, which I'll agree to. The same happens with Bartuc where we never are reading as Bartuc during his reign, but rather get small glimpses of the part that explains that part of the Sin War.

On the subject of Uldysian specifically, he doesn't have to exist to replicate what he did. He was being attacked by Diablo's terror and used it against him instead. When making someone see their greatest fear, anyone with a mirror can show even him what he'd fear (unclear what that is).

But specifically, what is clashing with the games and books?

Uldyssian was the most powerful being in Sanctuary in the book. But his power was connected to the worldstone which was created by Inarius to limit men's (or nephalem as the book says) power but with a luck Uldyssian became the worldstone's itself and he gained the real control over it. Although he had enormous power, still Inarius was more powerful than him until his discovery of he can break Inarius' connection with the worldstone. What i mean, until that time Inarius had limitless power in the Sanctuary.It's his world, his power. Lilith just made it possible for her puppet to access it. If we're being indirect like this, she too would be one of the most powerful there.

Also, the games call them Nephalem as well, not just the books.

But as you know, when Diablo entered the Sanctuary, Inarius feared of him and couldn't do anything but made a pact with him as Diablo wanted. Inarius knew that Diablo is so weakened in Sanctuary just like other demons or angels because it was a foreign domain for them and they couldn't use their powers limitlessly. Still Inarius couldn't do anything to Diablo. Inarius the creator of the Sanctuary couldn't do anything to Diablo in his domain when he has full access to the worldstone just like when Uldyssian gained that access in the end. Inarius could end Sanctuary just like Uldyssian did but he was so big headed that he thought it would never come to that.No, it wasn't that he couldn't do anything to Diablo, it's that he wouldn't.

If you'll recall, he also held back whenever flying out of his Cathedral. He didn't want to show his full splendor since he knew it would attract the attention of the High Heavens.

Similarly, he'd held back several times when facing Uldysian as well. Part was also vanity that he shouldn't have to resort to that, but at the time, he didn't want Uldysian fighting him plus the Council finding him.

When interacting with Diablo, he wanted his enemies to fight amongst themselves. After all, they aren't worth dirtying his hands. He planned on double crossing Diablo when it was over, but Uldyssian was the one who defeated Diablo and ruined that plan.

After assuming the books are the real lore, i go on and let's assume that in the end Uldyssian was more powerful. But he was only more powerful in his domain. But in the Universe, Diablo is the most powerful. Just like i mentioned in my previous post.

Albeit i do not consider the books as the real lore or Uldyssian was more powerful in his domain. But even if the books are the real thing and Uldyssian is the most powerful being in his domain still he is not the most ppwerful being in Diablo universe. Diablo is the most powerful one in Diablo universe.And just like I mentioned in my post, that is still false. If he was most powerful (out side of Sanctuary and on whatever plane of existence the Great Conflict takes place), there wouldn't be a Conflict at all. it would be over with his whim. If he was so powerful, he wouldn't need mere human souls. Humans whose potential makes them more powerful than demons or angels I might add.

The books are widely known to be only half canon, but doesn't diminish the fact that Diablo isn't the most powerful being. He is the most powerful Demon, but not the most powerful being.

He's been defeated too many times in weakened puppet bodies for me to take that seriously as well. It's only a matter of time before we get to his true self, which perhaps that's what we do this time.

I'm even surprised you look to Cain's Journal when you yourself tried to discredit much of it with calling it discrepancies.

Still, hero or heroes, that doesn't change anything. Diablo was weakened then and defeated by humans.

permaximum

02-06-2010, 10:18

That's a complete joke too. The lord of terror fears his image. LoL.

If i recall correct nephalem was started to be used by in D2:LoD ancients quests. Perhaps you're right on that one. But it doesn't really explain what nephalem means. It's explained in the books.

If Inarius could do anything to Diablo he could. Even Tyreal says "in the end Lord of Terror always wins and he will win again this time" . He was referring to their pact. I know Diablo can't terminate Inarius in his own domain but Inarius can't terminate him too.

Uldyssian didn't defeat Diablo. the Sanctuary covered him. Diablo just left the battle.

The most powerful being won't translate to absolute victory everywhere. There are many archangels but there are only 3 prime evils.

He has been defeated 1 time by hereoes because it's a game and the ultimate bad guy has to be killed. Also do you see Diablo as "Lord of Terror" in the game? :). Devs can't implement lore into the gameplay and art in a serious way.

I don't like Diablo 3's current direction except sounds not music, that doesn't mean i won't take it's lore more serious than the books.

BTW humans whose potential makes them more powerful than angels and demons or they are the children of demons and angels is a fake thing written by Richard A. Knaak.

The Sin War was completely different than it's stated in the books. The great conflict comes to the mortal realm after it's discovery, some wise men choose sides between the Heaven and the Hell (for example Bartuc and Horozan) and it was going well for Diablo and his brothers. The war is also named "The Sin War" by Diablo.

As for Inarius thing. Here's the real deal. The books are nothing as far as game lore goes.

"Even the Seraphim are not immune to the corruption of the Dark Lords. One such angel, Inarius, was proud of his beauty and boasted loudly of his purity and worth. His thoughts
became so clouded that he believed himself to be above both Angel and Demon, and he left the Heaven to form his own dominion. He constructed a great cathedral of mirrored
glass and crystal, and followers flocked to him, drawn by his numinous charm and wealth. Once Inarius had gathered a sizable army, he decided to prove his power.
Inarius first laid siege to an infernal temple devoted to the worship of Mephisto, but made the foolish mistake of overestimating his prowess. The armies of Inarius laid waste
to the temple and killed the dark monks that dwelled within. The Three Evils had considered the vain warrior a mere nuisance and amusement until this time, but this was an insult that they could not bear.

Mephisto himself is said to have appeared at the cathedral of Inarius. He laid waste to the church and the surrounding countryside. The Lord of Hatred took the proud archangel and his followers captive. He bound Inarius with tremendous chains and slowly tore the wings from the back of the angel. Great barbed hooks were then used to stretch out the once glowing skin and his features were distorted by vile powers.

Many of the followers of Inarius were given as gifts to Baal and Diablo, but the rest were molded to match the bloated image of the now crippled angel. To this day, Inarius is said to be trapped in Hell within a chamber of mirrors, his eyelids torn from his face as he is forced to gaze upon his misshapen form for all eternity. His misguided followers now serve as Hell’s taskmasters, taking the anguish of their lost glory out upon the
bodies of others."

Also i suggest you to read these tomes from games to learn the actual lore behind the Sin War.

http://diablowiki.net/Tome

Also here.

http://diablowiki.net/Sin_War

Sass

02-06-2010, 14:54

The most powerful being won't translate to absolute victory everywhere. There are many archangels but there are only 3 prime evils.YEs, but you also consider the other 4 Evils as well, not the prime Evils alone. That's 7 vs 5. 4 Assuming something happened to Tyrael.

He has been defeated 1 time by hereoes because it's a game and the ultimate bad guy has to be killed. Also do you see Diablo as "Lord of Terror" in the game? Devs can't implement lore into the gameplay and art in a serious way.This is a huge joke right?

He's been defeated twice, not including events in the Great Conflict. The Exile won't count since he was one of those that staged it in the first place.

And we see him in the game as Diablo when you highlight him. And yes, he is called the Lord of Terror in game. I don't know what you're getting at, but maybe you need to replay the game to know what's in it.

And the jab at the devs further shows you don't know much. Ad hominem is a very bad way of getting a point across, especially a false one at that.

I don't like Diablo 3's current direction except sounds not music, that doesn't mean i won't take it's lore more serious than the books.D3's already been stated to focus more on the lore than D2 did, but have it as interactive rather than D1's just reading books.

The Sin War was completely different than it's stated in the books. The great conflict comes to the mortal realm after it's discovery, some wise men choose sides between the Heaven and the Hell (for example Bartuc and Horozan) and it was going well for Diablo and his brothers. The war is also named "The Sin War" by Diablo.That's part of my point in the previous post, the books don't explain the Sin War. They take the story in a way that focuses on a person adventuring at that time, but only loosely explains the back ground story relevant to Diablo as a game.

That's why they are semi canon, since there weren't actually those people exactly, but it is official in that it does explain actual events that took place, but not all of them, and not in any detail.

Ureh, the Triune, Ensteig, etc. We don't see any of these in games, but they are a part of the lore none the less.

How much and what part is what can be up to question, not that the books are 100% fake since they aren't.

And I know all about the Sin War. What's your point?

permaximum

02-06-2010, 16:11

YEs, but you also consider the other 4 Evils as well, not the prime Evils alone. That's 7 vs 5. 4 Assuming something happened to Tyrael.

There are many archangels but there are only 7 great evils. If you mean angiris council it's not mentioned in games but books. Still if you are talking about the book lore, it's 5 vs 3. Lesser evils don't rule Hell. They are near equal to archangels of the Heaven.

This is a huge joke right?

He's been defeated twice, not including events in the Great Conflict. The Exile won't count since he was one of those that staged it in the first place.

In Diablo I he wanted to gain a stronger body as i mentioned before. It was his plan. In Diablo 2 there were many heroes defeated him.

And we see him in the game as Diablo when you highlight him. And yes, he is called the Lord of Terror in game. I don't know what you're getting at, but maybe you need to replay the game to know what's in it.

And the jab at the devs further shows you don't know much. Ad hominem is a very bad way of getting a point across, especially a false one at that.

Do you fear Diablo in the game? But according to the lore he's the Lord of Terror. Do you get the point now? OFC we should be able to defeat him in the game. After all it's a game not a book.. But it would be stupid saying one man killed Diablo in the lore.

D3's already been stated to focus more on the lore than D2 did, but have it as interactive rather than D1's just reading books.

That's part of my point in the previous post, the books don't explain the Sin War. They take the story in a way that focuses on a person adventuring at that time, but only loosely explains the back ground story relevant to Diablo as a game.

That's why they are semi canon, since there weren't actually those people exactly, but it is official in that it does explain actual events that took place, but not all of them, and not in any detail.

Ureh, the Triune, Ensteig, etc. We don't see any of these in games, but they are a part of the lore none the less.

How much and what part is what can be up to question, not that the books are 100% fake since they aren't.

The books ofc not 100% fake but they are not the actual game lore. If we are talking about Diablo series video games we should focus on game lore not novels.

And I know all about the Sin War. What's your point?

It's alone a discrepancy. I don't have to go into tiny details. The main subject of the books is so different than the game's. Just like Inarius' involvement in the Sin War. I thought you asked for his :S

Sass

02-06-2010, 16:54

There are many archangels but there are only 7 great evils. If you mean angiris council it's not mentioned in games but books. Still if you are talking about the book lore, it's 5 vs 3. Lesser evils don't rule Hell. They are near equal to archangels of the Heaven.Then if you only go by games so far, there is only 1 archangel--Tyrael.

However, the books are true since we will be seeing at least one other member of the Council in D3. Past that, we don't know an identity, just that we see at least two, and one is Tyrael. So even in-game, the Council is official.

And when you say "they", it's still on the Lesser Evils. If they're as strong as the Council members, then it's still 5 vs 7.

In Diablo I he wanted to gain a stronger body as i mentioned before. It was his plan. In Diablo 2 there were many heroes defeated him.However, you're too hung up on that to understand why.

Diablo wants a stronger body. If he's doing that, he won't just let himself be killed by the first person to walk through the door. The person has to prove he's strong. He has to kill Diablo, which he does, alone.

Now he's found the stronger body to possess with the Soulstone.

In Diablo II, it's similar; you legitimately kill Diablo.

In that game, he was planning on taking back Hell. He didn't want a new body, he wasn't hinging his plan on being killed; he sought to rule Hell again.

So, when we come crashing in, he's legitimately trying to kill us, but gets defeated. One guy or 8, it doesn't matter; he's defeated.

Do you fear Diablo in the game? But according to the lore he's the Lord of Terror. Do you get the point now? OFC we should be able to defeat him in the game. After all it's a game not a book.. But it would be stupid saying one man killed Diablo in the lore.Yes, of course you fear him in-game. Nothing / nobody has said otherwise.

We aren't playing chars who aren't afraid of him, we're playing chars who rose above the rest and over came that fear.

And calling it stupid is purely your opinion, which you are entitled to. However, at least keep in mind that it is only your opinion, and doesn't even reflect the opinions of others. It doesn't even have to have supporting evidence (which you can't have for something to not appeal to you).

So that's purely your way of looking at it. Another would be that it adds accomplishment to it. What would be the point in playing if the end boss is impossible to kill? That kills replay easily, and is more detrimental to the game than one person not liking that we kill Diablo again.

Or, maybe the issue is with numbers. That'd be fine, but this is an ARPG. It's very common for one guy to be able to kill the end boss without a group of people (Link, Kratos, Mario, etc).

So, the issue isn't that we play as one guy, it's how you feel about that happening.

The books ofc not 100% fake but they are not the actual game lore. If we are talking about Diablo series video games we should focus on game lore not novels.I would say it's pretty obvious that book-lore isn't the same as game-lore.

Both focus on the same lore, but done in different ways.

The game is interactive in a way that books can never be. The closest are the kind that flip to a page to do X action or make Y decision.

Books are limited by content, but also how it's told.

It could be done in a way where we are reading in the third person and have detailed descriptions of the sieges mentioned. I would love to read a first person account of Duriel battering the gates of Heaven.

We could even have a detailed account of what truly transpired with Izual. Both sides claim two different explanations.

My most favorite of all, I want to read a saga detailing Bartuc's 1000 year reign and eventual clash with Horizon.

That's how I would like them told, and that is basically how it is in the games (sort of). In the games, you're told about the past while playing the present. Books can actually be presently in the past.

However, we get an adventure that tells the background story while the foreground is dealing with semi-official things. Keep in mind, this is not a Diablo issue.

The problem is the author. I like Knaak's books, but they all have that same theme where instead of telling the events, he tells it through the eyes of added characters going through it.

The exact same thing happens in the War of the Ancients Trilogy. We do get to see the nightelves, the Burning Legion and such, but we do so through the eyes of 3 added characters: Rhonin, Krasus and Brox.

It's a bit change of pace, but you get the underlying lore--that the nightelves defeat the Burning Legion.

This happens in the Sin War Trilogy.

We see the two sides fight, we even see them trying to recruit humans. We know the necromancers were first taught by Rathma himself, but we didn't know who was the first.

His style of writing just fills in the gaps with semi-official things. Did you notice at the end where it leaves the world in an option that the events basically never happened? That ties in with his style, not the lore.

So, I do agree that there is a discrepancy. However, the discrepancy isn't with what happens, it's with how it's told. You may not like his style, and that's completely valid. I, for instance, utterly cannot stand meta-fiction.

Again, this is simply a matter of opinion, and doesn't reflect an issue with the lore. It was already known that every detail wasn't official, but much of it was. Re-stating this doesn't change anything or get anyone anywhere.

It's alone a discrepancy. I don't have to go into tiny details. The main subject of the books is so different than the game's. Just like Inarius' involvement in the Sin War. I thought you asked for his :SI did, but it took you two posts to still not give the details. I can read both again, but there'd be no point if I don't know what you're focusing on.

The existing discrepancies have already been discussed.

permaximum

02-06-2010, 17:48

We're looking at the books' lore from different perspectives. Besides i don't agree with that hell's rulers count is more than the Heaven's. And Diablo can be defeated in games for the gameplay sake like you mentioned. But it is different in the lore. Just like only the warrior defeated Diablo in the original.

After telling where we fall apart let's focus on the real topic and what we agree.

Diablo is the most powerful being in Diablo games. I think you agree with this. Assuming he gained control of Hell again in Diablo 2 sounds normal to me. Especially considering the Dark Exile events. Now why do you disagree with this idea?

Sass

02-06-2010, 18:53

You look at the books as trying to be a part of the lore and results in a conflict.

I look at the books as a way to tell the underlying story through indirect ways.

If you take to books 100%, it'll clash with what happened. However, that doesn't mean the books are invalid, just that they aren't 100% accurate. The important events are official, but not the unimportant side things.

And he's defeated for gameplay, but also for lore purposes. We're playing the lore.

I do not agree he is the most powerful being in the Diablo games. He is only the most powerful demon, but not the most powerful being.

Not only are whatever char(s) we use going to eventually be more powerful, but we haven't seen what the angels can do yet.

I disagree that he regained control because he was still working on it. It wasn't an instantaneous process.

The Dark Exile would only contribute that:
1) Hell is weaker, so less to get in his way.
2) Azmodan and Belial would still have to be located and dealt with.
3) We saw no evidence of being near them.
4) He was in his own Sanctuary requiring 5 seals to open. This alone is open to many options:
4a) He is done needing a mortal body, so he's getting out of it to regain his true form and his powers. However, this seems likely to have a ritual involved, or at least some clue this was happening, which we aren't given.
4b) He is still recuperating his lost powers. Free from the Worldstone's hindrance, his power is bound to increase, but also not an instantaneous thing.

To have taken over hell, he would need to be powerful, perhaps as powerful as he was initially. That would have been impossible in his current mortal form.

Therefore, I think it likely that the 20 year wait after Baal's destruction is when that takes place, not Diablo II.

In this span, he is united with the other Primes and can still take over Hell, especially having shed his possessed (now dead) body.

With all 3 against two, Azmodan and Belial are then defeated into submission. Now, they work for the Three like they always had, perhaps being explained why the Three did what they did.

Going with this, Belial enters Sanctuary to recruit human souls with his deception. And in comes A2 from the trailers.

I agree they'll eventually take it over, but you're placing the events too soon.

permaximum

02-06-2010, 22:09

We won't find a middle way. So it's pointless to discuss. Here's my facts.

Diablo is the most powerful being in Diablo universe. That's probably why the game is named Diablo.

Three primes evils alone without their demonic forces could defeat nearly all of Hell including other 4 great evils and their forces. So i assume Diablo with his demonic forces took control of the Hell without Andariel and Duriel along with their forces in D2.

The books are not the actual game lore and there is so much difference between them.

Sass

03-06-2010, 00:42

Only 2 of those 3 were fact.

We haven't seen everyone in the universe, nor have we had a shot at fighting Diablo. That's speculation until stated otherwise. He is the most powerful demon, and demons are currently winning. That's why the game is Diablo; he's the focal point, but that doesn't make him the most powerful. In fact, that makes whatever char we use at the time the most powerful until someone else comes along.

Diablo does take over Hell. He just does it at a different time under different circumstances.

The books follow the game lore, but do so with a different spin on it. There are differences, but they aren't completely separate.

Leord

04-06-2010, 15:02

BTW, it does seem like the Triune is coming back. Look at the Cultists as well as some of the art in the gallery...

"Triune" is mentioned more than once...

permaximum

04-06-2010, 21:59

@Leord

Yes, it seems like that, still it isn't definite atm. I hope there won't be anything like that in D3. Because most of men know Diablo, Hell etc. after the events of 2 games.

BTW thank you for the wiki links. It's a much more informative thread now.

Jambe

05-06-2010, 00:25

Wait, you don't want the Triune featured in D3 because it's not mentioned in the other games? Do you simply want Diablo 2.5?

Sass

05-06-2010, 02:37

He doesn't want them since they preach to join what turns out to be the Prime Evils.

But, that doesn't seem to be the direction they take in D3 anyway.

permaximum

05-06-2010, 07:38

Wait, you don't want the Triune featured in D3 because it's not mentioned in the other games? Do you simply want Diablo 2.5?

OFC not. I just can't see how will the triune hide their true purpose after the events of 2 games. That's why i think there shouldn't be Triune.

Sass

05-06-2010, 11:25

That doesn't necessarily mean there won't be a Triune. It would just mean they went underground.

These were priests loyal to the Prime Evils. They seem to be focusing less on corrupting people here and more focus on summoning demons back into Sanctuary.

permaximum

05-06-2010, 13:08

Jambe

05-06-2010, 14:09

You act as if Blizzard ever treated their lore as sacrosanct — as if there was some point in the past when they wrote up huge sprawling worlds and then converted them to games, following the text descriptions down to the last letter. They've never done this — not with any game or book they've ever published.

The "lore" you so esteem is rather amateurish at best and out-and-out horrible at worst (I've read most of it). Extremely generic high fantasy fluff, hur-hur space alien galactic warfare and bottom-of-the-gutter low fantasy hooey. None of it has ever been coherent enough to worry about "canon" but furthermore, none of it has ever been good enough to get so worked up about it!

I don't think my standards are ridiculously high. If you want (relatively) good lore out of a game, check out Morrowind. If you want (relatively) good writing, check out VTM: Bloodlines, etc.

But in any case, it's Blizzard's property! They'll add and remove elements of lore, canonize some bits and redact others, etc, as they think necessary to make a good game (or a somewhat-tolerable book, as it were). I'd much rather they assemble the game's lore piecemeal to make something that works as a good game than see them go all DC Comics and make a sprawling, nonsensical mishmash of silliness which ties up a thousand irrelevant loose ends.

permaximum

05-06-2010, 14:54

You say the lore of Diablo series is not good enough. But in the same time you defend Blizzard's approach on the lore of the games. They want to change the lore of their games with each game. This causes lots of discrepancies, retcons and flaws in the lore. So if your standards are so high, why do you want a lore with lots of flaws? Yes it's Blizzard's property but with this approach the lore of these games won't be taken seriously... You should expand the lore accordingly with previous games. Otherwise nobody will care about the lore of the games with time.

Jambe

05-06-2010, 16:20

You say the lore of Diablo series is not good enough. But in the same time you defend Blizzard's approach on the lore of the games.

I said Diablo lore is not good enough to warrant such fervor. It's some of the most trite, generic, hackneyed low fantasy you'll ever find short of outright parody. And yes, I defend Blizzard's approach to game-making — if the game is fun, I don't care if they shelve all the prior lore and start from scratch. Fun > continuity.

They want to change the lore of their games with each game. This causes lots of discrepancies, retcons and flaws in the lore. So if your standards are so high, why do you want a lore with lots of flaws?

They want to make good games. If making a good game involves throwing out some bits of writing from previous properties, they'll do it. Why do you care so much about continuity? Blizzard obviously doesn't, and I daresay the vast majority of active Diablo players don't care, either (either that or they just don't care to make forum posts about their distaste). You "omg they're ignoring the lore!" lot are a tiny vocal minority.

And my standards aren't high — I said the opposite: "I don't think my standards are ridiculously high." Morrowind has better lore than Diablo but it still isn't that great, and Bloodlines' writing was fantastic relative to other games, but it pales in comparison to popular books or indie comics.

Yes it's Blizzard's property but with this approach the lore of these games won't be taken seriously... You should expand the lore accordingly with previous games. Otherwise nobody will care about the lore of the games with time.

The lore has never been taken seriously. Diablo is an addictive hack & slash button-masher with minimal "role playing" elements — it's not a particularly interesting, well-written or otherwise intriguing story. The appeal is in the mechanics and playability of the game, the beauty and detail of the visual assets, the sounds and music, etc, not in the depth & insight of the writing. It's angels slashing demons hacking humans and little else, and that's all it'll ever be... because that's what sells.

permaximum

05-06-2010, 17:31

Although i'm not saying "omg they're ignoring the lore" i think i'm one of those that care about lore in any game, especially in RPG genre whether it's an action-RPG or not.

Otherwise it would look like mindless-senseless killing-grinding for me like Fate and Torchlight. I think lore seperates great games with classic games.

Jambe

05-06-2010, 19:06

... D2 is mindless. ARPGs are usually that way — the focus is on the actioning, not on the rpging.

Basically you're saying the Diablo lore is good enough to worry about... and I disagree. It's really not very good at all. The character designs? Great. Like, say, Tyrael's wings? Baal's tentacled-crab-style carapace? Fantastic. And the environments? The palace of Lut Gholein? The Bloody Highlands? The Arreat Summit? Really beautiful (especially for their time).

But the story overall is a sack of meh.

Sass

05-06-2010, 19:53

I won't hide that i thought of that possibility but the destruction of Triune in the sin war books and there haven't been a sign of them until this point made me consider that thought again. After all they could intervene in the events of D1, D2 and LoD. It would be pushed to involve Triune in the game at this point. But it wouldn't surprise me also considering what Blizzard did to the warcraft lore.If they were pushed underground, that'd mean they're in hiding. They wouldn't intervene at all in D1 or D2.

D1 and D2 followed eachother seamlessly where we actually followed the warrior from the first and were right on his heels.

Now, it's a 20 hiatus and demons are gone. Before, when there were demons around, they could do what ever worship they do and have rituals galore. When the demons leave, then it's time for them to act.

They may easily need secrecy, but 20 years would make them bold, like taking up whatever dungeon is best, like the newly built New Tristram.

This is just the simple flow. Nothing is far fetched or pushed about it.

And I have no clue what you or Jambe are getting at. The Warcraft lore is fine. It isn't as massive as something like the Forgotten Realms, but is nice for what it is; lore made after a game.

the same applies to Diablo.

Jambe, the story may not appeal to you, but it does to others. To put it down and say it's too bad to worry about is completely wrong. It's your opinion only, and doesn't reflect the necessity of anything.

And perm, what changes are made between every game? The only changes are what's in some scholar's journal who works for the Vizjerei. Considering he didn't even believe in demons, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you should take his words with a grain of salt and not 100% god-spoken fact.

Jambe

05-06-2010, 22:04

permaximum

05-06-2010, 22:30

@Jambe

There is nothing wrong in your last post. We simply disagree and perhaps you're right that generally diablo players don't care about lore.

@Sass

They had so much more time since the events of sin war. Mankind -except a few enlightened souls says D1 manual- didn't even know anything about Diablo, great conflict, hell-heaven etc until the events of D1. Why didn't they do anything in that long time but they suddenly decided to intervene in D3?

Warcraft lore is currenly not huge but big. It isn't about the size of lore. It's about the content of it. The current lore has lots of retcons. Although i'm not a warcraft fan, i do know that there are lots of old warcraft fans aren't happy about this.

Between D1 and D2 there haven't been so much change, but the lore took a different approach. It moved away from realism to more fantasy. Other than that there has been a few retcons. But currenltly it seems D3 has lots of retcons and i've explained them in a thread as you know. I can survive a few retcons but not many especially in favor of the books. I think warcraft lore doesn't even need an explanation. There are probably lots of info about that on the internet.

They should expand the lore with considering the previous games' lore as base. I smell they are trying to prepare the Diablo Universe for an MMO in the future. Just if they want to do a Diablo MMO, the lore and the universe will be ready. BTW I would really like an MMO of Diablo :)

Sass

05-06-2010, 23:30

It's certainly a matter of taste, Sass. My main point is that continuity only makes something good or bad if you give a toss about continuity (which, clearly, I don't). I'm just curious as to why seamlessness between a book and game matters one blinking iota to you or to permaximum. I doubt the majority of Diablo fans care. They just want to be entertained for a bit, and for the mechanics to work so well that you don't notice them, etc, and for it to be pretty and sound nice, etc.Yet there are some who legitimately enjoy the reasons why you're killing demons. I just happen to be one of them.

These sentences contradict each other.Not even remotely close.

1st sentence:

To put it down and say it's too bad to worry about is completely wrong.You state that the lore doesn't appeal to you and that you don't focus on it. That's fine. However, it becomes wrong to state that it is pointless and deserving of no focus. Not only does it have both, but both can appeal to people and be a deciding factor for some.

In this genre, storyline makes a big part of the game play experience. To call that useless is wrong since it clashes with the point behind the game.

2nd sentence:

It's your opinion only, and doesn't reflect the necessity of anything. You just don't like to follow the lore. That's fine. But no matter how you feel about the lore, the necessity of being there cannot change, and it certainly won't bent to fit your particular view.

They had so much more time since the events of sin war. Mankind -except a few enlightened souls says D1 manual- didn't even know anything about Diablo, great conflict, hell-heaven etc until the events of D1. Why didn't they do anything in that long time but they suddenly decided to intervene in D3? Multiple reasons:

1) You already have pointed out that it was destroyed. With few members, it wouldn't be very noticably active.
2) Coupled with the subtlety they employed, they would definitely be underground and not seen.
3) If there were no members at all, it would have to be discovered and revived, which would be a slow process, and who knows how long it would take to find them and their true directive.
4) The same lore that destroyed the Triune also left the world in a sort of amnesia. Surviving members would have no recollection of the Triune, but may stumble upon ruins (like #3).
5) I'd already brought up the demon presence and the correlation to their activity.

There may be more I haven't yet thought of.

Between D1 and D2 there haven't been so much change, but the lore took a different approach. It moved away from realism to more fantasy. Other than that there has been a few retcons. But currenltly it seems D3 has lots of retcons and i've explained them in a thread as you know. I can survive a few retcons but not many especially in favor of the books. I think warcraft lore doesn't even need an explanation. There are probably lots of info about that on the internet.Diablo has been fantasy from the very start. It does have realistic references, and they continue into D2.

And the other topic had some that were already addressed and weren't retcons, not necessarily. They're one man's word against actual events.

The book direction is because they're a way to flesh out the rest of the world. We won't be able to travel back in time and play as Horizon / Bartuc, so without books or lore out side of the game, how can we have a detailed narration of it? I'd be all for a movie, but books are definitely an easy, common choice for those things.

Or, they could do a bunch of little games like GoW does on the PSP. Knowing Blizzard's style, they'll just make big games rather than one you play once and say "oh, so that's what it was like in the [Insert Sin War, Great Conflict, Dark Exile, etc]" and don't play it much.

Then there's also the part where D1 relied on books to tell the story where the game play didn't. Instead of sitting in-game to read them, printed books are simply much larger, less game diversing solutions.

Due to this focus on books, they'll be referenced in future Diablo events, especially since many have canon events, regardless of how we feel about those events (even I dislike Demonsbane for instance).

They should expand the lore with considering the previous games' lore as base. I smell they are trying to prepare the Diablo Universe for an MMO in the future. Just if they want to do a Diablo MMO, the lore and the universe will be ready. BTW I would really like an MMO of DiabloThat's not the point though. The lore they expanded was stuff we didn't know much of at all. The Sin War was before D1, so couldn't have used that as a base.

Legacy of Blood and Kingdom of Shadow both used the games as reference for chars. Legacy almost fit the 3 choices perfectly--Sadun was male, but you can tell he was a rogue. Zayl used actual necromancer skills.

However, nothing that happened in either of the games would have affected those parts except the Lut Gholein scene. Still, we don't know the time Kara got there in relation to our chars getting there. Nobody involved talked to anyone that would have even known about Baal and Tal Rasha either.

In a way, they used the games as a base, but didn't have to focus on the game's content since these are stories going along side that game's lore.

+5 on the MMO though. That's one I'd definitely pay to play.

permaximum

06-06-2010, 00:31

Diablo I was much more realistic than Diablo 2. Everything is explained in the manual, even crazy things like mana, hidden's invisibility, unknown things with real world references. There were less realistic references in D2. For example they started to call the world as Sanctuary in the manual (not ingame) instead of the Earth. They started to use Burning Hells more than Hell. They made Diablo look more like lizard instead of Devil. But generally they tried to stay true to the first game.

The reasons for Triune thing is pushed too. I don't think Diablo had time to build Tirune from stratch in the events of the games.

After pointing this out I will be more clear with the books thing. Everything starts with the closing of Blizzard North and Blizzard's new approach on Diablo series. Do you read the back of those books? You know Devil is in the details. Tell me the differences with the first 4 books and the Sin War triology. Or never mind. I will write it for you.

In the first 4 books

"Since the beginning of time, the angelic hosts of the High Heavens and the demonic hordes of the Burning Hells have been locked in a struggle for the fate of all Creation. That struggle has now come to the mortal realm...and neither Man nor Demon nor Angel will be left unscathed...."

In the Sin War trilogy

"Since the beginning of time, the angelic forces of the High Heavens and the demonic hordes of the Burning Hells have been locked in the Eternal Conflict for the fate of all Creation. That struggle has now spilled over into Sanctuary -- the world of men"

First 4 books were written in the time of Blizzard North.

The Sin War trilogy were written in the time of the new team. In previous post i was referring to the sin war trilogy with "the books". There aren't so many discrepancies with the game lore pre the sin war trilogy.

Blizzard wanted Diablo universe to be a complete fantasy world with removing real world references. Just like removal of pentagrams, crosses etc. For example Richard A. Knaak was often using Hell and Heaven in the first books but in the Sin War trilogy he completely went for Burning Hells and High Heavens. They wanted to prepare a base lore for the new approach and so that the sin war trilogy were written. Especially consdiering the game's religious aspect (original Diablo caused some ridiculous protest back in the time) they wanted to remove these real word references but it also took some horror elements out of the game. Albeit Blizzard wants to minimize Diablo's thrilling aspect too, means this is their advantage also...

Besides the gameplay (except potion thing) Blizzard is going for different direction with D3. The lore is one aspect of it too. You have to be either ignorant or blind to not see this.

Sass

06-06-2010, 00:49

Diablo I was much more realistic than Diablo 2. Everything is explained in the manual, even crazy things like mana, hidden's invisibility, unknown things with real world references. There were less realistic references in D2. For example they started to call the world as Sanctuary in the manual (not ingame) instead of the Earth. They started to use Burning Hells more than Hell. They made Diablo look more like lizard instead of Devil. But generally they tried to stay true to the first game.The word you're looking for isn't "realistic", it's "detailed".

Having the manual describe more of the monsters doesn't make the game realistic. Besides, the Diablo 2 manual describes the monsters and their powers as well. It's a common trait, bot just in one, and has no affect on realism.

The world and name reference is the only thing linking it to being realistic, and they say Earth in D2 and Sanctuary in D1. However, not calling some things by its name won't mean D1 was realistic. Hardly any of the games were realistic, and that's the point.

The reasons for Triune thing is pushed too. I don't think Diablo had time to build Tirune from stratch in the events of the games.Good, he didn't have time. Then again, he wasn't trying to and the Triune had already been formed.

I don't see how that makes the Triune a forced concept though.

Blizzard wanted Diablo universe to be a complete fantasy world with removing real world references. Just like removal of pentagrams, crosses etc. For example Richard A. Knaak was often using Hell and Heaven in the first books but in the Sin War trilogy he completely went for Burning Hells and High Heavens. They wanted to prepare a base lore for the new approach and so that the sin war trilogy were written. Especially consdiering the game's relious aspect (original Diablo caused some ridiculous protest back in the time) they wanted to remove these real word references but it also took some horror elements out of the game. Albeit Blizzard wants to minimize Diablo's thrilling aspect too, means this is their advantage also...

Besides the gameplay (except potion thing) Blizzard is going for different direction with D3. The lore is one aspect of it too. You have to be either ignorant or blind to not see this.Again, this is not about realism, it is actually about detail.

Before, they just said "a struggle" and "the realm". That's very vague, and doesn't tell you the names. Adding them in doesn't turn it from realistic to fantasy. They were both fantasy from the start; one just has actual names instead of vague descriptions.

Removal of in-game religious things has already been discussed and the reasons given.

The horror elements have remained intact. The most horror D1 or D2 had was the occasional corpse, blood spatters, limbs, etc. D3 has tortures and active rituals. It's still there, it's just presented in a less passive way.

The removal of thrill is purely a fabrication in your mind. They've stated all along it's going to be a thrilling "epic" game, and has so far succeeded easily.

Different directions are a good thing. D2 is a vastly different direction from D1, and same with D3 from D2. That's called innovation. It's necessary to make a sequel unique in its own way, yet still able to retain the previous games' feel. From what we've seen, D3 is closer to D1 than it is to D2.

I'm neither ignorant, nor blind. The facts are too clear to ignore it; D3 is different, but nothing, not even lore, has deteriorated, just that it has a unique aspect to it.

permaximum

06-06-2010, 01:10

No. The exact word is realistic. It's about trying to make some connections with real world and the game's fantasy world. OFC it's not going to be corporeal. Our religions are not corporeal too. Can you prove Hell exists? It's not so much different than proving Mana exists. That adds to the thrilling experience.

If Truine was formed before Diablo's return why did they wait? You conflicted with your previous post this time.

Yes Diablo was a fantasy game from stratch but it had lots of connections with real world. The series are loosing those connections now.

In D3, i hope to feel the same feeling the first time i saw the injured man in front of the church with crosses in a graveyard in D1 with tristram music in the background. Or the unforgetteble moment of the Butcher. But i won't bet on that.

D2 was an expanded D1 with much more fast-paced gameplay. Atmosphere, feeling, mood, art style, music style were the same, but they are not the same for D3. Still interestingly the gameplay is so similar with D2. They had to improve gameplay instead of changing the atmosphere, mood, feeling...

BTW i don't like this unique aspect of lore in all RPG games. They just copy themselves with different names in favor of not going realistic.

Sass

06-06-2010, 01:25

The connections exist despite the name additions, so clearly that is not the factor. You seem to think that symbolic connections make it realistic, and that naming them makes it fantasy. You focus on how detailed the connections are, and misguidedly call that being realistic. It isn't.

Being realistic means the game has real imagery in the game. All 3 games have that. However, all 3 games have more unrealistic, fantasy imagery than it does realism.

There's no conflict in the Triune comment. I already told you why they would wait.

You feel the connections are being lost, but they aren't. The same symbolism is there, just like it always has.

Very, very little can trump the Butcher. For me, the next closest is Duriel, and that's it. The Smith was close, but it wasn't like how Duriel felt.

Now, if we hadn't already seen the siege beast in the video, he'd easily fit the shoes as well.

D2 was an expanded D1 with a totally different atmosphere, style and mood.

D1 was cramped, slow, dark and paranoid. The art was simple, but focused on the gloominess.

D2 was vast, removed, fast-paced, and you didn't have to worry about the next monster pack. The art was more complex, but lacked a creepy feel to it.

D3 is as removed as D2, slower paced than D2, as dark as D1 in feel if not color (or lack there of). The art is still more complex and reverted back to the gloominess.

I don't get the last sentence. Each game is very different from the other, and neither are realistic. From a lore perspective, copying themselves is good since this is the continuity you're stressing, but the lore was never realistic at all.

permaximum

06-06-2010, 01:50

Then we don't agree on what realism means in video games.

I don't see those connections.

The siegebreaker wouldn't even feel close. Lots of color, light, no blood, no dark, overproportions won't give you that feel.

I don't think atmosphere of the two games are so different. But D3's is so different. Gameplay of first two games were so different but D3's gameplay is not so different.

I couldn't explain well in the last sentence. All RPG games wants go for unique lore instead of more realistic one but in fact they are just copying themselves with different names.

Sass

06-06-2010, 02:22

The siege breaker has the same colors the butcher uses. D3 just uses a more advanced pallet for shades and such that D1 didn't have as much of.

Still, I suggest you look at him again before thinking there's no blood. He's the only monster in the entire series to tear a char in half and have intestines coming out.

And re-watch the game play. You can't get more dark than a solid black silhouette.

You'll have to specify which 2 games you feel since all 3 games have different atmospheres.

And the RPG thing is just generalizing. Each franchise wants a unique lore, which is 100% a good thing. The comment about copying just is false though.

There are common elements, hence being an RPG at all, but they're hardly copies or even close. Compare Golden Sun, GoW, Baldur's Gate, Zelda, etc. All RPGs, all unique.

permaximum

06-06-2010, 10:02

The siege breaker has the same colors the butcher uses.

Yeah yeah :)

Still, I suggest you look at him again before thinking there's no blood. He's the only monster in the entire series to tear a char in half and have intestines coming out.

The opening scene is where everything counts, you won't be thrilled during the encounter.

And re-watch the game play. You can't get more dark than a solid black silhouette.

LoL.

You'll have to specify which 2 games you feel since all 3 games have different atmospheres.

OFC you know. D1 and D2's atmospheres are similar.

And the RPG thing is just generalizing. Each franchise wants a unique lore, which is 100% a good thing. The comment about copying just is false though.

There are common elements, hence being an RPG at all, but they're hardly copies or even close. Compare Golden Sun, GoW, Baldur's Gate, Zelda, etc. All RPGs, all unique.

But they are not unique in the end. I would call The Lord of the Ring is unique. Other than that i don't see a unique RPG. Going for more realistic story in games ( Just like Assassin's Creed series'. ) is much more better than copying the same lore over and over. For example Marvel Universe is the most successful and known super-hero universe. Where does it take place? In earth...

Sass

06-06-2010, 16:04

The butcher's scene isn't in the games. I think he was the only one to have gotten one like that, so we definitely can tell a focus with him.

But, we can still get a thrill from playing the monster. With Duriel, how fast was your heart pumping the very first time you hear "Looking for Baal?" while a huge demon charges you and you realize you've just been frozen?

IDk about you, but mine was going pretty fast ;)

A decade later, it'll definitely take more to bring that effect, but as long as they bring that back in some way (siege breaker's char rip left me gawking), I'm sure it'll be fine.

LoTR is original, but not unique, not any more. I will agree that recent things (D&D, dragon age, a good bit of WC and Diablo aspects, etc) all have ties with the things LoTR brought to the table.

But, there are others still unique. GoW had none of the middle ages or orc / wizard aspects, but instead delved fully into the Greek history rather than English. Even his weapons have a unique flair to them.

Mario is totally unique as well.

Assassin's Creed is definitely a realistic one, which already makes it unique from LoTR style games (who focus on fantasy). Then again, I hate the game's lore and I just can't bring myself to keep playing it because of that. Right when I get immersed, the reminder that I'm actually in some chamber just grinds the story to a halt. It wasn't until my brother got around to beating #2 did anything make sense.

Still, it's a unique spin on it, but the style (meta fiction) just doesn't work for me.

DC is just as popular as Marvel, and where does it take place? Earth. Well, one Earth + a zillion little parallel dimensions.

But, what can we take from this?

Some games have realistic features and imagery ( Assassin's Creed is definitely a great example of that), some with a middle (GoW has real mythology, but being mythological, is a fantasy all its own), or purely fantasy (LoTR with the elves, orcs, magic and wizards, etc).

There could easily be more, but those three are the simple way to see it. Of those three, I would place Diablo in the middle with GoW.

It contains imagery from Christian lore (angels, demons, crosses, etc), but remains a fantasy world (magic (arcane and necromantic, active interference by angels and demons, etc).

Leord

07-06-2010, 10:01

I think the world and story of Diablo is quite interesting.

I would love for people in here to help me with updating the wiki as well, as the lore is what we lack a bit.

As for the story, I don't see it as better or worse than many "good" other IPs, but I like it. The games up until now has not had that much in them, true, because they are ARPGs, but that doesn;t mean there's not more behind it. Besides the novels, the manuals themselves has loads of information you never see in the game. There are undertones and hints about bigger things going on as well, and I think all in all, it's a pretty well thought out universe - but yes, it's subject to change on most things.

And finally, as for the topic I started, about the Triune, we know that the events of D1 and D2 was a very small incidental thing that 99% of the world never even knew about was happening. any comments by people to show loads of people were affected is retconned.

Basically, people know some people went crazy some years ago, but not much more to it, oh, besides Mount Arreat blowing up.

At this point, people think of the Prime Evils as we do the Devil. A myth (or a religious nutjob). The Triune seems to also force people into servitude with the Teeth of Diablo etc, so it might not necessarily be 100% a voluntary thing.

Sass

07-06-2010, 11:01

Leord

07-06-2010, 11:07

Wait, where were the comments that it affected a bunch? IIR, it would only have mattered to those along the route we took.

The sisters and that area definitely knew, as would Lut Gholein and Kurast, but others weren't described AFAIK. Mount Arreat knew before the others did anyway.

Was the "retcon" from the 20 years and no body knows or something?

The sisters - yes - most of which died. Lut Gholein, well, they know the sun was blocked out a bit, and there was some turbulence, but besides a few individuals, most don't know it was the Prime Evils.

Kurast: The jungle definitely acted up for a few months that year, and the priests went mental, creating a small war, but it "sorted itself out".

Dreadlands: Only the Barbarians were affected. Many of them died, many went crazy and a few knows.

I think it's Blizzard's idea that some 20-40 individual people still live, are sane and knows of the events. Even if they are loud, everyone else just don;t believe it.

Many events that took place were simply just discounted to animals or the like. Remember, Sanctuary is a pretty violent place even at the best of times.

Sass

07-06-2010, 11:43

But what then was the original and changed version?

Leord

07-06-2010, 12:03

But what then was the original and changed version?

There is no specific changed version. It's just interpretation, really.

I mean especially the Diablo I Manual is slightly outdated with many details (or wrongly interpreted by the Horadrim mage writing it, however you wanna see it) but everything that happens in D2 happens. The difference is just that the masses of people don't know it's the prime evils, and the whole thing is over pretty quickly, so they never believed it was them.

The thousands of year old scriptures from the earlier Sin Wars tells of massacres etc, this was a small conflict at best, on a few select locations.

I don't know all quotes from the whole game, but some quotes implies loads of people knows about this invasion, while it's in fact only a few people who do.

Jambe

07-06-2010, 12:12

Not even remotely close.

I'll shorten it to the pertinent bits:

completely wrong. It's your opinion

It is my "opinion" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion), yes, but as such, it cannot be "completely wrong". An opinion (regards this discussion) is an expression of preference (taste), and thus cannot be inherently right or wrong (Monet or Picasso?).

You mentioned genre, so I suspect you're conflating ARPGs with RPGs as a whole... but that's silly. The actual play of the Diablo series has more in common with Unreal Tournament than Dungeons & Dragons (or any game where the emphasis is on the RP). Comprehending the story is totally unnecessary to completing Diablo 2, whereas in a P&P adventure, the story is the point of the game.

I just can't fathom caring about how Blizzard ties together the fiction of Diablo 3 given that they apparently don't care much themselves. The story is really only there to prop up the actioning. Blizzard's IPs are haphazardly jumbled together as-is — a few games with "lore" as deep as a kiddie pool and some mediocre novels by a third-rate (sorry, Mr Knaak) author only vaguely connected thereto...

I'm not putting it down; I'm just commenting on reality. The Diablo IP is objectively a drop in the bucket compared to plenty of other IPs; the depth of what little exists is but a children's story in comparison to any Troika title. Planescape: Torment jumps to mind as almost the antithesis to Diablo in terms of story/player interaction. Heck, Blizzard's even regularly beaten where they excel (in terms of creating absorbing mechanics, visuals & sounds) by, say, Looking Glass Studios (GSC Game World is an extant example).

I do like it; otherwise I wouldn't have talked to tall the NPCs or read the books. I just... eh. *shrug*

Leord

07-06-2010, 12:17

You're entitled to your opinion, and I think you are right about the story in terms of inside the game in D1 and D2 and what it's most like, gameplaywise.

However, if you compare UT with Diablo in terms of the actual lore on its own, there's really no comparison. even from the first game it came with comparatively speaking a library of lore and loads of thought into it. The game genre is one thing, and as a game it make sure not to shove too much mandatory lore down your virtual throat, but it's there, behind somce of the scenes, and it is the base of a lot of what is happening.

D2 could have integrated it in better ways, sure, but I think we'll see much more of that in D3.

I am in awe of how well they manage to add a background to what almost is a shoot-em-up in pseudo-3D mode.

Sass

07-06-2010, 12:33

Jambe, there's a giant difference between calling your opinion wrong and calling what you do with your opinion wrong.

As you quoted, they were different sentences. I'm not calling your opinion wrong.

What I'm calling wrong is to assert that, because you don't like the lore, it should take the back seat and other factors come first. In RPGs, that's not the case.

permaximum

07-06-2010, 13:39

Leord

07-06-2010, 15:53

@Jambe

If you didn't read D1 and D2 manuals, i suggest you to read the pdf versions at least. Then compare them with any other RPG manual (i'm not saying Diablo manuals are better. Just pointing out they are comparable). Diablo manuals are pretty impressive describing the game world and the lore.

Ingame, the story is not the focal point and lots of things are not explained. But that doesn't mean Diablo games lack well-thought lore.

They are here:

Diablo I Manual
Diablo II Manual
Diablo II: Lord of Destruction Manual

And I agree. Especially if you look at other non-hardcore RPGs or ANY game released in the same time, this is pretty intricate and well thought out story.

On an unrelated note, I notice that we have no Triune article in the wiki. Could anyone please help create it? I haven't read the books, but a nice summary and then some references to Diablo III images where "Triune" is written in the notes would be awesome! I can help with images if needs be.

Jambe

08-06-2010, 02:45

Again... this is an ARPG. The story automatically takes a back seat. It's just the nature of an ARGP! Were the story central to the Diablo experience — were you forced to experience the narrative more intimately — I'd be singing a different tune. At best, though, it's only just as important as the item variability and monster-bashing and gear-hoarding mechanics (and I'd say that's a huge over-inflation of the story's role).

I've read the manuals. They're more extensive than manuals for other ARPGs, yes — but so what? My issue is whether the lore is good enough to get bent out of shape if Blizzard should chop it up to make D3. It's fine for what it is... which is the rather generic fluff used to pad out the hacking and the slashing. If you truly believe it's even remotely on par with, say, the writing of Lewis or Tolkien, or any of the game settings ever produced by FASA or Steve Jackson Games or Games Workshop... then I can't discuss anything with you.

It's all fine. And I'm just beating a dead horse here... we'll never agree. I think the lore is fine as a backdrop, and it's interesting enough to hold my attention through a game... but even a casual examination indicates that it's just thrown together as a... how do I analogize this... as a rather crude wire frame, which is only there to hold up the heavy clay of the game's important elements. I cannot fathom any situation where Blizzard could retcon info from the novels and I'd be mad about it. It's just not that good. If they do end up retconning stuff, they'll just replace it with something of the same generic quality. Oh noes, Leoric has been replaced with... another vengeful animated skeleton king. For shame, Blizzard! He was so unique!

:ponder: