Please respect other members. Please do not post links or information about hacking/warez/cheats.
Read the rules of these forums as we rarely warn before banning. Lost or need RSS check the forum map.
What do you think of the story time frame (20 years later)?
I think it is a great idea to have D3 take place 20 years after the end of LoD. Also, I really like the concept that those who were not involved in the invasion think of it as a myth that never really happened. This 20 years later idea allows for the barb chr to look old, wise, and perfected from his past experience. It also allows us to distance ourselves from the old chr's who want to push away what they went through, so as to make way for newer chrs.
I originally wanted a prequil, but I like this idea more because it is easy to follow.
Re: What do you think of the story time frame (20 years later)?
I like it, it also makes sense with the Barb (Assuming he was a warrior from the Diablo 2 time). They also said we will be returning to familiar places, such as Tristram. Lut Gholein and Kurast are on the map as well. It will be fun to see these places, but 20 years later.
Re: What do you think of the story time frame (20 years later)?
Yes like mibir said it will be fun seeing in parts of the games the old places we visited but changed by the past 20 years. It also seems like other areas have deteriorated over the 20 years adding to the mood of despair. Also, this makes the game easily transitions from LoD smoothly because it revolves to a large degree around the ending of LoD with the destruction of the worldstone keep by Tyrael. Since Blizzard promised an appealing and well worked story I'm interested to see what they will churn out.
Re: What do you think of the story time frame (20 years later)?
To be perfectly honest, my first thought was "How on Earth is that Deckard Cain guy still around?".
Other than that, I am kinda neutral with the time setting. I guess a prequel would have been hard to do, especially if they wanted to put in Baal or Mephisto. 20 years later seems pretty cool.
Re: What do you think of the story time frame (20 years later)?
They actually have stated that Decard Cain may be dead. I'm not sure where I read it, but it was either an interview from a Blizz employee or on the Diablo III website. Regardless, if he is dead that adds a whole new twist to the game, because it is likely that any hero will be running blind. Cain pretty much was able to help you stop Diablo, Mephisto, and Baal in the first two Diablos. If he's no longer around, who the heck is going to be able to help you?
Also, guesses on who the woman in the trailer is? I'm thinking Anya, but I'll likely be wrong.
Re: What do you think of the story time frame (20 years later)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pancakeman
But they show him walking around with you in the gameplay vids!
Maybe he's been hitting the Full Rejuv's lately...
Dudes got more banked than anybody i know.
Personally i would have preferred it to be set another 10 to 20 years ahead of where it is now. I just cant buy that world changing events like a portal being opened to hell or the total destruction of Mount Arreat would be forgotten or treated like myth just 20 years later.
Mountains don't blow up that often, people generally remember for a long time when they do.
40 years ahead though? In the setting, where most common folk are lucky to hit 40 (watch the Environment and Lore panel) you have a new generation that were not around for that time, where the events really were just stories told to them by their parents. 20 years is really borderline for believability IMO.
Re: What do you think of the story time frame (20 years later)?
Well I like it, but 20 years after and no one remembers anything or doesn't believe it.. Most of the people should still be alive and those kinds of moments would really burn into people's minds. All wars from the history have been traumatic experiences and are remembered and passed from generation to generation. I mean, we still got a lot veterans from World War Two and it has been 63 years since it ended.
If it was 50 years I would buy it in a world with slow information speed, but not now. But Deckard Cain is really old and a central part of the story, so I guess they had to make it fairly recent. Other than that, I love the setting of the story.
Re: What do you think of the story time frame (20 years later)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swiffer
Personally i would have preferred it to be set another 10 to 20 years ahead of where it is now. I just cant buy that world changing events like a portal being opened to hell or the total destruction of Mount Arreat would be forgotten or treated like myth just 20 years later.
Well, that part of it is entirely possible. Mount Arreat was in a very remote part of the world. The only inhabitants were the Barbarians, so the bulk of the world could have possibly questioned the mere existence of the tribes.
However, places like Lut Gholein and Kurast would be pretty odd. I could understand how people not directly involved wouldn't really know that much, or remember. The thing is, I'm pretty sure they would remember all the hordes of monsters everywhere they went.
We'll see, I have faith that Blizzard wouldn't have placed it at 20 years without a really good reason.
Linear Mode
