Path of Exile vs Diablo 3

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

I am sad to admit I knew about that one, zeto. I always figured it was just Blizzard being legally anal and keeping close what they believed was their property -- the word 'Diablo'. Which is, of course, stupid.

Flauros: meh, Cefca/Kefka never scared me. Besides, that's hardly an angel, just a winged apotheosis of a psychotic jester.

The Weeping Angels were VERY scary until the last two-parter. We'll see what Moffat does with them next time...

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Tyrael always scared me. Those wings were just so well done in D2.

Anyway -- this recycling relates to something else I just read around the web. In other threads, some of us have playfully discussed the 'female Diablo' concept art, and while we sort of agreed it's just a picture, there is apparently quite a strong theory out there that either Leah or Adria plays host to the Lord of Terror. The catchword for this is, of course, 'Shiablo' or 'Sheablo'. Amusing!

But apparently Metzen did this in WoW. I don't know or care for WoW lore, but it really wouldn't surprise me. After what Blizzard did to the poor Queen of Blades in SC2:Wings of Liberty (yeah, I watched the ending on youtube), reducing her to some damsel in distress to be rescued by Raynor (PFFFT!), I really wouldn't put much stock in their ability to tell a good Diablo story. I really, really wouldn't.

Why do people keep comparing SC2 to D3? They're two completely different dev teams.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Tyrael always scared me. Those wings were just so well done in D2.

Anyway -- this recycling relates to something else I just read around the web. In other threads, some of us have playfully discussed the 'female Diablo' concept art, and while we sort of agreed it's just a picture, there is apparently quite a strong theory out there that either Leah or Adria plays host to the Lord of Terror. The catchword for this is, of course, 'Shiablo' or 'Sheablo'. Amusing!

But apparently Metzen did this in WoW. I don't know or care for WoW lore, but it really wouldn't surprise me. After what Blizzard did to the poor Queen of Blades in SC2:Wings of Liberty (yeah, I watched the ending on youtube), reducing her to some damsel in distress to be rescued by Raynor (PFFFT!), I really wouldn't put much stock in their ability to tell a good Diablo story. I really, really wouldn't.

Except if you followed the story further she escapes and fucks everyone, hard. (The queen of blades)

About the diablo theory I actually think it could be true.
However, I also think the way he is depicted in D3 might be more of a 'perfect form'. If you watched dragon ball-z, frieza is a huge monster in his earlier forms, but in his final form he becomes this perfect, small, human-like being. This makes even more sense in the diablo universe, given that humans are in fact perfect beings.


I'm personally a lot more interested in the rest of the story though, like what happens to tyrael, imperius and the rest of the angiris council, what the black soulstone is etc.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

I am sad to admit I knew about that one, zeto. I always figured it was just Blizzard being legally anal and keeping close what they believed was their property -- the word 'Diablo'. Which is, of course, stupid.

Flauros: meh, Cefca/Kefka never scared me. Besides, that's hardly an angel, just a winged apotheosis of a psychotic jester.

It's not stupid at all. If they ever decided to make a full fledged diablo movie they'd be fucked.

Not really, Tagek. 'El Diablo' is not what they'd call it -- it's just 'The Devil' in Spanish. This is not a concept, term or idea that I believe Blizzard has ANY claim to, any more than if, say, some auteur wanted to make a movie called "Half a Life" and suddenly found themselves blocked by Valve.

Go on IMDB and you'll see that quite a few movies have shared names, and not just with a difference of a word or two. Perfect example? The Avengers.

I know what diablo means, obviously, but what I'm saying is; it's stupid to act like they are dicks for denying them that name, when they're only securing a possible future movie title. After all, they apparently have a right to it, so why wouldn't they? It's what any sensible human being would do.

If you want an example of a dick move name-claim I'd say take a look at Valve and the name 'Dota'.

Also, the avengers is actually called differently in the UK (avengers assembled I believe), because they did indeed already have a movie called 'the avengers' there.

"

Tagek wrote:

Except if you followed the story further she escapes and fucks everyone, hard. (The queen of blades)

About the diablo theory I actually think it could be true.
However, I also think the way he is depicted in D3 might be more of a 'perfect form'. If you watched dragon ball-z, frieza is a huge monster in his earlier forms, but in his final form he becomes this perfect, small, human-like being. This makes even more sense in the diablo universe, given that humans are in fact perfect beings.


I'm personally a lot more interested in the rest of the story though, like what happens to tyrael, imperius and the rest of the angiris council, what the black soulstone is etc.

Oh, I wouldn't doubt she does. But that's just it -- it's a cheap move for a writer to leave her like that between games. It's not a cliff-hanger, it's character inconsistency. Anyway, as much as I was invested in the SC1 story, I didn't even personally finish 2's. It was just too boring and forcibly tangential. Seriously.

Comparing Diablo to Frieza does make some unfortunate sense, but I think Frieza was a 'mistake' that Toriyama corrected with Cell in a lot of ways, since Cell also went from monster to man, but unlike Frieza, he went from manly monster to manly MAN. None of that girly shit -- and this is coming from someone who likes Goku's Japanese voice, not to mention Kenshin's. Frieza, on the other hand, being voiced by a dude who sounds like a girl, somehow comes across as far more painfully feminine.

As for the rest of the story, I think it feels a bit...forced. The other two games cleverly kept it all peripheral and focused on the human story, the intimate. In 3, it seems like the WoW effect is in full motion, and you are directly drawn into the culmination of the Sin War (is it still going?) and thus will likely be A Very Important Person Indeed. Nice ego stroke, but again, it's a cheap move writing wise compared to the lighter touch of the first two games, which at once delivered this massive story but never let it overshadow or control your own progress through one very small part of it.

Anyway, Sheablo. Wonderful!

I loved SC2's story, but then again, I did not play the first one all that much.

Take cell then, I've never been an avid Dbz watcher so I don't know a lot about that show.

D3 story:

And honestly.. they kind of have to make it bigger, don't they? They've added a crap ton of great and vast lore since D2, so they can't just ignore it all and remake D2's story in a slightly different way. They are drawing in many more aspects of the universe this time around, which is much more immersive to me.

I'm already extremely intrigued by this:

"And in the end of days, wisdom shall be lost
As justice falls upon the world of men.
Valor shall turn to wrath
And hope will be swallowed by despair.
Death at last shall spread its wings over all
As fate lies shattered forever."

I've pretty much fully deciphered it, but I'm still not sure yet what all of it means. But yeah, I enjoy that they brought in more of the world.

In d2 It also seems to me like more of an issue with lack of writing rather than a fully intentional thought of making you a small pawn in the story.
After all, even though none of the cutscenes even mention you, YOU are the one killing ALL of the prime evils and doing everything to get to them.
If they had more money / time they would have simply done a better job of including your char in D2's story.

In retrospect, this last paragraph ^ is my biggest point on this discussion.

"

Tagek wrote:

In d2 It also seems to me like more of an issue with lack of writing rather than a fully intentional thought of making you a small pawn in the story.
After all, even though none of the cutscenes even mention you, YOU are the one killing ALL of the prime evils and doing everything to get to them.
If they had more money / time they would have simply done a better job of including your char in D2's story.

In retrospect, this last paragraph ^ is my biggest point on this discussion.

Then it is that I shall address. The cut-scenes for D2 were, as I recall it, retrospective. They told the story of the Wanderer, and basically revealed your next destination through him. The 'story' of Diablo 2 was never your story; you were just following in darker footsteps. Your story in Diablo 2 was told by your playthrough. That's how things were done back then, too, mainly because cut-scenes were obscenely expensive and there was no reason to waste them on things the player was already doing. You used them to frame the story, not tell it.

I sense we're heading for an impasse with this one.