Diablo

I wouldn't say that. I'd say that single player is there for people who want the full Diablo experience. You simply don't get that on multiplayer.

The lore of Diablo has always consistently stumbled over itself. Diablo1 was a great example of that. They even had different cinematics depending on which character you defeated Diablo as, each one of them shoving the soulstone into their forehead. The problem with that was that, in Diablo2, it was the Warrior who killed Diablo himself, and was consequently corrupted by Diablo. Despite having the story of Diablo1 progress in such a way that any character could have killed Diablo, in Diablo2, it's definite. Not only that but the two other characters were still incorporated into the storyline of Diablo2, despite being a complete contradiction with Diablo1. Even the gender choice for the Barbarian in Diablo3 clashes with the storyline as both share the same back story, though we blatantly know it was the male Barbarian who was in Diablo2.

Regardless, the Barbarian has to have been present, as he's already done so in Diablo3.

 

Huh what i would get in sp that in mp that i dun get? It should be the other way round...

It could be true that the lore of Diablo is always inconsistent. Even then ur conclusion that the barbarian is the lone hero and he vanquish the prime evils are premature. It could be true but at the moment it is anyone's guess.

As for the different cinematics, I believe it is for gameplay reasons and not for story reasons. It can be confusing but perhaps at that time Blizz has yet to decide that who is suppose to be the real hero that defeated Diablo. hence 3 cinematics. Or it could be due to the fact that Blizz wants to please the Sorc and Rogue fans. Actually I m not 100% sure that the Warrior is the one who vanquish Diablo. But most probably should be correct. For me there is still some vagueness.

I heard from an outside source that the female barb do not share the same back ground as the male barb from Diablo 2. They have both different back ground. She fights becoz there r not enuf males to continue the battle. if u dun believe me, u can check with ur other frens or forums..

Cain was saying in his journal "Although the heroes destroyed Baal, the angel Tyrael has delivered grave news". If Blizz were to contadict themselves later, all I can say is Blizzard needs to be revamped. My conclusion is that ur opinion of the barbarian is the only hero with the others non-existence is 100% wrong. As for he did vanquish the prime evils, we have to wait. Plz read Cain's journal.

 

In multiplayer, you do Tristram runs until you can do Tomb runs until you can do Baal runs until you can do Cow runs, until you can advance to Nightmare, etc, etc. Those who wish to PVP start magic finding and trading to get the best gear possible, and then just start to duel others. Those who wish to PVP do Countess and Mephisto runs for gear, and start magic finding and trading to get the best gear possible, and then they start going after Pandemonium Diablo, but only after running Mephisto, Diablo and Baal repeatedly to get the keys, etc.

In single player, you actually play the game. You're not run through anything, you're not fighting other heroes, and you're not magic finding and trying to beat the end-game content. You're actually playing the game itself, lorewise.

Perhaps, but it all depends on which way you're looking at it. You can look at it from a single player point of view, in which it has to be the Barbarian, the multiplayer point of view, which does technically work but doesn't in practice, and then the Diablo2 to Diablo3 point of view, in which there are various accounts, one being Cain's journal. However, Cain's journal is nothing more than the same additional lore, that's been added to make sure the sequel works, as we saw in Diablo1 to Diablo2, where it goes from being an ambiguous hero who kills Diablo, to a specific hero.

In Diablo, the cinematics have always been the main portrayal of the story. This was particularly the case in regards to the end of Diablo1, where the hero jams the soulstone into their forehead and becomes the Dark Wanderer, and in Diablo2, where there's a parallel storyline portraying what happened to the soulstones and Marius. In Diablo1, the focus of the majority of the cinematics is on the story, and in Diablo2, they do not even relate to the player's gameplay, but are telling another story.

By process of elimination, it is undoubtedly the Warrior. Firstly, the Dark Wanderer is a man, which rules out the Rogue. On top of that, the Rogue is corrupted and becomes Bloodraven in Diablo2. Although there's a chance that it's the Sorcerer who defeats Diablo, he's said to become The Summoner in Diablo2. Therefore, it has to be the Warrior. On top of that, from what I can remember, Cain's depiction of the hero of Tristram is that of the Warrior.

Logically that would be the case, but apparently the female Barbarian's past includes the events of Diablo2.

http://www.diablowiki.net/Barbarian#Old.3F_Female.3F

I've read it, but that's just one angle. Of course there aren't going to be any contradictions if you're looking exclusively at one report, because then there's nothing to contradict it. There're so many accounts of so many different parts of the storyline. It contradicts itself too often to have one definitive outcome.

 

Not the rogue. Just a rogue. It could be any rogue actually. It never specifically states it's the one from the Diablo 1 days.

 

Perhaps not specifically in-game, I thought it was the general assumption. She's not just a regular Corrupted Rogue Archer.

http://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Bloodraven

 

Sorry but that's BS. Multi doesn't purely consist of these runs. That may be how people play the game, maybe the only way people ever did it, I wouldn't know. But I'm pretty sure all the lore from singleplayer IS there in multi (maybe save cinematics?), just it's up to people to play this that way or not. Maybe if you want to immerse yourself in the game world/lore you'd play sp at your own pace, but you could do the same with a group of friends who want to do the same. The way people play the game doesn't mean anything if it's still the same game in sp and mp.

LOLWUT? Wasn't D1 multi mentioned several times in this topic?
Also I played with Kurai once, I can assure you it even has Battlenet and still worikng one too.

 

Yeah, obviously it's the same game, but it's played in a completely different way. Basically, PVPers have no interaction with lore and PVEers have no interaction with lore. Anyone who's levelling up just joins Trist, Tomb, Baal and Cow runs until they're able to PVP, etc. It may still be the same physical game, but it's played as a completely different one. Also, the Diablo2 cinematics portray a different story, and if you bother to watch them when you progress to the next Act, then you get left behind from the rest of the people you're speed levelling with and have to find a whole new group that's being rushed to Tombs, Baal, etc.

It might have, I don't know. Regardless, then there're even more contradictions, as the end cinematic depicts each individual character becoming the Dark Wanderer. Also, in almost any accounts of the events in Diablo1, it's a single hero who defeated Diablo.

 

Yes, you've already said that. What I'm saying is that playstyle has no impact on lore whatsoever. Wether it was one hero or a group is up to Blizz - if they say one thing it's that.

What contradictions? As you say it's been said more than once that it was one hero (it was even in D2 itself, no?), so it was one.

 

HAI GUISE I HEARD MAH NAME WHAT'S GOIN' ON IN HERE?!

 

Well I definitely don't agree with that. There can still be the lore behind the game as a whole, but if you're basing what actually occurs in the overall game in multiplayer, then nothing of the sort actually happens in reality. It's all runs, magic finders, PVPers and end-game contenters.

Yeah, my point is that what they're saying contradicts what's previously been said. And that's happened more than once throughout the series, as I've already said.

Multiple characters taking him down in multiplayer. How can you take the single player version of one game and say there're no contradictions, but take the multiplayer version of the next game in order to say there're no contradictions?

Therefore multiplayer contradicts that.

@ Banned. Not Spam Land.

 

Itza, Mee is pointing out that whatever the players choose to do in sp or mp has nothing to do with the lore. Gameplay n the story line r two different things. The gameplay is for us players to fool around but ultimately Blizzard can specified what exactly happen in the events of Diablo 2. So imagine in the world of sanctuary, there r many players when u urself is playing the game in mp. Yes there could be some characters doing something unproductive like p v p but ULTIMATELY there will be a group of heroes who will fulfill the quest of defeating the Prime Evils.

So as u r saying playing sp provides the full game exp is false. U can party in the group to defeat the Prime Evils just like u play sp. Essentially its the same thing. And I doubt that u can actually mf in the real world of Diablo as once u kill mephisto, he's dead and won't ressurect. Do u really think in the world of Diablo, Mephisto will respawn again for any players to kill him? Just becoz u want to mf..

Actually there r no contradictions at all. Blizz is giving sp as an option to play the game while actually what happens is that a group of hero defeating the prime evils rather than a single hero.

I give u an example in SC mission 10 for Protoss when u r suppose to kill the Overmind. In the game technically I can kill all the Zerg and leave the overmind alone..but do u actually think that is what happens in the sc lore??Obviously that didn't happen as otherwise tassadar need not sacrifice himself. And Zeratul can take his sweet time to slay the overmind. U can notice that there r mutalisks attacking Tassadar's Carrier as he prepares for his assault on the overmind in the cinematcis. In the game, I can kill all d mutalisk and in fact the whole swarm. Why should they appear in d cinematic?

U can read the Queen of Blades novel n u can see many differences in the game play n the lore itself. U see the part where Raynor n Kerrigan r talking to each other just when Kerrigan rises from her crysalis. It makes sense in the novel but not in the game. My sc examples resembles the Diablo example..

And plz dun rely on those websites as they can be edited. Therefore still not yet a strong evidence.

 

I've already said that I disagree with that. As I said there can still be lore behind the game as a whole, but if you're basing it off what actually occurs in the game itself, then it's flawed. As crazy as it sounds, as you're playing the game you should be playing the game. You shouldn't complete it and then be told what happened. That'd be like playing the game and reading a separate book.

So my opinion is false? Nice. Check out my thread about whether people will play single player or multiplayer Diablo3 first. Most people say single player as it provides the full game experience.

As for the full game play, and being able to do the same as you do in single player in multiplayer, of course it's possible to, but it doesn't happen. Essentially it's the same thing, but practically it's not. I'm talking about how people play multiplayer, and it's completely different to how you play single player. Your point about rekilling Mephisto merely enforces that.

I genuinely laughed at that. No contradictions, eh?

Single player isn't an option given by Blizzard to play the game while they write up what actually happens... It is the game, and it's the only viable way to explore the lore of the game as multiplayer is all about playing the mechanics of the game, and not the game as a whole. I see what you're saying, I simply disagree. I've already said I disagree.

Well according to what you've accomplished, the lore stops there and the Overmind is never destroyed. However people don't play the game like that, so the Overmind has been destroyed, and the lore does progress. One person not finishing the campaign doesn't make the overall lore come to a grinding halt as it's the way people play the game as a whole which makes the lore progress, which does not happen in Diablo2.

Now you're just getting picky. It's like saying what if your hero wasn't standing in the same place as he or she was when shown in the cinematic? And if you don't accept that, the Overmind is a master of manipulating Warp Space, which is how it overcame the Xel'Naga, how it's able to transport large armies across the galaxies and how it ended up on Auir in the first place.

From memory Raynor and Kerrigan do actually talk to each other when Kerrigan emerges, and apart from that, it's been recontextualised. Diablo hasn't, as it's simply the progression of the game. Novels on the other hand have to be recontextualised, as simply putting what happens into the game into words would not work as a book.

Then check the history, it hasn't been edited. And check other sites as well. There's the same general consensus, not to mention that in Diablo2 itself, Akara and Charsi say that Bloodraven was the rogue captain at Tristram who battled Diablo and returned bearing an evil influence, and that Jerhyn and Drognan talk about, in relation to the Summoner, a crazy mage who battled Diablo at Tristram.

 

1) Itza, I m talking abt how Blizzard decided to present the story and gameplay as something which is seperate. U on the other hand seems to be basing everything by ur own logic. It is u who is basing everything on the game itself. Remember we r talking abt Blizzard here not ur own opinion. The reason why the storyline is still not yet complete despite the fact we have finished the game is becoz it is impossible for Blizzard to present exactly what happen while allowing the players to do what they want..

Example is Diablo 1. There r 3 characters. Obviously only 1 hero turn into dark wanderer . So its obvious Blizzard has to choose either one of the heroes. Or they can choose not to reveal at all. If we were to follow ur logic, all of the Diablo 1 players will be "forced" to play warrior as the single player. And do u think thats what Blizzard and all other players want??? The sales will drop just becoz u wanted the story to progress exactly as how u play the game. There must be some space of freedom for us to explore or the game will be dull..

2) Mebbe u can define what is the meaning of full game exp. But I wanted to point out that single player is just there for some players without lan or battlenet. Or it could be for those players who likes the challenge of having to win the game without trading or without any external help.

The fact is that mp has everything that sp doesn't have. So I dun see any argument here at all. The fact is that in mp u can play the game as if u r in single player mode with the objective of completing all the quest..What other players do in mp has little effect on the lore..

Abt Mephisto, I believe u know that he shouldn't actually "die" more than 1 million time in the lore itself rite? My point clearly reinforces that Blizz is seperating the lore from the gameplay...It will be ridiculous in the lore for it to happen...That mechanic is just for players to mf n for exp...

3) I hope u get my point. But I think u r confused between what is contradiction n choice of the game itself. Contradiction refers to specifically abt lore and has nothing to do with game play. Just like the example of Diablo 1, the warrior being the dark wanderer is not a contradiction but a choice made by Blizzard since the warrior is one of the given hero.

The reason why the story of Diablo 2 is narrated by Marius rather than the Diablo 2 hero is due to this. Obviously Blizzard doesn't want to reveal who the heroes are..If i m playing the sorceress in diablo 2 (sp mode) and if i watch the cinematics of the Barbarian going around killing n chasing the dark wanderer, wouldn't it be weird?

4) The SC example I give resembles to Diablo 2. Its just that Blizzard oredi told the main story but what happen in between is not told. For example how the hero actually killed Baal? Mebbe frozen orb, whirlwind or fist of heaven. We dunno. But we do know that the Prime Evils are vanquished. Apart of that the heroes remain a mystery with the exception of the male barbarian..In the game u can kill them with any spell u like...

5) At that point the overmind is near dead. i doubt it could "summon" more minions..Even if it did, in the gameplay I could have easily trash the swarm but do u really think that in the actual story, the protoss won by a big gap? No!!! If it is so, there is no need for Tassadar's sacrifice n Zeratul can do the job...

I have a better way to explain my thoughts to u..Remember the Brood War mission 5a and 5b (Ground Zero n Birds of War). What happens in Diablo 2 is something like this mission. Basically the player has the choice of whether to face ghosts or battlecruisers..However i m pretty sure in the real storyline Blizzard is forced to choose the story to based on either ground zero or birds of war..

Coming back to diablo 2, I can use the sorc to whack Baal with my staff to dead . But must blizzard based the story on how my sorceress kill Baal??? If u want these kind of games where ur actions in the game affects the story, be prepared to look for another game. So Blizz has the right to tell the story that the sorceress killed Baal by frozen orb n ignore what I did. That is a matter of choice n so there r no contradictions at all..

In conclusion Itza, u can choose to believe me or not. U can ask the others whether I m rite or wrong..I will be glad if someone tell me I m wrong also. But plz based this on Blizzard's way n not ur own personal opinion. Ur barb as the single hero in diablo 2 is wrong...U can make a poll and if I were to lost, so be it....

 

Sp does NOT provide the full game experience. Every way you can play in sp, you can do in multi (just play mp on your own), but there's alot more you can do in mp that you can't in sp due to lack of other players.

But I'll try to look at it Hex Gore's way. I play my Druid and defeat Diablo, then Baal. It's obviously Druid who did it in lore because that's how I played it in single player game, which is lore. After last Prime Evil is down Tyrael breaks that stone thingie and what happens? The Druid appears in Rogue encampment, he went through lost of stuff, defeated the Evils and all. He knows that, he remembers everything he experienced there and has the gear he obtained on the way to prove it. He talks to some of his friends from the encampment (that he met at the beginning of his journey), but suddenly no one recognizes him. What gives? After all the stuff he went through for these people they tell him they don't know him? What's more the Bloodraven is back, the Den if full of evil again etc. (deja vu anyone?) but this time the monsters feel much stronger despite all the progress he made.
Later on after the Druid defeats Prime Evils again, all of this happens again.

To sum up - Diablo has some crazy lore there all right.

 

Had to break each paragraph down...

Actually everything I've been talking about is my opinion, as I've stated several times. You're just talking it in a completely different context. As I've said repeatedly, I don't agree with that, and I've stated what I think. That's my opinion, which, as hard as it is to believe, has derived from my own logic. I believe the game should tell the story, and that it shouldn't be told separately. You can't tell me I'm wrong with that, because that's how I believe it should be represented. It's my opinion. I've said that numerous times already. I disagree. I've got my own opinion. This is it.

Exactly, which is why there are so many contradictions, especially in a game like Diablo.

That's right. At first, when I'd first got Diablo2, I thought it was still ambiguous, apart from the Dark Wanderer being a man, but it turned out it wasn't. They could have easily chosen to keep the ambiguity, but they chose to contradict themselves to make Diablo2 much more of an extension of Diablo1, and they've hinted that they're doing a similar thing with Diablo3 and old characters. Originally the Barbarian wasn't supposed to be in Diablo3, and they instead had a character with similar gameplay design. They ended up just all calling it the Barbarian, so decided to reintroduce him as the Diablo2 Barbarian. Again, that's a choice they've made which contradicts the ambiguity, just like in Diablo1.

That's not my logic at all. Firstly, if you were strictly adhering to my logic, it would be left ambiguous. At the moment you've mixing my logic with Blizzard's progression through from Diablo1 to Diablo2, which simply doesn't work, as my logic's been based on that progression, so you can't go back changing what's taken place in Diablo1 because of it. Secondly, I'm not even really saying anything should change. I'm just saying that there are contradictions, which there are. It's a given.

By full game experience, I mean you experience the full game. You do all the quests, you defeat all the monsters, you travel to all the places, you defeat all the bosses and even things like you watch all the cinematics. You play the game and you beat the game. Single player definitely isn't just an option for people without LAN or Battle.Net. Again, look at the Single Player versus Multiplayer thread. Almost everyone chose single player to actually experience the full game, and then they're going to go on to start multiplayer.

As I've said before, I'm talking about how multiplayer is actually played, not what it provides. Of course you can play on your own on Battle.Net, but you're simply playing a single player game. Multiplayer is actually played very differently to single player, and it definitely doesn't provide a full game experience. You just run runs until you're a high enough level, magic find, duel and go after the Uber Evils. You're talking about what can happen, I'm talking about what does happen.

If anything you're just proving that single player provides more of a full game experience, and that people actually play the game itself and are following the lore whilst playing. In multiplayer you can do Meph runs for magic finding and also, if you haven't been rushed through Act IV and V yet, for experience.

I get what you're trying to say. You're basically saying a similar thing to what I'm saying, but we're both in completely separate contexts. I believe that it should be the game itself that's the means for representing the lore and what's actually happening in the game, and you're saying that Blizzard chooses to tell the story outside of the game and that the game is purely there for the gameplay.

Well it's just as weird to see what's happened to the Warrior, Sorceress and Rogue in Diablo2 when you've potentially seen it happen completely differently in Diablo1.

Regardless, this has always been the case with Diablo cinematics, and doesn't only apply to parallel plot lines. The cinematics in Diablo1 clearly reveal who the hero is who defeated Diablo, being the class you played as and, as a result, completely ambiguous, but in Diablo2 they just trample all over that.

I've already responded to that. Just because you destroy everything around the Overmind but not the Overmind, it doesn't mean that the Overmind's still alive... Just like I said if you stop playing Diablo2 just before you kill Diablo, it doesn't mean Diablo's still alive.

Exactly, which is a perfect example of what happens when the game's played as it should be played... Things are ambiguous, just as they were in Diablo1. For me, Baal was finally killed by my Barbarian mercenary with either a Flamberge or a Great Sword with the Malice rune word, and me wielding The Chieftain which had dropped in Act IV and I'd socketed with an Ort Rune, which gave up to forty additional Lightning damage in Act V. I remember it quite specifically because it's so memorable due to the fact that it's how I killed him and not how Blizzard said he was killed. That's part of what I'm saying about the whole the-gameplay-represents-the-lore thing. What happens in Diablo is not set it stone, as it's you who's doing and completing all this. That's why they don't just tell us what happened. You get to choose your character, you get to choose your build, you get to choose your companion, and you get to complete the game how you want.

Seeing as it takes Tassadar's personal Void-infused Carrier to take down the Overmind, I wouldn't say that it's 'near dead', and as I'd said it's a master at manipulating Warp Space, so easily could reinforce its armies, and I'd imagine it would when it's getting desperate. Again, this is all just nit-picking. It's like complaining about where your character was actually standing in the room in the end Diablo cinematic or where he or she was in relation to Diablo, etc, etc.

I honestly don't remember that, but why do you assume that every minor aspect has to be set in stone? Why can't you accept it that there could be some ambiguity in the storyline?

And do they? No. They leave it open. It's ambiguous. In other words, your actions do affect the story. Blizzard could say that he was taken down in a specific way, but they don't because it's ambiguous, and in that regard, the player has the choice making Diablo a great game for that sort of gameplay.

Again, you're talking in a completely different context to the context I'm talking in. Based on my opinion of the gameplay demonstrating the lore, a single hero killed the Evils. That's MY opinion. Just as people have favourite and least favourite colours, favourite subject areas in school and different perspectives on characters in literature, this is my opinion. You're trying to argue it in a near invalid context.

 

@ Meee.

Firstly, just because you're on Battle.Net it doesn't mean it's multiplayer. If you play on Battle.Net but only ever play on your own, then that's simply single player. Also, you're talking about how multiplayer can potentially be played, I'm talking about how it is actually played.

Choosing different difficulties is nothing like choosing a different storyline, so just because Diablo2's difficulties are set out sequentially it doesn't mean that it's a continuation of the story.

 

tl;dr
Buuut, I realised something awesome! Warcraft's lore is saved! WoW doesn't count because it doesn't have singleplayer and hence no lore. Woot!

 

I'll shorten it for you... The second post is directed at you.

And if you've come to that conclusion, then you seriously don't understand what I'm saying.

 

That tl;dr was before you double posted

Maybe what you say is how it's played. But what IF it's just say ~99% people playing that way and 1% playing like they do in sp only in a group? Then it still isn't how the game is played because it's minority? What if it was 50 - 50? You can say what you want because you're right in this one example, but what if it was different? And don't just tell me it's not how it is, the game has everything it needs to have it the other way.

Just because multi is played one way doesn't mean it can't be played another...

 

As I've said, I'm talking about how multiplayer is played. That's as a whole. If ninety nine percent of people solved some maths problem this way, and one percent of people solved it that way, then you would simply say people solve this problem this way.

Well firstly, yeah, it's not, and if it was fifty fifty, then it would be a completely different scenario altogether, so I wouldn't be able to say what it was. Also, the game doesn't have what it needs to have it the other way. To do that it would need counter measures to prevent runs, all spells and abilities would need to be balanced and gear, especially regarding uniques, would most likely have to be redone. As it is, then to be played competitively it has to be played as it is now.

That's not what I was saying there. I was commenting on what you were saying about my way of thinking and the Normal, Nightmare and Hell difficulties. It's not a continuation, it's the exact same thing at a harder difficulty.