1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Diablo

Discussion in 'Blizzard Forum' started by Space Pirate Rojo, Oct 26, 2008.

Diablo

Discussion in 'Blizzard Forum' started by Space Pirate Rojo, Oct 26, 2008.

  1. Charmed

    Charmed New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    89
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    Itza, all I can say is ur mind is too strange. Firstly I want to remind u is that the Diablo series is created by Blizzard not me or you. Therefore the true story lies in the hands of Blizzard. What u r thinking now is defying and denying whatever Blizzard choose for the storyline. What u r doing is merely imagining the diablo world in ur own thinking. Seriously Blizzard own this game and also the storyline. How can u go n imagine ur own storyline n tell ppl what happen in the game - that the Barbarian is the sole hero n also the one who vanquish the Prime Evils. (unconfirmed facts)

    Secondly its not that I cannot accept ambiguity. But u just seem not to understand the logic behind why Blizzard has to present the lore and the gameplay in different manners. Ambiguity only exist in circumstances in the lore specifically. Somestimes due to too many novels written by different writers, mistakes or contradictions do happen..And also actually the story is oredi written in stone. The reason why ambiguity exist is merely becoz there r million ways to complete the game n Blizz has been keeping silent abt what exactly happens. My point is dun DEFY Blizzard and introduce ur own thinking. It's just one possibility n Blizz does not need to take into consideration of ur thoughts unless u r one of them. In the world of Diablo there is no such thing as alternative timeline. so actually there is only 1 storyline. Its up to Blizz to decide not anyone of us. Check Cain's journal..

    Abt sp n mp, I mean u must be joking...Everyone can play sp but not everybody can play mp. So truly to enjoy full gaming exp, u should play mp..And u seem to forget something. In mp, u also can complete the quest n complete the game....Also in sp, I can also do tomb runs, countess runs n others without completing quest/game..Seriously, ur logic is very hard to comprehend.

    In conclusion, plz let Blizz decide the storyline. If I were to tell ppl that the Sorceress killed the prime evils n the reason why the barb survived is becoz he was protected by the Sorc, don't u think alot of ppl will be mad with me? It can happen but it is merely one's imagination / opinion. So the best is rely on Blizz. And there is no point arguing. We will wait for Blizz to continue the storyline...
     
  2. ItzaHexGor

    ItzaHexGor Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes received:
    21
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    Sydney, Australia
    For crying out loud I'm not saying that I'm denying or defying anything, I'm disagreeing. There's a world of difference. And I'm not imagining my own storyline, I'm interpreting the actual storyline from the perspective that I believe it should be interpreted from.

    The story isn't written in stone. The general gist of it is, but the whole story isn't. A great example of that is how you were talking about what actually kills Baal. Anything could have. It's not written in stone. It's along similar lines to those choose-your-own-way adventure books. Obviously there's still a main driving plot, but you can go about completing it in your own way. For me, Baal was defeated in close combat by my Barbarian mercenary with Malice and me as a Barbarian with The Chieftain. Is that 'wrong' according to Diablo2 lore? No. And Blizzard isn't keeping silent over what actually happened, they're just leaving it open. Again, I'm not 'defying' Blizzard. Maybe you should think of Diablo as having a sense of Fable in it, because the storyline is quite flexible. There isn't one specific course of action that took place to defeat the Evils like you're implying there is and it's just that Blizzard isn't telling us, it's a flexible course of action.

    Ok then, to simplify it as much as I can, by full game experience and single player think of playing the story, and by multiplayer, think of playing the mechanics. To get the full impact and understanding of what's happening in the game, you've got to play the story. And it's not like I'm the only one who believes this. Read the Single versus Multiplayer thread. And again you're purely talking about what capabilities single and multiplayer have, which isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how it's actually played. In multiplayer people don't complete the quests, etc, and in single player people don't do Tomb runs, etc, etc. You're finding it hard to follow because you're still thinking about this in a different context. You're talking about capabilities, and how the game can technically be played, and I'm talking about reality, and how the is actually played.

    In conclusion you still don't understand, especially with all that denying and defying Blizzard stuff.
     
  3. Charmed

    Charmed New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    89
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    Itza, u have been complaining abt the Dark Wanderer = Warrior and "the group of heroes" to defeat Baal as contradictions. How can u disagree with Blizzard over their choice of story? They created the story and hence we should accept it so long there are no errors on their part. Mebbe its better for them to keep silent over the identity of the Diablo 1 hero but hey that's their choice. U are creating ur own fan fiction actually. By ur logic, I also can create my fan fiction consisting of my sorceress killing Baal...The fact that they told us some details of the heroes' identity proves that there is a seperation of gameplay and lore which u would never accept. And there are actually more than just these examples. Later when they actually named the Diablo 1 hero, u would probably say "OMG my hero name is ITZA, how can they name it David?? Contradictions!!!".

    Itza so long as Blizzard never release the storyline abt how Baal was exactly killed, this is a matter of our imagination. At the moment it doesn't go against the lore. But when Blizzard actually revealed how Baal was killed (if they do), u should gracefully accept it instead of screaming contradictions. Whether Blizzard wants to leave the storyline open or made it written in stone, its up to them. What I was specifically saying was there is only 1 storyline which is unknown. U can create those alternatives story but they r merely fan fiction for us to imagine.

    I have oredi present Cain's journal which is a solid proof that there are more than 1 heroes. If u can't accept it, I have nothing to say..

    Abt sp vs mp, I know what are u talking abt...In fact we r relating these gameplay options to the lore. In fact i did visit the thread and of coz all of us can do whatever they like be it sp, mp or even both. U cannot based on what majority of the players do in mp or sp to specifically says that playing sp will provide full gaming experience. The fact is who can stop me if I want to do tomb run, countess run or even mephisto run in sp?? And also who can force me to play sp to complete the quest / game? That is why when this topic is debated, u must use the game capabilities over what majority players do. U might only be 90% right in ur own thinking but I m 100% right in my thinking. U cannot dispute the fact that the Ubers does not appear in sp and also there r items which r non- existence in sp.

    To those reading this thread, plz forward ur opinions.
     
  4. ItzaHexGor

    ItzaHexGor Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes received:
    21
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    Sydney, Australia
    First paragraph...

    1. I haven't been complaining, I've merely mentioned that there are contradictions. Pointing that out doesn't mean I'm complaining. As I've said it's a given for any game like Diablo to have contradictions.
    2. I'm not disagreeing with Blizzard over their choice of story, I'm saying that the game should tell the story and disagree that we should be told what actually happens afterwards.
    3. There are contradictions on their part, as I've already pointed out. I'm not complaining or anything, as contradictions are a given for games like this. As I've said before, I've said this before.
    4. It's not fan fiction, I'm interpreting and analysing the plot. I'm not sure if you've done anything like art theory in Visual Arts or any critical studies of texts in English in high school, but it's a very similar thing. Two people can read the same book and have very different opinions of what's happened and why. Neither of them are creating their own fan fiction or anything, they're just interpreting it in different ways.
    5. Stop arguing in the form of 'by your logic, this should happen', as you've been wrong every single time because you're consistently eight completely missing what I have to say or are talking about it in a completely different context. Needless to say, you're wrong here as well.

    Second paragraph...

    1. Again you're assuming I'm *****ing about it all, which I'm not. It's my opinion and my interpretation.
    2. All the stuff you're saying about how if they wish to set it in stone is true, but completely irrelevant.
    3. You mainly seem to be going on about how what we do in Diablo2 is our imagination here, which is incorrect. The storyline is ambiguous and flexible. That's how it's been designed. As I said earlier, think of it as being along the same lines as Fable and other such games. Although Diablo2 has a fairly strict plot progression, what we're doing is not our imagination, it's how we play the story.

    Third 'paragraph'...

    Cain's Journal confirms some of their contradictions. It tells us all what's happened so far and explains the lore behind Diablo3, yes, but, and I've said this before, due to Diablo's nature, contradictions are a given. Remember, just as Cain's Journal demonstrates the lore, the lore has alrready been demonstrated in the previous games, which is why there are contradictions in the first place. Yes the Warrior was the hero who defeated Diablo, and yes it was a group of heroes who defeated Diablo the second time, and yes that's all true as it's their most recent and refined account of the lore, but it contradicts with what's already been said.

    Fourth paragraph...

    1. Firstly it was difficult to understand what you're were saying, so excuse me if I've misinterpreted it.
    2. Going by the majority makes a lot more sense than going by the minority. I'm merely stating how each version is played in general. Of course there's nothing to stop people doing runs in single player, but generally, they don't. They don't because there's no-one to run them so it's much more beneficial to progress than redo everything they've already done.
    3. Again, think of it as playing the story and playing the mechanics. In single player, you play the story and in multiplayer, you play the mechanics. Capabilities are not the way to go about it. In single player you're capable of never going to Act II, you're capable of never using any skills, you're capable of never wearing any armour. But does that happen? No, so should it count towards anything? No. I'm talking about what does happen which does count.
    4. About you saying I'm ninety percent right when you're a hundred percent right, despite that making almost next to no sense but I won't go into it right now, you're still talking about it in a different context. You've just said that you're talking about it in terms of the capabilities, and that I'm talking about it in terms of what actually takes place. You can't use your reasoning from a capability perspective to say I'm wrong in a practical perspective.
    5. The fact that Ubers don't appear in single player proves my point about in single player you play the story and in multiplayer you play the mechanics. Ubers have nothing to do with the story, they're just there as a mechanic and as additional end game content.
     
  5. Charmed

    Charmed New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    89
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    I have a very simple solution since u r so firm to ur opinion. Why dun u create a thread based on ur this quote and let me know what feedback we will get. I m pretty sure not only me will be flaming ur this post. Actually there is no need to argue anymore but I still want to highlight what previously mentioned:

    First Paragraph:

    1) Pointing out = telling the storyteller is wrong in his/her story.

    2) If u r not complaining abt the choice of the story, then u r complaining abt how Blizzard presents the game play. No difference.

    3) U should only analyze something which is certain to happen. What u r doing is speculating that barbarians are killing the Prime Evils. I dun study visual arts or literatures but Diablo storyline has little to do with them. As for different opinion, its becoz the content is rather deep. But Diablo 2 is just a simple story with mysterious heroes.

    4) Even if I m wrong, I m putting myself into ur shoes. Trust me...what I m saying here equals something like what u r talking abt ambiguity. U can replace Itza says as Charmed says. No difference.

    Second Paragraph

    1) I clearly demonstrate that Blizzard is in charge and its up to them. Therefore it is relevant.

    2) I have oredi said a million times..With the introduction of the warrior = dark wanderer and the group of heroes defeating Baal, this only proves when u play sp, whatever ur character does becomes ur imagination. Hence u r creating those contradictions in ur mind. Its no longer flexible now that Blizz reveals that some details abt the heroes..

    Cain's Journal

    1) U r creating those contradictions in ur mind. If i think this is a matter of Blizz's choice, what I says is true. In fact my proof is solid.

    SP vs MP

    1) Yes going by majority makes more sense but it doesn't happen in this scenario. As long as one person in this world does not play sp to follow the story or one person plays mp to complete the quest / game, I can prove ur statement to be false. in conclusion, u need to make sure all does as u say to qualify the facts. Think it as science n not ur statistic / opinions on how one should play the game.

    2) Itza, it could be possible I never go to act 2 or nvr wear armour. So long if I can't kill Andariel but get killed even b4 reaching her, how m I suppose to go act 2? Or if I have no idea how to wear an armour, how can it be possible I wore an armour. Mebbe by accident the most. Hence ur example isn't good.

    3) The Ubers has nothing to do with sp....No ubers means I can still kill Blood raven 1 million times without completing the game..

    4) I can prove that i dun have to complete the storyline in sp, but can u proof to me what sp has that mp doesn't have? Absolutely nothing..It all depends on the players' style of playing...
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2008
  6. Meee

    Meee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,551
    Likes received:
    2
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Poland
    Hi, I'm Meee and I completely disagree with Hex Gore's view on mp vs sp.
    Actually Diablo is one of few examples I can think of where you're wrong. And comparing it to math problems? Oh please. Math is closed, for every problem there's a correct answer. If there are differences in results, someone made a mistake. You're telling me that if I get a group of friends and try to play through the story on multi we're making mistake? R we doin it rong?
    Diablo has all the possibilities to NOT just play "runs", so it IS there. If you think otherwise, fine. That's your opinion you're entitled to it. But the way you're saying it sounds like it's a definite fact and there's nothing else.

    I'd agree if you were talking about warcraft, where campaign is one thing and skirmishes are another (note, not just multi has skirmishes, but we both agree they're not the story, right?).
    But that's RTS, no? Ok, Nox then. You have the story and to go through that you have to play sp. Multi has FPS-like mods (deathmatch, king of the hill, CTF etc), so it has nothing to do with the story.

    Diablo gives you an option to play the story in mp, so you can't deny it is there.
     
  7. overmind

    overmind Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,188
    Likes received:
    3
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    New Zealand
    Any game with a choice in the way you play (such as customisable characters, alternate endings etc) is a ***** to do lore for, seriously you need to rely on whatever the developers say because anything you do different can and will be wrong for the lore.
     
  8. ItzaHexGor

    ItzaHexGor Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes received:
    21
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    Sydney, Australia
    For Charmed.

    You've made this hard to follow by replying to the wrong points...

    And ask people what exactly? This is my interpretation. You can discuss it, and I'd be happy to seeing as no-one's actually discussing it here because everyone's taking it out of its own context.

    No, pointing out is pointing out. I guess you've got to have done a bit of literary or artistic criticism to understand it, but it's just an interpretation. It doesn't involve the author.

    Wrong, as I'm not complaining. I'm starting to wonder if you're actually reading what I've written. Reread points 1) and 3) on my reply to your first paragraph.

    Well, not studying visual arts or literature does explain a lot as you probably don't even understand what I'm actually doing. I'm basically giving a critical response to the game's plot. It's what you do in English, about literature, and Visual Arts, about artworks and art periods, all the time. Regardless, you can analyse anything regardless of how certain the storyline is. And also it's not speculating, it's analysing.

    As for them not being similar, they're all texts, and can all be interpreted. It's not because they're similar and have a lot to do with each other so they can be compared. Also, to avoid any future misunderstandings, by text I mean literary text, not a novel or anything.

    This just proves that you don't know what I'm trying to say. I read what you said and there's a huge difference. Also, how on Earth can you say that what you are saying is true by my logic when I have told you that it's not?

    Yes. I understand that and I've said that I understand that. The point is that it's not relevant to my interpretation.

    Well I completely disagree with that. Contradictions are a given for games like Diablo, and a contradiction like that doesn't immediately equate to the gameplay being your imagination. On top of that it's Blizzard's goal for Diablo to be all about you personally completeing the story. That's why they've got all the character options, all the character specific cinematics for Diablo1, the parallel cinematics for Diablo2, that's why they've never labelled the hero and never given a specific recount of what's happened.

    You've made it clear that you don't understand what I'm arguing several times already and most of the time you've been speaking in a completely different context, so I don't see how you can say your proof is solid. Yes it is Blizzard's choice but that has no effect on whether I can interpret it or not and, in fact, leads to the contradictions. If it was fully ambiguous, then there wouldn't be any, but due to the fact that they've specified a lot means that there are.

    No, I shouldn't think of it as science, as this is quite clearly english literature. I'm giving a critical analysis and interpretation. If you don't know about it, then I can't see how you can argue about it.

    Also, I thought you were saying that gameplay is purely imagination, so how can you say, in this specific scenario, that this is what actually happened?

    Dude, you've just repeated what I've said. Players are capable of doing all this, but it isn't what's happened. As a result, it doesn't count.

    Again, you've basically reiterated what I've said. Ubers aren't in single player and have nothing to do with it. They only exist in multiplayer where people play the mechanics and not the story.

    I have no clue what you're trying to say with that Bloodraven thing. Yes you're capable of doing so, but it isn't what happens.

    Again, you're talking about capabilities. I am not talking about capabilities. Yes you are capable of doing everything you do in single player in multiplayer but it doesn't happen. That's what I'm saying. It doesn't happen. Think of it as playing the story and playing the mechanics.
     
  9. ItzaHexGor

    ItzaHexGor Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes received:
    21
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    Sydney, Australia
    For Meee and overmind.

    I didn't give the maths analogy as a way of comparing the answers, Meee, I gave them as an analogy of the method. If ninety nine percent of people use this method and one percent of people use that method, then you'd simply say that you use this method. I don't give a **** what the answer is, I'm talking about the method.

    And you're talking about the capabilities. I'm not. I've said that several times.

    I'm talking about how it's played. It may be represented in the same light in Diablo2, but I don't see that as any reason to say that you're playing the story in multiplayer because people, in general if you're after all the technicalities, simply don't.

    I've come up with this example, but it's a bit sketchy so don't take it word for word. If in WarCraftIII multiplayer skirmishes were played amongst the campaign missions, so you were actually in a mission with other people as you were playing a normal skirmish against them, would you consider that those players are playing the story? I certainly wouldn't. The players would just be using the campaign setting as a medium for playing the mechanics of the game.

    Well couldn't the same be said about single player? Regardless I'm not denying it's there, I'm just not of the opinion that players are playing the story in multiplayer.

    @ overmind. Although that is true it's a different story when either the developers have contradicted themselves or the storyline has been developed to be ambiguous.
     
  10. Meee

    Meee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,551
    Likes received:
    2
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Poland
    Nitpicking much? Wether it's method or answer if there's just one in math, everyone trying to use another one will end up with wrong answer, therefore the method is wrong.
    But even in math there are cases where you can solve a problem with different methods, some maybe faster or easier but that doesn't mean all others are wrong.

    You've just picked on me saying answer instead of method and ignored all the rest, here I recall it's always you bashing people for that.

    If your answer was actually "talking about capabilities", then sorry. I've just read it so many times from you that I didn't consider it.


    About your Warcraft example. If they were playing it like a skirmish (just trying to win, disregarding the events happening), yes of course they aren't playing for the story. That's the "runners" in Diablo. What I'm saying is that there's also the other option of actually playing for the story, which in your example would be there.

    How about we try with WoW? You said my conclusion was stupid (don't nitpick, I don't feel like looking back to what you actually said). It was supposed to be ridiculous, because that's how I see your thinking but anyway.
    Answer me that using your Diablo multiplayer logic - is there a story in WoW? Do you play the story there?
    Trying to use your logic I'd say no, there isn't. Sure there are quests with some story-related flavour, epic questlines, bosses and what not. But who cares about those? Majority of the players doesn't even read quests beyond objectives. They just do their "kill x of this", "bring me x of that", rep grind, bg, pvp and whatnot. So if most players doesn't care about story while playing, and there's no singleplayer to get your "full experience", there's no story play in WoW.


    Oh and please, don't even bother answering if you just keep repeating yourself and I'll do the same. Peace
     
  11. Charmed

    Charmed New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    89
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    Itza, actually u r pretty stubborn here especially abt sp vs mp thing when there r at least 3 ppl disagreeing with u. And while I admit I don't completely get what u said, I am very clear that u prefer the story to be tied with the gameplay and u are pointing out that the story can be anything. Pretty much...Hence u said that the warrior = dark wanderer and the group of heroes as contradictions...And for me disagreeing with Blizzard = complaining...

    And also do u think what I say abt Blood Raven is important? It can be Andariel, Duriel or whatever. The whole point is that in sp, u can do runs while IGNORING quests or completing the story. Seriously when u replied me abt the ubers, ur post is not logical. No ubers, so I must complete the storyline? My goodness wat kind of logic is this?

    And plz I always speaking out of context??? My goodness...I have always understand that u think the game's storyline can be almost anything. But I have pointed out that with the new annoucement by Blizzard aka Cain's journal, Diablo storyline cannot be considered as ambigious anymore. Its clearly a fixed plot...

    Oh Overmind, actually u manage to summarize my whole points with just one sentence = listen to the developers. Good work.

    I hope someone else can do the explaination on my behalf. It seems my solid proof has been a "useless" proof in the eyes of ItzaHexGor. I implore u all heroes, plz do my bidding. As I m going nuts explaining the same things over n over again only to have me bombarded by "talking out of context reply".
     
  12. ItzaHexGor

    ItzaHexGor Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes received:
    21
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    Sydney, Australia
    I was just trying to explain my analogy. And yeah, I meant two methods for solving a problem, not a right method and a wrong method.
    I corrected what you said about the analogy and told you that it's in a different context. What part did I ignore? If there was more to be said in the first part about maths being closed, etc, then I didn't understand it and thought I'd answered it by reexplaining the analogy.
    Ah, yeah it was. No problem.
    Yeah, there would still be the option, but considering that the people on Battle.Net would be there for the multiplaying then, although there's an option to play the story, they'd all be playing the mechanics. There could presumably be some people who do play the story, just like there could be for Diablo, but it would be an extreme minority.
    Ouch, thanks for the vote of confidence. Stupid, or whatever, might have been a bit harsh to say I guess, but you just weren't following my logic.

    In World of WarCraft, yes, you play the story. You complete the quests and do what's required and expected of you as a player. In other words, you're playing the game as a whole, and playing the story. There are a few who play the mechanics, like twinks, mules and banks, but they're a minority to begin with and are exclusively alts. I didn't mean to portray that any multiplayer in any game was just playing the mechanics, and World of WarCraft is a perfect example of a multiplayer game where you don't. I guess all MMO's would be like that, as that's how they're supposed to be played. You don't get people missing everything like you do in Diablo2 on Battle.Net.
    Ah, k. I see what you're saying, and I can see that you're seeing what I'm saying, however World of WarCraft's a bit of an off example. Not from an example point of view, but from the way it was developed. In the original World of WarCraft, where they didn't use the WarCraft RTS heroes and it was a completely separate storyline, you didn't even get told about what was actually going on until you were about level fifty, and at that stage the level cap was sixty! Until then, that's all the game was. kill x of these, bring me y of that, etc. There was still local lore that people were aware of, like proving your worth until you're about level twenty to thirty, as well as the lore that related to faction of each area and such, but you're right in saying that the majority of players didn't even read the quests or anything.

    However, having said that, in my opinion they're still playing the game as it was meant to be played. In Diablo2 multiplayer it's not really played as an RPG, it's just played using the mechanics of an RTS, but in World of WarCraft, it's always played as an MMO.

    Another problem that springs to mind for World of WarCraft is that players continuously run raids, etc, though it kinda works here, I guess just because it's an MMO. It's still regulated and everything though, so it cannot be run continuously, but it is still run repeatedly. In that regard I'd say that World of WarCraft combines playing the story with playing the mechanics. It's definitely not as clear-cut as it is with Diablo2 where the storyline remains untouched unless when absolutely necessary.
    Cheers, though I might still reply with a quick one liner so I don't appear to be ignoring it.

    @ Charmed.

    I'm not complaining. Disagreeing and complaining are seriously completely different.

    As for being stubborn, you're not even arguing against my viewpoint most of the time, so I don't see how you're able to say that I'm stubborn. As for you, despite repeatedly telling you your speaking in the wrong context, being that of Blizzard and multiplayer's capabilities, you still are and you're still assuming you're right by doing so, so how am I the stubborn one.

    It's not a preference, it's my reading and my interpretation of the game.

    As for Bloodraven, you're still talking about capabilities. That's all I'm going to say.

    About the Ubers, yes, if there aren't Ubers or other players, meaning no runs, no trading and no dueling, what are you going to do? In multiplayer people complete the end-game content, i.e, destroy the Ubers, and they trade for better items, duel and provide or get runs. None of that is available in single player, so the player is forced to actually play the game itself and play the story. There's no benefit for just running straight to Andariel to get to Act II and the fastest way to progress is through playing the story and completing the quests.

    You're always talking out of context because you're always talking about my views in a direct relation to Blizzard, Diablo3 and the capabilities of both single and multiplayer. Regardless of how many time I'm telling you, you're always talking about them in this same context. If you've been told that it's a different context, how can you expect to argue in the actual context if you're not changing anything?

    It's not a fixed plot. If it was you'd be able to tell me who the hero/heroes was/were who killed the Prime Evils, how powerful he/she/they was/were when he/she/they did, what spell or ability he/she/they used to defeat them, etc, etc. Can you? No. You know why? Because it's ambiguous.

    As for overmind's comment, again, this isn't something where you can just say 'listen to the dev's'. It's a critical reading, a subjective response, an interpretation, an opinion of the text.

    Well if you're saying the same things over and over again and are getting bombarded with the 'you're talking out of context' reply, why not change the context you're talking in? Repeating what you've said when it's irrelevant due to it being viewed in a different context accomplishes nothing. I don't get how you're exasperated at me for you speaking out of context!
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2008
  13. Charmed

    Charmed New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    89
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    Itza, all I can say is that take it or leave it. Actually how can u based the whole argument just on ur viewpoint? U have to take into consideration of others not just urself. It u want the argument to be based solely on ur viewpoint, I dun see what's there to argue there. U r just telling the others oh I am right and everyone should think EXACTLY like me..Other opinions r not valid..And abt being stubborn, I m not the only one that disagree with ur logic. So basically u r saying now u the minority precedes over the majority (Meee and myself)

    I oredi said million times that the sp vs mp thing should be based on capabilities not what most players do. So if u want others to think in ur viewpoint, think abt our viewpoints first. And abt the heroes identity, it should be based on Blizzard and not urself. Is it so difficult to believe what Blizzard says? Why u must insist that there could be multiple stories within Diablo? Is it so difficult to accept that those contradiction of urs only exist in ur mind? Think abt what others has to say instead of urself.

    U cannot force others to debate in ur viewpoint. In fact, some of the things discuss are "facts" rather than opinion. I dun wish to quarrel with u any further since u have the attitude "I am always right" attitude..But b4 that, let me remind u something....

    Blizzard has oredi stated most of the other heroes who survive the final conflict has gone mad / insane or died. In fact we will probably get to see some of the heroes ' fate like Paladin in the events of Diablo 3. Now if that happens, u will say oh the story is ambigious...when in fact it is clear there r multiple heroes. The whole the story is ambigious becomes a weapon of urs to claim it as an opinion rather than facts.

    Worse of all is that u answered someone's question abt the fate of the other characters besides the barbarian. U answered that what suppose to happen is that others do not exist just becoz the barbarians are the returning character. This is ur own speculation. The fact that u said the story is ambigious and u oredi had the answer of what is bound to happen shows contradiction within ur mind. So now are u saying u answered based on ur opinion or was it what should happen???My goodness, logically gives heavy implication that u think Blizzard should follow ur storyline....I smell contradiction within ur own post.

    Just wait for Diablo 3 and dun bother arguing with me abt things repeatly said. So long as u want the discussion based on ur viewpoint, there is no point discussing since u urself ignore what others think. I dun wish to argue any further.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2008
  14. ItzaHexGor

    ItzaHexGor Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,187
    Likes received:
    21
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    Sydney, Australia
    This just proves that you haven't had a clue of what I've been going on about. My argument is based on my viewpoint because this is my viewpoint. I'm not attempting to correct the storyline or anything, I'm giving my viewpoint on the outcome of Diablo2 from the perspective which I believe all games should be told from which is that of the game.

    As for not seeing what there is to argue about, you're absolutely correct. I'd already said there's nothing to argue about when I responded to what you said about how I should create a thread to see if people think I'm right or wrong. It can be discussed, but it can't be argued. It's a critical reading, an analysis, an interpretation of Diablo as a text... You've already said you don't understand all that, so I don't see how you can even understand what's being argued at the moment.

    About telling others they're right or wrong, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm giving my interpretation of it, and I'm explaining why I think this way. If you were to give an interpretation, which you have in a way where you said about gameplay being imaginative, etc, I won't, and haven't, told you you're wrong in thinking that, I will, and have, merely said I disagree with it and given a reason why. As for arguing in relation to the wrong context, that's where I'm telling you you're wrong.

    And about the majority and minority, again, completely different contexts. In multiplayer the majority of people play the mechanics and in single player the majority of people play the game, in short, it's simple to say that that's how people play the game. It's all in relation to the game. Interpretations and analysis's are completely different. Just because two people watch Othello and get a racial interpretation or analysis of the play doesn't mean someone who gets a feminist interpretation is wrong. Just because two people view an artwork as being in the cultural frame it doesn't mean that someone who views it as being in the subjective frame is wrong.

    And I've already said however many times that I disagree with judging the game by its capabilities, and that I think games should be judged by how they're played which is why I've said numerous times that I'm talking in the sense of the gameplay, and not the capabilities. You think a game should be based on its capabilities and I think it should be based on its gameplay. Neither of us are wrong, we just differ in opinions. Are you beginning to understand now?

    And I don't want others to think in my viewpoint as others have their own viewpoints. Going back to the Othello example, just because I interpreted it in a non-racial way it doesn't mean that I want everyone to think of it the same way. People have racial interpretations, feminist interpretations, minimalist interpretations, sexual interpretations, etc, etc. They're interpretations. It's how people respond to the text.

    I don't find it difficult to believe what Blizzard says it's just that there's a heck of a lot that Blizzard doesn't say. That is what makes it a flexible game and have a flexible storyline. They don't tell us exactly what killed the Prime Evils, they don't make every quest compulsory, they don't confirm anything in the Diablo2 cinematics and as a result they don't have a storyline that's set in stone.

    Firstly, I'm not forcing others to debate in my viewpoint, nor am I trying to force people to agree with my viewpoint, if that is what you were trying to say. Secondly I haven't got the 'I'm always right' attitude, you just don't have a ****ing clue what I'm talking about. You've said so yourself, several times I might add, yet you're still expecting my to suddenly agree with you? You haven't even been talking in the right context half the time. It's a given that there will simply be things we disagree on, like how to interpret multiplayer versus single player, and which view the lore should be taken from, but that's just the same as someone's favourite colour being red and another's favourite colour being blue.

    They've stated that additionally, and outside of the gameplay. I've already said that I believe that the lore should be taken from the view of the gameplay, and that people should not need to be told what happened afterwards. Now, you can disagree with that but you can't say that I'm wrong, nor can I say that you're wrong. It's merely our interpretations and again, it's like one kid saying red's the best colour and another kid saying that blue's the best colour. Are either of them wrong? No. Is it their opinion? Yes.

    Ok then, I'll be more specific. The other characters should not exist in regards to them defeating Diablo. A Sorceress, Druid, Paladin, Assassin, Amazon and Necromancer could have existed, but they did not defeat Diablo. Just because I reckon it's the Barbarian who defeated the Evils it doesn't mean that the story is set in stone. As I said earlier, I killed Baal with my Barbarian mercenary who wielded a two-handed sword with Malice and me. as a Barbarian who wielded The Cheiftain, and we did so in close quarters and without any special skills because he'd already drained all of my mana. Someone else could have Whirlwinded him to death, or Leap Attacked him to death, they could have been a thrower, they could have never rescued Cain, they could have failed to kill Izual, etc, etc, etc. If you're telling me that believing a specific character is responsible destroys all ambiguity, then I seriously disagree with you.

    I love how you're pinning the blame on me when you're the one who doesn't have a clue of what I'm saying or why. You've constantly been talking in the wrong context, saying that I'm denying Blizzard and that I'm telling them what 'actually' happened, and tried to tell me that my own opinion should be based on capabilities when I think otherwise. Try coming back when you actually understand what's going on because you obviously don't.

    I haven't ignored what others have said, and if I have, then please point it out. However I think you'll find that all I've said, in regards to what you're talking about, is that I disagree with what the others have said, told them what I say, and given reasons why I say what I say. If you consider that ignoring, then again, you don't understand what's going on.
     
  15. TNARICK

    TNARICK New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    19
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    I need to kick back out the old Diablo
     
  16. Space Pirate Rojo

    Space Pirate Rojo New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,067
    Likes received:
    6
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Canada, eh?
    I stopped it for a little bit, now I'm playing my Sorcerer again. Beat the Butcher and I'm level 7.
     
  17. Banned

    Banned New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    254
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    ...So. The storm has finally lifted.
    <Clears rubble off of door and opens it, shielding his eyes from the sun>
    The titans have finished their fight... For now. But how long until they return?
     
  18. Space Pirate Rojo

    Space Pirate Rojo New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,067
    Likes received:
    6
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Canada, eh?
    Until I find a book of Lightning and Firewall.

    :|
     
  19. Hodl pu

    Hodl pu New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    925
    Likes received:
    2
    Trophy points:
    0
    firewalls the ****
     
  20. Space Pirate Rojo

    Space Pirate Rojo New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,067
    Likes received:
    6
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Canada, eh?
    I can't find a book of it. Or Lightning. Yet.