Quote (Volcano @ Mon, Aug 24 2009, 02:15am)
Harrogath is act 5, it has Story about Baal, Nihlathak and shit, Nihlathak connects to baal , and all other acts do, how are they going to make new acts when you slain the 3 evil brothers, apperantly diablo is still alive, but he was already beaten in diablo 2 and his soulstone was smashed , if they make a new act after the worldstone was destroyed by tyrael that would fuck up the entire storyline.
so their only choice was to make a sequel to diablo 2:lod.
if you dont understand what im saying to you, then go ask blizzard themselves.
No offense dude but you talk out of your ass more than anyone else I've seen post in this thread. Not that I am saying the OP's idea was a good one, but it was at least a valid one. D3 is clearly going to take place in the same world as the original two and after the events in the first two. This means that it will have to agree (at least for the most part) with the story set up from the original two. If they were to take the new game, and simply tack it on as new acts to diablo 2 it would make perfect sense. It's the exact same thing, except with a different name and it also happens to include, as well as the new content, the content from diablo 2.
Quote (Volcano @ Mon, Aug 24 2009, 02:15am)
This is like saying you should put duriel, andariel, and the council members in diablo 1.
They wont make any sense at all, no connection to the story at all, they would just be there for the lulz.
There is some connection between the stories. They can be seen through to use of similar, agreeing, and reused lore. Also the fact that many characters appear in both games in some form shows that both games have to have some connection in the story. Deckard Cain for example, is a huge connection between the stories. Or we can take your example. Duriel and Andariel - two of the Lesser Evils. Clearly related to the Prime Evils, one of whom is Diablo who was the antagonist in the original game. That seems to be quite a strong connection to me, making quite a bit of sense in the process. Whether they label it Diablo II or "Diablo I: More Evil Than You Know What To Do With" has nothing to do with anything - it's just semantics.
Quote (Volcano @ Mon, Aug 24 2009, 02:15am)
you cant add new evil lords to a 10 year old game that everyone beat already.
blizzard confirmed this themselves(Citation please?), they cant add new skills to diablo 2:lod , or new quests because it would fuck up the entire storyline, because it was released over 10 years ago.
if they even add one new quest to act 5, it would fuck it up, no doubt.
First, what is wrong with adding content to an existing game? WoW does it quite successfully quite often in fact. The content patches include new content that has some connection to the old content without 'fucking up' anything. For some crazy reason, people actually seem to like them too.
Second, are you really so stupid as to believe your last sentence or do you just type whatever pops into your head without thinking if it makes any sense first? Here is an example:
One of the barbarians in the city is missing and his wife asks you to find him. While traveling through the bloody fields or some other area from the game, you run across his corpse, fight a named mob near him (if you choose to) and afterwards report back to his wife who rewards you a weapon from the barbarian's collection (you can choose any weapon type and receive one of that type with the maximum open sockets). Look at that, a new quest for act 5. Can you please explain to me how it would 'fuck it up, no doubt'?
You sir, are and idiot.
Cheers,
Tieme