Quote (tieme @ Tue, Sep 1 2009, 02:52am)
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.
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.
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
first off, you're the one who just wrote a rage novel about me, im really flattered, seriously, to think an idiot like you would care so much about me to write that much for me.
second off, dont bring WoW into this, WORLD of warcraft is about everything that goes on in that kid's world, it keeps on going they add new quests and shit every week, it doesnt say WORLD OF DIABLO in this game last time i checked.
DIABLO, is a game about an evil lord trying to wreak havoc etc.....
They made 6 different quests for each act, they all connect to the lord of terror and his brothers in all ways, they cant just ADD new quests to this old game you fucking moron, get ur facts straight.
there only choice was to make a new chapter about this story: Diablo 3.
how many times have you killed the lord of terror? 200? 300 times?
so, lemme see.........he should just come back in the original story that you killed him.
if blizzard was as stupid as you, they shouldnt have even made diablo 2 then, right? they shuda just added meph, andariel, duriel, and the council members in diablo 1, and they would appear right after you killed diablo. lmao.
its like reading the lord of the rings the last chapter of the last book, and then suddenly it sais oh, nvm theres a new ring now, randomly.
That quest is just retarded, cuz anya's quest is similar to that, why would they even add something as retarded as that lmfao...
lets just put this way, each quest in each town relates to the lord of terror himself.
act 1 , bloodraven
bloodraven was originally the rogue from diablo 1 according to lore.
den of evil, diablo's minions are in a cave trying to make a plan to attack the rogue encampment. <---connects to diablo
act 2 , radament connects with the horadrim , which is a side of good with tyrael.
the summoner was originally the sorcerer from diablo 1 according to lore <--- relates to diablo
the staff, cube and other shit...well you obviously need to find those to find the real tomb of tal rasha, where baal was freed from tal rasha. <--- connects to diablo
act 3 , the gibdin was needed to keep kurast safe from the forces of evil aka diablo's army. <--- relates to diablo
the flail, needed to get into the durance to find mephisto which will lead to diablo <---connects to diablo
council members, they were corrupted by mephisto to guard travincal.
and mephisto finally, relates to diablo...
act 4 , izual was a fallen angel corrupted by diablo, <--- relates to him..
and meph's soulstone, i dont even have to explain this...
act 5 , ok lets just leave it this way.
shenk relates to harrogath which relates to anya, which relates to nihlathak, which relates to the ancients, which relates to the worldstone, which relates to baal.
if they add act 6, it would be like this, WTF diablo came back even though you smashed his soulstone, btw blizzard said "we never said diablo was coming back"
do you even understand the diablo story, moron?
this is why they cant add new quests you idiot.
ofc, there was like 1-3 quests in the whole game that didnt relate to diablo, il admit that.
but why would they waste they're times on working on a new minor quest for diablo 2 lod, when they can be working on a new game such as diablo 3...
face it, d2 = old, d3 = new.
dont like diablo 3, go fuck urself
and btw.
Il correct it for you. "You Sir, Are AN idiot.