Well, for most people this is primarily a game. A game where it was quite tedious to follow everything of the storyline apart from the cinematics even. Just a select club of nerds have read the books and know about the lore (of course the amount of those people on this forum is a lot greater than average, but it shouldn't be considered as standard knowledge). I love the cutscenes, they are always epic with blizzard, and I like to follow what's going on, but no more than that. Most people just want to kill some monsters.
Besides all I said about the necromancer is that he had a dark feel to him, and that's true. He makes the bones of dead things rise and walk around, creates some form of zombies, he uses poison magic,... And his looks are deathly and mysterious.
Now my post could also be interpreted as if I'm calling the necromancers 'evil' and also that is true. To some (and without a doubt also to some in sanctuary) the mere act of necromancy makes one evil. So just like terrorists are heroes to some, and evil to others, also necromancers can be called evil. Although I know necromancers in D2 are actually good, because in the end they are helping people.
Now about the Paladin. I remember playing WC2 back in the days. The paladin was powerful because he was an upgrade of the knight, one of the best melee units in the game (there just weren't that many units). Hence I find it understandable that this radiates to other WC games. Not to Diablo games though, that's a different kind of paladin to begin with. I haven't played D2 online after 1.10 though, so all the hammerdin stuff kinda passed me by...
(and I'm still hoping for a knightly archer as the 5th class )
I never ever read the Diabo books and I still have a good grasp and understanding of Diablo lore. If anyone has trouble or wishes to know more just check out the Lore/Storyline forum or look on the wiki.
Anyways, yeah in alot of common societies, fantasy and real-world alike, necromancy is considered dark and/or evil, which is understandable. But if anything, in the Diablo universe, the necromancer is a worldy guardian whose basic purpose/ideaology is to maintain the balance between order and chaos.
Anyways I'm diving into too much lore and going off-topic.
I really want a rogue-class (no assassin fist crap, stabby stabby swords me wants) :whoops:
Well, for most people this is primarily a game. A game where it was quite tedious to follow everything of the storyline apart from the cinematics even. Just a select club of nerds have read the books and know about the lore (of course the amount of those people on this forum is a lot greater than average, but it shouldn't be considered as standard knowledge). I love the cutscenes, they are always epic with blizzard, and I like to follow what's going on, but no more than that. Most people just want to kill some monsters.
You are currently posting on the website www.Diablofans.com. This means you cannot use this argument. Spend one month, just one month, on this forum and you would learn enough about the lore that you would understand why this thread is wrong in five million ways. (Hell, I mostly stay on General Discussion and Off Topic, and I've never read a single Diablo book, just like Equinox, so don't give me this excuse.)
Besides all I said about the necromancer is that he had a dark feel to him, and that's true. He makes the bones of dead things rise and walk around, creates some form of zombies, he uses poison magic,... And his looks are deathly and mysterious.
Alright, so we give the skeletons canes and top hats and then the class wouldn't be "dark" anymore? Stop talking through a westernized mindset. Please.
Now my post could also be interpreted as if I'm calling the necromancers 'evil' and also that is true. To some (and without a doubt also to some in sanctuary) the mere act of necromancy makes one evil. So just like terrorists are heroes to some, and evil to others, also necromancers can be called evil. Although I know necromancers in D2 are actually good, because in the end they are helping people.
Your kidding me. Evil? The Necromancer is probably the most righteous of characters in the game. Just because you think playing with bones is taboo does not make the character evil.
Now about the Paladin. I remember playing WC2 back in the days. The paladin was powerful because he was an upgrade of the knight, one of the best melee units in the game (there just weren't that many units). Hence I find it understandable that this radiates to other WC games. Not to Diablo games though, that's a different kind of paladin to begin with. I haven't played D2 online after 1.10 though, so all the hammerdin stuff kinda passed me by...
Actually, yes, it does radiate to Diablo games. Hence why the Paladin is as powerful as he is. Frankly I am surprised he doesn't run around Sanctuary on a horse.
Blizzard wanted to define the Cult of Rathma as a religious following that sought to keep the world in balance. That being said, some of the followers must have had to help good and extinguish evil if the darkness is getting too heavy for the world to stay in balance. Whereas other necromancers had to commit themselves to evil to rebalance the world of Sanctuary when the forces of light were too great. As the great dragon once said, "Too much darkness, too much evil will result in a world of chaos and destruction and if there is too much light, too much good in the world, everything will start to stagnate and decay. That is why we must balance the world to keep it from going in either direction to its own demise." That is roughly what Trag'Oul said when Uldyssian and Mendeln wanted answers as to why.
So anybody is right in saying that the necromancers are evil or good. I just explained why. And Necromancers AREN'T OLD, if anybody read the books that came in the battle chest, they would see that he looks like that due to how and where he spent a good portion of his life.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just as the Scorpion hunts...
Silently Lurking...
"Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted." ~ Ezio Auditore de Firenze
You are currently posting on the website www.Diablofans.com. This means you cannot use this argument. Spend one month, just one month, on this forum and you would learn enough about the lore that you would understand why this thread is wrong in five million ways. (Hell, I mostly stay on General Discussion and Off Topic, and I've never read a single Diablo book, just like Equinox, so don't give me this excuse.)
Okay. Still I think more people (even here) care much more about gameplay than about character backgrounds. Face it, the story is just not an essential part of the game. It can be fun to dig deeper into it if you're interested, but still it's only of secondary importance. Besides that, very little effort is made in the game itself to give players a deeper understanding of the world (besides the immediate events taking place). If your friends are already back out there slaying monsters, you're not gonna stay in town to ask NPC's for gossip (unless you're really into that sort of thing).
Alright, so we give the skeletons canes and top hats and then the class wouldn't be "dark" anymore? Stop talking through a westernized mindset. Please.
Why? Most of diablo's players think through a westernized mindset (or any other mindset which would consider necromancy an evil act). I'm talking about my own impressions so why should I do so though a different mindset? And which mindset would that be to begin with? Of the necromancers themselves? If you think through a terrorist's mindset, 9/11 was an act of good. That doesn't mean that if you think it was an act of evil (which most people here, including myself, do), that you're narrow-minded because you think through a western mindset. This argument can undermine anything. Hence my terrorist example: in their own eyes, and in the eyes of their allies, they are doing the highest good. So are we not allowed to call terrorists evil anymore because others see them as good?
Actually, yes, it does radiate to Diablo games. Hence why the Paladin is as powerful as he is.
Really, that's why? Apparently you know some blizzard employees very well.
I just mentioned the terrorists to show that what is evil to some can be good to others.
And again, we are talking about what is good and what is not good, not what is perceived as such.
I'm talking about what's perceived as such. Besides, the fact that you think good and evil exist outside of human perception shows that you're talking through a westernized mindset. Didn't you just ask me to stop doing that for some reason?
Blizzard wanted to define the Cult of Rathma as a religious following that sought to keep the world in balance. That being said, some of the followers must have had to help good and extinguish evil if the darkness is getting too heavy for the world to stay in balance. Whereas other necromancers had to commit themselves to evil to rebalance the world of Sanctuary when the forces of light were too great. As the great dragon once said, "Too much darkness, too much evil will result in a world of chaos and destruction and if there is too much light, too much good in the world, everything will start to stagnate and decay. That is why we must balance the world to keep it from going in either direction to its own demise." That is roughly what Trag'Oul said when Uldyssian and Mendeln wanted answers as to why.
Which, in my personal oppinion, is the most righteous stance you can have. What is it they say in Starwars? Balance in the Force?
The Force is wholely owned by George Lucas. Please don't sue me George!
Also, isn't it spelled Trang'Oul? Or was one of those things that knaak changed in his books?
So anybody is right in saying that the necromancers are evil or good. I just explained why. And Necromancers AREN'T OLD, if anybody read the books that came in the battle chest, they would see that he looks like that due to how and where he spent a good portion of his life.
If I am not mistaken, it is because Necromancers live in an underground city, of which the name has not been released, correct? Or am I way off? (The lack of sun would make the skin very pale, almost ghostly, no?) If I am way off, tell me, because like I say, I've never picked up a Diablo book.
I'm honestly done. You seem to me like a troll, and, with all due respect, I get in enough trouble on this site with trolls. Again, no disrespect intended.
First off, Trag'Oul is the correct name and spelling intended by Blizzard. I just confirmed this by looking in the Diablo II game manual.
Second, it wasn't an underground city, more as "underground" city meaning hidden from view deep in the Jungles. As for his looks, as the Official Strategy Guide for Diablo 2 puts it, "Long hours of study in dank mausoleums have made his skin pale and corpselike, while his figure has more in common with a skeleton than a man."
Now I wanna play a necromancer the fun way and just put points into the skills I wanna use till he fails.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just as the Scorpion hunts...
Silently Lurking...
"Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted." ~ Ezio Auditore de Firenze
I'm honestly done. You seem to me like a troll, and, with all due respect, I get in enough trouble on this site with trolls. Again, no disrespect intended.
Would any troll type "lots of words" in an orderly and constructive fashion? This discussion would have been solved long ago if you didn't keep changing what it was supposed to be about and what mindset we're supposed to be using. If anyone trolled in this thread, it's you. No disrespect intended.
All trolling-accusations aside, Diablo 3 does not need a knight or anything resembling a knight, as the Barbarian will be able to take on a shield-using, defensive-minded role using the Juggernaut tier of skills. The Barbarian sufficiently covers the melee/shield-using/death machine categories in spades, so no "Knight" class is needed. I'm hoping for some sort of shape-shifting, ranged-capable Hunter/Druid combination class. My desires have sufficiently changed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A belief in no God is a belief in everything. It is a belief in the unfathomable number of events of blind chance required for every living thing to be here.
Okay. Still I think more people (even here) care much more about gameplay than about character backgrounds. Face it, the story is just not an essential part of the game. It can be fun to dig deeper into it if you're interested, but still it's only of secondary importance. Besides that, very little effort is made in the game itself to give players a deeper understanding of the world (besides the immediate events taking place). If your friends are already back out there slaying monsters, you're not gonna stay in town to ask NPC's for gossip (unless you're really into that sort of thing).
Woah, hold up just a minute there man, story is not an essential part of a game? It's only a secondary feature? This sir is ignorance.
What does RPG stand for? Roleplaying Game, and what does roleplay consist of? Immersion. When I play games such as super mario galaxy, I don't immerse myself into the universe of mario, why? Because there is no substance, and what gives substance? Story?
All RPG's require story, Dragon Age: Origins, Diablo, World of Warcraft, The Witcher, Mass Effect, etc. If there is no story there is no immersion, if Dragon Age didn't have a story you will just be facing waves of angry monsters with no real purpose, if WoW did not have a story then we would be stuck playing humans killing random generated orcs.
Just because some (and you apparently) don't consider story an essential part of the game, it is. There will be no Marius, Diablo, Baal, Mephisto, Tyrael, Andariel, Duriel, Horazon, Blood Raven, King Leoric, Lazarus, Leoric's sun, Soulstones, Worldstone, Horadrim, Deckard Cain, Countess, (can go on forever here) in the Diablo game without story.
So I ask you to please reconsider your opinion, of course I can't change it but I point out that this opinion that you stated is based off of ignorance.
Diablo is not an RPG. It's not on the same level as the RPG's you've listed and never will be. Bunch of random people sprouting monologues + a few cinematics is not how you tell story. Present day FPS do a better job than that.
Diablo probably has the most boring diamonologue system ever created.
There's no role play in Diablo. Giving stats to a character is not sufficient, nor are classes, heXen has these things...
You do not make any story choices in Diablo.
There's nothing to do in the game besides kill stuff and improve your ability to kill stuff.
The game is conveyor.
You can completely ignore the story without much effort, which is why so many people think necromancers are bad and the like. Diablo is one of those games where you're better off learning the story without playing the game (which means the game itself is not a true RPG).
Story is indeed secondary to the Diablo series, just like it's secondary to StarCraft. Having a backstory, or a story somewhere in the universe does not make any given game an RPG.
"There will be no Marius, Diablo, Baal, Mephisto, Tyrael, Andariel, Duriel, Horazon, Blood Raven, King Leoric, Lazarus, Leoric's sun, Soulstones, Worldstone, Horadrim, Deckard Cain, Countess in the Diablo game without story."
Rubbish, those are just names and terms that are pretty easy to pull out of books about demons and stuff. In fact, Diablo's lore is pretty unoriginal. Besides the framework itself, it's just religious mythology with some fantasy mixed in.
In fact, Diablo's lore is pretty unoriginal. Besides the framework itself, it's just religious mythology with some fantasy mixed in.
That's a pretty bold statement my friend. But I won't even get into why I disagree with you calling it unoriginal, because I have a 0.0000% chance of changing your mind.
The game itself is unoriginal. It's a rather generic hack and slash game. It succeeded mostly due to online from what I can tell. (I know that's the case with D2, not sure about D1.)
That doesn't mean it's a bad game, far from it. It's a great game. But you have to admit it's not original.
The books/lore are original, but the games have been spun into something else I agree in that sense no longer resemble originality.
I would much prefer to have followed the book Lore than the game spin.
The books are original, yes, but the games are far from original. (And the games are not spin, if it wasn't for the games, I don't know any of us that would of become fans of Diablo. )
Wait, do we all agree that Diablo is somewhat generic? If so...this is the first time everybody agreed on something...
My experience of the Diablo games consisted of me playing Diablo for a short period of time, and then before I knew it my older brother had bought Diablo 2 and after watching him play it a while, I picked it up myself. Wasn't long before me and my brothers were obsessed with it. We still occasionally play it to this day.
Boring story aside, I was into the "story" elements of the game when I first started it. It was all new. There was so much unknown. However, inevitably after you play a game like D2 enough, with a repeatable and repetitive story line, at a certain point it wasn't about story or the unknown: It was all about loot. At the core, for most gamers, the online version of the game is about acquiring loot, trading, and obtaining the best items for the types of characters you want to play. Seems relatively bland, but it was exciting enough to keep us around for years (the majority of my time was spent low level dueling in D2 though, which is an entirely different way to play the game).
The game has had such a lasting effect on me and has in many ways taken on a form larger than just a game.
Disregarding my bias for the series, I still think you guys are off-base calling it unoriginal and boring. There's something I'm not sure you guys have taken into consideration regarding Diablo's "lack of originality and story". The latest game in the series is ten years old. That's ancient in terms of video games. Is it fair to compare its story aspects to that of next-gen modern games? No. Not at all. Sure, the game is unoriginal in today's gaming world, but would have said the same back when it was released? I doubt it.
That said, the game isn't an MMO. It's a game with a linear story that can become repetitive. It's not tailored to be very immersive, albeit that it is really outdated.
Diablo 3 will be much more immersive. Well, as immersive as a game of this nature can be, at least. Blizzard can't avoid the linearity, that's just part of the games. But they can spice it up. At the core it will always be loot-driven in online play, but you know Blizzard is going to go to great lengths to add depth to the world of Sanctuary in D3, something they simply couldn't do ten years ago. There will be separate quest chains for each class, randomly-generated quests, and randomly-generated events (I believe?) which will bring the world to life more so than they could in Diablo 2. It won't just be a straight-shot linear adventure through the game. It will be a prevailing linear adventure with lots of swerves and side-steps (not to mention some incredibly beautiful blood and gore gameplay that itself will be hard to tire of).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A belief in no God is a belief in everything. It is a belief in the unfathomable number of events of blind chance required for every living thing to be here.
If Diablo was not original, what game preceded it that Blizzard took inspiration from?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Diablo is not an RPG. It's not on the same level as the RPG's you've listed and never will be. Bunch of random people sprouting monologues + a few cinematics is not how you tell story. Present day FPS do a better job than that.
Diablo probably has the most boring diamonologue system ever created.
There's no role play in Diablo. Giving stats to a character is not sufficient, nor are classes, heXen has these things...
You do not make any story choices in Diablo.
There's nothing to do in the game besides kill stuff and improve your ability to kill stuff.
The game is conveyor.
You can completely ignore the story without much effort, which is why so many people think necromancers are bad and the like. Diablo is one of those games where you're better off learning the story without playing the game (which means the game itself is not a true RPG).
Story is indeed secondary to the Diablo series, just like it's secondary to StarCraft. Having a backstory, or a story somewhere in the universe does not make any given game an RPG.
"There will be no Marius, Diablo, Baal, Mephisto, Tyrael, Andariel, Duriel, Horazon, Blood Raven, King Leoric, Lazarus, Leoric's sun, Soulstones, Worldstone, Horadrim, Deckard Cain, Countess in the Diablo game without story."
Rubbish, those are just names and terms that are pretty easy to pull out of books about demons and stuff. In fact, Diablo's lore is pretty unoriginal. Besides the framework itself, it's just religious mythology with some fantasy mixed in.
Agreed that Diablo lore isn't the best around, but even so without story it will be pretty bland. All those characters named above all have story to them and many intertwine with one another. Without said characters and their stories behind them, their wouldn't be a reason for Mephisto, Baal, Andariel, and Duriel to even be in there, not even their models. At best without their story we will instead be battling, skelton-corpse, Crab with tentacles, Naked girl, and maggot-crab.
This even can be applied to NPC's behind the scenes such as Tyrael and Marius. Without story Tyrael would probally be random angel (like the one who stands before u in chaos sanctuary whsoe name escapes me atm) and Marius would be crazy drunkard running around the world with no apparent reason.
Without story, the cinematics would be bland/boring or probably not exist at all (no story = no plot for cinematics).
And even if Diablo isn't a RPG by today's standard, it was back then, you must keep that in mind. Back then the best RPGs you could get were Pokemon, Spyro the Dragon, Crash Bandicoot, etc.
I gotta say, i skipped most of the dialogues in both D1 and D2, to me it has always been about the loot, and killing people, lore is all good, but its the multiplayer that really made Diablo what it is today.
On the classes, i do agree that some of then are weird, to say the least, was the witch doctor really the best they could come up with?
Even the demon hunter(which i liked) is some sort of a fully plated acrobat with duals 12 gauge crossbows, i mean, its just cheesy.
Get real, folks, the diablo you all knew is dead, a few years ago i said right here in this forum that D3 had a pretty good chance of being blizzard first bust (i was flamed to death ofc), and what you know, its not even beta and its already looking that way.
I'm also loving the idea of a Fallen/Unholy/Dark Knight as an expansion character. I feel the game is still missing a deeply perturbed character in the very edge of becoming corrupted (without being a Devil May Cry clone like the Demon Hunter).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
war is war, fight the war, fuck the norm
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I never ever read the Diabo books and I still have a good grasp and understanding of Diablo lore. If anyone has trouble or wishes to know more just check out the Lore/Storyline forum or look on the wiki.
Anyways, yeah in alot of common societies, fantasy and real-world alike, necromancy is considered dark and/or evil, which is understandable. But if anything, in the Diablo universe, the necromancer is a worldy guardian whose basic purpose/ideaology is to maintain the balance between order and chaos.
Anyways I'm diving into too much lore and going off-topic.
I really want a rogue-class (no assassin fist crap, stabby stabby swords me wants) :whoops:
You are currently posting on the website www.Diablofans.com. This means you cannot use this argument. Spend one month, just one month, on this forum and you would learn enough about the lore that you would understand why this thread is wrong in five million ways. (Hell, I mostly stay on General Discussion and Off Topic, and I've never read a single Diablo book, just like Equinox, so don't give me this excuse.)
Alright, so we give the skeletons canes and top hats and then the class wouldn't be "dark" anymore? Stop talking through a westernized mindset. Please.
Your kidding me. Evil? The Necromancer is probably the most righteous of characters in the game. Just because you think playing with bones is taboo does not make the character evil.
Actually, yes, it does radiate to Diablo games. Hence why the Paladin is as powerful as he is. Frankly I am surprised he doesn't run around Sanctuary on a horse.
And again, we are talking about what is good and what is not good, not what is perceived as such.
Didn't the Assassin have blades to stab with? o.O
So anybody is right in saying that the necromancers are evil or good. I just explained why. And Necromancers AREN'T OLD, if anybody read the books that came in the battle chest, they would see that he looks like that due to how and where he spent a good portion of his life.
Why? Most of diablo's players think through a westernized mindset (or any other mindset which would consider necromancy an evil act). I'm talking about my own impressions so why should I do so though a different mindset? And which mindset would that be to begin with? Of the necromancers themselves? If you think through a terrorist's mindset, 9/11 was an act of good. That doesn't mean that if you think it was an act of evil (which most people here, including myself, do), that you're narrow-minded because you think through a western mindset. This argument can undermine anything. Hence my terrorist example: in their own eyes, and in the eyes of their allies, they are doing the highest good. So are we not allowed to call terrorists evil anymore because others see them as good?
Really, that's why? Apparently you know some blizzard employees very well.
I'm talking about what's perceived as such. Besides, the fact that you think good and evil exist outside of human perception shows that you're talking through a westernized mindset. Didn't you just ask me to stop doing that for some reason?
Which, in my personal oppinion, is the most righteous stance you can have. What is it they say in Starwars? Balance in the Force?
The Force is wholely owned by George Lucas. Please don't sue me George!
Also, isn't it spelled Trang'Oul? Or was one of those things that knaak changed in his books?
If I am not mistaken, it is because Necromancers live in an underground city, of which the name has not been released, correct? Or am I way off? (The lack of sun would make the skin very pale, almost ghostly, no?) If I am way off, tell me, because like I say, I've never picked up a Diablo book.
I'm honestly done. You seem to me like a troll, and, with all due respect, I get in enough trouble on this site with trolls. Again, no disrespect intended.
Second, it wasn't an underground city, more as "underground" city meaning hidden from view deep in the Jungles. As for his looks, as the Official Strategy Guide for Diablo 2 puts it, "Long hours of study in dank mausoleums have made his skin pale and corpselike, while his figure has more in common with a skeleton than a man."
Now I wanna play a necromancer the fun way and just put points into the skills I wanna use till he fails.
And also, I didn't know the manual said Trag'Oul. Now I am gonna have to dig that thing up and have a look see.
Woah, hold up just a minute there man, story is not an essential part of a game? It's only a secondary feature? This sir is ignorance.
What does RPG stand for? Roleplaying Game, and what does roleplay consist of? Immersion. When I play games such as super mario galaxy, I don't immerse myself into the universe of mario, why? Because there is no substance, and what gives substance? Story?
All RPG's require story, Dragon Age: Origins, Diablo, World of Warcraft, The Witcher, Mass Effect, etc. If there is no story there is no immersion, if Dragon Age didn't have a story you will just be facing waves of angry monsters with no real purpose, if WoW did not have a story then we would be stuck playing humans killing random generated orcs.
Just because some (and you apparently) don't consider story an essential part of the game, it is. There will be no Marius, Diablo, Baal, Mephisto, Tyrael, Andariel, Duriel, Horazon, Blood Raven, King Leoric, Lazarus, Leoric's sun, Soulstones, Worldstone, Horadrim, Deckard Cain, Countess, (can go on forever here) in the Diablo game without story.
So I ask you to please reconsider your opinion, of course I can't change it but I point out that this opinion that you stated is based off of ignorance.
Diablo probably has the most boring
diamonologue system ever created.There's no role play in Diablo. Giving stats to a character is not sufficient, nor are classes, heXen has these things...
You do not make any story choices in Diablo.
There's nothing to do in the game besides kill stuff and improve your ability to kill stuff.
The game is conveyor.
You can completely ignore the story without much effort, which is why so many people think necromancers are bad and the like. Diablo is one of those games where you're better off learning the story without playing the game (which means the game itself is not a true RPG).
Story is indeed secondary to the Diablo series, just like it's secondary to StarCraft. Having a backstory, or a story somewhere in the universe does not make any given game an RPG.
"There will be no Marius, Diablo, Baal, Mephisto, Tyrael, Andariel, Duriel, Horazon, Blood Raven, King Leoric, Lazarus, Leoric's sun, Soulstones, Worldstone, Horadrim, Deckard Cain, Countess in the Diablo game without story."
Rubbish, those are just names and terms that are pretty easy to pull out of books about demons and stuff. In fact, Diablo's lore is pretty unoriginal. Besides the framework itself, it's just religious mythology with some fantasy mixed in.
That doesn't mean it's a bad game, far from it. It's a great game. But you have to admit it's not original.
The books are original, yes, but the games are far from original. (And the games are not spin, if it wasn't for the games, I don't know any of us that would of become fans of Diablo.
Wait, do we all agree that Diablo is somewhat generic? If so...this is the first time everybody agreed on something...
Boring story aside, I was into the "story" elements of the game when I first started it. It was all new. There was so much unknown. However, inevitably after you play a game like D2 enough, with a repeatable and repetitive story line, at a certain point it wasn't about story or the unknown: It was all about loot. At the core, for most gamers, the online version of the game is about acquiring loot, trading, and obtaining the best items for the types of characters you want to play. Seems relatively bland, but it was exciting enough to keep us around for years (the majority of my time was spent low level dueling in D2 though, which is an entirely different way to play the game).
The game has had such a lasting effect on me and has in many ways taken on a form larger than just a game.
Disregarding my bias for the series, I still think you guys are off-base calling it unoriginal and boring. There's something I'm not sure you guys have taken into consideration regarding Diablo's "lack of originality and story". The latest game in the series is ten years old. That's ancient in terms of video games. Is it fair to compare its story aspects to that of next-gen modern games? No. Not at all. Sure, the game is unoriginal in today's gaming world, but would have said the same back when it was released? I doubt it.
That said, the game isn't an MMO. It's a game with a linear story that can become repetitive. It's not tailored to be very immersive, albeit that it is really outdated.
Diablo 3 will be much more immersive. Well, as immersive as a game of this nature can be, at least. Blizzard can't avoid the linearity, that's just part of the games. But they can spice it up. At the core it will always be loot-driven in online play, but you know Blizzard is going to go to great lengths to add depth to the world of Sanctuary in D3, something they simply couldn't do ten years ago. There will be separate quest chains for each class, randomly-generated quests, and randomly-generated events (I believe?) which will bring the world to life more so than they could in Diablo 2. It won't just be a straight-shot linear adventure through the game. It will be a prevailing linear adventure with lots of swerves and side-steps (not to mention some incredibly beautiful blood and gore gameplay that itself will be hard to tire of).
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Agreed that Diablo lore isn't the best around, but even so without story it will be pretty bland. All those characters named above all have story to them and many intertwine with one another. Without said characters and their stories behind them, their wouldn't be a reason for Mephisto, Baal, Andariel, and Duriel to even be in there, not even their models. At best without their story we will instead be battling, skelton-corpse, Crab with tentacles, Naked girl, and maggot-crab.
This even can be applied to NPC's behind the scenes such as Tyrael and Marius. Without story Tyrael would probally be random angel (like the one who stands before u in chaos sanctuary whsoe name escapes me atm) and Marius would be crazy drunkard running around the world with no apparent reason.
Without story, the cinematics would be bland/boring or probably not exist at all (no story = no plot for cinematics).
And even if Diablo isn't a RPG by today's standard, it was back then, you must keep that in mind. Back then the best RPGs you could get were Pokemon, Spyro the Dragon, Crash Bandicoot, etc.
On the classes, i do agree that some of then are weird, to say the least, was the witch doctor really the best they could come up with?
Even the demon hunter(which i liked) is some sort of a fully plated acrobat with duals 12 gauge crossbows, i mean, its just cheesy.