Review Diablo III Plot Analysis at Gamasutra

[Jasede]

SIXTY-FOUR SECONDS OF WASTELAND 2 MUSIC REVEALED

 

[Kane]

I think the question burning in everyone's mind right now is:

why the fuck would anyone in a sane state of mind analyse diablo 3's plot. ಠ_ಠ

 

[Mrowak]

I think the question burning in everyone's mind right now is:

why the fuck would anyone in a sane state of mind analyse diablo 3's plot. ಠ_ಠ

To show why it didn't work? If they decided to go with sensationalist bullshit, that's fine. If they resolved to shit on the past games, that's ok. But even with what they had they could make a plot that wouldn't be retarded at its core. I honestly thought that this time around there was someome on team actively working towards making the plot as moronic as possible.

 

[Mozgoëbstvo]

Wow. After a month of absence, it's good to return and see that Diablo stuff still qualifies as news.

I love this place.

Sometimes we get great RPG news like random Wasteland 2 concept art

Pfffr. A friend courteously informed me on the most important news while my computer was broken. Wasteland 2 or the reforming of black isle? What excites the Codex less and why? Discuss!



Oh, I see the sidebar with the most popular threads has been restored. Now we have the true pulse of the Codex back, and we know what people are REALLy interested in regardless of their cheap fibs.
"Yeah, I'm all for wasteland 2!" ---> 90% of posts in eroge LPs.

 

[crawlkill]

this article doesn't go far enough. the worst part about the abortion that was every line of dialogue in that game was how much fucking TIME was spent on it. constantly it broke up the numbing flow of clickclickclick. you spend as much time in cutscenes as you do in the field. all of that wasted effort, inasmuch as we can call what they created a product of 'effort' and not some kind of bizarre mess cobbled together from whatever models and voiceover work they'd had sitting around for the fuck-knows-how-many-times they scrapped everything and redid from start. the Diablo games have never been about their stories, but the stories 1 and 2 told were tonally tight, unintrusive for the disinterested and blessedly light on the eternal verities. it's painfully clear that D3's ruin of a plot was torn down and built up (or "built along" or something) multiple times over the course of development, and the saggy, drooling mess that got to our doors showed every faultline.

then again, Starcraft 2's plot and script were also eye-sizzlingly mind-fusingly painful, so maybe Blizzard just has shit writers these days.

 

[Rpgsaurus Rex]

Hmm ? I always thought the plot of Diablo was about this obsessive compulsive hoarder guy that gets lost in a medieval shopping mall. Unfortunately his hoarding mania gets the better of him and he goes on a killing frenzy in order to obtain as many items as he can from the shop owners. His ultimate goal is to reach Diab Lowe, the general manager of the establishment, who has the keys for the returned-items warehouse.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

then again, Starcraft 2's plot and script were also eye-sizzlingly mind-fusingly painful, so maybe Blizzard just has shit writers these days.

I think they've always had shit writers. Their writing process for Warcraft/Starcraft has generally been to take Warhammer, remove the tongue-in-cheek cynicism, replace with idealism and romance. Warhammer has always been kind of dumb, but at least its hilariously over the top grimdarkness made it kind of metal. Warhammer is GWAR, Warcraft is White Lion. I think its only more noticeable now b/c the plot is more prominent.

Diablo writing was never great, but at least it was doing its own thing. Its just that now its been pulled into the general Blizzard narrative shitfest.

 

[metzger]

Leonard Boyarsky is currently working as lead world designer on Diablo III, by the way.

 

[Eyeball]

The Diablo series suffers from "Blizzard post-2000 syndrome" in that they just add too much unnecessary storyline that nobody gives a goddamn about.

See Diablo 1 and WC 1 and 2. All games with extremely minimalist plots. D1 was about a heroic adventurer arriving in a town under demon siege from below, WC 1 and 2 were about bad orks and good humans. No further explanation or motivation required, just get killing. And this was fine - all these games were very atmospheric, Diablo had occasional story tomes in the dungeons you could read if you gave a shit about the story of the Sin War or whatever and WC 1 and 2 had the well-done mission briefings talking about stomping on human skulls and the beautiful cinematics just depicting a bit of murder and mayhem. They put in just as much storyline as was necessary to maintain immersion without it getting irritating.

Diablo 2 introduced a shitload of "background lore" about angelic powers, magical worldstones, faraway lands and demonic politics that really added very little to the goal of "find Diablo AGAIN and kill him" and WC 3 went full retard by painting the orcs as being some kind of noble savage race corrupted by evil demons and wharrgarbl.

Guys who write storylines for games not needing storylines need to accept that they're not Dostoyevski and that "less is more" for that sort of game.

 

[Mrowak]

The Diablo series suffers from "Blizzard post-2000 syndrome" in that they just add too much unnecessary storyline that nobody gives a goddamn about.

See Diablo 1 and WC 1 and 2. All games with extremely minimalist plots. D1 was about a heroic adventurer arriving in a town under demon siege from below, WC 1 and 2 were about bad orks and good humans. No further explanation or motivation required, just get killing. And this was fine - all these games were very atmospheric, Diablo had occasional story tomes in the dungeons you could read if you gave a shit about the story of the Sin War or whatever and WC 1 and 2 had the well-done mission briefings talking about stomping on human skulls and the beautiful cinematics just depicting a bit of murder and mayhem. They put in just as much storyline as was necessary to maintain immersion without it getting irritating.

Diablo 2 introduced a shitload of "background lore" about angelic powers, magical worldstones, faraway lands and demonic politics that really added very little to the goal of "find Diablo AGAIN and kill him" and WC 3 went full retard by painting the orcs as being some kind of noble savage race corrupted by evil demons and wharrgarbl.

You make good observations but draw wrong conclusions. Basing on what you stated, the quantity of the content is not the real problem. It's its quality that dropped significantly over the years. Sure the older games had simple plots, but if you look at both Diablo 1 and 3 the story is the same - kill the bad guy in my basement. What made the difference? I will tell you: the stuff that was in Diablo 1 was meaningful. Everything in the setting, as minimalistic as it was, conveyed a variety of themes: sacrifice, corruption, degeneration, betrayal, redemption, retribution while creating a sense of anxiety. The elements of the setting, as admittedly few and inadequate as they were had at least some purpose and they achieved it through voice acting, dungeon design, music, judeo-christian homages etc. In Diablo 3 they are meaningless fluff. Sure the same themes appear, but it is not purpose of the plot to touch upon them. Their execution is childish and they only serve no other overarching theme than explosions.

Seriously - all that story, lore and blue particle effects support nothing but sensationalist bullshit, while totally undermining what D1 and D2 had to say. And this is totally paradoxical, as I am sure the plot for Diablo 1 was constructed as an afterthought (of a genius) and somehow was far more meaningful than all the millions of dollars that went into rendering those bullshit CGIs in D3.

Guys who write storylines for games not needing storylines need to accept that they're not Dostoyevski and that "less is more" for that sort of game.

I disagree. I actually think that with proper writing team cooperating with gameplay designers you could make an outstanding game: one where gameplay supports setting, setting supports plot and plot supports gameplay. The problem was - once again - the quality. You can't save shit with what they offered - it was a total, utter nonsense that wouldn't fly in writing 101 class. As the article pointed out there are numerous problems, why the shit they put simply couldn't work well anywhere - in whatever medium you choose.

And even if they did go for minimalist plot, but left the most retarded elements, it would make it better only in the sense: there's less plot, so there's less pain. And somehow the plot of Diablo 1 wasn't that painful to follow.

 

[Roguey]

Leonard Boyarsky is currently working as lead world designer on Diablo III, by the way.

No surprises here. He's a good artist, but he can't be good at everything.

 

[EG]

Run Like Hell was good for what it was . . . thanks to Boyarsky.

Imagine what it could have been without him.

What it should have been.

 

[Average Manatee]

Allow me to analyze the diablo 3 plot.

Done.

 

[EG]

Allow me to analyze the diablo 3 plot.

Done.

 

[St. Toxic]

Leonard Boyarsky is currently working as lead world designer on Diablo III, by the way.

Maybe it's his revenge for Diablo outselling Fallout back in the day? Didn't the D1 release nearly make Fallout multiplayer?

 

[deus101]

Leonard Boyarsky is currently working as lead world designer on Diablo III, by the way.

No surprises here. He's a good artist, but he can't be good at everything.

Rougey you posted this shit before and i told you before to go fuck yourself.

This isn't the same level of writing as bioware shit or whatever the hell they tried to pull of in Diablo 3.

That's what makes Fallout 1/2 writing better then a botched HBO attempt. That and no shitty, chair cringing VA and cinematography.

If game writers takes their work to seriously its gonna be excruciating.

Fallout theme and writing is campy, eccentric and fantastical...just what the doctor ordered.

 

[deus101]

Also...can we stop being storyfags now? Yes, the Smudboy shit was interesting...but..COME ON!

When EngLits acutally can go on these long analyses then you have to wonder what directions "GAMES" are taking!

 

[Mrowak]

Also...can we stop being storyfags now?

Erm... no. You know, it's the RPG thing - you can't have one without setting as it is the key component of all RPGs. In this respect RPGs are quite unique. Shooters/SHMUPS can have a setting but RPGs MUST have one. And you know - settings cannot exists without decent level of storyfaggotry - the better storyfaggotry, the better the setting, the better the RPG.

When EngLits acutally can go on these long analyses then you have to wonder what directions "GAMES" are taking!

Listen - we are not pleased by it as well, ok? No, we don't want more cutscens and non-interactive shit that is pointless. But neither do we want autistic shit like fapping to numbers and stats and calling their existence "good" mechanics. Shitloads of stats didn't help combat in Arcanum much, right?

Incidentally, I agree with you previous post about Fallout 2. Fallout 2 is an example of "good" writing in action as it accomplishes all what it's trying to accomplish. Diablo 3 on the other hand phails. End of story.

I disagree, however, with "taking the work seriously" because I understand that what you meant is "the plot and setting cannot not to be serious or touch upon serious themes". Nothing can be farther from truth than that. We have PS:T, BaK and Silent Hill, Thief and many other games which prove otherwise (abeilt they do have their funny moments, that nonetheless do not strike as out of place). In fact, creating something serious from time to time doesn't mean the process of doing it cannot be fun. It's like saying that making "Exorcist", "1Up" or "Beautiful mind" movies was an excruciating pain for the directors and their staff.

 

[SerratedBiz]

Why wouldn't you analyze the story? Bliz made a bigger deal out of pushing one into D3 than they did into D2 and D1 before it, and the (unanimous?) decision is that it's worse. They put themselves into this mess, now they can wallow in it.

 

[Angthoron]

This needed an analysis? Cool.

 

[Mrowak]

This needed an analysis? Cool.

You'd be surprised at the amount of education required to teach a blizzdrone that this is not quality writing. Every little helps.

 

[crawlkill]

I think they've always had shit writers. Their writing process for Warcraft/Starcraft has generally been to take Warhammer, remove the tongue-in-cheek cynicism, replace with idealism and romance.

oh, I dunno. I haven't played Starcraft or Brood War since I was a little girl, but I remember them being pieces of mild parody. I liked Raynor back then. I liked Edmund Duke enough to remember his name fifteen years later. and Brood War really pushed the plot of the universe ahead from Starcraft. maybe I'm being posi-nostalgic--fuck knows I hate replaying these games, much as I like their aesthetics--but I feel like there used to be someone with a mind behind the words behind the games. that's deeply no longer the case. now the words are made of hurt.

also re: "does not need analysis:" this is the most simplistic analysis possible? the point of thinking about the plot of D3 is recognizing and understanding how resources were wasted putting it together. it's totally practical. more time and money were spend on D3's pseudo-plot than were on D1's and D2's combined, I promise you, and to less effect. we don't talk about it because Meaningge. we talk about it because waste. we talk about it because simpler, cheaper tools were employed to better effect in earlier generations, and someone needs to verbalize that phenomenon in the hopes that sharp simplicity will maybe make a return over the soggy complicatedness that's become the rule.

 

[Sceptic]

I haven't played Starcraft or Brood War since I was a little girl, but I remember them being pieces of mild parody.

Mild? The Terran ending oozed irony from every word that Mengsk says. The Broodwar UED ending was possible even worse (better?) in this respect, though way too in your face for my taste. Even Warcraft universe was much less idealistic pre-WC3 - the orcs were clearly Evil, but the humans weren't much better, not to mention they canonically lose in the first game. It was too cartoony to be sinister, but then it also became much less interesting with the Noble Orcs in WC3, and later the clusterfuck that was TFT.

maybe I'm being posi-nostalgic

Nah. Brood War plot and writing really was quite good for what it was - a simple non-complicated device to sew together the string of campaign missions and keep player interest in the world and in the game. Which brings us to...

we talk about it because simpler, cheaper tools were employed to better effect in earlier generations, and someone needs to verbalize that phenomenon in the hopes that sharp simplicity will maybe make a return over the soggy complicatedness that's become the rule.

This.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

oh, I dunno. I haven't played Starcraft or Brood War since I was a little girl, but I remember them being pieces of mild parody. I liked Raynor back then. I liked Edmund Duke enough to remember his name fifteen years later. and Brood War really pushed the plot of the universe ahead from Starcraft. maybe I'm being posi-nostalgic--fuck knows I hate replaying these games, much as I like their aesthetics--but I feel like there used to be someone with a mind behind the words behind the games. that's deeply no longer the case. now the words are made of hurt.

Its been a long time since I played starcraft, but I don't remember a whole lot of parody, other than the occasional goofy joke. It seemed like they were trying to be totally EPIC, what with Progenitor races, unstoppable alien swarm, super advanced space alien wizard-monks and betrayal after betrayal after betrayal. But then again, I'm picky about melodrama, so I could just be overreacting.

Its also possible that I am projecting more recent disgust backwards through time. When I played Warcraft 2/Starcraft, I don't remember liking or disliking the writing at the time. It was probably just par for the course in terms of game writing - a plausible enough justification for mining crystals. It was only later, when I started poking around the Warhammer lore that I had that "Holy shit! Blizzard copied the hell out of this!" reaction. To be fair to Blizzard, turnabout is fair play; Warhammer wasn't too picky about pulling anything that wasn't nailed down into its own lore (Xenomorphs? Tyranids? Zerg?).

Which brings us to...

we talk about it because simpler, cheaper tools were employed to better effect in earlier generations, and someone needs to verbalize that phenomenon in the hopes that sharp simplicity will maybe make a return over the soggy complicatedness that's become the rule.​

This.

I'll agree to this. Blizzard definitely takes the quantity over quality approach to adding background material. There's only so much lore you can add to a setting before it turns into a giant ball of suck.

 

[DraQ]

Erm... no. You know, it's the RPG thing - you can't have one without setting as it is the key component of all RPGs. In this respect RPGs are quite unique. Shooters/SHMUPS can have a setting but RPGs MUST have one. And you know - settings cannot exists without decent level of storyfaggotry - the better storyfaggotry, the better the setting, the better the RPG.

Setting is arguably the best kind of storyfaggotry - one that doesn't get in the way of playing.