The Third Game in the Game Series Formerly Known as Diablo
 

Some of you who played Diablo 1 and/or 2, should have noticed that in the storyline you (the adventurers) succeded in slaying the demon Diablo (and his brothers elsewhere) in Hell. To my knowledge, Demons that are slain on Sanctuary (the primary plane of existence, where mortals live in the Diablo-world) are simply reborn in Hell. Demons that are killed in hell, die permanently (I think, other sources may contradict this though.) Even if Diablo did die in Hell, he would have reborn due to his soulstone. But the adventurers crushed it upon the Hellforge, thus Diablo is (I assume) permanently destroyed.

Now, Blizzard announced a third game in the series, named Diablo 3. Blizzard isn't known to surprise their gamers, but this seems odd still. Diablo is dead - why would they name the third game in the series Diablo as well? Sure it would lead to confusion, but people will assume that a game named Diablo will properly be focused around something called Diablo.

Or am I wrong?

(Also, now that the Worldstone is broken - will the borders between the worlds be broken? And will Inarius from the Sin War make an appearance? Now that the Prime Evils are dead (Super Diablo Bros.) will the Lesser Evils (Andariel, Duriel, Azmodan and Belial (maybe Lilith?) rise up to the roles of big bad mega-villains?)

Yeah, um, adventurers crushed Mephisto's soulstone on the hell forge...not Diablo's.

I think in one of the movies it shows you doing the same thing with Diablo's once you kill him in act 4.

Either way, all of the soulstones were destroyed in Diablo 2.

Some people suspect that the worldstone might have something to do with it. Baal supposedly corrupted the worldstone, which meant that Tyrael had to destroy it (so he claimed.) Some say that Tyrael might have gotten a shard stuck in him or something, and may have gotten corrupted himself. Perhaps Diablo will take over Tyrael's body similar to the hero from Diablo 1. A Tyrael/Diablo combo would be pretty badass.

Some people also theorize that Tyrael might have been bad all along. There are hints of that throughout Diablo 2, and it's not completely unlikely that it could be true. However, that doesn't explain how Diablo comes back.

Diablo is in the trailer for Diablo 3, though, so I would suspect he'll be in the game somehow. Who knows? For now, we can only speculate.

Put a goblin and a demon in the cube, out comes Diablo?

No! It's Wirt's Leg and Deckard Cain inside the cube. Everyone knows that Deckard Cain is Diablo...

The "Diablo" in the teaser could be a... Diablo Clone? Also note that the Diablo had shoulder-mouths... Weirdish.

Also, according to the back story - it was Tyrael that made the High Heavens decide to keep Sanctuary and it's mortals, and that he has been an ally to the mortals (descendants of the Nephalem (Diablo version of Nephilim)) for a very, very long time. Apparently some sort of fallen mega-angel created Sanctuary and before that there was merely the High Heavens and the Burning Hell. Which seems quite boring. Although, I guess the years Tyrael spent amongst humans might have made him susceptible to corruption...

(And as !K_A! said, you destroy the Diablo-soulstone in a video.)

I've recently heard people saying that even destroying their soulstones doesn't do anything but send them back to hell. They have to be slain in hell to be slain for good. Or so some people are saying. I suppose I don't know enough to know for sure.

So, our brave adventurers killed Diablo in Hell and destroyed his soulstone (also in Hell), thus he should be deader than dead. Like... Triple-dead or something. Anyway, I assume Blizzard will do some random excuse and OMG DIABLO IS ALIVE BECAUSE WORLDSTONE!

Meh, I'm not sure I care how it's happening. The point is, I'm getting the chance to stomp his firey red ass one more time.

Without some internal game logic the storyline will implode! We need some stupid reason for his resurrection or we will be angry! (Actually a simple: "It didn't kill him" would be enough for me as Diablo is bad-ass, also "Not even death can save you from me! *demonic laughter*" is a good arch-villain line.)

Maybe it's an imposter? Surely out of all the demons there's one ambitious enough to try to fill Diablo's shoes.

Here's something I've just found. It's some sort of Barbarian prophecy called "The Prophecies of the Final Day"

"And a child will cradle Terror in his breast as the heart of man falls under the shadow.

A Wanderer will pass through the ancient lands trailing chaos in his wake.

The Three Brothers will be reunited as the mortal world trembles before their might.

And so it was foretold that the Three, once reunited, would be shattered again—

Their defeat would be illusory—that the final gambit had yet to be played..."


"And now at last the storm surges forth from the southlands, and the hand of Destruction

Reaches out to undo the workings of the Ancients. The tides of Hell surge—ready to smash

Down upon the shores of the mortal world — to drown the guilty and the innocent alike."




I think it's from one of the books or something like that. This part is what intrigues me the most:

"And so it was foretold that the Three, once reunited, would be shattered again—

Their defeat would be illusory—that the final gambit had yet to be played..."

Well, does it really matter that the storyline will be far-fetched? I mean, it's just a video game. At least it has some sort of story line...

Personally i think its going to be gay. Too much like WoW. It'll be P2P i already know.

They will get so much shit from so many people if they make it p2p that they would need to change it. Diablo has never been p2p, why should they start now? They are fine with WoW and the D3 sales will be so high that p2p won't be needed.

Well they're making a new Battle.net for D3 and SC2. They might make that B.net pay to play.

Video games are a form of culture, would you say that the storyline in a book/movie doesn't matter because they usually do not have such? (Semi-bad example...) In a game such as Diablo, the storyline has to at least feel like it works with the in-game logic. (real world logic is for the weak.)

I disagree with this. The big thing they have always made about bnet was that it was f2p. That was how they got so many people to play their game, the promise of free online play.


Even if they do make it p2p, you can imagine how much they would lose in returns.

I doubt they would lose much. Are you saying you wouldn't play Diablo 3 if they made it pay to play?

I could say that as well, but I'd be full of shit.

I'm sure you can still make a p2p connection with your friends without going through battle.net and play for free if they require payment for battle.net. If nothing else, I'm sure it'll have a LAN multiplayer option and people will use a virtual LAN program.

Actually, you're right. If battle.net requires payment, Blizzard will lose a bunch of money because people will do multiplayer by virtual LAN and won't need a unique CD key.

Unlikely. While that sounds good as far as being able to play multiplayer, an economy would not exist, and getting really good items would be a lot harder than if you were on battle.net.

Not really, since you could just hack them into your save file.

By that logic, people wouldn't be playing battle.net right now. They could play LAN multiplayer and have the best items in the game.

Sounds reasonable. I highly doubt it'll be P2P either. The game isn't a MMO, and there are a lot of kids who I bet can't afford WoW that will play Diablo 3.

Plus, they can ask for money to put those adds on top of the battle.net thing.

just from the video previes and the gameplay video's im keen to get back in. altho it looks alot like diablo II the new animations i saw for some of the barbarian skills are kickass.

I didn't like the new whirlwind. It didn't look as awesome as the dII one.

It looked more realistic in my opinion.

I only ever did the first, maybe second, quest in Diablo 1 for Playstation. It was alright, but, to me at least, it was one of those "I got a friend or two, so let's get to slaying shit" type games. It reminded me of Gauntlet (Which, at the time before I knew better, I thought it was a new-age Gauntlet). I only made a character on the second one on PC, but never got to actually play it. I guess it just never interested me...

With that said, I think I may get this one. Is there anything I will be missing from the first two, or can I just jump right in? I thought it was like Final Fantasy with the sequels never being the same story line, but apparently I was wrong.

As far as the paying to play shit, if I have to pay to play, I am definately not getting it. It looks hella good, though. And it seems as though many of the members here have something to be excited about again.

Play the first two.

The Playstation version of Diablo 1 sucked balls. The only reason to get it is for the story shit that's included on the CD.

So by yall's logic paying to play hurts a game. So how did WoW become so popular?

You took the words right out of my mouth.