Diablo 3 story/boss.

[DemonicCow]

Some of you who play Diablo 2:LoD still might know me as BlizzPop, LightningPop or just by my account name *demoniccow9852. If we've talked, then you've heard all this before but for those who I haven't met yet, here's a seemingly accurate theory.

Since nobody else seemed to noticed this, I'll point it out. Lemme know if theres an error or whatnot.

We've all gone on from Diablo to Diablo 2 then to Lord Of Destruction with the knowledge that Diablo was, all along the Diablo Hero. What if I were to tell you that this isn't true? That the Diablo hero was able to remove the soulstone from his forehead and that this monster we've been killing over and over again is in fact a total stranger? (either that or it's explained who he is in Diablo 3, although I really doubt that)

The point I'm trying to get to is: The Hero you play as in Diablo isn't dead. He's rather alive somewhere and he'll make his stand in Diablo 3.

Most of you are already thinking, what the hell is this guy talking about?

Here's a preview for Diablo 2 that was stopped but it's the first and original preview for Diablo 2:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kVv41NarVP4[/B]

Here are the basic things I'd like to point out in this buried preview:


• The thing inside that cage (on of the Prime Evils? doesn't really look like it, but it's something that apparently still haunts the Hero) isn't inside the caravan, it's a flashback.

• That big gem in our Hero's hand? Yep, thats the soulstone, not a huge pruby.

• He says that as he's traveling, the better part of his soul will be left behind forever. (did he plan on letting the soulstone be used on someone else again? since he's left the soulstone there and that, of course, is already evil as hell, what else is our Hero holding secret? or does he just mean his humanity?)

• The flash of lightning reveals our Hero's face. In case some of you don't want to pause it and check it out: red eyes, stitched up mouth, and you can see the bump where the skin rose up from the soulstone being embedded into his skull from Diablo 1.

• Ending: Yes, that's the soulstone on the floor as the caravan is pulling away. Thus, means that our Hero from Diablo 1 is still very much alive.


Since his "better part" was left behind, does this mean that our Hero has some higherpower over Diablo, Mephisto, [B]and Baal? (since it seems that they've all been fooled as well.)


:] yep I just killed your brain. This Diablo we've been using to level, magic find, etc is an unknown person who stumbled across our Hero's soulstone. How's that for unexpected?






EDIT: Forgot to add that I think Natalya might be (rather large chance) in Diablo 3 as well. She served almost no purpose in Act 3 yet she was there on a mercenary mission. She disappears without a trace as well. Big or small part, I'm pretty certain that she'll be included in Diablo 3. We've seen the origins of most of our classes, maybe we'll finally be able to meet the Viz-Jaq'taar?

[Grawner]

got nothing to say except:
wow!

[DemonicCow]

Is that a "ithinkyou'vegotyourselfatheory" wow or a "ithinkyou'regoingcrazy" wow?

:]

[Apocalypse]

watching that video is indeed a throw back, i remember viewing it many times but i had completly forgotten about it until now. it would seem that bliz changed the story after they announced the game? then again maybe you are onto something

[DemonicCow]

I'm thinking that they intended for Lord Of Destruction to include the revealing of our Hero but instead, continued the Worldstone story with Baal.

Since the game was already on way and this preview was released to public one month before Diablo 2 came out, I don't think it was possible for them to change the story.

But they did stop showing this to the public and I'm not sure if it's been removed from the Cinematic's CD for Diablo 2.

[Flux]

Yeah, video embedding (all HTML, actually) is disabled in the forums except for the news ones.

This trailer was made very early in the d2 development process, as a promotional item for the game. it debuted at E3 in 1998, I believe. I'd consider the plot in it to be non-canon, since they hadn't really written the story of d2 yet, and just had to put something cool together for promotion.

As we know from d2's plot and lore, the warrior was the "official" character who defeated diablo and then centaur'ed himself with the soulstone. He didn't drop it in the mud and he didn't get his eyes sewn shut and ride along in a wagon in the rain. He became the dark wanderer and then Diablo, and we killed him and got his soulstone in the end of act 4. Furthermore, by the official fiction, the rogue became Blood Raven and the Sorcerer became the Summoner, neither of them having defeated Diablo and soulstoned themselves since there was only one Diablo, and the warrior got there first.

[Grawner]

Is that a "ithinkyou'vegotyourselfatheory" wow or a "ithinkyou'regoingcrazy" wow?

:]

it definetly was a "ithinkyou'vegotyourselfatheory" wow!:wink:

[Thirty-Thirty]

Okay, I've been a huge proponent of making sensible suggestions, based on reasonable evidence available. This is one of the first new theories on this forum. Good on you for this not being another "Obviously Tyrael is evil" thread.

It's an interesting idea. I agree with Flux that currently, that preview is probably non-canonical. To be honest, I don't think that Blizzard will pull this out as their twist. But I'll also say that they could, and it'd be one of the least expected twists available, and open a whole new can of worms about where the warrior has been since D1 ended.

[DemonicCow]

Flux's response:
True, but our friends at Blizzard might see this clip as a loophole to create a storyline based on an "abandoned soulstone" instead of offing the clip as a promotion. Work with what they've got, y'know? :] I don't think they've really gone and officially written in Cain's journal or in any Diablo novel that the one who defeated Diablo (from Tristram; Diablo 1) has been verified dead or even verified as becoming Diablo. As for Blood Raven and the Summoner, Blizzard can easily swat them away and say they're not the Rogue and Sorcerer from Diablo and even extend the Diablo games farther. (Although the Rogues from Diablo are part of the Sisterhood of The Sightless Eye and the Sorcerers are part of the Vizjerei clan. [we can also assume there are many others that can and have been corrupted from both organizations])

Thirty-Thirty's response:
Yes, I would, as well, also like to find out how he'd be able to expand on his powers after the removal of a soulstone such as his. And as for the whole Tyrael thing, I really don't think he'll be evil. All evidence shows that he's entirely loyal to the High Heavens and he'd accept whatever punishment they give him. Although since he is that loyal, I think instead, they'd set him off on yet another task.














Although Flux, what you've said isn't entirely accurate. They did have a plot for Diablo 2 already. They even had the background of the characters, NPC's and classes, and locations prepared during their debut.
The game designer, Stieg Hedlund, and Matthew Householder and Bill Roper (whom are responsible for the production roles) even stated in their E3 interview that they've finished planning much for Diablo 2 and they've started working on Diablo 2: LoD.

[Idomis]

Flux's response:
True, but our friends at Blizzard might see this clip as a loophole to create a storyline based on an "abandoned soulstone" instead of offing the clip as a promotion. Work with what they've got, y'know? :] I don't think they've really gone and officially written in Cain's journal or in any Diablo novel that the one who defeated Diablo (from Tristram; Diablo 1) has been verified dead or even verified as becoming Diablo.
You are definitely reading too deeply into that promotional trailer.

I disagree with you that it's not "proven" that the Warrior became the Wanderer. You are correct (as far as I know), that nobody's ever written the words, but we must accept some things.

For instance, I accept that Baal killed Marius. We don't ever see a face (like it would make a difference?) and he never confirms his identity beyond not being Tyrael. It would be too much of a stretch, though, to suggest that it was really a corrupt angel (or anyone else) who did the deed. It was Baal.

I also accept that Malah wasn't an agent of Hell, that the forces of heaven intervened when I stepped through the portal to Hell and deposited me in PandFort (rather than where Big D ended up), and that "THE END" wasn't the true destination of the portal Tyrael created for me at the end of LoD.

For the purpose of minimizing unnecessary retcon and making the story even remotely believable (in a fantasy realm, given), Blizzard is not going to suddenly spring the bombshell on us that the Warrior is anything but what he appears to be in D1/2.

[DemonicCow]

Yes, I see what you're saying but then again, looking at the Diablo 3 gameplay, we didn't really expect Blizzard to suddenly make a new Diablo that isn't in what I'd like to consider the Diablo series to be known for: it's dark and shady scenarios. At first it was nice but it seems to come out into a bright, colorful surface world.

But back to the discussion.

I disagree with you that it's not "proven" that the Warrior became the Wanderer. You are correct (as far as I know), that nobody's ever written the words, but we must accept some things.

Well you can't really disagree because, you said it yourself, it isn't written nor does any cinematic during Diablo 2 show that the Hero/Warrior is the demon we've killed countless times.

You just disagree with the idea of the Hero being alive, you mean.

Yes there are things we must accept but it doesn't hurt to question ancient videos/previews that show differently to theorize a possible story/plot for Diablo 3 with reasonable evidence. That is what we're doing in this forum, isn't it? :jig:

[Grawner]

You are definitely reading too deeply into that promotional trailer.

I disagree with you that it's not "proven" that the Warrior became the Wanderer. You are correct (as far as I know), that nobody's ever written the words, but we must accept some things.



well, wiki says so :cloud9:

[DemonicCow]

well, wiki says so :cloud9:

D: but Wiki is an open content encyclopedia. I could write that Baal has tits and it'll have it up :p

[Grawner]

yeah, i know :b never trust wiki.

[DemonicCow]

Haha, I find it better to say; partially trust wiki ;]

[Sein Schatten]

yeah, i know :b never trust wiki.

http://de.wikinews.org/wiki/Stern-Studie:_Brockhaus_kontra_Wikipedia
I beg to differ. :)

[Grawner]

ich spreche kein Deutsch!
that's not grammaticly correct, is it? :b

(i love the expression 'I beg to differ'!)

[Sein Schatten]

ich spreche kein Deutsch!
that's not grammaticly correct, is it? :b

(i love the expression 'I beg to differ'!)

Brockhaus, a freaking big german encyclopedia with, I don't know how many dozen books, is not as correct as wikipedia (though only with a small margin).
Really, try to vadalaize some articles. Not as stupid as writing "retard" in there but more subtle. Write some wrong info or something. I guarantee, sooner or later someone finds it and reverts it back. ;)

[Flux]

Although Flux, what you've said isn't [B]entirely accurate. They did have a plot for Diablo 2 already. They even had the background of the characters, NPC's and classes, and locations prepared during their debut.

The game designer, Stieg Hedlund, and Matthew Householder and Bill Roper (whom are responsible for the production roles) even stated in their E3 interview that they've finished planning much for Diablo 2 and they've started working on Diablo 2: LoD.

Do you have a source for this, or know what year's E3 it was? They didn't announce D2x until the fall of 2000, a few months after d2 was released, so I dont' see a time frame where they could have talked about d2x at at E3, unless it was in 2001, and that would have been just a couple of months before the game was released.

I've talked to Matt H and Bill Roper (in person) a number of times over the year (more Matt than Bill) and never gotten the impression they had much to do with the story. I do know that the D2 cinematics were almost entirely the work of the bliz irvine cinematic team, somewhat to the chagrin of the d2 bliz north team. The d2 cinematics began with only the vaguest plot outline: rogue monastery overrun, dark wanderer heads east to desert and then meets up with mephisto and down to hell. Much of the d2 game plot had to be reworked during production to make it match up with what the cinematics were doing.

I've talked to the principles about that, but I've never asked about the pre-d2 promo cinematic. Since the actual d2 cinematics were begun with very little plot finalized, I tend to think the promo one, which debuted in early 1998 (or 1997 even?) must have been begun 3-4 years before d2 was finished, and I'd be surprised if they had any more than a "dark hooded figure, traumatized by events, with glowing soulstone" and the cinematic guys ran with that.

Last summer @ flagship studios I interviewed dave brevik and erich schaefer and Matt householder (and some others) for my senior project on storytelling in video games, and we talked quite a bit about the plot of d1/d2 and how it evolved. here's a quote from dave brevik that gives an idea how vague things were, storywise. (I should get permission from the guys to post these whole interviews; they've never been posted anywhere, but by me a bit at a time in various forum threads.)

Flux: At some point during the design process for Diablo II the ideas for the greater demons and hell and the Soulstones, came about?

Dave: Right. We'd shoot the **** about all sorts of stuff and eventually one of the ideas was, "let's have Diablo be one part of the evil, and there will be other parts and other sins and such, and we'll make other equivalents, so Diablo will be this one, etc... So that was more of a process of our guys and some of the guys down south at Blizzard. Suggestions came from them, some from us, and it was a collaborative effort after that.

A lot of the story stuff we kind of directed, but eventually a lot of the story stuff came from the guys down south since they did the cinematics, and the cinematic team had their own ideas.

Flux: That was more Diablo 2, with the cinematics driving the story?

Dave: The D2 thing was really controversial, since that's not the direction we wanted to head. The problem was we all wanted cinematics that reflected the game a little bit better, but we didn't have a cohesive plan. We liked the idea that you shoved this thing, this soulstone into your head in the end and you become Diablo. The only way to beat it is to contain it. And we loved that whole idea, and then we wanted to continue that story line, and we wanted to show all these heroes, and there were too many combinations and ifs and what's and so it ended up that the best workable idea was this separate story line and parallel to the game so rather than having all the heroes be part of the cinematic.

Because you don't play a specific character in the game we didn't want it to be well, "Why is the barbarian the guy that's going through the movies?" We didn't want to have five different movies (for the five different characters in Diablo II) and what if we did expansions and had more character classes and it's just a big mess. It tells a story about what's going on, but it's parallel to the in-game storyline. When we got to Diablo II things were a little bit more defined. The guys down south at Blizzard helped, and by then we'd come up with the names of some of the stuff. The Horadrim and these other societies, and it started to grow up by the end of D1 and by the start of D2 we knew what direction we wanted to go with it.

[DemonicCow]

Well, I'm sure there would be a video out there with something.

But after all that you just threw up, I don't wanna argue cuz it'll be wrong :p lol

Mmn, well it would be interesting to have something along the lines of this theory :D