DoPo said:
At which point? There is not really a single unified "pre-Reaper of Souls" experience
Probably not, but it was after RoS that I noticed perception of D3 shifting.
DoPo said:
The...characters in the Diablo series have never really been blank slates. What?
When were they not? In D1 you have a selection of three classes (1-3 more with Hellfire, depending on your tech saviness), in D2 there's a selection of 5 classes, with 2 more with Lord of Destruction. Without using any EU material, I challenge you to define their personalities, and how they change as characters. I'd say name them, but without EU material, they're nameless. D3 has the advantage of giving the classes dialogue, backstories, characterization, and actual character development (seriously, compare the quest logs from vanilla to RoS - the Nephalem has certainly changed).
DoPo said:
And this was the big difference with the previous games - they were all about the loot. Not that D3 dialled down - it most certainly didn't, however, it dialled up on the story. Which, while not really bad by itself, it got negative reaction because it attempted to be in your face and take centre stage - contrary to previous games.
That's part of the reason why I prefer D3 to its predecessors on the story front. In D1 and D2, the story felt like an afterthought (probably because it was), whereas in D3 it's in the forefront of the game. D3 feels like an actual story, D2 feels like a game with a story that happens to be in it, D1 feels like a game with the vaguest semblance of story.
DoPo said:
They both had a story that is told a lot through the environments, mechanics, enemies, as well as lots of other optional activities the player can take.
Examples. D3 has no shortage of any of those things, and while I'd say they add to worldbuilding, I can't say they add to the plot per se.
DoPo said:
On the contrary, there are heaps of lore and story crammed into Torchlight. The main story itself follows closely the story in Diablo - the first games of each series mimic each other as do the second games. Well, given that Torchlight was created by ex-Diablo developers, it must have been their little homage to their previous games. At any rate, the Torchlight games take after Diablo in more ways than the main quests - the story is again told through numerous in-game sources that are completely optional and up to the player to explore. This is the Diablo way of telling a story - subtly, yet expansively.
Torchlight had an expansive story? Okay, let's see (without looking anything up):
You start off with a class (I'll call her Vale because that's what I called the class I picked, knowing that it was her canonical name in TL2). Vale has two pieces of entire dialogue (read: monologue) in the entire game, namely as the game's intro and outro. Both are primarily concerned with setting up the scenario - something's buggered up the town of Torchlight, which is a hub of ember. The outro establishes that "something bad will happen, but for now I'll stay in Torchlight." I.e. justification for end-game content. Neither pieces of dialogue say anything about her character. Throughout the story she undergoes no character development or anything approaching characterization.
Torchlight itself is bereft of any NPCs of note. Most are human. There's what looks like a pair of orcs (least I think they're orcs), but the presence of orcs isn't explained or mentioned, so I can't say. Triya may be an elf, but I can't be sure. Some of these NPCs give a few tidbits about themselves or the surrounds, but these are few and far between. Far less than even D1.
So, you venture into the mines. Syl and her partner come across the antagonist, who's been corrupted by Ordrak. Syl's partner is killed, and Vale is infected with ember (or is at some point in the story). Vale is apparently on a timed life. Vale has no reaction to this whatsoever. Syl sends us to deal with the antagonist. As we go down, there's little of note. There's the implication that Ordrak has been casting down one civilization after another, and that each civilization is less advanced than the one preceeding it. Torchlight is on the surface, then we get the catacombs, then the Atlantis-esque ruins, then the dwarven ruins, then Ordrak's domain (give or take). However, this is never mentioned or discussed. It's a tidbit for those paying attention, but nothing comes out of it. I'm well aware that I may be reading too deeply into things. We get logs about the antagonist, about how he too is being consumed by ember, but very little comes out of this.
So, the antagonist is killed, Vale is cured of her corruption (no idea how she feels about this). Then we fight Ordrak, who's nothing but a crazed beast with no characterization or motivation beyond destruction. Ordrak is killed, and Vale remains in Torchlight for loot. The end.
Well aware that I could have missed some things, but this is a very bare-bones story. Bear in mind I actually LIKE Torchlight, but only in the sense of its gameplay. Story? Not so much.
DoPo said:
Based on what? Did you even attempt to look for the story? Path of Exile is another game hailed as a successor of Diablo 2 and with good reason - the aesthetics and playstyle are clearly reminiscent of D2, as is the community aspect of the game. However, that's not all - PoE also follows the Diablo way of telling a story. Sure, you meet few NPCs here and there that tell you some lines and you usually have to kill them afterwards and you could say that's what the story is. But you'd be wrong. The story is all around - from the very first time you step into Wraeclast the story has been present. Similar to Diablo and Torchlight, it conveys its story by a multitude of ways, all of them reliant on player. One of the most amazing thing is how the very gameplay is literally part of the story. The incorporation of the mechanics with the main story of the game is a masterful example that such a feat can be done.
I gave up on PoE mainly because of the gameplay. Its story is better than Torchlight's, but it gives me little to work with. But let's see (I played the ranger which I named Arianne, so let's go by this analogy, and again, going entirely by memory):
Arianne and other exiles are dropped off on Wraeclast, sentenced by Oriath. Oriath, I can infer, is a theological kingdom based near Wraeclast, but has no real presence on it. Arianne receives no characterization bar the bare-bones backstory that is presented in the character selection screen. Arianne also shows no signs of character growth/development. Regardless, Arianne ends up on the shores of Wraeclast, and makes it to the survivour's enclave. After that, I can't really say much about the plot. It does fill us in on Wraeclast though - how the Karui (sp?) arrived, how the Karui themselves have a culture similar to the Maori (far as I could tell at least), how they died out, how there's something inherantly...off, about Wraeclast. The undead are one example. Anyway, act 1 goes on, Arianne defeats Butcher-lite and Merveil, neither of whom are particuarly interesting, and encounters Dominus, who blocks the road. NPCs want Arianne to go inland for food, I think? At this point in time I'm tired of being their errand boy - these people survived for years, yet do. Nothing. Gameplay, I know, but many RPGs try to maintain at least the illusion of the world moving on regardless of your actions. But fine, I'll move on.
So I come inland, meet another camp of NPCs hustled in the ruins of an ancient civilization, who are just as content to do nothing. At this point I gave up due to how large the areas were, coupled with the monotony of the enemies and the gameplay.
Like I said, PoE turned me off more due to its gameplay than story. In terms of story, it gets props for worldbuilding. But it's lacking in characterization, and in terms of plot, there's the rumblings of one, but still no clear goal beyond "survive." And this is in what at least began as a 3 act game, so I assume that I'm at least a third of the way into the story, and still without a clear goal. I.e. what people compalined about in Final Fantasy XIII, to use another example from this thread. Or, to quote another RPG in this thread, you know how long it took Golden Sun to give the player a clear goal? Between 1 and 2 hours, at the longest. And it gives its first plot hook (as in, genuine mystery, to both the player and the characters), within the first 10 minutes.
DoPo said:
Mostly because it ditched the entire legacy of well crafted and subtle story telling. And yeah, the story kind of sucked, too. OK, some of the cutscenes were sweet but the fact that it relied on them wasn't.
That's another reason I like D3, because the cutscenes actually have a purpose to the story. I mean, look at the D2 ones. By themselves, they're excellent. Excellently animated, excellent in conveying atmosphere, very well written, etc. But what irked me in D2 was how disconnected they felt from the story, how they're effectively a parallel story that has little bearing on the one in-game. Characters cross over, true, but put it this way - Marius never meets the player. The player never meets the Dark Wanderer outside that brief bit in Act III. In contrast, D3's cinematics are used to bridge the story, and keep it flowing. We see Leah and Tyrael in our camp, we see them in the cinematics, and it makes the story feel far more cohesive.
Given how Diablo 2 was developed, I can concede that the cinematic segregation thing was a byproduct of how the game was developed. And again, cinematics by themselves are excellent. As part of an overall story? Not so much. Or, to put it another way, play D2 without any of the cinematics, and you'll probably get the same overall story. Cut them out from D3, and the story would suffer for it. Also a nice tidbit in that in addition to the pre-rendered cinematics we get those pieces of animation for the player character - usually exposition, but I love the animation, and it does give us some insight into their character. Which again, D2 is lacking on the player character front. There's one-liners that briefly touch on their character, but very minimally.
