Lately I’ve been hearing more and more from people who just down right hate the story in Diablo 3.  People who say you should skip it completely even if you haven’t heard it.  Really?  Is it that bad?  I mean, I’ve sat through some crappy stories and this doesn’t even come close. Sure it’s a bit predictable and there isn’t a ton of nuance on the surface, but is that the complaint?  I’m not so sure.  Lots of entertainment is surface level and enjoyable.  Were we expecting the serious heavy hitting story of something like Heavy Rain or the subtle beauty of Flower?

If you take the time to listen to many of the conversation items available at different stages throughout the game, you will find some nice depth to the characters that at first appear one dimensional.  I’m not sure what people expected though.

Has Blizzards story telling always been amazing and nuanced or were we just younger?  Did we just delve deeper into the unspoken story elements?  For instance, my most memorable element of the first Diablo was the idea of a hero taking upon himself the role of containing  evil by plunging the soul-stone into his head.  That is a… heady concept that deserves exploration.  It isn’t something you explore during the story necessarily, but as the observer, you are given a great thought thread to chase.

One of the things I have consistently loved about Blizzards brand of story telling is the presence of gray.  Sargeras is an amazing concept for an antagonist  because he is neither good nor evil.  He may be considered evil because he wants to unmake existance, but the important question is why.  He is a manifestation of chaos, a fallen creator set on unmaking.  His motives are to unmake existance to save it from the pain and hardship of existing.  Through his actions pain and hardships are inflicted and yet he creates purpose and resolve within the beings of that universe.

The Diablo universe is a bit more light and dark, there is certainly more contrast than that of the Warcraft universe where good and evil are a bit more fluid.  However, Diablo has its gray characters as well.  One that I am interested in seeing more from is Imperius.  He comes across as an ends justify the means type and I can see him being manipulated effectively by the evils to accomplish their goals.

I don’t know about you, but when I played the first Diablo I was much younger and it didn’t take a ton of good story telling to get me engaged.  I do look back on that game with some rosy lenses.  I loved the game play and I honestly prefer the style of character development in that game to many of the modern RPG’s of today.  Yeah, I played a warrior that I turned into a battle mage summon golems using plate and two-handers.  But the story was compelling to me at that time.

It wasn’t because of the depth though.  I don’t think I understood nuance in the same way then.  Diablo 2 was a linear story again; presented to the player as a participant in the story, but I don’t remember it being a grand treatise on the nature of good and evil.  I haven’t played it in a while so maybe I forgot or missed something.

Is the story of Diablo 3 so different?  I’m not so sure honestly.  I think it is very similar to the previous stories.  Part of the problem could be the way the acts are so seperate.  Each act feels sort of self contained because each act presents a new scene centered around a new enemy.  I don’t recall either of the earlier Diablo games being much different, although Diablo 1 didn’t really split into acts so definitively, it did break the game up into different segments though.

Perhaps part of the issue is how swiftly new enemies are introduced and then dismissed.  Yeah, we constantly have Azmodan talking crap, but the lieutenants you fight aren’t really well identified, so they sort of feel like filler.  Act 2 feels a little more intriguing, but you never get the sense that Belial is going to achieve any sort of victory.  I think that is what feels odd to me as I look deeper at the story elements.

The big baddies don’t feel as sophisticated as they could.  For beings of immense power, they seem to be fairly easily manipulated.  Belial comes closest to feeling like a real character because he is trying to manipulate you through illusion, but I’m sure many were not fooled even from the first meeting.

I guess part of it rings hollow because the notion that either side can win this eternal conflict is sort of odd.  As quickly as Diablo smashed through the defenses of the high heavens I wonder why he didn’t try that before.  Perhaps he had to be the prime in order to achieve that result.  He doesn’t seem as powerful as I would expect though.  The cut scenes make him look strong, but we meet him once and dispatch him, no big deal.

Perhaps more presence of these big bosses throughout the levels leading to them would make them feel more impactful in the overall experience.

Maybe the detachment of the third person iso view is part of the problem.  I think that’s why the world doesn’t feel as brutal as it should given the setting.  If I’m scared, it’s because I’m worried about meeting a nasty rare and not the sense that I’m surrounded by unimaginable horrors.  Because my sense of fear in the world is stunted, I can see that my sense of the story elements are stunted as well.

Maybe it is the lack of a flawed hero?  Starcraft is rife with them, so is warcraft, but Diablo seems to have fewer of these.  The flawed or reluctant hero, while a major trope, is a useful story device.  It helps people identify with the character because corruptibility and fear of failure or success are very real human traits and emotions.  These are things that are easy to play on, and the evils are the perfect ones to play on them.

The evils try to play on these traits, but it rings hollow because at no time is the player presented with a sense that they may turn back.  Tyrael may fill this role from time to time and his outcome feels strong because of it.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t feel like there is enough of an arch there.  The player doesn’t experience an arch at all.  We are the same when we end as when we begin (story wise).  The player almost feels like an omniscient observer because there is such a sense of knowing and self assurance.

I would like to know more of the back story for the player, but I understand it may not be completely relevant in the context of the opening of the first act.  As we move forward we learn more about the player character, but we do not get to delve too deeply into what some of these things mean.  Again, it is a bit of a lack of why.  We know why Cain does what he does, we know why Leah is who she is, we know about what drives Tyrael, but we are not given as much information as to the motives of our hero.

I’m the kind of person who generally finds entertainment entertaining.  I love great stories, but enjoy mediocre stories simply because I enjoy stories.  I’ve gone to movies that received generally poor reviews and walked out saying, well that was fun (not all of them, but some).  I can tell the difference between exceptional works and those of lesser status, but I can enjoy different things for different reasons.

One reason that the story may be getting panned is a general lack of why.  Why do the burning hells want to conquer the high heavens?  Just becuase they always have, isn’t really an interesting answer.  I can theorize, but it is very possible the true motives of the light and dark will be revealed more fully in the expansions that will surely follow.

Going through on my fourth play through I’m skipping most of the story elements, but I still like listening to some of the story beats because they are fun to listen to.  Sometimes, I just like being told stories.

If you hate the story, let me know why.  If you love the story, let me know why.  Also, in either event, tell me whether you’ve listened to the conversational stuff from the different characters.

Stay Safe Out There!
~Aten