This is the image I was talking about . He doesn't look THAT feminine to me in this pic, or not feminine at all....
Maybe that's just me... Anyway, don't think we should judge before seeing it in game (if we end up seeing him that is)
If anything, they are NOT making the game for the people that played diablo I and II (and read the game manuals). Diablo II closed the story so nicely, if they really wanted to make another game they should make a pre quel in the horadrin time or with the last two demons (i know azmodan shows in the game already but the game should be only about him then).
Also, going to Tristam AGAIN? And Cain once again captured by demons? Really?
No wonder the 1 year wow campaign to get you diablo III. They know when not have faith in their own products.
English is not my main language so grammar errors might happen.
It's not even in your face, most of it is in tomes and shit like you said, if you already know the story just ignore them.
They put tristram back as a location because one of the first questions everyone asked when they announced d3 was "will we be going back to tristram" im sorry you don't like it but it's what the majority of the fanbase wanted. Besides tristram played such a small role in D2 that it left a lot of D1 fans wishing they did more with it. its an iconic location, and what better place to start the game then in the location that started it all.
you really shouldn't base the game off the first little parts we have seen, its an intro. it's meant to reestablish all the characters, introduce new ones, get new players up to speed with the plot, and set the game up for later events.
did you not watch the d3 panels at blizzcon? the locations look pretty amazing. and act two's plot revolves around Belial (the other lesser evil besides azmodan) and sounds engaging, and full of twists and deceit (he is the lord of lies).
---------- Post added 2011-11-08 at 03:22 AM ----------
i dunno, i'm not super impressed with his new look. but i understand why they wanted to change him up a bit, staring at more or less the same bad guy for 3 games gets boring...
i hope he has new tricks to accompany his new look.
Last edited by Redmage; 2011-11-08 at 03:15 AM.
Slaying 8bit dragons with 6 pixel long swords since 1987.
[Pokemon Y Friend Code: 1521-3726-7197]
Appearance-wise, I just noticed that Diablo's slim but muscular frame fits pretty perfectly between floating skeletal Belial and gargantuan and heavy-set Azmodan. And he's got two extra shoulder-mouths. Perhaps related? It's a stretch certainly, but what better way to regain power than using the two lesser evils, likely defeated, but not destroyed, by us. Just some random speculation.
Additionally, Diablo's appearance between D1 and D2 actually did change somewhat. Color-scheme, grew a tail, overall more animalistic in D2. More dramatic changes out of nowhere like that are unlikely but not impossible. Another theory I read (though in reference to the first trailer where "Diablo" is seen) is that it could be a combination of all three Prime Evils. Both Baal and Mephisto are much less bulky than Diablo. It's unlikely, but anything's possible.
And then there's still Leah. :/
Last edited by Caiada; 2011-11-08 at 05:39 AM.
As I said before... Diablo appeared in two different hosts with the same shape. That new form was WAY of a stretch.
I think a developer had a fantasy with Diablo and slowly, step by step, started to make him a her. HEY BIOWARE, STEAL THIS GUY FROM BLIZZARD, ASAP!!!!
Arthas was a Horde leader, did you know?
Alliance dissatisfaction have nothing to do with Blizzard's writing but is everything about George Fisher and boogie2988's Francis respective factions.
So Diablo got a new look.... And? The Diablo from D1 doesn't even look the same as the Diablo from D2.... Jeesh.
In Diablo I, he appears as a giant humanoid demon with red skin, claws on both hands and feet and a multitude of spikes portruding from his back and head.
In Diablo II his appearance changed a bit. When the player encounters him in Hell the in the second game, he has grown a tail (coupled with more spikes) and his features are more animalistic. His movement has also become more beast-like: in the first Diablo he only walks upright, whereas in Diablo II he can also charge on all fours.
His appearance in Diablo 3 has been revealed during BlizzCon 2009 in a short movie about the production of cinematics, in which he could be seen on a screen during modeling processes. He appears to be much skinnier than his earlier forms, more skeletal than his earlier, beefier manifestations. He features four arms, of which the top two have some kind of blade-like extensions. The shoulders are big and they have a mouth on each of them, which has become a recognizable feature among the fans. His tail and his legs are very similar to those of the Diablo II version, with spikes covering them.
Diablo 1 = http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__...Diablo2xd5.gif
Diablo 2 = http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__.../42/Diablo.gif
Last edited by Venziir; 2011-11-08 at 11:16 AM.
Amazing sig, done by mighty Lokann
To be honest, I'm happy as long as he has the back spikes and the horns. Tail would also be nice, but not as crucial for me. He's still Diablo. The artwork looks awesome, while the Blizzcon poster looks like it took the shot from the wrong angle.
Ofcourse though, only problem I have with Diablo 3 is the lack of a release date. I know about some estimates, like Q4 2011, but... GRRRRRRRRR! I can't plan for it, I can't save up my money for it, and I really can't wait for it.
A bit tired of seeing 1 new video in damn Blizzcon each year. Me wants a beta invite. I've seen many gameplay movies, and all I can is that graphics could be a bit better, but depends on the computer really. And like an idiot, I've downloaded all the wallpapers from the diablo3 site and made them into a background theme. Now all I can play is Diablo 2...
"So, he sent a succubus to seduce you, and lure you down to his side. And yet, first thing you do is to check her ass? Ah, kid, you've got much to learn.."
The hips are what makes it look feminine to me...despite the demonic fire and appendages, it reminds me of my girlfriend.
there was a recent picture posted over at the diablo incgamers site that showed a different angle/pose that looked less feminine even though same model. Though I agree that the more feminine form is probably from possessing a female body this time around
Nope, definitely a female version of diablo.
Lore says its possible, since the soulstone is just a stone, and can corrupt any host, male or female.
who knows, it could be interesting to see other aspects for a change, perhaps even multiple forms this go around.
Author of: Goggle Cat Comics.