Not as idiotic as unicorns and flowers and teddy bears
I will guess lack of imagination from the dev team
No, theyâre very idiotic. They walk around saying Moo, and yâall pretend thatâs the edgiest thing ever lmao
Bunch of lamas.
Still beats the wussification of D3
I would have prefered something more gruesome to fit into the Diablo World but I get what they were trying to do, something different.
Ok, bud. Iâm sure cow mobs are super macho and bring all the blow-up dolls to your yard.
Thank you for the image in my head of a cow level filled with blow-up dolls instead of cows.
3 Likes
I saw this before in that movie from the 90s, Wild Wild West?
Will we get a DJ Jazzy Jeff soundtrack too?
'Wild Wild West"
2 Likes
You donât get to pick and choose the lore that counts. Maybe when you go to college and get a couple degrees then get a job at Blizzard on the Diablo team you can retcon something but until then, just grow up.
D2 has cows, so what?
The funny part of your whole argument is that cows and unicorns both are the least cannon thing of all of Diablo. Itâs not like either of those levels played any part in the history of Sanctuary, neither was part of any story quest, they both are just jokes. Someone on the D2 team thought cows would be funny and someone on D3 unicorns would be a funny response to players.
More copies of D3 were sold than D2 and itâs remaster combined. Yeah, D3 sold 30m vs D2âs 4m and D2Râs 5m totalling 9m. The sales data would argue against you, in fact it seems D3 was something of a revival. Itâs almost as if you are making stuff up to fit your personal preferences.
Constructs are golems, just made out of different materials. As we know them in fantasy writing, both are creatures made of non-living materials that are animated via magic/spells thatâs cast by a sorcerer, wizard, or whatever you want to call a magic user. The reason we use both names is to provide a specific set of imagery in an instant, Golems are most often made of raw rock and stone, constructs tend to be made of man-made objects.
Hydras are a conjuration, which is a type of temporary spell cast on the fly. Thereâs no permanence between casts and they canât be âupgradedâ unless you change the spell you cast. They also have one purpose and canât follow complex instructions, you can get a turret or a messenger but not a friend, they wonât remember anything once they go away.
I can understand the confusion though, the lingo gets a bit corrupted across sources. Itâs particularly confusing across fantasy books because authors like to use an incomplete knowledge to support their story or worse just call something they made up as a familiar word that has a meaning already.
Steampunk is also one of those confusing bits for people. When people see any gears in a fantasy setting they start calling it steampunk. Steampunkâs defining feature is that technology stalled at steam power, not that itâs medieval with gears. Steampunk isnât medieval at all, itâs industrial age technology.
The constructs in Zoltun Kulleâs hideouts arenât steampunk in any way. They arenât robots, they arenât steam operated. They are defined as inanimate objects given life via magic. They arenât conjurations because theyâre permanent and can make choices to further their imperatives. You can power them up without changing the spell that created them. Considering Zoltun Kulle was the strongest magic user in all of Sanctuary when he made all his hideouts, itâs not really hard to imagine why he would be one of the few spellcasters capable of creating constructs. Between the level of magic required and the volume of metal needed to create Kulleâs construct army, how many magic users can we think of that have the ability and ego to do it? Itâs actually kind of wild to think of how well Kulleâs constructs fit into Diabloâs lore.
No, you didnât. Read my comments above to see why. That said, you very much couldâve seen this in a D&D module somewhere in the 50+ years of history there. Itâs not like constructs are new to fantasy lore.
3 Likes
How do you âtryâ a theme? Itâs entirely visual. I look, realize itâs thematically incongruent, and thatâs that.
Further, you donât need to try something to know itâs bad. Have you ever eaten rotten meat? No? Well how can you knock it if you havenât tried it?
Hakarl is a rotten shark meat youâll find in Iceland. If I was near it, I would probably say it smells bad because I can smell it. If I refuse to taste it, I canât say it tastes bad, can I? I mean, there are apparently a lot of people who like it or else there wouldnât be hakarl farms.
Point being, this isnât some extreme real life case. Itâs a video game season theme where a few people (most likely disingenuous) are saying âItâs badâ with no basis other than itâs looks. I mean thereâs conjecture and thenâŚ
D1 and 2 are the true Diablos. D3âs story was knocked by the entire industry. The writing in D3 is objectively horrid.
They also had a RMAH in D3. I donât see you using D3 to ask for a RMAH resurgence?
Uhh, poor farmers in Tristram had cows. Cows are absolutely thematically correct for a small kingdom haunted by a dire travesty in the form of demonic activity. How is this not so obvious that it needs stated?
Cows are thematically congruent, and there was a massive rumor about a secret cow level with D1, where the poor farmers kept their livestock, in Tristram.
If you didnât play the actual games, why are you speaking on their level of congruency relative to D4? Further, the original Diablos created the theme, therefore, what would be called congruent from that point forward. Anything that was in D1 and 2 essentially became the theme for the franchise.
Youâre desperately trying to create straws to grasp.
D2 had something like 5 times the market share as D3. D2 was the highest selling video game of all time when it released, and LoD came in second. D3 is nowhere even remotely close to that accomplishment.
Gaming went mainstream, D3 released, and Blizzard has excellent marketing. But when you look at the hard data relative to the market, D2 outperformed D3 by a landslide.
The devs literally describe these things as robotic on the website. Even the people excited about S3 are describing it as the season of robots, lol.
Hell, even a construct is thematically incongruent. So the straw you grasped here doesnât work anyway. Diablo is about hellfire and demons, not fun golems created by some wacky scientist who also uses magic like a gnome from WoW.
Despite 30M copies in its life.
What are you basing this on? I didnât mind it.
Semantics. Canât escape the clear fact (you can see it right here) that people are prejudging and trying to rationalize it very poorly.
So youâre saying they should have made them more like the iron golems in D2?
Ignoring all of your clearly subjective opinions, do you understand something called logical consequence?
Diablo sold 2.5 million.
Diablo 2 sold 4 million.
Diablo 3 sold 30 million.
Diablo 2: Resurrected sold 5 million.
Your statement that people want D1 or 2 doesnât follow. The logical consequence of a desire for D2 would have resulted in D2R selling far more copies first and foremost. But we know that didnât happen.
Second, the number of people that played D2 and could make an opinion based on it, is dwarfed by the number who played D3. Market share is irrelevant when it comes to the simple fact that there are not enough people in the world who have played D1 or 2 to match the current sales -that we know about- of D4 if we assume that no one has ever played both. Because of they have played both, then it hurts your stance even more.
Remember, the logical consequence of not having played a game is that you donât have an expectation of an experience in another game in the series. If you havenât had the experience then you canât logically form an opinion on it. You can have an opinion on it but itâs not worth a pinch of salt but thatâs an entirely different issue.
So I ask, how is it logical that 12 million people wanted D2 when that many people donât even know what D2 plays like? They canât, not possible. A common sense deduction would tell you that.
What does make sense however and has a logical path, D4 sold less because it was advertised as a return to D2. Because the math works when you go from 30 down to 12, but it doesnât when you go up from 4 to 12. But logic wouldnât help your case so you stick to subjective comments and irrelevant data hoping to obscure how ridiculous your argument actually is.
2 Likes
D3 sold 30 million but was available on multiple platforms. D2 was only available on PC. If D2R was only available on PC, I wonder if it would have sold a million.
However, I get the crux of what youâre saying and youâre not wrong.
1 Like
I imagine that it wouldâve sold around the same as the original. While some people werenât interested in D2 Iâm sure some people wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Just to be safe I assume this numbers are equal but yeah, we donât have any way to know exactly.
lol Iâm picturing some newer age gamer who heard several times âThis is the Diablo gold standardâ and running off to buy D2R and going âwtf is this 
? What do you do after you beat the game?..â
1 Like
âWhereâs new game +??? I thought this game was good? Freakin boomers donât know anything.â
1 Like
Of course it doesnât belong in a Diablo game. Imagine walking into the rogue encampment meeting with Deckard Cain and then heading over to Charsi where she tells you the newly built mechs are ready where your climb in one and head to the Den of Evil. It would pretty much ruin the feel of the game completely.
But this isnât actually Diablo. Itâs just a company that bought the license. These games are their own thing. You have to let go of the Diablo franchise getting new games. Yes it has the same name, but look, the developers donât even know how to play the game. They just smash the basic attack button over and over again as if itâs the first time theyâre seeing it. We have video of this. In fact I thought it was a great video to put out. That alone says something.
They donât know whatâs going on. Iâm sure theyâre fine people, but theyâre not Diablo fans. They think mechs are a great idea.
Just let go of the idea that the Diablo franchise is continuing. These are new games that just share the name. Think of it that way and itâs perfectly fine.
Maybe this new game will be interesting.
lol sounds mean but Iâd bet money itâs happened