on the topic of Diablo III, that is. A month since the release, M has already stated the moment she completed the game, on how ridiculous the plot is.
Don't get me wrong, M is still playing the game, mostly because I've fallen in love with the Demon Hunter class, and dying infinite times trying to kill Belial in Inferno gets my blood boiling and my stubbornness-to-refuse-to-admit defeat going.
But I still hate the plot to bits, and recently, while surfing the forums, I came across a gem of a post. The writer is a man, (or a woman) after my own heart. The only reason I am re-posting this here is, whatever I wanted to say (or flame) about Diablo's pathetic story writing, has been very articulately expressed in here. (And W will get a kick out of reading this I think.) Warning, epic but long post, ahead:
Quote:
WhoaFoogles: The story of Diablo 3 has received a lot of criticism for both its actual content and writing and for its presentation (e.g. intrusive cutscenes and linear "on rails" progression). I love the game, but must admit some heavy disappointment when it came to furthering and enriching the lore of the Diablo universe.
What lessons have you learned from the backlash that you plan to apply to D3's expansions or further games in the franchise (or even other Blizzard titles)?
Jay Wilson: We answered this question in other threads, but the recap is: we disagree and have gotten mostly great feedback on the story.
Unquote.
I submit the following not as an angry tirade; but as an attempt to breach the smug, self-satisfied attitude of Blizzard that Diablo 3 is perfection realized.
If they're going to assert that legitimate critics of the game do not exist or are a chronically plaintive minority, I would like to counter.
An open letter to: Jay Wilson, Chris Metzen, D3 writers, et al.
Mr. Wilson, I have to seriously disagree with your conveniently self-aggrandizing public position. If, perhaps, you were actually disappointed with the poor quality of your work, would you have the presence of mind to defy your marketing dept. for the sake of honesty? Personally, I doubt that.
Most writers of any measurable caliber have significant personal insecurities about their work -- as such they are their own most vicious critic. Diametrically, I've found that the worst/most poorly written/unimaginative/cliché works are often submitted by individuals with a flawlessly hyper-inflated self opinion of their efforts. This is best described by the Dunning-Kruger effect.
[Excerpt from Wikipedia]
Kruger and Dunning proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they can be trained to
substantially improve.
[/copypaste]
The irony here is that, should such a cognitive bias actually be affecting your judgement, by its very nature you would be nearly incapable of being galvanized into self-realization.
While I could certainly spend some many, many pages caustically dissecting the dozens of individual failures in the story, I will attempt to be somewhat terse and laconic. Behold my endless diatribe.
Tone:
The tone implied by previous installations of the series (which, might I add, are
also mechanically superior) has always been characteristically Gothic. This is easily
evidenced by the art direction. The musical composition is heavily influenced by
Gothic era northern European orchestration. The chronological setting and obvious
derivations from roman-catholic mythology -- specifically that of John Milton and
[an obtusely literal misinterpretation of] Dante Alighieri -- point to a narrow band of
human history.
The failure here begins with the fact that it's a linear story that has, until now, maintained
an overall commitment to a dark and serious aesthetic that is both Gothic in theme and
tonality. Diablo 3 breaks this form. It seems to be ambivalent or confused as to whether
it should maintain its own mythological ambiance or make hundreds of cheap, stupid
puns, anachronistic pop-culture references, obnoxious swagger, and exploitation of
trite contemporary action movie clichés -- and that barely even scratches the surface.
At the very least breaks canon in tone and theme. Never break canon.
Parenthetically, I am aware of the couple tongue-in-cheek jokes in the previous Diablo
titles, but where those work and these do not, lay in subtlety and the nature of tongue-
in-cheek -- the ability to parody ones own seriousness. The "levity" in D3 has all the
refinement, subtlety and wit necessary to entertain an illiterate, homophobic,
pre-pubescent, mic spamming, XBOX fan-boy. A demographic who's brow is
as low as your bar. The very same demographic which has provided approx. 70% of
positive-bias feedback on D3 via mutilated grammar and flaming -- that is if your own
forums are any kind of yardstick in this matter.
The undercurrents of the story feel sloppy and inconsistent, as if a bunch of first draft
ideas were thrown in for filler material without the polish and attention to integral
consistency you would expect from a talented author. This turbulence has the effect of
disconnecting the reader. There is literally no suspension of disbelief at all.
Characters:
The player is here under somewhat ambiguous reasons, but that can be good since it
leaves it open to the player to create their own backstory. One of the fundamental
requirements is that the character does not behave in a way that breaks this image.
It's quickly revealed, however, that all the player characters are conceited, unlikable
cliché caricatures. What if my character was supposed to be guile incarnate, not an
arrogant child?
An important thing to note here is that the story that plays out is a journey of events,
not of the player, characters or heroes. The half-attempt to 'flesh-out' the heroes against
this backdrop only succeeds in juxtapositioning them against it.
It's not much to venture a guess at what kind of mind wrote this dialogue, as one writes
only that which one knows. The NPC dialogue/monologue is the worst aspect of the story,
hands-down. It's expositional, hackneyed, trite, cliché, obvious, adolescent, inarticulate,
naïve... even poorly voiced. It's like a terrible actor who cant stop staring at the camera.
The characters that the player interacts with are so single-dimensional and transparent
it feels almost like you are talking to a tape deck or a chatbot.
The more "epic" the dialogue theme becomes, the more it sounds like pseudo-intellectual
trailer-trash pretentiousness. The plain reality is that the story is only as epic as your
typical Saturday morning installment of He-Man vs. Skeletor et al. Epic Fail, in the
parlance of our time.
***READER ALERT: SPOILERS***
Derivations and Mythology:
It's beyond obvious that the game's universe is primarily based on Judeo-Christian
mythology. But it's extremely unevenly applied. Abstract concepts are taken from this
mythology and used in an implicitly identical context, but are missing integral and defining
components from the universe that need to exist to give the concept any meaning at all.
Whether directly or indirectly, you've based the game's lore largely off of Milton, but you
seem to have a great deal of confusion about the nature of hell, domains, devils and
demons.
We already know Belial is probably the worst liar in the universe, but how is his domain
made manifest for his encounter? Are all the poison and snakes a judeo-christian
mythological allegory based on the Edenian legend? If so, was it not Diablo [Read: Satan]
that took the form of a snake and lied to Eve. Would it not be then, Diablo who is
Lord of Lies?
According to Judeo-Christian mythology, Satan/Diablo and all his bretheren were angels
that sought freedom from god's tyranny. Being that angels had consciousness, but lacked
free will, they became envious of mankind's ability to choose their own destiny. The
angels postulated their own free will by merely conceiving of it. It is at this moment, for
the first time ever the concept of 'sin' is created and defined. Sin is essentially a defiance
of god's will by desiring personal freedom over immortal slavery. It is in the Miltonian
legend that sin becomes a living personification of this aspect of consciousness in the
heavenly idiom, thus [she] is an angel as well.
Diablo/Satan plot to overthrow god, only because they know that god will not allow their
freedom. Of course, against the omnipotence of a monotheistic god, they fail to achieve
victory. Thus god creates hell as a domain of eternal torture and banishes
Satan/Diablo, Sin and all their co-conspirators to that place. The angels banished by god
have 'fallen out of the grace of god', hence the term 'fallen angel' a.k.a. devil.
The exiled angels/devils are spread out over hell and tied to various forms of sadistic
torture for eternity. After many aeons, some of them manage to free themselves from
their bonds and quickly discover that they are not alone. Terrible creatures exist in this
domain that are living (unliving?) embodiments of pain, fear, malice, etc. -- creatures
created by god for the sole and dedicated purpose of terrorizing and harming the fallen
angels/devils. These creatures are known as demons.
As you can probably see right away that devils and demons are pretty antithetical
concepts. One can't help but notice there is some massive confusion in the game about
this, esp. of Act IV. Many of the elements of the story fail on this basis alone. For
example, we see enemies in Act IV named "Fallen Angel" which are categorically listed
as "Demon" by presence of Diablo's influence. How does one influence a being
[read: angel] that lacks the freedom of choice into becoming an abomination created by
an angry god, who's sole purpose is to terrorize the very creature they are acting in
accord with? According to the mythology that you've inaccurately plaigarized, this is
impossible. The only thing that defines divinity in this matter is that the angels that do
exist, exist because they are extentions of god's will, physically incapable of any kind of
defiance of nature.
The diminutive structure of power in hell is primarilty an ancient Roman amalgamation of
Greek polytheistic mythology and Judeo-Christian monotheistic mythology. The reasons
for this subdivision of power are endemically human and almost entirely cryptopolitical,
esp. as evidenced by Virgil, Dante and Milton -- thus we see obvious historical derivation
taking place.
Mythologically speaking, Diablo's purpose for helping in part to create organization in hell
was for the purposes of formulating and executing an escape plan from the realm of
eternal torture and to return to heaven, where they could once again experience
happiness and serenity forever. The motivations of the story's antagonists are
contradictory, unfaceted, shallow and completely unbelievable. Nothing in the
history of the known universe operates on the principal of evil-for-the-sake-of-evil.
Nothing. No writer worth his salt exploits this.
It is perhaps one of the worst things a writer can possibly do to create a character that
lacks purpose other than to serve as a plot device. Why would he destroy his own
paradise and fill it with devices of his own torment? The fact that you've plagiarised this
story, but managed to entirely miss the integral motivations that set all events in motion
is unforgivable as a writer. Honestly, Mr. Metzen, you should be fired for this.
[I could really write a book here, but I'll move on...]
Act I:
This is perhaps the most auspicious point of the story if you manage to disregard all the
kitsch elements within it. It almost seems to have potential before it starts building too
much downhill speed. We're introduced to familiar territory and begin the segue from D2
to D3 without too much painful exposition yet.
Where Act I starts to backslide is when you meet "The Stranger" and the challenge of
immediately figuring out that it's actually Tyrael is insultingly obvious to anyone with an
I.Q. over 90. The narrative hook you needed to create at this point fails critically.
Readers/players need to be drawn in by genuine intrigue created through intimation and
negative information, not common media tropes. This is simply too obvious. Obvious and
lazy. I really shouldn't need to explain further than that.
Clearly it was intended to be a triumphant and evocative moment as Tyrael's identity is
revealed, but since he's about as well disguised as Superman.... well it's only expected.
I'm sure you thought you were giving people what you think they want to see, but
in that regard you end up being another Michael Bay working in the video game idiom.
Worse is the persistent reaction to Cain's death by Leah. I think a Honey Badger would
have given more #@&%s. Leah watches her only known surviving family get tortured
and murdered, leaving her an orphan -- and she barely notices for the rest of the story.
It's like Cain's murder was thrown in as an afterthought halfway through. The characters
feel about as emotionally connected as an ant farm. A good writer understands the
complexity and nature of the human condition by drawing upon and understanding their
own psychology -- this exhibits none of that. Here the plot is driven by topological need
for establishment of progressive penultimate confrontation. Callow.
As the player progresses through the act, the linearizing effect the *!@#ty expositional
cutscenes starts to take its toll and starts to make it feel like your on rails, jumping
through hoops just to receive a condescending pat on the head. Who came up with
this horrible idea anyway? It's like you guys have never read a book in your adult lives
that wasn't a Harry Potter novel or your own self-aggrandized authoring.
I'll skip a bit since it's the same trope/motif/cliché played out ad nauseam. So... Butcher?
Honestly, Butcher is one of the more interesting bossfights, despite not actually being
difficult on any setting. I'm not predisposed to hate him, but isn't this a little too
convenient? Surely this counts as being a bit too crass-wards of a wink and nod. Is this
a reboot of Diablo, or are you just wheeling out the presumed croud-pleasing cameos like
a dying variety show? Leoric and Izual are cases of this. Has your collective imagination
become so inept? Maybe Cher will do a walk-on in the expansion. One of the problems
with the impermanence of death of these characters, is that it creates conflict as to
whether you've done anything at all story-wise. If you're going to do this at all, it had
better be part of an interesting arc, not just lazily justified. Are we to believe that all
'butcher demons' are called 'The Butcher' and, at the moment of their creation they are
all given a post-hypnotic suggestion to say "Ah, fresh meat!" at the first sight of someone
auspicious enough to possibly qualify as a protagonist?
"Vegetable bad! Meat good!"
I submit the above quote as evidence towards the Dunning-Kruger effect theory.
Seriously? Are you actually five years old or just developmentally disabled?
Act I punches out on a cutscene that must embarrass your animators for having so many
inconsistencies and proportion problems. Like how Leah can't wrap her hand around
even one of Tyrael's mammoth tree-trunk fingers. The content itself is a fairly common
trope and not unexpected, but compared to the rest of the animated expositions and
crap dialogue, I felt a surge of optimism pressing forward into Act II.
Act II:
Much of what I have to say about Act II has been articulated well in this post that
is well worth the read:
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5150111877
So, here Maghda is surprised to have been lied to by the Lord of Lies. You do realize
that the goal is to provide literary substance for the sake of the reader, not the sake
of the fictional antagonists? Meaning you have to surprise the reader, not the characters.
This just feels amateur, and if it was intended to be 'poetic justice' that's just so boringly
cliché that it should be criminal.
From the moment the 'Emperor' approaches you -- everybody -- you, your character,
Leah, Adria, Tyrael, your companions.... everybody... sees through this. It is thoroughly
foreshadowed. Even the tone of the emperor's voice inflects a child lying. You may as
well have had a popup window at that point that says: "Oh, BTW, that kid is lying and is
actually Belial, the Lord of Lies. Click OK to continue."
Could you have foreshadowed Zoltun Kulle a little less as well? We're warned over and
over about being betrayed by his megalomania, such that one goes in with little interest
in the story since we already know the outcome that will play out in less than 30-40
minutes.
Another point to be made here is that the whole Black Soulstone being filled with the souls
of the primary Lords of Hell. This basically constitutes pulling a rabbit out of a hat. It's
bad magic and it's bad storytelling. You should never get halfway through a story and
then say "oh, yeah, a whole bunch of stuff happened at some point that doesn't make a
whole lot of sense, but it turns out that it's now a major plot device. Just thought I'd tell
you."
So Adria supposedly gained access to the Black Soulstone in Kulle's lair at some point in
the last 20 years, after meeting Aiden/Diablo and presumably after giving birth to Leah.
She then proceeds to search the earth, casting Soul Trap on the other Lords of Hell. Since
Adria has pledged her loyalty to the Lord of Tear-roar[sic], and since it was Diablo's wish
to free his brothers why wouldn't she have freed Baal then and there as per Diablo's
wishes?
Should we instead believe that Adria pwnd her way through Travincal, entered the
Durance of Hate, snuck up on Mephisto and cast a lv99 Soul Trap on him? She then found
and entered the true Tomb of Tal Rasha with a fully assembled Horadric Staff (which she
presumably constructed with an Horodric Cube), broke down the wall and sprinkled pixie
dust on the soulstone in Tal Rasha's chest, walked away, repaired the wall and broke the
Horadric Staff back into two pieces and hid them.
One has to ask how Adria could have accomplished this incredible feat before
Aiden/Diablo, who, left to seek out his brothers (Baal and Mephisto) before Adria did.
Esp. since Adria has recently become pregnant, giving Aiden/Diablo a 9 month start.
When Aiden/Diablo finally liberates Tal Rasha/Baal (thanks to the help of Marius) Baal
flees with Diablo. Adria is not in their company, meaning she had to have found him prior.
Chronologically speaking, Adria's plan involves the allegience to Diablo formed though her
contact with Aiden, after Diablo was destroyed. Adria would have to had fully conceived
her plot before Aiden leaves Tristram. About this time Adria became pregnant by Aiden
as part of the plan to use her child as a vessel for Diablo's eventual reincarnation. Adria,
having foreknowledge of the coming 'demonic' invasion leaves for Caldeum. Meanwhile,
Aiden becomes the Dark Wanderer and the 'demonic hordes' begin to follow in his wake.
It is at this point that Diablo 2 begins with the hero chasing Aiden as he leaves Tristram,
immediately bound for Lut Gholein, seeking to free Baal from Tal Rasha's tomb.
Now here's the tricky part: Nine months after moving to Caldeum -- BUT, before
Aiden/Wanderer finds either of his brothers, Adria casts Lv.99 Soul Trap on Baal and
Mephisto. Adria's whereabouts are accounted for while pregnant, but somehow, while
pregnant, without leaving Caldeum -- Adria manages to beat Aiden, Marius and the hero
to the punch, while leaving no evidence of her presence.
We know that this cannot occur after the events of D2 since the hero takes the soul/spirit
of Mephisto and Diablo with him after their defeat and Baal takes his own soulstone with
him to Arreat. In D2, both Diablo's and Mephisto's soulstones are destroyed at the
Hellforge. In LoD, Baal can be seen wearing his on his ascent of Mt. Arreat cinematic, and
it is visibly worn by Baal during the final battle.
Once Tyreal destroys the worldstone, it no longer matters, as the soulstones were tied to
the power of the worldstone anyway. Additionally, the black soulstone was created during
a time when the worldstone existed, it's not unreasonable to expect that it, too, should
suffer a loss of functionality.
What the author has done here is assert highly implausible changes to the story simply
on the basis that there's no way to disprove it empirically. In effect, this is considered
cheating your way out of a corner. It's a sign of poor planning -- forcing an idea into a
story for lack of organic progression.
In no respect is Belial a proficient liar. Not as evidenced by the story or encounter. After
the Belial boss-fight encounter, we're left with no destruction or body. It could be inferred
that the fight was an illusion and Belial escaped into an over-used comicbook cliché. This
does not constitute lying by the way. If Belial's power is to be defined by creating a
single dangerous illusion, we could posit that the Wizard's capacity for creating
near-infinite illusionary selves puts her in line to usurp the title of Lord of Lies.
Act III:
Azmodan, the Lord of Sin, and supposed 'Master Tactician', completely fails as a
tactician. Sun Tzu, he is not. He fails not against superior tactics, cunning or strategem,
but against a single person (canon) who casually facerolls his/her way down the train
tracks in plain sight. Azmodan is aware of the hero's location at all times, yet is
completely helpless against the mindless, linear, brute force approach of a single person.
I found a book/note/journal that was from Azzy addressed to his minions, informing them
of the secret plan to secretly invade the keep while you are distracted. Azmodan, in his
infinite tactical wisdom, immediately tells the hero about it. Pride is a fool's fortress, no?
I'd like ponder for a moment the notion of the Lord of Sin taking the time to type out
orders and courier them off to the clearly highly regimented army of randomly generated
monsters. Does Azzy have his own personal secretary for this kind of work, or is he the
hands-on kind of boss who prefers to do this sort of thing himself? I have been yet unable
to find a typewriter in Azmodan's executive suite. Given that he can astral project his
ugly face seemingly anywhere, you might assume he'd have moved beyond paper
memos. He's also more literate and linguistically proficient than you'd expect, putting
most... err... all Facebook users to shame.
Here we again have the old saturday morning cartoon/comicbook tropes exploited by an
antagonist with no apparent depth or plausible motivations. He keeps directly announcing
his plans to the hero every step of the way. Plans which are easily thwarted by a
completely linear approach outlined by the array of tedious "HAHAHA! you will never
defeat my <blank>!" speeches.
This the Act where it all falls apart, badly. The antagonists spend 95% of their screen
time following the character around posturing dramatically -- not to mention dramatically
overstating their abilities. It's like the dialogue for Azmodan and Cydaea was written by
an immature,egocentric highschool student. The entire story at this point is only on par or
below the typical 'young adult fantasy novel' genre. One could speculate that you (and the
writing staff) are untalented, inexperienced and unimaginative -- or that you think
extremely little of your audience; and, ascribed within the subtext of your work, your
contempt is given form.
Grom is more crass than The Butcher. Seriously? The Lord of Gluttony is a farty sock
puppet with less cunning and physical threat than a dog. You keep using words like 'Lord',
'Devil', Demon', 'Angel' and 'Nephalem' -- and I don't think you actually understand the
implicit meaning.
Cydaea is just another bland cliché antagonist, full of pomp and swagger. Worse, she's
just a crass attempt to mix in a little sex in the worst, most stale and hackneyed way
possible. Who actually wrote her script? Certainly the marketing dept. told you the
archetype was necessary to appeal to the pre-pubescent hordes of potential customers
who's minds are easily clouded by a little sexual suggestion. I'm sure fewer words were
used, but did they hold a gun to your heads on this? Did nobody denounce is as
transparent, inartistic sexual pandering?
Lolth is also a female spider-queen from a different series, but the her legend is not
propagated via sexualization, but rather by being cruel, discompassionate, selfish and
sociopathic. She's also iconically powerful -- quite unlike the chatty blood-balloon in D3.
Azmodan's encounter is difficult to fathom, because one must ask: 'How does one make
manifest the dominion of going against the will of a tyrannical god [read: sin]?' Being that
'sin' is clearly a concept taken endemically from Judeo-Christian mythology that defies
all other definition, how is this supposed to have a meaningful impact on a story that only
implies the existance of the eponymous mythological god? Is it to be inferred that Azzy's
super secret wonder-twin power is to defy the will of a figure not even present in the
game?
I think I need a while to let that sink in...
Act IV:
Lets be extra terse on this chapter. The hackneyed dialogue, cliché plot points, needless
boss-fight exposition, gratuitous action-movie screenplay effects, cutscenes, cutscenes
and more cutscenes swirl into a quickening tornado that beckons players to to just close
their eyes, rip off the bandage and have done with it as quickly as possible. Taking your
time with something this bad only hurts more.
Notable points this chapter:
- Everything you expect to happen going into this chapter, does.
- Minibosses = "HARHARHAHR! I am an evil monstaarr! You will never..." <splat>
<shrug> <proceed>
- Books/journals about that are 100% about flavour text and nothing about developing a
richer universe or story.
- Diablo has $%^-.
- Diablo has wide, child-bearing hips.
- Diablo has firm, round, peachy buttocks (a.k.a. Dat *!@)
- Intrusive cutscenes.
- ^
- All the immortal creatures of heaven seem to enjoy following you around instructing you
on how best to save their collective #$%^-*!@#s.
- Diablo is telepathic.
- Heaven is a neoclassical arrangement of bridges built for the sole purpose of supporting
large quantities of vases containing blue water.
- Diablo has $%^-?
- TEAR-ROR!
- Angels are helpless wimps.
We again need to emphasize the fatuous notion that Diablo has been wringing his hands
to destroy the paradise he was banished from, and has sought to return to. What is there
to gain? I think Gargamel had deeper character motivations for antagonism.
Satan/Diablo's only real animosity stretches to the god figure, in that god would never
allow anyone/anything into heaven that was not stripped of free will. The very idea that
Diablo would finally realize his aeon old plan to exist in a state of euphoric bliss, but
promptly go nuts and set it all on fire is without literary merit. This is, as previously
stated, evil-for-the-sake-of-evil. If you cannot understand exactly why that is terrible
writing, allow me to refer you once again to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
What, precisely was his motivation all along? This strikes me as an allegory of King Kong;
where Diablo instead climbs to the top of the highest tower. Trapped with the looming
inevitability of mortal confrontation, he behaves like a frightened animal trapped in a
corner -- that is to say choosing to fight only now that he cannot run further and has no
other options. The Lord of Terror, terrorized by the hero? Thanks, I'll just usurp that
throne as well.
Also, what is going on in heaven anyway? There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of room,
there's no sign of culture or civilization. Aren't the so-called "arch-angels"
HEAVILY personified? They appear to be emotionally human in every way,
shouldn't they have established some kind of self-evident culture and civilization here?
Instead it looks like a tacky neoclassical vatican-themed mall for American mid-western
tourists. It's not esoteric, it lacks purpose. Yet all these books and journals lying around
seem to indicate an effort to bring it to life. Well, Dr. Frankenstein, your experiment has
failed. Insert quarter. It's like polishing ones own feces. No matter how shiny you get it,
it's still compositionally fecal.
Blablabla, TEAR-ROR! Blablabla, TEAR-ROR! Blablabla, TEAR-ROR! Etc...
Epilogue:
So, earlier on, Tyrael explains to the player that he finds mortality invigorating and
meaningful. Apparently a ticking clock counting out maybe, what? Five, Ten more years
before becoming too feeble to wipe himself and eventually dies of prostate cancer? What
does he hope to achieve in that time that he could not better achieve in as long or longer
as an immortal?
In the end, though, Tyrael decides to return to The Holy Pantheon of Water Buckets to....
Get this... Live as a mortal? What? He's going to return to heaven as a mortal? Are you
stoned? How does that even work? Isn't heaven an immortal realm? If someone dies in
heaven, where do they go? You have already established in previous diablo games that
souls are divided amongst heaven and hell after they depart The Great Incoming basket
that is the earth. We've been in hell plenty of times and have seen the damned sould
chained and tortured there. It's in your canon. It's been established that heaven and hell
are the two diametrically opposed afterlife options, with the possibility of purgatory.
So for a champion arch-angel of god, what are the chances of going to heaven when he
dies? Isn't the soul (even by canon) intrinsically immortal? Which is to say that once the
mortal Tyrael 2.0 dies in heaven, he will immediately reappear again as an immortal?
probably in the same spot, as we've seen demonstrated by freeing impaled angel-corpses
in Act IV. In this regard, Tyrael's choice is obviously a logical contradiction.
What. Was. The. Point?
If Tyrael had felt the ticking clock of being mortal was the ONLY possible way to
motivate himself out of bed in the morning, he has some major psychological issues. Esp.
as he is faced with the exact same possibilities and has the time to realize more of them
than any creature on earth. Doesn't he impose himself as a dutiful protector of mankind,
and woudln't suffering a mortal death to nonexistance constitute a breach of duty?
You realize nobody, let me reiterate, nobody wakes up in the morning and says to
themselves:
"Oh boy, I'm going to die in a few years, better get crackin'! Isn't the impending threat of
death an exciting and invigorating reason to be productive?"
I posit as a fact that most people who live day to day, motivated in all things by their
imminent death do NOT live happy, fulfilling lives. They live difficult and depressing lives,
where each year represents a greater amount of soul-crushing mortal fear than the last.
Not too uncommonly, thanatophobic people -- ironically -- self-terminate to avoid the
suffering of fear and depression only to come to similar end. If you're going to write
people, you have to know people. You either know nothing, or you're forced to write
*!@#ty pop-culture kitsch.
We're expected to see Tyrael's choice as heroic and self-sacrificial, but it's logically self
defeating and contradictory. It serves no purpose other than to cheaply evoke emotion
in the reader. It's flawed, illogical, pandering garbage. Please stop writing, you're bloody
terrible at it.
[If anyone read to this point, congratulate yourself on having an above average attention span!]
[Edit: A seemingly benign word I used got caught by the profanity filter for some reason. Removed to fix apparent tone.]
[Additional:]
Based on the excellent feedback I have to assume I did a poor job of explaining my reasons for defining mythical relevance and extrapolation.
My intent was to establish that the lore in the series does not set out to create a completely unique or original universe. This is neither a good nor bad thing in any way, whatsoever. It simply is.
The criticism stems, instead from relying on the reader's foreknowledge of story, events, terminology and characters without explicitly redefining every single element. When you rely on the pre-existing knowledge of an entity/location/object/concept/etc. in the mind of the reader, you're expecting the reader to draw on that implicit information to help you flesh out your story [read: give it shape and meaning].
Now, if you rely on that external knowledge to support your own story structure, then something happens in your story that contradicts the implicit purpose, that element becomes ambiguous, abstract and confusing. Thus, it loses all meaning and purpose. Your universe begins to collapse in on itself.
If you do this without realizing it you're a sloppy author. If you do this and try to retroactively change everything from implicit to explicit, you're a sloppy, terrible writer.
To satirically illustrate, this would be like reading a book about life in a city -- cars, crime, apartments, pollution, the plight of the human condition, etc.. At this point you're expected to know what a car is, lest the story make little-to-no sense. Having this pre-existing knowledge allows you to ken the meaning of the author. The Author relies on it. Suddenly though, hundreds of pages in, the author tells you "oh yeah, btw, cars are giant purple phallic monsters, with teeth made of lasers. Oh, and they love Invader Zim reruns -- that's important to the story."
If I'm still failing credibility here, you might read "How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later" by Philip K. Dick. I'm not half the author he is; and he has street cred in this matter. Word.
The link to the post on the forum is here.
