Why would it look different? How the hell would it look different? Explain that to me.
Wow, you need to simmer down. You're getting too emotional about this. I'm talking about how your character would hold the weapon while a skill is going off. You're not going to hold a wand like a maul when you use a skill, or a two-handed sword like an orb.
NWN had no issue with that. You hold any of those 30 weapons it all looks the same really, the only difference is direction of spell - on you, on target.
Hm, I guess you could contact Blizzard and tell them to take advice from the company behind that game. It might be more productive, although knowing Blizzard's really sad customer service...
Or they could just standardize the animation like NWN did and stop pretending they're somehow better for throwing item variation out the window.
I don't really understand that sentence.
@ SFJake: It's really a poor comparison to equate a 2D and a 3D game, but I'll indulge you, I guess. Casting a spell with a sword in Diablo II was different than with a staff- the weapon, itself, was put in a different position, because you wouldn't hold a sword like a staff while casting the same skill.
Wow, you need to simmer down. You're getting too emotional about this. I'm talking about how your character would hold the weapon while a skill is going off. You're not going to hold a wand like a maul when you use a skill, or a two-handed sword like an orb.
That's related to separate weapon animations per character. This is NOT related to spellcasting while holding a weapon. These animations are very easy to do. This is also not a hard task. You take some weak modelers give them to do this they'll do it in a second. Even if you include skills. You don't even need to bother the main modeler animator, and we know how big the company is. They can find some people to do this.
Quote from "Seth" »
I don't really understand that sentence.
A character in NWN holds certain weapons, such as category of daggers, rapiers, swords, etc, exactly the same, he holds mauls, greataxes, greatswords exactly the same, he holds halberds, two-side axes, spears and greatmaces eactly the same. Similarly, the animation during a cast looks exactly the same regardless of weapon. E.g., instead of wasting time on making varied animations they're one standard used for all.
I am getting emotional, Seth, is because you truly believe they're making it for us, and I'm telling you they're making it for themselves.
And in a comparison between a 2D and a 3D game, everything in 2D is harder to do. Which makes it very sad, on the 3d Game side, if the 2d one achieved more.
A character in NWN holds certain weapons, such as category of daggers, rapiers, swords, etc, exactly the same, he holds mauls, greataxes, greatswords exactly the same, he holds halberds, two-side axes, spears and greatmaces eactly the same. Similarly, the animation during a cast looks exactly the same regardless of weapon. E.g., instead of wasting time on making varied animations they're one standard used for all.
So, for instance, essentially any item in the same item class would be held the same? So it shouldn't be too many things they'd have to account for, anyway. Like, all wands, orbs, I'm guessing, and other like-weapons would be held the same, all staves (or staffs, whichever everyone calls it) would be held the same, most maces and one-hand swords would be held the same... So they would only have to account for about ten or so different weapon positions, depending on the amount of weapons they implement and what kinds.
I'm on the fence on this because in the end one of my favorite parts of Diablo II was being able to mix and match weapons to make an unusual character build.
However, If you look at it in the sense that Diablo II didn't actually have nearly as many individually unique weapons or armor ie: at a certain point no matter how you mixed and matched your character would appear as one of maybe 12-15 pre-rendered variations on a sprite. Similarly with weapons most of them looked the same ie: every long sword looked like a long sword except for different stats. (See Edit at the Bottom)With that said because of the 3d engine I would expect a vast array of quickly identifiable variations that wasn't possible in D2 especially since armor is unrestricted on a per class basis. So there wont be any problem in making your character look different except for a few cross class weapons. As much as it saddens me, thinking about the extreme amount of work that goes into making each and every one of those variable items, anyone can come to the conclusion that Diablo 3 is a huge workload. (See Edit at the Bottom)
I get the sense and in fact have the personal opinion that Blizzard is first and foremost concerned about quality from each of their departments. The animation department by it self would probably prefer that if a character was to enable a drastically different weapon that it have a specific effect on the character as a whole while it fights; from an animators perspective that is the end goal to lend to believability and professionalism in the final product. Specifically if a casting character is holding a two handed weapon (As mentioned in the original response) then all of the 300+ skill animations need to be altered to reflect that change and if you are going to go to the trouble of doing that, your basically going to have to invent a way for a character to look cool casting with an axe which would mean re-working an animation from scratch not just moving a hand over from a pre-existing file. They could do that and the problem would be solved, but would it look right? Would they be satisfied with that or is it better to skip what is reasonable to skip and add to the game in other ways that aren't a compromise in their opinions.
Seeing that there will be likely in the 300+ category of animations for each class that would be 1,500 animations for just the playable characters without weapon variations. Then if there are 1000 monster types with say 20 animations each on them that would be another 20,000 animations for the department. So (Purely guessing at this to make a point the numbers could in the end be more or less for all I know.) that would be a total of 21,500 animations that need to be created in the development cycle. So lets say that Blizzard had 50 people working on animations for D3 that would roughly equal out to 430 animations each. If they did them all perfect the first time and got them approved (Which probably would never happen.) that would take them roughly a year if they completed one and a half-ish each day. Not to mention that they have to add and create particle effects etc. to each skill that requires them. So in the end if they are looking to meet a release date would they really want to go back and then probably more than double their character class animations for the sake of having each class be able to use every weapon in the game? They could cut those down, by letting character classes share animation clips, but would that look right if a Witch Doctor moved like a Barb when carrying a Long sword? Again, if it's not going to be the best it can be why compromise?
Anyway...if you think about it in those terms...it's not something you'd take lightly when managing a games development schedule as well as obviously not being something that can be solved as easily as some may claim. There is always an easy way yes...but is it the right way to make a game?
On top of all this, we know that the game play mechanics will be different for D3 in that we do not individually assign stats to our characters and rather they are upgraded for us as we pick from the now larger skill tree. How can we judge the end product of the game without knowing exactly how it's going to work and playing it hands on. I doubt that the final game will be anything, but up to the high standard we are all expecting.
And in a comparison between a 2D and a 3D game, everything in 2D is harder to do. Which makes it very sad, on the 3d Game side, if the 2d one achieved more.
^Technically speaking D2 was a 3d game in that all the sprites were modeled, animated and rigged in 3d then simply rendered as 2d sprites. It's not that it's easier or harder to do in D2 rather that D2 was far less complex due to the limitations of the time. D3 has a higher bench mark to hit, in order to meet the demands of current gamers. At least in my opinion.
EDIT:
Hmmm...I missed this part:
There still aren't any armor restriction planned. Armor is a different issue as it's shown in much the same was as Diablo II, so more types don't actually increase the animation/modeling costs like weapon types would.
While it doesn't effect the fact that all the animations would have to be altered as I previously figured, that info does change what I thought was a larger workload in modeling each individual armor for game-play.
Now here's one of the biggest problem with Gamers, they think that making a game is soooo easy.
They expect the developers to be som kind of demi-gods!
They are normal people, not some bloody robot that can do anything!
Ask yourself this, can you program? Do you know how to make a smooth animation? No? Thought so.
I don't think its easy. I've done a lot of things here and there, but never progressed nor did I actually got anywhere with them. Point is, despite what you may think, some people have ideas good enough of how things works to pass judgement.
And if Bashiok's statement is not a lie, then he's not saying everything, something that happens very often with him.
And then why would he lie? He's representing one of the richest and most popular game-producing companies in the world. He's probably, like you said, just not saying everything. If he said everything, he would have nothing to say later
First of all theres not only one animation for every weapon. Theres going tio be several axes animation to the simple attack.
Second some skills will have a different animation with different weapon types. Cleaving with a axe and cleaving with a sword is not the same thing.
Third the animations may change when you put a runeword. A cleave with hydra rune and a runeless cleave may have different animations.
Multiply all runewords, all weapon types and all skills and you get a really large number (we don't know the numbers because we have no clue of how much runes and skills we will find). No matter how easy it is, it's a 100% useless work because make a wizard carry a large axe 'round will add nothing to the game. And no matter what, they can allways use this time/work invented in those pointless animation to make more animations to skills and/or runed skills.
Still I think the philosophy of "if something is in the game, it must be usefull in a way or another" plays a big part here. If a class have a skill, it must be usefull. If a class can use that item, it must be usefull. If a class can have +x to some attribute, it must be usefull (thats why they are finding ways to willpower been usefull to barbarian and strength been usefull to wizards and docs). Nothing can make into the game without a reason, a role, a utility. I think thats why they don't want staff barbarians and axe wizards.
I always wanted to have a Barb with claws. It always seemed like it would be satisfying. Hated this in D2, gonna hate it in D3. What's keeping my Barbarian from wearing a wolfskin helmet?! Or using a preserved head as a shield! Nothing! I think they should remove this. Made the game less realistic!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
I think you guys are really taking this WAY too far. From what has been said so far, its going to be pretty obvious things they are preventing.
As Bashiok states:
They're fairly logical choices and what is most commonly seen as closely tied to the hero archetypes. In our current game the wizard can't wield a two-handed sword for instance, but can still use a one handed sword and shield if so desired.
So basically the only thing we won't be able to do is the really silly stuff, which at times was fun but usually not very effective. It is also subject to change... But, bitch on as you like, don't let me stop you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
Wether you think its silly or not isn't the freaking discussion you idiot.
Yes, because name calling is mature. I hope you don't think I am actually offended by that pathetic comment. All I said was the only thing it will prevent is silly combinations that don't fit the character archetypes. Sure, it may have been neat on D2, but its not really going to hurt D3 as bad as you make it out to. Just like half the topics made around here, people turn discussion into a bitch fest. Maybe they will change it, maybe they won't, but if they don't do you really think its going to kill D3? Grow up and get real.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
I'm sorry, i have a hard time understanding what you are talking about. What do you mean with "the simple attack", as in the "normal attack"? And how do you know?
Rewatch the gameplay video. The barbarian have several different animations when attacking with the maul.
Again, i don't know what you're talking about seeing that what you just said seems to be completely irrelevant. (the barbarian CAN use both an axe and sword, right?)
Yes he can. But he can't use a staff and a wand for exemple, so they don't need to creat multiple animations to staff and wand attack. The barbarian is not a good exemple because use many kind of weapon is the nature of the class but think about a WD.
When a spellcster use a spell he have different animation depending on the weapon his using. If he could use axes, sword, etc.. it would force then to creat animations for no good reason since a decent played WD should never use those weapons.
"May have", but you don't know do you? It seems like you're randomly using words in hopes of making a moot point seeing that the barbarian can still use both.
Ow you really get stuck with a exemple do you ? Forget about the damn barbarian and think about all the game classes and weapons.
Some skills requires unic animations when using different weapons, if those skills drastically changes with a rune, they will need a whole set of animations to then. I know "may" menas speculation, but i've the right to speculate as long as I put it clear.
Yes it might be a large number, but the point being that number will barely be larger without class-specific items. (or do they propose making more then half of the weapons class-specific? Because that would seriously suck)
By reading Bashiok's post wow comes to my mind. In WoW theres 12 weapon types and most class use like 4 or 5 weapon types (only warrior can use 10 of then and spellcaster can use 3 of then). Use another game as a exemple is not the best thing to do, i kno, but I believe they are doing something along those lines based at what Bashiok said.
No weapon is completly class specific but the classes also can't use all weapons. The classes can only use the weapons that will be usefull for then. This already decrease the amount of animations to do in a good number.
Nope, it adds variation, its something that affects gameplay.
It only adds variation and affect gameplay if those items are usefull for those characters.
Ah right, including more variation in gameplay and thus a few more animations is pointless compared to cutting down more variation in gameplay and using that time to, um, add in more animations. Makes sense.
Allows the Wizard to use axes and barbarians to use staffs do not add variation because they are naturally bad for those classes. If something is not competitively viable, then it's not usefull and should not be putted in the game.
Yeah and it makes sense. If they use that time to make more animations to runed skills it will surely add more to the game then a barbarian running around with a staff.
Is Blizzard going to dictate to me exactly what will be useful regarding equiping my characters, and forcing me to use it? I mean, Blizzard is already going to dictate me what attributes my characters "MUST" have, wasn't that decision supposedly made to allow for more item customization? Or am i confussion myself with their bollocks now?
Blizzard already dictatet when they asked your sorc to have 250 STR to use a cranium basher but didin't give you a skill that can use all that weapon damage and STR investment.
For me give bad options to the player do not add variety.
Rewatch the gameplay video. The barbarian have several different animations when attacking with the maul.
Most of those animations are skeleton bound, not weapon bound, mind you... making an animation for each skill is, really, unnecessary. I'd rather have my WD with a short sword.
Quote from "italofoca" »
It only adds variation and affect gameplay if those items are usefull for those characters.
This will happen with a proper random item generator.
There has been items in DII that were non-standard yet useful. Even in DII, despite it's lack of a proper set of random unique items. This may not be true about "end game" but Diablo was never about end game that much. WoW is exteremely limited in every single respect, so, yes, in there, pretty much anything out of line is useless, and that's a very bad characteristic of that game. Let's not copy it over to Diablo.
Most of those animations are skeleton bound, not weapon bound, mind you... making an animation for each skill is, really, unnecessary. I'd rather have my WD with a short sword.
This will happen with a proper random item generator.
There has been items in DII that were non-standard yet useful. Even in DII, despite it's lack of a proper set of random unique items. This may not be true about "end game" but Diablo was never about end game that much. WoW is exteremely limited in every single respect, so, yes, in there, pretty much anything out of line is useless, and that's a very bad characteristic of that game. Let's not copy it over to Diablo.
Bashiok already stated that the only thing they have really kicked were ridiculously out of archetype weapon usage. He mentions that a Wizard will no longer have the ability to use a two-handed sword, however a Wizard will be able to use a one handed sword and shield if he or she chooses. Your WD will more than likely be able to use a short sword as you please. Just don't expect to be carrying around "Sin Hammer of Doom".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
lol.. i'm no talking about items it slef, but the utility it bring to certain character.
For exemple, the fact that a necromancer can wield a unic polyaxe brings no diversity to the game, not because polyarms are "non-standart" in D2 but because the necromancer can't make a good use of this item. If he can't make a good use of it, theres no reason to put it in the game is it's cost resourses.
I really don't know what to think about this. I like the ability to have vastly different character builds. For example: tanking sorceress with giant axe vs. spellcasting only sorceress. The only thing that really annoys me is when asked why they won't do something, Bashiok (while not directly) always states "that would be too much work." It's not hard to add animations and script them and add the anim paths. I could have made one in the time I typed this post. We'll just have to see how it works out in the final build...unless they release a playable demo.
What I'm saying, though, a lot of animations for skills would be the same regardless of weapon, lol... It's just a matter of rotating the weapon half the time.
And you don't make decisions like this based on "takes too much time", what have they been doing all this time? A game requires multiple components to work, you can't ditch those components for time reasons or you're going to get Hellgate. It's not an argument. There's nothing I've seen of D3 so far that's so crazy they can't use some amateur animators to create a few weapon swings this and that way. Use motion capture? I don't know.
It's NOT a viable excuse. A company removes features because they think that is best. It doesn't remove features because it lacks time, that's bullshit, not with how long this has been in development and by a company so big. I'm convinced they're doing this to shut the player in a narrow scope of action aka WoW so that he doesn't dare do something out of order so that they don't have to balance all the possible combinations of useful unique non-standard weapons and builds that would occur because of them. This is what they're really doing.
It's NOT a viable excuse. A company removes features because they think that is best. It doesn't remove features because it lacks time, that's bullshit, not with how long this has been in development and by a company so big. I'm convinced they're doing this to shut the player in a narrow scope of action aka WoW so that he doesn't dare do something out of order so that they don't have to balance all the possible combinations of useful unique non-standard weapons and builds that would occur because of them. This is what they're really doing.
It's not a matter of time, it's a matter resources. It can be better used in other stuff.
And i'm not saying that those weapon animations take a huge work to do, even because I don't know that. I'm just saying that no matter how much work it needs it can be allways used in other better stuff.
I would completly agree with you but balance with "off class" weapon sin't needed.
For exemple: they don't need to creat any balance to a maul sorc simply because it's naturally bad. She don't use weapon damage in her skills and mauls don't add +skills to her. Even if the maul is free to use, a sorc would allways make a better use of a staff or a orb because those have the +skill that she needs so much.
Also we just get in another point of bashioks quote. They don't want to creat class restricted mods, like Will Power for wizard and STR for barbarians because it would hurt the itemisation. So if they allowed your Wizard to carry a maul they would have to limit the maul modifiers to allways something with low willpower (to balance with staff) but hurting the barbarian balance in the process.
And it's all a matter of personal view of what a good game is. I don't think it's good and fun have to decide between one good and one bad thing. For me the fun lies in decide between 2 good things and discover in what situations i can maximize their effience and exploit it.
For me the very core of a game quality is the exercise of reverse engineering. If you have two tools to overcome a challenge and already know that one is bad and the other is good, why would you care to use the bad one ?
For me the very core of a game quality is the exercise of reverse engineering. If you have two tools to overcome a challenge and already know that one is bad and the other is good, why would you care to use the bad one ?
I dont know maybe because I find it more fun/interesting/challenging. In my opinion the limitations are unnecessary.
I dont know maybe because I find it more fun/interesting/challenging. In my opinion the limitations are unnecessary.
How the hell are you gonna ever gonna play Diablo 3, let alone know the difference? Your deaf, dumb, and blind Tommy!
Sorry, bad reference. Anyhow, if you really need to challenge yourself by putting a two-hander on your spell caster or a staff on your Barb, you really need to play more. There are plenty of ways to challenge yourself without using completely stupid weapon choices. I would much rather challenge myself by rushing ahead to fight higher level monsters and bosses than carry around a completely pointless weapon.
Not only that, as a Wizard or Witch Doctor, your probably never going to have the strength or dexterity necessary to wield a two-hander close to your level with the auto-stat system anyhow (assuming weapons still have strength/dext requirements and not straight up level reqs). If we could choose stats, maybe, but not with auto-stat, I can almost guarantee it. It would be beyond the point of being a challenge.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no stupid questions, just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.
Alright, let's put it this way and make it simpler since noone can acurately tell how much more work it would require (1 year or 1 week) to make these animations possible.
We got two sides.
1)People who play games for a purpose (majority) and on a competitive level to some extent.(PvP)
2)People who play games out of boredom(who like dumb ass variations just for the sake of doing dumb ass shit) and who play the game periodically (Normal Difficulty) and eventually either give up playing it, or switch to the other group and stop doing dumb ass shit to play on a more competitive level.
Honestly, I do really sympathize with the second group in the fact that they will be forgotten, but seriously, I couldn't give a rat's ass. I've tried off builds, and Blizzard have definately tried them and taken them into account and quickly realized that they were useless. So did I, took me about 3 hours, or the completion of act 1.
(yeah, the second group will argue forever that it added variety.(Since it's the only point they can argue on) Remember though, variety can be created by anything. You could make monsters have relationships with characters too, that would be variety, and be able to raise your pet fallen.
However Blizzard (like many players) hope that variety doesn't come in the form of useless shit to do in D3. Instead actually giving us usefull skills/graphics/gameplay.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Diablo 3, Hottest shit to happen to 21st Century Entertainment since Georges "Rush" St-Pierre.______________ --------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums -------- Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wow, you need to simmer down. You're getting too emotional about this. I'm talking about how your character would hold the weapon while a skill is going off. You're not going to hold a wand like a maul when you use a skill, or a two-handed sword like an orb.
Hm, I guess you could contact Blizzard and tell them to take advice from the company behind that game. It might be more productive, although knowing Blizzard's really sad customer service...
I don't really understand that sentence.
@ SFJake: It's really a poor comparison to equate a 2D and a 3D game, but I'll indulge you, I guess. Casting a spell with a sword in Diablo II was different than with a staff- the weapon, itself, was put in a different position, because you wouldn't hold a sword like a staff while casting the same skill.
A character in NWN holds certain weapons, such as category of daggers, rapiers, swords, etc, exactly the same, he holds mauls, greataxes, greatswords exactly the same, he holds halberds, two-side axes, spears and greatmaces eactly the same. Similarly, the animation during a cast looks exactly the same regardless of weapon. E.g., instead of wasting time on making varied animations they're one standard used for all.
I am getting emotional, Seth, is because you truly believe they're making it for us, and I'm telling you they're making it for themselves.
And in a comparison between a 2D and a 3D game, everything in 2D is harder to do. Which makes it very sad, on the 3d Game side, if the 2d one achieved more.
Yeah, that does make sense...
So, for instance, essentially any item in the same item class would be held the same? So it shouldn't be too many things they'd have to account for, anyway. Like, all wands, orbs, I'm guessing, and other like-weapons would be held the same, all staves (or staffs, whichever everyone calls it) would be held the same, most maces and one-hand swords would be held the same... So they would only have to account for about ten or so different weapon positions, depending on the amount of weapons they implement and what kinds.
Am I getting it straight?
However, If you look at it in the sense that Diablo II didn't actually have nearly as many individually unique weapons or armor ie: at a certain point no matter how you mixed and matched your character would appear as one of maybe 12-15 pre-rendered variations on a sprite. Similarly with weapons most of them looked the same ie: every long sword looked like a long sword except for different stats. (See Edit at the Bottom)With that said because of the 3d engine I would expect a vast array of quickly identifiable variations that wasn't possible in D2 especially since armor is unrestricted on a per class basis. So there wont be any problem in making your character look different except for a few cross class weapons. As much as it saddens me, thinking about the extreme amount of work that goes into making each and every one of those variable items, anyone can come to the conclusion that Diablo 3 is a huge workload. (See Edit at the Bottom)
I get the sense and in fact have the personal opinion that Blizzard is first and foremost concerned about quality from each of their departments. The animation department by it self would probably prefer that if a character was to enable a drastically different weapon that it have a specific effect on the character as a whole while it fights; from an animators perspective that is the end goal to lend to believability and professionalism in the final product. Specifically if a casting character is holding a two handed weapon (As mentioned in the original response) then all of the 300+ skill animations need to be altered to reflect that change and if you are going to go to the trouble of doing that, your basically going to have to invent a way for a character to look cool casting with an axe which would mean re-working an animation from scratch not just moving a hand over from a pre-existing file. They could do that and the problem would be solved, but would it look right? Would they be satisfied with that or is it better to skip what is reasonable to skip and add to the game in other ways that aren't a compromise in their opinions.
Seeing that there will be likely in the 300+ category of animations for each class that would be 1,500 animations for just the playable characters without weapon variations. Then if there are 1000 monster types with say 20 animations each on them that would be another 20,000 animations for the department. So (Purely guessing at this to make a point the numbers could in the end be more or less for all I know.) that would be a total of 21,500 animations that need to be created in the development cycle. So lets say that Blizzard had 50 people working on animations for D3 that would roughly equal out to 430 animations each. If they did them all perfect the first time and got them approved (Which probably would never happen.) that would take them roughly a year if they completed one and a half-ish each day. Not to mention that they have to add and create particle effects etc. to each skill that requires them. So in the end if they are looking to meet a release date would they really want to go back and then probably more than double their character class animations for the sake of having each class be able to use every weapon in the game? They could cut those down, by letting character classes share animation clips, but would that look right if a Witch Doctor moved like a Barb when carrying a Long sword? Again, if it's not going to be the best it can be why compromise?
Anyway...if you think about it in those terms...it's not something you'd take lightly when managing a games development schedule as well as obviously not being something that can be solved as easily as some may claim. There is always an easy way yes...but is it the right way to make a game?
On top of all this, we know that the game play mechanics will be different for D3 in that we do not individually assign stats to our characters and rather they are upgraded for us as we pick from the now larger skill tree. How can we judge the end product of the game without knowing exactly how it's going to work and playing it hands on. I doubt that the final game will be anything, but up to the high standard we are all expecting.
^Technically speaking D2 was a 3d game in that all the sprites were modeled, animated and rigged in 3d then simply rendered as 2d sprites. It's not that it's easier or harder to do in D2 rather that D2 was far less complex due to the limitations of the time. D3 has a higher bench mark to hit, in order to meet the demands of current gamers. At least in my opinion.
EDIT:
Hmmm...I missed this part:
Source
While it doesn't effect the fact that all the animations would have to be altered as I previously figured, that info does change what I thought was a larger workload in modeling each individual armor for game-play.
>{Dynasty DiabloFans Thread}<
Artist Portfolio: http://www.JonathanSabella.com
I don't think its easy. I've done a lot of things here and there, but never progressed nor did I actually got anywhere with them. Point is, despite what you may think, some people have ideas good enough of how things works to pass judgement.
And if Bashiok's statement is not a lie, then he's not saying everything, something that happens very often with him.
Second some skills will have a different animation with different weapon types. Cleaving with a axe and cleaving with a sword is not the same thing.
Third the animations may change when you put a runeword. A cleave with hydra rune and a runeless cleave may have different animations.
Multiply all runewords, all weapon types and all skills and you get a really large number (we don't know the numbers because we have no clue of how much runes and skills we will find). No matter how easy it is, it's a 100% useless work because make a wizard carry a large axe 'round will add nothing to the game. And no matter what, they can allways use this time/work invented in those pointless animation to make more animations to skills and/or runed skills.
Still I think the philosophy of "if something is in the game, it must be usefull in a way or another" plays a big part here. If a class have a skill, it must be usefull. If a class can use that item, it must be usefull. If a class can have +x to some attribute, it must be usefull (thats why they are finding ways to willpower been usefull to barbarian and strength been usefull to wizards and docs). Nothing can make into the game without a reason, a role, a utility. I think thats why they don't want staff barbarians and axe wizards.
Here's to hoping His Noodly Appendage touches you and may His Sauce rain down upon you,
-GM
RAmen
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: www.venganza.org
As Bashiok states:
So basically the only thing we won't be able to do is the really silly stuff, which at times was fun but usually not very effective. It is also subject to change... But, bitch on as you like, don't let me stop you.
Yes, because name calling is mature. I hope you don't think I am actually offended by that pathetic comment. All I said was the only thing it will prevent is silly combinations that don't fit the character archetypes. Sure, it may have been neat on D2, but its not really going to hurt D3 as bad as you make it out to. Just like half the topics made around here, people turn discussion into a bitch fest. Maybe they will change it, maybe they won't, but if they don't do you really think its going to kill D3? Grow up and get real.
Yes he can. But he can't use a staff and a wand for exemple, so they don't need to creat multiple animations to staff and wand attack. The barbarian is not a good exemple because use many kind of weapon is the nature of the class but think about a WD.
When a spellcster use a spell he have different animation depending on the weapon his using. If he could use axes, sword, etc.. it would force then to creat animations for no good reason since a decent played WD should never use those weapons.
Ow you really get stuck with a exemple do you ? Forget about the damn barbarian and think about all the game classes and weapons.
Some skills requires unic animations when using different weapons, if those skills drastically changes with a rune, they will need a whole set of animations to then. I know "may" menas speculation, but i've the right to speculate as long as I put it clear.
By reading Bashiok's post wow comes to my mind. In WoW theres 12 weapon types and most class use like 4 or 5 weapon types (only warrior can use 10 of then and spellcaster can use 3 of then). Use another game as a exemple is not the best thing to do, i kno, but I believe they are doing something along those lines based at what Bashiok said.
No weapon is completly class specific but the classes also can't use all weapons. The classes can only use the weapons that will be usefull for then. This already decrease the amount of animations to do in a good number.
It only adds variation and affect gameplay if those items are usefull for those characters.
Allows the Wizard to use axes and barbarians to use staffs do not add variation because they are naturally bad for those classes. If something is not competitively viable, then it's not usefull and should not be putted in the game.
Yeah and it makes sense. If they use that time to make more animations to runed skills it will surely add more to the game then a barbarian running around with a staff.
Blizzard already dictatet when they asked your sorc to have 250 STR to use a cranium basher but didin't give you a skill that can use all that weapon damage and STR investment.
For me give bad options to the player do not add variety.
This will happen with a proper random item generator.
There has been items in DII that were non-standard yet useful. Even in DII, despite it's lack of a proper set of random unique items. This may not be true about "end game" but Diablo was never about end game that much. WoW is exteremely limited in every single respect, so, yes, in there, pretty much anything out of line is useless, and that's a very bad characteristic of that game. Let's not copy it over to Diablo.
Bashiok already stated that the only thing they have really kicked were ridiculously out of archetype weapon usage. He mentions that a Wizard will no longer have the ability to use a two-handed sword, however a Wizard will be able to use a one handed sword and shield if he or she chooses. Your WD will more than likely be able to use a short sword as you please. Just don't expect to be carrying around "Sin Hammer of Doom".
For exemple, the fact that a necromancer can wield a unic polyaxe brings no diversity to the game, not because polyarms are "non-standart" in D2 but because the necromancer can't make a good use of this item. If he can't make a good use of it, theres no reason to put it in the game is it's cost resourses.
And you don't make decisions like this based on "takes too much time", what have they been doing all this time? A game requires multiple components to work, you can't ditch those components for time reasons or you're going to get Hellgate. It's not an argument. There's nothing I've seen of D3 so far that's so crazy they can't use some amateur animators to create a few weapon swings this and that way. Use motion capture? I don't know.
It's NOT a viable excuse. A company removes features because they think that is best. It doesn't remove features because it lacks time, that's bullshit, not with how long this has been in development and by a company so big. I'm convinced they're doing this to shut the player in a narrow scope of action aka WoW so that he doesn't dare do something out of order so that they don't have to balance all the possible combinations of useful unique non-standard weapons and builds that would occur because of them. This is what they're really doing.
It's not a matter of time, it's a matter resources. It can be better used in other stuff.
And i'm not saying that those weapon animations take a huge work to do, even because I don't know that. I'm just saying that no matter how much work it needs it can be allways used in other better stuff.
I would completly agree with you but balance with "off class" weapon sin't needed.
For exemple: they don't need to creat any balance to a maul sorc simply because it's naturally bad. She don't use weapon damage in her skills and mauls don't add +skills to her. Even if the maul is free to use, a sorc would allways make a better use of a staff or a orb because those have the +skill that she needs so much.
Also we just get in another point of bashioks quote. They don't want to creat class restricted mods, like Will Power for wizard and STR for barbarians because it would hurt the itemisation. So if they allowed your Wizard to carry a maul they would have to limit the maul modifiers to allways something with low willpower (to balance with staff) but hurting the barbarian balance in the process.
And it's all a matter of personal view of what a good game is. I don't think it's good and fun have to decide between one good and one bad thing. For me the fun lies in decide between 2 good things and discover in what situations i can maximize their effience and exploit it.
For me the very core of a game quality is the exercise of reverse engineering. If you have two tools to overcome a challenge and already know that one is bad and the other is good, why would you care to use the bad one ?
I dont know maybe because I find it more fun/interesting/challenging. In my opinion the limitations are unnecessary.
How the hell are you gonna ever gonna play Diablo 3, let alone know the difference? Your deaf, dumb, and blind Tommy!
Sorry, bad reference. Anyhow, if you really need to challenge yourself by putting a two-hander on your spell caster or a staff on your Barb, you really need to play more. There are plenty of ways to challenge yourself without using completely stupid weapon choices. I would much rather challenge myself by rushing ahead to fight higher level monsters and bosses than carry around a completely pointless weapon.
Not only that, as a Wizard or Witch Doctor, your probably never going to have the strength or dexterity necessary to wield a two-hander close to your level with the auto-stat system anyhow (assuming weapons still have strength/dext requirements and not straight up level reqs). If we could choose stats, maybe, but not with auto-stat, I can almost guarantee it. It would be beyond the point of being a challenge.
We got two sides.
1)People who play games for a purpose (majority) and on a competitive level to some extent.(PvP)
2)People who play games out of boredom(who like dumb ass variations just for the sake of doing dumb ass shit) and who play the game periodically (Normal Difficulty) and eventually either give up playing it, or switch to the other group and stop doing dumb ass shit to play on a more competitive level.
Honestly, I do really sympathize with the second group in the fact that they will be forgotten, but seriously, I couldn't give a rat's ass. I've tried off builds, and Blizzard have definately tried them and taken them into account and quickly realized that they were useless. So did I, took me about 3 hours, or the completion of act 1.
(yeah, the second group will argue forever that it added variety.(Since it's the only point they can argue on) Remember though, variety can be created by anything. You could make monsters have relationships with characters too, that would be variety, and be able to raise your pet fallen.
However Blizzard (like many players) hope that variety doesn't come in the form of useless shit to do in D3. Instead actually giving us usefull skills/graphics/gameplay.
--------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums --------
Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!