Wait a second...

  • #1
    ... Everyone seems so damn sure that the final class is going to be wielding a bow, so why even include shields in the game. Bows, without a doubt, will necessarily require two hands. The Barb seems to be proficient at dual wielding. The Monk looks like he is going to be pummeling people with both hands, and, as spell-casters, I really doubt the Wizard or Witch Doctor will be rocking shields. Unless I am missing something, don't we still need the prototypical sword and shield brandishing, main hero type character. Hell, maybe the fifth class will be a swordsman/ranger hybrid, something like a shadow warrior. Thoughts, complaints, maniacal rants?
  • #2
    Hmm...interesting. Never thought of that before. Maybe we could have a character who would use only shields. Then for his ultimate attack he would run and smash the shield on top of a demon's head. Or better he could throw his shields at monsters.
    Seems awesome.
    On another hand, all chars you mentioned can use shields and probably will.

    Oh and welcome friend. :biggrin:
  • #3
    Technically, in ancient times, Archers actually did use shields on occasion. The archer was a big fan of the very mobile and light weight buckler.
    "I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
    -Equinox

    "We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
    -Winged
  • #4
    Quote from Nekrodrac

    Hmm...interesting. Never thought of that before. Maybe we could have a character who would use only shields. Then for his ultimate attack he would run and smash the shield on top of a demon's head. Or better he could throw his shields at monsters.
    Seems awesome.
    On another hand, all chars you mentioned can use shields and probably will.

    Oh and welcome friend. :biggrin:

    Ah yes, the trusty shielderang, lol. I think perhaps we should keep the shield bashes and tosses to a minimum. I understand that any character could potentially use a shield, I just don't see any of the current characters relying heavily on them. Thanks for the friendly reception.

    Quote from Umpa65

    Technically, in ancient times, Archers actually did use shields on occasion. The archer was a big fan of the very mobile and light weight buckler.

    Interesting, I didn't know that. Its funny then that two handed bows are so deeply entrenched in RPG convention. At any rate, I highly doubt Blizzard will break this convention.
  • #5
    Well, it does take two hands to operate a bow. It's hard to imagine holding the bow frame and the arrow with one hand and aiming at the same time. Just from a gameplay mechanic, you can't attach a buckler to your arm, like you could in real life (isn't that how they work? they strap on to your arm?)- they always require it takes a hand.

    Dunno.

    I still think the fifth class will be a bow user, but that doesn't discount shields, in my opinion. You don't really need a class to epitomize shield usage.
  • #6
    What about a "blow-piper"?
  • #7
    Quote from Archantyrael

    What about a "blow-piper"?

    LOL you go WD for this he is Indian (South America style).
    Always be on the lookout for the little rabbit that can jump from the bush.
  • #8
    Back when we had skill trees, a whole Barb tree was dedicated to the one-hand weapon/shield combo. So I guess the Barb is the shield user. Not the archetypical knight in shining amor though, I'm guessing they are saving the paladin-esque class for the expansion
  • #9
    Quote from Magistrate

    Well, it does take two hands to operate a bow. It's hard to imagine holding the bow frame and the arrow with one hand and aiming at the same time. Just from a gameplay mechanic, you can't attach a buckler to your arm, like you could in real life (isn't that how they work? they strap on to your arm?)- they always require it takes a hand.

    Dunno.

    I still think the fifth class will be a bow user, but that doesn't discount shields, in my opinion. You don't really need a class to epitomize shield usage.



    Ya, the buckler would strap onto the side of the archers arm. The idea was that lines would not always hold and at some point the archer may experience hand to hand combat so they needed a small light weight shield if the time ever came when they needed to defend themselves.
    "I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
    -Equinox

    "We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
    -Winged
  • #10
    1. Very uninformative thread title
    2. When last we saw the skill, the barbarian could use two-handers, dual weapons or weapon and shield.
    3. Everyone used shields in Diablo 2, on almost all builds regardless of class. (though this point is probably moot)
    This signature has been edited by Macros: 25 August 2010 - 04:00 PM
  • #11
    Quote from Archantyrael

    What about a "blow-piper"?


    I had one of those in Sacred 2.
    ...man, I wish that game could have been good.
  • #12
    Remember theres still the expansion to add new classes. Not every single archetype is going to be covered.
    ☆ ✮ ✯
  • #13
    Why does everybody think that D3 will have an expansion with new classes.
    I never heard Blizzard say: we will make an expansion with extra classes.
    That's just everybody thinks because they refer to D2. But this isn't D2, it's D3 so stop using D2 in your arguments and what not.

    Also (@ Pryda), all arch types will be covered if you look at it from a marketing perspective.
    Their are multiple segments in the RPG market, people that like melee combat, people that like ranged combat and people that like magical combat. (To keep it simple.)
    When there is a game where you can choose a class, these three arch types will be covered.

    Why? Because it would be a slap in the face for any company to ignore a segment they try to target. Blizzards target for D3 are people that play RPG style games (mainly) but also older players that know D2 and D1 or other franchises.

    It comes down to this: if they do not include the ranged combat arch type they will have a segment that would not buy their game (a good part of the segment might still buy it, but sales are reduced no doubt).
    This is basic management and economy.

    Biggest reason that the 5th class will be a ranged character. (The base product will want to get most segments. The strategy to put it in an expansion is possible but the sales will not be as high as if it was in the base product.)
    Also my poor English might have screwed with the sentences.
  • #14
    Are you for real? How is assuming that D3 will have an expansion (whitch it will) with new classes comparing it to D2?
    Also marketing has nothing to do with what classes will be in the game. Market segments has nothing to do with archetypes. Youve clearly used business terms here that you dont understand. That is pure game design. Also, in my opinion, there are more than just 3 archetypes which is why I said that all of them wouldnt be covered.
    ☆ ✮ ✯
  • #15
    Quote from Airandius


    ...all arch types will be covered if you look at it from a marketing perspective.
    Their are multiple segments in the RPG market, people that like melee combat, people that like ranged combat and people that like magical combat. (To keep it simple.)
    When there is a game where you can choose a class, these three arch types will be covered.

    Why? Because it would be a slap in the face for any company to ignore a segment they try to target. Blizzards target for D3 are people that play RPG style games (mainly) but also older players that know D2 and D1 or other franchises.

    It comes down to this: if they do not include the ranged combat arch type they will have a segment that would not buy their game (a good part of the segment might still buy it, but sales are reduced no doubt).
    This is basic management and economy.

    Biggest reason that the 5th class will be a ranged character. (The base product will want to get most segments. The strategy to put it in an expansion is possible but the sales will not be as high as if it was in the base product.)
    Also my poor English might have screwed with the sentences.


    How can you say that all of the archetypes will be covered when there is no quintessential sword and shield using character? This is the oldest and most prominent RPG archetype that exists. If any character omission is going to keep away potential customers, this is it. Certainly, Blizzard is aware of this. With Diablo 1 we had the warrior, and with Diablo 2 we had the paladin. Along with a wizard of some sort, this type of character is the most essential character in any RPG. I agree that a ranged character is extremely important, I just don't think it is as important as a warrior. Therefore, I disagree with the masses who believe the final class will be a rogue or ranger. I think it is much more likely that the fifth class will be primarily a melee character, and probably secondarily a ranged character.
  • #16
    Yes I'm for real.

    You are all comparing D3 with D2 with expansions because everybody is so damn sure that D3 gets an expansion with some extra classes.

    Market segments do have to do with archtypes, it's just not a direct link. As I said before there are multiple segments, in this case the segment of the rpg gamers which Blizzard targets with D3 can be further seperated in a lot of ways. Medieval rpg gamers, modern rpg gamers, mmorpg games etc.
    Archtypes is a way to separate the medieval rpg gamers even more.
    And I know what I'm talking about, you simply don't understand them. Game design goes hand in hand with marketing, cause the game is designed in a way so that certain people will buy it.
    Now if you think I'm some troll I'm not, I'm enrolled at: http://www.stenden.com/nl/studies/bachelor/MEM/Pages/default.aspx might wanna grab google translate.

    Also the warrior archtype is covered with the barbarian, cause the archtype is a melee fighter. The Barbarian covers both 2H, Dual Wield and Shield.
    The Archtype is not a fullplate wearing guy. It's just common with the warrior archtype. They play the same, just different art.
  • #17
    Quote from AnotherDiabloFan

    ... Everyone seems so damn sure that the final class is going to be wielding a bow, so why even include shields in the game. Bows, without a doubt, will necessarily require two hands. The Barb seems to be proficient at dual wielding. The Monk looks like he is going to be pummeling people with both hands, and, as spell-casters, I really doubt the Wizard or Witch Doctor will be rocking shields. Unless I am missing something, don't we still need the prototypical sword and shield brandishing, main hero type character. Hell, maybe the fifth class will be a swordsman/ranger hybrid, something like a shadow warrior. Thoughts, complaints, maniacal rants?


    You've got a point. Maybe both? I'd hate for either to be left out.
  • #18
    Quote from Airandius

    Yes I'm for real.

    You are all comparing D3 with D2 with expansions because everybody is so damn sure that D3 gets an expansion with some extra classes.

    Market segments do have to do with archtypes, it's just not a direct link. As I said before there are multiple segments, in this case the segment of the rpg gamers which Blizzard targets with D3 can be further seperated in a lot of ways. Medieval rpg gamers, modern rpg gamers, mmorpg games etc.
    Archtypes is a way to separate the medieval rpg gamers even more.
    And I know what I'm talking about, you simply don't understand them. Game design goes hand in hand with marketing, cause the game is designed in a way so that certain people will buy it.
    Now if you think I'm some troll I'm not, I'm enrolled at: http://www.stenden.com/nl/studies/bachelor/MEM/Pages/default.aspx might wanna grab google translate.

    Also the warrior archtype is covered with the barbarian, cause the archtype is a melee fighter. The Barbarian covers both 2H, Dual Wield and Shield.
    The Archtype is not a fullplate wearing guy. It's just common with the warrior archtype. They play the same, just different art.


    The reason why many people, myself included, assume that there will be new classes added in a D3 expansion is because almost all RPG game expansions add new playable classes! LoD isnt the one and only expansion set that added new classes to the game! And if were talking about marketing and merket segmentation here then what better way to gain interest in an expansion than with a couple of new classes?

    Market segments in my opinion dont have anything to do with archetypes because I simply would never segment a market by archetypes and I doubt that someone at Blizzard does. Its common knowledge that there need to be some distinct archetypes in the game to appeal to a broader audience but you dont segment the market according to them because Blizzard doesnt just want every player to play just one class, they want people to like all classes. Also there are not a lot of people who will say - I play just the mage archetype or just the warrior archetype and this can also change all the time. Maybe in one game someone plays the mage and in another game, the warrior. So you see market segmentation by archetype would be quite uneffective.

    Game design goes hand in hand with marketing only to a certain extent. Yes, any development should go hand in hand with marketing, however in the case of Blizzard and D3 I think they know what they want more or less and the role of marketing is more to do with appearances and representation than design issues like what classes to put in the game.
    ☆ ✮ ✯
  • #19
    A few people (including myself) have already mentioned the fact that the Barbarian can use shields and in fact even has (or had) skills specifically for that purpose. E.g. the Barbarian is the weapon-and-shield class, if you make him that way. So I don't really know why this discussion is still ongoing..

    As for whether there will be a ranged class, let's see what Bashiok has to say about this:
    Anyway, there are a few archetypes of classic fantasy characters. Expecting us to do something completely outside of those archetypes for the sake of trying to be original is unnecessary, and would probably lead to something that's just ridiculous and not fun, or difficult to design - let alone balance.

    Source

    As for new classes in expansions:
    Well, I'm not sure I can discuss much more without showing our hand. But! I think we'll have at least one class in the game that will appeal to everyone. And that's sort of the goal with the core game, hit those main archetypes that everyone can identify with. "Hey, a Wizard... I'm pretty sure I know what that's all about without even seeing it." Any potential expansions are probably where you'd try out something not of a core archetype like, say, an assassin or druid. ;P

    Source

    And that's just one of many quotes I could give you from either Bashiok or Jay Wilson about expansions. They've pretty much already admitted that yes, there will be expansions, and yes, there will be other classes in those expansions.
    This signature has been edited by Macros: 25 August 2010 - 04:00 PM
  • #20
    There goes Ivaron, smashin' up the controversy. Now what are we going to do with all our spare time? :P
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes