Medieval game without a knight?

  • #41
    Nonetheless, and flamewars apart, the reason of this thread was to see if anyone has that same feeling, which I have, that the game gets kinda "empty" without that guy in armor and sword and shield, etc. etc.


    I am sorry, I never meant for you to feel like I was flaming you. If I did, then I do apologize.

    To make a long story short, in medieval times, which is obviously the times when Diablo games are set, knights are a common presence.
    So, do you feel that it's presence in the game is essential, and one of the kind should be implemented, or do the characters already presented (aka barb and monk) fill the gap?


    Actually, knights were like modern day commanders, used to rally the troops for the Lords of the land, who were like the modern day generals, under the power of the Throne. Knights were not exactly commonplace, unless your refrencing a Tourney. But a war Tourneys were not.

    Quote from Hans
    The English (Welsh) Long Bow could penetrate most if not all armors. The only armors that had a good chance at blocking it were steel armors and usually only very rich people had them (mostly high ranking nobles). They likely did not take part in the front lines.

    Another issue with the Longbow was the training needed for them and the strength needed to fire an arrow.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow


    Glee!

    Quote from AnathemicOne
    I find it funny that Frostbite5's understanding of the necromancer is way off.
    :thumbsup:


    It's not just Frostbite5. Many, many players of Diablo 2 have a very, very slim understanding of the lore of Diablo, let alone who the characters were and their backstory.

    (No offense intended to Frostbite5, or anybody else that may fall in this area.)

    Quote from Equinox
    I always thought paladin was a bit of a dick. Kinda like whitecloacks in Wheel of Time.


    You know, I felt that way about all Paladin's in Blizzard's games, from the WC2/3/WoW paladin to the Diablo 2/LoD paladin, they just seem like they got something to prove. Lol.

    (Personal opinion, of course.
  • #42
    Well, for most people this is primarily a game. A game where it was quite tedious to follow everything of the storyline apart from the cinematics even. Just a select club of nerds have read the books and know about the lore (of course the amount of those people on this forum is a lot greater than average, but it shouldn't be considered as standard knowledge). I love the cutscenes, they are always epic with blizzard, and I like to follow what's going on, but no more than that. Most people just want to kill some monsters.

    Besides all I said about the necromancer is that he had a dark feel to him, and that's true. He makes the bones of dead things rise and walk around, creates some form of zombies, he uses poison magic,... And his looks are deathly and mysterious.
    Now my post could also be interpreted as if I'm calling the necromancers 'evil' and also that is true. To some (and without a doubt also to some in sanctuary) the mere act of necromancy makes one evil. So just like terrorists are heroes to some, and evil to others, also necromancers can be called evil. Although I know necromancers in D2 are actually good, because in the end they are helping people.

    Now about the Paladin. I remember playing WC2 back in the days. The paladin was powerful because he was an upgrade of the knight, one of the best melee units in the game (there just weren't that many units). Hence I find it understandable that this radiates to other WC games. Not to Diablo games though, that's a different kind of paladin to begin with. I haven't played D2 online after 1.10 though, so all the hammerdin stuff kinda passed me by...


    (and I'm still hoping for a knightly archer as the 5th class :) )
  • #43
    I never read a single Diablo book.
    Hanging around here should give you all the lore you would need.
    I mean, this place IS called Diablofans...
  • #44
    Did you really just call him a terrorist? The Necromancer is more like Sanctuary's version of Robin Hood.
    This signature has been edited by Macros: 25 August 2010 - 04:00 PM
  • #45
    Quote from Macros

    Did you really just call him a terrorist? The Necromancer is more like Sanctuary's version of Robin Hood.

    I just mentioned the terrorists to show that what is evil to some can be good to others.
  • #46
    Quote from Frostbite5

    Well, for most people this is primarily a game. A game where it was quite tedious to follow everything of the storyline apart from the cinematics even. Just a select club of nerds have read the books and know about the lore (of course the amount of those people on this forum is a lot greater than average, but it shouldn't be considered as standard knowledge). I love the cutscenes, they are always epic with blizzard, and I like to follow what's going on, but no more than that. Most people just want to kill some monsters.

    Besides all I said about the necromancer is that he had a dark feel to him, and that's true. He makes the bones of dead things rise and walk around, creates some form of zombies, he uses poison magic,... And his looks are deathly and mysterious.
    Now my post could also be interpreted as if I'm calling the necromancers 'evil' and also that is true. To some (and without a doubt also to some in sanctuary) the mere act of necromancy makes one evil. So just like terrorists are heroes to some, and evil to others, also necromancers can be called evil. Although I know necromancers in D2 are actually good, because in the end they are helping people.

    Now about the Paladin. I remember playing WC2 back in the days. The paladin was powerful because he was an upgrade of the knight, one of the best melee units in the game (there just weren't that many units). Hence I find it understandable that this radiates to other WC games. Not to Diablo games though, that's a different kind of paladin to begin with. I haven't played D2 online after 1.10 though, so all the hammerdin stuff kinda passed me by...


    (and I'm still hoping for a knightly archer as the 5th class :) )


    I never ever read the Diabo books and I still have a good grasp and understanding of Diablo lore. If anyone has trouble or wishes to know more just check out the Lore/Storyline forum or look on the wiki.

    Anyways, yeah in alot of common societies, fantasy and real-world alike, necromancy is considered dark and/or evil, which is understandable. But if anything, in the Diablo universe, the necromancer is a worldy guardian whose basic purpose/ideaology is to maintain the balance between order and chaos.

    Anyways I'm diving into too much lore and going off-topic.

    I really want a rogue-class (no assassin fist crap, stabby stabby swords me wants) :whoops:
  • #47
    Quote from Frostbite5
    Well, for most people this is primarily a game. A game where it was quite tedious to follow everything of the storyline apart from the cinematics even. Just a select club of nerds have read the books and know about the lore (of course the amount of those people on this forum is a lot greater than average, but it shouldn't be considered as standard knowledge). I love the cutscenes, they are always epic with blizzard, and I like to follow what's going on, but no more than that. Most people just want to kill some monsters.


    You are currently posting on the website www.Diablofans.com. This means you cannot use this argument. Spend one month, just one month, on this forum and you would learn enough about the lore that you would understand why this thread is wrong in five million ways. (Hell, I mostly stay on General Discussion and Off Topic, and I've never read a single Diablo book, just like Equinox, so don't give me this excuse.)

    Quote from Frostbite5
    Besides all I said about the necromancer is that he had a dark feel to him, and that's true. He makes the bones of dead things rise and walk around, creates some form of zombies, he uses poison magic,... And his looks are deathly and mysterious.


    Alright, so we give the skeletons canes and top hats and then the class wouldn't be "dark" anymore? Stop talking through a westernized mindset. Please.

    Quote from Frostbite5
    Now my post could also be interpreted as if I'm calling the necromancers 'evil' and also that is true. To some (and without a doubt also to some in sanctuary) the mere act of necromancy makes one evil. So just like terrorists are heroes to some, and evil to others, also necromancers can be called evil. Although I know necromancers in D2 are actually good, because in the end they are helping people.


    Your kidding me. Evil? The Necromancer is probably the most righteous of characters in the game. Just because you think playing with bones is taboo does not make the character evil.

    Quote from Frostbite5
    Now about the Paladin. I remember playing WC2 back in the days. The paladin was powerful because he was an upgrade of the knight, one of the best melee units in the game (there just weren't that many units). Hence I find it understandable that this radiates to other WC games. Not to Diablo games though, that's a different kind of paladin to begin with. I haven't played D2 online after 1.10 though, so all the hammerdin stuff kinda passed me by...


    Actually, yes, it does radiate to Diablo games. Hence why the Paladin is as powerful as he is. Frankly I am surprised he doesn't run around Sanctuary on a horse.

    Quote from Frostbite5
    I just mentioned the terrorists to show that what is evil to some can be good to others.


    And again, we are talking about what is good and what is not good, not what is perceived as such.

    Quote from AnathemicOne
    I really want a rogue-class (no assassin fist crap, stabby stabby swords me wants) :whoops:


    Didn't the Assassin have blades to stab with? o.O
  • #48
    Blizzard wanted to define the Cult of Rathma as a religious following that sought to keep the world in balance. That being said, some of the followers must have had to help good and extinguish evil if the darkness is getting too heavy for the world to stay in balance. Whereas other necromancers had to commit themselves to evil to rebalance the world of Sanctuary when the forces of light were too great. As the great dragon once said, "Too much darkness, too much evil will result in a world of chaos and destruction and if there is too much light, too much good in the world, everything will start to stagnate and decay. That is why we must balance the world to keep it from going in either direction to its own demise." That is roughly what Trag'Oul said when Uldyssian and Mendeln wanted answers as to why.

    So anybody is right in saying that the necromancers are evil or good. I just explained why. And Necromancers AREN'T OLD, if anybody read the books that came in the battle chest, they would see that he looks like that due to how and where he spent a good portion of his life.
    Just as the Scorpion hunts...
    Silently Lurking...

    "Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted." ~ Ezio Auditore de Firenze
  • #49
    You are currently posting on the website www.Diablofans.com. This means you cannot use this argument. Spend one month, just one month, on this forum and you would learn enough about the lore that you would understand why this thread is wrong in five million ways. (Hell, I mostly stay on General Discussion and Off Topic, and I've never read a single Diablo book, just like Equinox, so don't give me this excuse.)

    Okay. Still I think more people (even here) care much more about gameplay than about character backgrounds. Face it, the story is just not an essential part of the game. It can be fun to dig deeper into it if you're interested, but still it's only of secondary importance. Besides that, very little effort is made in the game itself to give players a deeper understanding of the world (besides the immediate events taking place). If your friends are already back out there slaying monsters, you're not gonna stay in town to ask NPC's for gossip (unless you're really into that sort of thing).

    Alright, so we give the skeletons canes and top hats and then the class wouldn't be "dark" anymore? Stop talking through a westernized mindset. Please.

    Why? Most of diablo's players think through a westernized mindset (or any other mindset which would consider necromancy an evil act). I'm talking about my own impressions so why should I do so though a different mindset? And which mindset would that be to begin with? Of the necromancers themselves? If you think through a terrorist's mindset, 9/11 was an act of good. That doesn't mean that if you think it was an act of evil (which most people here, including myself, do), that you're narrow-minded because you think through a western mindset. This argument can undermine anything. Hence my terrorist example: in their own eyes, and in the eyes of their allies, they are doing the highest good. So are we not allowed to call terrorists evil anymore because others see them as good?


    Actually, yes, it does radiate to Diablo games. Hence why the Paladin is as powerful as he is.

    Really, that's why? Apparently you know some blizzard employees very well.

    Quote from Frostbite5
    I just mentioned the terrorists to show that what is evil to some can be good to others.


    And again, we are talking about what is good and what is not good, not what is perceived as such.
    I'm talking about what's perceived as such. Besides, the fact that you think good and evil exist outside of human perception shows that you're talking through a westernized mindset. Didn't you just ask me to stop doing that for some reason?
  • #50
    Quote from Lt. Venom
    Blizzard wanted to define the Cult of Rathma as a religious following that sought to keep the world in balance. That being said, some of the followers must have had to help good and extinguish evil if the darkness is getting too heavy for the world to stay in balance. Whereas other necromancers had to commit themselves to evil to rebalance the world of Sanctuary when the forces of light were too great. As the great dragon once said, "Too much darkness, too much evil will result in a world of chaos and destruction and if there is too much light, too much good in the world, everything will start to stagnate and decay. That is why we must balance the world to keep it from going in either direction to its own demise." That is roughly what Trag'Oul said when Uldyssian and Mendeln wanted answers as to why.


    Which, in my personal oppinion, is the most righteous stance you can have. What is it they say in Starwars? Balance in the Force?

    The Force is wholely owned by George Lucas. Please don't sue me George!

    Also, isn't it spelled Trang'Oul? Or was one of those things that knaak changed in his books?

    Quote from Lt. Venom
    So anybody is right in saying that the necromancers are evil or good. I just explained why. And Necromancers AREN'T OLD, if anybody read the books that came in the battle chest, they would see that he looks like that due to how and where he spent a good portion of his life.


    If I am not mistaken, it is because Necromancers live in an underground city, of which the name has not been released, correct? Or am I way off? (The lack of sun would make the skin very pale, almost ghostly, no?) If I am way off, tell me, because like I say, I've never picked up a Diablo book. :P

    Quote from Frostbite5
    Lots of Words


    I'm honestly done. You seem to me like a troll, and, with all due respect, I get in enough trouble on this site with trolls. Again, no disrespect intended.
  • #51
    First off, Trag'Oul is the correct name and spelling intended by Blizzard. I just confirmed this by looking in the Diablo II game manual.

    Second, it wasn't an underground city, more as "underground" city meaning hidden from view deep in the Jungles. As for his looks, as the Official Strategy Guide for Diablo 2 puts it, "Long hours of study in dank mausoleums have made his skin pale and corpselike, while his figure has more in common with a skeleton than a man."

    Now I wanna play a necromancer the fun way and just put points into the skills I wanna use till he fails.
    Just as the Scorpion hunts...
    Silently Lurking...

    "Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted." ~ Ezio Auditore de Firenze
  • #52
    Hmm, well, I read underground and I think actual underground not in the jungles. :P

    And also, I didn't know the manual said Trag'Oul. Now I am gonna have to dig that thing up and have a look see.
  • #53
    Quote from LinkX

    I'm honestly done. You seem to me like a troll, and, with all due respect, I get in enough trouble on this site with trolls. Again, no disrespect intended.

    Would any troll type "lots of words" in an orderly and constructive fashion? This discussion would have been solved long ago if you didn't keep changing what it was supposed to be about and what mindset we're supposed to be using. If anyone trolled in this thread, it's you. No disrespect intended.
  • #54
    All trolling-accusations aside, Diablo 3 does not need a knight or anything resembling a knight, as the Barbarian will be able to take on a shield-using, defensive-minded role using the Juggernaut tier of skills. The Barbarian sufficiently covers the melee/shield-using/death machine categories in spades, so no "Knight" class is needed. I'm hoping for some sort of shape-shifting, ranged-capable Hunter/Druid combination class. My desires have sufficiently changed.
    A belief in no God is a belief in everything. It is a belief in the unfathomable number of events of blind chance required for every living thing to be here.
  • #55
    Quote from Frostbite5

    Okay. Still I think more people (even here) care much more about gameplay than about character backgrounds. Face it, the story is just not an essential part of the game. It can be fun to dig deeper into it if you're interested, but still it's only of secondary importance. Besides that, very little effort is made in the game itself to give players a deeper understanding of the world (besides the immediate events taking place). If your friends are already back out there slaying monsters, you're not gonna stay in town to ask NPC's for gossip (unless you're really into that sort of thing).


    Woah, hold up just a minute there man, story is not an essential part of a game? It's only a secondary feature? This sir is ignorance.

    What does RPG stand for? Roleplaying Game, and what does roleplay consist of? Immersion. When I play games such as super mario galaxy, I don't immerse myself into the universe of mario, why? Because there is no substance, and what gives substance? Story?

    All RPG's require story, Dragon Age: Origins, Diablo, World of Warcraft, The Witcher, Mass Effect, etc. If there is no story there is no immersion, if Dragon Age didn't have a story you will just be facing waves of angry monsters with no real purpose, if WoW did not have a story then we would be stuck playing humans killing random generated orcs.

    Just because some (and you apparently) don't consider story an essential part of the game, it is. There will be no Marius, Diablo, Baal, Mephisto, Tyrael, Andariel, Duriel, Horazon, Blood Raven, King Leoric, Lazarus, Leoric's sun, Soulstones, Worldstone, Horadrim, Deckard Cain, Countess, (can go on forever here) in the Diablo game without story.

    So I ask you to please reconsider your opinion, of course I can't change it but I point out that this opinion that you stated is based off of ignorance.
  • #56
    Diablo is not an RPG. It's not on the same level as the RPG's you've listed and never will be. Bunch of random people sprouting monologues + a few cinematics is not how you tell story. Present day FPS do a better job than that.
    Diablo probably has the most boring diamonologue system ever created.
    There's no role play in Diablo. Giving stats to a character is not sufficient, nor are classes, heXen has these things...
    You do not make any story choices in Diablo.
    There's nothing to do in the game besides kill stuff and improve your ability to kill stuff.
    The game is conveyor.
    You can completely ignore the story without much effort, which is why so many people think necromancers are bad and the like. Diablo is one of those games where you're better off learning the story without playing the game (which means the game itself is not a true RPG).
    Story is indeed secondary to the Diablo series, just like it's secondary to StarCraft. Having a backstory, or a story somewhere in the universe does not make any given game an RPG.

    "There will be no Marius, Diablo, Baal, Mephisto, Tyrael, Andariel, Duriel, Horazon, Blood Raven, King Leoric, Lazarus, Leoric's sun, Soulstones, Worldstone, Horadrim, Deckard Cain, Countess in the Diablo game without story."
    Rubbish, those are just names and terms that are pretty easy to pull out of books about demons and stuff. In fact, Diablo's lore is pretty unoriginal. Besides the framework itself, it's just religious mythology with some fantasy mixed in.
  • #57
    Quote from Equinox
    In fact, Diablo's lore is pretty unoriginal. Besides the framework itself, it's just religious mythology with some fantasy mixed in.

    That's a pretty bold statement my friend. But I won't even get into why I disagree with you calling it unoriginal, because I have a 0.0000% chance of changing your mind.
  • #58
    The game itself is unoriginal. It's a rather generic hack and slash game. It succeeded mostly due to online from what I can tell. (I know that's the case with D2, not sure about D1.)

    That doesn't mean it's a bad game, far from it. It's a great game. But you have to admit it's not original.
  • #59
    Quote from LinkX

    The game itself is unoriginal. It's a rather generic hack and slash game. It succeeded mostly due to online from what I can tell. (I know that's the case with D2, not sure about D1.)

    That doesn't mean it's a bad game, far from it. It's a great game. But you have to admit it's not original.


    The books/lore are original, but the games have been spun into something else I agree in that sense no longer resemble originality.

    I would much prefer to have followed the book Lore than the game spin.

    I feel a little cheated(?) knowing now I have really slain Assur and Kabraxis (still to read Legacey of Blood, Kingdom of Shadow, Moon of the Spider) than Diablo himself.

    This would have left a more meaningful platform to end the Diablo saga - Diablo 3 is that, meet and greet Diablo :P and open a new chapter to the other Prime Evils, and Lesser Evils.
    Diii: Classix#2766; Daanlandjnr 60 baba Act2 Inf; DrDaanland 50 WD Act4 Hell; FApSsoso WZ Act1 Norm
    ~HardcoreClassic for Life ~~Clan LeFAp ~ HcC Europe since Beta Jul '96~
    GarGanTuaN highest d2 beta maul baba
    Supporter of GERBarb, first 99 char ever; Team player of GerMania first 99 sorc classic softcore 1.06
    jojo_LeFAp 93 necro HcC EU 1.08; jojojo_LeFAp 95 necro HcC EU 1.08; Daanland_LeFAp 94 s/s baba HcC EU 1.08
  • #60
    Quote from Daanland
    The books/lore are original, but the games have been spun into something else I agree in that sense no longer resemble originality.

    I would much prefer to have followed the book Lore than the game spin.


    The books are original, yes, but the games are far from original. (And the games are not spin, if it wasn't for the games, I don't know any of us that would of become fans of Diablo. ;) )


    Wait, do we all agree that Diablo is somewhat generic? If so...this is the first time everybody agreed on something...
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes