I'd still say that there's a difference between being addicted and not. I mean somebody might enjoy gaming or reading a book but when he's not doing it they will not be constantly yearning to do it and thinking about it - sort of withdrawal symptoms. And only the latter would classify as proper addiction.
And I'm not so sure why being addicted would be a totally bad thing, but I'd still describe someone being addicted to books, as being addicted.
Basicly when you go from feeling like you 'want' to do something, to feeling more like you 'have' to do something, is the point where it starts to become an addiction. The reason that that is a bad thing is because you're wasting precious time in your life doing something not based on enjoyment of doing it, without being compensated with something like a paycheck maybe (heh), in return.
This may seem like a trivial thing, but item coloration actually matters a lot to me.
In particular, hot green, purple and yellow look extremely cheap to me. It always bothered me a little to use set items in D2 just because they looked cheap.
That's something that's always bothered me too. But only the green from the set items and the orange from the Cubed created ones. They never seem to fit in with the flavor of the game.
I'd like to see a new distinction color scheme similar to the one you're suggesting. They wouldn't have to use colors only either, they could have certain items emit a kind of haze or a swirly aura of some kind.
Quote from "SFJake" »
This isn't about looking cool... Pointless glows are just a waste. They want items to be as easily distinguishable as possible, end of line.
There's other ways of showing disctinction besides just the color of the text, that would fit more into the flavor of the game, as was mentioned earlier. Also without all the loud text coloring, players would actually need to slow down a bit and keep an eye out for anything worthwhile, getting away from the rush rushness that the devs have mentioned they are trying to deter.
Well D1 came out in 96, meaning development for it was at least two years or so before that. So than what game in the rpg genre (we will call it) was popular around the mid to early 90's? PC games were'nt as popular then as they are now so of the few that were out then, I doubt any had a large enough audience to interest Blizzard into copying any ideas from them.
What about consoles....SNES, and then PS1 a little bit later on, were the standards then. Though, I can't think of any rpg type games on those systems that used the same isometric bird's eye view that D2 uses. The 'Strike' games (Airstrike, Urbanstrike, etc.) as I recall used a similar viewpoint, but were 'action' genred games, with interfaces that were nothing like what would be used in these types of games.
Afaik, the D1 interface was pioneered during D1s development, and than later on passed down to D2 with a few tweaks here and there.
I don't think we really need an evil character per s?, but I would definately love to have a less conventional good guy like the Necromancer was. When you read their back story, the Necromancers seem to be actually more of a good guy than the Paladins even, but they're misunderstood because of what their magic looks like to the normal folk. That's pretty cool, and that's what I'd like to see again in D3.
Whatever you classify as a "good guy". The necro has more of a short-term view while the Paladin has more of a long-term view, he understands that inevitably, especially with the worldstone being destroyed now, that either Heaven or Hell will reign supreme over everything. Aligning with the side of Order which at least offers respect and consideration to all other things.
Having a class as dark as some of you are asking doesn't belong in this series. The whole point is to have characters that convincingly are strong enough to over come evil and temptation. Look at the D1 characters, they were all powerful heroes who eventually became corrupted. It makes no sense to have a character that is already halfway there.
These were not in the inital release of D2 though, they were added later on in one of those major patches. I was surprised to see these items when returning to D2 after one of my hiatuses. I think they were added in that major one that came out before synergies....the one that added damage enhancement to Fanaticism and boosted other less used skills.
I'm guessing it was based on popular demand maybe.
Well all the "bring back the Pally" posts and threads I've been reading talk about wanting him back because of what he represents, of what they feel would be missing without a class of his stature. I've not seen one mention anything about wanting him back because of the way his skills are currently implemented.
What you're talking about is the "flavor players" who I don't even count for anything really because, they just play what's efficient and don't really care about the integrity of this game or this series.
I wouldn't. It's what he gets for being the massively over-powered character in Diablo II for years. I hate Paladins just for that. Everyone makes them because their power is unchecked at all.
Now, if it was FAIRLY BALANCED in Diablo III, I wouldn't mind.
He won't be returning, though. He would be too similar to the Monk.
Alright, some of you need to understand, It's not about how the Paladin was balanced in the latest set of patches, but instead the fact that he was the holy dedicated warrior focused solely on destroying the invading evil, is the reason players want him back. He was a character that inspired you to want to cleanse the world of these demonic forces and save the ppl from their grasp. I actually stopped playing D2 regularly before synergies and the overbalances that came with them were added, and back than the Pally was a popular class too. Even with the way they have him now, it wouldn't mean they'd have to design him in the same way if he were to come back but....
Quote from "Messenger" »
For paladin fans, I really think we should just wait for the announcement of the last, unrevealed class- it may just surprise and please you. I'm not a paladin fan myself, but the wait is killing me as well.
One thing is certain about this company, it's the fact they don't overlap flavors, so for you and others hoping for his return as the fifth class, not going to happen. The Monk fills the holy class flavor. Plus the fact that the team have repeatedly stated (which I still don't understand why ppl aren't comprehending this), no other classes will be making a return besides the Barb. At least for the initial game.
Well there is a chance the Paladin may in some way be corrupted or become insane. He did lose his order. The Necromancer, yeah chances are he became corrupted.
Losing his order and losing his faith are two different things.
The D1 Sorc is the Summoner in Act 2.= Arcane Sanctuary.
I would love to see what happened with D2 ppl. And find that the necromancer is the only uncorrupted one !
Sorry but the one character who's powers are based around control of Mephisto's minions is the one most likely to be corrupted, expecially after going up against him himself. The paladin, being so empowered by the opposing nature, the Heavens is the only one really that would make sense not to be twisted in any way from the past events.
But who knows, they will maked the story into whatever they want rather than what would make sense.
I agree with you as well. I just do not see how you can have a Diablo series and not have a knight of some sort. I think this group making the game can be trying so hard to distant themselves from the previous two , rather than what is good for the game. They have even mention how this will be the title of the series. He will be missed for sure. And think about this group of heros for a minute. YOu have a lunatic witch doctor, crazed barbarian, zulu style monk lol. the only one that makes sense would be the wizard. But who knows maybe they will surprise us with the 5th class but i doubt it.
I understand that they're trying to add new playstyles or whatever to the next addition of this series, which is alright and is to be expected, but I don't see why EVERY class has to be of this "morally ambiguous" nature as someone on the team stated. They need to have that noble, knightly, dutiful class that the original players who made this series popular in the first place, are used to having. And I'm suspecting someone on the dev team feels the same way as I remember reading in a dev journal I think it was, that one of the devs isn't happy with all of the new classes.
But I have to disagree with you abit on the style of play of these new classes. The barb is indeed somewhat of a brute in his fighting style but he seems like the most down to earth one of the bunch character wise, I just see him more as "supporting muscle" than any kind of leader type. While the wizard just seems like corruption waiting to happen.
Quote from italofoca »
You're kind right... When i worte the OP I wasn't very sure of what i was missing in D3 you kno ? Only after argue a little bit I could realise what I'm missing.
About the paladin leadership thing. Well it's part of his own background and gameplay. When you're starting a D2 characte I'm sure theres something in his descriptionabout good teamplay and leadership. If could define every D2 character in a few words:
Paladin - Leadership
Barbarian - Might
Necromancer - Mystery
Sorceress - Magic (lol)
Amazon - Finesse
Druid - Nature
Assassin - Instant Kill
And i'm really missing someone who could be defined with "Leadership".
I see what you mean now in your view of the paladin....in being the leader he sort of unified the other classes whom most had alterior motives, into one just cause.
Though for me, it was the fact that he was a knightly and disciplined character who had a strong anti-evil nature coupled with spirtual righteous empowerment, who believably had the ability to counter the invading demonic forces.
i think that all those things about the aura missing and stuff it's not so. The main thing that made D1 interesting was that u started with no idea of anything and u started to ask people in trstram and they just give pieces of info, so it was like a big puzzle.
In D2 you already know what was happening from the beggining, so u just needd to kill bunch of demons and u'r done... Well, now, if u look close, blizz it's trying to get some of the good aura back, but this time it needs an effort from us, because we already know a lot and we actually kill the game by trying to guess the storyline.
In my opinion the classes are great, the old hero (barb) the rebel wiz, the misterious wd and the holy monk....
now the question is wtf are they all doing there?? why are each one of them after big D? that's the question u should ask yourself to feel that D1 aura again.
After being a part of this community for a little while, I'm realizing that there aren't many of us here who actually played D1, or at least played before D2 came out, so very few know anything about that D1 aura.
But yeah, now that you mention it, there was that sense of mystery and discovery, coupled with the feeling of something threatening around every darkened corner that's been missing for me even in D2. But anyhow, after watching that gameplay video of all the classes together, I had no motivation to want to be apart of all that. The attitude seems to have changed from "I will fight off this evil that is engulfing the land" to more of "I'm the bigger badass that can destroy demons." There just isn't a class that showcases a combination of nobility and decency.
Quote from "Valtonis" »
I hate lame-ass "do-gooder", "kiddy cartoon protaganist", "boy scout" characters so i'm glad none of the announced classes are like that.
and how are the original classes a "do-gooder"-type?
they all went to Tristram for fame, for riches and all got corrupted and the warrior because his ego was so big thought that he could contain Diablo
....and to this guy, these motivations were possiblities for each class, not specific to the actual ones we played. The actual character, the warrior was good hearted and driven by a sense of duty. His nature was illustrated through dialogue throughout the game....like after you beat Leoric, he replies, "Rest well Leoric, I'll find your son"....or after beating Bartuc later on, he states with such emotion, "YOUR REIGN OF PAIN HAS ENDED!!". That's definately a character who has a strong sense of duty and good will towards other. I don't see that anywhere in the D3 classes from what we've been shown.
I feel this way too. Being apart of this series since the day D1 came out (actually before if counting the demo), the passion for me has always been the setup of having this world consumed with darkness, then you play this character who steps in to challenge the evil and shed some light into the world. Being motivated not so much by personal gain, but doing so to fight for those who can't fight for themselves....just because someone has to. The warrior was representative of that in D1, and the paladin in D2. With the revelation of the monk though, it seems less likely that there will be a class of this stature in D3.
That's always been the heart of this series to me, and to be honest, the more I find out about the new classes, the less motivated I am to play this latest installment. Some of these classes seem as dark and destructive as the creatures we will be fighting against.
Anyway, if blizzard is solely worried about what people like to play, they still need a shapeshifter class, a class that controls' nature, a class with aura...
i haven't played d3, but won't it be really hard to a "bowazon" on d3 who can't rely only on potions, i mean, it has to shoot, and run, get orbs, come back, shoot ? that is what seems to me.
if you are saying it's selfish to not have a BOW based character, it's also selfish to say that Paladins are not needed, that auras are not needed, that shapeshifters are a no no, that now that they have WD there is no need for a necro...
A primary bow user is one of the main archetypes though (melee fighter, ranged bow attacker, magic spells wielder) while shapeshifting, nature controlling, and aura usage are just supplementary abilities. These have been the main archetypes since the Gauntlet arcade days and pen and paper rpg days (which someone mentioned they're aiming to retro back to) and ppl are expecting these primary standards to be offered, each having a large audience for it. Standards that have been prevalent in this series since D1 and they're not just going to cut off that playerbase.
As I said earlier, this class is NOT going to be exclusively a ranged attacker (bow and maybe spear) but PRIMARILY a ranged attacker. This meaning he/she will excel in bow usage like the amazon did, but also supplement with skills for keeping enemies at bay, I'm betting on traps but maybe some melee abilities too. With that this primary ranged class would still fit into the D3 fast paced style of play, and at the same type offer a unique playstyle as these players would have to be very proactive.
If this archetype being one of the main three is not filled, there will be alot of ppl knocking at their (virtual) door complaining.
I really think d3 is lacking a heavy armored guy with a shield, like a Paladin, a knight, something like that.
I don't see why the last class has to be ranged based either, as i think bowazons are too "hit and run" for the game play style like diablo has.
i can see them concentrating on that "heck just jump in the middle and kill the guys" point of view for the most chars, even the wizard on the game play is quite a "forward" class related to d2 sorc. the Wizard although using many spells, she runs, get on the middle of the battle and handles itself well without HIDING behind the magic.
The whole MONK concept couldn't be a better signal of that philosophy.
and, when i see the stereotypes, it really lacks a full armored knight/paladin. the Warrior on d1 was much more a knight than a barb... And this stereotype is very much in all Diablo Lore.
we need something that contrasts with the monk. The barb by itself is the brute force tank, no need to contrast.
the WD kinda contrasts with the wizard now. the WD seems to be more like "sit and watch" because of the summons.
the monk has this great deal of speed but very fragile.
what contrasts with it ? a heavier armored, slower guy,?
or a ranged guy ?
putting a rogue would be to put another fragile class, d2 had two resistant classes (barb pala) a half way (amazon) and 2 weaker (sorc, necro). because that influences a lot the play style. some people prefer resistant classes and others not.
WD seems to be a good half way. i really see him doing the job of the amazon's role as a fairly resistant class.
so in my opinion, some knight type of thing.
but from another point of view...
we have a brute force (barb)
a "death commander" (WD)
an element shaper (wizard)
a holy guy (monk)
and where are the forces of the nature?
but i think that would be just overkill, need another more resistant class. is a very different deal to play a barb/pala and to play a sorc/necro, everybody knows.
and some people just plays one type, not having a knight-type would be a turn off to many guys
I too agree there needs to be a "knightly" class, and I was actually hoping the one previously revealed would have been that, but with a different twist than the Paladin. To me the "shiny armor class" is just as important to the series in being a contrast to the D man himself. I guess this new blizz team doesn't agree. It would seem that they've bumped the Barb into that armored tank role now, but he's always seemed more like a bulldozer of muscle rather than a tanking machine to me.
On topic, this last class is not going to be an exclusively ranged attacker but will definitely be PRIMARILY ranged in its attacks. Even with the promise of being innovative with class design (though the previous games didn't follow that philosophy), the devs still have to cater to an audience in which ranged classes are very popular with. In the end it's not about making a game to fit them, it's about making a game that supplies the playerbases wants, and a large portion of them want a PRIMARILY ranged class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Basicly when you go from feeling like you 'want' to do something, to feeling more like you 'have' to do something, is the point where it starts to become an addiction. The reason that that is a bad thing is because you're wasting precious time in your life doing something not based on enjoyment of doing it, without being compensated with something like a paycheck maybe (heh), in return.
That's something that's always bothered me too. But only the green from the set items and the orange from the Cubed created ones. They never seem to fit in with the flavor of the game.
I'd like to see a new distinction color scheme similar to the one you're suggesting. They wouldn't have to use colors only either, they could have certain items emit a kind of haze or a swirly aura of some kind.
There's other ways of showing disctinction besides just the color of the text, that would fit more into the flavor of the game, as was mentioned earlier. Also without all the loud text coloring, players would actually need to slow down a bit and keep an eye out for anything worthwhile, getting away from the rush rushness that the devs have mentioned they are trying to deter.
What about consoles....SNES, and then PS1 a little bit later on, were the standards then. Though, I can't think of any rpg type games on those systems that used the same isometric bird's eye view that D2 uses. The 'Strike' games (Airstrike, Urbanstrike, etc.) as I recall used a similar viewpoint, but were 'action' genred games, with interfaces that were nothing like what would be used in these types of games.
Afaik, the D1 interface was pioneered during D1s development, and than later on passed down to D2 with a few tweaks here and there.
D2's interface was obviously based off of D1s.
Whatever you classify as a "good guy". The necro has more of a short-term view while the Paladin has more of a long-term view, he understands that inevitably, especially with the worldstone being destroyed now, that either Heaven or Hell will reign supreme over everything. Aligning with the side of Order which at least offers respect and consideration to all other things.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having a class as dark as some of you are asking doesn't belong in this series. The whole point is to have characters that convincingly are strong enough to over come evil and temptation. Look at the D1 characters, they were all powerful heroes who eventually became corrupted. It makes no sense to have a character that is already halfway there.
I'm guessing it was based on popular demand maybe.
What you're talking about is the "flavor players" who I don't even count for anything really because, they just play what's efficient and don't really care about the integrity of this game or this series.
Alright, some of you need to understand, It's not about how the Paladin was balanced in the latest set of patches, but instead the fact that he was the holy dedicated warrior focused solely on destroying the invading evil, is the reason players want him back. He was a character that inspired you to want to cleanse the world of these demonic forces and save the ppl from their grasp. I actually stopped playing D2 regularly before synergies and the overbalances that came with them were added, and back than the Pally was a popular class too. Even with the way they have him now, it wouldn't mean they'd have to design him in the same way if he were to come back but....
One thing is certain about this company, it's the fact they don't overlap flavors, so for you and others hoping for his return as the fifth class, not going to happen. The Monk fills the holy class flavor. Plus the fact that the team have repeatedly stated (which I still don't understand why ppl aren't comprehending this), no other classes will be making a return besides the Barb. At least for the initial game.
Losing his order and losing his faith are two different things.
Sorry but the one character who's powers are based around control of Mephisto's minions is the one most likely to be corrupted, expecially after going up against him himself. The paladin, being so empowered by the opposing nature, the Heavens is the only one really that would make sense not to be twisted in any way from the past events.
But who knows, they will maked the story into whatever they want rather than what would make sense.
I understand that they're trying to add new playstyles or whatever to the next addition of this series, which is alright and is to be expected, but I don't see why EVERY class has to be of this "morally ambiguous" nature as someone on the team stated. They need to have that noble, knightly, dutiful class that the original players who made this series popular in the first place, are used to having. And I'm suspecting someone on the dev team feels the same way as I remember reading in a dev journal I think it was, that one of the devs isn't happy with all of the new classes.
But I have to disagree with you abit on the style of play of these new classes. The barb is indeed somewhat of a brute in his fighting style but he seems like the most down to earth one of the bunch character wise, I just see him more as "supporting muscle" than any kind of leader type. While the wizard just seems like corruption waiting to happen.
I see what you mean now in your view of the paladin....in being the leader he sort of unified the other classes whom most had alterior motives, into one just cause.
Though for me, it was the fact that he was a knightly and disciplined character who had a strong anti-evil nature coupled with spirtual righteous empowerment, who believably had the ability to counter the invading demonic forces.
After being a part of this community for a little while, I'm realizing that there aren't many of us here who actually played D1, or at least played before D2 came out, so very few know anything about that D1 aura.
But yeah, now that you mention it, there was that sense of mystery and discovery, coupled with the feeling of something threatening around every darkened corner that's been missing for me even in D2. But anyhow, after watching that gameplay video of all the classes together, I had no motivation to want to be apart of all that. The attitude seems to have changed from "I will fight off this evil that is engulfing the land" to more of "I'm the bigger badass that can destroy demons." There just isn't a class that showcases a combination of nobility and decency.
....and to this guy, these motivations were possiblities for each class, not specific to the actual ones we played. The actual character, the warrior was good hearted and driven by a sense of duty. His nature was illustrated through dialogue throughout the game....like after you beat Leoric, he replies, "Rest well Leoric, I'll find your son"....or after beating Bartuc later on, he states with such emotion, "YOUR REIGN OF PAIN HAS ENDED!!". That's definately a character who has a strong sense of duty and good will towards other. I don't see that anywhere in the D3 classes from what we've been shown.
That's always been the heart of this series to me, and to be honest, the more I find out about the new classes, the less motivated I am to play this latest installment. Some of these classes seem as dark and destructive as the creatures we will be fighting against.
A primary bow user is one of the main archetypes though (melee fighter, ranged bow attacker, magic spells wielder) while shapeshifting, nature controlling, and aura usage are just supplementary abilities. These have been the main archetypes since the Gauntlet arcade days and pen and paper rpg days (which someone mentioned they're aiming to retro back to) and ppl are expecting these primary standards to be offered, each having a large audience for it. Standards that have been prevalent in this series since D1 and they're not just going to cut off that playerbase.
As I said earlier, this class is NOT going to be exclusively a ranged attacker (bow and maybe spear) but PRIMARILY a ranged attacker. This meaning he/she will excel in bow usage like the amazon did, but also supplement with skills for keeping enemies at bay, I'm betting on traps but maybe some melee abilities too. With that this primary ranged class would still fit into the D3 fast paced style of play, and at the same type offer a unique playstyle as these players would have to be very proactive.
If this archetype being one of the main three is not filled, there will be alot of ppl knocking at their (virtual) door complaining.
I too agree there needs to be a "knightly" class, and I was actually hoping the one previously revealed would have been that, but with a different twist than the Paladin. To me the "shiny armor class" is just as important to the series in being a contrast to the D man himself. I guess this new blizz team doesn't agree. It would seem that they've bumped the Barb into that armored tank role now, but he's always seemed more like a bulldozer of muscle rather than a tanking machine to me.
On topic, this last class is not going to be an exclusively ranged attacker but will definitely be PRIMARILY ranged in its attacks. Even with the promise of being innovative with class design (though the previous games didn't follow that philosophy), the devs still have to cater to an audience in which ranged classes are very popular with. In the end it's not about making a game to fit them, it's about making a game that supplies the playerbases wants, and a large portion of them want a PRIMARILY ranged class.