Hrm, true. But at least there's details to their religious perspectives. We just know the DH lost someone, something, at some point in the past. At least we know the Monk has a bazillion gods or whatever.
Yeah, you have a point. Lol.
I guess the issue is that the Barbarian has a history already, so it's easy to make a deeper character out of him. The rest, well... not yet. Maybe once I play through with each I'll feel differently. But they definitely need to have character reactions to significant plot points.
Yea, really since they've been so tight lipped about storyline we won't really know how good their backstories are (or how good the storyline in general is) until we get to play the game.
Well the Demon Hunter focuses a lot more on gadgets than the Rouge, which was pretty much all bow skills. Just because theres a class called the Demon Hunter doesn't mean that they're trying to say the other classes don't hunt demons. Saying that "All classes hunt demons, therefore no class should be called a Demon Hunter" has some merit, but doesn't make it so that Demon Hunter is a bad name, and just because she's called a Demon Hunter doesn't mean she doesn't kill monsters and undead as well. In the end the way the class functions is a lot more important than its name.
Also, its not her profession, its her obsession. The DH's town/family was murdered by demons and since then she has hunted them.
It's her profession. Obsession is the reason why he/she choose to be a demon hunter. Hunting demons it's what they do. And my point is: if he/she dedicated her life to eliminate demons, why the other classes who dedicated their lives in different areas would hunt down demon like a "professional" ?
Also, theres no point in compare a character builded for D3 with D1 and D2 versions. So it doesn't matter if the rogue didn't use a lot of gadgets in D1 and D2. Look at the barbarian.. In D2 he did not provoked earthquakes, did not summon spirit weapons and allies, etc... They spiced him up so the other classes would not outshine him. The same could be easilly done with the rogue.
Imo the rogue would be a better character because they could creat her story using D2's events as background. It could add a sense of continuity
It's her profession. Obsession is the reason why he/she choose to be a demon hunter. Hunting demons it's what they do. And my point is: if he/she dedicated her life to eliminate demons, why the other classes who dedicated their lives in different areas would hunt down demon like a "professional" ?
No, its not. The way a Demon Hunter is "made" is that their town and family was killed in a demon attack and they were the sole survivor. Then a current DH comes along, sees that the person is the sole survivor of a demon attack and recognized the hatred in them (as, at one point, they went through the same or a similar expirience) and recruits them to come to the Dreadlands and train to be a DH. Profession implies its her job that she is paid for.
Also, theres no point in compare a character builded for D3 with D1 and D2 versions. So it doesn't matter if the rogue didn't use a lot of gadgets in D1 and D2. Look at the barbarian.. In D2 he did not provoked earthquakes, did not summon spirit weapons and allies, etc... They spiced him up so the other classes would not outshine him. The same could be easilly done with the rogue.
Yes, but its not like the skills the DH has implies that she should be a Rogue. Sure, it would have worked, but its not completely neccessary. And no classes from D1 returned (as a playable class) during D2 and you still got the sense it is in the same world. You don't need characters to return as playable classes in order to have continuity. And the name "Demon Hunter" is a play on "Bounty Hunter" which implies a large arsenal of gadgets, which obviously fits the D3 DH.
Imo the rogue would be a better character because they could creat her story using D2's events as background. It could add a sense of continuity
The Rogue already was playable in D1 and returned with the Rogue encampment in D2. If they just kept the same name and gave her a different background it would just be confusing (I mean, look at the confusion that stems from them using the word runes in D3). They wanted to make a new backstory, so they made the Demon Hunter.
It's her profession. Obsession is the reason why he/she choose to be a demon hunter. Hunting demons it's what they do. And my point is: if he/she dedicated her life to eliminate demons, why the other classes who dedicated their lives in different areas would hunt down demon like a "professional" ?
No, its not. The way a Demon Hunter is "made" is that their town and family was killed in a demon attack and they were the sole survivor. Then a current DH comes along, sees that the person is the sole survivor of a demon attack and recognized the hatred in them (as, at one point, they went through the same or a similar expirience) and recruits them to come to the Dreadlands and train to be a DH. Profession implies its her job that she is paid for.
Also, theres no point in compare a character builded for D3 with D1 and D2 versions. So it doesn't matter if the rogue didn't use a lot of gadgets in D1 and D2. Look at the barbarian.. In D2 he did not provoked earthquakes, did not summon spirit weapons and allies, etc... They spiced him up so the other classes would not outshine him. The same could be easilly done with the rogue.
Yes, but its not like the skills the DH has implies that she should be a Rogue. Sure, it would have worked, but its not completely neccessary. And no classes from D1 returned (as a playable class) during D2 and you still got the sense it is in the same world. You don't need characters to return as playable classes in order to have continuity. And the name "Demon Hunter" is a play on "Bounty Hunter" which implies a large arsenal of gadgets, which obviously fits the D3 DH.
Imo the rogue would be a better character because they could creat her story using D2's events as background. It could add a sense of continuity
The Rogue already was playable in D1 and returned with the Rogue encampment in D2. If they just kept the same name and gave her a different background it would just be confusing (I mean, look at the confusion that stems from them using the word runes in D3). They wanted to make a new backstory, so they made the Demon Hunter.
For me, Demon Hunter was such a let down as the "Secret Class". Not enough innovation involved with it. A vengeful hunter who stalks demons.. /boo
I understand the roll for the traditional rogue/hunter class was the element missing in the traditional scheme of things, but why not step outside the box a little.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pking in Softcore, is like two deaf kids yelling at each other."
Not gonna lie...I agree a lot with op. All of the classes are demon hunters. Barbarians especially since they were given the task to protect the world stone keep that would become under siege by demons.
But that aside, even if the name did fit well...it's still not original at all. Hell, it's not even original to Blizzard. Warcraft3 anyone?
I should draw a pic of the demon hunter and Illidan together...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"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
Think of it this way, if only allowed to use one word, which word would the classes use to define themself by?
Demon hunter. That's 2 words.
Anyway, now that Emil mentioned it, 2 words for classes is kind of annoying.
Witch doctor? Ya...annoying name as well.
No major gripe with the whole business though.
This thread is more like a compilation of personal-taste/preference-kind-of-thing rather than actual reasons why this name is good or bad.
Personally, I find it a silly name but I doubt D3 will suck because a character got named 'wrong'.
Think of it this way, if only allowed to use one word, which word would the classes use to define themself by?
Demon hunter. That's 2 words.
Anyway, now that Emil mentioned it, 2 words for classes is kind of annoying.
Witch doctor? Ya...annoying name as well.
No major gripe with the whole business though.
This thread is more like a compilation of personal-taste/preference-kind-of-thing rather than actual reasons why this name is good or bad.
Personally, I find it a silly name but I doubt D3 will suck because a character got named 'wrong'.
For people using childish rhetoric to look past logic:
*If only allowed to use two words.
Wow you made everything so mature all of a sudden. Too much for me to take.
Damn.
Edit- Eh..wait. Barbarian, wizard and monk are all one word definition.
OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....
Let me guess. Your next post will be:
For people using childish rhetoric to look past logic:
*If only allowed to use up to two words.
It is personal taste, but there are plenty of righteous complaints..
The name and class itself is nothing innovative. With the destruction of world stones it allows more corruption and destruction throughout.
It wouldn't have been a bad idea to introduce a schizophrenic type class, partially possessed by demonic energy. But in my opinion, should have replaced the Witch Doctor and more appropriately been the surprise announcement character..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pking in Softcore, is like two deaf kids yelling at each other."
I pointed out the simple inconsistency of your first post in the thread. I showed no disrespect whatsoever. I chose to quote you because I read Emil's (Ophion) posts about two words names and wanted to add something to that and just then you posted about your one word thing. Now sure, if I wanted to go all trololo, maybe I would be all about how you need to learn to count.
But now you decided to make a super comeback by saying that my post was childish. Makes me want to troll for real.
But hey this could go on forever. Don't know if you are that immature or you are on a bad day or whatever but have it your way.
Also if you had the decency to read through a few of posts in this thread, your so-called point was explained much more clearly and without ambiguity. Since two-words names was an argument raised earlier, it actually makes my point in highlighting your mistake a valid one.
Get over yourself and grow up.
To me it seems like you argue with the goal of elevating your own ego. My wordings where flawed, but it matters only to a douchebag. This is why I insulted you, not only because you deserved it, but also because I wanted our "discussion" to come to an dead end, I predicted nothing insightful would come from it. I am not here to challenge your ego, loosen up and just move along.
So I'm not only childish but a douchebag as well?
Thanks for the heads-up. But I guess I have been expecting too much here and was really hopeful you would man-up, grow some balls and admit you committed a mistake without having to resort to petty insults. We are on a forum, so words express mostly everything here. Thus if your wording is flawed, your argument is flawed. Simple as that.
You are indeed very immature. It's not an insult by the way. Your comebacks are worthy of a youtube flame war and that's as low as it can get. If I have an ego issue, you have serious self-esteem problems to think you need to insult anybody to prove your argument.
Also, it's written 'were' and not 'where' for future reference since you fail as much at Mathematics as at English.
Please do yourself a favor and refrain from posting again.
Not to bring this subject up again, but I'm wondering.. Why is it the demon hunter is so "not liked" just because of it's name? .. In all the forums I've read about the demon hunter most arguements that this class suck is coz of it's name.. And that I really don't get... I mean, so what?
The names are mainly used to new people to get a fast understanding of what the special thing this and that char. can do, and Demon hunter fits that fine.. After you've read the name you know its a ranged char. coz of the hunter, and you know she is not an ordinary woodsman using a bow or crossbow coz of the demon in it ..
The topic at hand isn't that the Demon Hunter sucks, its that the name "Demon Hunter" holds no originality. It's a hunter, who hunts demons. Where as the rest of the classes also hunt demons, but don't have the title "demon X". I agree the name is simple and trivial, but I still like it. It's catchy and sounds good, even in a game where every class hunts demons.
And, again, it seems to be a play on 'Bounty Hunter' as opposed to just adding a word to Hunter. She has a whole lot of gadgets and tricks up her sleeve, all of which are focused around killing demons in various ways. Its like the Boba Fett of Sanctuary.
The Demon Hunter specializes in hunting demons, where as all the other classes are varied warriors that hunt demons, undead, cultists, tainted monsters, etc.
I always looked at the name choice in two ways:
- Demon Hunter is kind of like Bounty Hunter
- Every class kills demons, they don't necessarily hunt them. There is a pretty large difference.
In my narrow opinion the root of this problem comes from the name of a class consisting of two words. Which is against all what we used to in this particular franchise. Let's see... Original Diablo had most straightforward names for the few classes it had, including those added with Hellfire along the line:
Warrior
Rogue
Sorcerer Bard
Monk
Barbatian
Simple as that, one-word names were dead plain and represented what the class essentially was. Great concept, easy to grasp, brings no delusions nor complexity. Diablo II with it's expansion did follow the same path having one-word names of classes which makes them easy to address and understand without even taking a look at one's appearence. Here:
Amazon
Barbarian
Sorceress
Necromancer
Paladin Druid
Assassin
Awesome! Well done! Clarity achieved and diversity is vast. One says 'Necro', 'Sorc', 'Pal', 'Barb' etc. and everyone understands. One word = one class. Perfection! Oh well... Here comes Diablo III with it's classes as follows so far:
Monk
Wizard
Barbarian
Witch Doctor
Demon Hunter
Two out of five still do well along the lines of nice traditions. Monk is a comeback to the very roots of series. Barbarian follows directly from the second game to save the day. Wizard is a new term for sorceror which implies the class is supposed to feel more fresh and revisioned... But WD and DH are just out of place along those names here. The two-word names ruin a concept so nicely saved to rhis point.
I can see clearly why they are named this way. Because this is what they are. A tribal Witch Doctor and a gothic Demon Hunter. They invented the class as it was and then named it, and not contrariwise. Alternatives could be Shaman and Hunter but these felt just wrong. So the designers had to make a step away from one-word concept to put exactly an intended flavor into the character. Witch Doctor from that point of view sounds good enough actually. I personally hate this class, but it is interestingly unique and the name suits just fine. But for the Demon Hunter I personally would name at least two possible alternatives to consider:
Shikari
Shadower
One word, no intersections with WoW, more interesting overall tone. Could work just fine for that class as it is. But specifically I'd rather have a Bard class return instead of the DH. Well, doesn't matter. Game will be magnificent anyway. It's BLIZZARD, damn it! =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is told that Buddha, going out to look on life, was greatly daunted by death. "They all eat one another!" he cried, and called it evil. This process I examined, changed the verb, said, "They all feed one another." and called it good.
(c) Charlotte Perkins Gilman
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, you have a point. Lol.
I guess the issue is that the Barbarian has a history already, so it's easy to make a deeper character out of him. The rest, well... not yet. Maybe once I play through with each I'll feel differently. But they definitely need to have character reactions to significant plot points.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
It's her profession. Obsession is the reason why he/she choose to be a demon hunter. Hunting demons it's what they do. And my point is: if he/she dedicated her life to eliminate demons, why the other classes who dedicated their lives in different areas would hunt down demon like a "professional" ?
Also, theres no point in compare a character builded for D3 with D1 and D2 versions. So it doesn't matter if the rogue didn't use a lot of gadgets in D1 and D2. Look at the barbarian.. In D2 he did not provoked earthquakes, did not summon spirit weapons and allies, etc... They spiced him up so the other classes would not outshine him. The same could be easilly done with the rogue.
Imo the rogue would be a better character because they could creat her story using D2's events as background. It could add a sense of continuity
Yes, but its not like the skills the DH has implies that she should be a Rogue. Sure, it would have worked, but its not completely neccessary. And no classes from D1 returned (as a playable class) during D2 and you still got the sense it is in the same world. You don't need characters to return as playable classes in order to have continuity. And the name "Demon Hunter" is a play on "Bounty Hunter" which implies a large arsenal of gadgets, which obviously fits the D3 DH.
The Rogue already was playable in D1 and returned with the Rogue encampment in D2. If they just kept the same name and gave her a different background it would just be confusing (I mean, look at the confusion that stems from them using the word runes in D3). They wanted to make a new backstory, so they made the Demon Hunter.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
Yes, but its not like the skills the DH has implies that she should be a Rogue. Sure, it would have worked, but its not completely neccessary. And no classes from D1 returned (as a playable class) during D2 and you still got the sense it is in the same world. You don't need characters to return as playable classes in order to have continuity. And the name "Demon Hunter" is a play on "Bounty Hunter" which implies a large arsenal of gadgets, which obviously fits the D3 DH.
The Rogue already was playable in D1 and returned with the Rogue encampment in D2. If they just kept the same name and gave her a different background it would just be confusing (I mean, look at the confusion that stems from them using the word runes in D3). They wanted to make a new backstory, so they made the Demon Hunter.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
Anyways..
For me, Demon Hunter was such a let down as the "Secret Class". Not enough innovation involved with it. A vengeful hunter who stalks demons.. /boo
I understand the roll for the traditional rogue/hunter class was the element missing in the traditional scheme of things, but why not step outside the box a little.
http://us.battle.net...ile/vadle-1714/
http://us.battle.net...4/hero/34530475
But that aside, even if the name did fit well...it's still not original at all. Hell, it's not even original to Blizzard. Warcraft3 anyone?
I should draw a pic of the demon hunter and Illidan together...
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Demon hunter. That's 2 words.
Anyway, now that Emil mentioned it, 2 words for classes is kind of annoying.
Witch doctor? Ya...annoying name as well.
No major gripe with the whole business though.
This thread is more like a compilation of personal-taste/preference-kind-of-thing rather than actual reasons why this name is good or bad.
Personally, I find it a silly name but I doubt D3 will suck because a character got named 'wrong'.
Wow you made everything so mature all of a sudden. Too much for me to take.
Damn.
Edit- Eh..wait. Barbarian, wizard and monk are all one word definition.
OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....
Let me guess. Your next post will be:
For people using childish rhetoric to look past logic:
*If only allowed to use up to two words.
The name and class itself is nothing innovative. With the destruction of world stones it allows more corruption and destruction throughout.
It wouldn't have been a bad idea to introduce a schizophrenic type class, partially possessed by demonic energy. But in my opinion, should have replaced the Witch Doctor and more appropriately been the surprise announcement character..
http://us.battle.net...ile/vadle-1714/
http://us.battle.net...4/hero/34530475
Let me clear things up for you.
I pointed out the simple inconsistency of your first post in the thread. I showed no disrespect whatsoever. I chose to quote you because I read Emil's (Ophion) posts about two words names and wanted to add something to that and just then you posted about your one word thing. Now sure, if I wanted to go all trololo, maybe I would be all about how you need to learn to count.
But now you decided to make a super comeback by saying that my post was childish. Makes me want to troll for real.
But hey this could go on forever. Don't know if you are that immature or you are on a bad day or whatever but have it your way.
Also if you had the decency to read through a few of posts in this thread, your so-called point was explained much more clearly and without ambiguity. Since two-words names was an argument raised earlier, it actually makes my point in highlighting your mistake a valid one.
Get over yourself and grow up.
Thanks for the heads-up. But I guess I have been expecting too much here and was really hopeful you would man-up, grow some balls and admit you committed a mistake without having to resort to petty insults. We are on a forum, so words express mostly everything here. Thus if your wording is flawed, your argument is flawed. Simple as that.
You are indeed very immature. It's not an insult by the way. Your comebacks are worthy of a youtube flame war and that's as low as it can get. If I have an ego issue, you have serious self-esteem problems to think you need to insult anybody to prove your argument.
Also, it's written 'were' and not 'where' for future reference since you fail as much at Mathematics as at English.
Please do yourself a favor and refrain from posting again.
The topic at hand isn't that the Demon Hunter sucks, its that the name "Demon Hunter" holds no originality. It's a hunter, who hunts demons. Where as the rest of the classes also hunt demons, but don't have the title "demon X". I agree the name is simple and trivial, but I still like it. It's catchy and sounds good, even in a game where every class hunts demons.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
Regardless of the name of the class you will be able to create your own name for your own character. duh! lol don't like it? that's tough crap
- Demon Hunter is kind of like Bounty Hunter
- Every class kills demons, they don't necessarily hunt them. There is a pretty large difference.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
Warrior
Rogue
Sorcerer
Bard
Monk
Barbatian
Simple as that, one-word names were dead plain and represented what the class essentially was. Great concept, easy to grasp, brings no delusions nor complexity. Diablo II with it's expansion did follow the same path having one-word names of classes which makes them easy to address and understand without even taking a look at one's appearence. Here:
Amazon
Barbarian
Sorceress
Necromancer
Paladin
Druid
Assassin
Awesome! Well done! Clarity achieved and diversity is vast. One says 'Necro', 'Sorc', 'Pal', 'Barb' etc. and everyone understands. One word = one class. Perfection! Oh well... Here comes Diablo III with it's classes as follows so far:
Monk
Wizard
Barbarian
Witch Doctor
Demon Hunter
Two out of five still do well along the lines of nice traditions. Monk is a comeback to the very roots of series. Barbarian follows directly from the second game to save the day. Wizard is a new term for sorceror which implies the class is supposed to feel more fresh and revisioned... But WD and DH are just out of place along those names here. The two-word names ruin a concept so nicely saved to rhis point.
I can see clearly why they are named this way. Because this is what they are. A tribal Witch Doctor and a gothic Demon Hunter. They invented the class as it was and then named it, and not contrariwise. Alternatives could be Shaman and Hunter but these felt just wrong. So the designers had to make a step away from one-word concept to put exactly an intended flavor into the character. Witch Doctor from that point of view sounds good enough actually. I personally hate this class, but it is interestingly unique and the name suits just fine. But for the Demon Hunter I personally would name at least two possible alternatives to consider:
Shikari
Shadower
One word, no intersections with WoW, more interesting overall tone. Could work just fine for that class as it is. But specifically I'd rather have a Bard class return instead of the DH. Well, doesn't matter. Game will be magnificent anyway. It's BLIZZARD, damn it! =)