Am I the only one who thinks this entire thread is food for Trolls?
It may be a lame reason not to like a class, but judging by the responces I'm not the only one who feels this way.
To be honest, there are elements I'm not keen on either, that's why I'm playing the female WD so I don't have to listen to that annoying voice acting. There was a lot of potential to make an angry demonic WD, which would have been cool. I'm also not a fan of the animal releases for the primary slot abilities, which is why I'll be using the blow dart. No need to punish pharoah with a bunch of hopping frogs. But the flying bats? Those are freaking cool. There are a ton of cool and original skills so I'm not forced to choose skills I don't like. Also the play style is going to be a new experience as a result of the creativity.
TL:DR, Yes WD did go a little too far with some abilities, but there are plenty of original & cool skills which make the WD a hit for me.
I'm also not a fan at all of the WD voice. That, combined with the armor skins is why my interest in the WD is pretty low. Aesthetics aside, however, I think the WD is definitely an awesome class. They're playstyle is definitely unique, and I know they can push the damage. I just can't get over the tiki masks and piercing voice =(
I will play all of them. First I will roll DH, then when I get bored whatever else, probably smth completely opposite, which maybe WD or Barb. I think DH will require a lot of skill to stay alive in higher levels so it will be nice to play WD from time to time to have fun with his skills and take a little more passive approach to the fight (I mean here that I may be able to think less about avoiding mobs). In D3 the best idea is to just switch from one to another class when you feel like it.
And I'm sure you will roll WD eventually.
I normally play the warlock or the otherwise "dark caster" archtype class in most games where its an option. I love playing casters in general as a matter of preference, and I fine the dark caster classes typically have more interesting and innovative game mechanics compared to the traditional mage class that acompanies it.
That said, I wont be playing the WD in Diablo3- at least not as my first hero or my main.
The styling of the hero is just to far out there to allow me to enjoy my power fantasy role playing. I like to see my self as the hero I'm playing (like most gamers- at least on some level) and it's hard to relate to an aging black tribal doctor who uses toads and blowdarts, as an early twenties white american. Plus, I find the animations lanky and goofy, and the constant "booga-booga!" emotes annoying at best.
That left me the Wizard and the DH as classes to start with. It was very close and thankfully playing beta since march or so really helped me feel out the two classes. I'll be starting as a Demon hunter as I vastly prefer the dual resource system and increased tendancy toward kiting compared to the static regeneration of the Wizard's arcane power and focus on AoE and cooldowns.
It's really different for everyone though, depending almost exclusively on their playstyle preference and aesthetic preference.
EDIT: it might be worth mentioning that the WD is the only class I VASTLY prefer the female model to the male model. The female monk I find is also slightly preferable to the male monk.
But I just can't get over it, they're just so damn silly! Rain of frogs, flaming bats and dancing around the bonfire. I just can't make myself roll one or even want to see one in my teams! They're just completely uncool!
If by "silly," you mean awesome. Rain of Frogs (and Locust Swarm) harks back to when some disgruntled almighties really stuck it to the enemies of their chosen people. Flaming bats. Flaming bats are uncool? Flaming -- freaking -- bats.
I will stand by the statement that warriors, barbarians, or knight-variety fighters are always the most boring. This time around, we have Governor Schwarzenegger wielding his sharpened brass section. To be fair, I'll play one, eventually. Possibly even before I play the assassin's creed acrobat, but I have no idea how people can see the class with the most monosyllabic abilities as more interesting than the spiritual successor (literally) to the necromancer. In fact, take out the barb, bring back the necro instead, and I will be a happier man. (I would say the WD is a clear integration of WoW warlock concepts with the DII necromancer; both great classes, being integrated to make another great class.)
Though my monk will probably be leveled up more quickly since I will be playing him in a group, my WD will be my main character for soloing.
The styling of the hero is just to far out there to allow me to enjoy my power fantasy role playing. I like to see my self as the hero I'm playing (like most gamers- at least on some level) and it's hard to relate to an aging black tribal doctor who uses toads and blowdarts, as an early twenties white american. Plus, I find the animations lanky and goofy, and the constant "booga-booga!" emotes annoying at best.
I'm not sure I really want to address this one... except certainly to point out that "[t]he styling of the hero is just too far out there," for someone of stated demographics to hit with straight English grammar, apparently. That, and that the Diablo sorcerer was black, and the DII paladin was black (though I really hated the paladin for play style and conceptual reasons.) Also, I think one might want to consider openly describing relating to a character such as this as difficult when the alternatives are an Asian with magic powers, Schwarzenegger on steroids (which are also taking steroids), or in general, in a game made by people who expect you to relate to elves, wolves, cows, goblins, aliens, pudgy green dudes, and zombies (though perhaps DIII is not quite intended for the same demographic as WoW.)
While I, personally, have no problem relating to characters of any size, shape, or variety (perhaps a little to muscle-bound axe-jockeys), I can see that, being a late-twenties black American, some others of my demographic might want to see a little representation and not have a choice of white, white, white, and Asian (though I'm pleased George Takei can be represented too... though perhaps a little disappointed that he doesn't do the related voice-over.)
But I just can't get over it, they're just so damn silly! Rain of frogs, flaming bats and dancing around the bonfire. I just can't make myself roll one or even want to see one in my teams! They're just completely uncool!
If by "silly," you mean awesome. Rain of Frogs (and Locust Swarm) harks back to when some disgruntled almighties really stuck it to the enemies of their chosen people. Flaming bats. Flaming bats are uncool? Flaming -- freaking -- bats.
I will stand by the statement that warriors, barbarians, or knight-variety fighters are always the most boring. This time around, we have Governor Schwarzenegger wielding his sharpened brass section. To be fair, I'll play one, eventually. Possibly even before I play the assassin's creed acrobat, but I have no idea how people can see the class with the most monosyllabic abilities as more interesting than the spiritual successor (literally) to the necromancer. In fact, take out the barb, bring back the necro instead, and I will be a happier man. (I would say the WD is a clear integration of WoW warlock concepts with the DII necromancer; both great classes, being integrated to make another great class.)
Though my monk will probably be leveled up more quickly since I will be playing him in a group, my WD will be my main character for soloing.
The styling of the hero is just to far out there to allow me to enjoy my power fantasy role playing. I like to see my self as the hero I'm playing (like most gamers- at least on some level) and it's hard to relate to an aging black tribal doctor who uses toads and blowdarts, as an early twenties white american. Plus, I find the animations lanky and goofy, and the constant "booga-booga!" emotes annoying at best.
I'm not sure I really want to address this one... except certainly to point out that "[t]he styling of the hero is just too far out there," for someone of stated demographics to hit with straight English grammar, apparently. That, and that the Diablo sorcerer was black, and the DII paladin was black (though I really hated the paladin for play style and conceptual reasons.) Also, I think one might want to consider openly describing relating to a character such as this as difficult when the alternatives are an Asian with magic powers, Schwarzenegger on steroids (which are also taking steroids), or in general, in a game made by people who expect you to relate to elves, wolves, cows, goblins, aliens, pudgy green dudes, and zombies (though perhaps DIII is not quite intended for the same demographic as WoW.)
While I, personally, have no problem relating to characters of any size, shape, or variety (perhaps a little to muscle-bound axe-jockeys), I can see that, being a late-twenties black American, some others of my demographic might want to see a little representation and not have a choice of white, white, white, and Asian (though I'm pleased George Takei can be represented too... though perhaps a little disappointed that he doesn't do the related voice-over.)
This is an open discussion on a fan forum, I'm not submitting an article for peer review. I find asserting ad-hominems to be significantly more offensive to an open discussion than a minor grammatical error. I also find it interesting that English is the official language of the US now - would you mind citing a source that implies you cannot be american if English isn't your native language? I grew up speaking engligh, but my parents did not and it's not the primary language in our household. I was unaware this fact means my opinions or input is invalid.
EDIT: removed a misplaced apostraphe since I know any errant symbols would render the entirety of the post unreadable to you.
@Karsen, Would you prefer a version of Diablo 3 where all the characters are white? Personally, I wish each of the characters carried a briefcase, since I can't relate to carrying a sword to work.
WD are f'ing awesome! Everything from their voice (male voiceover is the best imo) to their shaking hands and being able to make it rain (frogs) is pure win.
This is an open discussion on a fan forum, I'm not submitting an article for peer review. I find asserting ad-hominems to be significantly more offensive to an open discussion than a minor grammatical error. I also find it interesting that English is the official language of the US now - would you mind citing a source that implies you cannot be american if English isn't your native language? I grew up speaking engligh, but my parents did not and it's not the primary language in our household. I was unaware this fact means my opinions or input is invalid.
What is a forum, but a place for peer review? I'm not sure what statement was an ad hominem, as I did not suggest that dropping an 'o' invalidated a point, I simply find it worth correcting. I would call English the common tongue of the US, but it is no official language.
@Karsen, Would you prefer a version of Diablo 3 where all the characters are white? Personally, I wish each of the characters carried a briefcase, since I can't relate to carrying a sword to work.
I would prefer a version of diablo 3 where I can customize the skin color, hair color & length, body type, and gender to that of my personal preference, rather than having race/gender locked to a specific class (thankfully we at least have gotten a choice of gender).
I belive all people should be able to make their hero look as similar (or different) to themselves as they would like. It is, after all, an action ROLE playing game.
@Karsen, Would you prefer a version of Diablo 3 where all the characters are white? Personally, I wish each of the characters carried a briefcase, since I can't relate to carrying a sword to work.
I would prefer a version of diablo 3 where I can customize the skin color, hair color & length, body type, and gender to that of my personal preference, rather than having race/gender locked to a specific class (thankfully we at least have gotten a choice of gender).
I belive all people should be able to make their hero look as similar (or different) to themselves as they would like. It is, after all, an action ROLE playing game.
Ever heard of sims?
The characters are locked I believe due to the general background. White witch doctor? No... Things are locked for a reason and as far as I understand there's more than enough specification in there.
@Karsen, Would you prefer a version of Diablo 3 where all the characters are white? Personally, I wish each of the characters carried a briefcase, since I can't relate to carrying a sword to work.
I would prefer a version of diablo 3 where I can customize the skin color, hair color & length, body type, and gender to that of my personal preference, rather than having race/gender locked to a specific class (thankfully we at least have gotten a choice of gender).
I belive all people should be able to make their hero look as similar (or different) to themselves as they would like. It is, after all, an action ROLE playing game.
Ever heard of sims?
The characters are locked I believe due to the general background. White witch doctor? No... Things are locked for a reason and as far as I understand there's more than enough specification in there.
You also forgot D&D... things are locked for a reason its called lore, you know something that's in role playing games! Such a concept indeed! A hillbilly witch docotor just wouldn't make sense "Joe Bob the voodoo trailer pimp will throw explosive moonshine at you instead of toads..."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing Diablo since 97. I know nothing and having nothing good to say, I be a troll.
I would prefer a version of diablo 3 where I can customize the skin color, hair color & length, body type, and gender to that of my personal preference, rather than having race/gender locked to a specific class (thankfully we at least have gotten a choice of gender).
I belive all people should be able to make their hero look as similar (or different) to themselves as they would like. It is, after all, an action ROLE playing game.
I can't argue with that. I can only assume that DIII's architecture makes customizable character models technically untenable for how Blizzard wants to handle graphics.
@Karsen, Would you prefer a version of Diablo 3 where all the characters are white? Personally, I wish each of the characters carried a briefcase, since I can't relate to carrying a sword to work.
I would prefer a version of diablo 3 where I can customize the skin color, hair color & length, body type, and gender to that of my personal preference, rather than having race/gender locked to a specific class (thankfully we at least have gotten a choice of gender).
I belive all people should be able to make their hero look as similar (or different) to themselves as they would like. It is, after all, an action ROLE playing game.
Ever heard of sims?
The characters are locked I believe due to the general background. White witch doctor? No... Things are locked for a reason and as far as I understand there's more than enough specification in there.
You also forgot D&D... things are locked for a reason its called lore, you know something that's in role playing games! Such a concept indeed! A hillbilly witch docotor just wouldn't make sense "Joe Bob the voodoo trailer pimp will throw explosive moonshine at you instead of toads..."
Well, you understand where I'm coming from perfectly. Kudo's
The characters are locked I believe due to the general background. White witch doctor? No... Things are locked for a reason and as far as I understand there's more than enough specification in there.
White WD, black barb, DH, and monk; there should be no difference. The background could have been whatever they wanted it to be, and be ethnically-correlated, or not. All up to Blizzard.
You also forgot D&D... things are locked for a reason its called lore, you know something that's in role playing games! Such a concept indeed! A hillbilly witch docotor just wouldn't make sense "Joe Bob the voodoo trailer pimp will throw explosive moonshine at you instead of toads..."
The lore is whatever they want it to be, but even so, a great deal more variability might have been offered as per WoW's character creation system, where skin color is highly variable for many species. This is a fantasy game in a non-Earth world; none of it "makes sense," they could have made absolutely any type of WD or other character that they wish, including hillbillies and it would make no less sense than a black one. They are simply calling on deeply-ingrained cultural stereotypes that suggest that Africans and creoles have witch doctors and shamans. It's a business decision, and perfectly understandable and defensible, but not really entirely culturally egalitarian.
@Karsen, Would you prefer a version of Diablo 3 where all the characters are white? Personally, I wish each of the characters carried a briefcase, since I can't relate to carrying a sword to work.
I would prefer a version of diablo 3 where I can customize the skin color, hair color & length, body type, and gender to that of my personal preference, rather than having race/gender locked to a specific class (thankfully we at least have gotten a choice of gender).
I belive all people should be able to make their hero look as similar (or different) to themselves as they would like. It is, after all, an action ROLE playing game.
Ever heard of sims?
The characters are locked I believe due to the general background. White witch doctor? No... Things are locked for a reason and as far as I understand there's more than enough specification in there.
While respect your opinion that "The Sims" is the only game or genre of game that should have character customization, I do not share it.
Character customization is a commonly sought after component of RPGs and will appear on the list of design goals for every game where players characters interact with one another. I appreciate your belief that it is superfluous, I humbly disagree. I find it brash to assume there is no desire among the gaming community for character customization- disagreeing with it is one thing, but denouncing it's existence is difficult to come to terms with when there are common instances of it being highly desired in many games- so much so that many developers are taking the customization once commonly offered and monetizing it via DLC on the grounds that you take, aka "it doesnt affect gameplay". And people spend the extra money for it- so clearly it is desired by a measureable extent.
Torchlight 2 will let you customize the looks of your character. /shrug
I would prefer a version of diablo 3 where I can customize the skin color, hair color & length, body type, and gender to that of my personal preference, rather than having race/gender locked to a specific class (thankfully we at least have gotten a choice of gender).
I belive all people should be able to make their hero look as similar (or different) to themselves as they would like. It is, after all, an action ROLE playing game.
I can't argue with that. I can only assume that DIII's architecture makes customizable character models technically untenable for how Blizzard wants to handle graphics.
Their given reason was that due to armor and the camera angle and distance, that it was a significant amount of development time for a feature that seemed to offer very little benefit. I disagree on some grounds (mainly that I will most likely play with invisible ink on my helms so I can see my guys face as I find it much more natural), but I can certainly understand how it ended on the development backburner in favor of other things.
@Karsen, Would you prefer a version of Diablo 3 where all the characters are white? Personally, I wish each of the characters carried a briefcase, since I can't relate to carrying a sword to work.
I would prefer a version of diablo 3 where I can customize the skin color, hair color & length, body type, and gender to that of my personal preference, rather than having race/gender locked to a specific class (thankfully we at least have gotten a choice of gender).
I belive all people should be able to make their hero look as similar (or different) to themselves as they would like. It is, after all, an action ROLE playing game.
Ever heard of sims?
The characters are locked I believe due to the general background. White witch doctor? No... Things are locked for a reason and as far as I understand there's more than enough specification in there.
While respect your opinion that "The Sims" is the only game or genre of game that should have character customization, I do not share it.
Character customization is a commonly sought after component of RPGs and will appear on the list of design goals for every game where players characters interact with one another. I appreciate your belief that it is superfluous, I humbly disagree. I find it brash to assume there is no desire among the gaming community for character customization- disagreeing with it is one thing, but denouncing it's existence is difficult to come to terms with when there are common instances of it being highly desired in many games- so much so that many developers are taking the customization once commonly offered and monetizing it via DLC on the grounds that you take, aka "it doesnt affect gameplay". And people spend the extra money for it- so clearly it is desired by a measureable extent.
Torchlight 2 will let you customize the looks of your character. /shrug
I don't recall saying that's the only game that should share it and you obviously failed to see the sarcasm in my post. Diablo lore does not adhere to what you want and I doubt it's going to change unless they find a reason to include it.
My other favorite game is Guild Wars and it has tons of customization and GW 2 will have even more, however, it doesn't conflict with the lore so it doesn't bother me. This however is Diablo, an entirely different scenario.
I'm sorry, but I do not agree with you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It may be a lame reason not to like a class, but judging by the responces I'm not the only one who feels this way.
To be honest, there are elements I'm not keen on either, that's why I'm playing the female WD so I don't have to listen to that annoying voice acting. There was a lot of potential to make an angry demonic WD, which would have been cool. I'm also not a fan of the animal releases for the primary slot abilities, which is why I'll be using the blow dart. No need to punish pharoah with a bunch of hopping frogs. But the flying bats? Those are freaking cool. There are a ton of cool and original skills so I'm not forced to choose skills I don't like. Also the play style is going to be a new experience as a result of the creativity.
TL:DR, Yes WD did go a little too far with some abilities, but there are plenty of original & cool skills which make the WD a hit for me.
And I'm sure you will roll WD eventually.
That said, I wont be playing the WD in Diablo3- at least not as my first hero or my main.
The styling of the hero is just to far out there to allow me to enjoy my power fantasy role playing. I like to see my self as the hero I'm playing (like most gamers- at least on some level) and it's hard to relate to an aging black tribal doctor who uses toads and blowdarts, as an early twenties white american. Plus, I find the animations lanky and goofy, and the constant "booga-booga!" emotes annoying at best.
That left me the Wizard and the DH as classes to start with. It was very close and thankfully playing beta since march or so really helped me feel out the two classes. I'll be starting as a Demon hunter as I vastly prefer the dual resource system and increased tendancy toward kiting compared to the static regeneration of the Wizard's arcane power and focus on AoE and cooldowns.
It's really different for everyone though, depending almost exclusively on their playstyle preference and aesthetic preference.
EDIT: it might be worth mentioning that the WD is the only class I VASTLY prefer the female model to the male model. The female monk I find is also slightly preferable to the male monk.
If by "silly," you mean awesome. Rain of Frogs (and Locust Swarm) harks back to when some disgruntled almighties really stuck it to the enemies of their chosen people. Flaming bats. Flaming bats are uncool? Flaming -- freaking -- bats.
I will stand by the statement that warriors, barbarians, or knight-variety fighters are always the most boring. This time around, we have Governor Schwarzenegger wielding his sharpened brass section. To be fair, I'll play one, eventually. Possibly even before I play the assassin's creed acrobat, but I have no idea how people can see the class with the most monosyllabic abilities as more interesting than the spiritual successor (literally) to the necromancer. In fact, take out the barb, bring back the necro instead, and I will be a happier man. (I would say the WD is a clear integration of WoW warlock concepts with the DII necromancer; both great classes, being integrated to make another great class.)
Though my monk will probably be leveled up more quickly since I will be playing him in a group, my WD will be my main character for soloing.
I'm not sure I really want to address this one... except certainly to point out that "[t]he styling of the hero is just too far out there," for someone of stated demographics to hit with straight English grammar, apparently. That, and that the Diablo sorcerer was black, and the DII paladin was black (though I really hated the paladin for play style and conceptual reasons.) Also, I think one might want to consider openly describing relating to a character such as this as difficult when the alternatives are an Asian with magic powers, Schwarzenegger on steroids (which are also taking steroids), or in general, in a game made by people who expect you to relate to elves, wolves, cows, goblins, aliens, pudgy green dudes, and zombies (though perhaps DIII is not quite intended for the same demographic as WoW.)
While I, personally, have no problem relating to characters of any size, shape, or variety (perhaps a little to muscle-bound axe-jockeys), I can see that, being a late-twenties black American, some others of my demographic might want to see a little representation and not have a choice of white, white, white, and Asian (though I'm pleased George Takei can be represented too... though perhaps a little disappointed that he doesn't do the related voice-over.)
This is an open discussion on a fan forum, I'm not submitting an article for peer review. I find asserting ad-hominems to be significantly more offensive to an open discussion than a minor grammatical error. I also find it interesting that English is the official language of the US now - would you mind citing a source that implies you cannot be american if English isn't your native language? I grew up speaking engligh, but my parents did not and it's not the primary language in our household. I was unaware this fact means my opinions or input is invalid.
EDIT: removed a misplaced apostraphe since I know any errant symbols would render the entirety of the post unreadable to you.
What is a forum, but a place for peer review? I'm not sure what statement was an ad hominem, as I did not suggest that dropping an 'o' invalidated a point, I simply find it worth correcting. I would call English the common tongue of the US, but it is no official language.
I would prefer a version of diablo 3 where I can customize the skin color, hair color & length, body type, and gender to that of my personal preference, rather than having race/gender locked to a specific class (thankfully we at least have gotten a choice of gender).
I belive all people should be able to make their hero look as similar (or different) to themselves as they would like. It is, after all, an action ROLE playing game.
Ever heard of sims?
The characters are locked I believe due to the general background. White witch doctor? No... Things are locked for a reason and as far as I understand there's more than enough specification in there.
You also forgot D&D... things are locked for a reason its called lore, you know something that's in role playing games! Such a concept indeed! A hillbilly witch docotor just wouldn't make sense "Joe Bob the voodoo trailer pimp will throw explosive moonshine at you instead of toads..."
I can't argue with that. I can only assume that DIII's architecture makes customizable character models technically untenable for how Blizzard wants to handle graphics.
Well, you understand where I'm coming from perfectly. Kudo's
White WD, black barb, DH, and monk; there should be no difference. The background could have been whatever they wanted it to be, and be ethnically-correlated, or not. All up to Blizzard.
The lore is whatever they want it to be, but even so, a great deal more variability might have been offered as per WoW's character creation system, where skin color is highly variable for many species. This is a fantasy game in a non-Earth world; none of it "makes sense," they could have made absolutely any type of WD or other character that they wish, including hillbillies and it would make no less sense than a black one. They are simply calling on deeply-ingrained cultural stereotypes that suggest that Africans and creoles have witch doctors and shamans. It's a business decision, and perfectly understandable and defensible, but not really entirely culturally egalitarian.
While respect your opinion that "The Sims" is the only game or genre of game that should have character customization, I do not share it.
Character customization is a commonly sought after component of RPGs and will appear on the list of design goals for every game where players characters interact with one another. I appreciate your belief that it is superfluous, I humbly disagree. I find it brash to assume there is no desire among the gaming community for character customization- disagreeing with it is one thing, but denouncing it's existence is difficult to come to terms with when there are common instances of it being highly desired in many games- so much so that many developers are taking the customization once commonly offered and monetizing it via DLC on the grounds that you take, aka "it doesnt affect gameplay". And people spend the extra money for it- so clearly it is desired by a measureable extent.
Torchlight 2 will let you customize the looks of your character. /shrug
Their given reason was that due to armor and the camera angle and distance, that it was a significant amount of development time for a feature that seemed to offer very little benefit. I disagree on some grounds (mainly that I will most likely play with invisible ink on my helms so I can see my guys face as I find it much more natural), but I can certainly understand how it ended on the development backburner in favor of other things.
I don't recall saying that's the only game that should share it and you obviously failed to see the sarcasm in my post. Diablo lore does not adhere to what you want and I doubt it's going to change unless they find a reason to include it.
My other favorite game is Guild Wars and it has tons of customization and GW 2 will have even more, however, it doesn't conflict with the lore so it doesn't bother me. This however is Diablo, an entirely different scenario.
I'm sorry, but I do not agree with you.