Actually the word "Wizard" doesn't really fit this class and seems very much out of place to me. Let me explain why.
Firstly, the etymology of the word is not at all gender-neutral (for that matter, neither is warlock). I consider it a grammatical error to refer to a female spellcaster as a wizard, and I have never heard it used to refer to a female in any context before.
Secondly, the word conveys the sense of a wise old man. For example, like Gandalf in LOTR.
However, the Wizard class that we have been shown is certainly not a wize old sage. She could not be more opposite from that. She is a young, reckless and headstrong attractive "sophomore".
I do not have any problem with the word Wizard by itself, but it doesn't make sense to me to completely misuse the word as they have done. If it were a wise old man, that would be another story.
Considering what she is, I think she would be much more appropriately named the "Sorcerer/ess" (it should be a different title for male/female), or the "Mage/Magician". Sorcerers are usually used to refer to spellcasters that are not necessary wise and may be headstrong. I don't care that the name is already been used before. If they don't change the fundaments of the class (which they haven't really), then I see no reason to completely change the name simply for the sake of trying to trick people into thinking that its a new concept because its not really. The word Magician sounds slightly less male-biased then wizard and also does not contain the root for "wise" so I think that would also be a better choice.
But the idea here is to break barriers and actually go for a juxtaposition. You are absolutely right that the word "wizard" conveys not only a male persona, but a wise od male persona, but that is what makes the wizard that we see in D3 more interesting. She is NOT what we think of as wizard. It's more interesting when you break conventions in a game as opposed to keeping EVERYTHING the exact same as how they always are. The fact that she is reckless, young, and headstrong and doesn't wear a robe is much more interesting to me than the same old wizard archetype that we are already familiar with.
In terms of the word itself as a class name, I was moreso refering to how the name of this type of spellcaster correlates to the spells and abilities used in the game. In that sense, it makes complete sense that she would be called a wizard. Also take note that she uses an orb instead of a wand, staff or any other conventional spellcaster weapon. There are definitley enough differences here from the sorceress.
Haha really guys? Complaining about the name? You guys sound like you are 15 at most. Lets think about it: What spellcaster name isn't cliche at this point? They have all been used in every medieval fantasy game out there. As far as being childish, lets also think about what a wizard is as opposed to other spellcasters. Sorceress- Usually has a primary focus on offensive spells, Warlock- Usually an emphasis on having an evil alignment, Enchanter/Echantress- Oh, I dunno, enchantments maybe? Shaman- Usually a summoner or focuses on naturalistic spells. I could go on. From what we have seen so far, the wizard in D3 has a widespread knowledge of all different types of magic, including elemental, time, space, anti-matterialistic, etc. A wizard is a mage that does indeed hold a knowledge of many different disciplines of magic and not a specific emphasis on any one. That is what we see here, so why is the name Wizard childish as opposed to befitting? Please don't sound like a bunch of nooblets.
After watching the D3 gameplay footage for like the bajillionth time, I've come to the conclusion that the whining is indeed just that, whining. It really ISN't backed up by any coherent reasoning, and the visual changes that are being talked about and petitioned against are not even that major. If anything, the game just looks better, end of story. People say they want more dark, gritty, and overall gothic visuals as well as realism instead of stylization, which makes no sense considering the fact that gothic art is not realistic, nor has it ever been. All Im saying is, if you want to complain about the art direction of anything, please know something about fine art before doing so. A lot of people are sounding really ridiculous and juvenile. How about we let them make the damn game and not rant since we know its gonna be amazing either way.
Hmm, sounds kinda juvenile. If you knew anything about witch doctors, you would know that they are pretty disturbing and crazy dudes, which fits perfectly in a world with deranged demons running about. He looks wierd and ugly? So do half the things in Diablo. Should he look like Sailor Moon? Also, its not a fireball, its a fire bomb. The reason it is relevant is because, traditionally, witch doctors are known to use different conconctions to either heal or curse. The fire bomb is a reference to a volatile mixture (think molotov cocktail) that a witch doctor might make that is imbued with curse properties, so it is indeed more like an explosive device rather than a ball of fire, hence why he lobs it instead of shooting it hadouken style . Totally not the same sort of thing as a fireball from a sorceress. As far as his spells being all over the place and uncool, well again you sound juvenile. Something like locust swarm fits the wd perfectly, as does everything else he has. You wanna talk about being a worthy replacement for the necro, he is it. The necro had the most unimpressive spells in D2.
Have you or any of these other WarCraft zealots considered anything other than WarCraft? I don't mind Diablo being a *new* experience, but I detest that we are just getting another WoW expansion. It feels like some kind of virus.
Once again, it looks nothing like WoW. Not sure what everyone is going on about.
But a change really isnt needed is the point. The comparison to WoW is a fallacy that is being exaggerated and blown out of proportion. D3 literally looks nothing like WoW. And to go back to a good point that was made, realism in indeed a terrible art direction, especially when you are dealing with a game. There are way too many options that you are passing up if you just stick with realism. In retrospect, this new art style is much more versatile. They can do more with it, but if the need or want arises, they can still go dark. The alternative keeps the game static, and that is not what we want.
All,
The point of the thread was to point out that we are not negative, and to show the short list of current wishes.
Let's try to keep on topic, and not perpetuate the criticism I sought to disprove.
Blizzard needs loads of kudos, and good, serious feedback.
But see the problem is that they are not getting loads of kudos and good, serious feedback. Most of the people who are petitioning for a darker art style know nothing about fine art and didn't give the new art style a second thought. They literally just bashed a game based on what they saw on a tech-demo. I think it is those people you need to address. There are way to many exaggerations being made.
Hmm, It actually seems like some of us need to reevaluate how we think this game is "supposed" to be. So overall, everyone has an issue with the less gothic, gritty look. Quite honestly, the only real issue I see from an art point of view is the hue contrast SO FAR. Lets address some things.
-D3 does not look like WoW. Lets be for real. The level of stylization is not even close to the same. WoW is almost completely stylized, whereas D3, SO FAR, is not. There is a realistic value scale, there is indeed a level of violence animation wise and style wise that is not present in WoW. Vibrant colors? Well in the cathedral, how vibrant were the colors really? There was mainly a use of simple blues and greys with slight changes in their respective chroma. This is nothing major. The outside area? well its outside. Again, contrast in hues is an issue but lets not forget that its a work in progress. Is there not supposed to be lush flora and fauna OUTSIDE? just because its Diablo doesn't mean the sun cant shine. There is something dark and perverse about demons and zombies attacking you in an area of daylight and greenery in itself. It violates secure ideals. Lets also not exaggerate with our assessments people.
-What can we accurately say about the character models not fitting a Diablo game? The barbarian looked like a barbarian. In fact, there isn't much to the barb. He looks almost unchanged in terms of design.
Now the witch doctor. Well any of you ever seen a witch doctor? Any of you actually realize that, hailing from Africa, there is definitely high use of color, hue contrast, value change. Overall they are pretty vibrant dudes. The model for him is perfect. The headress, his posture, his proportions. That is how a WD would look.
I too am a hardcore Diablo fan, but Im also an artist and a gamer and I know that these things that people are complaining about are NOT game breaking. You guys sound like a bunch of introverts who never go outside and wish sorcery was real.
wow, theres definitely nothing wrong with the current WD design. What they have now is a lot more accurate to how witch doctors are then what you have above. You cant just throw something up there and say its better cuz its "darker"
Im not really sure what everyone's gripe is about. Lets think about the overall static darkness that we saw in D2. Its definitley true that there was no real progression in atmosphere throughout the game because the whole thing was indeed dark. Also, looking at the gameplay trailer, it really isn't even drastically stylized and certainly not cartoony. There seems to be a good mixture of stylization and realism. In general the art direction looks solid.
0
But the idea here is to break barriers and actually go for a juxtaposition. You are absolutely right that the word "wizard" conveys not only a male persona, but a wise od male persona, but that is what makes the wizard that we see in D3 more interesting. She is NOT what we think of as wizard. It's more interesting when you break conventions in a game as opposed to keeping EVERYTHING the exact same as how they always are. The fact that she is reckless, young, and headstrong and doesn't wear a robe is much more interesting to me than the same old wizard archetype that we are already familiar with.
In terms of the word itself as a class name, I was moreso refering to how the name of this type of spellcaster correlates to the spells and abilities used in the game. In that sense, it makes complete sense that she would be called a wizard. Also take note that she uses an orb instead of a wand, staff or any other conventional spellcaster weapon. There are definitley enough differences here from the sorceress.
0
0
0
0
0
Once again, it looks nothing like WoW. Not sure what everyone is going on about.
0
0
But see the problem is that they are not getting loads of kudos and good, serious feedback. Most of the people who are petitioning for a darker art style know nothing about fine art and didn't give the new art style a second thought. They literally just bashed a game based on what they saw on a tech-demo. I think it is those people you need to address. There are way to many exaggerations being made.
1
-D3 does not look like WoW. Lets be for real. The level of stylization is not even close to the same. WoW is almost completely stylized, whereas D3, SO FAR, is not. There is a realistic value scale, there is indeed a level of violence animation wise and style wise that is not present in WoW. Vibrant colors? Well in the cathedral, how vibrant were the colors really? There was mainly a use of simple blues and greys with slight changes in their respective chroma. This is nothing major. The outside area? well its outside. Again, contrast in hues is an issue but lets not forget that its a work in progress. Is there not supposed to be lush flora and fauna OUTSIDE? just because its Diablo doesn't mean the sun cant shine. There is something dark and perverse about demons and zombies attacking you in an area of daylight and greenery in itself. It violates secure ideals. Lets also not exaggerate with our assessments people.
-What can we accurately say about the character models not fitting a Diablo game? The barbarian looked like a barbarian. In fact, there isn't much to the barb. He looks almost unchanged in terms of design.
Now the witch doctor. Well any of you ever seen a witch doctor? Any of you actually realize that, hailing from Africa, there is definitely high use of color, hue contrast, value change. Overall they are pretty vibrant dudes. The model for him is perfect. The headress, his posture, his proportions. That is how a WD would look.
I too am a hardcore Diablo fan, but Im also an artist and a gamer and I know that these things that people are complaining about are NOT game breaking. You guys sound like a bunch of introverts who never go outside and wish sorcery was real.
0
0