• 0

    posted a message on Wait a second...
    Quote from Airandius

    ...all arch types will be covered if you look at it from a marketing perspective.
    Their are multiple segments in the RPG market, people that like melee combat, people that like ranged combat and people that like magical combat. (To keep it simple.)
    When there is a game where you can choose a class, these three arch types will be covered.

    Why? Because it would be a slap in the face for any company to ignore a segment they try to target. Blizzards target for D3 are people that play RPG style games (mainly) but also older players that know D2 and D1 or other franchises.

    It comes down to this: if they do not include the ranged combat arch type they will have a segment that would not buy their game (a good part of the segment might still buy it, but sales are reduced no doubt).
    This is basic management and economy.

    Biggest reason that the 5th class will be a ranged character. (The base product will want to get most segments. The strategy to put it in an expansion is possible but the sales will not be as high as if it was in the base product.)
    Also my poor English might have screwed with the sentences.

    How can you say that all of the archetypes will be covered when there is no quintessential sword and shield using character? This is the oldest and most prominent RPG archetype that exists. If any character omission is going to keep away potential customers, this is it. Certainly, Blizzard is aware of this. With Diablo 1 we had the warrior, and with Diablo 2 we had the paladin. Along with a wizard of some sort, this type of character is the most essential character in any RPG. I agree that a ranged character is extremely important, I just don't think it is as important as a warrior. Therefore, I disagree with the masses who believe the final class will be a rogue or ranger. I think it is much more likely that the fifth class will be primarily a melee character, and probably secondarily a ranged character.
    Posted in: Unannounced Class
  • 0

    posted a message on Wait a second...
    Quote from Nekrodrac

    Hmm...interesting. Never thought of that before. Maybe we could have a character who would use only shields. Then for his ultimate attack he would run and smash the shield on top of a demon's head. Or better he could throw his shields at monsters.
    Seems awesome.
    On another hand, all chars you mentioned can use shields and probably will.

    Oh and welcome friend. :biggrin:
    Ah yes, the trusty shielderang, lol. I think perhaps we should keep the shield bashes and tosses to a minimum. I understand that any character could potentially use a shield, I just don't see any of the current characters relying heavily on them. Thanks for the friendly reception.

    Quote from Umpa65

    Technically, in ancient times, Archers actually did use shields on occasion. The archer was a big fan of the very mobile and light weight buckler.
    Interesting, I didn't know that. Its funny then that two handed bows are so deeply entrenched in RPG convention. At any rate, I highly doubt Blizzard will break this convention.
    Posted in: Unannounced Class
  • 0

    posted a message on Wait a second...
    ... Everyone seems so damn sure that the final class is going to be wielding a bow, so why even include shields in the game. Bows, without a doubt, will necessarily require two hands. The Barb seems to be proficient at dual wielding. The Monk looks like he is going to be pummeling people with both hands, and, as spell-casters, I really doubt the Wizard or Witch Doctor will be rocking shields. Unless I am missing something, don't we still need the prototypical sword and shield brandishing, main hero type character. Hell, maybe the fifth class will be a swordsman/ranger hybrid, something like a shadow warrior. Thoughts, complaints, maniacal rants?
    Posted in: Unannounced Class
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.