New video from the gameplay panel at blizzcon last year. Arena section that shows off some skills we haven't actually seen it action, including Blizzard from the Wizard, Fetish Army and the Zombie Charge runed for Zombie bears
Edit: aparently the Fetish Army can be runed to turn them into exploding skeleton fetishes/stygian dolls (its not in the vid)
Yeah, the 'rune to modify skills' system looks completely aces. So many potential combos there, and since that's what I loved most abut D2 (running wierd skill combos) I'm totally into this.
I just don't know when I'll have a new PC. Or enough time to play the game anyway.
Some people hate it, but I really like that Zombie Bear animation. Also the Barbarian's attack sound seems great, I was worried that "splat" from earlier videos would play on every hit.
The Blizzard graphic could maybe use a little work, seems a bit spare, but maybe that's a rune/skill level thing.
They said very specifically that the necro was too perfect a class(a victim of its own success), and they didnt want to cut/paste it, and there was no place to take it.
That excuse always sounded like such bullshit. The Necro wasn't a masterpiece of design, he was very awkwardly balanced and a bunch of his skills were garbage. Bone spells were essentially useless PvM in the lategame, excepting Corpse Explosion which was initially the most overpowered skill in anything ever. Poison was only somewhat hell viable with very expensive gear. Curses had generally nonsensical scaling, revive AI was often nonfunctional.
The Necromancer had a cool aesthetic but to say there wasn't room for improvement is just a lie.
The excuse seems silly to me for another reason. Its like "Man, that class is just TOO FUCKIN FUN. We can't have that in our game!"
I started d2 again on EAST ladder. 46 necro baller
wakkawa on
0
ZarathustraEckUbermenschnow with stripes!Registered Userregular
edited March 2011
The Necromancer and Druid are a difficult decision for me in terms of favorite D2 class. I know I've made far more Necromancers in my time, though. The most recent (as in, within the past few months) was a Poison Dagger Necromancer that later branched out into PE and PN. It definitely reminded me of the limitations of D2's poison system... but damn was it fun!
I'm going to have to dig up the blue quote regarding the Necromancer and how they didn't want to step on his toes with the Witch Doctor. I don't recall them saying it was "too perfect" to be in D3...
I remember that quote about the Necromancer too (but not who said/wrote it), and I think it's safe to just write it off as nonsense/garbage in every possible category.
Ah, well there's my answer:
Speaking to Kotaku at the Leipzig Games Convention, Jay Wilson Diablo 3's lead designer said:
The Necromancer was simply a victim of his own success, ... He was just too well crafted as a character.
They did not say that the necromancer was a "masterpiece of design" or that he was so perfect that they could not improve on him.
What Jay Wilson did say was that, thematically, in terms of the breadth and types of skills that he has, the Diablo 2 team basically hit all of the bases and that a new version would have nowhere left to go-- rebalancing and updating does not count as breaking new ground. Checking off Golems and minions, curses, bones, malevolent spirits, poisons, corpse explosions, there's not much left to squeeze out of the necromancer conceptually.
Scosglen on
0
ZarathustraEckUbermenschnow with stripes!Registered Userregular
"There's a lot of people on our team who aren't happy with our class choices,” he admitted. "But after we've established 'Diablo III' as its own game with its own type of gameplay and experiences, I wouldn't be opposed to looking at old classes. We are trying to design [the Witch Doctor] class so that if we did bring back the Necromancer, there's room for him. We're looking out ahead of time at what our expansions are going to be, so we've got to keep room open for some of those other classes down the road."
"I've seen this said quite a bit. We're not specifically designing the witch doctor to leave room for a necromancer class. We're focusing on this game and making the classes fun. It's more of a case of, the witch doctor just isn't similar enough that it would prohibit us from adding a necromancer. Were one to be added in an expansion. Were an expansion to be made."
Now, the MTV interview with Jay Wilson does mention that part of the decision not to bring the Necromancer back was that they couldn't think of much to improve in the class. They didn't want to just give you the same skill set on the same character from D2. It's a good read. This interview is also the source of the idea that we may see the Necromancer in an expansion.
It's cute how Blizzard still continues to do their "we haven't decided if we'll do any expansions yet" thing with all their new games (besides SC2, for obvious reasons).
There was a Blizzard/Activision Conference Call back in February, wasn't there? Someone was mentioning earlier that there's another one due in the next quarter?
If that's the case, personally I'm hoping that we do get the Beta notice with said call, and it fires up like the SC2 one did shortly thereafter, followed by an actual release date given to us in October with Blizzcon 2011.
That said, I'm fully expecting Diablo 3 to be a wistful "I'd like it by the end of the year, but would not be at all surprised to have it out in 2012" dream.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited March 2011
It's not unreasonable that they want people to like Diablo 3 for being Diablo 3, as opposed to liking it just because certain classes came back. The barbarian is back because he stands as the series' generic warrior-type; THAT is why the class is back, I would think it fairly straight-forward. Necromancers aren't generic-magic types, they're rather specific and work in specific ways. If they brought it back right at the start, people would just harang it for the changes that would be involved from 2 to 3, and thus hate Diablo 3. Or give it bad press. So in the end, saying it's coming later is the safer route to take.
Personally speaking though, while the necromancer was my favorite class for part 2, it doesn't make it a requirement for liking part 3 (nor should it). It may be the same series, but Blizzard sequels tend to take leaps mechanically speaking, as opposed to, "Same game again only with DUAL-WIELDING PISTOLS" or whatever.
Henroid on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
Have they said who canonically beat Diablo/Baal/Meph in D2? I know the warrior was the canonical player in D1, was it the Barbarian in D2?
Have they said who canonically beat Diablo/Baal/Meph in D2? I know the warrior was the canonical player in D1, was it the Barbarian in D2?
It's whoever you wanted to be. It's why the Dark Wanderer was never directly seen. I don't ever recall the Warrior being THE ONE who attempted to seal Diablo away. It's an RPG.
Topia on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
I'm pretty sure the warrior was the one. The Wanderer was a man and carried a sword around. The other characters were corrupted- the wizard became The Summoner in the Arcane Sanctuary, and the rogue became Blood Raven.
I'm pretty sure the warrior was the one. The Wanderer was a man and carried a sword around. The other characters were corrupted- the wizard became The Summoner in the Arcane Sanctuary, and the rogue became Blood Raven.
Oh? That makes a lot of sense, and I feel like I have heard the blood raven bit before, but I guess I never really put two and two together.
My favourite D2 classes have always been the Necromancer and the Amazon. The former for ordering around an army of the undead, and the latter for flinging death across the screen while retaining a bit more durability than the typical caster classes.
Not sure the WD will be filling that particular itch, though exploding zombie dogs/bears does hold appeal.
And given my D2/WoW/other MMO experiences, I know I'll roll up at least 1 of each class, if just to have something to toy around with now and then when I don't feel like playing in the higher/harder areas, or just want to put some of the piles of loot I'll acquire and stash away to use.
But knowing as little as we do currently, I could vaguely see the Demon Hunter and Wizard being my go to characters, at least to start. After playing a Rogue as a main in WoW for 4-5 years, my interest in chasing shit down as a melee fighter is pretty minimal in any games I play.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
ThePantsAssociationA million could-be years on a thousand may-be worldsRegistered Userregular
Have they said who canonically beat Diablo/Baal/Meph in D2? I know the warrior was the canonical player in D1, was it the Barbarian in D2?
If I had to guess, I'd say that they won't specify. For D2, they needed one character to base the wanderer on, but as far as we know the story for D3 won't have any such requirement.
Without that restraint, they can just say it was a hero, or even group of heroes, that did the demons in last time. And they can make a unique destiny for each of the seven character classes (although I guess one is kinda already given away.)
There was a Blizzard/Activision Conference Call back in February, wasn't there? Someone was mentioning earlier that there's another one due in the next quarter?
Next one is in early May. Morihame said at the last one we'd get news on the Beta, so yeah Im expecting pretty much the same thing they did with SC2.
It's cute how Blizzard still continues to do their "we haven't decided if we'll do any expansions yet" thing with all their new games (besides SC2, for obvious reasons).
They pretty much came right out and said that they'd be doing more than one expansion with D3.
From an interview with Jay back in August
All I’ll say is that the previous Blizzard games just did one expansion, like Starcraft and Diablo II, seemed like a missed opportunity. We’ll make more D3 content until we feel like we don’t have anything more to say.
Skab on
0
darklite_xI'm not an r-tard...Registered Userregular
It's not unreasonable that they want people to like Diablo 3 for being Diablo 3, as opposed to liking it just because certain classes came back. The barbarian is back because he stands as the series' generic warrior-type; THAT is why the class is back, I would think it fairly straight-forward. Necromancers aren't generic-magic types, they're rather specific and work in specific ways. If they brought it back right at the start, people would just harang it for the changes that would be involved from 2 to 3, and thus hate Diablo 3. Or give it bad press. So in the end, saying it's coming later is the safer route to take.
Personally speaking though, while the necromancer was my favorite class for part 2, it doesn't make it a requirement for liking part 3 (nor should it). It may be the same series, but Blizzard sequels tend to take leaps mechanically speaking, as opposed to, "Same game again only with DUAL-WIELDING PISTOLS" or whatever.
I can see both sides of this argument. A lot of people would be happy with Diablo 2.5: updated graphics and improved gameplay (just fixing the broken loot system and a shared stash would be a huge win). But then, if you're going to put this much time and effort into it, we'll expect a lot of new content as well. I can understand why they want this game to stand on its own, but it seems like their team is performing verbal contortions when saying that it's a completely new game with all new classes and new this and new that without acknowledging that they are making a sequel to a well-known franchise. We won't be disappointed if old classes return, just as long as they are complementary to the new classes.
It is pretty simple, this is blizzard. They don't update games, they make new ones. Look at Warcraft 3, Starcraft 2, Diablo 2 compared to Diablo 1. There are massive changes, it is what they do.
There was a Blizzard/Activision Conference Call back in February, wasn't there? Someone was mentioning earlier that there's another one due in the next quarter?
Next one is in early May. Morihame said at the last one we'd get news on the Beta, so yeah Im expecting pretty much the same thing they did with SC2.
It's cute how Blizzard still continues to do their "we haven't decided if we'll do any expansions yet" thing with all their new games (besides SC2, for obvious reasons).
They pretty much came right out and said that they'd be doing more than one expansion with D3.
From an interview with Jay back in August
All I’ll say is that the previous Blizzard games just did one expansion, like Starcraft and Diablo II, seemed like a missed opportunity. We’ll make more D3 content until we feel like we don’t have anything more to say.
Nice change of protocol there, but Bashiok still posted this:
I've seen this said quite a bit. We're not specifically designing the witch doctor to leave room for a necromancer class. We're focusing on this game and making the classes fun. It's more of a case of, the witch doctor just isn't similar enough that it would prohibit us from adding a necromancer. Were one to be added in an expansion. Were an expansion to be made.
Like I said, they still feel this need to timidly dance around the idea of expansions before an expansion is officially announced after the initial game release, as if an expansion weren't a foregone conclusion.
Blizzard worked on D3 (in one form or another) for literally seven years before officially announcing it.
I don't think it's overly surprising that they're reluctant to commit to/speak about an expansion for a game they haven't even released yet, and won't even officially commit to a release date for.
We all know it's coming. They've mentioned it internally in memos. That doesn't mean they want to rile the fanbase up over something that probably only exists in design documents and dreams (if those).
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
People demanding info on an expansion at this point is so goddamn silly.
I wonder to what extent "working on the game for seven years before announcement" really means. As in, how much of that period was just brain-storming on the back-burner, or a period where some artists were just trying to nail some things without game-coding necessarily happening? I'm sure there's people who believe the statement means it's been full-on-development which absolutely wouldn't be the case.
Well, we know for fact that the game had at least one full fledged version at Blizzard north which was completely scrapped. I want to say there were probably two or three incarnations that had to be rebooted before the current one, but I don't want to scour the net for a source on that.
So, yes Blizzard has been trying to make Diablo 3 for a very long time, the product they are preparing for release was not the recipient of all that attention though.
Well, they did essentially scrap (parts of?) an earlier version of it, didn't they? Like, not necessarily start over 90-100% fresh Duke Nukem Forever style, but essentially alpha'd out a bunch of stuff and then went at it again?
Obviously it hasn't been at crunch time for a decade, but yeah, I'm sure it's somewhere in the mid point between present/past 3 years work post announcement, and finding what time/resources/manpower they could spare to the project.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Posts
Hmm, yes. Sparkle ponies. Most excellent. *inserts monocle.*
plus, you'll be a whole nother year older!
Edit: aparently the Fetish Army can be runed to turn them into exploding skeleton fetishes/stygian dolls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TpedK9V2R8&feature=player_embedded
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I just don't know when I'll have a new PC. Or enough time to play the game anyway.
I'm still hoping for a late 2011 release.
I'm hoping for a release this decade.
The Blizzard graphic could maybe use a little work, seems a bit spare, but maybe that's a rune/skill level thing.
The excuse seems silly to me for another reason. Its like "Man, that class is just TOO FUCKIN FUN. We can't have that in our game!"
I started d2 again on EAST ladder. 46 necro baller
I'm going to have to dig up the blue quote regarding the Necromancer and how they didn't want to step on his toes with the Witch Doctor. I don't recall them saying it was "too perfect" to be in D3...
-Z
Ah, well there's my answer:
What Jay Wilson did say was that, thematically, in terms of the breadth and types of skills that he has, the Diablo 2 team basically hit all of the bases and that a new version would have nowhere left to go-- rebalancing and updating does not count as breaking new ground. Checking off Golems and minions, curses, bones, malevolent spirits, poisons, corpse explosions, there's not much left to squeeze out of the necromancer conceptually.
Jay Wilson explaining the exclusion of the Necromancer and hinting that he may return.
Bashiok refuting the idea that the Witch Doctor is leaving room for the Necromancer...
Now, the MTV interview with Jay Wilson does mention that part of the decision not to bring the Necromancer back was that they couldn't think of much to improve in the class. They didn't want to just give you the same skill set on the same character from D2. It's a good read. This interview is also the source of the idea that we may see the Necromancer in an expansion.
-Z
If that's the case, personally I'm hoping that we do get the Beta notice with said call, and it fires up like the SC2 one did shortly thereafter, followed by an actual release date given to us in October with Blizzcon 2011.
That said, I'm fully expecting Diablo 3 to be a wistful "I'd like it by the end of the year, but would not be at all surprised to have it out in 2012" dream.
Personally speaking though, while the necromancer was my favorite class for part 2, it doesn't make it a requirement for liking part 3 (nor should it). It may be the same series, but Blizzard sequels tend to take leaps mechanically speaking, as opposed to, "Same game again only with DUAL-WIELDING PISTOLS" or whatever.
It's whoever you wanted to be. It's why the Dark Wanderer was never directly seen. I don't ever recall the Warrior being THE ONE who attempted to seal Diablo away. It's an RPG.
Oh? That makes a lot of sense, and I feel like I have heard the blood raven bit before, but I guess I never really put two and two together.
Not sure the WD will be filling that particular itch, though exploding zombie dogs/bears does hold appeal.
And given my D2/WoW/other MMO experiences, I know I'll roll up at least 1 of each class, if just to have something to toy around with now and then when I don't feel like playing in the higher/harder areas, or just want to put some of the piles of loot I'll acquire and stash away to use.
But knowing as little as we do currently, I could vaguely see the Demon Hunter and Wizard being my go to characters, at least to start. After playing a Rogue as a main in WoW for 4-5 years, my interest in chasing shit down as a melee fighter is pretty minimal in any games I play.
I agree. Deckard Cain's stories need to be much longer and more detailed!
If I had to guess, I'd say that they won't specify. For D2, they needed one character to base the wanderer on, but as far as we know the story for D3 won't have any such requirement.
Without that restraint, they can just say it was a hero, or even group of heroes, that did the demons in last time. And they can make a unique destiny for each of the seven character classes (although I guess one is kinda already given away.)
I want all the erotic details.
Next one is in early May. Morihame said at the last one we'd get news on the Beta, so yeah Im expecting pretty much the same thing they did with SC2.
They pretty much came right out and said that they'd be doing more than one expansion with D3.
From an interview with Jay back in August
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
They even referenced the chat gem!
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
I can see both sides of this argument. A lot of people would be happy with Diablo 2.5: updated graphics and improved gameplay (just fixing the broken loot system and a shared stash would be a huge win). But then, if you're going to put this much time and effort into it, we'll expect a lot of new content as well. I can understand why they want this game to stand on its own, but it seems like their team is performing verbal contortions when saying that it's a completely new game with all new classes and new this and new that without acknowledging that they are making a sequel to a well-known franchise. We won't be disappointed if old classes return, just as long as they are complementary to the new classes.
*high five* Me too!
Really liked some of the combinations referencing other apps/sites, particularly the dating ones.
Like I said, they still feel this need to timidly dance around the idea of expansions before an expansion is officially announced after the initial game release, as if an expansion weren't a foregone conclusion.
I don't think it's overly surprising that they're reluctant to commit to/speak about an expansion for a game they haven't even released yet, and won't even officially commit to a release date for.
We all know it's coming. They've mentioned it internally in memos. That doesn't mean they want to rile the fanbase up over something that probably only exists in design documents and dreams (if those).
I wonder to what extent "working on the game for seven years before announcement" really means. As in, how much of that period was just brain-storming on the back-burner, or a period where some artists were just trying to nail some things without game-coding necessarily happening? I'm sure there's people who believe the statement means it's been full-on-development which absolutely wouldn't be the case.
So, yes Blizzard has been trying to make Diablo 3 for a very long time, the product they are preparing for release was not the recipient of all that attention though.
Obviously it hasn't been at crunch time for a decade, but yeah, I'm sure it's somewhere in the mid point between present/past 3 years work post announcement, and finding what time/resources/manpower they could spare to the project.