They didn't seem to specifically mention Charsi as the inspiration for the name of the Imbue system.
That's probably for the best.
??
Charsi was a member of the Sisterhood of the Sightless Eye in Diablo 2, as was the Rogue from Diablo 1.
As a quest reward, Charsi would imbue an item with magical power for you. (This would make the item rare.) I think that's the only time the word Imbue was used for a mechanic in the series, previously. The Sorceress had Enchant to give a weapon fire damage, which is more mechanically similar, but has a different name and the wrong class association.
By it being for the best that they didn't mention it, I mostly just meant that I'm probably about the only nerd who even thinks this is related.
For the curious, Blood Raven (ne Moreina) was the player character Rogue from the first Diablo (and the super unique's in-game art asset is...remarkably accurate to the very-cheesecake illustration of the Sister of the Sightless Eye depicted in the game's manual+dead animal skull helmet, complete with the absurd thigh-high boots, leather bustier thing, and loin cloth). The context in D2 seems to suggest she was already called Blood Raven when she first met Aidan and Jazreth, so it wasn't her edgy "now I'm evil" name so much as what she was called in the Sisterhood. Charsi is a barbarian member of the Sisterhood (she may not have been old enough to serve in the first game).
It's a dumb thing to be this into the old Diablo lore, but I'm pretty psyched that D4 is going to bring back Rogues after a two game absence (the Rogue being a compromise between the ultra-short-range warrior and ultra-long-range sorcerer, with the trap-detection bonus), as she was how I played D1. Obviously that compromise is less relevant now, but I'm happy to see her as presumably taking the place of Demon Hunter (which I also played) with what I assume will be an emphasis on two-handed ranged weapons.
+2
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
Oh, I believe I'm mostly up on the lore, just was wondering why bringing up Charsi could be a pass
And after D3's return to the Pandemonium Fortress I feel like mining the lore of previous games is absolutely what they should do
My real question is do we finally get to have multiple skin tones in D4? My pale pretty boy necro in D3 is fun but I am kind of tired of not being able to make changes
So at this point it seems like the 5th class will almost definitely be an armor wearing class, something reminiscent of the warrior from D1, the Paladin from D2, and the Crusader from D3. The same way the Monk evoked the style of the Rogue and the Assassin, and the the new Rogue does the Assassin and the Demon Hunter. Probably different enough but likely with some familiar call backs.
I hope that whatever it is, or as we see more of the Druid and Rogue poison skills, they have better support for DoT/degen builds. The series has always seemed pretty shy about those, but it can be a very fun play style and doesn’t have to be click-once-and-wait.
Oh, I believe I'm mostly up on the lore, just was wondering why bringing up Charsi could be a pass
And after D3's return to the Pandemonium Fortress I feel like mining the lore of previous games is absolutely what they should do
My real question is do we finally get to have multiple skin tones in D4? My pale pretty boy necro in D3 is fun but I am kind of tired of not being able to make changes
Yes, they covered this in the gull Rogue preview, t showed multiple tints for skin, hair, tattoo prints, scars, etc. Items will also have different skins based on where they were found- ie, a sword founding the desert will be a scimitar, while one found in Scosglen will have a Celtic design.
either way its just a shame given that assassin was always an interesting mess of a design with the strange split focus between claws and traps with a fun aesthetic - would rather they revisited her than idk crusader or something monumentally boring like that
The course of Diablo 3 has been replacing the few non-Western classes like they were some kind of mistake, so yeah I'm not holding out hope for anything all that special at least before expansions. Though at least the D3 Necro was mechanically distinct.
I'm not sure I follow this one. Diablo 3 replaced Paladins at launch with Monks -- that's ditching a "western" class for a "non-western" one. I don't think there's really much to thinking Blizzard is consciously choosing "Western" classes over "Non-Western"? We have examples of both sides from Diablo 3, and there doesn't seem to be any institutional evidence that they have some agenda to do this.
I'm not sure I follow this one. Diablo 3 replaced Paladins at launch with Monks -- that's ditching a "western" class for a "non-western" one. I don't think there's really much to thinking Blizzard is consciously choosing "Western" classes over "Non-Western"? We have examples of both sides from Diablo 3, and there doesn't seem to be any institutional evidence that they have some agenda to do this.
Yes, they absolutely pushed some non-Western class archetypes at launch. And then they introduced the Crusader in their first expansion, a Western take on a holy warrior whose mechanics overlapped so heavily with Monk that it's not clear why both exist. Necro they did do a good job coming up with unique mechanics at least but its undead summoning archetype is still very close to witch doctor.
Now maybe its just coincidence that the two non-western classes are the ones that got very similar western archetypes added after release, and also that the witch doctor was dumped from Immortal while the Monk is likely only there because it is a product targeted towards China, but it feels like a pattern. And it may also not be anything more insidious than listening to fan feedback that led them here. But it has the whiff of one of those D3 experiments they didn't think went over that well and are going to push back into the box for a while.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
the most important customisation feature is ensuring every character has abs
I'm not sure I follow this one. Diablo 3 replaced Paladins at launch with Monks -- that's ditching a "western" class for a "non-western" one. I don't think there's really much to thinking Blizzard is consciously choosing "Western" classes over "Non-Western"? We have examples of both sides from Diablo 3, and there doesn't seem to be any institutional evidence that they have some agenda to do this.
Yes, they absolutely pushed some non-Western class archetypes at launch. And then they introduced the Crusader in their first expansion, a Western take on a holy warrior whose mechanics overlapped so heavily with Monk that it's not clear why both exist. Necro they did do a good job coming up with unique mechanics at least but its undead summoning archetype is still very close to witch doctor.
Now maybe its just coincidence that the two non-western classes are the ones that got very similar western archetypes added after release, and also that the witch doctor was dumped from Immortal while the Monk is likely only there because it is a product targeted towards China, but it feels like a pattern. And it may also not be anything more insidious than listening to fan feedback that led them here. But it has the whiff of one of those D3 experiments they didn't think went over that well and are going to push back into the box for a while.
I think it's likely they're concerned about getting dragged over cultural/racial stereotypes with stuff like the witch doctor in today's political climate. Something like the Barbarian, while an archetype which is still pretty xenophobic in its origins, has by now been so processed by D&D and other fantasy RPGs that no one really recognizes it for that anymore.
BloodySloth on
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure I follow this one. Diablo 3 replaced Paladins at launch with Monks -- that's ditching a "western" class for a "non-western" one. I don't think there's really much to thinking Blizzard is consciously choosing "Western" classes over "Non-Western"? We have examples of both sides from Diablo 3, and there doesn't seem to be any institutional evidence that they have some agenda to do this.
Yes, they absolutely pushed some non-Western class archetypes at launch. And then they introduced the Crusader in their first expansion, a Western take on a holy warrior whose mechanics overlapped so heavily with Monk that it's not clear why both exist. Necro they did do a good job coming up with unique mechanics at least but its undead summoning archetype is still very close to witch doctor.
Now maybe its just coincidence that the two non-western classes are the ones that got very similar western archetypes added after release, and also that the witch doctor was dumped from Immortal while the Monk is likely only there because it is a product targeted towards China, but it feels like a pattern. And it may also not be anything more insidious than listening to fan feedback that led them here. But it has the whiff of one of those D3 experiments they didn't think went over that well and are going to push back into the box for a while.
I think it's likely they're concerned about getting dragged over cultural/racial stereotypes with stuff like the witch doctor in today's political climate. Something like the Barbarian, while an archetype which is still pretty xenophobic in its origins, has by now been so processed by D&D and other fantasy RPGs that no one really recognizes it for that anymore.
Also, the Barbarian archetype is much further removed from any modern stereotype.
they also have many different depictions across history from germanic tribes sacking rome, to mongols conquering asia to european imperialists destroying african and middle eastern cultures
for some reason the dirty smelly barbarians always manage to destroy the bath using societies
I'm not sure I follow this one. Diablo 3 replaced Paladins at launch with Monks -- that's ditching a "western" class for a "non-western" one. I don't think there's really much to thinking Blizzard is consciously choosing "Western" classes over "Non-Western"? We have examples of both sides from Diablo 3, and there doesn't seem to be any institutional evidence that they have some agenda to do this.
Yes, they absolutely pushed some non-Western class archetypes at launch. And then they introduced the Crusader in their first expansion, a Western take on a holy warrior whose mechanics overlapped so heavily with Monk that it's not clear why both exist. Necro they did do a good job coming up with unique mechanics at least but its undead summoning archetype is still very close to witch doctor.
Now maybe its just coincidence that the two non-western classes are the ones that got very similar western archetypes added after release, and also that the witch doctor was dumped from Immortal while the Monk is likely only there because it is a product targeted towards China, but it feels like a pattern. And it may also not be anything more insidious than listening to fan feedback that led them here. But it has the whiff of one of those D3 experiments they didn't think went over that well and are going to push back into the box for a while.
I think it's likely they're concerned about getting dragged over cultural/racial stereotypes with stuff like the witch doctor in today's political climate. Something like the Barbarian, while an archetype which is still pretty xenophobic in its origins, has by now been so processed by D&D and other fantasy RPGs that no one really recognizes it for that anymore.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the Witch Doctor is... not a particularly great depiction. The Monk is partially styled after Shaolin monks, but also they look like Caucasians and speak with Slavic accents and at least some of the place names associated with them (Ivgorod, notably) are Slavic. So, that's mixing a "non-western" archetype with a "western" person embodying that archetype.
I haven't played Crusader or Monk as much as some other classes, but they didn't seem very similar to me when I did play them. In what way does the Crusader displace the Monk? Likewise, the Necromancer and Witch Doctor felt very different to me, although they're certainly more similar than, say, Witch Doctor and Demon Hunter.
I definitely think a pre-order is a mistake after the fiasco that was War3 Reforged. The community is still recovering from how many features were removed or broken in their game due to the release of the remaster.
I've only skimmed the elements of Diablo 2 Resurrected.
My impression is that it's supposed to be the same ol' game with a new coat of a paint (new graphics, higher resolution) and cross-platform switching (i.e. I can start a Barbarian on PC or whatever and then go play that same Barbarian on XBox).
Although the cross-platform thing makes me think I'd have to buy the game twice. Once for each platform. I don't know why anyone would do that.
Or maybe it just means console players and PC Players can play together. I'm not sure.
The people doing this remaster are the same ones that did Tony Hawk and Crash, so they have earned some benefit of the doubt.
I have faith that the developers have their heart in the right place, and know how to take care of the property. I can not say I have the same faith in the company that owns the IP and ultimately has final say in the time and resources which are allowed to go into the remaster. The same goes for WarCraft; I genuinely think the team which was actually working on it wanted better for the game, and the state of it now isn't their fault.
In any case, while I still think pre-ordering it and getting super rolled up in the hype for D2 is setting oneself up for disappointment, I want to think Blizzard is at least aware enough to realize that pushing two disastrous releases out and trying to sweep them both under the rug is a real bad business move and is now willing to give D2 the time and care that it needs... even if that ends up being because they know D2 has a wider potential audience.
I mean if you don't like the new d2 graphics you can literally just turn them off, beyond that and adding things like shared stash and auto looting gold its still d2.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
that's right, the gold cap. I wonder if they will do anything about inventory as well, with how a staff took up 4x2 and a wand took up 1x2 yet they sold for the same amount.
I fucking hate charms too, but those will be in it for sure. they don't matter too much until later on at least
Charms are awesome. Having to balance their utility with your inventory space was kinda the point.
Charms and runes.
I think everyone gets that, it's just that a lot of people don't appreciate balancing effectiveness against convenience. Games should probably be wary about incentivizing players to have less fun.
there's no 'balance'. it's stuff your inventory full of +1 skill/hp large charms and hp/all res small charms and only be able to carry your cube with you because charms are stupid.
being able to carry more shit back to town to sell wouldn't impact the game in any way other than make it less annoying. same with tomes of identify/tp even though those in and of themselves were an attempt to ease the burden of carrying around a bunch of scrolls in 1. then in 3 they got rid of them all together because it turns out they don't actually add anything to the game other than inconvenience
they're not going to remove charms so the question is academic because they're part of the game*, but yes remove them. there isn't a way to fix them because inventory space doesn't make your character better, it just makes it easier to haul stuff to sell back to town. when you have the choice between that and making your character better, you end up with everyone's inventory being filled with 8 GCs, 8 SCs, 2 tomes, and the cube because it turns out that isn't actually a compelling or difficult choice.
In a similar way to how they are putting a toggle/option in the game to allow you to use the old or new graphics, I think they should add toggles and game settings for other things too.
--Allow me to toggle "classic run mode" which keeps the run mechanic exactly as it is in the original game. Then give me a "modern run mode" which removes all the dumb nonsense that was attached to running. Allow me to run all the time without any penalties. This setting would need to be set at the lobby level, rather than the character level. That way all players in a lobby follow the same running rules.
--Charms or no charms. This would be both a character and a lobby setting. Allow me to toggle whether or not charms drop for my character, then allow me to set whether my lobby is a charms lobby or not. Only players with matching settings can join the lobby.
In a similar way to how they are putting a toggle/option in the game to allow you to use the old or new graphics, I think they should add toggles and game settings for other things too.
--Allow me to toggle "classic run mode" which keeps the run mechanic exactly as it is in the original game. Then give me a "modern run mode" which removes all the dumb nonsense that was attached to running. Allow me to run all the time without any penalties. This setting would need to be set at the lobby level, rather than the character level. That way all players in a lobby follow the same running rules.
--Charms or no charms. This would be both a character and a lobby setting. Allow me to toggle whether or not charms drop for my character, then allow me to set whether my lobby is a charms lobby or not. Only players with matching settings can join the lobby.
We already have divisions by realm and hardcore, this level of granularity is starting to get pretty iffy for matchmaking for such an ancient game, especially for features only seasoned vets are really going to understand. At most there might be a single "classic" vs "modern" setting that bundled a ton of adjustments but we'd need much more major changes that players can grasp to really justify such a divide.
there's no 'balance'. it's stuff your inventory full of +1 skill/hp large charms and hp/all res small charms and only be able to carry your cube with you because charms are stupid.
being able to carry more shit back to town to sell wouldn't impact the game in any way other than make it less annoying. same with tomes of identify/tp even though those in and of themselves were an attempt to ease the burden of carrying around a bunch of scrolls in 1. then in 3 they got rid of them all together because it turns out they don't actually add anything to the game other than inconvenience
Nah, it would be a complete change in feel.
Removes the need to plan and stock up before runs, and to also plan how much further to go into the dungeon or go back to town. Changes the entire dynamic of planning out runs and their risk/reward factor. It would be pretty breaking.
I have no idea what you're talking about. need to go back to town? use a scroll of tp and go back to town. it's not some big decision you need to make.
+3
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
planning in my diablo 2? never
+2
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
If they're going to change anything in D2R the absolute first priority should be a review of drop rates so you can actually get reasonably high-end gear without duping/botting.
I don't expect perfect Shakos to fall like rain but it'd be nice if it didn't take literal years to see one at all.
Posts
For the curious, Blood Raven (ne Moreina) was the player character Rogue from the first Diablo (and the super unique's in-game art asset is...remarkably accurate to the very-cheesecake illustration of the Sister of the Sightless Eye depicted in the game's manual+dead animal skull helmet, complete with the absurd thigh-high boots, leather bustier thing, and loin cloth). The context in D2 seems to suggest she was already called Blood Raven when she first met Aidan and Jazreth, so it wasn't her edgy "now I'm evil" name so much as what she was called in the Sisterhood. Charsi is a barbarian member of the Sisterhood (she may not have been old enough to serve in the first game).
It's a dumb thing to be this into the old Diablo lore, but I'm pretty psyched that D4 is going to bring back Rogues after a two game absence (the Rogue being a compromise between the ultra-short-range warrior and ultra-long-range sorcerer, with the trap-detection bonus), as she was how I played D1. Obviously that compromise is less relevant now, but I'm happy to see her as presumably taking the place of Demon Hunter (which I also played) with what I assume will be an emphasis on two-handed ranged weapons.
And after D3's return to the Pandemonium Fortress I feel like mining the lore of previous games is absolutely what they should do
My real question is do we finally get to have multiple skin tones in D4? My pale pretty boy necro in D3 is fun but I am kind of tired of not being able to make changes
Yes, they covered this in the gull Rogue preview, t showed multiple tints for skin, hair, tattoo prints, scars, etc. Items will also have different skins based on where they were found- ie, a sword founding the desert will be a scimitar, while one found in Scosglen will have a Celtic design.
I'm not sure I follow this one. Diablo 3 replaced Paladins at launch with Monks -- that's ditching a "western" class for a "non-western" one. I don't think there's really much to thinking Blizzard is consciously choosing "Western" classes over "Non-Western"? We have examples of both sides from Diablo 3, and there doesn't seem to be any institutional evidence that they have some agenda to do this.
I don’t even care about balance, I just need my screen blob of skeletons. I want to move around like a looting fog.
Yes, they absolutely pushed some non-Western class archetypes at launch. And then they introduced the Crusader in their first expansion, a Western take on a holy warrior whose mechanics overlapped so heavily with Monk that it's not clear why both exist. Necro they did do a good job coming up with unique mechanics at least but its undead summoning archetype is still very close to witch doctor.
Now maybe its just coincidence that the two non-western classes are the ones that got very similar western archetypes added after release, and also that the witch doctor was dumped from Immortal while the Monk is likely only there because it is a product targeted towards China, but it feels like a pattern. And it may also not be anything more insidious than listening to fan feedback that led them here. But it has the whiff of one of those D3 experiments they didn't think went over that well and are going to push back into the box for a while.
playing a RIPPED sorceress
I think it's likely they're concerned about getting dragged over cultural/racial stereotypes with stuff like the witch doctor in today's political climate. Something like the Barbarian, while an archetype which is still pretty xenophobic in its origins, has by now been so processed by D&D and other fantasy RPGs that no one really recognizes it for that anymore.
Also, the Barbarian archetype is much further removed from any modern stereotype.
for some reason the dirty smelly barbarians always manage to destroy the bath using societies
I haven't played Crusader or Monk as much as some other classes, but they didn't seem very similar to me when I did play them. In what way does the Crusader displace the Monk? Likewise, the Necromancer and Witch Doctor felt very different to me, although they're certainly more similar than, say, Witch Doctor and Demon Hunter.
I don't really care about updated graphics. I find the original, dated graphics of Diablo 2 charming, nostalgic, and perfectly playable.
But I might buy in if it revitalizes the Diablo 2 player base.
If you watch any of the info out so far about the D2 Remaster its pretty obvious that this will not be a similar fiasco.
Nintendo ID: Incindium
PSN: IncindiumX
My impression is that it's supposed to be the same ol' game with a new coat of a paint (new graphics, higher resolution) and cross-platform switching (i.e. I can start a Barbarian on PC or whatever and then go play that same Barbarian on XBox).
Although the cross-platform thing makes me think I'd have to buy the game twice. Once for each platform. I don't know why anyone would do that.
Or maybe it just means console players and PC Players can play together. I'm not sure.
I have faith that the developers have their heart in the right place, and know how to take care of the property. I can not say I have the same faith in the company that owns the IP and ultimately has final say in the time and resources which are allowed to go into the remaster. The same goes for WarCraft; I genuinely think the team which was actually working on it wanted better for the game, and the state of it now isn't their fault.
In any case, while I still think pre-ordering it and getting super rolled up in the hype for D2 is setting oneself up for disappointment, I want to think Blizzard is at least aware enough to realize that pushing two disastrous releases out and trying to sweep them both under the rug is a real bad business move and is now willing to give D2 the time and care that it needs... even if that ends up being because they know D2 has a wider potential audience.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
I fucking hate charms too, but those will be in it for sure. they don't matter too much until later on at least
Charms and runes.
I think everyone gets that, it's just that a lot of people don't appreciate balancing effectiveness against convenience. Games should probably be wary about incentivizing players to have less fun.
being able to carry more shit back to town to sell wouldn't impact the game in any way other than make it less annoying. same with tomes of identify/tp even though those in and of themselves were an attempt to ease the burden of carrying around a bunch of scrolls in 1. then in 3 they got rid of them all together because it turns out they don't actually add anything to the game other than inconvenience
failing that u could just have 2 charms, the left charm and right charm
but they definitely shouldnt remove them its in the constitution that everybody has the right to bear charms
Stop them from dropping on ladder at least. Aside from that one unique charm.
Only druids can use bear charms though
*except for when they weren't
--Allow me to toggle "classic run mode" which keeps the run mechanic exactly as it is in the original game. Then give me a "modern run mode" which removes all the dumb nonsense that was attached to running. Allow me to run all the time without any penalties. This setting would need to be set at the lobby level, rather than the character level. That way all players in a lobby follow the same running rules.
--Charms or no charms. This would be both a character and a lobby setting. Allow me to toggle whether or not charms drop for my character, then allow me to set whether my lobby is a charms lobby or not. Only players with matching settings can join the lobby.
We already have divisions by realm and hardcore, this level of granularity is starting to get pretty iffy for matchmaking for such an ancient game, especially for features only seasoned vets are really going to understand. At most there might be a single "classic" vs "modern" setting that bundled a ton of adjustments but we'd need much more major changes that players can grasp to really justify such a divide.
Nah, it would be a complete change in feel.
Removes the need to plan and stock up before runs, and to also plan how much further to go into the dungeon or go back to town. Changes the entire dynamic of planning out runs and their risk/reward factor. It would be pretty breaking.
I don't expect perfect Shakos to fall like rain but it'd be nice if it didn't take literal years to see one at all.