"
Why call it a role playing game if you cant choose your role. I prefer the WoW style of choosing and customizing characters. Gives the user more freedom and I love that.
I personally think this game still falls under the category of dungeon crawler, but seeings how it's considered an ARPG, one would assume that you would be able to customise your character in certain ways.
The only thing that urks me about gender locking classes, is the fact that you have to think of a name and some times the names you have don't fit the gender, lol.
I agree with the OP for the most part, but there is only so much a company can do when they have a budget and to be honest, the gender lock thing really isn't a big problem for me. I could go without it and still love the game.
This thread needs more turtles. Last edited by Renzozuken on Jan 16, 2012, 9:09:29 AM
|
Posted byRenzozukenon Jan 16, 2012, 9:08:15 AM
|
|
Having the gender locked makes things so much quicker and cheaper for GGG. It makes sense to me, it`s the same reason why you can`t rotate the camera. It cuts down on bugs and lets them keep the costs down while still having an amazing game.
|
Posted byJahkakaon Mar 19, 2012, 3:02:45 PM
|
"
There is no reason whatsoever that this should be the case, since it's something that should be there in the first place.
Apparently at no development cost.
Put simply, you never get a game feature or asset without paying someone to spend time making it. So unless you think they took the week or whatever where they could have been adding gender choice and instead played MW2 while on the clock, I really don't get your point.
On the other hand, if you're ok with losing something else to get that, you're welcome to that opinion. Not sure what else there is to say...
|
Posted byLabcoatSamuraion Mar 31, 2012, 2:22:31 PM
|
"
I appreciate the idea that gender cannot be changed. One of the thing that irks me about the new "direction" of D3 is the gender change.
Amazon could only be woman, it was part of their culture. Sorceress is only woman, because that is the way of their order and how they are chosen. The barbarian is a "men only" class because they are the macho axe grinder.
Here we have the witch, and I believe it should remain woman only as that is the most common interpretation of a witch. As for the others, I hope they remain gender specific. I also hope they introduce more classes in the future, but I like the direction they are taking things as it is.
If anything, change the class name per gender and make them slightly different. So the female and male version might be like wizard/witch and they would have slightly different spells because they come from different orders.
My 5 cents
I couldn't agree more with this post.
+1
|
Posted bygosy__on Apr 3, 2018, 6:10:02 PM
|
"
"
I appreciate the idea that gender cannot be changed. One of the thing that irks me about the new "direction" of D3 is the gender change.
Amazon could only be woman, it was part of their culture. Sorceress is only woman, because that is the way of their order and how they are chosen. The barbarian is a "men only" class because they are the macho axe grinder.
Here we have the witch, and I believe it should remain woman only as that is the most common interpretation of a witch. As for the others, I hope they remain gender specific. I also hope they introduce more classes in the future, but I like the direction they are taking things as it is.
If anything, change the class name per gender and make them slightly different. So the female and male version might be like wizard/witch and they would have slightly different spells because they come from different orders.
My 5 cents
I couldn't agree more with this post.
+1
Can you not necro a 6 year old post? Thanks.
|
Posted byiDeeVoon Apr 3, 2018, 6:27:37 PM
|
