Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If the player's character doesn't matter then I'd say the story has problems.

Because English is a bastard language; the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual.

Obviously the character matters as a plot element or the story has issues. But characters with no real characteristics have no reason to be locked.

I knew what you meant. I'm just being difficult.

I've honestly never gone that much into the Diablo lore, so I was surprised to find out that even as far as Diablo 1 the characters in that have actual names and, in some cases, fates (Blood Raven is the Rogue from D1, and the Summoner in D2 is the Mage from D1 - that sort of thing).

So if Blizz is continuing that and having their characters actually be characters rather than blank-slate Commander Shepard types, then "I must be able to choose my gender!!!" stuff is not necessary.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I knew what you meant. I'm just being difficult.

Damn you Poe!

I've honestly never gone that much into the Diablo lore, so I was surprised to find out that even as far as Diablo 1 the characters in that have actual names and, in some cases, fates (Blood Raven is the Rogue from D1, and the Summoner in D2 is the Mage from D1 - that sort of thing).

It's something I find fairly clever. It enables characters to have permanence in the lore without boxing them in, kind of like Elder Scrolls protagonists (who are always known by some title or Epitaph).

So if Blizz is continuing that and having their characters actually be characters rather than blank-slate Commander Shepard types, then "I must be able to choose my gender!!!" stuff is not necessary.

Well, I'd say that "Blood Raven" could be male or female. When you keep a player character in later games as a legacy where their original name is replaced with a title it's even less of a reason to not make the character customizable.

If anything, the thing that probably renders the issue moot is that I doubt it'll impact DIV's sales much in practice. Blizz will do what they do, and so long as the game is basically functional it will sell well. They did a good job overall with D3 after releasing the expansion, and some of the more recent updates were really strong on improvements. I doubt the D3 team isn't talking to the D4 team, so as long as Blizz is paying attention to how wrong D3's launch went they can probably keep it from happening again.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I knew what you meant. I'm just being difficult.

I've honestly never gone that much into the Diablo lore, so I was surprised to find out that even as far as Diablo 1 the characters in that have actual names and, in some cases, fates (Blood Raven is the Rogue from D1, and the Summoner in D2 is the Mage from D1 - that sort of thing).

So if Blizz is continuing that and having their characters actually be characters rather than blank-slate Commander Shepard types, then "I must be able to choose my gender!!!" stuff is not necessary.

The characters are blank slates within their own games. It's not until the sequel that we ever learn anything more about the character (who is, of course, now unplayable).

Diablo 2 revealed the fate of all three of the first game's character classes. Diablo 3 revealed the fate of *some* of the second game's character classes. The Barbarian became D3's male barbarian. The Sorceress was killed by the Assassin in the Wizard's backstory. The Necromancer's apprentice put in a brief appearance in the second chapter, indicating that the Necromancer was alive and well, and fighting against the current invasion. IIRC, there was no mention of the Amazon, Druid, or Paladin. There appear to have been plans for another D3 expansion, as the storyline quest for the rogue companion is unfinished at the end of Reaper of Souls. So it's possible that the three missing D2 characters would have put in an appearance if the story had been allowed to continue.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If the player's character doesn't matter then I'd say the story has problems.

Somehow I could imagine a certain group of people throwing an absolute hissy fit if the Amazon or Sorceress was re-rewritten as a male character...

Again though everyone, there hasn't been any confirmation that the races will be locked to one gender, and this is such a small issue anyways. It doesn't really matter...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eumerin wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I knew what you meant. I'm just being difficult.

I've honestly never gone that much into the Diablo lore, so I was surprised to find out that even as far as Diablo 1 the characters in that have actual names and, in some cases, fates (Blood Raven is the Rogue from D1, and the Summoner in D2 is the Mage from D1 - that sort of thing).

So if Blizz is continuing that and having their characters actually be characters rather than blank-slate Commander Shepard types, then "I must be able to choose my gender!!!" stuff is not necessary.

The characters are blank slates within their own games. It's not until the sequel that we ever learn anything more about the character (who is, of course, now unplayable).

Diablo 2 revealed the fate of all three of the first game's character classes. Diablo 3 revealed the fate of *some* of the second game's character classes. The Barbarian became D3's male barbarian. The Sorceress was killed by the Assassin in the Wizard's backstory. The Necromancer's apprentice put in a brief appearance in the second chapter, indicating that the Necromancer was alive and well, and fighting against the current invasion. IIRC, there was no mention of the Amazon, Druid, or Paladin. There appear to have been plans for another D3 expansion, as the storyline quest for the rogue companion is unfinished at the end of Reaper of Souls. So it's possible that the three missing D2 characters would have put in an appearance if the story had been allowed to continue.

D3's story was such a mess.

Case in point, I've been playing the game for over 7 years at this point and I didn't know any of that. Where in the game are these facts about the D2 characters revealed?

I'm not sure where the bit about the Barbarian is mentioned. The bit about the Sorceress ad Assassin is on the official site, in the Wizard's backstory. The Necromancer's apprentice is a random encounter out in the desert.

Eumerin wrote:
I'm not sure where the bit about the Barbarian is mentioned. The bit about the Sorceress ad Assassin is on the official site, in the Wizard's backstory. The Necromancer's apprentice is a random encounter out in the desert.

Pretty sure this is fanon born from the Barbarian's intro and how the male barb looks like a scrappy old guy. The characters also have the same voice actor, so lots of fans consider them the same person but I'm unaware of any developer or Blizzard ever saying they were the same person.

Yeah no reason to think the male barbarian in 3 is the same character.

I remember hearing about an official statement that the two barbarians were the same character not long after he was announced in D3.

*shrug*

The thing is, there's many times where the gender of the character is not important for the purposes of the game.

Gordon Freeman brings to mind. Gordon Freeman's story wouldn't have been any different if they were instead Jordan Freeman, a woman.

That doesn't make Gordon Freeman's story have any less meaning. It just means his gender doesn't play a role in the story. The story of Gordon Freeman wasn't about his gender, it was about his accomplishments. That Gordon Freeman had a penis and balls instead of boobs and a vagina wasn't a key element of his story.

Which isn't to say I'm suggesting Gordon Freeman be retconned. I'm just saying that a character's gender is not always at all relevant to their story or character arc-- and when it's not relevant, there's nothing wrong with the devs implementing a choosable gender, and indeed it makes the game better for a number of players, making it a net positive.

I think there's something somewhere about how Blizz planned for them to be the same character early on but scrapped the idea, so that might be what you're thinking of.

 Togusa wrote:
Seriously, if Blizz wants barbarians to only be male, that's fine.

Fine but weird, given how Heroes of the Storm only include a female barbarian.

 Melissia wrote:
The thing is, there's many times where the gender of the character is not important for the purposes of the game.

To which I'd argue that men and woman are not simply interchangeable. Swapping Gordon for Jordan can be done, sure, but it's not a question of can it it's a question of should it.

I mean, would Natalie Drake make that much difference to Uncharted? What about Larry Croft and Tomb Raider?

The interesting thing about Gordon Freeman is that he's actually not a great character. I mean... he has no characterisation whatsoever, so he could easily be swapped for Jordan. But at the same time, whether he could or not isn't really the point. Sometimes a writer wants to tell a story about a character they've created, and simply saying "Change the gender!" or "Allow us choice!" isn't appropriate.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
To which I'd argue that men and woman are not simply interchangeable.

At what point did Gordon Freeman's penis become important to you in relation to the story of Half Life? You are, after all, insisting that every story needs to make the protagonist's gender important and a key aspect of the story.

 Melissia wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
To which I'd argue that men and woman are not simply interchangeable.

At what point did Gordon Freeman's penis become important to you in relation to the story of Half Life? You are, after all, insisting that every story needs to make the protagonist's gender important and a key aspect of the story.

When they kept emphasizing he was the Free Man. Granted, Jordan Freewoman does have a certain quality to it...
Or maybe Vortigaunts just don't know about gendered nouns and see all humans as "man".

I'd argue that "The One Free Man" is a title and the "Man" in that is used in the same sense as "mankind" (which refers to all human people, not just men). For example, Tolkien referring to the human ringbearers as "the lords of man" didn't mean that they lead men only and not women. English is, after all, a very strange hodgepodge language like that. But we're getting more in to semantics here, and kind of proving my point at the same time; rather than his gender/biological sex actually being important to the plot, it's simply a thing that exists and he happens to have it.

Is it really that big a deal what gender or sex each character is for each class that we must go on for several pages? I mean if it's enough for you to not purchase a game then fine that's your choice even if it sounds petty to me. They might add gender choice in later even as a patch or in an expansion or something. Hopefully to most the lack of gender choice per class is more annoying than something that prevents buying the game by itself.

For me a bigger consideration is how blizzard dropped the ball with the Hong Kong protester and the 2 broadcasters that did nothing. That and the fact blizzard games just feel grindy or competitive and are click-fests. I think I'll still get it but I found Diablo 3 to be pretty meh.

D3 was definitely meh. Even after Reaper of Souls and years of improvements to balance and itemization, it still feels like the game is crippled because it's still D3 and character advancement in D3 is just a slog of grinding and uncompetitive skill choices.

I gave up diablo 3 after a few months i think from release. Cant remember if peak level then was 60. I never played reaper of souls but just the base game.

I've always found it weird how Diablo's characters are simultaneously generic and non customizeable. When D3 let me pick gender and nothing else, it was honestly a bit more irritating than when I didn't have a choice of gender at all.

Am I wrong that this game seems "Destiny-esque"??

 Chewie wrote:
Am I wrong that this game seems "Destiny-esque"??

This comic should answer your question;


Also if you ever asked yourself "why doesn't Hats play Destiny anymore" this comic also provides the answer

Spoiler alert, the purple thing he's holding is a garbage item.

 Chewie wrote:
Am I wrong that this game seems "Destiny-esque"??

You're going to have to explain, because the obvious answer is: yes, you're wrong.

It isn't a first person space shooter, and is clearly derived from previous Diablo games rather than based off Destiny. So, I'm not sure where that proposition would go, or why it would come up.

It is a looter game, which is what Destiny claims to be. In truth, Destiny is a shooter with solid game mechanics, jack all to do, and a horrifically grindy experience that isn't worth the time and effort you put into it. Basically, Destiny is everything a bad relationship is without the possibility for *maybe shouldn't finish that thought*

 LordofHats wrote:
It is a looter game, which is what Destiny claims to be. In truth, Destiny is a shooter with solid game mechanics, jack all to do, and a horrifically grindy experience that isn't worth the time and effort you put into it. Basically, Destiny is everything a bad relationship is without the possibility for *maybe shouldn't finish that thought*

I want the 40 hours I put into it back. It's just a trash game, the mechanics aren't good either. Revolvers are OPAF and the multiplayer is literally unplayable for newbies.

Hot. Trash. Can.

I find Destiny 2 to be quite a good way to spend time with friends in a shooter. It's no TF2 or Siege, though. But at least D2 has a story worth a damn instead of being purely competitive multiplayer.

But I think we're getting off topic here.

 Melissia wrote:
I find Destiny 2 to be quite a good way to spend time with friends in a shooter. It's no TF2 or Siege, though. But at least D2 has a story worth a damn instead of being purely competitive multiplayer.

But I think we're getting off topic here.

I dunno, I've put about 50 hours in and I still cannot tell you what the story is even about. The way they shunted new players in was also pretty terrible.

But, it's a pretty looking game. No doubt.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Chewie wrote:
Am I wrong that this game seems "Destiny-esque"??

This comic should answer your question;

Spoiler:

Also if you ever asked yourself "why doesn't Hats play Destiny anymore" this comic also provides the answer

Spoiler alert, the purple thing he's holding is a garbage item.

That comic... replace the last cell with pre-RoS Diablo. That's how loot was during that Auction House era.... it was horrible. RoS with Loot 2.0 saved that game.

I really hope they've learned their lessons and not repeat the same mistakes.

 Chewie wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Chewie wrote:
Am I wrong that this game seems "Destiny-esque"??

This comic should answer your question;

Spoiler:

Also if you ever asked yourself "why doesn't Hats play Destiny anymore" this comic also provides the answer

Spoiler alert, the purple thing he's holding is a garbage item.

That comic... replace the last cell with pre-RoS Diablo. That's how loot was during that Auction House era.... it was horrible. RoS with Loot 2.0 saved that game.

I really hope they've learned their lessons and not repeat the same mistakes.

Counter-Opinion

Before RoS things were bad, post RoS things got way, way worse.