Blizzard Reveals Intro Cinematics for the Diablo 3 Necromancer

[ffronw]

Blizzard Reveals Intro Cinematics for the Diablo 3 Necromancer

As the release of Diablo 3's Necromancer Pack draws closer, Blizzard has released the intro cinematics for both the male and female versions of the character.

If you've been waiting to get your hands on Diablo 3's necromancer, it sounds like the wait is getting shorter. Blizzard has announced that the new class will arrive with Patch 2.6, although there is currently no release date for that patch. Alongside that announcement, Blizzard is also showing off the campaign intro cinematic for both the male and female necromancer.

 



Along with adding the Necromancer class, patch 2.6 will also bring a number of new cosmetics, two additional stash tabs, and two additional character slots. There's no firm release date yet, but I expect Blizzard will be announcing that soon.

Permalink

 

[Dalsyne]

Cool stuff. Maybe release it with an expansion though, so I actually spend money on some content instead of doing the same things with a new class.

It is funny to see how they finally realized the Witch Doctor was a joke class. None of the new, re-imagined classes can stand up concept-wise to Diablo 2.

 

[Shadowsetzer]

Cool stuff. Maybe release it with an expansion though, so I actually spend money on some content instead of doing the same things with a new class.

It is funny to see how they finally realized the Witch Doctor was a joke class. None of the new, re-imagined classes can stand up concept-wise to Diablo 2.

I actually enjoyed the Witch Doctor. I love running around with a persistent army while I throw spells out from the backline.

 

[Dalsyne]

I actually enjoyed the Witch Doctor. I love running around with a persistent army while I throw spells out from the backline.

That's what the Necromancer did in Diablo 2. The Witch Doctor, by all accounts, was supposed to be this game's Necromancer. And I fully understand that the mechanics themselves might have been perfectly fine. It's just the feel and theme of the class that makes it not as "cool" as the others.

Same goes for Monk vs Assassin. Demon Hunter was okay but it doesn't hold a candle to the Amazon.

 

[Tiamattt]

I actually enjoyed the Witch Doctor. I love running around with a persistent army while I throw spells out from the backline.

That's what the Necromancer did in Diablo 2. The Witch Doctor, by all accounts, was supposed to be this game's Necromancer. And I fully understand that the mechanics themselves might have been perfectly fine. It's just the feel and theme of the class that makes it not as "cool" as the others.

Same goes for Monk vs Assassin. Demon Hunter was okay but it doesn't hold a candle to the Amazon.

Eh, different strokes I guess. WD was a different direction than the necro theme wise so it makes sense they would feel different. I have seen perhaps too many people that expect the same cool, dark forbidden arts feeling that the necromancer gave from the WD when the WD was trying to go for something else altogether, which is sad because the WD is a pretty badass class when played right.

I actually greatly prefer the monk over the assassin, her martial arts never felt as fluid as the monk's mechanically and "feel" wise I think the monk just, well feels better. TBH the assassin kinda felt out of place since her backstory was to kill mages that went out of line, but in D2 she wasn't really doing that, she was killing demons. A monk beating up waves of demons with his fists, well that just fits in easier.

DH vs Amazon again I prefer the DH. Mechanically the bow/arrow thing was more fleshed out, the DH herself gets some neat unique tools and has a cooler backstory. Although I do miss Javazons and sad that there is no version of that in D3.

Of course it's all preference in the end, neither opinion is wrong.

 

[DoPo]

Eh, different strokes I guess. WD was a different direction than the necro theme wise so it makes sense they would feel different.

They still had the same niche, though - summons and spells. They do feel different, but that's more because of how the base games are differently constructed than the intent behind the classes.

I actually greatly prefer the monk over the assassin, her martial arts never felt as fluid as the monk's mechanically and "feel" wise I think the monk just, well feels better.

Again, it's largely because the games are different. In Diablo 2 your active abilities pretty much fall into two categories - hit things or throw spells. Thus, the assassin did feel a bit...off, since her martial arts are just variations on "I hit you" with different side effects. The monk actually has synergies between skills, so you can do more cool stuff.

With that said, I don't think monk and assassin have the same role in both games. They seem kind of similar because of martial arts but that a very superficial similarity. Same with demon hunter and the amazon - they both attack at range, but they aren't really the same thing. If anything, the demon hunters are a synthesis of the assassin and the amazon - they get ranged attacks and lots of "trick shots" they can do, like the amazon, but they also have traps and evasive manoeuvres similar to the assassin.

 

[Tiamattt]

Eh, different strokes I guess. WD was a different direction than the necro theme wise so it makes sense they would feel different.

They still had the same niche, though - summons and spells. They do feel different, but that's more because of how the base games are differently constructed than the intent behind the classes.

I actually greatly prefer the monk over the assassin, her martial arts never felt as fluid as the monk's mechanically and "feel" wise I think the monk just, well feels better.

Again, it's largely because the games are different. In Diablo 2 your active abilities pretty much fall into two categories - hit things or throw spells. Thus, the assassin did feel a bit...off, since her martial arts are just variations on "I hit you" with different side effects. The monk actually has synergies between skills, so you can do more cool stuff.

With that said, I don't think monk and assassin have the same role in both games. They seem kind of similar because of martial arts but that a very superficial similarity. Same with demon hunter and the amazon - they both attack at range, but they aren't really the same thing. If anything, the demon hunters are a synthesis of the assassin and the amazon - they get ranged attacks and lots of "trick shots" they can do, like the amazon, but they also have traps and evasive manoeuvres similar to the assassin.

Uh, sorry never knew how to do the whole splitting up quotes thing. I guess numbers it is then

1. That's true, although I wonder if they went with say, a summoning druid instead would people make the same connection. I just always thought it was weird that people that actually played the WD & the necro still makes the connection since the necro builds of old relied on their summons to do damage where for a huge chuck of D3 the WD's pets were little more than meat shields. Although to be fair I don't think that the WD's dogs should've been "zombie dogs", you can't really tell due to their colors and just having any sort of beasts would've helped separate the two classes even further.

2. I actually 100% agree with everything said here, but then again I wasn't the one that made the initial comparisons. I was just trying to go off the whole VS thing in Dalsyne's post.

 

[DoPo]

1. That's true, although I wonder if they went with say, a summoning druid instead would people make the same connection. I just always thought it was weird that people that actually played the WD & the necro still makes the connection since the necro builds of old relied on their summons to do damage where for a huge chuck of D3 the WD's pets were little more than meat shields. Although to be fair I don't think that the WD's dogs should've been "zombie dogs", you can't really tell due to their colors and just having any sort of beasts would've helped separate the two classes even further.

Eh, before patch 1.10, you could definitely have a necro who dabbled in summoning for just the tank potential. After 1.10 you were expected to utilize skill synergies and specialise in whatever you wanted to do. I remember running a necro with blood golem and the iron maiden curse that made it completely immortal: it heals when it does damage, iron maiden means anybody who attacks the golem reflects damage to themselves, and the golem is counted as the damage dealer, so it's just constantly healing. My character then just sat back and threw bone spears at everyone laughing. Since the blood golem also shares healing with you, you are also quite safe. This wasn't the only build either - you could do it with any of the golems (iron works great if you make it out of a defensive item) or just invest in basic skeletons, let them tank for you while you dispatch everything and then make new ones.

The necromancer of old was definitely quite flexible and the witch doctor is very definitely in the same position. Again, not totally the same because the games just work differently on a basic level but they are definitely analogous.

Now, a definite argument can be made for sorceress/wizard not being that close. On the surface level they are - the two classes are synonyms of each other and they both seem to just use spells. However, their role is definitely different beyond the different game mechanics - the wizard can go into battlefield manipulation much more and his control there is quite big. The sorceress doesn't really have much for that - at most, she can spec into the cold tree and slow enemies down and maybe teleport around to keep them moving, but she is definitely not that good at it. The sorc excels at dishing out damage, pretty much everything else is secondary.

2. I actually 100% agree with everything said here, but then again I wasn't the one that made the initial comparisons. I was just trying to go off the whole VS thing in Dalsyne's post.

I know you didn't say it - I was just using your post to get into that point.

 

[Tiamattt]

1. That's true, although I wonder if they went with say, a summoning druid instead would people make the same connection. I just always thought it was weird that people that actually played the WD & the necro still makes the connection since the necro builds of old relied on their summons to do damage where for a huge chuck of D3 the WD's pets were little more than meat shields. Although to be fair I don't think that the WD's dogs should've been "zombie dogs", you can't really tell due to their colors and just having any sort of beasts would've helped separate the two classes even further.

Eh, before patch 1.10, you could definitely have a necro who dabbled in summoning for just the tank potential. After 1.10 you were expected to utilize skill synergies and specialise in whatever you wanted to do. I remember running a necro with blood golem and the iron maiden curse that made it completely immortal: it heals when it does damage, iron maiden means anybody who attacks the golem reflects damage to themselves, and the golem is counted as the damage dealer, so it's just constantly healing. My character then just sat back and threw bone spears at everyone laughing. Since the blood golem also shares healing with you, you are also quite safe. This wasn't the only build either - you could do it with any of the golems (iron works great if you make it out of a defensive item) or just invest in basic skeletons, let them tank for you while you dispatch everything and then make new ones.

The necromancer of old was definitely quite flexible and the witch doctor is very definitely in the same position. Again, not totally the same because the games just work differently on a basic level but they are definitely analogous.

Now, a definite argument can be made for sorceress/wizard not being that close. On the surface level they are - the two classes are synonyms of each other and they both seem to just use spells. However, their role is definitely different beyond the different game mechanics - the wizard can go into battlefield manipulation much more and his control there is quite big. The sorceress doesn't really have much for that - at most, she can spec into the cold tree and slow enemies down and maybe teleport around to keep them moving, but she is definitely not that good at it. The sorc excels at dishing out damage, pretty much everything else is secondary.

Ah I loved the Blood Golem/IM combo, those were the days. Was quite sad the day of the patch where that didn't really work anymore and I had to make a new necro to replace him. Anyway while it was definitely true that D2 summons was used for just walking tanks way back in the day I've seen plenty of posts where people fondly remember the necro for the summon synergies and being able to wreck face with huge armies of undead, which is obviously something the WD can't do. Again I loved the Blood Golem/IM combo but this might actually be the first time I've seen it mentioned since D3 came out 5 years ago, so if I were a betting man I would wager that at least a very good portion the people making the WD/Necro connection aren't the same players that spent so much time using that combo/minions as just tanks, or at least don't remember them as well since the summon synergies would naturally be remembered better due to time. The point is if a former D2 necro player played the WD for the first time I don't expect them to say "hey, these pets are like the old D2 pets, they don't really do anything but tank" I expect them to say "hey, all these pets do is tank, the summons in D2 actually kicked ass thanks to synergies!" So with those expected reactions the WD/connection just seems odd to me.

As for the Wizard they do have a lot of potential control tools but sadly I don't see them used all that much. Like the idea of things like slowing time, wave of force to push baddies away, illusions to confuse the enemy, all of these are great on paper but in practice they don't do enough to justify the slot, so people just go for more damage or freezing skills like the sorc used to do. Sadly after all this time pretty much everything else is still secondary to dishing out damage. I actually wish they did more with the control skills so that the wiz/sorc does feel more different but, eh I guess lost potential.

 

[Zydrate]

Everyone is talking about the Witch Doctor and I'm over here like... I really love the Inarius set. It reminds me of my wizard's archon build. Everything in my area is fucked.

I just wish I could find a class that isn't Demonhunter that can clear entire zones like my Marauder can. Until I find that I'm still a main DH.

 

[A'tuin]

Did anyone else get Lion King vibes from Circle of Life, I mean Great Cycle of Being?

 

[Scarim Coral]

It suck that they stop the cgi cinematic pass the first expansion intro. Yes I get this in turns means the game is release sooner but still, I always know Blizzards for their polish cinematic videos.

 

[Hawki]

Did anyone else get Lion King vibes from Circle of Life, I mean Great Cycle of Being?

http://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Balance_(Philosophy)

http://lionking.wikia.com/wiki/The_Circle_of_Life

They're two different concepts. You might argue that the Great Cycle of Being took inspiration from the name "Circle of Life" (in that the Lion King came out in 1994, while Diablo II came out in 2000), but neither can lay claim over the name, or either of the concepts expressed.

It suck that they stop the cgi cinematic pass the first expansion intro. Yes I get this in turns means the game is release sooner but still, I always know Blizzards for their polish cinematic videos.

The necromancer cinematic is using the same style of animation as all the other class intros. Giving the necromancer the CGI treatment would be giving it special preference.

Not that I'd object to such a CGI video, but I never had any expectations of there being one. Blizzard's CGI videos are generally reserved for games, not add-ons to said games, and in recent times, they've used their in-game engines for cheaper cinematics.