@ERoBB said:

@yinstarrunner: I agree. It's ultimately a good thing to be a bit overwhelmed during the character creator. Assuming the game is good, players who've beaten it will want to come back and check out the more odd and unusual classes. I'm fine even if they're a bit unbalanced. Newer players will gravitate toward the familiar fighter, rogue, mage classes, but include the chef class for when the traditional way loses it's fun. Think of them as New Game Plus classes, even if they're available from the start.

I think that's kind of crazy because it fucks first timers. To play any long game you want to know just what you're getting in to when you start because if you pick some thing you don't like it could make you hate a game you might have loved. I know because I have had this happen to me more then a few times when your starting some thing for the first time you want all the info you can get the best game play for you.

@ERoBB said:

@Tennmuerti said:

and eventually the entire game.

You're right, it was shortsighted of me not to get into the individual game mechanics of every single game. How lazy I am.

That's Torchlight's biggest selling point...it's why everyone bought the first one. This shit was known. There's already 100+ classes for the first one and most of them are very good or just copies of Diablo II stuff, which again...is very good.

@KaosAngel said:

This guy knows you can make your own classes right...?

In what game? Skyrim yes, World of Warcraft no. What are you referring to? Did you mean to quote somebody?

@Tennmuerti said:

and eventually the entire game.

You're right, it was shortsighted of me not to get into the individual game mechanics of every single game. How lazy I am.

When I talk about wanting more classes, OBVIOUSLY I'm not aiming that criticism at games with a classless system. Please recalibrate your reply. And when you do, try to detect humor or exaggeration. When someone says every game needs a bard, followed by an exclamation point, it's safe to assume they're not talking about Battlefield. Are you a robot?

This guy knows you can make your own classes right...?

@yinstarrunner: I agree. It's ultimately a good thing to be a bit overwhelmed during the character creator. Assuming the game is good, players who've beaten it will want to come back and check out the more odd and unusual classes. I'm fine even if they're a bit unbalanced. Newer players will gravitate toward the familiar fighter, rogue, mage classes, but include the chef class for when the traditional way loses it's fun. Think of them as New Game Plus classes, even if they're available from the start.

That's a somewhat shallow view of things. Ahem.

Firstly you can't simply judge classes by their number. That is far from the only thing that matters. It is likewise the depth of the classes, the depth of the entire class system, the game mechanics, and eventually the entire game. It's how these classes are used too. Then there are a shitton of classless systems, or systems that allow you to mix and match certain aspects of classes increasing complexity.

Secondly the trinity is the most shallow bread and butter concept that frankly a lot of people are getting tired of. Games like Borderlands have almost nothing to do with this. MMO's are beholden to the model due to their reliance on a party system, and a lot of those games you go on to mention are designed to be played solo, compeltely changing the dynamics. And even MMO's are now trying to move away from this concept.

How can one even criticize derivatives of the trinity and then go on to mention stuff like EverQuest 2 where derivatives from the core classes are the name of the game. Or go on to push the ninja class with a rogue in a game, when for example a game can simply provide the rogue with enough complexity and some gear to make you look just like that, a ninja can just easily be a rogue with a slightly different coat of paint. Yet another game can have only 2 clases in it a Ninja and a Rogue make them compeltely different and be amazing or shit depending on how well they are done.

Continuing further the less classes you have the more time you can devote to each one, enabling you to make them more diverse, unique, better balanced and designed overall. Obviously this is not a statement that a game with less classes is better, just a logical factor of why some choose this path. Likewise with more clasess you are looking at either an increased workload of the dev team or shallower classes

Darksouls you mention had no classes, it's at its core a classless system, your "class" only determined some insignificant in the grand scheme starting gear/attributes. If your interperetation of what is a class as simply that it says so at the character select then again this comes off as somewhat shallow.

Every game should have a paladin class.

What is this nonsense even? Do you really trully want every game there is to include a paladin class, I think I'd rather shoot myself (metaphorically) then be forced to endure the same class in every game. What if is not in tune with game lore? Or it's a game that doesn't require healing? etc...

Also, don't just have a 'mage'. Have a wizard for elemental spells. Have a warlock for poison based damage over time. Have a summoner for pets. Have a priest for heals. Don't just roll it all into one class. Don't just have a tank class. Have a guardian to tank, a knight to deal damage, and a paladin to do a little of both, then have a monk or dragoon type for quirky flex roles

Why the fuck not? This is again nonsense. What is the argument for segregation except, segregation for the sake of it. Classes can be complex enough and well done enough that a mage can do all of those things for example or specialise in one of them and naturally form such a class as you descibed. The huuuuge irony here is that you criticize a game like say Dragons Dogma for having classes that are similar to each other (even tho they are quite varied once you dig deeper) but here you are describing the exactly same thing as what Dragons Dogma did, it has a mage class for buffs/heals and a sorcerer for pure dmg, a fighter as a tank, and Mystic Knight as a paladin class and so on.

And every game needs a bard!

sigh... NO, it doesn't. It realy really doesn't. There are planty of amazing games without bards. And some even with them.

Don't get me wrong I am a huge fan for complexity in my games and absolutely adore infinity angine games for example of the 2-3.5 rulesets with classes coming out of their asses towards the end there But these are not solid arguments whatsoever. Almost every one of them reads like an extremely one sided narrow view of games/classes and overall game design concepts.

If your argument is: "it would be great to have more class diversity in games" i agree, but there is nothing in that post to back it up.

Reminds me of the first time i fired up Neverwinter Nights 2, got into the character creation, and was immediately assaulted with a list of like 25 classes. It was GLORIOUS.

Personally, i think variety in classes is most important in a single-player game where you control multiple party members. Other than that, its not really that important as long as the classes themselves are interesting.

I agree, classes are closely tied to your character's identity and thus are the best way to create a bond with him/her. I think it's much easier to roleplay a ''ninja'' than a ''warrior specced dual wield incidentally using katanas and cloth armor'' (but hey, at least no two warriors are the same!). That's my biggest gripe with Skyrim, no class name anywhere, major skills or favored attributes, nothing. Dragon Age was close to perfect, with a few highly customisable yet unique starting classes and many elite specializations you'd obtain by various means along your journey. Too bad you could choose three of them by level 22, it kinda killed the point.

Here is how I feel I want like 4-5 classes with completely diffident styles of play with directly in each classes skill tree. My big problem with games with a lot of classes they tend to copy paste skills / have skills that are very similar. There are just to many games were I will go from playing one class to one that is kind of the same and I can almost not tell the differences and then why play more then 4-5 classes.\

Long post short: Variety is the spice of life but to much spice and it just tasted bland.

Side note: This only how I fell for games were classes are a main part I much prefer a classless system like the table top RPG Shadowrun

Unless you have something really cool/original just keep it simple, let the variety come from how you build or use the character not how many you have. I tend to feel this way about most types of games not just RPGs

When there are no classes, I still stick to skills that would be in that class. For example, in Skyrim I always either play thief, warrior, or wizard, not something in between.

The more classes and the more complex they are the better.

*disclaimer: Not true for all games, some shouldn't have any classes.

Classes are massively overrated. What you want is classes with depth. Which Dragon's Dogma has since you can actually pull augments and stat gain from multiple classes at once. Meaning you may be a Level 82 Warrior but the odds of that level 82 Warrior over there having the same stat line, gear, and abilities as you is almost non existent.

The grand daddy of all modern RPG's (AD&D) originally had Fighter, Mage, Rogue, Paladin, Cleric, and Druid. That is six classes. Yet any one of those six whole classes had more depth and options for customization than every class in Diablo 3 combined. That is even one of the oldest and most basic versions of the AD&D system too.

EDIT: To put it in a difference sense, there is multiplayer class design, and then there is class design period. Who in their right mind playing a single player game would want to be a class who is only capable of tanking? No one. But in a multiplayer game like Diablo 3 or WoW etc this is required, not because of balance, but because you have to force teamwork so you can't let anyone do more than one thing or the system falls on itself.

Mainly cause of balance and time issues.

The more classes you have the less useful some will be, and you'll end up with classes that nobody ever uses and everyone complains about all the time.

Creating a class takes quite a lot of time, you need to come up with abilities, models, animations, etc. So it kinda becomes, add more classes and cut down the rest of the game content or just work on the ones we have and have more game and more polished classes.

It sounds like you want to play Final Fantasy Tactics. Lots of different classes in the form of Jobs and each magic type was a different job with Priest, Wizard, Time Mage, Oracle, Summoner, and Geomancer. You then had physical type classes that were essentially just melee with special abilities and hybrid type classes that were physical with skills that were kinda magical like Samurai and the Monk.

I myself don't know why games would limit to just 3 or 5 classes. Actually, FFT is a party game with 4-6 characters while the other games only let you control 1 character. I guess that's the reason.

I agree.

When it comes to classes....I actually really like redundancy. Granted that's a bitch to balance even remotely well. But man if you want to keep your game fresh that's the only way to do it.

That's why Diablo 3 looks exciting to me, who the hell knows what they're going to do with expansions. Imagine that game getting an expansion with 4 or 5 more classes.

A disappointing trend seems to be the cutting down on character classes. Games have always based classes on the trinity, the three S's: Strength (fighter), Speed (thief), Skill (mage). And for the life of me, I can't think of a fourth archetype that isn't just a variation or hybrid of the three. But that doesn't excuse a simple three class sytem, unless you're Trine, and that's the theme. Dragon's Dogma was a bit of a disappointment in that regard. It had fighter, rogue, and mage as basic classes, then two coats of paint that were essentially just new moves for the old classes. And a game built on a four person party, that is strictly single player, so balance isn't as much of a concern. This was a let down.

But worse are games that aren't even worrying about the coat of paint. Games like Torchlight 2 and Borderlands 2 are just going with 4-5 classes and calling it a day. I understand the need for balance, which is more difficult with more classes, but you should have more classes than slots in a party. If you can literally cover all the bases in a group, of course you're going to. Which removes a lot of flexibility. So basically in party based games with either competitive online play or raid type groups, you need balance and flexibility. Easier said than done. EverQuest 2 had an insane amount of classes. A bunch of basic classes that all give way to two or three upgrades at level ten, and another upgrade at level twenty. And all of these classes were available to all of the races. This isn't even to mention a three pronged skill tree for all of these twenty classes and all of the fifteen races having special racial abilities. This was pretty amazing, except at higher levels, pretty much half the classes were worthless, and every group just wanted rangers for DPS. On the other end of the spectrum, you have World of Warcraft. Ten or less classes, with only four or so available to each race. Some only available to one faction of the two. And each race has it's own starting zone. So depending on which race and faction you choose, you may never even see a possible class. This system was pretty good for balance. But with a hardcore audience, and a focus on raids, everyone tended to know every class, and had most covered with their alts.

But why should balance carry the same importance in single player games? Why not have some weird classes in fantasy based games? Dark Souls included a hardcore class, where you start out naked with lowered stats. Games should have fun with it, and let us dig deep and play some more flamboyant classes. Every game should have a paladin class. (due to some confusion from a certain thick headed reader, I'd like you to read that sentence like you would: Everyone loves pudding. Which is obviously not literally true.) A fighter with high defense and heal spells, but with relatively low attack output. This class lets skilled players fight in areas way beyond their level. Fights are long and grueling, but with patience, and timely healing, it can be done. Why not include a ninja class? A rogue type with cloth armor and very little health, who can dual wield katanas and deal out damage crazy fast. People would love that. It'd be refreshing from the basic cop out rogue with leather armor, two daggers, and a sneak skill. Hell, while we're at it, why not have a drunkard class? You have to keep alcohol in your inventory, and have to stay drunk to fight well. You use your fists to brawl like a barfighter, and the damage is randomized, but is best when at a balanced level of intoxication. Too sober and you're weak, too drunk and your accuracy is low.

Also, don't just have a 'mage'. Have a wizard for elemental spells. Have a warlock for poison based damage over time. Have a summoner for pets. Have a priest for heals. Don't just roll it all into one class. Don't just have a tank class. Have a guardian to tank, a knight to deal damage, and a paladin to do a little of both, then have a monk or dragoon type for quirky flex roles. And every game needs a bard! (Again: pudding.) The thankless bard class that pretty much only works as a support role. It's a thankless job and only the hardcore want to do it. But with the best buffs and wards, the bard is always welcome. I'm rambling and spinning my wheels at this point. But don't reduce it to just the trinity. That's boring, and pretty much kills replayability.