Poll: Does anyone actually like being the "warrior"?
- Thread starter pppppppppppppppppp
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Eh, every game in which I've chosen the warrior, it's been the experience that ruined the game the most. Sure, playing as them is fine, but for me it wasn't the best way to play the game, at all.
The only way I think a warrior type character was actually appealing to me, was TF2's heavy.
The only way I think a warrior type character was actually appealing to me, was TF2's heavy.
I think the warrior class on it's own is rather dull, so I usually mix it up with a mage class. I like to try and keep an even balance between physical specialisms and magical ones.
I haven't played any fantasy RPGs so I guess my closest analogue would be the Soldier class in Mass Effect which is pure combat. It's kinda fun just going in with brute force, but on my new play through I'm taking the sneaky route, which is buckets of fun.
My friends are lazy any just like the stabby stabby. The Warrior type tends to appeal to them.
It's fun when you just want to storm shit, but normally I avoid it.
It's fun when you just want to storm shit, but normally I avoid it.
As others have mentioned before me, the warrior class generally lack a great deal of utility and tactics.
The most warrior-like I ever go is a guardian/paladin class, but only if it seem appealing.
Ranger on the other hand, now there is (usually) a great class, also relatively easy to play as well.
The most warrior-like I ever go is a guardian/paladin class, but only if it seem appealing.
Ranger on the other hand, now there is (usually) a great class, also relatively easy to play as well.
I'm a ranged type of guy/support. I'm not usually in the front lines, and I often don't find the enjoyment when being classes such as the Heavy from TF2, as you don't often kill your enemies unless in a small room. I'm just not a huge Bullet/Sword Thickie. I prefer to be able to take enemies out either from behind or from far away, where they never notice. Hell, I don't even care if I'm hidden from them as a sniper. In many games I've been able to pull off 22 Headshots in a row while being out in the open before either getting killed myself or having to retreat.
I always play warrior, seems to fit my play style. I always get bored with mages, and rogues tend to do too little damage outside of critical hits.
Depends, if they smash enemies to a pulp like a good build from FNV, chainsaw them like gears, or are good at being tricksy like some of the move sets from the POP series or assasins creed 1,2 and BH then yes, if the combat is like oblivion then no.
I like to be a stealth-warrior combo. I love sneaking around for a bit until I can get my opportunity just right, then loose an arrow on one guy, stab another through the back, and charge the remaining two or three with my sword. Just to even things up a little bit without exposing myself.
That's coincidentally what I always do in free-form shooting games like Crysis and Farcry. Sneak around and stab a couple guys, then get to a good vantage point and start blowing things up.
That's coincidentally what I always do in free-form shooting games like Crysis and Farcry. Sneak around and stab a couple guys, then get to a good vantage point and start blowing things up.
It very much depends on the game. In a game like Dragon Age/Mass Effect the warrior style class comes across as vanilla and is the least interesting of the options.
In Guild Wars the warrior was a lot of fun to play because of the balance choices between being a DPS/Tanking/Condition Management. In fact my Warrior/ranger Poisoned Axe build was the most fun I had with a character in any MMO thus far.
In Guild Wars the warrior was a lot of fun to play because of the balance choices between being a DPS/Tanking/Condition Management. In fact my Warrior/ranger Poisoned Axe build was the most fun I had with a character in any MMO thus far.
Warriors are fine, the problem is usually with the implementation of them. The thing is that the brute force approach rarely comes accross as being as awesome as the other options. This is a bit odd given the existance of classic sword and sorcery characters like "Conan" who served to define the genere in it's current form.Glass Joe the Champ said:
Honestly, I think one of the issues is game design as much as anything, with a lot of class based RPGs giving better rewards for NOT engaging in brute force solutions or killing people (Deus Ex comes to mine, with the "cyborg killing machine" being one of the least rewarding paths overall from the perspective of exps and such). When it comes to stealth and such it's usually a lot easier, especially if the designers set it up to be viable to begin with. While unique at one time, I actually find it easier to sneak past and/or disable guards with sneak attacks than to walk up with my sword or machine gun and take the "Rambo" approach, I have more chance of dying and having to re-load doing the brute force thing, and get less for it.
I think that if brute force is made more reliable, and rewarding, it will be more popular.
As far as someone else's point about warriors doing poor damage goes, that's a game design problem that comes from MUDs and such. The basic problem comes about from Thieves being one of the classic archetypes of fantasy RPGs, where they are generally poor fighters but are able to contribute to a team by doing things like finding and disarming traps, which don't translate into video games they way they do into PnP games, even today. The compromise here was to make Warriors defensive, and thieves the offensive version of the melee tree... and of course being the guy who does all the flashy damage and kills stuff rapidly, etc.. is going to be more popular.
I've been of the opinion for a while that in games where stealth is a viable option, especially single player, thieves need to be greatly gimped in their fighting/archery/etc... when they are playable. Nowadays they tend to combine stealth with the MMO damage dealing attitude to create a character that comes accross as basically being a warrior with more options... which isn't a good idea.
That said, being a well done warrior can be awesome. I mean you run into the super-monster and where others are reliant on calling on their gods, or unleashing ancient secrets of magic with mixed results, you can trash the thing through raw physical might, needing only yourself and maybe a piece of metal. The whole "Conan" schtick, if properly powered compared to their threats, a warrior can very much come accross as a self made, self-reliant powerhouse. Conan's stories had wizards, but guess whose name was on the cover, and how he ultimatly solved most problems (even if he did wind up employing a lot of smarts and cunning with his physical might).
depends on what kind of warrior you are talking about.
if it's the warrior that "HUGE FUCKING SWORD AND DERP HERP SOAK DAMAGE AND HIT EVERYTHING.", then no, i don't like playing as that character.
if it's the warrior that "possible dual wield long swords/long awesome sword and awesome shield while being a paladin like warrior" then yeah, i'll roll a warrior for sure.
more often than not, warriors in games are the former instead of latter..tis a shame really.
if it's the warrior that "HUGE FUCKING SWORD AND DERP HERP SOAK DAMAGE AND HIT EVERYTHING.", then no, i don't like playing as that character.
if it's the warrior that "possible dual wield long swords/long awesome sword and awesome shield while being a paladin like warrior" then yeah, i'll roll a warrior for sure.
more often than not, warriors in games are the former instead of latter..tis a shame really.
My problem is that the "Warrior" is the default "tank" role in most games. Tanking is a horribly boring job because it is a passive form of gameplay; you stand there and take hits doing virtually nothing in return while everyone *ELSE* fights.
I like playing off the "Warrior" when I'm in a badass kinda mood. Some times I like to just walk in to a room tanked out in armor with a sword the same size as my character, and just over power the hole room of mobs.
If I truly play off a warrior class. I like to be more of a protector. Not so much fighting as I am, covering the mages, healers or other long range/time based attackers, or distracting for the rouges.
Warriors are as much fun to use as they annoying to watch. If they are done right, they're cool, but if done wrong, they're nothing more then a tool.
If I truly play off a warrior class. I like to be more of a protector. Not so much fighting as I am, covering the mages, healers or other long range/time based attackers, or distracting for the rouges.
Warriors are as much fun to use as they annoying to watch. If they are done right, they're cool, but if done wrong, they're nothing more then a tool.
I usually go warrior hybrid in most video games, warrior in mmo's
in table tops i usually go semi warriors like ranger or monk, good at fighting but usally a secondary fighter who is better at moving around the battlefield then just being a beat stick.
in table tops i usually go semi warriors like ranger or monk, good at fighting but usally a secondary fighter who is better at moving around the battlefield then just being a beat stick.
