Looking at the new Barbarian, I'm reminded of the brutish Nordic Peoples long ago including the vikings. I mean, weren't the Vikings and Goths the most famous of the Barbarians? If I remember correctly (which i don't), these barbarians were a threat even to the Roman Empire.
But this is just what I'm reminded of anyways.
Barbarians were not just a threat; they actually brought the Roman Empire to a brutal end. Rome had grown to such enormus size that it became impossible to defend its' borders. It got to a point where every male born in Rome was conscripted into the Roman army in a vain attempt to defend Rome from invaders. Barbarian tribes surrounding Rome kept breaking into Rome at various points along the border to pillage and loot Rome's treasures.
But Romans were piggish and they deserved this fate, imo. Half of the population of Rome was composed of slaves. Roman armies had to keep conquering new lands to find fresh slaves and treasure to maintain Rome's lavish lifestyle. It all built up to a huge land mass of lush palaces and loot ripe and ready for the barbarian invasions.|||No, Blizzard decided to show a completely different Barbarian in the gameplay demo than the one we're going to play as in the final release -.-
(sarcasm)|||just imagine how saggy the amazon is going to look.|||
no|||Quote:Looking at the new Barbarian, I'm reminded of the brutish Nordic Peoples long ago including the vikings. I mean, weren't the Vikings and Goths the most famous of the Barbarians? If I remember correctly (which i don't), these barbarians were a threat even to the Roman Empire.
But this is just what I'm reminded of anyways.
You are not far off...If you look at the Sanctuary map which basically is a distorted pre-medieval map of Europe and the mediterranean area you find that the barbarian lands corresponds to Scandinavia so there you got your vikings/goths.|||Quote:
Looking at the new Barbarian, I'm reminded of the brutish Nordic Peoples long ago including the vikings. I mean, weren't the Vikings and Goths the most famous of the Barbarians? If I remember correctly (which i don't), these barbarians were a threat even to the Roman Empire.
But this is just what I'm reminded of anyways.
And not even to the Roman Empire - Vikings and their successors, Normans, actually were a major player in medieval Europe. The last conquerors of England and the British Islands were the Normans. If I remember my facts correctly I think they ruled France around the same time too.
Before them the Vikings had most of northern Europe from Greenland to western Siberia under their power, focusing mainly to Norway and the Baltic Sea. They were kind of landlords and pirates, collecting taxes from many coastal areas rather than traditional conquerors or rulers.
So yeah, the real Barbarians of western history are a good place to start when modelling a worthy Barbarian for D3.
|||Quote:If I remember my facts correctly I think they ruled France around the same time too.
Erm, not really but the northern part of france was given to a Viking lord in exchange for protection from other vikings by the french king, that land was henceforth known as "Normandie".
The Normands (north men) sat there in Normandie a few generations and took a loooong look at Saxon england just across the channel before they simply launched an invasion and took over.|||And old topic, but I didn't resist the impulse to post, because I'm new in the forum and I just read it.
Well, I like this "old" barb by no doubt. Perhaps most of you prefer young heroes, but I like this oldman without a doubt. Young heroes looks kinda inexpert, and perhaps it's a good feeling for the start levels.
But once you play a character for so long and reach high levels, I fell an old-kind model is a better bet. It looks more experimented, more physical, more mature, and more powerfull this way.
I'm sure than, historically, if you mix a young 20ish and an experimented 40'sh warriors and let them fight against other, normally the old one (suppose good athelte and take care of himself practicing a lot) will ridiculize the young in many many ways, doesn�t matter the difference in age.
A 40-old warrior is more dangerous in combat like a sh!ty 18-20 one without any doubt. We are not talking about a 70 years old barb, lol. We are talking about perhaps a 40-45 years old one in excellent body shape, a wise man, experimented, tanned through a thousand battles. If he fights against a crappy 20-y old boy, he shall eat him alive in just a sec.
I will feel ways more comfortable playing with this one than the crappy young from D2, who looks like a fragile kid until he wears the IK set and you don't see him too much ^__^
Perhaps this is because I'm 31, I'm starting getting old and some grey hair and a bit clearing LOL. But I really enjoy this new appeal a lot.|||Old barb is several magnitudes of bad-*** above the young barb. Old Barb is like Clint Eastwood.|||I prefer the Old Barb. He is kinda like Old Snake.
Bad-***.
Of course he will be the only link to the old diablo lore aside from Deckard Cain, so I must play him. Remember, Diablo and Diablo 2 took place while terror walked the Sanctuary. Diablo 3 is 20 years laters, so nearly a generation was borned without fear of the demons.
No comments:
Post a Comment