Staves vs. Staffs and Visual Character Customization

A couple more twitter tidbits today, from @Diablo. That’s all we’re getting this week, since Bashiok’s been spending all his forum time wading into the pre-launch frenzy on the SC2 forums.

Will the character’s appearance be customizable? (hair, face, skin color)—bbcmilk

We’re focusing on customization through items as they can be seen better from how far away the camera is from the character.—Diablo

That’s a “no,” if you were wondering. However, as @Diablo points out, there’s no real point in character customization since you can’t see your character’s face, hair, skin tone, etc anyway, obscured as it is by armor and the isometric POV.

Elsewhere, we got another hint of the ongoing itemization the D3 devs are working on as they address one of the major issues of RPG game design:

I bet you didn?t think people could debate the proper plural of ?staff? for more than 5 minutes.—Diablo

So what do you guys prefer? Staffs or staves? I’m partial to “staves” myself, as it sounds a bit more elegant, and I’m all about the elegance. I also prefer “dwarves” vs “dwarfs,” while we’re talking about RPG nouns ending in “F” that have dueling potential pluralizations.

Related to this article
You're not logged in. Register or login to post a comment.

1 thought on “Staves vs. Staffs and Visual Character Customization

  1. I think Blizzard should just add the classic titles which are now lacking (Diablo, WC, WC2) up there for free. The games are ancient by now, I don’t think they’re still seeing any noteworthy income on it anyways. Plus by doing so it can be a nice publicity stunt to try and pull more people into the new

    A quick rewrite of the games to support some of the new features before throwing them up would of course be best in that sense.

    2 birds hit with one stone, quick and easy advertisement for your new platform and collectors can have all games added to their profile.

Comments are closed.