---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 10:09 AM ----------
Plus, skeletons are badass when given the chance.
I guess I think of necromancers as merely re-animators of meaty bits, rather than skeletal things. Perhaps meaty bits are just a bit more gruesome and appeal to me, because you probably have to get a little down and dirty to be a necro which means blood... lots of it.
Everquest 1 did good job, for the little I played (about lvl 30, there was a hell level around there, 33 or so, that killed it for me, still pretty casual back then)
Actually, while I love GW1 and 2, I don't love their take on the necromancer. For me a necromancer summons the dead, undead, whatever, skeletons, ghouls, and so on, but Guild Wars goes with those flesh monstrosities. Not my thing.
Diablo 2 also did a good job, although the Necro was pretty useless without pets iirc. Had to kill a few mobs on your own to be able to start raising your undead army, kinda cumbersome. And it killed framerates for many people back then so you actually couldn't summon your undead hordes that often.
@OP i think its less of anyone doing a necro wrong and more your fanatic love of D2's Necromancer. And i love D2's necro as well, it was my favorite class in the series but i dont expect games to just copypasta that necro. I havent even played many games where a necro is availible as a class much less an mmo that has a necro class. Most games just have necromancer type spells. I think Two Worlds had a necro deck and i liked messing with that but thats not an MMO.
GW2 has a necro as well but its more blood magic than undead summons, even tho you can do a summon necro its not gonna look as cool as 20 skeletons and a golem at your command.
Diablo necro done wrong? it's quite nicely done, plus, Diablo is not an MMO.
GW2 necro's minions are quite interesting
Last edited by barackopala; 2013-01-27 at 07:04 PM.
I think GW1 did necro real good. Somewhat in GW2 as well.
I think the problem lies in what your vision of a necro is vs. the vision of others. OP stated he felt the D2 necro was the only one done right, which I understand, but at the same time, any other version of a necro isn't exactly wrong. Not all people are going to base their vision of a class based on what is seemingly the status quo for that class. Warriors are a good example of this. Some will see a warrior as a raging beast of fury who will slaughter all enemies in their path, but you could argue that's more of a berserker. At the same time, someone could see a a warrior as a cunning tactician and master of arms, but some might see that to be more of a "knight" or solider or something. Yet even another group might just see warrior as a title for anyone who engages in combat, regardless of what their perceived class is.
It seemingly comes down to semantics. Who's to say a Necromancer in D2 is correct, but the GW2 version is flatly wrong, or vice versa? All necromancers seemingly revolve around some version of death mechanics and summoning undead minions is pretty well part of the mythos, but beyond that there really isn't a "right" or "wrong" necromancer...or any class for that matter.
To me the correct version (to me) of a necromancer is what I've learned from D&D. The closest thing to it in a video game would be Everquest 1 (Never played one in EQ2).
My favorite necromancer as far as books go is Szass Tam and after looking into info about him otherwise you learn a great deal. Reading the books always helps too.
The only real standard of the archetype is: A. commands the dead B. deals in death related magic. Quantity of minions is just one interpretation and no more valid than commanding a finite or single powerful undead minion(s).
To this end I would point to:
Everquest Rift, Guild Wars 1 and Age of Conan as having necromancers classes which fit the criteria of, a. commands the dead b. death related magic.