The Diablo 3 vs Fallout 3 Comparison

Solivigant on his Destructoid blog gives us his view on the Diablo 3 news and how it relates to another franchise of his, Fallout.

"And now we get Diablo 3. It looks the same as Diablo 1 and Diablo 2. Two orbs. Mouse clicking. Iconic ****s. It looks gorgeous as well. Using the same isometric perspective. And from what I can see, people are lapping it up. People are loving it, me included. Why? Well I guess it's reasurring to see a team that is made up of several different members of from the Diablo 2 team behind the steering wheel of the game, and how they managed to make the game be like what Diablo 3 should be like, in the hearts of fans of gamers in general.

All of this disturbes me. Why? Because I'm a fan of another franchise. One where action takes a side-step into turn-based chaos, and dialog options, and different routes, take the center stage. A game whos setting was and still is unique.

[Bethesda] decided to scrap turn-based, scrap the isometric perspective of Fallout, and are basically modding their Oblivion game with new textures, models and weapons, turning it into you know it, Oblivion with guns. And everybody is lauding them for it. No one is recognizing their lack of creativity (99% of games are first-person/real-time) and courage to bring out Fallout as a turn-based isometric RPG. Instead, most people are accepting their excuse that Fallout was originally like that due to "technological impairments at the time." (Of course that's not true, unless you've been under a rock for a decade)

It would take Blizzard to show them how to make a proper sequal."

A news article on NMA

I have to agree with all of this. I'm still eagerly awaiting Fallout 3 but I personally feel that it should have been Isometric/turn-based. It's sad to hear so many "gamers" say that Isometric is old and dated whilst at the same time praising first-person/real-time as if Akalabeth(first person/real-time) never came out in 1980. Blizzard is showing that it's still a viable alternative and is going against the mold to prove it and I have no doubt it's going to end success.

Diablo 3 looks like a new game and feels like Diablo at the same time, it's going to be great unless they make it an MMO. :P

"[Bethesda] decided to scrap turn-based, scrap the isometric perspective of Fallout, and are basically modding their Oblivion game with new textures, models and weapons, turning it into you know it, Oblivion with guns. And everybody is lauding them for it. No one is recognizing their lack of creativity (99% of games are first-person/real-time) and courage to bring out Fallout as a turn-based isometric RPG."

Egghhh... Everybody lauding them? Nobody recognizing? I'm pretty sure that I've seen A LOT of people talking the game down. Not that there aren't lots of people lauding them, but to say "Everybody's just eatin' it up man, it ain't right!" is totally blind and in no way true.

I recently came to the realization that Bethesda is doing nothing more than bringing an old series up to standards. Fallout may have been fine when it was released but it's outdated now and Bethesda is fixing the problems with it. The hardcore crowd just can't stand to see their series improved and made likeable to today's audience.

Diablo on the other hand, has a formula that works as well now as when it was originally released and doens't need to to be improved.

I recently came to the realization that Bethesda is doing nothing more than bringing an old series up to standards. Fallout may have been fine when it was released but it's outdated now and Bethesda is fixing the problems with it.

Diablo on the other hand, has a formula that works as well now as when it was originally released and doens't need to to be improved.

BladeMaster84

By that logic, Diablo 3 needs to be brought up to standards because it's isometric. You contradict yourself by that. Also, Fallout had a formula that works or else it wouldn't have been nominated for Game of the Year and be on so many many top 100 lists. ;)

Neither the turn based combat nor the isometric perspective are what I find appealing about Fallout. Those are the least significant of Bethesda's changes to the Fallout series, and they are the ones that may actually help the game.

Fallout's combat really, really grew on me - but I can't say I particularly liked it. It was more how it played off the character building than the combat itself that I enjoyed. As for the isometric perspective, I don't see why it's important. It's not what made the game.

What did make the game were the wonderful characters, the awesome dark humour and most importantly of all the enormous breadth of the capacity for roleplaying based on the character development system. These are the things that Bethesda seems to be butchering (as well as the canon), and these are the things that should matter most of all to Fallout fans.

Camera means absolutely nothing, and the combat means, at least for me, next to nothing. I'm sure there are some people out there who enjoy the combat in and of itself, but I think it is how the combat plays off and functions with the roleplaying mechanics is what matters most of all, and switching the game into essentially a FPS would not necessarily detract from those roleplaying mechanics at all. Roleplaying is about if you fight, first and foremost, and how you fight secondly.

Yeah, I know how you guys feel. Another thing that annoys me is that diablo 3 was just announced and we probably won't be playing it for a couple years. Yet it has more screenshots and videos than fallout 3 which is supposed to be out this year. I just don't get it.EndersAres

Good observation. I'm guessing that Diablo III is being hyped so much because Diablo II was one of the best selling games of all time, and the developers know that they'll make a killing with the third game. Also, I'm sure Blizzard has a lot of friends in the corporate world and pays websites that post their product info really well for their ad spots.

[QUOTE="BladeMaster84"]

I recently came to the realization that Bethesda is doing nothing more than bringing an old series up to standards. Fallout may have been fine when it was released but it's outdated now and Bethesda is fixing the problems with it.

Diablo on the other hand, has a formula that works as well now as when it was originally released and doens't need to to be improved.

VoodooGamer

By that logic, Diablo 3 needs to be brought up to standards because it's isometric. You contradict yourself by that. Also, Fallout had a formula that works or else it wouldn't have been nominated for Game of the Year and be on so many many top 100 lists. ;)

Diablo's formular works, though. Fallout has more issues than viewpoint, too. The gameplay is completely stale by now, for instance. It may have met the standards for an RPG then, but it doesn't now. Bethesda is making the series into real RPGs that fit today's standards.

Besides, that, Fallout has become so popular recently because of Fallout 3 and the whole hardcore gamer crowd who only like it because it lets them spew hate for Bethesda to show how "hardcore" they are.

Bethesda is making a real RPG? Wow, I guess there must be a first time for everything.

Fallout's game mechanics are stale yet the mindless click-fest that is Diablo is somehow fresh? I give up on the future of gaming. I really really do.

Diablo's formular works, though. Fallout has more issues than viewpoint, too. The gameplay is completely stale by now, for instance. It may have met the standards for an RPG then, but it doesn't now. Bethesda is making the series into real RPGs that fit today's standards.BladeMaster84

No, todays RPGs don't meet the standards. I don't see how you can say that a game with branching side-plots, original story, fantastic dialog, choices and consequences, free-form gameplay, and strategic combat doesn't mean the "standard" but games like Mass Effect and Oblivion do and they don't offer ANY of that. I suggest you go back and play Fallout.

Besides, that, Fallout has become so popular recently because of Fallout 3 and the whole hardcore gamer crowd who only like it because it lets them spew hate for Bethesda to show how "hardcore" they are.

Blade

Fallout hasn't become more popular recently because of Fallout 3. The media may be talking about it more but as anyone will tell you the hype just isn't there.

And your last part has nothing to do with the topic, please don't go off-topic with flamebaits. ;)

Diablo's formular works, though. Fallout has more issues than viewpoint, too. The gameplay is completely stale by now, for instance. It may have met the standards for an RPG then, but it doesn't now. Bethesda is making the series into real RPGs that fit today's standards.

Besides, that, Fallout has become so popular recently because of Fallout 3 and the whole hardcore gamer crowd who only like it because it lets them spew hate for Bethesda to show how "hardcore" they are.

BladeMaster84

You're right - because those standards are dropping. Fallout's roleplaying mechanics are far more complicated and more advanced than those seen in modern roleplaying games, and the potential for actual roleplaying was much greater.

Some of the more superficial things like the viewpoint and perhaps the combat may benefit from a facelift, but Bethesda is not improving - and is infact ruining - the most important parts of the game, because Bethesda is incapable of creating deep and complex roleplaying mechanics or a world that can truly be affected by the player.

And their writers and ****ing awful.

There is a good reason so many people cannot stand Bethesda - they create shallow, superficial roleplaying games that appeal to the mainstream, they can't write good dialogue or create convincing characters (they are more like FPS=style exposition devices) and their character building and roleplaying machines are a total joke. Levelling worlds? Dialogue minigames?

No. No thanks.

Fallout 2 is my favourite game ever made and it is better than every RPG released in years, but I will concede that it can be modernised as far as gameplay mechanics go.

However, turning it into a first person shooter with stats is NOT how you would do that. That's not to mention the humor, canon, quality of writing and sheer role playing from the originals that will not be present in Fallout 3.

Fallout 2 is my favourite game ever made and it is better than every RPG released in years, but I will concede that it can be modernised as far as gameplay mechanics go.

However, turning it into a first person shooter with stats is NOT how you would do that. That's not to mention the humor, canon, quality of writing and sheer role playing from the originals that will not be present in Fallout 3.

RobbieH1234

I agree. Fallout has a lot of things that need to be improved most notably the combat, any Fallout fan will tell you this. But, scrapping the combat or other features completely is not the way to do it.

A turn-based system like The Temple of Elemental Evil would've been perfect, it's too bad Beth thinks that another first-person/real-time game is something innovative. :roll:

[QUOTE="BladeMaster84"]

Diablo's formular works, though. Fallout has more issues than viewpoint, too. The gameplay is completely stale by now, for instance. It may have met the standards for an RPG then, but it doesn't now. Bethesda is making the series into real RPGs that fit today's standards.VoodooGamer

No, todays RPGs don't meet the standards. I don't see how you can say that a game with branching side-plots, original story, fantastic dialog, choices and consequences, free-form gameplay, and strategic combat doesn't mean the "standard" but games like Mass Effect and Oblivion do and they don't offer ANY of that. I suggest you go back and play Fallout.

Today's RPGs are about choice. Mass Effect and Oblivion offer that without having stale combat systems and intentionally limiting players from doing what they want, when they want.

A turn-based system like The Temple of Elemental Evil would've been perfect, it's too bad Beth thinks that another first-person/real-time game is something innovative. :roll:

VoodooGamer

This FPS masquerading as a Fallout game is going to make Bethesda A LOT of money which I'm sure in their minds will justify their butchery. What I find odd is how the mainstream gaming press seems to be praising Blizzard for "sticking to the Diablo's roots" while at the same time lauding Beth's efforts to "Bring an old franchise into the modern era." I just find it odd and more than a little suspicious.

Has anyone noticied how nearly ever preview of FO3 sounds nearly identical?

[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"][QUOTE="BladeMaster84"]

Diablo's formular works, though. Fallout has more issues than viewpoint, too. The gameplay is completely stale by now, for instance. It may have met the standards for an RPG then, but it doesn't now. Bethesda is making the series into real RPGs that fit today's standards.BladeMaster84

No, todays RPGs don't meet the standards. I don't see how you can say that a game with branching side-plots, original story, fantastic dialog, choices and consequences, free-form gameplay, and strategic combat doesn't mean the "standard" but games like Mass Effect and Oblivion do and they don't offer ANY of that. I suggest you go back and play Fallout.

Today's RPGs are about choice. Mass Effect and Oblivion offer that without having stale combat systems and intentionally limiting players from doing what they want, when they want.

Oblivion offers choice???

Okay, when I can choose to side with Mankar Camoran or beat the entire game without killing, then tell me about choice in Oblivion, until then you don't have a valid argument.

[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"]

A turn-based system like The Temple of Elemental Evil would've been perfect, it's too bad Beth thinks that another first-person/real-time game is something innovative. :roll:

-wildflower-

This FPS masquerading as a Fallout game is going to make Bethesda A LOT of money which I'm sure in their minds will justify their butchery. What I find odd is how the mainstream gaming press seems to be praising Blizzard for "sticking to the Diablo's roots" while at the same time lauding Beth's efforts to "Bring an old franchise into the modern era." I just find it odd and more than a little suspicious.

Has anyone noticied how nearly ever preview of FO3 sounds nearly identical?

The media is all **** Has anyone else noticed that reviewers have only started to criticize Oblivion now that the hype train has stopped? All these reviews before were praising the game and now that Fallout 3 is coming out it's time to criticize Oblivion. :roll:

[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"]

A turn-based system like The Temple of Elemental Evil would've been perfect, it's too bad Beth thinks that another first-person/real-time game is something innovative. :roll:

-wildflower-

This FPS masquerading as a Fallout game is going to make Bethesda A LOT of money which I'm sure in their minds will justify their butchery. What I find odd is how the mainstream gaming press seems to be praising Blizzard for "sticking to the Diablo's roots" while at the same time lauding Beth's efforts to "Bring an old franchise into the modern era." I just find it odd and more than a little suspicious.

Has anyone noticied how nearly ever preview of FO3 sounds nearly identical?

[QUOTE="BladeMaster84"]

[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"][QUOTE="BladeMaster84"]

Diablo's formular works, though. Fallout has more issues than viewpoint, too. The gameplay is completely stale by now, for instance. It may have met the standards for an RPG then, but it doesn't now. Bethesda is making the series into real RPGs that fit today's standards.VoodooGamer

No, todays RPGs don't meet the standards. I don't see how you can say that a game with branching side-plots, original story, fantastic dialog, choices and consequences, free-form gameplay, and strategic combat doesn't mean the "standard" but games like Mass Effect and Oblivion do and they don't offer ANY of that. I suggest you go back and play Fallout.

Today's RPGs are about choice. Mass Effect and Oblivion offer that without having stale combat systems and intentionally limiting players from doing what they want, when they want.

Oblivion offers choice???

Okay, when I can choose to side with Mankar Camoran or beat the entire game without killing, then tell me about choice in Oblivion, until then you don't have a valid argument.

Sideing with Camoran would basically destroy Nirn, that's not an option for obvious reasons. However you can choose not to do the main quest.

Not beating the game without killing isn't a valid example in the context of the game. However, you can do the entire Theives' Guild questline and loot dungeons without killing anything.

Today's RPGs are about choice. Mass Effect and Oblivion offer that without having stale combat systems and intentionally limiting players from doing what they want, when they want. BladeMaster84

Are you honestly saying that the combat in Oblivion was good? Seriously? No, really, is that what you are saying? Oh, and what are these choices that were present in the game? Did any of these choices have consequences? Did they affect the game on iota?

I actually enjoyed ME to some degree but I wouldn't say there were a lot of meaningful choices in that game either.

[QUOTE="BladeMaster84"]Today's RPGs are about choice. Mass Effect and Oblivion offer that without having stale combat systems and intentionally limiting players from doing what they want, when they want. -wildflower-

Are you honestly saying that the combat in Oblivion was good? Seriously? No, really, is that what you are saying? Oh, and what are these choices that were present in the game? Did any of these choices have consequences? Did they affect the game on iota?

I actually enjoyed ME to some degree but I wouldn't say there were a lot of meaningful choices in that game either.

Oblivion had excellent combat, just like the rest of the Elder Scrolls series.

Oblivion also had plenty of choices. If you skip the main quest, the Oblivion gates never open, if you finish the main quest parts of the Imperial City are changed because of it. There are also tons of quests where you can choose whether or not to kill a character.

Sideing with Camoran would basically destroy Nirn, that's not an option for obvious reasons. However you can choose not to do the main quest.BladeMaster84

So I can't choose to be a bad guy? Also, it wouldn't have destroyed Nirn, Masser is much more powerful than Mankar and the Deadric lords combined.

Not beating the game without killing isn't a valid example in the context of the game. However, you can do the entire Theives' Guild questline and loot dungeons without killing anything.

Blademaster

Why not? You said Oblivion offers choices where Fallout does not, yet I can't choose to beat the main-quest without killing.

[QUOTE="BladeMaster84"]

Sideing with Camoran would basically destroy Nirn, that's not an option for obvious reasons. However you can choose not to do the main quest.VoodooGamer

So I can't choose to be a bad guy? Also, it wouldn't have destroyed Nirn, Masser is much more powerful than Mankar and the Deadric lords combined.

Not beating the game without killing isn't a valid example in the context of the game. However, you can do the entire Theives' Guild questline and loot dungeons without killing anything.

Blademaster

Why not? You said Oblivion offers choices where Fallout does not, yet I can't choose to beat the main-quest without killing.

Because the Daedra want to kill everyone, and they aren't going to be talked into closing their gates and leaving. It's a point where an unimportant choice that would be unlikely to be used was cut in favor of the story.

And besides, they made the game moddable knowing that players would come up with inventive ways to add even more choice.

Oblivion had excellent combat, just like the rest of the Elder Scrolls series.BladeMaster84

Oblivion's combat was monotonous and totally against the RPG concept where you control the character and not you are the character. ;)

Oblivion also had plenty of choices. If you skip the main quest, the Oblivion gates never open, if you finish the main quest parts of the Imperial City are changed because of it. There are also tons of quests where you can choose whether or not to kill a character.

blade

Not true. Right in the beginning of the game there is an Oblivon gate in Kvatch. And, are you honestly arguing that those are good enough choices? Actually those aren't even choices, they're scripted events that happen no matter what alignment you are.

In Fallout, you can start fights just by saying the wrong thing. In Fallout you can sleep with people to get information. In Fallout you can get addicted to gambling and drugs. In Fallout you can join the Master...

Those are choices and consequences.

Because the Daedra want to kill everyone, and they aren't going to be talked into closing their gates and leaving. It's a point where an unimportant choice that would be unlikely to be used was cut in favor of the story.BladeMaster84

Yet when you get to "Mankars Paradise" you get a dialog option with a Deadra...

Also, I'm sure the devs could have made a story that revolved around choices which would leave the integrity and quality intact. *Pukes by saying quality in the same sentence as Oblivion*

Also, whether or not the choice would be unimportant or not is entirely subjective. Me including many many others, in fact the majority, prefer to have more choices that affect the world. The lack of choices was a large complaint with Oblivion.

And besides, they made the game moddable knowing that players would come up with inventive ways to add even more choice.

Blade

Having to mod a game for the devs laziness is not a good substitute, ;)

[QUOTE="BladeMaster84"]

Oblivion had excellent combat, just like the rest of the Elder Scrolls series.VoodooGamer

Oblivion's combat was monotonous and totally against the RPG concept where you control the character and not you are the character. ;)

Oblivion also had plenty of choices. If you skip the main quest, the Oblivion gates never open, if you finish the main quest parts of the Imperial City are changed because of it. There are also tons of quests where you can choose whether or not to kill a character.

blade

Not true. Right in the beginning of the game there is an Oblivon gate in Kvatch. And, are you honestly arguing that those are good enough choices? Actually those aren't even choices, they're scripted events that happen no matter what alignment you are.

In Fallout, you can start fights just by saying the wrong thing. In Fallout you can sleep with people to get information. In Fallout you can get addicted to gambling and drugs. In Fallout you can join the Master...

Those are choices and consequences.

Kvatch is part of the main quest, if you skip the main quest, you never go to Kvatch. And those re excellent choices. Oblivion has far more choice than other popular RPGs like Fable.

Today's RPGs are about choice. Mass Effect and Oblivion offer that without having stale combat systems and intentionally limiting players from doing what they want, when they want.

BladeMaster84

An example of a Fallout quest where you have to free a girl from raiders.

You can:

Go in unarmed and trade for her,

Stealth in, unlock her cage and sneak out with her,

Go in all guns blazing, kill everyone,

Go in unarmed and provoke their leader, then fight him one on one bareknuckle,

Go in unarmed and out smart them, tricking them into giving her to you.

And your options are based on the character you have built (the choices you have made in the past), and on your actions on the spot (the choices you make in the present).

An example of every quest in Oblivion where you have to do anything.

You can:

Follow the one set way of completing the quest,

Not complete the quest.

The only thing that you can impact in Oblivion is how you fight. Not if you fight. There are no alternatives. There is no real choice. There is no real roleplaying.

I haven't played Mass Effect so I cannot comment on it yet, but my experience with previous BioWare games leads me to believe their roleplaying mechanics are a little simpler than Black Isle's/Troika's - but regardless, BioWare isn't developing Fallout 3, Bethesda is. And for anyone who knows anything about roleplaying, and you clearly don't, Bethesda's involvement is very bad news.

Fallout is a game where you can go through the entire game without killing someone, if that's the kind of character you build. And you're trying to tell me that Oblivion is a game of choices? Hah.

Kvatch is part of the main quest, if you skip the main quest, you never go to Kvatch.BladeMaster84

That's irrelevant. The fact that there is an Oblivion gate irrespective if you choose to do the main-quest or not proves that you don't have a choice in whether or not an Oblivion gate opens as you claimed.

And those re excellent choices. Oblivion has far more choice than other popular RPGs like Fable.

Blademaster

Were talking about Fallout here not Fable. And you're only saying those are excellent choices because you've never played Fallout.

[QUOTE="BladeMaster84"]

Kvatch is part of the main quest, if you skip the main quest, you never go to Kvatch.VoodooGamer

That's irrelevant. The fact that there is an Oblivion gate irrespective if you choose to do the main-quest or not proves that you don't have a choice in whether or not an Oblivion gate opens as you claimed.

And those re excellent choices. Oblivion has far more choice than other popular RPGs like Fable.

Blademaster

Were talking about Fallout here not Fable. And you're only saying those are excellent choices because you've never played Fallout.

Well, you've got me there. Fine. If you choose to skip the main quest only one Oblivion gate is open.

The Fable bit was just an example.

In any event, Fallout might have been an RPG by the standards of it's time. But developers like Bethesda are taking the genre forward and defining what an RPG really is today, whether anyone likes it or not. And the majority of gamers do like it, from the award Oblivion has recieved and the hype Fallout 3 has.

In any event, Fallout might have been an RPG by the standards of it's time. But developers like Bethesda are taking the genre forward and defining what an RPG really is today, whether anyone likes it or not. And the majority of gamers do like it, from the award Oblivion has recieved and the hype Fallout 3 has.

BladeMaster84

No actually Bethesda is on a train ride to bankruptcy. ;) Games like Dragon Age and Age of Decadence that are made by Bioware and Iron Tower Studios are what are defining the RPG genre today, not Bethesda.

[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"][QUOTE="BladeMaster84"]

Kvatch is part of the main quest, if you skip the main quest, you never go to Kvatch.BladeMaster84

That's irrelevant. The fact that there is an Oblivion gate irrespective if you choose to do the main-quest or not proves that you don't have a choice in whether or not an Oblivion gate opens as you claimed.

And those re excellent choices. Oblivion has far more choice than other popular RPGs like Fable.

Blademaster

Were talking about Fallout here not Fable. And you're only saying those are excellent choices because you've never played Fallout.

Well, you've got me there. Fine. If you choose to skip the main quest only one Oblivion gate is open.

The Fable bit was just an example.

In any event, Fallout might have been an RPG by the standards of it's time. But developers like Bethesda are taking the genre forward and defining what an RPG really is today, whether anyone likes it or not. And the majority of gamers do like it, from the award Oblivion has recieved and the hype Fallout 3 has.

And how are they taking it forward? The last time I checked, taking role playing out of role playing games would be classified as going backwards.

[QUOTE="BladeMaster84"]

In any event, Fallout might have been an RPG by the standards of it's time. But developers like Bethesda are taking the genre forward and defining what an RPG really is today, whether anyone likes it or not. And the majority of gamers do like it, from the award Oblivion has recieved and the hype Fallout 3 has.

VoodooGamer

No actually Bethesda is on a train ride to bankruptcy. ;) Games like Dragon Age and Age of Decadence that are made by Bioware and Iron Tower Studios are what are defining the RPG genre today, not Bethesda.

Look at the gaming press. Almost everyone loves Oblivion and gives it perfect or near perfect scores, Fallout 3 is one of the most anticipated games out there.

The only people who have problems with Bethesda are a vocal minority who don't want to see the genre taken forward and improved.

Look at the gaming press. Almost everyone loves Oblivion and gives it perfect or near perfect scores,BladeMaster84

The same can be said of Gears of War - a game you rate 1.5 on 360 and 1.0 on PC.

Computer game journalism relies on sensationalism and quid pro quo. Not to mention the fact that most reviewers put far too much stock in how good a game looks. BioShock, Gears, Oblivion - extremely shallow, extremely mediocre, extremely good looking games score high.

The only people who have problems with Bethesda are a vocal minority who don't want to see the genre taken forward and improved.BladeMaster84

How can you make a statement like that when you clearly don't know a damn thing about older roleplaying games? You know nothing of Fallout besides what other people (probably Bethesda or their ravenous fans) have told you. How can believe Fallout 3 will improve upon Fallout when you know nothing of Fallout?

You haven't replied to any of my posts so far, which doesn't surprise me, and I don't expect you to reply to this one, but seriously, man. Seriously. Give it up. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're outgunned by any one of the three people arguing with you.

Play Fallout 1 & 2, Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Planescape Torment, Arcanum and Bloodlines and you'll realise you do not have a leg to stand on.

Bethesda is not advancing or improving the roleplaying genre, they are just appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Odd how Diablo got ripped from this conversation in total...

And you two are taking this way too seriously. They are both good games in their own right. Fallout may be changing, but we havent even gotten a demo, so we dont know if it will be good or if it will be bad. It would be hard to even compare it to Oblivion for the fact that they have completely different combat systems, different genres for their story telling, and aim to make different experiences. Oblivion is good for it's vast amount of different paths and gameplay options, and Fallout is an older clasic, great when it came out and still playable now to an enjooyable level...

Also, Diablo shouldn't be getting compared to Fallout either, Diablo isn;t even on the same plain of existance, not even the same type of RPG judging off of the originals in the series. It doesn;t offer the type of choice or even as deep of character customization.

The same can be said of Gears of War - a game you rate 1.5 on 360 and 1.0 on PC.

True that.

Computer game journalism relies on sensationalism and quid pro quo. Not to mention the fact that most reviewers put far too much stock in how good a game looks. BioShock, Gears, Obliviion - extremely shallow, extremely mediocre, extremely good looking games score high.

Why shouldn't they, graphics can be just as important as anything else. I find BioShock and Oblivion to be deep and fun games. (More so BioShock than Oblivion, however.)

How can you make a statement like that when you clearly don't know a damn thing about older roleplaying games? You know nothing of Fallout besides what other people (probably Bethesda or their ravenous fans) have told you. How can believe Fallout 3 will improve upon Fallout when you know nothing of Fallout?

Because every time I've tried to play an older RPG it has been completely dull. I made it five minutes in the Fallout demo before getting sick of the terrible gameplay.

Play Fallout 1 & 2, Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Planescape Torment, Arcanum and Bloodlines and you'll realise you do not have a foot to stand on.

The only one of those I would even begin to consider playing is Baldur's Gate 2. The rest are all outdated and unimpressive.

Bethesda is not advancing or improving the roleplaying genre, they are just appealing to the lowest common denominator.

It's better than intentionally making games enjoyable only to a small audience. More people are playing RPGs now, it's certainly more of an advance than the genre has seen before.

Why shouldn't they, graphics can be just as important as anything else.BladeMaster84

That contradicts your opinion that Gears of War deserves 1.0 when most publications give it 9.0 or higher. How do you reconcile your rating with the above comments?

I find BioShock and Oblivion to be deep and fun games.BladeMaster84

Yeah, that's really my point.

Because every time I've tried to play an older RPG it has been completely dull. I made it five minutes in the Fallout demo before getting sick of the terrible gameplay.BladeMaster84

You mean you made it five minutes in the Fallout demo before getting sick of the terrible graphics. You cannot weigh up a game in five minutes - especially not when those opening five minutes aren't indicative of the actual game content as a whole.

The only one of those I would even begin to consider playing is Baldur's Gate 2. The rest are all outdated and unimpressive.BladeMaster84

They are visually outdated, perhaps, but if you find Oblivion to be a game with excellent roleplaying mechanics, then the above games would be orgasmic by comaprison, if you'd care to play them.

Also, you clearly don't even know what some of the games I mentioned are. Bloodlines is from 2004 and it runs in Source. You recently bought The orange Box, year? You also rated it a very respectable 8.0. Last time I checked, it runs in Source.

Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about because you don't know anything about these games - you judge them by their visuals, then try and argue that a company that makes prettier games is making better games.

I'm sure you're a nice guy, but you epitomise everything I hate about modern gamers. You dismiss older games with no knowledge of them and blindly, not to mention zealously, support the mainstreaming and trivialisation of excellent gameplay mechanics you know nothing about, while arguing that a better looking game is a better game.

It's better than intentionally making games enjoyable only to a small audience. More people are playing RPGs now, it's certainly more of an advance than the genre has seen before.BladeMaster84

Yeah, and World of WarCraft played a huge role in that - a game you rate 4.0. You realise that the singleplayer RPG is slowly dying, right? Giving way to the MMO - and because the most popular MMO is WoW, most MMOs are WoW clones. And you're fine with that, right? Because it means more people playing? Yeah?

And by your rationale, you'd be more than content for the shooter genre (including all constituent shooter genres and subgenres) to adopt all of the gameplay mechanics and narrative devices seen in Gears of War. It's popular - very popular, so it's a good direction for the genre to go, yeah? The more popular it is, the better it is for gamers, right?

And how is a genre becoming more popular through mainstreaming and trivialisation - through appealing to the lowest common denominator - an advance? It is more popular, but exactly what is it that has advanced, besides its popularity? Tell me what's improved. I really want to know.

Odd how Diablo got ripped from this conversation in total...

And you two are taking this way too seriously. DarkSynDrom

*golf claps* :D

In any event, Fallout might have been an RPG by the standards of it's time. But developers like Bethesda are taking the genre forward and defining what an RPG really is today, whether anyone likes it or not. And the majority of gamers do like it, from the award Oblivion has recieved and the hype Fallout 3 has.

BladeMaster84

ok i read all your posts and it was fun and all, but this argument really pissed me off, "whether anyone likes it or not"? they make a game so people can enjoy it, not to make a statement that they can make some **** game. RPG standards? if bethesda was ellected to make the standards I would never play another RPG ever again, the standards are there since the pen and paper times, and I actually played pen and paper, and you know what was the whole point of it? to live the character you play, and that means making choices, bethesda made interesting action games, but compare them to real RPGs is just wrong, throughout oblivion i felt like being in a bad nightmare were all the people became manic-depressive machines that change emotions on the fly, completely unaware of what going on around them, and it seems that killing someone is the only way to solve a dispute, and saying that not doing something is a choice? but what if you want to progress and level you character, choosing to avoid the majority of quests in oblivion will strip the game from everything, because there is nothing else to do there.

Here is good case in diablos three, point of view they are using..Look at titan quest a few years back..Titan quest was a successful game as they come..Using the same point of view diablo made...

Now just recently Flagship went three d..I like the view, an play hellgate london..Many people say it sucks blah blah blah..Well Bill roper and gang have made a ton of changes..Working on the game constantly to bring improvements..Some of yall still say the game sucks..I see it as a success..

Fallout isnt even out yet..You guys are destroying what bethestha is trying to do...The fallout series was dead in the water..Just until beth decided ok where going to buy it...Well there doing what they think is right with it..If its a hit than its a hit..Word of mouth will have it spread..A few years back..No one played the elder scroll series...My bet is here 9-10 players who have played morrowind, cant even name what the second game was called..The hard core players as in myself no the name..I'm not even going to post it..That's my case in point..Morrowind was a huge blockbuster..It wasnt always the case though..Maybe just maybe with beth changing it to 3d..Will work..Its just a wait and kind of see thing here isn't it...

If the style of play from the first 2 Fallouts was so great then why was the original third Fallout cancelled for budget reasons? Why didn't another developer make a Fallout like game to fill the void. We've seen lots and lots of Diablo clones, but where were the Fallout clones? Could it be that the style of game was not all that popular outside of the hardcore fanbase? Could it be that if someone developed a Fallout game like the first 2, it wouldn't sell well? It's not Bethesda's fault that the original plan for a third Fallout game was cancelled. I just looked at the amount of users that have put a score in for Fallout 2. After all these years not even 5,000 people have put in a score for that game. That doesn't seem like a lot to me and indicates that the game didn't have a broad appeal.

If the style of play from the first 2 Fallouts was so great then why was the original third Fallout cancelled for budget reasons? Why didn't another developer make a Fallout like game to fill the void. We've seen lots and lots of Diablo clones, but where were the Fallout clones? Could it be that the style of game was not all that popular outside of the hardcore fanbase? Could it be that if someone developed a Fallout game like the first 2, it wouldn't sell well? It's not Bethesda's fault that the original plan for a third Fallout game was cancelled. I just looked at the amount of users that have put a score in for Fallout 2. After all these years not even 5,000 people have put in a score for that game. That doesn't seem like a lot to me and indicates that the game didn't have a broad appeal.

Skeptomania

If Fallout's not popular why did Bethesda buy the license? Why not just call their post-apocalyptic FPS something else?

Just because the Playstation Generation has no idea what makes a good RPG doesn't mean that the game didn't have "broad appeal."

[QUOTE="Skeptomania"]

If the style of play from the first 2 Fallouts was so great then why was the original third Fallout cancelled for budget reasons? Why didn't another developer make a Fallout like game to fill the void. We've seen lots and lots of Diablo clones, but where were the Fallout clones? Could it be that the style of game was not all that popular outside of the hardcore fanbase? Could it be that if someone developed a Fallout game like the first 2, it wouldn't sell well? It's not Bethesda's fault that the original plan for a third Fallout game was cancelled. I just looked at the amount of users that have put a score in for Fallout 2. After all these years not even 5,000 people have put in a score for that game. That doesn't seem like a lot to me and indicates that the game didn't have a broad appeal.

-wildflower-

If Fallout's not popular why did Bethesda buy the license? Why not just call their post-apocalyptic FPS something else?

Just because the Playstation Generation has no idea what makes a good RPG doesn't mean that the game didn't have "broad appeal."

You're answering my questions with questions because you don't want to answer them. I'll answer your question, however. I imagine Bethesda felt the Fallout universe was well known enough and intersting enough to provide a good universe to develop a new FPS-RPG for. It's certainly more well known than a new game universe would be. That doesn't mean that Fallout's decade old style of gameplay would be a hit with most gamers today. What makes a "good RPG" is a matter of opinion. Like so many people on these boards, you think your opinion = fact. Not so. Game developers make money by selling enough copies of a game, not by pleasing the opinions of relatively small, hardcore fanbase.

Exactly, Bethesda couldn't care less about making a good RPG (they haven't yet so why change now) all they care about is maximizing their profits. Pfft... Each of their Elder Scrolls games have been dumbed down from the previous game to appeal to a wider yet more profitable McAudience.

Games as labors of love seem to be a thing of the past. It's all about making a quick buck these days. Just like Hollywood! Yay!!!

It's a good thing I've kept all of my games from the 90's because there hasn't been much released in these past 8 years, as far as RPG's are concerned, that's been worth playing.

You're also right: what made old-school RPG's so much fun wouldn't go over well today. Modern gamers need flashy graphics and constant noise to quite their ADHD. They certainly don't want depth. Actually having to use your brain in a game seems so passe.

You're answering my questions with questions because you don't want to answer them.Skeptomania

Pure speculation. ;)

That doesn't mean that Fallout's decade old style of gameplay would be a hit with most gamers today.Skept

It doesn't mean it wouldn't be a hit either. And, the fact that it's "decade old" doesn't degrade the gameplay if first-person/real-time is just as old. ;) Diablo 3 shows that ISO is still popular among RPG fans. Final Fantasy shows that turn-based is still a popular form of combat for RPG fans.

What makes a "good RPG" is a matter of opinion. Like so many people on these boards, you think your opinion = factSkept

He never once said his opinion was fact so why resort to arbritrary assumptions? Debating is about convincing the opposition to see things your way, if you can't handle it, then get out of my thread.

Not so. Game developers make money by selling enough copies of a game, not by pleasing the opinions of relatively small, hardcore fanbase.

Skept

Not true. Game developers make money but pleasing a niche audience.

Go take a look at how many people rated Oblivion for PC. I'll tell you: over 26,000 Gamespot users. That's more than Fallout 1 and 2 combined by a long shot. Developers and publishers are in the business of making money, not pleasing a bitter niche fanbase who didn't support the first 2 games enough to make a third financially feasible. If you want a Fallout game like the first 2 then you develop it and pay for it. Good luck with that. ;)

Go take a look at how many people rated Oblivion for PC. I'll tell you: over 26,000 Gamespot users. That's more than Fallout 1 and 2 combined by a long shot.Skeptomania

That doesn't mean that Fallout's gameplay is bad. Both Diablo 2 and Final Fantasy 10 have sold more than Oblivion. ;) Also if Fallouts gameplay is so bad then why is it always found in the top 100 lists? I'm sure it didn't get there because of the setting alone.

Developers and publishers are in the business of making money not pleasing a bitter niche fanbase who didn't support the first 2 games enough to make a third financially feasible.Skept

For one, developers are in it to make games. ;) Two, the reason Black Isle went belly up is because of the lackluster sales of Fallout:Tactics and Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, both of which incorporated real-time gameplay. ;)

If you want a Fallout game like the first 2 then you develop it and pay for it. Good luck with that. ;)

Skept

Or we could just go and play Dragon Age or Age of Decadence.:o

~Oh and I forgot to mention that Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel came for consoles. It seems that the Fallout fans weren't the only ones who thought the real-time gameplay was **** :lol:

What does the number of people who rated each game have to do with ANYTHING. You mean to tell me that a game that came out last year has more ratings on some silly website than a game that came out 10 years ago? Really? Wow! Whouda' thunk it?!?

Not to mention that PC gaming really wasn't as mainstream when Fallout came out as it is now but I guess that little nugget doesn't matter either.

Guess, what...Danielle Steele has sold more books than Shakespeare and William Faulkner combined -- ergo she must be the better writer. Lets just bring everything down to the lowest common denominator so we can truly live in a world of mediocrity. Doesn't that sound grand?

Anyway, it's irrelevant, Bethesda has the licence and the series is officially DOA.