The Diablo 3 vs Fallout 3 Comparison

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...

Gladestone1

You seriously don't know what you're talking about.

First off;

Roleplaying is about if you fight, first and foremost, and how you fight secondly.

fatshodan

That, sir, is the most intelligent, insightful comment I've seen on these boards in some time. God, I wish more developers realized that.

Second, I really have to argue the idea that Fallout had mainstream appeal. Its legendary among RPG fans, but outside of that niche, plenty of people have never heard of it, much less played it. compare that to a game like Half-Life, which came out a year later. Any PC gamer worth his salt has heard of Half-Life, and could probably tell you that the main character is a chap named Freeman. a couple wildly successful sequels later, and the series is one of the most well-loved and relevant in gaming. until Bethesda started showing early builds of Fallout 3, most gamers hadn't even heard of the series. It was amazing for it's time, and many of the things that made it great are incredibly brilliant, but the franchise as a whole isn't exactly what I'd call relevant. I think that Bethesda's intentions are pure, as they're most likely fans of the game that want to see more people playing the games, but therein lies the problem. Bethesda is not Black Isle, Troika, or Obsidian. They did not make Fallout 1 or 2, and they therefore won't create a game that everyone will be satisfied with. It's just not possible due to the nature of the project. This is worse than fanfiction. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you... the worlds first Fangame.

Oh, and it makes perfect sense to me that Danielle Steele has sold more books than Shakespeare. old Billy didn't sell books. He was a playwright;)

Diablo III is certainly overhyped, like all the other Blizzard games. I'm suprised that few notice that Blizzard games "lack originality", "copy other games" and "have few improvements". So why are they succesful? Because they're just like casual games - mindless and simple. I'm not saying that the Diablo franchise and other Blizzard games are bad, just overhyped.

Some here tend to criticize Bethesda for their Oblivion, and that reviewers overrated the game. If that is true why does the critic score coincide with the users' score? Just look at TESIV's game page here on gamespot.

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

We'll probably see Diablo 3 within two years.

Diablo III is certainly overhyped, like all the other Blizzard games. I'm suprised that few notice that Blizzard games "lack originality", "copy other games" and "have few improvements". So why are they succesful? Because they're just like casual games - mindless and simple. I'm not saying that the Diablo franchise and other Blizzard games are bad, just overhyped.

Some here tend to criticize Bethesda for their Oblivion, and that reviewers overrated the game. If that is true why does the critic score coincide with the users' score? Just look at TESIV's game page here on gamespot.

regnumekal

Actually, Blizzard games can be some of the most in depth there are. Look at Starcraft. That's one of, if not THE most well balanced RTS ever made. And Diablo 2 certainly didn't copy from anything, and Diablo 3 IS bringing significant changes, although people who haven't played Diablo 2 may not realize this.

I think that article is really cruel. The FPS mode will allow them to present a much deeper and more immersive environment.

I can't wait to see what they do with this game because at least they are making significant changes to what is an old franchise. If that means bringing it up to date away from the conventions then so be it. It might actually turn out to be dare I say refreshing?

Diablo III as fun as it may look could be mistaken for the same two games we've seen several years ago, bar the graphical updates.

I say give this Fallout 3 a chance - they made their mistakes with Oblivion sure and you can tell me they made a profit etc, but ethically as a company surely we have to give them some benefit of the doubt that they will want to listen to their customers and improve from their flaws.

I think that article is really cruel. The FPS mode will allow them to present a much deeper and more immersive environmentbiggest_loser

I could argue the opposite. ;)

I can't wait to see what they do with this game because at least they are making significant changes to what is an old franchise. If that means bringing it up to date away from the conventions then so be it. It might actually turn out to be dare I say refreshing?biggest

Refreshing?? I guess you have a point since there are so many Iso/turn-based RPGs out there. :roll:

Diablo III as fun as it may look could be mistaken for the same two games we've seen several years ago, bar the graphical updates.Biggest

Oh and Oblivion was so different from Morrowind or Daggerfall? Every-single TES game to day besides the adventure games have the share same gameplay structure as do most sequals. So that argument just falls apart unless you want to include TES into it as well.

I say give this Fallout 3 a chance - they made their mistakes with Oblivion sure and you can tell me they made a profit etc, but ethically as a company surely we have to give them some benefit of the doubt that they will want to listen to their customers and improve from their flaws.Biggest

Whos not giving it a chance besides the very very small minority of the hardcore Fallout fanbase? No one. But, that doesn't mean we can't be wary of the changes and be very pessimistic of the game.

I could argue the opposite. ;)

VoodooGamer

Go ahead.

Refreshing?? I guess you have a point since there are so many Iso/turn-based RPGs out there. :roll:

VoodooGamer

Ah so you've played the game? My mistake. You must know how generic it is.

Oh and Oblivion was so different from Morrowind or Daggerfall? Every-single TES game to day besides the adventure games have the share same gameplay structure as do most sequals. So that argument just falls apart unless you want to include TES into it as well.

VoodooGamer

We're talking about Fallout 3 here. And I'm saying that at least they are making some significant changes to try and bring it up to date and make it different. So far, apart from graphical enhancements I haven't seen that with Diablo III.

Whos not giving it a chance besides the very very small minority of the hardcore Fallout fanbase? No one. But, that doesn't mean we can't be wary of the changes and be very pessimistic of the game.

VoodooGamer

A lot of people on the forums aren't giving it a chance before playing it. And I wouldn't say its a small minority of fans.

You can be as pessimistic as you want but until you have actually played the game what is the point?

My opinion is that Diablo 2 is so far the best game ever made, and Diablo 3 will be even better.

As far as the Fallout series goes, I think Fallout 1 and 2 both sucked bigtime. They were both very boring turn-based games with terrible graphics. But I think they had a good story and if Bethesda makes Fallout 3 into a Oblivion-st.yle game, then it will be awesome, because I think Oblivion is the second best game ever made (after Diablo 2).

Oh and Oblivion was so different from Morrowind or Daggerfall? Every-single TES game to day besides the adventure games have the share same gameplay structure as do most sequals. So that argument just falls apart unless you want to include TES into it as well. VoodooGamer

Are you saying that you played the first 2 TESs?

I say give this Fallout 3 a chance - they made their mistakes with Oblivion sure and you can tell me they made a profit etc, but ethically as a company surely we have to give them some benefit of the doubt that they will want to listen to their customers and improve from their flaws.

biggest_loser

Why will they see them as flaws, though? Let's say I make a cake, and I accidently put a really big nail inside it. Pretty big mistake I've made while making my cake. The connoisseurs - cake connoisseurs - are especially unimpressed by the really big nail in my cake.

But for some reason, the masses love it. They love finding this massive nail in their cake. It's all metal and rusty and isn't that great?

So now I'm thinking, well I ruined my cake by accidently putting a nail in it, and it pissed the connoisseurs off, but... I did sell five million cakes. For my next cake, I think I'll sprinkle it with iron filings, and put two nails in there.

I don't give a **** about the connoisseurs any more. They can make their own damn cakes if they don't like mine. Mine come with nails now - and for my next cake, I'm thinking of adding even more nails.

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.

fatshodan

*sigh*

You ever say something you know is really stupid and then when it gets completely deconstructed in debate you say something even more stupid to try and get out of your poorly-formed argument for your original statement? Because that's pretty obviously what I just did.

So, anyway, before I drop out of this thread I'll just say I will try the games you named and give them a chance. Except Fallout, because I really just don't like Fallout.

Diablo 3 is true to its nature, Fallout 3 is an insult.

If I ever touch that consolized trash it will be from the second hand pile, so the company that turned a famous CRPG into a stat driven 3rd person shooter won't get a penny for it from me.

Diablo 3 is true to its nature, Fallout 3 is an insult.

AnnoyedDragon

In the same way we can say that "CoD5 is true to its nature, CoD4 is an insult"

I'm waiting for more on them.

But i missed out on the first two of each as i was too youngf when they came out.

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?

Skeptomania

Because it's not really easy to make a game like fallout

On topic , Diablo 3 is going to be mile better than Fallout 3

In the same way we can say that "CoD5 is true to its nature, CoD4 is an insult"

regnumekal

CoD 4 is closer to original nature in that it's actually developed by the original developers.

Honestly some of the crap I have been hearing about Fallout 3, it is like they are recreating Oblivion in the Fallout universe.

Magic is replaced with 'radiation powers' like the Ghoul liquid spray healing ability, enchanted weapons have been replaced with technology such as fuel powered fire swords...

Then there is nuclear powered everything; the cars are nuclear powered, your wrist computer is nuclear powered, you shoot a car and it apparently makes a mini atomic explosion. They actually have nuclear grenades, nuclear grenades! Radiation has been dumbed down to a mild status effect like poison.

Oh, and it makes perfect sense to me that Danielle Steele has sold more books than Shakespeare. old Billy didn't sell books. He was a playwright;)

Mediocre_man90

yeah, danielle steele doesn't sell books either; she sells trash.

CoD 4 is closer to original nature in that it's actually developed by the original developers. Hewkii

Actually my point was that CoD4 was placed in modern times, when the whole franchise was based on WWII. That's like blasphemy, I will not forgive EA if it does the same with MoH. But that doesn't mean CoD4 is a bad game.

Anyway, I think I don't need to remind you all that there are still no gameplay videos of Fallout 3 and that without them your judging is simply childish.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

I say give this Fallout 3 a chance - they made their mistakes with Oblivion sure and you can tell me they made a profit etc, but ethically as a company surely we have to give them some benefit of the doubt that they will want to listen to their customers and improve from their flaws.

fatshodan

Why will they see them as flaws, though? Let's say I make a cake, and I accidently put a really big nail inside it. Pretty big mistake I've made while making my cake. The connoisseurs - cake connoisseurs - are especially unimpressed by the really big nail in my cake.

But for some reason, the masses love it. They love finding this massive nail in their cake. It's all metal and rusty and isn't that great?

So now I'm thinking, well I ruined my cake by accidently putting a nail in it, and it pissed the connoisseurs off, but... I did sell five million cakes. For my next cake, I think I'll sprinkle it with iron filings, and put two nails in there.

I don't give a **** about the connoisseurs any more. They can make their own damn cakes if they don't like mine. Mine come with nails now - and for my next cake, I'm thinking of adding even more nails.

up until that point, i thought you were talking about a fingernail. and then i read that part, and i was like 'what?' and then i was like 'ohhh~!' and then i was like lol. and then i was like 'that shodan...'

Anyway, I think I don't need to remind you all that there are still no gameplay videos of Fallout 3 and that without them your judging is simply childish.regnumekal

Hmm, he's right, silly me.

Brainless feral Ghouls spewing fluids over each other as a 'healing spell' may actually be truthful to the Fallout franchise, how did I not see that before? I guess I'll have to wait till I see a video of it before I decide...

...

Oh, and it makes perfect sense to me that Danielle Steele has sold more books than Shakespeare. old Billy didn't sell books. He was a playwright;)

Mediocre_man90

Shakespeare didn't sell his plays? Really? Every hear of folios and the like? You are also aware that Shakespeare didn't just write plays too, right? I would suggest that you not only need to learn the history of video games but you would do well to learn a bit about English literature as well. Besides, you do realize that you CAN buy Shakespeare's plays at any bookstore today along with Danielle Steele, Tom Clancy and any of the other dreck that passes for literature these days.

Oh, and it was pretty convenient how you glossed over Faulkner but, then, your little argument, as flawed as it was anyhow, would have been completely invalidated. Way to cherry pick!

At any rate, if this thread has shown me anything it's that Bethesda's fanbase (generally speaking) is fairly uninformed, juvenile, and more than a little bit clueless.

I also suspect than many of the people criticizing the Fallout games have never actually played them.

[QUOTE="regnumekal"]Anyway, I think I don't need to remind you all that there are still no gameplay videos of Fallout 3 and that without them your judging is simply childish.AnnoyedDragon

Hmm, he's right, silly me.

Brainless feral Ghouls spewing fluids over each other as a 'healing spell' may actually be truthful to the Fallout franchise, how did I not see that before? I guess I'll have to wait till I see a video of it before I decide...

Let's take a break for a little lesson in history.

So you're saying that you don't mind that this

This

This

This

And this

...are all present in a STALKER game about a world placed a couple of years after a nuclear accident.

But you do mind this

And This

...in a Fallout game placed a couple of THOUSANDS of years after a nuclear war ended tragically, at a time when nature could have evolved in all the ways possible.

...in a Fallout game placed a couple of THOUSANDS of years after a nuclear war ended tragically, at a time when nature could have evolved in all the ways possible.

regnumekal

But you do mind this

And this.

...in a Fallout game placed a couple of THOUSANDS of years after a nuclear war ended tragically, at a time when nature could have evolved in all the ways possible.regnumekal

Yes I do; and I can say that with confidence because Bethesda's direction is away from that of the Fallout franchise.

In STALKER all those creatures are as indented by the original developers, in Fallout 3 Bethesda is making crap up as they go along that is not consistent with the franchise.

They have no respect for the game, only the fame associated with the name and what it will mean for game sales.

2) Feral ghouls are impossible within the Fallout universe. Impossible.RobbieH1234

Actually in Fallout, a ghoul means a mutated human.

[QUOTE="regnumekal"]
But you do mind this

And this.

...in a Fallout game placed a couple of THOUSANDS of years after a nuclear war ended tragically, at a time when nature could have evolved in all the ways possible.AnnoyedDragon

Yes I do; and I can say that with confidence because Bethesda's direction is away from that of the Fallout franchise.

In STALKER all those creatures are as indented by the original developers, in Fallout 3 Bethesda is making crap up as they go along that is not consistent with the franchise.

They have no respect for the game, only the fame associated with the name and what it will mean for game sales.

Yes, sure. Final Fantasy should have never left the 2D Nintendo era. Let's play a game: find one similarity between this

and this

Square Enix doesn't have any respect for the franchise, even though they created it.

[QUOTE="RobbieH1234"] 2) Feral ghouls are impossible within the Fallout universe. Impossible.regnumekal

Actually in Fallout, a ghoul means a mutated human.

Ah so you've played the game? My mistake. You must know how generic it is.biggest_loser

If you had read my post you'd understand that I was referring to the fact that it's perspective couldn't be refreshing based on the premises that 99% of RPGs and games share the same perspective. The notion that first-person/real-time is "innovative" is by any means ridiculous.

We're talking about Fallout 3 here. And I'm saying that at least they are making some significant changes to try and bring it up to date and make it different. So far, apart from graphical enhancements I haven't seen that with Diablo III.biggest

Fallout isn't being "brought up to date" unless you can find supporting evidence for that...

Anyways, Diablo 3 is indeed a different game. Anyone will tell you that.

A lot of people on the forums aren't giving it a chance before playing it. And I wouldn't say its a small minority of fans.

You can be as pessimistic as you want but until you have actually played the game what is the point?

biggest

If I see something I don't like being done to my favorite franchise then I'll voice my opinions, simple as you voicing for it's defense. ;)

[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"]Oh and Oblivion was so different from Morrowind or Daggerfall? Every-single TES game to day besides the adventure games have the share same gameplay structure as do most sequals. So that argument just falls apart unless you want to include TES into it as well. regnumekal

Are you saying that you played the first 2 TESs?

I own em'

Yes, sure. Final Fantasy should have never left the 2D Nintendo era. Let's play a game: find one similarity between this

and this

Square Enix doesn't have any respect for the franchise, even though they created it.

regnumekal

Progress of graphics which occures in all games is not a valid comparison to Bethesda practically rewriting the 'lore' for a lack of a better word of the Fallout franchise. I'm not talking about improving on what is there, but changing many aspects of the game which are not consistent with the franchise.

Final fantasy games change the formula in each game, that is what the franchise is known for, Bethesda is changing what the Fallout franchise is known for to appeal to none Fallout fans.

How is that comparable to your graphics argument?

Shakespeare didn't sell his plays? Really? Every hear of folios and the like? You are also aware that Shakespeare didn't just write plays too, right? I would suggest that you not only need to learn the history of video games but you would do well to learn a bit about English literature as well. Besides, you do realize that you CAN buy Shakespeare's plays at any bookstore today along with Danielle Steele, Tom Clancy and any of the other dreck that passes for literature these days.

Oh, and it was pretty convenient how you glossed over Faulkner but, then, your little argument, as flawed as it was anyhow, would have been completely invalidated. Way to cherry pick!

At any rate, if this thread has shown me anything it's that Bethesda's fanbase (generally speaking) is fairly uninformed, juvenile, and more than a little bit clueless.

I also suspect than many of the people criticizing the Fallout games have never actually played them.

-wildflower-

Okay, seriously? Calm the F**K down, dude. I wasn't trying to belittle your beloved freaking Shakespeare or Faulkner, I was simply making an offhand comment that some people may find mildly amusing. I realize that you can go to the bookstore and buy Shakespeare's plays, as well as his poetry, I was simply stating that he didn't write novels (what most people think of when talking of books), he wrote plays. There is a very big difference. I wasn't glossing over Faulkner, he was an author and therefore sold books. not cherry picking, there's just no comedic value. So next time before you blow up on somebody over an insincere, light-hearted comment, take a couple deep breaths, maybe fix yourself a nice, cool drink (whatever your preference), and accept the joke for what it is. Now if you want to debate the literary merit of various authors, playwrights, or poets, I'll be more than happy to do so, but this is neither the time nor the place.

[QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

Shakespeare didn't sell his plays? Really? Every hear of folios and the like? You are also aware that Shakespeare didn't just write plays too, right? I would suggest that you not only need to learn the history of video games but you would do well to learn a bit about English literature as well. Besides, you do realize that you CAN buy Shakespeare's plays at any bookstore today along with Danielle Steele, Tom Clancy and any of the other dreck that passes for literature these days.

Oh, and it was pretty convenient how you glossed over Faulkner but, then, your little argument, as flawed as it was anyhow, would have been completely invalidated. Way to cherry pick!

At any rate, if this thread has shown me anything it's that Bethesda's fanbase (generally speaking) is fairly uninformed, juvenile, and more than a little bit clueless.

I also suspect than many of the people criticizing the Fallout games have never actually played them.

Mediocre_man90

Okay, seriously? Calm the F**K down, dude. I wasn't trying to belittle your beloved freaking Shakespeare or Faulkner, I was simply making an offhand comment that some people may find mildly amusing. I realize that you can go to the bookstore and buy Shakespeare's plays, as well as his poetry, I was simply stating that he didn't write novels (what most people think of when talking of books), he wrote plays. There is a very big difference. I wasn't glossing over Faulkner, he was an author and therefore sold books. not cherry picking, there's just no comedic value. So next time before you blow up on somebody over an insincere, light-hearted comment, take a couple deep breaths, maybe fix yourself a nice, cool drink (whatever your preference), and accept the joke for what it is. Now if you want to debate the literary merit of various authors, playwrights, or poets, I'll be more than happy to do so, but this is neither the time nor the place.

Oh. sorry, I had no idea it was a joke but then I usually expect jokes to be funny so...

At any rate, my point still stands: Mindless garbage sells and Bethesda seems to have no qualms about turning the Fallout series into another mindless FPS. All hail the McMasses!

Diablo 3 is going to crush Bethesda's outting. I played Oblivion long enough for the fancyish graphics to wear off and reveal a very bland and boring RPG. The list of things that went wrong with Oblivion is kinda simple. Ho hum wack a mole combat. The horrid and oddly enough bragged about AI. The writting(its been long enough that I don't rember the specifics fortuently). Combined with the lack of any meaningfull RPG elements made it a pointless endeavour. I'm about to start playing The original 2 fallouts, that is of course if I can get them to start working under XP. I know I'd be annoyed if someone bought Wasteland's rights and made some gravy train shovel out of it.