Diablo III proves old-school Fallout can do well today

[Crni Vuk]

And even Diablo 3 made the jump to 3D. Diablo is a really a bad example in any possible way. And not just because it is an action game.

I couldn't give less of a fuck between isometric, third person or first person. If the game is good, it's good no matter what view of the field you have.

Depends if you ask me.

People enjoy the ride for different reasons. If one certain game mode is dominating pretty much all the others (which includes the decision to go for action rather then "strategy" or "dialogues" in your games) then its not a good thing.

I enjoy FPS/Third person shooters just as much like the next guy. But I also play a few games because of the gameplay they have.

Do you think Jagged Alliance would be the same kind of game if it was done in third person or even first person with real time combat? I could never ever imagine anything else for JA then a turn based top down game. Because it is what I want to play in JA. Just as how I sometimes take my bike to get out and not the car, despite how advanced the car might be compared to the bike or how there are much more people enjoying cars. I chose the bike because I want to.

Of course I agree with you drag, if a game is good its "good". But sometimes you are looking for something different.

 

[Makagulfazel]

And even Diablo 3 made the jump to 3D. Diablo is a really a bad example in any possible way. And not just because it is an action game.

I was using the worst possible example in my case(mass quantity seller) to show that even the most popular of the current isometric games, which was in development for about a decade, doesn't create enough pull for the genre to consider isometric games "trendy". <strike>Oh, you missed that? I would've never foreseen that happening with you, Creeny.</strike>

EDIT:
Unless by "bad example" you mean for comparison's sake. If you mean for argument's sake, then I still would like to keep my smartass remark intact.

 

[Brother None]

And even Diablo 3 made the jump to 3D. Diablo is a really a bad example in any possible way.

Fallout's graphics were made in 3D too. You're missing the point. It's a static isometric mode, completely static in fact. Who cares that the engine is 3D, it just makes effects easier. An isometric Fallout would be made in 3D too. Wasteland 2 is being made in 3D. That's just where the technology is at, most effective, best-looking right now.

 

[Per]

there's no envelope for developers to push. They would be limiting themselves by limiting themselves to an isometric view.

Somehow I still manage to be perplexed by the implication that view distances, soil erosion and such stuffs are where the envelopes of CRPGs should be undergoing pushage. I'm all for good ambience, it just seems there are things way higher up on the shopping list that have largely gone off the rails years back. Speaking for myself, I'd play every new game from here until Doomsday in 2-D isolinear if they only featured innovative (C)RPG design. Exploration of setting, situation, system, those are now extras you can possibly hope for after new and awesomer tree modelling has been taken care of.

 

[PlanHex]

blahblah

No one cares, man.
They can only allocate so many people to different jobs.
Cut down on the quest design and story, the trees need moar bloom!

 

[HerrMike]

Isometric is pretty pointless unless you have a game that requires team management. I can't really understand anyone wanting it back, unless it's for the nostalgia or whatever.

With Diablo 3 it made sense, as it allowed the devs more time to work on the story and the real money auction house.

 

[Makagulfazel]

Third person narrative is pretty pointless unless you have a book that requires various viewpoints. I can't really understand anyone wanting it otherwise, unless it's for the ubiquity or whatever.

 

[grayx]

Isometric is pretty pointless unless you have a game that requires team management. I can't really understand anyone wanting it back, unless it's for the nostalgia or whatever.

With Diablo 3 it made sense, as it allowed the devs more time to work on the story and the real money auction house.

There always will be situations or people who like to play chess or some "ancient" game. The only problem is how many people.

Once indeed born out of technical limitations, Isometric (or any POV for that matter), 3D or any element of a game are now part of tools that convey developers vision, artistic style, desire and any other dev's goal into the product. If devs have a need for some of these tools to achieve their goal (whatever that be) they can and should use them. Saying it's obsolete/pointless or somehow phase of computer gaming is short of asinine.
For the rest, economic part of the game, micro-transactions and the way how to generate additional income is very, very interesting concept (that's the tool also) with pro and contra arguments about it, but that has nothing to do with POV or the story of the game - that was done by a totally different people.

It's my hypothesis (for which I don't have proof) that POV and idiotazing of games is closely tied to gaming controllers, age and how majority of people are playing games. But controllers play a big part of it. With introduction of some newish gadgets (like kinect-like and other devices) there is a big chance that isometric 3D or even 4D would have their day.

 

[dukem]

somehow I can't believe whats happened to this community here.
only played Fo3, never played Fo1+2 ? Isometric view is much better for tactical turn based combat, oh I understand, that sucks too. While you used to have a variety of games where you could come home from a lousy day, fire up quake and shoot every thing, or you could just enjoy a game like fallout, like reading a good book and playing a game of chess in one.

nowadays the fucking intermingling of genres where shooters have story and all rpg's must have action and every game is pretty much the same recipe of soup, that's great and the normal progress of things ? I think it's moving backwards.

dragon age1+2 are isometric as well, should they become first person shooters as well ?

fallout3 is a pathetic excuse for a fallout game compared to 1+2 even leaving view and combat out of the equation, nv while I don't like the Vegas setting at all is much better and much nearer to the original's although it still lacks lots of things the originals had, not only turn based iso.

"we mutants don't share the same weaknesses as you humans"

 

[Morbus]

I couldn't give less of a fuck between isometric, third person or first person. If the game is good, it's good no matter what view of the field you have.

While that is generally a good attitude, we tend to see it use to dismiss the arguments of those who say that X or Y first person game is too action-centric.

So excuse my skepticism when I say that the GAME, as in the gameplay (for the most part) and its quality IS directly related to how you view the field you have. Imagine a first person strategy game. Or an isometric race simulator.

there's no envelope for developers to push. They would be limiting themselves by limiting themselves to an isometric view.

Who lets these people in?

 

[danielje]

What do you guys think? Will the revival of gold-box-era and 90s RPG styles lead Bethesda to possibly task Obsidian with a turn-based, isometric "spin-off" of Fallout?

Yes and to be honest It doesn't need to be a spin-off, unless you are musing to the "lore" that is bethesda, all mighty property rights holder.
To be honest, if a company like Bethesda can't pony up a few million(atleast 3) to make a game done in maybe the way Fallout Tactics was made, with the "real time" toggle option, I'd say they were fools.

I mean, you'd buy it wouldn't you? Most of us here are waiting for Wasteland 2 as it is, but if Bethesda wanted to commit to making an "old school" fallout game, I'd buy it. In an instant, and for 60 dollars probably,... maybe, pending on the caliber of the game they were making.
However, it is probably pretty unlikely that they would make a "pc exclusive" game, they are a big enough company that they'd find a way to console it, even if they did do all development with PC user interfaces in mind. Anyways, I digress.

 

[Sarla]

Personally I love turn based Iso games in 2d but I also like them in 3d. For me FoT has my most favorite combat engine but I very much missed the rpg it lacked.

I tried FO3 and it made me quite sick while playing but I got used to it and finished it as fast as I could. I really hated the story in it though and never went back to it. FO NV was different, although it takes me a few days to get to used to it before I can play for many hours at a time, I have come to really like that one and look forward to what follows it.

I play some MMO's but only if they have a 3rd person view or iso.

But in general I do not play any first person view games and prefer turn based.

D1 and D2 I played and thought they were ok so I bought D3 only cause of all the hype and was very unhappy with it. I played it to the end fight once and can't figure out what's so good about it. On a good note I was able to call in and get a full refund so that made me happy.

I have 2 boys and while one of them is quite good with fps games he favors iso view games also. The other boy does not play games much. My exhusband is a complete fps zombie hunter fan.

So who knows, I think their will always be a market for both game types.

 

[maximaz]

While the isometric view was once the epitome of future gaming technology, it's time has come and gone. Isometric, while novel and even though old/retro has become "trendy" again, I doubt you'll see many more serious games done in that style. It's just not what people want these days, and there's no envelope for developers to push. They would be limiting themselves by limiting themselves to an isometric view.

I disagree because...

I for one started playing the Fallout series with Fallout 3 and was just amazed at the story and quality of the game itself...

Nevermind.

[spoiler:66932d13b5]You're right about everything bro.

[/spoiler:66932d13b5]

If Blizzard did Fallout in the isometric view, it would sell a couple of million copies I think.

 

[Autoduel76]

While the isometric view was once the epitome of future gaming technology, it's time has come and gone. Isometric, while novel and even though old/retro has become "trendy" again, I doubt you'll see many more serious games done in that style.

Isometric view was never the future of gaming technology. I'm not sure what you are saying there. It was(and is) the present, just like 1st person, top-down, side-scroll, etc. Its just a viewpoint choice. We've had 1st person, top-down, side-scrollers since the beginning of popular gaming in the early 80's, and we still have those viewpoints today. Isometric is simply an offshoot of top down, a bit of a hybrid view. But it was never considered "the future" of anything.

Hopes to go back and play the originals to catch up on the story were fairly dashed when I found out that they were Isometric view and indeed were products of a by-gone gaming era. While they may be masterfully great games, as a gamer I probably won't ever play Fallout 1 or 2. And don't let this mistake you into thinking that I hate Isometric games;

I couldn't care less if you go back and play the original Fallouts, but I feel the need to point out that the two bolded statements you make here are in opposition to each other. Its like saying I won't eat tacos because they're Mexican and following it up by saying I like Mexican food.



Now, Nicholas, you really don't have to worry about future Fallout's returning to an isometric view anytime soon. It's simply not going to happen. But isometric and top down perspectives are still alive and well in both niche and mainstream games. Blizzard is doing it just fine with Diablo, Final Fantasy Tactics and its clones are going to continue to be isometric, Wasteland 2, Shadowrun 2 of the 3 most successful kickstarter game projects are both isometric games. Aside from a number of developers (of many genres, and perspectives) jumping on the Kickstarter trend, isometric / top down views aren't "trendy". Civilization has been doing it for years along with a host of other strategy games, none of which will be moving to a different perspective anytime soon.

Isometric and Top down views are simply a choice and many developers have been making that choice one way or another throughout the history of gaming. It lends itself better to tactical, strategic play and overseeing multiple characters at the expense of real time action response. Really, one big reason for the relative dearth of isometric CRPGs has been due to the lack of party based RPGs in favor of single character ones.


But the Game Industry is getting wider, not deeper, at the moment and unlikely to stop going in that direction for quite awhile.

 

[Crni Vuk]

And even Diablo 3 made the jump to 3D. Diablo is a really a bad example in any possible way.

Fallout's graphics were made in 3D too. You're missing the point. It's a static isometric mode, completely static in fact. Who cares that the engine is 3D, it just makes effects easier. An isometric Fallout would be made in 3D too. Wasteland 2 is being made in 3D. That's just where the technology is at, most effective, best-looking right now.

I am more talking about the fact that many think new shiny technology is needed and the way to go regardless if it helps the game or not. I am all for 3D and modern technology. But not for the sake of it. Is Diablo 3 the better game compared to D2 becaues it is in 3D? Or would Fallout have been the better game? For example I still prefer the "style" of D2 over D3. D2 for me is not aging, because of the way how the graphic is used here. D3 will get very fast old. The fate of all which is 3D. Or does anyone still play today Hellgate London because of its "awesome" graphic directions?

Thats what I mean. It seems even that they try to be "old fashioned" I think they still give actually a crap about it. It just was the way to go for D3 because well ... there was no other way to do it.

But you are right of course.

 

[Lexx]

Well, but that's because of the graphic style and not because it is 3d. With todays shaders and everything, there really is no problem in making it look like the original 2d / Diablo 2. It's quite some work, but not impossible, simply because the original graphics are made from 3d models as well.

Only some of Fallouts scenery objects, walls and tiles had been painted over by hand, the critters are all 1:1 the rendered models. So if you are skilled enough to write fitting shaders + adjust the textures, you can clone the old effect quite good.

So, to get back to Diablo 3... The old character animations + less comic style enviroment + some fancy shaders = it probably would look very much like D2.

/Edit: Check out this FOnline 3d model image:

Everything is 3d and with a bit more work and finetuning, they will blend in 1:1 with the original 2d.

Long story short, it's about the graphic style, not the used technology.

 

[Crni Vuk]

the thing is that it doesn't - In the case of D3. I think already now Diablo 3 to look pretty "ugly" in some parts, mainly because its not using the tools like you explained it here.

I don't have any problem with 3D effects and engines maybe like with Fallout 3 by Interplay if it ever would have seen the light. But I think it should somehow support the game. Again. What has Diablo 3 gained by using some 3D engine? They said they had more freedom in the creation of characters and that is something I agree with. It is now much easier and much better to create situations like fighting a creature that has the size of several buildings which was never used like that either in D1 or D2. If any 3D engine or new technology is used like that to give your more options then I am all for it.

 

[Izual]

I don't see how Diablo III's case is relevant. Diablo III is quite an UFO: no gameplay, no DA, obvious and terrible clone of Diablo II, yet a giant buzz and tons of players. From that, you can't build a theory like "Yes, a clone of Fallout 2 would work!"

 

[Lexx]

the thing is that it doesn't - In the case of D3.

Well, yeah. It doesn't. But that wasn't my point. My point was, that it is pretty possible to achieve the same 2d-look result with a 3d engine. So if a game looks old or not (nowadays) doesn't necessarily depend on the engine.

10 years ago it might not have worked, because of a lack of reasonable computer power, but now...

 

[Crni Vuk]

its just the feeling I have with many 3D engines. That they age much faster and worse compared to even much older games that use a different approach. Like Oblivion or Fallout 3 which look outright shit in my eyes. Does not mean there are not "good" old 3D games. I still play Jedi Knight because I think they made a great job with the game. Despite of its age.