Guy on blog: Diablo 3 vs Fallout 3

[Brother None]

BN - I'm the one being obtuse? I'd suggest you reread that blog dude's article again before throwing that word at the wrong nigga (to fuck with).

Imagine Blizzard had released those screens and video, only they had the artwork (slightly) rebranded to look like Forgotten Realms and instead announced they were developing Baldur's Gate 3. See what I did there? Now imagine this destructoid clown (no offense) or anyone else posting "now THIS is how you make a sequel!" You'd take that shit to task, IN the news post, and there'd be 7 ready-made "me too!" posts by the time I clicked "comment." Right?

Would anyone EVEN care that the game was "ISO" in that case?

Eh?

So, uh, if this wasn't a faithful Diablo sequel but instead a hack-n-slash sequel to Baldur's Gate, this article would have been stupid?

Uh...sure, that's true, but that isn't the case, so I don't see the point you're trying to make.

You understand the core argument isn't about iso or not, right?

 

[Black]

1). It's not fucking ISO. It's actually fully rendered in 3D, in what appears to be the StarCraft 2 engine. Please don't lose your shit when you find out you'll be able to move the camera around a little. Or a lot!

What Ausir said. In fact, I saw many people on TES forums crying that Fallout 1and 2 weren't ISO. Guess what? Nobody gives a shit if it wasn't "true" ISO.

2). The core gameplay is changing in many significant ways. Generally speaking, it's becoming less of a mouse clicker and more of a button masher. That's right, special attacks will probably be way more common than standard melee even early on, and character creation options include the ability to respec. So somewhere between Gow and WoW.

What, it's no longer about smashing, burning, chopping etc. thousands of monsters and finding PHAT LEWT now?

You're not a bad news bearer, more like bs bearer. Good to know Blizzard and Bodybag don't change.

 

[K.C. Cool]

I gotta think that the business side, and the "creative" side of Bethesda on this one, were separate. I gotta think that the business side is what bought the IP.

The business side is above the creative. I can see the business side buying the Fallout IP and telling their team "Okay, we bought this, now lets take steps to make a FO4 popular for all gamers on all platforms." They don't want to improve Fallout, rather change it to be more interesting to more people to make, ta dah, more money.

Basically they bought a square peg for a round hole and told their team: "Make it fit."

Also, could you imagine FO spinoffs on hand held and mobile devices? I really shouldn't think of such things..

 

[gc051360]

I don't want to sound mean or anything....but after reading the pages of this thread:

Bodybag. What are you talking about? I've read quite a few of your posts here....and I can't figure out what you are talking about. If you have a point....I've completely missed it.

First, the analogy is flawed.

Then, Diablo 3 isn't a true sequel anyway.

Then, yeah....but if that's what Baldur's Gate 3 looked like, it wouldn't be a true sequel....

I can't make sense out of any of it. Seems to me, you are just trying to argue for arguments sake.

 

[Jenx]

stat planning, loot planning, and skill planning, its an incredibly detailed process of character development, and thats what RPGs are really about.

And here I always thought that role playing games were about...ya know, role playing. Eh, but what do I know, right?

Diablo was never an RPG people, the roguelikes which Diablo 1 was trying to copy are NOT RPGs, even though they seem like such (mostly because, hey, they don't have any friggin roleplaying in them!)

But that's OK! Diablo was great exactly because, at some point, you just get tired of huge dialogs and having to follow several dozen storylines and such. And it's nice to take a break from that some time, pick up a huge ass sword, go in the nearest dungeon and start slaughtering anything that has the bad luck of being in your way.
That is what Diablo was for me - a break from playing serious RPG games, so you could go back and enjoy them more. And from what I've seen so far in the gameplay, I will get exactly the same I got from the previous Diablo games - lots of mindless slaughter.

 

[Morbus]

Yeah, I love Diablo for that too. Diablo 2, mind you, I love the style and I don't like Diablo 1.

 

[nimeni]

I've played D1 in '98 '99 i think, then D2 when it popped out. Don't know why i played D2 for so long, probably to see all the spells, and item sets. I was a sucker for discovering everything. But after that was through, there was the period of playing out of boredom, then i began to hate it, and argue with anyone who praised it.

D2 has nothing better than D1 besides graphics and variety. There was no major gameplay change.
(Remember when you closed the butcher in a room, and shot through the bars ?)
D1 was the first that gave a hint of RPG. But D2 is pure hack and slash. There is no emotion involved in it, you don't care about the townspeople, as you change towns. The story seemed superficial to me.

I now know that i appreciate more a game with no variety, but with quality elements, and lots of details.(There are alot who don't see things this way, and just want to get lost in the creep bashing routine, just like a house wife doing goblens, to take their mind off the boredom of day to day life)

Revenant was something great, the story and feeling, the people's reaction to you, your attitude, a choice of dialog lines. Too bad it was buggy, and not properly finalized. The leveling was also different. It's more of a successor than D2 from my opinion.

And D3 looks like a much improved D2.. lets see how big is the improvement.

 

[Bodybag]

Eh?

So, uh, if this wasn't a faithful Diablo sequel but instead a hack-n-slash sequel to Baldur's Gate, this article would have been stupid?

No, the article IS stupid, because the situations between the game franchises and companies are different enough that this comparison is pointless and silly, pretty sure I mentioned this earlier on. Not congruent in the least. I guess you disagree?

You understand the core argument isn't about iso or not, right?

Sure, I understand that. Still, you might want to run that by your forum here, considering how many times it's been highlighted.

 

[Brother None]

No, the article IS stupid, because the situations between the game franchises and companies are different enough that this comparison is pointless and silly.

And as I said, this is as close as you're going to get. That means that by definition, if you're going to make any comparisons than this comparison is at least as valid as any other.

That means it's silly to ignore it just because it's not ideal. There is no ideal comparative material, so we have to do with partially correct comparisons. That goes for this piece as much as that OXM dude's "Keeping faith in Fallout" piece.

Still, you might want to run that by your forum here, considering how many times it's been highlighted.

Looks to me like it's getting highlighted because it's a point that both franchises share. Which is fair enough.

I don't think anyone claimed the core of the argument is about that rather than about franchise fidelity, tho'.

 

[Grimhound]

And now for a quote of interest.
"One of the things I would want to say, especially to our most patient fans – the ones that have been hoping for Diablo III - is that I hope they see it’s a testament of our love for the franchise that we wouldn’t release it before it’s good and ready. We’ve really spent this time trying to make a sequel that was worthy of them." - Jay Wilson, lead designer of Blizzard's Diablo III.


Just to clarify things, Blizzard North was the company that made the first two Diablo games. Most of them left to start Flagship studios when Blizzard North was pulled into the main company. This is pretty much a clean slate team pulling Diablo 3, and yet they have proven themselves in just this short time. This is why Blizzard rakes in Blizzard money while companies like Bethesda chase 'teh Halo moneyz'.

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

grow some freaking thicker skin, dude. You're a NMAer, for chrissakes!

I'm very comfortable with the thickness of my e-skin, it sees me unscathed through 4chan and it doesn't get much worse than that. But I quite like the fact that NMA is NOT 4chan, and there are actually rules against trolling here.

It's easy to forget I'm also Fallout fan, since I don't love it so much that it turns to hate for F3.

The reason it's easy to forget is that you go out of your way to dismiss and ridicule each and every criticism levelled at Fallout 3, and that is precisely what strikes me as odd here. Because many of the complaints that you acknowledge as valid for Diablo 3 are pretty nitpicky, and WAY smaller in scope than those that you don't for Fallout 3. For an instance, presumed changes in perspective which are barely noticeable here against Failout completely ditching one for another. Same as the mechanics - changes like the orbs, which you call "huge", against the complete overhaul from TB to RT.

Which brings us back to this guy's blog. Why exactly aren't both games comparable in the treatment of their respectives franchises?

Blizzard created the IP instead of acquiring it? Seems to me that this would only make it all the more justifiable to take liberties with it, but here's the catch. They're both not developed by the original devs - Blizzard North was dismantled and few if any of the people from D1 and D2 teams remains on board. D3 is still being developed WAY closer to the originals.

Blizzard defines genres? All I can read out of that is "Blizzard is a way better company than Bethesda", which is not really a good basis to dispel comparisons, being in fact a comparison by itself. If Beth has never managed to define a genre, maybe they should rethink their mindset of making every damn game FP and RT.

Money to be taken from fanbases? Sure, TES is more profitable for Bethesda than doing a faithful sequel to Fallout. So why not simply make another TES, or create their own post-apocalyptic IP to begin with if they wanted to expand? This way they would not alienate anyone and probably net the fanbase you say they target.

 

[ZiggyMeister]

Just finished watching the 20 minutes Diablo3 Gameplay Trailer, and it really confirmed why I don't like Diablo and it's kind: Mindless Hack & Slash action driven games are not at all what I like to play...

That also made me remember why I really loved Fallout since the first time I laid hand on the Demo...

For me it's almost like in Pulp Fiction, when John Travolta character asks Uma Thurman character if she is a Elvis fan or a Beatles fan, because the world is divided into those 2 kind of persons...
So, are you a Fallout fan or a Diablo fan? Because PC gamers are divided into those to kind of persons (at least they where some 10 years ago)...

I'm a Fallout fan, not a Diablo fan!

 

[Jenx]

...So, what? It's impossible for one to like both Elvis and the Beatles, and in the same way - Both Fallout and Diablo? What kind of a close-minded way of thinking is that?

 

[Brother None]

For me it's almost like in Pulp Fiction, when John Travolta character asks Uma Thurman character if she is a Elvis fan or a Beatles fan, because the world is divided into those 2 kind of persons...
So, are you a Fallout fan or a Diablo fan? Because PC gamers are divided into those to kind of persons (at least they where some 10 years ago)...

I disagree, I think it's more between Rolling Stones and Beatles fans.

And that has to be the dumbest concept ever, being a fan of Fallout and a fan of Diablo are not even remotely exclusive.

 

[Morbus]

I'm a diablo fan, that's for sure. And a starcraft fan too.

 

[kyle]

So, are you a Fallout fan or a Diablo fan?

so im fan of both Fallout and Diablo (both pretty hardcore i believe) ... what now ?

anyways, it seem ill waste another mouse when this game comes out

 

[Morbus]

I somehow remember wasting two mouses with Diablo 2, but the last time I played it I didn't use it that much... I played a barbarian and I just click'n'hold'd the enemies til they're done... Is this because of some patch or something? Doesn't the original game allow for click'n'hold?

Anyway, I hope D3 allows me to click'n'hold. It's a common feature in this kind of games...

 

[ZiggyMeister]

...So, what? It's impossible for one to like both Elvis and the Beatles, and in the same way - Both Fallout and Diablo? What kind of a close-minded way of thinking is that?

Have you ever watched Pulp Fiction? It's not really a statement, it's more like a joke Tarantino made about that! As if like in his mind the world had only 2 colors, black and white, so in that case anything can only be black or white, good or evil, beautiful or utterly ugly, you could only like Elvis or the Beatles.
And so in an analogy to the gaming world could be: that one can only be a fan of Fallout or Diablo.

I wasn't really saying that this is really true!
And I'm not saying the world is black and white, if I really have to explain myself, then whatever...

 

[whirlingdervish]

mouse overuse definitely depended on the character class that you chose in Diablo 2.

with a barbarian and WW you could hold shift and occasionally click in a new direction to continue the nonstop onslaught of bladed death..

with an amazon, unless you were using guided arrow or strafe exclusively, you'd be doing a bit of clicking with multishot to spray large areas

with a paladin, you're clickin like a maniac.

 

[nimeni]

While no one aspect of their games are in any way 'revolutionary' they know how to put the whole package together and pamper their customers.

erm ... maybe now their products aren't revolutionary, but in the past it was them who made the rules. Diablo clones are all over, Diablo didn't copy another game. Same goes for Warcraft.

Fallout wasn't ready for something revolutionary, not from my point of view.