drgong said:
I guess the most simple argument for those who don't get why FO3 was a FPS and not overhead view is this.
If overhead view is viable, why have we not seen a non-fantasy game of that type? Why have most of the companies that made the great "bird-eye" view games out of business?
Thats something you have to ask the developers of games and particuliarly companies like Bethesda or Eidos (see Comandos below) which seem to be attracted a lot by the casual mainstream market making a hell lot of money with a known and established name - its less about "popularity" if you ask me but more about that you have a "established" name.
This discussion is old. And at some point tiresome.
You know about it when you get deeper in why AGP isnt sold anymore. Everyone with knowledge about hardware will tell you that AGP wasnt removed from buisness for graphic cards cause it would be to old but cause it is easier to sell the same people 2 graphic cards via PCI - a way to increase your benefit by 100%? One would be crazy to not move in that direction as a company. And anyone will tell you that the perfomance boost with 2 cards for a gamer is rather small. Pretty small. Its better to use money for a well shaped system in general then 2 cards not to mention the issue people get from "micro lags" or "micro stuttering" and other things. But its a tricky discussion people have different experience and thus different oppions it was for some time a big marketing and "modern" to get 2 cards now things have somewhat settled down and all particularly when people realised that its wasted money. Fact is AGP was pushed out of buisness and it would be fairly easy to make AGP cards with the similar powers of PCI cards.
drgong said:
...
Why have most of the companies that made the great "bird-eye" view games out of business?
by the way I want to chalange particularly that part of your "claim" by simply giving sources or examples.
Blizzard, making since a long time "birds eye" or "top down" games. Still in buisness kicking ass. Particularly with Diablo 3 and Star Craft in development.
Westwood was making high profit and the games they made still do for EA now.
Another question, how many of those games with "bird eyes" view in their branch have been overtaken or bought by some other company and squezed in a direction that alinated their former costumers and fanbases? Sim City though is still today sold as what it was 10 years ago. Quite a lot of companies dont exist anymore not cause all of them went out of buisness but cause they have been many times enough bought by other companies and the name just dissapeard (see Westwood, Maxis and many others).
Its kinda interesting that you also name "fantasy" setting as if you want almost "any" kind of game fits in those region. Even Sci Fi at some point. I mean take Warhammer for example. If I would tell you know "look thats a top down/birds eye view!" you might just respond that its fantasy when it clearly has as well parts of science fiction inside. YOu also seem to ignore Supreme Commander
which has a sequel in production.
You might notice at some point that enough games and companies (or smaller bureaus) have been "killed" cause of a shift in a wrong direction. Just compare the evolution of the Top down WW2 game Commandos which was a awesome game for it self and much loved by its community from Commandos 1 to Commandos 3. What Eidos now did was to change this tactical style where you control somewhat a squad between 3 and 9 members with Commandos 4 to a "first person shooter" for the simple reason to catch a "biger market". In the end they could not satisfy any consumer and just alinated their original fanbase killing the whole franchise in the processs.
They changed This:
To this:
Sorry but I am the only one to who it is obvious why the whole franchise died in the end ?
If overhead view is viable, why have we not seen a non-fantasy game of that type?
My idea to the whole thing is. Simple. Its easier to make a action filled first-person thing/travesty or "franken-shooter" then a game with really innovative gameplay where the focus is on story telling and not to blow the player away with visuals - interesting when you think about it how much emphasis on Fallout 3 was about the "visuals" you know "the wasteland never looked so gooooood!" are visuals really everything that counts?.
Maybe Hollywood is a good example. What is easier to sell to the "masses" for much cash. Intelligent, provocative and somewhat "intelectual" movies that require lots of skill in writting and its implementation (to have a good story is one thing to TELL it a different one). Or stuff like Transformers 2 and Terminator 4. Filled with asplosions, awesum spacial effects and big tits I mean names.
If you ask me the issue are the "Todd Howards" and "Michael Bay" of the buisness that haev no desire to challange the player and their intellect that make extremly dull mainstream products, know it and feel fine about it - remember Hines coment about the plot holes in the end that are big enough a elephant could pass? Yes, he said he said "they" [ the Bethesdateam ] knew about them but feelt "fine" with it. Well tell me how much can oen expect from people that do feel comfortable with flawed products?
.
