Diablo 3 vs. Fallout 3: How to Make a Proper Sequel
-
Category: News ArchiveHits: 1113
And now we got D3. It looks the same as D2 and D1. Two orbs. Mouse clicking. Iconic classes. It looks gorgeous as well. Using the same isometric (sic) perspective. And from what I can see, people are lapping it up. People are loving it, me included. Why? Well I guess it's reassuring to see a team that is made up of several different members from D2's team (even though it's still Blizzard) behind the steering wheel of this game, and how they managed to make the game be like what Diablo III SHOULD be like, in the hearts of fans and gamers in general.
All of this disturbs me. Why? Because I'm a fan of another franchise. One where action takes a sidestep into turn-based chaos, and dialog, options, different routes, take the center stage. A game whose setting was, and still is, unique.
You may know the series called Fallout. But what the gamewebs and the magazines and the boards are feeding you, isn't what Fallout is. That's a definition I'll leave for the fans of the franchise, known throughout the net as the most rabid fans there are, "glittering gems of hatred" as one has called them.
...
What made me think about Fallout is that now its being handled by what I consider to be some of the worst collection of developers in this gaming age. They bring out Oblivion, with it's clunky AI, the lack of proper dialog options, the laughable speech skill, the poor combat, the repetitve content (caverns and caverns and caverns and THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME!), and everybody applauds them as the saviours of the RPG genre.
They 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 and courage to bring out Fallout 3 as a turn based isometric rpg. Instead, most people are accepting their excuse that Fallout was only originally like that because of "technological impairments at the time".
I'm in 100% agreement.
