Editorial Fallout 3 vs Diablo 3: How sequels should be made

[thesheeep]

Believe it or not, but Todd isn't always wrong. He just is when talking about Fallout

 

[Hamster]

With the sequel to both Diablo and Fallout now in the works. <a href="http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/Solivagant/diablo-3-vs-fallout-3-how-to-make-a-proper-sequel-92764.phtml">Somebody decided to compare the creation of the two</a>

From comments in that blog:

To me the story, the interaction with NPCs, the ability to go about things as you wish and having options to a goal are what's most important when making a Fallout game and the transition to this new 3D engine will better serve ALL of those than the iso view ever could.

What I feel is really important to the series, from all accounts of people that have played it, is being addressed so I'm confident I'm going to enjoy it when it comes out

Also CookieMonster, Fallout 3 isn't a FPS, it's in third person like Resident Evil 4. I don't even think there's an option to go first person in it.

Of course, it can just be a very naive and uniformed, but a real Fallout fan.
But most likely it is a special type of gamer - a gamer with no taste. He can play both Fallout 1 and 3 and claim they are equal. Pitiful creature, smart person outside, retard inside.

 

[MaskedMartyr]

With the sequel to both Diablo and Fallout now in the works. <a href="http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/Solivagant/diablo-3-vs-fallout-3-how-to-make-a-proper-sequel-92764.phtml">Somebody decided to compare the creation of the two</a>

From comments in that blog:

To me the story, the interaction with NPCs, the ability to go about things as you wish and having options to a goal are what's most important when making a Fallout game and the transition to this new 3D engine will better serve ALL of those than the iso view ever could.

What I feel is really important to the series, from all accounts of people that have played it, is being addressed so I'm confident I'm going to enjoy it when it comes out

Also CookieMonster, Fallout 3 isn't a FPS, it's in third person like Resident Evil 4. I don't even think there's an option to go first person in it.

Of course, it can just be very naive and uniformed, but a real Fallout fan.
But most likely it is a special type of gamer - a gamer with no taste. He can play both Fallout 1 and 3 and claim they are equal. Pitiful creature, smart person outside, retard inside.

I'm just going to throw my two cents in here.

Contrary to what you might think, Bethesda Softworks makes some really innovative and fantastic games. I've always felt that the Elder Scrolls series were the pinnacle of the western RPG genre.

Many people, and you seem to be among them, simply do not enjoy that style of gaming- which is just fine. But to say that Bethesda is a bad developer is completely outlandish.

If you didn't like what they did with Oblivion, maybe you should try Call of Cthulu. It's a fantastic older game. You can pick it up for around $15 (US).

In the end, no one is forcing you to play Fallout 3 and you have absolutely no say in its development process. I'd suggest just playing through the first two again if you're not satisfied with its new direction.

The comments suck, I'm going to stop reading them.

Bolded parts are the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Who's going to play Fallout 3 but us if nobody's forced? And we can't have an opinion on where they are taking the game? Who is this guy? And come on, everyone knows that Bioware was the pinnacle of wRPGs (from a product point of view).

 

[Xi]

When Diablo 3, exclusively on the PC, outsells Fallout 3 on PC and consoles combined, the graphics debate will have ended. This would provide empirical evidence that Gameplay > Graphics. It will be a comparison tossed around forever, and Bethesda will be the joke. They chose graphics over game-play when developing a sequel that could not represent major aspects of the previous titles do to graphical changes.

Did anyone expect Diablo 3 to be First Person with reduced stats, skills, gear, and overall simpler game-play mechanics for the sake of ease of use? No, but it is a trend Bethesda has followed since Daggerfall.

 

[Castanova]

Unfortunately, I think Diablo 3 will come out too far into the future for it to be compared with Fallout 3. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see it till 2010.

 

[Xi]

The longer the better. It's just more proof that Isometric view isn't "out of date" because logically that statement is moot when such a game provides an experience that everyone wants to have. Game-play, or the most fundamental reason games exist, is the superior element. I think this is a great example.

Of course, this all resides on whether D3/F3 are any good. I think we all have higher expectations for Blizzard in this case though.

 

[Xor]

Unfortunately, many people consider (or have been deluded into believing) Oblivion to have very solid gameplay. I can't say the same won't hold true for Fallout 3, so I doubt anything will come of it aside from comparisons here and on blogs.

 

[Xi]

Unfortunately, many people consider (or have been deluded into believing) Oblivion to have very solid gameplay. I can't say the same won't hold true for Fallout 3, so I doubt anything will come of it aside from comparisons here and on blogs.

It's a matter of comparing sales though. So we will have the advantage of saying "D3 outsold F3 by X amount because it had better game-play" and "even though F3 has far superior graphics, it still did not outsell an isometric game." It's essentially something to work off of, pending whether it actually does outsell and by how much.

 

[Kraszu]

Unfortunately, many people consider (or have been deluded into believing) Oblivion to have very solid gameplay. I can't say the same won't hold true for Fallout 3, so I doubt anything will come of it aside from comparisons here and on blogs.

It's a matter of comparing sales though. So we will have the advantage of saying "D3 outsold F3 by X amount because it had better game-play" and "even though F3 has far superior graphics, it still did not outsell an isometric game." It's essentially something to work off of, pending whether it actually does outsell and by how much.

Guild wars outsold Oblivion and it does not have "advanced" grapchics either.

 

[Mareus]

Then why bother making Fallout?

Why not just make ES V?

They wanted to make a fallout (as theyve said before many times) - and they did make it too. They just made "changes" so that they can use their existing oblivion fanbase to boost sales. Thats my guess anyways.

Well, I guess we will see how well Fallout 3 will sell. Oblivion is one of rare games I actually bought without trying them out first and man... I can tell you I will not buy Fallout 3 just because Oblivion was a huge step back. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice ... I don't fucking think so!

A lot of people bought Oblivion just because they loved Morrowind, and don't forget that Oblivion was made for consoles too, where people get a hardon on any kind of shit as long as you can run around and kill things. Every console kid sings praises to Oblivion, while PC audience and fans of the true Elder Scrolls seires fans spits shit on it. So, yeah... FO3 will sell on consoles, but on PC... I don't think so.

As for Diablo... I hate it. It's one of those games I could never play because it is just about killing thousands of monsters. But I have to hand it to Blizzard. Atleast they stayed true to the fans and that is why I believe Diablo3 will sell a lot better than Fallout3. So screw you Bethseda and Todd Howard, I hope you go bancrupt. Well done Blizzard.

 

[Dire Roach]

Isn't the "X outsold Y despite worse grafix" argument already clearly exemplified by WoW vs every other post-WoW MMO or Wii vs 360/PS3?

 

[Azrael the cat]

Isn't the "X outsold Y despite worse grafix" argument already clearly exemplified by WoW vs every other post-WoW MMO or Wii vs 360/PS3?

What he said. Amazingly, the lower WoW graphics (even compared to EQ2 and some pre-WoW MMOs) were a deliberate design strategy on Blizz's behalf. They actually used higher-quality graphics in some of the beta stages, but deliberately toned down them down before release. Their stated ambition was to make the graphics as technically and resource-wise undemanding as possible whilst maintaining good artwork - i.e. keep use designs that will still look decent even on low-end PCs. Same thing with WC3 - that's why they went the cartoon-route, as cartoon makers have been producing great-looking art way before 'realistic' CG was invented. They deliberately decided to let EQ2 win the graphics war, judging that consumers would appreciate NOT having to upgrade their graphics cards to play the game. 2 lessons so obvious it is bizarre that more developers don't think of them:
- the more computers that can run your game, the bigger your potential market; and
- if you require people to upgrade their hardware before your game is playable, that is like whacking an extra $500 onto the cost of your product, except that you get none of the extra cash. Basically you've priced yourself out of the market - simple market economics tells you that the game that costs $70 to play is going to sell a lot more than the game that costs $570.

 

[Zakhal]

Did anyone expect Diablo 3 to be First Person with reduced stats, skills, gear, and overall simpler game-play mechanics for the sake of ease of use? No, but it is a trend Bethesda has followed since Daggerfall.

Could they possibly make diablo3 any simpler? How would they do that? Reduce mouse buttons from two to one? The whole diablo-series has always been a simplistic mouse-clicking game - and simple games are popular nowadays (look at space siege) so its perfect time for blizzard to make sequel for it.

To quote somone:

Honestly, what could Blizzard possibly do to piss off their "fans" (read: the mass market)? Their games are already as simple as it gets. There pretty much is nothing to dumb down that anyone could whine about being dumbed down. Blizzard has invented the mass market appeal formula with Diablo. The mass market are their fans. Blizzard just need to stick to that formula of creating simplistic point and click games and they're fine.

These circumstances make it very easy to appear like you are a company that is "listening to its fans" (while in reality you are just catering and listening to the mass market like you always have).

To analyze the comparison:

Company A aims to make mass market games. A wants to produce a sequel for niche game. A changes the game in an effort to make it a mass market game.

Company B aims to make mass market games. B wants to produce a sequel for mass market game. B doesnt change the game because its allready a mass market game.

Fans curse A and praise B even though both companies work with same goal. How hypocritical is that? You can hate bethesda for not wanting to make niche games (and for "changing" fallout) but the comparison itself is somwhat silly and unfair.

 

[Shannow]

- if you require people to upgrade their hardware before your game is playable, that is like whacking an extra $500 onto the cost of your product, except that you get none of the extra cash. Basically you've priced yourself out of the market - simple market economics tells you that the game that costs $70 to play is going to sell a lot more than the game that costs $570.

While I fully agree with you on this in general, you can get very good graphics cards for 300$ nowadays. And most people will not upgrade for a single game. They realise that their system/gfx card is outdated for most current games and either change to consoles or update their system...

 

[aron searle]

While I fully agree with you on this in general, you can get very good graphics cards for 300$ nowadays. And most people will not upgrade for a single game. They realise that their system/gfx card is outdated for most current games and either change to consoles or update their system...

Think!

$300 is not everyone's idea of cheap.

You're also assuming the motherboard will support the newer card. And of course once you change the motherboard.....

 

[Shannow]

While I fully agree with you on this in general, you can get very good graphics cards for 300$ nowadays. And most people will not upgrade for a single game. They realise that their system/gfx card is outdated for most current games and either change to consoles or update their system...

Think!

$300 is not everyone's idea of cheap.

You're also assuming the motherboard will support the newer card. And of course once you change the motherboard.....

Think! 300$ is a lot cheaper than 500$!
Think! I never said anything about cheap!
Think! The argument was 570$ for one new game! Where it depends on how many new games one wants to play thus rationalizing the purchase of a new card. Where it is a lot more rational to say: The new game costs 50$ (not 70$) + new graphics card that costs 300$ but that you bought not only for the one new game but lets say for 3. That makes 150$ for a single new game if you follow the gfx arms race. That is dear enough, no need to blow stuff out of proportion.
Don't put words in my mouth. I'm all for low system reqs.

 

[Zaptoman]

I still think that Bethesda took the opening cinematic of Fallout 1 as being what the developers intended the game to look like, but couldn't, because it was impossible to make a first-person game before 1997.

Please let this be sarcasm.

 

[Zomg]

We had always heard that F3 had to be first person because that's modern and only old outdated games ever did it 3rd-person. Yet here's this brand new Diablo 3, probably won't even come out until after Fallout 3, so it's more modern, even newer, and yet it's using the so-called "old, outdated" point of view.

That's because it was just a rationalization by hype-addled kids and game critics. The hype is what matters; their critical arguments, insofar as anyone even bothers to make them, are always gonna be facile.

 

[Xor]

I still think that Bethesda took the opening cinematic of Fallout 1 as being what the developers intended the game to look like, but couldn't, because it was impossible to make a first-person game before 1997.

Please let this be sarcasm.

If you couldn't tell, either your sarcasm meter is broken or you need to lurk moar.

 

[Brother None]

So did everyone see Sol's take on this?

Serious business

Mostly funny because of this, though

Diablo III announced. Nice. It looks pretty amazing, especially the gameplay video. Loved the destructible environments.

I must say I am disappointed that Blizzard has stayed on the conservative side in terms of design with their updates to Diablo and Starcraft. Diablo will be interesting since World of Warcraft has a lot of Diablo-like qualities. I have no doubt, however, that they will be incredibly fun, addictive and polished games. Blizzard is the top of the class when it comes to game development - nobody does it better.

Yeah.

Diablo III should have been first-person = non-conservative.

 

[Xor]

I don't visit NMA very much any more because Fallout 3 is fucking depressing.

 

[aboyd]

Mostly funny because of this, though

I must say I am disappointed that Blizzard has stayed on the conservative side in terms of design with their updates to Diablo and Starcraft.

Ashley Cheng is just humiliated because Blizzard keeps disproving the lie that FPS = innovation. It's screwing up their F3 hype.

Ashley's Twitter comments are even more revealing about what Ashley considers "innovation."