Thought I'd posted this.
Comedy Gold thread:
http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index ... pic=889667
Statement: "It's a "sequel" to one of the greatest RPG series, but it kept VERY LITTLE from previous titles. It far more resembles post-apocalyptic Oblivion."
ReBUTTal: "Other than the change in combat view, what has actually changed? It's moved to DC. There are still vaults. It has Brahmin. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT!?"
Ausir to the rescue: "One question - have you played previous Fallouts?"
Evolution theory: "It's a completely different game. Games evolve.
They went from pong to doom to quake to half life to call of duty to battlefield to Half life 2. (Shooters are the pinnacle of evolution. That explains his interest in FO3 - VD) You can't just get stuck in the past, stopping evolution, because you think you prefer it that way. We haven't played the game yet. We don't know if it's gonna be crappy compared to it or not.
Edit: Oh, and just to clarify? I have played the originals. I actually don't think they were all that. They were great back then, but nowadays, they just don't compare."
Ausir's logic attack: "This is not evolution. First person and real time is not "move evolved" nor newer than top-down and turn-based. It's just replacing the Fallout design philosophy with the Elder Scrolls one. There's no progress here, it's simply Bethesda that is not able to a game different than the ones they've been doing for 14 years.
Most Elder Scrolls fans wouldn't be thrilled about a top-down, turn-based Elder Scrolls 5 either."
FALLOUTS DIDNT HAVE ANY DIALOGUES!!!: "You think that the only things that have evolved from those is the different perspective and the real time!? Goodness me. Graphics is a given, yes, that was inevitable. Even if the game was turn-based it would have better graphics.
However, there have been certain advances with gameplay. There are now more features, better animation, dialogue (there wasn't any in the originals I might add), some very innovative mechanics (VATS for one. I know some people hate it, but I think it's great. OPINION).
I do see where you are coming from, but you have to consider this: Some things may not be up to standard, but nowadays so much work is put into non-gameplay parts such as graphics it's ridiculous. It's necessary as well. You cannot honestly say that if a game nowadays had the graphics level of, say, half life 1, you would buy it, even if it had the most innovative mechanics possible to imagine.
Now, you can say that you really enjoyed fallout 1 and 2, despite the poor graphics. But that was then, this is now. Standards are higher. Games aren't about thrilling story and great gameplay anymore, it's all about the graphics. There are exceptions, obviously, such as Bioshock. That had gameplay, mechanics and a great story. I was genuinely sucked into that game, which no game has ever actually done to me other than that. Love it.
I would much prefer to play Bioshock 2 than Fallout 3, if I was honest. Anyway, where was I? Ah yes.
Diablo 3? No no no, you're confusing a recreation with imitation. Recreation has a certain amount of innovativeness, a certain personal touch. Something DIFFERENT. Diablo 3, from what I have seen, is exactly the same game as the first 2, with all the finger-straining click-fest with it. Hell, it even has the same classes with different names. I can see what you mean about something entirely different, but here's the clincher:
Different does not mean bad.
Different means new.
Different means not the same
Different means original"
