Dhruin said:
I wasn't trying to play semantic games so I accept your point that I've misrepresented your answer.
At any rate, having read every "official" interview/dev diary etc I just don't see Silver Style constantly saying something like "this is Fallout, only better" (not a direct quote from anyone - just an example). Yes, Fallout is often raised as an influence for the setting but I don't see what's wrong with that. I'm willing to bet I couldn't find a single post-apoc game that doesn't often refer to Fallout as an influence or inspiration and the issue is going to come up in most interviews. For that matter, I notice Sacred interviews often raise Diablo etc.
Carsten should have left the FO3 license thing alone but otherwise I think the whole thing is overstated.
Using a game as an example of a company's current work isn't necessarily bad. Like i said, it's easier to say it's like Fallout, or that its influenced on Fallout, then it is to say it's got X, Y, and Z features (and go into them in detail). However, what exactly did Fallout influence? Last i remember, it was the setting, skills and perks. Now, the setting wasn't pioneered by Fallout. He could've just as well dropped Wasteland's name, for that matter. Same with skills. Perks would be liable to be dismissed, as Perks aren't necessarily strict to the Fallout world, but if i recall correctly, he stated that Perks in the Fall also provide increased specialization. So, in the end, you've got a similar setting, and the concept of Perks, as the two clearer elements possible of being compared.
O'course, you could take this another direction, by just pointing at core gameplay elements that would warrant the name dropping. Your example is a good one: Sacred will likely be compared to Diablo, because gameplay aspects are largely similar in between both titles. However, in what are Fallout and The Fall comparable? Not much.
And as such, does it honestly warrant all the name dropping and comparisons, even when its not SS doing it? When you're name-dropping, you usually would have some elements with which to allure the players, but I honestly don't see many that justify it. At some point, it becomes repetitive and vacuous.
Of course, besides the Fallout name dropping, you also have the hiring of two former ex-BISers, and the story of Carsten trying to buy the Fallout franchise, which, lets face it, were all great publicity stunts. The average consumer will drool on the product for these reasons, no doubt, despite they're not indicative of anything.
Overall, yes, i'm inclined to think that yes, there might be a certain amount of over-reaction, but there's been some elements in the game's development that are damning to a degree.
