Fallout 3 producer disappointed by Diablo 3 - bit-tech.net Forums

CardJoe · 3rd Jul 2008, 08:12

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/07...-by-diablo-3/1

Ashley Cheng, producer for Bethesda's Fallout 3, has admitted that he is disappointed by the conservative design of Diablo 3.

Cthippo · 3rd Jul 2008, 08:31

From what I've heard in the other thread, this is not a bad thing. Most people seem to be of the opinion that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. polish it a little, maybe tweak a couple tings here and there, but don't start messing with the moving parts.

The Bethesda person's comments seem to be aimed at visuals and we've seen how the focus on graphics over gameplay has worked out (Doom 3, Crysis, etc)

bowman · 3rd Jul 2008, 08:55

Oh christ he is not one to talk. Not about being conservative, but about being disappointed. I've seen some _honest_ previews of Fallout 3 and it seems to me like they have a thing or two to learn about not breaking old franchises.

I love what Blizzard has done with Diablo 3. It's essentially the same old game, but with a new snazzy engine, and a bit of a touchup and polish to a mirror shine to gameplay elements that weren't already perfect in the old one. We know what we're getting now. It's not like GTA IV where they slip us cinematic style trailers that hype up the game, yet we didn't know until release that in fact, they had cut out half of the elements they introduced in the previous one.

Can't say the same about Fallout 3. They're not being very forthcoming. I don't have high anticipations for Fallout 3 any more after reading previews from honest journalists who actually played the old games.

CardJoe · 3rd Jul 2008, 09:00

*I* played the old games. Hell, I STILL play the old games and have played them again and again and again with multiple types of characters, paths and mods. Fallout 2 would definitely feature in my top five games. I'm not saying that there aren't concerns about Fallout 3 of course, but I like what I've seen of it thus far.

bowman · 3rd Jul 2008, 09:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardJoe

*I* played the old games. Hell, I STILL play the old games and have played them again and again and again with multiple types of characters, paths and mods. Fallout 2 would definitely feature in my top five games. I'm not saying that there aren't concerns about Fallout 3 of course, but I like what I've seen of it thus far.

Okay, you're not alone in that, but I'm just saying it's not unanimous.

I'll still buy it anyway, just keeping my expectations down so I won't get disappointed.

CardJoe · 3rd Jul 2008, 09:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowman

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardJoe

*I* played the old games. Hell, I STILL play the old games and have played them again and again and again with multiple types of characters, paths and mods. Fallout 2 would definitely feature in my top five games. I'm not saying that there aren't concerns about Fallout 3 of course, but I like what I've seen of it thus far.

Okay, you're not alone in that, but I'm just saying it's not unanimous.

I'll still buy it anyway, just keeping my expectations down so I won't get disappointed.

Ah, nuts. Now I really want to go play Fallout 2 again now...

Cthippo · 3rd Jul 2008, 09:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowman

I love what Blizzard has done with Diablo 3. It's essentially the same old game, but with a new snazzy engine, and a bit of a touchup and polish to a mirror shine to gameplay elements that weren't already perfect in the old one. We know what we're getting now. It's not like GTA IV where they slip us cinematic style trailers that hype up the game, yet we didn't know until release that in fact, they had cut out half of the elements they introduced in the previous one.

The danger in this is that the devil is often in the details. Remember the move from CS1.6 to CS:S? The changes to the maps were pretty small, yet had massive effects on gameplay. Granted, the dynamic of CS was very much tied to it's maps, but still, sometimes small changes can throw big wrenches in the machine.

Despite my aversion to hype, I hope D3 does well (even though I have no real interest in it) just because it might push other devs to emphasize gameplay over graphics once again.

Paradigm Shifter · 3rd Jul 2008, 10:03

While I was never falling over myself with enthusiasm for either Diablo or Fallout (that was, at the time, reserved for Baldur's Gate and Final Fantasy) I hope both of these games do well, whether they take the 'conservative' route or not - after all, I'd rather they took the 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' mentality than ripped out 95% of the guts and replaced them with 'new' ideas that failed. Even if they don't hold completely to the 'ideals' of the earlier games, I'll still likely buy both - provided they don't have some draconian copy protection system on them.

toyomatt84 · 3rd Jul 2008, 12:20

Diablo 3 is a cult game, much the same with Fallout. Some people admire the past playstyles, and others prefer change over consistency. I, for one, am more than happy with the playstyle available on Diablo 1, 2, and LoD. I didn't want a serious change (like First person camera angles, or an MMO changeover). I was more than pleased with how the game was already laid out. In fact, that's what made me stay with the game so long. Sacred offered a similar experience, and I enjoyed that game thoroughly as well.

Cheng just sounds like someone who prefers to see change and huge progress in new releases of an existing title, which is fine... but why ruin something that's already highly successful?

Lepermessiah · 3rd Jul 2008, 12:39

bethesda continue to show how arrogant and stupid they really are. WOW, imagine if all devs amde dumbed down games with the intelligence of a snail like bethesda? Give me a break, blizzard know what they are doing. You don't see Diablo fans worried about D3 like Fallout fans are worried how beth will butcher a once great franchise.

Lepermessiah · 3rd Jul 2008, 12:41

Umm, the original OP, crysis actually did well, and has great graphics and gameplay, why do people spread this BS about crysis all the time. A game can have good graphics and gameplay, imagine that. Crysis is as good as any shooter released in 07, and has perhaps the mosy dynamic gameplay and real world realism of any shooter ever.

DXR_13KE · 3rd Jul 2008, 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah

Umm, the original OP, crysis actually did well, and has great graphics and gameplay, why do people spread this BS about crysis all the time. A game can have good graphics and gameplay, imagine that. Crysis is as good as any shooter released in 07, and has perhaps the mosy dynamic gameplay and real world realism of any shooter ever.

.... and the most generic storyline ever.

also notice that you can edit your original post instead of double posting.

world of starcraft...... hmmmm

MrMonroe · 3rd Jul 2008, 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cthippo

From what I've heard in the other thread, this is not a bad thing. Most people seem to be of the opinion that if it ain't broke, shove out a reskinned version and call it a new game

Fixed that for you.

Bladestorm · 3rd Jul 2008, 16:12

Blizzard has never done "original" nor have they ever done "revolutionary" - what they do is "Polished" and they tend to do that better than anyone else in the industry, save maybe valve.

Lepermessiah · 3rd Jul 2008, 16:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by DXR_13KE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah

Umm, the original OP, crysis actually did well, and has great graphics and gameplay, why do people spread this BS about crysis all the time. A game can have good graphics and gameplay, imagine that. Crysis is as good as any shooter released in 07, and has perhaps the mosy dynamic gameplay and real world realism of any shooter ever.

.... and the most generic storyline ever.

also notice that you can edit your original post instead of double posting.

world of starcraft...... hmmmm

The story is crysis was as good as COD4, Halo, Gears (Now that was bad story telling) and most every other shooter, except Valve games and Bioshock, get real. No one plays FPS games for stories, that is what RPG's are for.

DXR_13KE · 3rd Jul 2008, 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah

No one plays FPS games for stories

i do

i want to be immersed in the story and environment.

dyzophoria · 3rd Jul 2008, 16:34

i think there's only one reason why there is no world of starcraft (yet), it will definitely have an effect on the world of warcraft at the moment imho.

Lepermessiah · 3rd Jul 2008, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by DXR_13KE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah

No one plays FPS games for stories

i do

i want to be immersed in the story and environment.

In that case, there are about 2-3 shooters that you would like, because virtually no shooters have good stories.

UncertainGod · 3rd Jul 2008, 18:59

I think what he meant to say is "oh noez, another company is bringing back a legendary rpg series but keeping it the way people want it instead of my twisted vision of FO3 because I never played the old ones."

Cthippo · 4th Jul 2008, 05:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by DXR_13KE

i do

i want to be immersed in the story and environment.

Same here. That's why I love HL2, Stalker, and am looking forward to Bioshock (as soon as I finsish Stalker). All are story driven, predominantly single player FPS games. It may be a nieche market, but it is a market nonetheless and one which I am glad to see is still being pretty well served.

3rd Jul 2008, 08:12	#1
CardJoe Player Character bit-tech Staff Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 8,010	Fallout 3 producer disappointed by Diablo 3 http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/07...-by-diablo-3/1 Ashley Cheng, producer for Bethesda's Fallout 3, has admitted that he is disappointed by the conservative design of Diablo 3. __________________ this is joe's non-bit-tech blog

3rd Jul 2008, 08:31	#2
Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Bellingham, WA Posts: 4,475	From what I've heard in the other thread, this is not a bad thing. Most people seem to be of the opinion that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. polish it a little, maybe tweak a couple tings here and there, but don't start messing with the moving parts. The Bethesda person's comments seem to be aimed at visuals and we've seen how the focus on graphics over gameplay has worked out (Doom 3, Crysis, etc) __________________ Notice: If we see you flaming we will assume you are on fire and take appropriate measures - The Bit-Tech Fire Brigade.

3rd Jul 2008, 09:00	#4
CardJoe Player Character bit-tech Staff Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 8,010	I played the old games. Hell, I STILL play the old games and have played them again and again and again with multiple types of characters, paths and mods. Fallout 2 would definitely feature in my top five games. I'm not saying that there aren't concerns about Fallout 3 of course, but I like what I've seen of it thus far. __________________ this is joe's non-bit-tech blog

3rd Jul 2008, 10:03	#8
Paradigm Shifter Lethargic Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,213	While I was never falling over myself with enthusiasm for either Diablo or Fallout (that was, at the time, reserved for Baldur's Gate and Final Fantasy) I hope both of these games do well, whether they take the 'conservative' route or not - after all, I'd rather they took the 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' mentality than ripped out 95% of the guts and replaced them with 'new' ideas that failed. Even if they don't hold completely to the 'ideals' of the earlier games, I'll still likely buy both - provided they don't have some draconian copy protection system on them. __________________ Core i7 920 D0 @ 3.8GHz \| 6GB Corsair 1600MHz \| Gigabyte EX58-UD5 \| XFX 4870X2 2GB \| 4TB \| WUXGA

3rd Jul 2008, 12:20	#9
toyomatt84 Supermodder Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: ALL BLUE Posts: 322	Diablo 3 is a cult game, much the same with Fallout. Some people admire the past playstyles, and others prefer change over consistency. I, for one, am more than happy with the playstyle available on Diablo 1, 2, and LoD. I didn't want a serious change (like First person camera angles, or an MMO changeover). I was more than pleased with how the game was already laid out. In fact, that's what made me stay with the game so long. Sacred offered a similar experience, and I enjoyed that game thoroughly as well. Cheng just sounds like someone who prefers to see change and huge progress in new releases of an existing title, which is fine... but why ruin something that's already highly successful? __________________ DeviantArt One Piece

3rd Jul 2008, 08:55	#3
bowman Multimodder Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 249	Oh christ he is not one to talk. Not about being conservative, but about being disappointed. I've seen some _honest_ previews of Fallout 3 and it seems to me like they have a thing or two to learn about not breaking old franchises. I love what Blizzard has done with Diablo 3. It's essentially the same old game, but with a new snazzy engine, and a bit of a touchup and polish to a mirror shine to gameplay elements that weren't already perfect in the old one. We know what we're getting now. It's not like GTA IV where they slip us cinematic style trailers that hype up the game, yet we didn't know until release that in fact, they had cut out half of the elements they introduced in the previous one. Can't say the same about Fallout 3. They're not being very forthcoming. I don't have high anticipations for Fallout 3 any more after reading previews from honest journalists who actually played the old games.

3rd Jul 2008, 12:39	#10
Lepermessiah Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 566	bethesda continue to show how arrogant and stupid they really are. WOW, imagine if all devs amde dumbed down games with the intelligence of a snail like bethesda? Give me a break, blizzard know what they are doing. You don't see Diablo fans worried about D3 like Fallout fans are worried how beth will butcher a once great franchise.

3rd Jul 2008, 12:41	#11
Lepermessiah Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 566	Umm, the original OP, crysis actually did well, and has great graphics and gameplay, why do people spread this BS about crysis all the time. A game can have good graphics and gameplay, imagine that. Crysis is as good as any shooter released in 07, and has perhaps the mosy dynamic gameplay and real world realism of any shooter ever.

3rd Jul 2008, 16:12	#14
Bladestorm Hypermodder Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 682	Blizzard has never done "original" nor have they ever done "revolutionary" - what they do is "Polished" and they tend to do that better than anyone else in the industry, save maybe valve. __________________ Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 250x10 (1.475v) \| EVGA GTX 260 55nm SSC \| A8N-SLI Premium \| 2x(4GB) Corsair Twinx2048-PC3200C2 \| Asus Xonar DX \| Antec truepower 550w \| Akasa Eclipse-62 DDC12VPlus1, DD TDX, 3/8 tygon r3603 tubing, PA120.2, DD double floppy bay res

3rd Jul 2008, 16:34	#17
dyzophoria Multimodder Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home Posts: 162	i think there's only one reason why there is no world of starcraft (yet), it will definitely have an effect on the world of warcraft at the moment imho. __________________ [FONT=Lucida Console]picture this..[/FONT] // [FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Fixedsys]picture that..[/FONT][/FONT]

3rd Jul 2008, 18:59	#19
UncertainGod Still Alive Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Southampton Posts: 1,148	I think what he meant to say is "oh noez, another company is bringing back a legendary rpg series but keeping it the way people want it instead of my twisted vision of FO3 because I never played the old ones." __________________ Twitter Tumblr Blog Last.fm "What role do you want to play, I'm just a click away night or day"