TJSolo wrote...
The time difference is irrelevant, an excuse. Especially with the existance of DAO. FO3 could have been done in the style of DA:O - top down, tactical combat - or is DAO not good enough for something to be released a decade after the classic? DAO has more in common with the FO series in terms of gameplay than FO3 does.
The time difference and technology difference is completely relevant to the changes between FO2 and FO3. The current technology allowed Bethesda to create a 3D world. They felt the first-person cam was suited better at showcase and involving the player in a 3D world.
Then again Bethesda is not Bioware. What Beth did for FO3 worked. The naysayers had their say but the reviews, sales, and success of the game did not drift or stagnate.
The fact that the changes worked or not isn't my point. The "sales and success" of the game is pretty much exactly what Bioware tried to do here. The whole "going for the CoD crowd"? Dude. Bethesda pretty much literally did that by turning a turn based isomateric tactical game into a first person shooter.
This is why the FO grognards can laugh if an FO3 fan is complaining about DA2. The list of complaints about changes between FO->FO3 is the same or greater than the change between DAO->DA2. There are people who like DA2 who never liked DAO. There are people who like FO3 that never liked or played the original. Here you are saying FO3's changes are great and dismissing the complaints as time/technology differences. Then you turn around and level the exact same complaints, of a lesser magnitude to the changes in the FO franchise, at DA2.
Your technology defense of FO3, by the way, would be the same if Bioware made DA2 into a first person Bethesda-style RPG because the technology exists to model Kirkwall in 3D. Or having Final Fantasy 13 be an FPS because the areas are rendered in 3D. This is exactly how nonsensical that sounds. WoW is in 3D too - why isn't it an FPS? It's not that genre. Bethesda took a tactical turn-based isometric game and made it into an FPS. How you can dismiss this change as justified because it
can be done is just crazy.
If an FO3 fan dismissed complaints about FO changes, while complaining that DA2 is less tactical, ththey would be deserving of derision from the FO gronards, who saw their tactical game turned into an FPS, while DA2 basically lost the order-queue and tactical camera.
(For the record, I have no problems with FPS/RPGs, after all I have the last three TES, Deus Ex, and the like. The problem with FO3 for me was not that the mechanics were all changed (which makes me different from the hardcore flks who run NMA and such) but that all the clever writing and decisions that were present in the FO series were missing.
The entire FO3 gameworld was a nonsensical box of references to FO crammed in there for the sake of saying it's a Fallout game. How everything of any passing relevance to the FO series all happened to be crammed in there, realism or internal consistancy be damned. The presence of mutants, their background, the Brotherhood - everything was off. Which is fine if you were never invested in the setting in the first place. This is why FNV is seen as superior by pretty much everyone who played the originals. We got the multiple options, better dialog, better writing - and the setting didn't twist the world just to make it "Fallout".
I think anyone who was a fan of Deus Ex and the original Fallouts don't expect sequels to be all that similiar to the originals, given the game-that-never-was and what Bethesda did to FO. Heck, or look at KotOR2 vs KotOR. Or ME2 vs ME1.)
Modifié par Dark83, 11 avril 2011 - 02:44 .
Retour en haut
