-Datura- said:
Therumancer said:
...I considered this Syndicate reboot to be heresy of the highest order, closely followed by the X-com reboot as a shooter.
Really we need fan-sponsored Warhammer 40k-style Inquisitors to hunt down heretics within the gaming industry....
If it were up to people like you, Fallout 3 would never have happened.
Want an update of old-school Syndicate? Here you go. [http://www.alienswarm.com/]
Want an update of old-school X-Com? Choke on it. [http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/News]
Actually your correct here, "Fallout 3" would have never have happened if it was up to me. I maintain to this day that while "Fallout 3" is an excellent game, it is a REALLY bad *Fallout* game. I think Bethesda would have done better to have created their own post apocolyptic RPG series, and left the Fallout liscense alone.
The reason is quite simple, Fallout requires a certain level of depravity and continued pushing of the limits to really capture the right magic. While "Fallout 3" had a lot of black humor in it, it really pulled a lot of punches compared to the previous games, and seemed like it was afraid to push the envelope far enough. What's more I think the writing was lacking to say the least, while they gave you something to do, I don't think the plotlines either main or secondary in Fallout 3 were all that great. What made the game work was the huge sandbox world, and really that probably would have worked without trying to emulate Fallout, and truthfully I think Bioware has kind of trapped themselves by trying to parrot another writer's style as opposed to doing their own.
I'll also say flat out that "Fallout 3" was not RPG enough to be considered a real sequel. While it doesn't appeal to the casual, mainstream market, Fallout was an isometric number crunching game and that was part of the fun for a lot of the fans. "Fallout 3" might appeal to more people, and be a good game, but it's not the same thing.
Personally I would have preferred to see the actual "Fallout 3" known as Van Buren resurrected, finished and updated in technology with the same play style the series has employed.
Bethesda should definatly have created their own game, just not made it Fallout. They largely bought the liscence for name appeal, and let's be honest, the contreversy it got due to the fights in inspired with the fans of the series made sure everyone who was a gamer knew about it and had an eye on it. I do not think that was accidental, I think Bethesda intentionally picked that fight knowing what was going to happen, and exploited it as a sort of viral marketing.
The most important thing I consider though is that these franchise reboots wind up turning everything into the same basic thing. Right now we have dozens and dozens of shooters out there, they literally clog the shelves year after year. It's nice to see other kinds of games. How many AAA level isometric strategy-RPG games have you seen recently? See an actual update/modern sequel to X-com would add some variety to the market for those of us not into shooters, ditto for Syndicate. Turning those games into shooters because shooters sell and that's what everyone else is doing, is kind of a waste.
As much as I would have preferred Fallout survive as an isometric RPG series, I still give Fallout 3 credit for actually doing something new, and coming up with the first really workable compromise between shooters and RPGs, even though New Vegas started to go too far
in the shooter direction, which makes me feel that there won't be much actual RPG left in Fallout in the next couple of installments unless the trends seriously change.
Also I'll say that those "updates" you mention, aren't really AAA level productions done in the same way. Nor are they set in the same worlds and continueing the lore and progression of those series.
It wouldn't bother me so much if they weren't turning everything into a shooter. I mean even if they changed the style, they could at least have kept it a bloody strategy game.