Fallout 3's Producer "Disappointed" in Diablo 3

(looks at his blog post where he posts more information)

He’s not talking about Starcraft 2, he’s talking about what he thinks would be cool in a hypothetical World of Starcraft, and specifically mentions why it wasn’t going to be the case in the sequel proper. No story here, except that a designer at Bethesda likes Blizzard games but was hoping for something more than a straight sequel.

I agree with Ashley 100%. As cool as Diablo 3 looks, its been 8 years since the last game and the changes from D2 to D3 have been very conservative. There’s nothing apparent from the brief walkthrough that couldn’t have been done 6 years ago. I’m not going to complain about more Diablo though. I loved both games.


I’m still looking at his original quote and I can’t see where he says he’s disappointed in D3. I see where he says he’s disappointed in Blizzard for being so conservative with D3 and SC2…and they most certainly are being conservative (as the D3 gameplay footage doesn’t look very different from D2…which isn’t a bad thing to me at all fwiw), but his only comments related to D3 are:

Diablo III announced. Nice. It looks pretty amazing, especially the gameplay video. Loved the destructible environments.

Nice. Pretty amazing. Loved X. That sure sounds like massive disappointment.

NMA taint alert.

What about Firaxis and Stardock and their 4X games? Square and Atlus and their turn-based RPGs and turn-based tactical games? Are they still stuck in the past? I hardly think it’s fair to say that. And what about id Software and its continuation of those Quake and Doom games? Would it really be fair to say that they are going nowhere… being “stuck in the past” as it were?

Simply put, Blizzard is simply sticking to what made Diablo an enjoyable game by kepeing it isometric, while implementing innovative new features (like environmental damage) to keep the player satisfied. That’s what gaming should be about – having features that make the player come back for more. Change for the sake of change hardly ever works.

starcraft 2 looks great, wish blizzard deviated more, try ground control/battlezone first person gameplay. more thoughts on blog later.

You consider this a fixation on FP perspective - to me it seems like he simply digs Battlezone. Being a fan of Carrier Command et al, I sure as hell wouldn’t mind an SC-themed action-strategy game.

I don’t think that it would be even valid to conclude that he wants to apply FP perspective to every single game concept that comes his way based on these comments.


Fuck man, the StarCraft universe from a ground level perspective would be badass - I was really disappointed when Ghost was canned. Nothing Ashley has said indicates anything other than wishful thinking from someone who is clearly a fan of Blizzard’s games.

Or maybe… He’s a witch! Burn him!

You are really, really grasping at straws here, Sol.

D3 and Q4 (Raven) were so objectively abysmal as to be lesser experiences than their predecessors, which is far worse than being stuck in the past. A very shiny, plasticized betrayal of the past in new shrinkwrap, at best. In short, yes.

Insert that weird WTFLOL pic here.

One of the biggest complaints about Doom 3 was precisely that it was stuck in the past, ignoring any of the gameplay innovations and maturity that came in the wake of Half-Life. You couldn’t ask for a better example of a series going nowhere than Doom.

Then I don’t need my jacket!

Well, you managed to nail me on Doom 3. But what about those other examples?

What about them? You honestly think there’s been no innovation or change from Civ I to Civ IV?

He says a bunch of good things and one slightly bad thing. If people opt to summarize the article with a negative spin it seems like they are looking to create drama.

You don’t say.

Sol, wtf? You have a personal grudge or something? That you would spin a perfectly reasonable, grounded, and thoughtful blog post into some sort of anti-Bethesda talking point is stupefying. Find something better to do with your time, man, 'cause you’re a lousy propagandist.

Blizzard thought so, too. And then Blizzard thought different after going through 2 developers.

If Blizzard ever introduces a new IP again, I’ll be stunned. The money’s in iterations.

So I assume you bring this up in order to argue that Blizzard isn’t messing with the basic formula that made D2 great and people think that’s a good thing, so why is ok for Bethesda to mess with the formula of Fallout 2?

The answer, IMO, is that Blizzard has a legacy of know-how with the Diablo formula, the engine, what worked and what didn’t, etc. They can hit the ground running on development of a game that is the same as its predecessor, but updated to include some modern improvements to the genre and all the modern technology. There is a good chance they can make a game with the same qualities as D2 because they have the legacy of the work that was done on the original (of course, there’s also a good chance that they will move it too much into the WoW vein because WoW is incredibly successful and is something most of their staff probably worked on - the gameplay video is reassuring in the sense that they aren’t going to slow combat down to 1-2 guys at a time, at least, but we still know nothing about the skill and item systems).

Bethesda, on the other hand, doesn’t make games like Fallout, they make games like Oblivion. For them to make an iteration of Fallout, it would be very hard to make something satisfying to fans, and they would be charting waters they’ve never been in as developers. So it makes more sense for them to take a game type that they are good at and which has been well-received, and make their version of Fallout play more like that. Complaining about it doesn’t even make sense, since it isn’t like the Fallout development team is still around and Bethesda is preventing a sequel from them.

Hey, it’s all good. I’m certain Metzen is disappointed with your console-poser wannabe sequel, too.
And here’s one for the fans:
Bash Chen’s face with a picture of Brian Fargo

Hi Bill!

Complaining about it doesn’t even make sense, since it isn’t like the Fallout development team is still around and Bethesda is preventing a sequel from them.

FYI, some of the Fallout original developers (e.g. Leonard Boyarsky) applied for jobs at Bethesda to work on Fallout 3 after Troika had closed down and they were turned away.

There’s lots of damn reasons to complain about Bethesda.

They declared isometric games dead as an excuse not to use the viewpoint, too.

There’s lots of damn reasons to complain about Bethesda.

Maybe, but trying to manufacture a pile-on onto one specific guy because he happens to work there isn’t exactly taking the high road.

Got a whole shed full of axes that need grindin’ over there, do ya?