stonebro: This cracks me up.
God forbid anyone to have some kind of depth.
I'll still try, and maybe another exemple will help, that of X-COM and Terror From the Deep. TFTD is the sequel to X-COM and just as good, but why is that? Because TFTD is exactly the same game with a different layer of artworks over it, moving the game to an aquatic setting. It looks different, things have different names, but it's exactly the same game. Intrinsically it's a good game, because X-COM is a good game, but the method to create the sequel is just sloppy and doesn't involve a lot of work other than just aesthetical changes. It's just a lazy way to make a quick buck by exploiting the name. I am aware that MI hasn't been around for a while, I can accept LA dusting it off a bit, but they are clearly aiming for a lowest common denominator approach with the cartoony new look and over the top voices, in addition I hate vague promises of the "if you buy it, we might throw a bone your way that we'll allow you to buy" kind.
Miaghstir: Warning, thread derailing underway.
Thread derailing is good, it can make it much more interesting.
Miaghstir: Fallout 3 isn't bad, it not the same as the earlier games (being 3D, real-time, and requiring a bit more twitch-gaming skill from the gamer - something I sorely lack), but that doesn't make it a bad game.
It doesn't make it a good game either. My main complain about Fallout 3's title is that they simply recycle the name and elements of the setting without actually linking it to the two previous games. They might as well have created their own post-apoc setting instead of leeching off Fallout's legacy, but so be it. Still, it might have been a bad Fallout game but a good game in its own right, except it isn't. Neither good nor bad, Fallout 3 is simply mediocre, which is still better than Bethesda's previous effort, Oblivion, which was kind of bad.
Miaghstir: [...] what the hell are you complaining about?
Shameless relatively safe whoring of old names, opposed to the manly risky project of creating something new.
Miaghstir: You don't want a new generation of gamers to experience the same game you did 15 years ago? (random number as I don't know when MI was released originally).
The trick here is that they definitely won't experience it the same I did all those years ago but to be honest I couldn't care less. Those who had some interested in it already sought the game out, despite it's unavailability and LA's lack of good will in the matter.
Miaghstir: To branch out to another series, do you feel World of Warcraft is not worthy of the Warcraft name either?
Trick there is that Blizzard, with the same core people, is still in control of the whole serie, while you got completely different people in the case of Fallout or The Elder Scrolls, and it shows. That said it isn't like Warcraft is an interesting universe, it's just more generic high fantasy.
Miaghstir: As for BG/DA, "spiritual successor" effectively means "played in a similar setting", in this case "high fantasy", given Bioware's earlier games, I have no doubt of the new game's quality.
Funny you should say that because Bioware always claimed that it would be a low fantasy setting, focusing more on characters and dealing with mature issues. Since then "dark" and "mature" joined "epic" in the pantheon of buzz words that just mean nothing at all anymore. The amusing thing is that since they joined EA, the setting has clearly been changed to high fantasy of the most generic kind, the characters that took so long to write seem shallow and their interactions laughable. Even the gameplay previews fail to entertain. So yes, more old name whoring — and the first Baldur's Gate wasn't a very good game to begin with — and I, like you, have no doubt of the new game's quality given Bioware's previous games.
Wishbone: No, it just makes it "NOT a Fallout game", which is what I think most people who have played the original Fallout games hate about it.
Only the most moronic do, and sadly there are some like that though they aren't the majority.
Aliasalpha: Colloquially known as "NMA members"
Horrible creatures, I avoid them whenever I can.
Aliasalpha: Another game set in the same universe is a valid sequel. Did Ultima 2 become invalid because it dropped the 3d dungeon? Did Ultima 6 become invalid because of its shocking move to more than 8 colours? 8 for the change in perspective? 9 for the further change in perspective (sloppy coding aside)?
Just because it shares the same name doesn't automatically valid it as a sequel. Talking of Fallout 3 again, it doesn't add anything to what the other games built, merely vampirized some elements of the serie — and not even the best — and recycled names. Does that alone make it a bad game? Of course not: being a good or bad sequel bears little consequence on the game itself being good or bad.
Prator: Much as I liked Fallout 1&2, I can't think of a good reason why I shouldn't enjoy Fallout 3.
I can come up with at least one: high standards.
