I'm trying to figure out where you got the idea that I'm a Fallout 3 fan. I've stated in this very thread that I don't give a rat's arse about Fallout.
Potato, potato...
I'd question the accuracy of that, but it doesn't really matter because which perspective came first is irrelevant here. In Diablo's case, it's not that there were no 3D engines suitable for 1st/OTS 3rd person games in 1997, it's that there were none that could have coped with the masses of entities required, ie. the hordes of hell. That's what I mean by technological limitations.
That's funny, because Doom came out in 1993, and Diablo 1 came out in 1996...
And nobody said Doom lacked demons. In fact, Diablo 1 could just as well be a first-person dungeon crawler, like the DOZENS of first-person dungeon crawlers that existed for 20 years, like Akabeth 1979...
But Diablo 1 was NOT first person for a very simple reason, that's not the one you're trying to shove down everyone's throats: Diablo 1 was top down because it was meant to be a rogue-like, and Rogue, as some will know, is a very influential dungeon-crawler from the eighties, and it was top down.
And because video-game design is much more than technological limitations, Diablo was, and is to this day top down, because of very concrete and tangible gameplay reasons.
Another idea you seem to have pulled out of thin air: that I want all games to use the first person perspective.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, and I do recognize I'm jumping to conclusions, but "I don't see why
anyone would want games to use the isometric view these days", "It's a
relic", "as thoroughly
obsolete as B&W cinema", "Diablo should have gone first person or OTS third person as soon as it was technologically feasible" (which means as soon as they were released, because it was feasible at the time), "the way it's always been is an
absurd reason", "isometric
stone age".
I did jump to conclusions, but I stand by them. You want all games (except for RTSs, in your words) to be first person or over the should third person.
What I'm saying is that there's more to games than the twitch-factor and mindless action. If you like that, awesome, I've spent countless hours playing that kind of games as well, but games are about the fun, and if it's more fun for me to play Fallout from a top down perspective, then that's the kind of game that I want. And I'm neither the only fan who finds top down RPGs enjoyable, neither am I not backed by the creators of Fallout:
- Tim Cain left Interplay to found Troika and develop ToEE (top down perspective), Arcanum (top down perspective) and Bloodlines (first/third person). Their company was making a Fallout spiritual successor when they closed doors (guess what perspective). Recently he worked (and is working) in Pillars of Eternity (top down perspective).
- Jason Anderson, also left Interplay for Troika, has gone under the radar but has recently worked for Wasteland 2 (top down perspective)
- Leonard Boyarsky, also left Interplay for Troika, is now working at Blizzard as an artist (that's what he is) and we all know Blizzard ONLY makes top down games.
- Chris Jones, is working at Obsidian, known for doing mostly top-down games.
- Feargus Urquhart, credited in Fallout 2, Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment, Torn and loads of other top down games
- Chris Avellone, who led Fallout 2 and founded Obsidian (where he worked in Torment, Icewind Dale, Pillars of Eternity, Tides of Numenera, among many others), has recently left the company for another oppurtunity in the gaming industry (as of yet undisclosed), which many speculate to mean he's gonna join inXile to work on a Van Buren game (yeah, that's right... the real Fallout 3... or at least the one that never was).
- Josh Sawyer, of the game he's worked in, only Fallout New Vegas and Alpha Protocol were not top down
I mean. I could go on for a little while longer if I cared to check some wiki articles, this is off the top of my head.
I'm not alone, my friend. There's lots of people who enjoy top down games just as much as other people enjoy first person games.
It's a matter of tastes, where you are in your life, how your day has gone, what your priorities are, how much time you have to play, and on and on and on...
I disagree partially, but not completely. I do understand where you're coming from, but I can also get totally immersed in top down games. I mean, I can get immersed in a book easily enough, and even ones that don't have any pictures!!! I know, you don't believe me.
the potential for vastly improved combat
I totally disagree. One of the most astonishing combat systems ever made (Jagged Allience 2) was top down, turn based. Real time just can't beat that. It might come close, sometimes, I'm not one to deny, but top down and turn based is always gonna be better, combat wise.
better connection with NPCs because now I can actually see their faces when I'm talking to them etc.
Yeah, you've never played Fallout. Fallout had talking heads because of that. When you're playing a pen and paper RPG (which is what Fallout was created to mimic), you can converse face to face with the characters, because you're all right there in the room.
There's absolutely no problem with talking heads. The only problem is budget restrains.
And, besides, it's not really that big of a deal. If the game is well written, like any book, you'll enjoy it just as much, if not more.
Our imagination is a powerful thing.
what a strangely obtuse claim to make.
Unfortunately, it's not nearly as strange as that. I've seen plenty of claims like these around the web.