Fallout 3 - Mothership Zeta Screens and Info

[JemyM]

Thoth, seems like your primary concerns is about gameplay, but I have to say that most of your criticism is rather silly. It sounds like you would consider Jagged Alliance 2 a fallout game, but for many of us, Fallout is the world, not the game engine.

 

[Thoth]

Thoth, seems like your primary concerns is about gameplay, but I have to say that most of your criticism is rather silly. It sounds like you would consider Jagged Alliance 2 a fallout game, but for many of us, Fallout is the world, not the game engine.

Come on, you know what I'm getting at. FO3 should have been turn based just like I'd expect JA3 to be so. Call me an evil traditionalist, but there are certain elements of a franchise that just don't need to be changed. The originals were true RPGs, FO3 is an FPS with really bad RPG elements. Why do this? They could have made a spin off or something if they wanted to make an FPS, or rather, since that's the only thing this company seems capable of doing.

Fallout 3 felt like it was made by people that played the originals for a day or so. I'm not a fan of Star Wars, so if I were to make a Star Wars game then most fans would likely be pretty disappointed with my end results. Sure, I'd have Boba Fetts and Jaba the Ruts and Desert planets and other bullshit that seems like it might be a part of the universe, but that still wouldn't make it good. Bethesda can add as many pip boys as they want, it still won't feel like the originals.

 

[rune_74]

What an open-minded attitude you have.

Yes, I would say I do have a pretty open minded attitude. I can get enjoyment from a different approach to a cool setting...I can get over problems that bug me, accept certian changes that brought me another adventure in a cool setting. You can niggle at points and complain about other things....but I feel(this is my right) that it is a game, and at the end of the day thats all it is. They did a great job modernizing it and getting a new beginning....now, can they improve on it? Sure they can, and I'm hoping they will. I realize what I'm writing here will really make no difference to you Brother none, matter of fact I was just going to ignore you in the thread and talk to other posters. I'm sure if you look back through all the FO3 threads you have had a negative comment in every single one of them, and its cool, you are allowed that but try not to play us for fools and tell us you think its a good game. saying its a good game then bashing it and every other thread does not prove you are unbiased, unless you think we have the intelligence of a gnat.

EDIT: Oh and saying its a good game and but not a good fallout game is just as ludicris because that is basically saying that it is not good what it tries to be but its an ok somewhat game...It is denial of what it is, which is fallout 3. I wonder how many of you will be so unforgiving of VD's game when it released.

 

[Brother None]

Yes, I would say I do have a pretty open minded attitude.

I, too, enjoyed it for what it was. But I did not enjoy it for what it wasn't. That doesn't seem so strange to me, for some reason, but it seems to annoy the hell out of you.

I'm sure if you look back through all the FO3 threads you have had a negative comment in every single one of them, and its cool, you are allowed that but try not to play us for fools and tell us you think its a good game. saying its a good game then bashing it and every other thread does not prove you are unbiased, unless you think we have the intelligence of a gnat.

I have a negative comment in every Fallout 3 thread on this site? Come of it. Is most of what I post negative? Sure, but that's not just for Fallout 3, I've just never seen the point of endless "looks great" and "me too" posts.

And who said anything about bias? It is a good game, I've said so countless times, at every opportunity, it's just your selective bias means you refuse to listen to anything I say (and have the bare-faced gall to tell me what my opinion is), or figure out that most of the criticisms I post are about it being a bad Fallout, but less about it being a bad game (though some parts of it are just downright awful).

Oh and saying its a good game and but not a good fallout game is just as ludicris because that is basically saying that it is not good what it tries to be but its an ok somewhat game...It is denial of what it is, which is fallout 3.

Not really, if it weren't called Fallout 3 then the problem wouldn't exist at all. Anyway, is there an argument in there somewhere, proving that calling it a bad Fallout game is stupid? No? Just making a statement?

Fallout 3 is not trying to be a Fallout game, by the way, I don't think it ever was. No more than Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. It provides lip services to the franchise, not even getting that right in many ways. That may be enough for you, but it's not for me.

I wonder how many of you will be so unforgiving of VD's game when it released.

I wasn't aware VD's game is pretending to be a sequel to a game it consequently fails to share sufficient gameplay and setting elements with. You do realise that is the problem, no? And that this doesn't reflect on AoD in any way?

There were some horror references in the earlier fallout games, such as Modoc and the Haunted Farm, but bethesda seems to be fans of the cthulhu mythos. As a fan of Lovecraft myself I do not mind.

Fallout 2 was a mess and has been criticized for the mess that it is. NCR, New Reno, San Fran, Ghost Town and Modoc are all weird, dropshot-random locations.

"As a fan of Lovecraft" is kind of the thing, tho'. There's a difference between good or fun design and consistent design. I'm a big fan of Watership Down, does that mean I'd be ok with a Watership Down-based DLC with giant killer bunnies? No, because no matter how much I like it, it just doesn't fit Fallout. Bethesda never seems to have made this step.

Fallout 1 and 2 are both placed in the wilderness, much of it desert, but there are actually trees in F1/2. Point Lookout offered me some of the wastelands outside the capital ruins, and it felt like fresh air.

Too true. Fallout's setting has always been mostly desert and ruins, and then some other stuff. Wilderness is fine, and certainly a good variation, as long as it's handled well.

I don't know exactly how well it's handled in Point Lookout (I don't participate in the whole DLC scam), but I do know Oasis is a good example of doing it completely wrong. Point Lookout, from the outside, also looks a bit silly. A swamp not directly hit by bombs? Awesome. Taking the opportunity for both Cthulhu references and hyuck-Southerners Deliverance jokes? Not so awesome.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Amazon Germany sells some of the DLCs in a box (by Atari) :
http://www.amazon.de/Fallout-Operat..._4?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1247654960&sr=8-4

 

[JDR13]

Amazon Germany sells some of the DLCs in a box (by Atari) :
http://www.amazon.de/Fallout-Operat..._4?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1247654960&sr=8-4

I'm pretty sure that's the same as the US bundle.

There's also a Fallout 3 GotY Edition scheduled for release in October that will include all of the DLCs.

 

[JemyM]

Come on, you know what I'm getting at. FO3 should have been turn based just like I'd expect JA3 to be so. Call me an evil traditionalist, but there are certain elements of a franchise that just don't need to be changed. The originals were true RPGs, FO3 is an FPS with really bad RPG elements. Why do this? They could have made a spin off or something if they wanted to make an FPS, or rather, since that's the only thing this company seems capable of doing. Fallout 3 felt like it was made by people that played the originals for a day or so. I'm not a fan of Star Wars, so if I were to make a Star Wars game then most fans would likely be pretty disappointed with my end results. Sure, I'd have Boba Fetts and Jaba the Ruts and Desert planets and other bullshit that seems like it might be a part of the universe, but that still wouldn't make it good. Bethesda can add as many pip boys as they want, it still won't feel like the originals.

I see you are still talking about the game engine, and it still seems you are looking for turnbased rpg's more than a fallout game. Star Wars is a world that they made all sorts of games for, and one cannot say that X-Wing is less starwarsy than Jedi Knight II because they have different gamestyles.

 

[Brother None]

I see you are still talking about the game engine, and it still seems you are looking for turnbased rpg's more than a fallout game. Star Wars is a world that they made all sorts of games for, and one cannot say that X-Wing is less starwarsy than Jedi Knight II because they have different gamestyles.

The flaw in your logic is that Fallout 3 is presented as a direct sequel to Fallout 2, not a spin-off in the same universe. What you're talking about with Star Wars are spin-off games set in the same universe. If I make a sequel to KotOR, do you not expect the same game mechanics? Would a turn-based sequel to TES IV make sense?

 

[JDR13]

If I make a sequel to KotOR, do you not expect the same game mechanics?

Not necessarily. Why should we?

Although I'm sure all the fanbois will whine for months if it doesn't have those same game mechanics.

 

[JemyM]

"As a fan of Lovecraft" is kind of the thing, tho'. There's a difference between good or fun design and consistent design. I'm a big fan of Watership Down, does that mean I'd be ok with a Watership Down-based DLC with giant killer bunnies? No, because no matter how much I like it, it just doesn't fit Fallout. Bethesda never seems to have made this step.

Well now, there were Lovecraft inspired references in the game, but they are few, optional, and almost an easter egg in their own. Kinda like the UFO.

I don't know exactly how well it's handled in Point Lookout (I don't participate in the whole DLC scam), but I do know Oasis is a good example of doing it completely wrong. Point Lookout, from the outside, also looks a bit silly. A swamp not directly hit by bombs? Awesome. Taking the opportunity for both Cthulhu references and hyuck-Southerners Deliverance jokes? Not so awesome.

Try it, then you can make up your own mind about it.

 

[Brother None]

Not necessarily. Why should we?

Because it's called KoTOR 3. The whole point of calling something a sequel is to indicate it shares common bonds with its predecessor both in gameplay and in setting, and develops said gameplay and setting in logical, consistent ways. If it is only bound in setting, or only bound in gameplay, why call it a sequel, when the term spinoff is more appropriate? Think Might & Magic vs Heroes of Might & Magic, Fallout vs Fallout: Tactics. Tactics is a fine spin-off, though a bit setting-odd at times, and its different gameplay approach is not jarring exactly because it's a spin-off.

If, on the other hand, you make a spin-off but call it a sequel, you're essentially discontinuing the gameplay line of the originals. That's also an interesting approach to take, and sometimes these are to make changes that are big but logical, such as the switch in GTA II's helicopter view to GTA III's OTS view. In the same way, I could imagine Fallout 3 having both TB and RT (as Van Buren would have, I'm fine TB and RT though I do believe the problem of balancing both is hard to overcome), or having a movable camera that gives you free options in POV (think how Realms of Arkania did it). As long as the gameplay principles that started this whole franchise (GURPS emulation) are still held high, and evolve in a logical way.

There's always something two-faced about this, because some people will like the approach of the sequels better and justify it for that reason, no doubt being painfully smug in the process. Yet most of those same people would turn blue in the face if a sequel to a franchise they like makes a turn into a gameplay mode they dislike. That's hypocritical. And unnecessary. Whether you agree if it's a big deal or not, and you certainly don't have to, you can not care about it as much as you want as far as I'm concerned, does the logic of gameplay vs spin-off not make sense?

Well now, there were Lovecraft inspired references in the game, but they are few, optional, and almost an easter egg in their own. Kinda like the UFO.

In the game? Yes. I'm not a big fan of it, since I like Fallout 1's "50's-appropriate" easter eggs more than Fallout 2's "lulzy" easter eggs and Fallout 3's "hei guys this is COOL!" easter eggs, but easter eggs are what they are; harmless. The Dunwich building is pretty explicit, but ok.

I'd say Point Lookout looks to be pushing it, tho'. Swamp not touched by nukes? Ok. But why is it occupied by things that seem so foreign to Fallout's setting?

Try it, then you can make up your own mind about it.

No thanks. I don't do DLCs, at all. They're a scam, and I'm not in it for the party.

 

[JemyM]

The flaw in your logic is that Fallout 3 is presented as a direct sequel to Fallout 2, not a spin-off in the same universe. What you're talking about with Star Wars are spin-off games set in the same universe. If I make a sequel to KotOR, do you not expect the same game mechanics? Would a turn-based sequel to TES IV make sense?

The engine/gameplay isn't really what I count as "Fallout", and this isn't the first time I have seen a complete revamp of the gameplay from one game to another. This is pretty common when there's a considerable timelapse between the titles. I found the change natural and doubt I would be able to take a turnbased game in 2009, i got enough of that in Pools of Radiance 2, and haven't looked back at them since. They were fine when games were smaller and good games were few between, but these days games like that just makes me stressed.

I wouldn't mind if they revamped the KOTOR mechanics actually. It was based on the now obsolete SW d20 system and I found the UI to be a bit weak. What I do not like are MMO's, because they tend to kill off the title.

 

[Brother None]

The engine/gameplay isn't really what I count as "Fallout".

What you or I count as Fallout is irrelevant to the fact that it started and is defined as a pen & paper emulation, with the setting folded around it at a later stage. I find it counter-intuitive to define a video game purely by its setting, anyway.

I found the change natural and doubt I would be able to take a turnbased game in 2009

And I notice there's a lot of "me"-ing in your arguments. You do realise personal preference is completely irrelevant to what I'm saying, right?

I wouldn't mind if they revamped the KOTOR mechanics actually. It was based on the now obsolete SW d20 system and I found the UI to be a bit weak.

Revamp? Sure. Change is fine. Evolution is fine. That's not what I'm talking about. Fallout 3 doesn't evolve or change Fallout 1/2's gameplay mechanics, it mostly replaces them with something else. Replacement is no form of evolution, no matter how you look at it.

 

[JDR13]

Because it's called KoTOR 3. The whole point of calling something a sequel is to indicate it shares common bonds with its predecessor both in gameplay and in setting, and develops said gameplay and setting in logical, consistent ways. If it is only bound in setting, or only bound in gameplay, why call it a sequel, when the term spinoff is more appropriate

Just curious... where are those rules written? To say that something can't be a true sequel just because of gameplay changes (i.e. TB to real time combat, or isometric to 3D view) is incredibly short-sighted, and simply shows an intolerance to change.

And I notice there's a lot of "me"-ing in your arguments. You do realise personal preference is completely irrelevant to what I'm saying, right?.

Do you realize how much of your argument stems from opinion?

 

[Brother None]

Just curious... where are those rules written?

In common sense? Every sequel that changes gameplay radically is met with backlash and derision, either major or minor (often depending on its age, and the popularity of the genre it's changing into). Meanwhile, the vast majority of publishers tends to name spin-offs as spin-offs; whether it is in game franchise, M&M to HoMM, Warcraft to World of Warcraft. It certainly seems to be the rule, and the other approach, dumping gameplay and still calling it a sequel, the exception.

Pretending that this is some kind of anti-change attitude is childish. I'm all for natural evolution of existing gameplay elements. How is dumping and replacing gameplay elements progress? How does making Fallout 3 into an FPS/RPG instead of a more advanced version of the originals represent progress?

You are showing clear signs of - like most of the gaming industry - not understanding the difference between innovation and change. Not all change is innovation. Not all change makes sense. Being against change doesn't automatically make someone a reactionary.

You're avoiding the crux of my argument, tho'...
Games are defined by both their gameplay and gameworld. Since both define the world, taking only one in isolation and defining the franchise by it is usually silly.

Sequels indicate holdovers of complete games, so gameplay and gameworld. If you want only one, call it a spin-off. There's nothing wrong with abandoning a gameplay set if you're doing it for the right reasons, but why present it as a sequel? What's wrong with presenting it as a spin-off?

Do you realize how much of your argument stems from opinion?

No. Please argue logically how my argument stems from opinion. Sure, you could say "saying sequels need to hold over both gameplay and gameworld is a supposition, not a fact", but I have logically underscored why I feel sequels need to do this, and how a clear demarcation between sequel and spin-off can be indicated. I have seen no clear counter-arguments. I have also indicated that personal definitions of the franchise are irrelevant, thus taking out even more personal opinion/preference out of the argument. I have seen no counter-argument to that.

So who is playing with logic, and who with opinion? All my arguments do is present a structure that - while tied inherently to a single supposition - define franchise in a way that is separate from personal preference, and thus presenting the framework for a logical debate, rather than a "but I really like..." debate. I do not see how that is out-paced by "I think TB is boring" or "I feel superior to fanbois".

 

[JemyM]

I'd say Point Lookout looks to be pushing it, tho'.

Having played it I could tell you this without spoiling things too much;
There are one single reference in Point Lookout. Not only is it completely optional (and you can still finish the quest), but the reference itself is thin. If you aren't aware of Lovecraftian themes it feels like just another mystery story.

Swamp not touched by nukes?

Bombs didn't fall there no, but it is radiated. The desert in Fallout isn't filled with crates either you know.

Ok. But why is it occupied by things that seem so foreign to Fallout's setting?

I didn't find the stuff in PL foreign. Hillbillies fit in to any wasteland setting and tribals felt like a F2 reference.

No thanks. I don't do DLCs, at all. They're a scam, and I'm not in it for the party.

It's not only the developers fault that a game with a subpar engine doesn't sell. Not only are there plenty of gamers out there who simply wouldn't buy a game that looks bad, reviews tend to tick off a few points from their scores since graphics are always count into the end score even if the gameplay in the game was second to none.

Now I know enough about what it takes to produce game to realize the problems with making a game that both dazzles the player with a good engine and manage to offer good content/gamelength at the same time. This have been a problem that popped up in the 90'ies and kept on growing as the games got more complex, but it's an even greater problem today than it used to be. You can almost never do two things at the same time, just consider the problems with adding a good multiplayer mode on top of the singleplayer mode. People used to demand that, many still do, even in games in which it makes no sense to have both.

Now a game like Tomb Raider: Underworld or Half-Life 2 is a strict linear railroad experience with no exploration involved. But then we have these open-ended and free-roaming type of RPG's (Two-Worlds, Gothic, Oblivion) that have the potential to give you several days of gameplay (which is unusual theese days).
Fallout 2 took the engine of Fallout 1, that's why it was considerably larger than the prequel. It's not uncommon that the 2nd game in a videogame series is the better one since the engine is already made and now you just have to fill that with content. The modern "massive singleplayer RPG's" have much more complex engines than Fallout did though, and they all tend to suffer from it in one way or another. These games tend to have very similar problems to MMORPG's, usually related to either bugs, balance issues or lack of content. Two-Worlds was extremely unbalanced and much of the game was unfinished. Gothic 3 had a lot of content, but was so broken that it pretty much killed the company. Oblivion was far more stable, but suffered from a severe lack of content. F3 was somewhat better on content than Oblivion, but suffered from balance problems and lack of content.

But even if the content is lacking, compare the pricetag of F3 to that of other games that was developed in a shorter timespan, with less resources, and offer just a few hours of gameplay, and you might agree that there's a problem, and if we want theese kind of games, that problem needs to be solved in one way to another. DLC's is one solution that offers a cure for the problem with content, allowing the developer to pour more time into the engine and get more money out of their games. If you find a better solution, send companies such as Bethesda and other makers of RPG's your ideas. Or you can go back to only play old games, but if you overdo it like me, you eventually dry up.

 

[JemyM]

What you or I count as Fallout is irrelevant to the fact that it started and is defined as a pen & paper emulation, with the setting folded around it at a later stage. I find it counter-intuitive to define a video game purely by its setting, anyway.

Then we have an artistic disagreement. Computers have the capacity to offer a 4th artform, that offers interactivity over story, audio, visuals, and I love when developers take that seriously. I didn't play KOTOR, Deus Ex, Monkey Island, Max Payne, Metal Gear Solid, System Shock 2 or the Final Fantasy series due to their gameplay. I played them first and foremost because they use the technology to create an experience.

Having said that, as someone who have played pnp rpg's at least once per month for the past 23 years, First-Person offers a better Pen and Paper emulation than isometric turnbased. If you are more concerned with being a character in a different world, than you are with crunchy numbers that is.

And I notice there's a lot of "me"-ing in your arguments. You do realise personal preference is completely irrelevant to what I'm saying, right?

Do you realize that F3 was a financial success? I might not be the one who let personal preference get in the way of my judgement.

Revamp? Sure. Change is fine. Evolution is fine. That's not what I'm talking about. Fallout 3 doesn't evolve or change Fallout 1/2's gameplay mechanics, it mostly replaces them with something else. Replacement is no form of evolution, no matter how you look at it.

I could look at it and say that the SPECIAL system, and the karma system is still there, as well as plenty of perks that I recognize, and I could say that's an evolution from F1/2 gameplay mechanics. I can even note the focus on exploration in the wastelands, walking around between settlements, talking to people and doing quests as similar gameplay to F1/2.

What I do is that I draw connections in my mind based on what I remember from the earlier games, which is based on my unique cognitive patterns, just like you do when you say that there are none at all. That's not a perfect science. The truth in the end is that there are plenty of references in F3 to F1/2 gameplay, and there are also plenty of changes.

 

[Brother None]

Bombs didn't fall there no, but it is radiated. The desert in Fallout isn't filled with crates either you know.

Er...I was saying that as a positive thing, not a criticism: I like that there are places that have been touched by decay over nuclear war. First time I heard about Point Lookout I was like "hey, not a bad idea", up until I heard more details.

I didn't find the stuff in PL foreign. Hillbillies fit in to any wasteland setting and tribals felt like a F2 reference.

The tribals were a terrible idea in Fallout 2 and they still are now. And how in Frith's name do hillbillies fit in the wasteland setting?

But even if the content is lacking, compare the pricetag of F3 to that of other games that was developed in a shorter timespan, with less resources, and offer just a few hours of gameplay, and you might agree that there's a problem, and if we want theese kind of games, that problem needs to be solved in one way to another.

Are you honestly saying Fallout 3 did not make a profit by itself? Because if so, I have news for you: it did, and these DLCs are just printing money.

Yes, making a complex game is inherently less profitable to making a simple game. How are DLCs the solution to that? DLCs exist as money-pumps for both complex games and simple games, so they do not change the balance from a profit perspective at all.

Besides: yes, there are fundamental problems with pricing of video-games. Is the solution to those problems really to make more fundamentally mispriced products?

Then we have an artistic disagreement. Computers have the capacity to offer a 4th artform, that offers interactivity over story, audio, visuals, and I love when developers take that seriously.

Interactivity is not defined by gameplay how, exactly?

Having said that, as someone who have played pnp rpg's at least once per month for the past 23 years, First-Person offers a better Pen and Paper emulation than isometric turnbased. If you are more concerned with being a character in a different world, than you are with crunchy numbers that is.

Perspective, in my personal opinion, is irrelevant. A matter of preference. Especially now that making different perspective in a single game has become more easy. I still love the way RoA, another PnP emulator, approached it: FP for exploration, isometric for combat.

Do you realize that F3 was a financial success?

How is that relevant to what I'm saying?

What I do is that I draw connections in my mind based on what I remember from the earlier games, which is based on my unique cognitive patterns, just like you do when you say that there are none at all. That's not a perfect science. The truth in the end is that there are plenty of references in F3 to F1/2 gameplay, and there are also plenty of changes.

You're being facetious. "Oh look, I use my mouse and keyboard to control the game, and look at the screen to get my feedback, just like the earlier games!" It's easy enough to wrestle down the validity of any argument by taking it in extremis like that.

I'm not saying Fallout 3 is completely divorced from Fallout 1/2. The quest design in particular is spot on. Dialogue trees follow similar paths. SPECIAL is there, if reformed in such a way as to change it completely, as should be obvious to you as a PnPer (Fallout's SPECIAL is a characteristic-based system, Fallout 3's SPECIAL is skill-based).

But you do raise an interesting issue. How many changes are too much? TB to RT is fundamental, but is it alone too much? Depends, combat was never the focus of Fallout anyway...I think the biggest warning sign on Fallout 3 is not in one big wallop of a change, I think it is in an overall different approach. Fallout 3 is an action-RPG, Fallout 1/2 are pen-and-paper emulating RPGs. It's funny how people think the tag "RPG" means they're related, but RPG doesn't tell you much about fundamental differences. I'd say Fallout 3, with its focus on exploration, twitchy combat, consequence-avoiding-through-level-scaling, takes a different approach to the genre than Fallout 1 did, with its TB combat and focus on choice and consequence.

It certainly is something that can be argued about, tho'. And that's cool. Just realise that up until now I've not been arguing about whether or not the gradation of change is too much, I've been arguing for the supposition that fundamental gameplay change vs gameplay evolving is a key value in analysing the worthiness of sequels. I don't mind if people disagree with me that Fallout 3 missed the mark on Fallout 1/2's core gameplay, if they can logically argue it (I'm not too fond of your argument, though, which basically boils down to "everything is subjective anyway", a bit of an argument-killer, and I hate post-modernism in general), but I do find it odd when people are forcibly arguing that this doesn't matter on any level, which is the crux of what I've been arguing against in this thread.

Clearly separate arguments. Keep that in mind. One tends to get confused.

 

[JDR13]

In common sense? Every sequel that changes gameplay radically is met with backlash and derision, either major or minor (often depending on its age, and the popularity of the genre it's changing into). You are showing clear signs of - like most of the gaming industry - not understanding the difference between innovation and change. Not all change is innovation. Not all change makes sense. Being against change doesn't automatically make someone a reactionary.

Nope... "common sense" would be comprehending that a sequel to a game from a Decade earlier is most likely going to have more than just some slight changes to gameplay mechanics.

No. Please argue logically how my argument stems from opinion. Sure, you could say "saying sequels need to hold over both gameplay and gameworld is a supposition, not a fact", but I have logically underscored why I feel sequels need to do this, and how a clear demarcation between sequel and spin-off can be indicated. I have seen no clear counter-arguments. I have also indicated that personal definitions of the franchise are irrelevant, thus taking out even more personal opinion/preference out of the argument. I have seen no counter-argument to that.

I know. That's called an "opinion".

 

[Brother None]

Nope... "common sense" would be comprehending that a sequel to a game from a Decade earlier is most likely going to have more than just some slight changes to gameplay mechanics.

Yes, 10 years passed, and in that time technology has progressed. Naturally, mechanics from the original title can use that technological and technical progress to take a giant leap forward. So why didn't they? Again, we're not talking about advancing mechanics, changing mechanics, we're talking about replacing them.

I know. That's called an "opinion".

No, it's called a supposition, one that is meant to preclude these "but I prefer"-type of meaningless arguments. You can disagree with the supposition, obviously that is an opinion, and argue about it in turn, but that doesn't really hold water to the above point on the uselessness of "me-focused", opinion-based arguments, does it?

You seem to have taken my statement for a general "opinion is bad" type thing. If so: you missed the point. The point being that nothing useful can be gained from just shouting opinions.