Why?

Because old isometric games are past now. I may look nostalgic, but world moves on.
For example, fallout is set in 50's style on future.

Old mad players are like that. We would be on 2050, with hell know what tech, like holograms, and people will still complain 'well its [censored] because i think isometric turn based is the definitive way to make games'.

This argument seems awfuly familiar.

Isometiric isnt as old as you think, nor is first person as young as you think.

I'm fairly sure I saw Wolf 3D before I saw any Isometric ones.

You know when the CS (aka GECK) for FO3 is released, you have two choices.

a.) Whine like a baby because the game doesnt meet your expectation's.

Or

b.) Do something about it.

What's done is done. If you want to look back at yesteryear with a sense of nostalgia and moan wistfully about the good ole day's when Interplay and B.I studio's had the Fallout license and dream about what might have been, but isn't and never will be, thats up to you - but in the end your not going to accomplish anything.

That seems only fitting when its done often enough by those hailing BIs FO3. I mean sure, it would have been an awesome game to be sure if released back then (or even a few years later), but lets face it, the race is over, the horse is dead.

The new Fallout is still a great game and IMO as a FO1/2 player well deserves the name Fallout 3.

Apart from Baldurs Gate 1&2 (expansions and cancelled BG 3) and Icewind Dale 1&2+expansions, there was the absolutely awesome game of Planescape:Torment.

Baldur's Gate wasn't made by Black Isle. It was made by BioWare and published by Interplay/Black Isle.

Wolf3d isnt any 3d. Its just a fake 3d. All models are sprites, not like today where all objects are 3d. Isometric was just a way to provide a fake 3d world from the isometric perspective, so all looked 3d but with 2d.

Also no one serious now willl make anything isometric by now.

I don't mean to bump a thread that is more than a week old (much less a response that is nearly a month old), but I felt the need to clarify some misconceptions involving Bioware and Black Isle Studios.

There is an old Gamespy article that does a decent job of summarizing the relationship between Black Isle Studios and Bioware: http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/january01/blackisle/ . In short, the two companies have a pretty long history of working together.

Bioware developed Baldur's Gate I and II. Interplay published Baldur's Gate I. Black Isle Studios (a division of Interplay) helped a little bit with the development and backend of the Baldur's Gate games. On the other hand, Black Isle Studios did use the Infinity Engine, which was developed by Bioware, to create Planescape: Torment, and maybe a few other games. I don't believe Bioware had any involvement with Fallout 1 or 2, at least not officially. Black Isle and Bioware have always operated autonomously from each other, but they have also shared quite a bit of technical work and creative art. In a sense, you could consider the two to be good friends.

By itself, Black Isle Studios is credited with Fallout 1 and 2, Planescape: Torment, and the Icewind Dale series. As for assisting Bioware, Black Isle Studios is known for its assistance on Baldur's Gate I and II (though Bioware did most of the work on those games).

As mentioned earlier in this thread, Black Isle Studios was shut down in 2003 by Interplay. This was primarily due to the poor financial state of Interplay. It is notable that prior to Black Isle Studios' closure in 2003, Interplay had been laying off employees, so the personnel that constituted Black Isle Studios had already changed considerably prior to its closure. Also, as mentioned, Obsidian Entertainment consists of several prominent former employees of Black Isle Studios. Troikia also had a few Black Isle employees.

In my personal perspective, I would say that the reason that Obsidian developed KOTOR 2 and Neverwinter Nights 2 was due to the previous relationship between Black Isle and Bioware. The two worked together in the past, and the results of their collaboration were, to understate things, good (Baldur's Gate, Planescape, etc...)


As for the whole Black Isle vs. Bethesda imbroglio....

You know, whenever I visit NMA, I get ticked off at how they are so blatantly aggressive against Bethesda's Fallout 3. Several posters go so far as to insist that there was not a single good thing in Bethesda's work. So then I migrate over to the Bethesda forums, but quite often I encounter the exact opposite: An anti-Van Buren crowd that rejects the possibility that Van Buren may have been a good game. The only recourse that I have at this point is to visit the Bioware forums (ironically) which isn't going to talk about Fallout 3 a whole lot.

Personally, I was a big fan of both Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. I think they were great games, and in a sense, I do idolize Black Isle Studios (or, what used to be Black Isle Studios), much in the same way that I idolize Bioware. I was both concerned and excited to hear that Bethesda picked up Fallout 3 because I wasn't sure if they could capture the spirit of Fallout 3. As it turns out, I enjoyed Fallout 3. It was certainly a different take on the Fallout series, but I don't think it was a poor course that Bethesda took. Now, I don't think that Fallout 3 is a peerless piece of work, as I certainly do have my gripes about the game. But, the game turned out well, and from the in-game references and general atmosphere of the game, I could tell that Bethesda sure as hell tried really hard to capture the feel of the Fallout series. At the very least, I appreciate that effort. I don't understand why people who didn't like the game can't appreciate the effort.

Still, my enjoyment of Bethesda's Fallout 3 doesn't remove my disappointment that Black Isle Studios' didn't get their shot at Fallout 3. And, it confounds me to read posts where people imply that Van Buren would have failed miserably if it had been released. I don't understand why people will lambast petty things such as the game's isometric perspective, its dated graphics, or a one-paragraph plot synopsis. To them, I would like to remind them that the game was meant to be released in the earlier part of this decade. Perhaps more insightful, these kind of posts sound like the same posts on NMA where people were wringing their hands over Fallout 3 in a first-person perspective. Such things are not going to make or break a game, especially if you're an avid RPG fan. I play games for their storytelling and they could have used the Zork engine for all I care.

So, in short, on one hand I liked what Bethesda did with Fallout 3. On the other hand, I sure as hell would have liked to see what Black Isle Studios' would have done with Fallout 3. And in the end, I can't figure out why either perspective is always interpreted as an attack on one iteration over another.

--Garfield3d

My point wansnt its 3d claim, it was its First Person claim.

Nice summary Garfield3d.

I thought that Bioware more or less absorbed what was left of Black Isle, but I didn't know about the Troika/Obsidian link. Whe I realised that Fergus Urquhart was head of Black Isle, it kind of makes sense now (as he's head of Obsidian).

Regardless .... since Bethesda own the license for Fallout, ain't no outside remake gunna be made.

Van Buren was in full 3D. It was not actually isometric, the use of "isometric" here is just gamer slang for that particular viewpoint (often used by the developers as well), as I've explained in several other threads. In that sense, of course "isometric" games are being made. Or do you consider Blizzard "no one serious"?

Well if the implication is that WoW is "isometric", I don't know if I would agree (even with the mutilated definition people use for the word). It's third person, surely... But more like an over-the-shoulder, behind-the-head type third person. Sure you can rotate the camera and zoom it in and out a bit, but by default, and primarily, it focuses on one character and follows them pretty closely, in a generally forward-looking perspective (as opposed to being more overhead and further out, to be more tactical).

I believe Ausir was meaning Diablo 3.

Oh, right. Blizzard still makes other games. My bad

I guess it's because I'm not following the Diablo hype so much. The 3-game installment plan for Starcraft 2 soured me on Blizzard a bit.

Yes, Diablo 3 is as much of an "isometric" game as Van Buren.

And I wouldn't be surprised if there was a surge of (pseudo)isometric games after Diablo 3 sells in large numbers (and it will).

Undoubtedly. Diablo has such a following they could spit in a box and it would sell well, at least for a while, with people hoping for "the patch that fixes it".

After watching those vids...all I can say is OMG I'm soooo glad FO3 isn't even remotely similar to THAT POS.

If that happens, it will say something really sad about the gaming industry as a whole. I dont say that because of any issues with Isometric, it has its place, but because it will prove once again that the gaming industry has devolved into a marketing "Tick Box" forumla for development (Oh that sold well, put that in, and this sold well too, so add this, and this did terrible so dont do that).

For anyone thinking this might be an exageration - listen to the directors commentry on "back to the future" - The movie was going to be called "Spaceman from Pluto" if the studio director had his way because "No movie with the word future in it has ever made money".

*scratches head*

Hmm, sounds familiar.




Wait..uh...you do realize this is not just how gaming works...but capitalism as a whole, right? Gaming, as much as some would want to romanticize it as some great personal art-form, is still just as steeped in the capitalist world as a new pair of shoes. See what sells, mimic, make money. Innovate, sell, make money. Mimic, repeat, rinse, soak, die unhappy, etc.

yes.

And it makes me a very sad panda.

There still is innovation there, the problem is the marketers. They see it, think its a fad, and by the time they finnish it has become a fad.

I dont think its Capitalism per se, I think its because of a market(ing)-Driven economy.

Im not getting anymore. Never liked very much top down perspective, unless on strategies. As things are going Diablo iii will be full 3d top down, but i still dont like it, i guess mainly because the graphics are toned down to render all the scene.