Skyrim is the most overrated RPG ever made.....

and the NPCs and companions in total were less memorable for me than FO3

santoron

What?

You're...joking right?

Or did God(sidian) skip you when he was handing out the brain?
The ONLY memorable companion in FO3 was Fawkes. Anyone else considered "memorable" is a no go.

Let's see

Jericho: He is an angry former Raider that swears a lot. That is not a summary. That is literally, all you can construe out of this lazily written character. Oh wait, he smokes a lot too, never mind, such a memorable character.

That chick the slaver gives you: Not even memorable enough for me to remember her damn name, and I've put in 150 hours into this game. I mean, god that's embarrassing. I... think it started with a C?

Dogmeat: A dog whose owner died. Based off of the Dogmeat from previous titles. Anything else construed from him is purely from your imagination. And don't even get me started on your Dialogue options with him

"Good Dog!" = Nothing

" Bad Dog!" = Nothing

Yay for meaningless dialogue choices!

Charon: Yes, we get it Charon. You hate humans. Anything else to add about yourself? No?.........

Butch: Greaser who hates bugs. You have the option to kill his mother in the very beginning. I1 know I did.

That robot: Never chose him as a companion. Please don't tell me he is the most memorable and fleshed out character. Please...

That paladin lady: :lol:

And Fawkes, who is actually fleshed out enough to be considered "memorable" (Though most of his fans consider him "memorable" due to the sheer fact he's a super mutant, and throw out all other parts of his character)

So tell me... HOW are Fallout 3's companions more "memorable" than New Vegas's, especially considering the fact each New Vegas companion (with the exception of ED-E) Has an original and deep background that your character gets to reveal through dialogue options and specific side quests.

I'll tell you how: you're delusional.

Reviwers were impressed with the scale of the game, so they didn't mind for all the flaws the game has.

madsnakehhh

[QUOTE="santoron"]and the NPCs and companions in total were less memorable for me than FO3

Slashless

What?

You're...joking right?

Or did God(sidian) skip you when he was handing out the brain?
The ONLY memorable companion in FO3 was Fawkes. Anyone else considered "memorable" is a no go.

Let's see

Jericho: He is an angry former Raider that swears a lot. That is not a summary. That is literally, all you can construe out of this lazily written character. Oh wait, he smokes a lot too, never mind, such a memorable character.

That chick the slaver gives you: Not even memorable enough for me to remember her damn name, and I've put in 150 hours into this game. I mean, god that's embarrassing. I... think it started with a C?

Dogmeat: A dog whose owner died. Based off of the Dogmeat from previous titles. Anything else construed from him is purely from your imagination. And don't even get me started on your Dialogue options with him

"Good Dog!" = Nothing

" Bad Dog!" = Nothing

Yay for meaningless dialogue choices!

Charon: Yes, we get it Charon. You hate humans. Anything else to add about yourself? No?.........

Butch: Greaser who hates bugs. You have the option to kill his mother in the very beginning. I1 know I did.

That robot: Never chose him as a companion. Please don't tell me he is the most memorable and fleshed out character. Please...

That paladin lady: :lol:

And Fawkes, who is actually fleshed out enough to be considered "memorable" (Though most of his fans consider him "memorable" due to the sheer fact he's a super mutant, and throw out all other parts of his character)

So tell me... HOW are Fallout 3's companions more "memorable" than New Vegas's, especially considering the fact each New Vegas companion (with the exception of ED-E) Has an original and deep background that your character gets to reveal through dialogue options and specific side quests.

I'll tell you how: you're delusional.

tl;dr And if you would've read my earlier post, you'd have realized my lack of interest in playing story time. Whatever pads that post count, I guess...

tl;dr And if you would've read my earlier post, you'd have realized my lack of interest in playing story time. Whatever pads that post count, I guess...

santoron

>says tl:dr

>Somehow knows what my post was about.

:lol:

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="santoron"]

Of course it was to create Vegas... check the title if you don't believe me for massive spoilers!:shock:

What they suceeded in doing was promising Vegas and delivering Reno. It speaks both to their lack of technical capability, and the lack of understanding of the subject matter. When I think about it, a Reno-like experience is what I took fronm the entire game. It simply lacked the polish ( as in refined locales, not bug-free polish), attention to detail, and care for the subject matter that Bethesda excels in delivering into their game worlds. It seems that you don't understand that the world quality is a huge reason people like these sandbox RPGs to begin with. And in that regard, :NV is a mediocre experience at best.

The writing of :NV struck me as passable, though the plot was terrible, and the NPCs and companions in total were less memorable for me than FO3 (though, admittedly, I ended up spending more time in FO3, so that likely was a factor). Nothing struck me as signifcantly better or worse than Oblivion and FO3 before it, and while I didn't find it memorable enough to dig into the details as you might want, I did pay particular attention to the writing in my play through at the time, simply because it was a big part of the hype around here before the game arrived. Didn't hate it, but it's not the leap you make it out to be.

santoron

...Where did I say writing wasn't, or couldn't be a large part of a sandbox RPG's appeal? That doesn't negate that the reason people play sandbox games is to explore awesome worlds. New Vegas was no better than an average game from this gen in that regard. Personally, I think that's being kind.

That's all I can even reply to. Once you started the Vietnam comparison's.... I just can't even pretend that's an apt analogy worthy of praise or scorn, or any other response. I'm hoping that was just you, trying too hard.

[QUOTE="dracolich55"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] BS No, the Deus Ex characters simply are not that good, well until the third game with more human like characters like Taggert, Sarif, Flygirl, and especially Jansen, who is the best character the entire series. And if you think that Mass Effect lacks substance, you are then simply an idiot.texasgoldrush

So you admit DX has good charactars? Good. And BTW Baldurs Gate has better charactars than ME if you wanna go by Bioware lol.

And have you even played DXHR? Flygirl had a name you know, Faridah Malik who just happens to share my last name.

Current Gen gamer am confirmed.

Ugh, I am not much smarter from your replies OP. But, let's continue... if there's some system in this dimensionality thingy, I'll get a grasp of it... eventually.

So, just to be sure, Question 1. one dimensional character = one dimensional viewpoint. Right? And there's nothing more to it (or is there? See question 5.). Like it doesn't matter in how many topics, situations or quests does this character participate or how different these topics are as long as that character acts within his one dimensional viewpoint (see example under Question 2.). Right?

Also, Question 2. one dimensional viewpoint = (... and here's where it gets really complicated) one never changing attitude towards certain group of questions / situations. One dimensional character will always act with his one dimensional viewpoint (goals, agendas) in mind and will never change it (or will he?). E.g. Walton Simons always requires complete obedience of his orders from the characters he is talking to,all of which are directed to one goal - new world order with Bob Page, and it doesn't matter if he talks to NSF guy in the begining of the game and the topic is location of Ambrosia vaccine, Denton in the middle of the game and topic is Denton's betrayal or Gunther near the end of game and topic is order to go after Denton, etc. So far so good?

But, it's not absolute because otherwise all characters in videogames would be one dimensional with respect to some topics / situations (e.g. Tali always prefering Quarians over Geth). So it seems that as long as there are some topics / situations in which characters are willing to change their original attitudes or opinions, they are not (completely) one dimensional. Right?

Question 3. And it boils down to how often does this actually happen and how many characters are willing to do so in one videogame. Correct?

And yet, it seems that there's even more to it, otherwise you would have admitted that at least some characters in DE are more dimensional and also because you mentioned some "human element" (I am not sure what do you mean. Maybe emotions, mistakes, regrets, doubts?) and you also mentioned that "characters' lives (have to) matter more than their agendas". I am completely lost with this one.

Anyway, the questions are... For that human element. Providing that it means emotions, regrets, mistakes, etc. - Question 4. How many of them does character have to have to be described as character with "human element"?

And as far as "their lives mattering more than their agendas" are concerned, Question 5. Could it mean the option to talk with character about more things than just his main agenda, goals or other things related to their role in the story (Like talking with Ashely in ME about God fo example?)?

If so, Deus Ex has that too to some degree. Player can talk with Paul Denton about their childhood, about Paul's past which is sort of related to his agenda but not completely, about violence in general or for example with Jock about aliens and such.

As for Tali, just to be clear, I am not criticizing her, I am just trying to find some system in your line of thinking.

Question 6. Speaking of which, why was she one dimensional in ME1 and not in other Mass Effects?

In terms of goals, she had at least two even in ME1 - Pilgrimage and helping Shepard stop Saren (maybe even more, I haven't played ME1 for ages), in terms of topics, there were many just about Quarians / Geth, but she was willing to talk also about Normandy, Saren, Citadel,... (ouch long time is taking its toll on my memories). As for her feelings well she has always been one of more complaining characters (she couldn't sleep on Normandy or something, she was affraid of Saren, hated Geth, admired Shepard providing that player was nice to her,...) so... many of the things that you mentioned as signs of multidimensionality (is this that "human element" you were talking about or maybe that other thing?) were already there in ME1.

The only thing I can think of is that one dimensional viewpoint thingy - i.e. she was against Geth throughtout the whole game IRC. But she changed her attitude towards other things such as Shepard, relationship with alliance / crew of the Normandy so she was not completely static. Or was that not enough for you?

And as far as your last point is concerned, i.e. speculating about why she would act at the end of Rannoch act the way she would if Shepard supported Geth instead, well that exceeds the scope of info on which you should base you measure of depth of characters. Not only that you would be doing something that the writers are supposed to do but also it is a two way street and somebody could speculate and add additional content to characters in other games (Deus Ex) as well.

Wha?

Which RPG are we actually talking about?

[QUOTE="dracolich55"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] No, the original's boss ifghts were atrocious, especially when they blast you dead one second after the conversation. In fact, I preemptively attacked Gunther. No, Javik has key story moments and a huge moment for both him and Liara. Nevermind he can play a big role in Thessia. Nevermind his views on synthetics also ironically parallel the Catalyst. No, MP is fun, plain and simple, especially when you have a good team on gold.texasgoldrush

Thats your fault for being a fraghead, you don't have to kill everything and everyone like Rambo, you know.

Javik was a footnote at best, just because he has a line or two here or there, that doesn't make him special.

ME3 MP is just a Gears clone, and at That Gears is even better, lol.

So? You could still run away from Gunther after being flamed. And you can actually pass Simons the 2nd time without him even seeing you, lol. Better than ME in which you are required to kill all enemies.

You could say that about any charactar ever created to make him/her sound good.....X'sstory paralells Ys and provides strong backstory in the fight against Z. Also helps develops A'.s charactar. And you admit the DLC thing? LOL

And what? Gears is still better online.

I completely agree.

Let me just post two FACTS

1: Fallout New Vegas is infinitely superior to Skyrim.

2: ME3's ending completely ruined the franchise along with what little there was left of Bioware's reputation (Deal with it texas).

Never, ever would have guessed it but I didn't even come close to finishing the game yet but I just can't get myself to get back to it because it feels all too much like I've been there and done it already. :?

In other words, Oblivion was so awesome in 2006 but not so much in 2012 but perhaps if / when I do complete it, I'll change my mind. :P

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]

How are the characters in ME3 even over dramatic? Even Tali's suicide isn't overdramatic.

And Biohaters want robotic characters with no emotion...see I can play that game too.ChubbyGuy40

The very beginning of the game is mind-numbing whining. Terrible voice acting pacing doesn't help either.

Robotic characters with no emotions would be an improvement over ME3.

True that.

Ashley constantly b*tching about Cerberus made me want to put a bullet in her brain.

Luckily the game actually gave me that option at one point, which I took without hesitation.

not seen one bug other than a mamoth in the sky and iv been on 30 hours so far ... not to sure what your butt hurt over op

I have yet to play a game that offers as much content. Not only that, but as much interesting content! I have played games like Dragon Age and Kingdoms of Amalur and they just aren't interesting. There is nothing better than exploring a random dungeon in Skyrim only to discover that some guy is performing a ritual, and this isn't even a quest. It is these kinds of awesome plots and quests that other developers just don't bother putting the time into. Sure there are games that offer alot more content than Skyrim, but the developers don't make it interesting.

Of course it is. While Tolkein is regarded as a literary legend, some find his books boring. And as with the music examples, it's entirely subjective.

AdobeArtist

:lol:

Priceless.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]

How are the characters in ME3 even over dramatic? Even Tali's suicide isn't overdramatic.

And Biohaters want robotic characters with no emotion...see I can play that game too.Sagem28

The very beginning of the game is mind-numbing whining. Terrible voice acting pacing doesn't help either.

Robotic characters with no emotions would be an improvement over ME3.

True that.

Ashley constantly b*tching about Cerberus made me want to put a bullet in her brain.

Luckily the game actually gave me that option at one point, which I took without hesitation.

Let me just post two FACTS

1: Fallout New Vegas is infinitely superior to Skyrim.

2: ME3's ending completely ruined the franchise along with what little there was left of Bioware's reputation (Deal with it texas).

Sagem28

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="dracolich55"]

Thats your fault for being a fraghead, you don't have to kill everything and everyone like Rambo, you know.

Javik was a footnote at best, just because he has a line or two here or there, that doesn't make him special.

ME3 MP is just a Gears clone, and at That Gears is even better, lol.

dracolich55

So? You could still run away from Gunther after being flamed. And you can actually pass Simons the 2nd time without him even seeing you, lol. Better than ME in which you are required to kill all enemies.

You could say that about any charactar ever created to make him/her sound good.....X'sstory paralells Ys and provides strong backstory in the fight against Z. Also helps develops A'.s charactar. And you admit the DLC thing? LOL

And what? Gears is still better online.

not seen one bug other than a mamoth in the sky and iv been on 30 hours so far ... not to sure what your butt hurt over op

rawrB

No, that title is reserved for Final Fantasy X.

I still think Morrowind is better, but Skyrim was still good.

Other than some of the visuals/design, the game is lazily made

I love Skyrim but whoever calls it the greatest RPG ever is a fool. I actually like the Witcher 2 more and I didn't think i would like that game.

Never buying Elder Scrolls game again

Conceptually the idea of roaming around exploring sounds good

But in practice it's boring as f*ck

Played Skyrim for about 15 hours

First 3 hours were amazing

Literally made me tear up, the world was so beautiful

I messaged all my friends on XBL saying "get this! It rocks!"

Then it started getting slower, and longer travel, travel from X to Y, kill 3 dragons, 20 bandits, 5 spiders, it would have been better to just have a comfortable ride and enjoy the views but schit keep attacking me.

Then magic started getting stupid.

Bolt spells, keep missing

And dual-casting is annoying.

The game just annoys the schit out of me.

Exploring so much is boring.

Finished Obliv, barely, boring

15 hour skyrim, boring.

Never getting another elder scrolls. It's not for me.

3 most overrated from least to most: Skyrim, Witcher 2, Oblivion. With The Witcher 2 and its scripted cameras, QTEs and button mashing, AAA RPGs have officially become just another genre to play on the couch while bro-fisting your college roommate... I died a little inside.

This is some serious necro right here.

zombie thread >.> but while its up I just have one thing to say. GUESS WHAT GAME GOT A GOTY. SKYRIM. GUESS WHICH GAME DIDN"T ME3. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I must commend whoever bumped this. TGR tears are always good, regardless of how old they are.

lol I remember this thread.

The Elder Scrolls series in general is overrated, just like almost any other AAA series.

Hey look a texasgoldrush thread

No it's not

It's a lackluster game, to say the least.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Sorry but those games won't win GOTY, the Blizzard offerings are more of the same and Max Payne 3 can flop. DarkLink77

lol.

It's funny, but I still hate Diablo III.

Zombie thread! Skyrim=Best game this gen. mems_1224

You shut your mouth!

No the most overrated RPG ever is FFVII

Played through the game twice. Over 200 hours logged, and I never noticed any game breaking bugs...hmm.

No the most overrated RPG ever is FFVII

Masenkoe

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]Zombie thread! Skyrim=Best game this gen. NeonNinja

You shut your mouth!

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]Zombie thread! Skyrim=Best game this gen. mems_1224

You shut your mouth!

That isn't an achievement.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Diablo III isn't more of the same actually (which is why some of the fanbase is pissed off), and either way, Blizzard owns the genres they make games in. BioWare doesn't. And Rockstar games pretty much never flop here, so... nope. A game with what is widely considered to be one of the worst endings in the history of the medium isn't going to win GOTY. Sorry.NeonNinja

lol.

It's funny, but I still hate Diablo III.