The Witcher is the best role-playing experiance this gen.

[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]

I too see what is good and bad in them -- just like I pointed the good and bad in Fallout 3, I just ignore things like graphics. I took fallout 3 as an example of how it was not better than the old ones, I can do the same with the KoToR.

[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"] There is a fair bit to Fallout 3, for a start there is a large and varied world to explore. There are enjoyable side quests. There are a great selection of weapons, and combat can be enteraing (Incidently combat in Fallout is plain outdated. It's not fun anymore, and I doubt it was fun to begin with. Fallout 3 trumps the originals there.) if you chose to make it so. The humour falls flat alot of the time, but the atmosphere is far more impresive than in the original. And if you knew you were not going to like Fallout 3 why did you buy it? The key to enjoying Fallout 3 is to look at it as an action adventure title rather than an RPG, because that is essentially what it is. You could complain about it not being a true sequel, but that is a ridiculous argument because it's 9 years to late for anyone to make it one. It's just a fun game on it's own rights. The story is nothing special, infact it's bad, but story isn't a strong point for the Fallout series (No, it really isn't.) annyway.naval

Exploration is not really and end but an means to end. You would explore so that you can see cool locations -- fallout 3 had bland lcoations most of the time, enjoy the gameplay -- fallout 3 has simplistic gameplay etc. In other , exploration is enjoyable only if there are things worth enjoying -- which fallout 3 didn't really had any. There are few intersting quests but most of them where simple ones like go there and kill this etc. So, yeah I don't see Fallout 3 better than I never said I regret buying buying fallout 3 -- I did enjoyed some of the side quests and blowing things up ( I would put it my 8th best rpg this gen)

Also even if you didn't intend to offend anyone with that comment, it was actually offensive because of the meaning behind what is being said as "seeing beyond". To say that you see beyond something that someone else has not is to suggest they are shallow. That's essentially what that phrase means.Ek-Andy

Nope, it means what you take from it. It's like I say, "this game is lame" and someone gets annoyed "you insulted me, do you mean to say I like bad games ?" Here I just said it's bad and just pointed out the reasons that it only had "shiny graphics and lots of shoting.

That's not pointing out the good, that's just stating that the only decent thing in the game is graphics. That's not a postitive thing to say at all. I'm not even sure why you are trying to suggest otherwise. All you have done is talk about how bad the game is. Even when you talked about anything good in it, you simply used that to point out how bad it was by stating that was the only good thing about it. That should be simple enough to understand. Your post was entirely negative.

Secondly the game world is far more intresting than the one in Fallout. Fallout has one of the most bland game worlds by todays standards. Fallout 3s map became a bit of a blur eventually, but monuments like the White House and Capitol Building were intresting to locate and explore. I enjoyed exploring the world of Fallout 3 alot. Most of the sidequests were quite original and entertaining aswell. Some were awful, like the Nuka Cola one, but they were mostly great.

Thirdly, you don't quite get this. If you say "I see things beyond what you see" that's intended to be offensive. It's the same as saying "I am superior" just not as blatant. It means what it means, that's pretty much indisputable.

That's not pointing out the good, that's just stating that the only decent thing in the game is graphics. That's not a postitive thing to say at all. I'm not even sure why you are trying to suggest otherwise. All you have done is talk about how bad the game is. Even when you talked about anything good in it, you simply used that to point out how bad it was by stating that was the only good thing about it. That should be simple enough to understand. Your post was entirely negative.Ek-Andy

Secondly the game world is far more intresting than the one in Fallout. Fallout has one of the most bland game worlds by todays standards. Fallout 3s map became a bit of a blur eventually, but monuments like the White House and Capitol Building were intresting to locate and explore. I enjoyed exploring the world of Fallout 3 alot. Most of the sidequests were quite original and entertaining aswell. Some were awful, like the Nuka Cola one, but they were mostly great.Ek-Andy

Thirdly, you don't quite get this. If you say "I see things beyond what you see" that's intended to be offensive. It's the same as saying "I am superior" just not as blatant. It means what it means, that's pretty much indisputable.Ek-Andy

Pulling out the nostalgia card is so pointless...

If I think Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VI are better than Infinite Undiscovery and The Last Remnant than it must be nostalgia!

I still have yet to play The Witcher but I'll be downloading it from steam as soon as I get my new computer. I think Fallout 3 is pretty bad to be honest. I encountered numerous bugs, the characters were all dull withmonotonevoices (except Three Dog, he was kind of cool), and what I played of the main story was pretty stupid. I will say the atmosphere of Fallout 3 was very well done. I think Bethesda is good at that. They can create the right atmosphere for a game. Mass Effect still sits as my favorite RPG this gen. The gameplay is fantastic (love biotics), the characters are all very interestingparticularlyWrex, and the story is...stellar. Nothing competes but I hope The Witcher changes my mind.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]

The Witcher is a great game, but just like most good PC exclusives it's overated to the moon and back. It's certainly up there with the best, but as usual you have PC gamers out right stating that it is the only real role playing game this gen, which is complete nonsense. Which reminds me of another incredibly overated RPG, Fallout, which is no where NEAR as good as people make it out to be. Yeah it's great, but no, it's not the pinacle of roleplaying games, it has some amazing flaws that people seem to conviently forget when they accuse other RPGs of exactly the same thing at the same time. It hasn't aged all that well, and I don't see any reason why I should be blown away by the atmosphere either, for a start everything looks the same and not to mention that enviroments have little detail, which in turn dosn't leave much room for an impressive atmosphere. It's dated at best . Back to the Witcher. It's more or less the same case with The Witcher. The roleplaying options are pretty good, and they took a unique approach to that, but the game it's self is pretty much linear regardless of the choices you make, save for mabye a few atlernate quests based on a few choices, and mild changes to the gameplay, something which is greatly exagerated. There arn't really many choices with real consequences anyway, mabye about 12. The game is also a technical mess in places. I've enjoyed Knights of the Old Republic 1/2 (On consoles, by the way.) more than probably all RPGs I've ever played.

I can't stand the hypocritical cynical critism PC gamers hand out though, it drives me nuts. "If it's not from before 2002, it sucks." I've gone off on a tangent though. It's just when people talk about particular games as if they are the only good ones in their genre of that generation it immediatly makes me think of PC gamers and rants about Fallout. I'll just go back to enjoying my rubish console games now.

Ek-Andy

The Witcher does indeed have linear progression in story.... however the way the story pans out, and changes is non linear, even if its fundementally in a linear structure. The reality of most games that are story driven, is the design will always be fundementally linear. Take it away and you will have a more sandbox role playing enviroment like Mount and Blade which lacks the focus on story driven core. On the topic of consequences and decsions, compared to most role playing games, The Witcher tackles it much better than all the current crop of RPGs

. Titles like Mass Effect and Fallout 3 dont really hold a candle in this respect, however they do things differently. Anyway PC gamers are always going to be fond of these older titles, as they are benchmark role playing games of their platform, and are still playable to date, and still provide ample amounts of entertainment. Console gamers do the same about their favourite past *insert system title*, the difference is the longevity of a PC game outweighs a console one, due to the ability to playback any old title. However games like Chrono Trigger have gotten remakes, which is great to see, and services like XBL Classics are pushing older titles to the consumer - just as services like GoodOldGames on the PC make older titles available to the consumer. However take this into account. You dont hear PC gamers complaining about multiplat titles Morrowind or KOTOR, and titles like Oblivion, while they get hammered by certain PC gamers, it still has a huge community, and fanbase (the mods and sales alone speak volumes) as does titles like Fallout. It really is alot less black and white as you put it in that regard.

It's just that I'm sick of hearing about how good Fallout is, and how bad modern RPGs are more than anything. I've played better games, much better games. The Witcher is one of them. Fallout is fairly dynamic with the way it deals with Roleplaying, but at the same time the gameplay is bland. Too bland to be as good as people say it is. It's qualities are often exagerated. The plot is nothing special for a start, the dialouge is mildly amusing at best, unless you play with low intelligence, but that's one extreme. People often go on about how much freedom you get with your character creation and how important that really is in changing the gameplay. In truth if you get the Advanced Power Armour early on you can play the game anyway you want, which is completely contrary to what people tell you. The only thing which completely changes the gameplay is low intelligence, and even then all that does is create amusing dialouge and leads to less freedom. It's still entertaining and worth playing, but it's just not what I would expect from a game hailed as one of the best of its kind.

The Witcher has a dynamic story, and it's pretty good, but there are essentially only 3 routes with a couple of other options that have a milder affect on the plot which don't actually change gameplay all that much, not as much as people make out anyway. It handles roleplaying fairly well, but at the same time it's choice system isn't really any better than with Mass Effect, which we now know will affect ME2. Some things which seemed a bit inconsequential (*Spoiler* Such as the bug (Can't remember what it's called, starts with an A.) queen being eliminated or left alive *spoiler end* Can't remember the tag.)will have a greater affect later on, and even ignoring that alot of your choices already had a large impact in Mass Effect anyway. In terms of Plot it's not really as good as Mass Effect either, and it's not as well written either. It's voice acting is also inferior. The plot is not bad, but it's dervitive in many places, something that ME is also accused of (I'm not going into details because I'll spoil it, but it's been done a million times.).

I'm not saying it's Black and White either. I know people have diffrent tastes regardless of platform, but going back to before the release of Fallout 3 the amount of hate that game got was ridiculous. Every single topic filled with the same nonsense, it got to the point where no one could actually discuss the game because the foums were ruled by haters. That annoyed me alot. I also hated Morrowind, alot. That's another game I don't understand the love for. I couldn't stand it, and I'm fairly tolerant with games.

Nevermind though, it dosn't matter. Overall I just don't like the nostalgic and pessemistic attitude that alot of posters take.

Fallout is fairly dynamic with the way it deals with Roleplaying, but at the same time the gameplay is bland. Too bland to be as good as people say it is.

The gameplay in Fallout itself was the role-playing. Fallout beats the living crap out of most RPG's these days if we are talking about role-playing elements.

The plot is nothing special for a start,

Fallout did not have the best plot but it really did well for the setting.

In truth if you get the Advanced Power Armour early on you can play the game anyway you want, which is completely contrary to what people tell you.

The only way you could get the advanced power armor early was if you actually searched for those kinds of hints early on. If you played normally like me then you would know nothing about that.

The only thing which completely changes the gameplay is low intelligence, and even then all that does is create amusing dialouge and leads to less freedom. It's still entertaining and worth playing, but it's just not what I would expect from a game hailed as one of the best of its kind.

Fallout is the best of its kind. Its a role-playing game and it takes that in the best way it can. Their are tons of ways you could go threw this game. You diden't even have to kill or shoot anything if you wanted to be a diplomatic person.

In terms of Plot it's not really as good as Mass Effect either, and it's not as well written either.

We must have played 2 different games because the plot in Mass Effect lacked alot of depth. If anything the plot in Mass Effect was pretty basic. The plot in the Witcher was written alot better and I thought had much more intresting characters.

It's voice acting is also inferior.

Mass Effect is also much higher budget. And the Enhanced edition of The Witcher features better voice acters that deliver much greater impact then Mass Effect. The main character in The Witcher is more likeable then all of your party members in Mass Effect.

Pulling out the nostalgia card is so pointless...

If I think Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VI are better than Infinite Undiscovery and The Last Remnant than it must be nostalgia!

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"][QUOTE="pyromaniac223"]It's tied between Mass Effect and The WItcher for me. Mass Effect has the edge on story, and The Witcher has the edge on quests and gameplay.Stringerboy

The fact that it lacked depth didn't bother me. But i thought the way it was told was amazing.

Yes, it the closest a RPG has come to the brillance of BG2 for me.

The choices are in the grey area, there is no good or evil choice, which makes them very hard to choose and worse to live with if it doesn't pan out how you hoped.

Have to say though i completed Mass Effect more times, just because iam a sucker for some sci-fi synth music! :D

[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]That was a bit too much of a spiteful rant about how much you dislike PC gamers talking about PC RPGs pre 2002..... Fallout was/is an amazingly progressive game, even by todays standards the way you effect the world, and your interaction with it is unlike any other game. Same goes with Fallout 2, which essentially expanded on the idea. There is no such thing as the greatest of X genre, however its undeniable Fallout is a very important title. Personally I only played it a few years ago, and I was admittedly astounded by how good the game was, moreso when factoring in it was released in 97'.

The Witcher does indeed have linear progression in story.... however the way the story pans out, and changes is non linear, even if its fundementally in a linear structure. The reality of most games that are story driven, is the design will always be fundementally linear. Take it away and you will have a more sandbox role playing enviroment like Mount and Blade which lacks the focus on story driven core. On the topic of consequences and decsions, compared to most role playing games, The Witcher tackles it much better than all the current crop of RPGs

. Titles like Mass Effect and Fallout 3 dont really hold a candle in this respect, however they do things differently. Anyway PC gamers are always going to be fond of these older titles, as they are benchmark role playing games of their platform, and are still playable to date, and still provide ample amounts of entertainment. Console gamers do the same about their favourite past *insert system title*, the difference is the longevity of a PC game outweighs a console one, due to the ability to playback any old title. However games like Chrono Trigger have gotten remakes, which is great to see, and services like XBL Classics are pushing older titles to the consumer - just as services like GoodOldGames on the PC make older titles available to the consumer. However take this into account. You dont hear PC gamers complaining about multiplat titles Morrowind or KOTOR, and titles like Oblivion, while they get hammered by certain PC gamers, it still has a huge community, and fanbase (the mods and sales alone speak volumes) as does titles like Fallout. It really is alot less black and white as you put it in that regard.JangoWuzHere

It's just that I'm sick of hearing about how good Fallout is, and how bad modern RPGs are more than anything. I've played better games, much better games. The Witcher is one of them. Fallout is fairly dynamic with the way it deals with Roleplaying, but at the same time the gameplay is bland. Too bland to be as good as people say it is. It's qualities are often exagerated. The plot is nothing special for a start, the dialouge is mildly amusing at best, unless you play with low intelligence, but that's one extreme. People often go on about how much freedom you get with your character creation and how important that really is in changing the gameplay. In truth if you get the Advanced Power Armour early on you can play the game anyway you want, which is completely contrary to what people tell you. The only thing which completely changes the gameplay is low intelligence, and even then all that does is create amusing dialouge and leads to less freedom. It's still entertaining and worth playing, but it's just not what I would expect from a game hailed as one of the best of its kind.

The Witcher has a dynamic story, and it's pretty good, but there are essentially only 3 routes with a couple of other options that have a milder affect on the plot which don't actually change gameplay all that much, not as much as people make out anyway. It handles roleplaying fairly well, but at the same time it's choice system isn't really any better than with Mass Effect, which we now know will affect ME2. Some things which seemed a bit inconsequential (*Spoiler* Such as the bug (Can't remember what it's called, starts with an A.) queen being eliminated or left alive *spoiler end* Can't remember the tag.)will have a greater affect later on, and even ignoring that alot of your choices already had a large impact in Mass Effect anyway. In terms of Plot it's not really as good as Mass Effect either, and it's not as well written either. It's voice acting is also inferior. The plot is not bad, but it's dervitive in many places, something that ME is also accused of (I'm not going into details because I'll spoil it, but it's been done a million times.).

I'm not saying it's Black and White either. I know people have diffrent tastes regardless of platform, but going back to before the release of Fallout 3 the amount of hate that game got was ridiculous. Every single topic filled with the same nonsense, it got to the point where no one could actually discuss the game because the foums were ruled by haters. That annoyed me alot. I also hated Morrowind, alot. That's another game I don't understand the love for. I couldn't stand it, and I'm fairly tolerant with games.

Nevermind though, it dosn't matter. Overall I just don't like the nostalgic and pessemistic attitude that alot of posters take.

Fallout is fairly dynamic with the way it deals with Roleplaying, but at the same time the gameplay is bland. Too bland to be as good as people say it is.

The gameplay in Fallout itself was the role-playing. Fallout beats the living crap out of most RPG's these days if we are talking about role-playing elements.

The plot is nothing special for a start,

Fallout did not have the best plot but it really did well for the setting.

In truth if you get the Advanced Power Armour early on you can play the game anyway you want, which is completely contrary to what people tell you.

The only way you could get the advanced power armor early was if you actually searched for those kinds of hints early on. If you played normally like me then you would know nothing about that.

The only thing which completely changes the gameplay is low intelligence, and even then all that does is create amusing dialouge and leads to less freedom. It's still entertaining and worth playing, but it's just not what I would expect from a game hailed as one of the best of its kind.

Fallout is the best of its kind. Its a role-playing game and it takes that in the best way it can. Their are tons of ways you could go threw this game. You diden't even have to kill or shoot anything if you wanted to be a diplomatic person.

In terms of Plot it's not really as good as Mass Effect either, and it's not as well written either.

We must have played 2 different games because the plot in Mass Effect lacked alot of depth. If anything the plot in Mass Effect was pretty basic. The plot in the Witcher was written alot better and I thought had much more intresting characters.

It's voice acting is also inferior.

Mass Effect is also much higher budget. And the Enhanced edition of The Witcher features better voice acters that deliver much greater impact then Mass Effect. The main character in The Witcher is more likeable then all of your party members in Mass Effect.

I knew about Navarro (F2) before hand, but it's still there. You can essentially cheat your way through the game, though I suppose you could just avoid doing so. That is another good thing about Fallout though, you can progress through the game in what ever order you want within reason. Still, even without the game still pretty much gives you freedom to do what you want as long as you don't attack whoever you want. As I say the only restricting stats are with combat stats and intelligence. It's not as challenging and stats arn't as important as people make them out to be. The diffrences in characters are subtle, with the exception of intelligence.

I can't really be bothered debating much, but I found the Witchers plot to be pretty bad in places, like at the end of chapter 3. The story was good, but it was nothing special, I've seen it all before. The darker themes covered, such as racism, were good though. Some of the voice acting in The Witcher: EE was plain bad (Azar Javed comes to mind.) aswell, where as with Mass Effect every actor in it was near perfect. The plot to Mass Effect felt as if it was better put together, and I found it much more engaging. Though I agree with your last statement, Geralt was just badass. Still, I prefer to have a group of people rather than just the one regardless of how awesome he is. I liked all the characters from ME, except for mabye Ashley though that didn't matter an awful lot.

I'm not sure why you think MEs plot lacks depth though. That dosn't make much sense considering the universe. Neither The Witcher or ME lack depth.

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]

It's just that I'm sick of hearing about how good Fallout is, and how bad modern RPGs are more than anything. I've played better games, much better games. The Witcher is one of them. Fallout is fairly dynamic with the way it deals with Roleplaying, but at the same time the gameplay is bland. Too bland to be as good as people say it is. It's qualities are often exagerated. The plot is nothing special for a start, the dialouge is mildly amusing at best, unless you play with low intelligence, but that's one extreme. People often go on about how much freedom you get with your character creation and how important that really is in changing the gameplay. In truth if you get the Advanced Power Armour early on you can play the game anyway you want, which is completely contrary to what people tell you. The only thing which completely changes the gameplay is low intelligence, and even then all that does is create amusing dialouge and leads to less freedom. It's still entertaining and worth playing, but it's just not what I would expect from a game hailed as one of the best of its kind.

The Witcher has a dynamic story, and it's pretty good, but there are essentially only 3 routes with a couple of other options that have a milder affect on the plot which don't actually change gameplay all that much, not as much as people make out anyway. It handles roleplaying fairly well, but at the same time it's choice system isn't really any better than with Mass Effect, which we now know will affect ME2. Some things which seemed a bit inconsequential (*Spoiler* Such as the bug (Can't remember what it's called, starts with an A.) queen being eliminated or left alive *spoiler end* Can't remember the tag.)will have a greater affect later on, and even ignoring that alot of your choices already had a large impact in Mass Effect anyway. In terms of Plot it's not really as good as Mass Effect either, and it's not as well written either. It's voice acting is also inferior. The plot is not bad, but it's dervitive in many places, something that ME is also accused of (I'm not going into details because I'll spoil it, but it's been done a million times.).

I'm not saying it's Black and White either. I know people have diffrent tastes regardless of platform, but going back to before the release of Fallout 3 the amount of hate that game got was ridiculous. Every single topic filled with the same nonsense, it got to the point where no one could actually discuss the game because the foums were ruled by haters. That annoyed me alot. I also hated Morrowind, alot. That's another game I don't understand the love for. I couldn't stand it, and I'm fairly tolerant with games.

Nevermind though, it dosn't matter. Overall I just don't like the nostalgic and pessemistic attitude that alot of posters take.

Ek-Andy

Fallout is fairly dynamic with the way it deals with Roleplaying, but at the same time the gameplay is bland. Too bland to be as good as people say it is.

The gameplay in Fallout itself was the role-playing. Fallout beats the living crap out of most RPG's these days if we are talking about role-playing elements.

The plot is nothing special for a start,

Fallout did not have the best plot but it really did well for the setting.

In truth if you get the Advanced Power Armour early on you can play the game anyway you want, which is completely contrary to what people tell you.

The only way you could get the advanced power armor early was if you actually searched for those kinds of hints early on. If you played normally like me then you would know nothing about that.

The only thing which completely changes the gameplay is low intelligence, and even then all that does is create amusing dialouge and leads to less freedom. It's still entertaining and worth playing, but it's just not what I would expect from a game hailed as one of the best of its kind.

Fallout is the best of its kind. Its a role-playing game and it takes that in the best way it can. Their are tons of ways you could go threw this game. You diden't even have to kill or shoot anything if you wanted to be a diplomatic person.

In terms of Plot it's not really as good as Mass Effect either, and it's not as well written either.

We must have played 2 different games because the plot in Mass Effect lacked alot of depth. If anything the plot in Mass Effect was pretty basic. The plot in the Witcher was written alot better and I thought had much more intresting characters.

It's voice acting is also inferior.

Mass Effect is also much higher budget. And the Enhanced edition of The Witcher features better voice acters that deliver much greater impact then Mass Effect. The main character in The Witcher is more likeable then all of your party members in Mass Effect.

I knew about Navarro (F2) before hand, but it's still there. You can essentially cheat your way through the game, though I suppose you could just avoid doing so. That is another good thing about Fallout though, you can progress through the game in what ever order you want within reason. Still, even without the game still pretty much gives you freedom to do what you want as long as you don't attack whoever you want. As I say the only restricting stats are with combat stats and intelligence. It's not as challenging and stats arn't as important as people make them out to be. The diffrences in characters are subtle, with the exception of intelligence.

I can't really be bothered debating much, but I found the Witchers plot to be pretty bad in places, like at the end of chapter 3. The story was good, but it was nothing special, I've seen it all before. The darker themes covered, such as racism, were good though. Some of the voice acting in The Witcher: EE was plain bad (Azar Javed comes to mind.) aswell, where as with Mass Effect every actor in it was near perfect. The plot to Mass Effect felt as if it was better put together, and I found it much more engaging. Though I agree with your last statement, Geralt was just badass. Still, I prefer to have a group of people rather than just the one regardless of how awesome he is. I liked all the characters from ME, except for mabye Ashley though that didn't matter an awful lot.

I'm not sure why you think MEs plot lacks depth though. That dosn't make much sense considering the universe. Neither The Witcher or ME lack depth.

but I found the Witchers plot to be pretty bad in places, like at the end of chapter 3.

Not really. I thought Witcher had an amazing plot thtoughout the game. Chapter 3 was the weakest chapter in the game thoe.

Some of the voice acting in The Witcher: EE was plain bad (Azar Javed comes to mind.)

I thought the voice acting captured the characters very well in The Witcher. And no game has perfect voice acting. I personally did not like Shepards voice much at all in ME.

I'm not sure why you think MEs plot lacks depth though. That dosn't make much sense considering the universe. Neither The Witcher or ME lack depth.

What really made me dissapointed in ME was the universe itself. The game fails to take atvantage of this large universe. The planets are dull and boring and the side quests were horrible. I felt like they could have done more with the plot in ME. The plot just seemed a bit to basic and I really think it could have had more intresting characters.

[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

Fallout is fairly dynamic with the way it deals with Roleplaying, but at the same time the gameplay is bland. Too bland to be as good as people say it is.

The gameplay in Fallout itself was the role-playing. Fallout beats the living crap out of most RPG's these days if we are talking about role-playing elements.

The plot is nothing special for a start,

Fallout did not have the best plot but it really did well for the setting.

In truth if you get the Advanced Power Armour early on you can play the game anyway you want, which is completely contrary to what people tell you.

The only way you could get the advanced power armor early was if you actually searched for those kinds of hints early on. If you played normally like me then you would know nothing about that.

The only thing which completely changes the gameplay is low intelligence, and even then all that does is create amusing dialouge and leads to less freedom. It's still entertaining and worth playing, but it's just not what I would expect from a game hailed as one of the best of its kind.

Fallout is the best of its kind. Its a role-playing game and it takes that in the best way it can. Their are tons of ways you could go threw this game. You diden't even have to kill or shoot anything if you wanted to be a diplomatic person.

In terms of Plot it's not really as good as Mass Effect either, and it's not as well written either.

We must have played 2 different games because the plot in Mass Effect lacked alot of depth. If anything the plot in Mass Effect was pretty basic. The plot in the Witcher was written alot better and I thought had much more intresting characters.

It's voice acting is also inferior.

Mass Effect is also much higher budget. And the Enhanced edition of The Witcher features better voice acters that deliver much greater impact then Mass Effect. The main character in The Witcher is more likeable then all of your party members in Mass Effect.

JangoWuzHere

I knew about Navarro (F2) before hand, but it's still there. You can essentially cheat your way through the game, though I suppose you could just avoid doing so. That is another good thing about Fallout though, you can progress through the game in what ever order you want within reason. Still, even without the game still pretty much gives you freedom to do what you want as long as you don't attack whoever you want. As I say the only restricting stats are with combat stats and intelligence. It's not as challenging and stats arn't as important as people make them out to be. The diffrences in characters are subtle, with the exception of intelligence.

I can't really be bothered debating much, but I found the Witchers plot to be pretty bad in places, like at the end of chapter 3. The story was good, but it was nothing special, I've seen it all before. The darker themes covered, such as racism, were good though. Some of the voice acting in The Witcher: EE was plain bad (Azar Javed comes to mind.) aswell, where as with Mass Effect every actor in it was near perfect. The plot to Mass Effect felt as if it was better put together, and I found it much more engaging. Though I agree with your last statement, Geralt was just badass. Still, I prefer to have a group of people rather than just the one regardless of how awesome he is. I liked all the characters from ME, except for mabye Ashley though that didn't matter an awful lot.

I'm not sure why you think MEs plot lacks depth though. That dosn't make much sense considering the universe. Neither The Witcher or ME lack depth.

but I found the Witchers plot to be pretty bad in places, like at the end of chapter 3.

Not really. I thought Witcher had an amazing plot thtoughout the game. Chapter 3 was the weakest chapter in the game thoe.

Some of the voice acting in The Witcher: EE was plain bad (Azar Javed comes to mind.)

I thought the voice acting captured the characters very well in The Witcher. And no game has perfect voice acting. I personally did not like Shepards voice much at all in ME.

I'm not sure why you think MEs plot lacks depth though. That dosn't make much sense considering the universe. Neither The Witcher or ME lack depth.

What really made me dissapointed in ME was the universe itself. The game fails to take atvantage of this large universe. The planets are dull and boring and the side quests were horrible. I felt like they could have done more with the plot in ME. The plot just seemed a bit to basic and I really think it could have had more intresting characters.

Well I disagree, except on the side quest. They need that fixed for the sequel. I really enjoyed the plot for Mass Effect. The Witcher just never really got me with the plot, better than most, but messy in places. Though to be honest I prefer the Sci-fi setting of ME. MEs problems were with it's gameplay though, The Witcher was definately more fun. It balances out for me.

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]

I knew about Navarro (F2) before hand, but it's still there. You can essentially cheat your way through the game, though I suppose you could just avoid doing so. That is another good thing about Fallout though, you can progress through the game in what ever order you want within reason. Still, even without the game still pretty much gives you freedom to do what you want as long as you don't attack whoever you want. As I say the only restricting stats are with combat stats and intelligence. It's not as challenging and stats arn't as important as people make them out to be. The diffrences in characters are subtle, with the exception of intelligence.

I can't really be bothered debating much, but I found the Witchers plot to be pretty bad in places, like at the end of chapter 3. The story was good, but it was nothing special, I've seen it all before. The darker themes covered, such as racism, were good though. Some of the voice acting in The Witcher: EE was plain bad (Azar Javed comes to mind.) aswell, where as with Mass Effect every actor in it was near perfect. The plot to Mass Effect felt as if it was better put together, and I found it much more engaging. Though I agree with your last statement, Geralt was just badass. Still, I prefer to have a group of people rather than just the one regardless of how awesome he is. I liked all the characters from ME, except for mabye Ashley though that didn't matter an awful lot.

I'm not sure why you think MEs plot lacks depth though. That dosn't make much sense considering the universe. Neither The Witcher or ME lack depth.

Ek-Andy

but I found the Witchers plot to be pretty bad in places, like at the end of chapter 3.

Not really. I thought Witcher had an amazing plot thtoughout the game. Chapter 3 was the weakest chapter in the game thoe.

Some of the voice acting in The Witcher: EE was plain bad (Azar Javed comes to mind.)

I thought the voice acting captured the characters very well in The Witcher. And no game has perfect voice acting. I personally did not like Shepards voice much at all in ME.

I'm not sure why you think MEs plot lacks depth though. That dosn't make much sense considering the universe. Neither The Witcher or ME lack depth.

What really made me dissapointed in ME was the universe itself. The game fails to take atvantage of this large universe. The planets are dull and boring and the side quests were horrible. I felt like they could have done more with the plot in ME. The plot just seemed a bit to basic and I really think it could have had more intresting characters.

Well I disagree, except on the side quest. They need that fixed for the sequel. I really enjoyed the plot for Mass Effect. The Witcher just never really got me with the plot, better than most, but messy in places. Though to be honest I prefer the Sci-fi setting of ME. MEs problems were with it's gameplay though, The Witcher was definately more fun. It balances out for me.

[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

Fallout is fairly dynamic with the way it deals with Roleplaying, but at the same time the gameplay is bland. Too bland to be as good as people say it is.

The gameplay in Fallout itself was the role-playing. Fallout beats the living crap out of most RPG's these days if we are talking about role-playing elements.

The plot is nothing special for a start,

Fallout did not have the best plot but it really did well for the setting.

In truth if you get the Advanced Power Armour early on you can play the game anyway you want, which is completely contrary to what people tell you.

The only way you could get the advanced power armor early was if you actually searched for those kinds of hints early on. If you played normally like me then you would know nothing about that.

The only thing which completely changes the gameplay is low intelligence, and even then all that does is create amusing dialouge and leads to less freedom. It's still entertaining and worth playing, but it's just not what I would expect from a game hailed as one of the best of its kind.

Fallout is the best of its kind. Its a role-playing game and it takes that in the best way it can. Their are tons of ways you could go threw this game. You diden't even have to kill or shoot anything if you wanted to be a diplomatic person.

In terms of Plot it's not really as good as Mass Effect either, and it's not as well written either.

We must have played 2 different games because the plot in Mass Effect lacked alot of depth. If anything the plot in Mass Effect was pretty basic. The plot in the Witcher was written alot better and I thought had much more intresting characters.

It's voice acting is also inferior.

Mass Effect is also much higher budget. And the Enhanced edition of The Witcher features better voice acters that deliver much greater impact then Mass Effect. The main character in The Witcher is more likeable then all of your party members in Mass Effect.

JangoWuzHere

I knew about Navarro (F2) before hand, but it's still there. You can essentially cheat your way through the game, though I suppose you could just avoid doing so. That is another good thing about Fallout though, you can progress through the game in what ever order you want within reason. Still, even without the game still pretty much gives you freedom to do what you want as long as you don't attack whoever you want. As I say the only restricting stats are with combat stats and intelligence. It's not as challenging and stats arn't as important as people make them out to be. The diffrences in characters are subtle, with the exception of intelligence.

I can't really be bothered debating much, but I found the Witchers plot to be pretty bad in places, like at the end of chapter 3. The story was good, but it was nothing special, I've seen it all before. The darker themes covered, such as racism, were good though. Some of the voice acting in The Witcher: EE was plain bad (Azar Javed comes to mind.) aswell, where as with Mass Effect every actor in it was near perfect. The plot to Mass Effect felt as if it was better put together, and I found it much more engaging. Though I agree with your last statement, Geralt was just badass. Still, I prefer to have a group of people rather than just the one regardless of how awesome he is. I liked all the characters from ME, except for mabye Ashley though that didn't matter an awful lot.

I'm not sure why you think MEs plot lacks depth though. That dosn't make much sense considering the universe. Neither The Witcher or ME lack depth.

but I found the Witchers plot to be pretty bad in places, like at the end of chapter 3.

Not really. I thought Witcher had an amazing plot thtoughout the game. Chapter 3 was the weakest chapter in the game thoe.

Some of the voice acting in The Witcher: EE was plain bad (Azar Javed comes to mind.)

I thought the voice acting captured the characters very well in The Witcher. And no game has perfect voice acting. I personally did not like Shepards voice much at all in ME.

I'm not sure why you think MEs plot lacks depth though. That dosn't make much sense considering the universe. Neither The Witcher or ME lack depth.

What really made me dissapointed in ME was the universe itself. The game fails to take atvantage of this large universe. The planets are dull and boring and the side quests were horrible. I felt like they could have done more with the plot in ME. The plot just seemed a bit to basic and I really think it could have had more intresting characters.

I'd Agree with that... Mass Effect outside of the main story, took little advantage whatsoever with the amount of planets etc. in the universe. Also exploration outside of the main story felt very limited due to the fact every planet that you can land on and is outside of main story felt the exact same but a different skin over the textures. The story in ME, though very well made, felt very black and white with its characters and choices. I loved mass effect but I felt it fell very short of its potential in certain areas

i was gonna get it on ps3 when it released but it seems that it may not be released :(

i was gonna get it on ps3 when it released but it seems that it may not be released :(

AsadMahdi59

I'm sure it is, it's just a shame that i can't get the damn demo to work on my new PC (damn Vista). The game installs to the point where it mentions the C++ Redistributable, but at that point it closes (without any kind of "install complete" message or anything like that) and the game won't start up. I've been looking to fix this so if anyone has any ideas, please PM me cause i'm not trying to go off-topic, lol.