TSW actually seems promising.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

Such as?

GLaDoSxxx

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

YOU LIEK MASS EFFECT? LOL!

YOU LIEK KOTOR? ROFL!

YOU LIEK BIOWAER GAEMS?

you must be michael bbay fanboi.

speciael aeffect? jeawhu i no wat dey r michael bbay use em.

game has cutscene so is michael bay inspired.

...

wildflower is a joke.

-wildflower-

Oh, little peanut, you're going to have to try harder than that. Maybe you should go watch some anime or buy a new cosplay outfit and calm down.

Poor, Mr. Woo...

As opposed to all the great cartoons American/Western television has to offer. Let me guess, you were a fan of Transformers as a child.

YOU LIEK MASS EFFECT? LOL!

YOU LIEK KOTOR? ROFL!

YOU LIEK BIOWAER GAEMS?

you must be michael bbay fanboi.

speciael aeffect? jeawhu i no wat dey r michael bbay use em.

game has cutscene so is michael bay inspired.

...

wildflower is a joke.

Game shoulda flopped harder.

Remember folks: Flower boy only likes to play games from 1995! biggest_loser

[QUOTE="ryangcnx-2"]

So your telling me you didn't like KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, Dragon Age Origins and such? Personally I dunno who are worse, the old Final Fantasy elitists or you old Bioware elitists, one thing though is that BOTH groups can't seem to accept anything released passed the year 2000. Personally I have enjoyed all of Biowares releases, I even liked Dragon Age 2, sure, there were some issues, but I still had fun with the game.

-wildflower-

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'd tell you.

I didn't like KotOR, Jade Empire (other than the atypical setting) was a crap RPG, Mass Effect was barely average, Dragon Age was okay but had serious flaws which I gladly overlooked because it was Bioware trying to make a proper RPG again.

It's funny you bring up Final Fantasy, while those games are garbage, too, they're exactly the kind of games Bioware is making now. I'd be hard pressed to find much of a difference between your typical, stupid, Anime-inspired JRPG and a modern Bioware game - idiotic stories, over-sized swords, spiked hair-dos, and whiny, poorly developed protagonists included.

How many BioWare games have that? I think the trending flaws in BioWare's games have become more apparent with a few of their recent releases, but this is bs.

Also I bet you vote Republican.

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

They already started on the wrong foot by forcing a fixed protagonist on us, YET AGAIN.

Most every other RPG out there is already doing that, and yet the most popular ones (DA:1, Skyrim) and some of the most rememebered ones (Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, The elderscrolls games, DA1) allow you to create your own character.

CDudu

Witcher has a fixed protagonist and it is the best RPG l played.

But l agree with you that DA 3 needs a character creation and definetely more classes.

Never, ever even think about giving Bethesda credit for New Vegas. They had no hand in it other than exploiting Obsidian's effort and talent for their own monetary gain.

Barbariser

Some people just call that being a publisher, y'know.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="skrat_01"] Fallout 2 didn't feel like a coherent game by comparison. There was tons more stuff and complexity indeed, but the premise was flimsy; the tribal stuff was outrageously bad and didn't make sense in the character builds, the enclave things weren't great either, and a lot of things felt like they were there for the hell of it - the gangsters, porn studio etc. Depends what you're looking for in either game, FO2 was fantastic, but it really didn't nail the story and characterisation like the first did. skrat_01

And we're not even getting into the utter lack of impetus in making the tribe important to the player, let alone the character. It's bad. Not as terrible as New Vegas' introduction, which is fairly atrocious, but the game could have dealt with cutting out the tribal nonsense, which layers down a huge amount of written - and implied mechanical preconceptions, in favour for something more suitable (like lets say a Vault in FO1 and 3 - which was great bar the dear old Dad idiocy), or something like Vampire Bloodlines which pushed it all aside for something that actually gets the ball rolling from the get go. Dissonance is the word. Better villains? I disagree, the beauty of FO1 was that villainy was a product of the wasteland and the FEV; the Enclave marked ominous villiany that dragged 'old world' fiction into the limelight and creating an elephant in the room in terms of being part and a product of the wasteland. Compared to something like NV's villians I'd say it's a helluvalot less compelling, though I won't disagree that the Enclave are cool for what they are. Better locations? Arguable, better is a relative term. More varied I'd sure as hell agree, hover their place in the world wasn't nearly as deliberate or consistent as FO1's by a huge margin. New Reno stuck out poorly in this regard compared to something like Vault City. This isn't to say FO2 is generally worse, it isn't. Mechanically its an improvement, and yeah with the restoration mod its even better than what it is. However FO1 has some serious strengths that were never replicated to such an effect in the series, which is why it's such a revered title and why its sequel still hasn't overshadowed it despite the array of improvements. For a story based RPG, that's why I'd say it's the high point of the series. For people who value different aspects, then it's easy to understand why it wouldn't be regarded like this. Now, there we go.

I'm just gonna be frank, yeah the tribal thing could have had some dialogue changes at the beginning. It's ridiculous that you're able to communicate so effortlessly with a drunkard the first time you enter a 'civilized' region, sure. Does that really make that much more sense than being an expert on survival in Fallout 1, or being able to disarm a nuke the moment you leave the vault in 3? Please.