GhostofAnakin

I also forgot I still have Destiny 2, which I haven't played. I'm kind of in the mood to run around aimlessly shooting things, but I'm also kind of in the mood for AC Origins. I know the obvious answer is "play one for an hour, then play the other", but I tend to be one-track minded. When I play something, I only want to play that one game until completion. So I'm going back and forth on which one to start knowing full well it'll be the one I'm going to play for the next however long it takes to finish.

Eh ... I know I asked for suggestions, but I'm not feeling Wolfenstein right now. So it's either slog through FO4 more (even though I don't want to finish the main quest), or go with Assassin's Creed Origins. Or maybe pop in the last Batman game that I never got around to playing.

Can't decide whether to play Wolfenstein 2 or Assassin's Creed Origins. Obsidian, tell me what to do.

That's one of the games on my radar. I'm not sure how much I'll actually enjoy it, though, because apparently the story is weak and the main point is essentially hunting monsters (duh). PS. I hate the quote function on this forum. Maybe it's just me, but I have a devil of a time erasing my own original post when I simply want to quote the person who quoted me.

So, just like every Bethesda game. Aside from Morrowwind, I've yet to finish the main quest of any of their games dispite having put hundreds of hours into them. I'm too much of a completionist not to. No matter how bad a game's main story, if I've started it I have to finish it.

Speaking of abandoning, I think I'm finished with FO4. I finished off the two DLCs that I bought, so all I have left is the main quest. And honestly, the main quest was the weakest part of the entire game so I have no motivation to push through. Now I just have to decide what to play from my backlog. I'm leaning toward Assassin's Creed Origins, but I might do Wolfenstein II.

Gwent was so addictive in Witcher 3. I went from "this is so dumb" to "I NEED TO PLAY EVERY PLAYER I CAN FIND!"

I wish. I'd get my cousin to take away his internet privileges.

The OP's post was a lot more reasonable, logical, and sensible than yours. At least his post(s) was a legitimate complaint about how he felt about Obsidian's ability to deliver something to his standards. You just seem to see what you want to see (drama) and keep stirring the pot. Kind of reminiscent of my cousin's 5 year old when he decides to stick his fingers in his ears and scream "la la la la can't hear what you say".

(Not a RPG) The latest Call of Duty was unplayable for a lot of people right out of the box until about a week after launch. I don't recall the specifics of the issue (I don't play CoD), but my cousin was lamenting the fact the game was unplayable for like a week until it got patched. So yeah, this notion that Obsidian's the lone developer whose games need patching right out of the box is ... bizarre.

Why do my companions in FO4 decide the best time to have a conversation about their personal problems is right when we're in the middle of a dangerous firefight?

Now that I'm finished up both Far Harbor and Nuka World, I'm finding it hard to press on in the main game. My completionist side is warring with me not wanting to slog through to the "end" of the main quest.

^For the record, the 2 hour inconvenience thing in Skyrim was the first example that immediately came to mind (because I remember it being so annoying that the companion would literally crouch EXACTLY in the doorway and wouldn't move an inch). It wasn't the only issue I faced with Skyrim, nor the most serious. I also mentioned FO4 because it was made by the same developer as Skyrim. And since you're basing your opinion of how much confidence you have in Obsidian to do well with Deadfire because of a different game of theirs (PoE), I thought it was relevant to mention another buggy game from the same developer.

Finished Far Harbor. Decided to do the "good guy" route and make peace. A part of me regrets that decision and wishes I just let the world burn.

I think one of the issues you're having with responses to your OP is you seem to think people are out to prove you're an idiot or whatever. In other words, you're taking any disagreement as personal, as though people are out to say, "told you so", when in fact, it's simply a disagreement with regards to some sort of standard you believe Obsidian hasn't reached that other RPG game companies have. My issue isn't that you're displeased with the product or the end result or the process, but that you appeared to make it sound like PoE is somehow the exception in the video game world in terms of a game that suffers from issues ranging from minor annoyances to game-breaking bugs, where other games in its genre don't suffer from the same things. I can give you examples of game breaking bugs I've come across not only in Skyrim, but in Fallout 4 (another Bethesda game). But, you seem to focus on your own experiences with said games, so what will that do? You haven't had an issue with Skyrim, so will you change your stance on the game if I tell you how I had to re-load a save from 2 hours prior because my AI companion decided to crouch in a door way and wouldn't move, causing me to get stuck? Would you suddenly change your mind about FO4 if I told you how TWO of my saves got corrupted and wouldn't load, causing me to lose about 15 hours of game play? I don't think my experience is going to change how you view those games, so I'm not sure why you're waiting for people to "prove" Skyrim or FO4 or any other game is as buggy as PoE is for you. In any case, to sum up for the final time: If PoE didn't meet your standards, then you have every right to no longer fund PoE 2. You also have every right to criticize the issues you had with the game. Just as I have every right to disagree with you, because in my experience PoE was MORE stable than any of Bethesda's recent games. And that's what I did. Disagree with you that PoE was any more buggy than some other games out there that you didn't decide to boycott.

Look, it's painfully simple: Obsidian's latest patch introduced pink crap all over the place for Linux and Mac players (like me) on expansion content, which is far worse than anything I have seen in Skyrim, and it took them a fair time hotfix it out. It was a bug they introduced in the game in their patching process (not in 3.06, present in 3.07). I last played Skyrim for 54 hours, and in half the time playing Pillars (27 hours) I encounter a serious bug that alters the state of play and lowers my highest possible might on a build designed to do high single hit damage. Maybe Skyrim will also burn me similarly, and I'll stop playing that too, but currently it hasn't - and it also never has, despite Pillars having done so 5 times. If you look at the links in my OP, every single one of those are instances where I have posted in a particular thread reporting an issue. Most of these are issues I uncovered myself through trying to produce a creative and interesting character, which seems to be the worst situation to punish someone for. People accuse me of mental gymnastics, but if someone could care to explain to me how ridiculous pink crap all over the place introduced in what was supposed to be Pillars' final patch is better than any of the immersion breaking bugs ever present in Skyrim, then I'm all ears. I've heard that Skyrim had backwards flying dragons introduced by a patch (but crucially, not their final patch which I'm talking about), Pillars introduced pink messes obscuring large areas of White March maps in their final patch. I guess not being able to physically see stuff on a local map isn't important, is it guys? It's not at all entirely game breaking if you wanted to even play a little of the White March content? I don't know why I'm even trying to fight this anymore, because objective reasoning is stopping to make a single shred of difference anyway, but for posterity's sake in the unlikely event anyone ever chose to look at this thread again here is clear and objective reasoning laid out for all to see. So if I'm reading it right, the "pink stuff" was introduced but has since been fixed? It's no longer an issue for you? So essentially you're upset about something that was eventually fixed anyways? And you don't see why people see you being a bit unreasonable in your expectations? As for the stability of Skyrim, you seem to be basing whether or not it's stable on your own experience, not the experience of the majority of other folks. If that's the case, and we're judging a game's stability on our own experience and no one else's, then PoE is the most stable game I've ever played because I didn't run into a single issue when I played. But I'm guessing your experience wasn't the same as mine (obviously), so I don't know why you're only basing Skyrim on your own experience of whether or not it was stable to play.

I disagree with this. Obsidian and their games takes quite a bit of criticism on here, even though it's their forums. I just think that it depends on the type of criticism, and whether other companies are held to the same expectations/standards. This notion that people will defend Obsidian, no matter how valid the criticism, just because we're fans of their games is silly. (For instance, if someone attacked BioWare for making a buggy game and used FO:NV as an example of what a stable game should be, I'd call them on it even though that would mean criticizing Obsidian)

More Fallout 4. Almost done Far Harbor, I believe. At the very least, all roads seem to be converging on one of those "pick a side" decisions. I found all the pieces of that marine combat armor (or whatever it's called as part of the DiMA quest). Pros, it provides great defense against a lot of things. Cons, it's heavy as hell and takes up so much of the carrying capacity of my character who isn't built for strength.

I'm trying to picture this comparison, and I just can't. I'm drawing a bit of a blank how W3 reminds one of "more exploring and hiking instead of assassination or climbing".

I have no issue with being critical of a company. I just thought it was weird to be critical of Obsidian for something (bugs/glitches) well after release, to the point where they lose a customer over it, while holding another game/company (Skyrim) as the pinnacle of what Obsidian should strive for in terms of stability, when that game, and Bethesda in general, has their own issues with game-breaking bugs even years after release. In other words, if you're going to boycott a company over buggy products after release, then video gaming probably isn't the best hobby for you. Because I can't think of a single game I've played where I didn't come across at least one glitch, bug, crash, or technical issue that hurt the quality of one of my play throughs or caused me to have to re-start a play through altogether.

Is that the one that was sort of like Mass Effect meets X-Files? Yes, it is similar to Mass Effect (both the story and the gameplay). Though, there isn't much from X-Files, the alien invasion is fairly straight-forward, despite the information being kept from the populace. In-game it is explained as avoiding panic. In general, I guess, the developers tried to make The Bureau a part of the canon. I think I'm one of the few people who actually liked that game.

Is that the one that was sort of like Mass Effect meets X-Files?

I'm not going to condemn the OP for his/her choice, however, it's kind of weird that Skyrim is his/her example of a game that is NOT buggy. I can't think of a RPG that didn't have sort of bugginess to them, whether minor or major. So if one were to say they'll never buy a certain game developer's games while they release buggy content, then I guess that person should look into a different hobby other than video games.

I'm finding the enemies in Far Harbor more challenging than the ones in Nuka World. Maybe my guns just suck now, but in Nuka World my guns were killing even the toughest enemy in like 3 or 4 shots, while in Far Harbor I'm barely doing any damage.

I get hungry whenever I see this thread title. I think of McCain fries and Chef Boyardee pasta.