RPGmasterBoo

I disagree, choices are always severely limited. Great role playing IMO is the ability of the game to make you believe that the choices you're making counts for something. What good is a multitude of choices if you don't care either way? In ME I could choose which one of my companions would bite the bullet, the trouble was - I didn't give a damn. I recognize its all subjective, but I am talking about what a great RPG is for me, and that will always be one that I can get emotionally invested in. The entire BG saga had just one, real, choice at the very end but by that time you were thoroughly convinced you've a long way since Candlekeep and have finally become - the master of your own fate. As for characters, having them tell their sad life story or just be influenced by the PC's whim doesn't equate to depth, or rather that depth is meaningless if the context isn't engaging enough. Okay sure, Carth Onasi was a deep character - but most of the time the principal desire was to throw him out of the airlock, or just ignore him. Choose: Doesn't help if you want an Oreo does it?

Yes but it needs to be plausible. One Shepard no matter how good he is, can't be as good as an army doing the same job. Okay the plot is designed to be resolved by a small group of characters in some commando action, I can live with that. I'm just not convinced that I'm playing a character who's exceptional. In fact the only thing that sets him apart is that he isn't a retard like everyone else seems to be (citadel council) Yay for Shepard and his special school employers. Query: does humanity deserve saving after such displays of short sightedness and stupidity?

The trailer is a great illustration of what I was talking about earlier: It says, only Shepard stands between victory and defeat, yadayadayada only Shepard can save us... How? Why? He's just a grunt amongst a million of grunts like him. I understand the reasoning behind wanting the player to feel special, but you need some plausability. Right?

Its convenient to ignore BGII and focus on BG which as you well know is the one that started the entire trend. Make no mistake, BG by itself is dated, but BG does not stand by itself. Its a part of a greater story and most of its value is today derived from there. BG 1 aside, you'd have to really stretch your imagination to prove that there was any significant improvement over BGII. There's no such thing as true role playing - there is only the feeling that your avatar is doing something significant, something that you would do, or can relate to (through illusion of choice), and the lack of that feeling. For all the supposed improved role playing in the games after BGII, you'll be hard pressed to find people who would actually claim that they are better games. Except for Volo. Btw the BG saga also had 2 endings.

That's of course the CNN version of the story, no ethnic slaughter has actually been proven now - a full 10 years after the war. Because much like the Iraq war, it was founded on false pretenses - the kind of pretenses that spin doctors know would push the general populace into supporting the war. Which is the point all along: - In Iraq they worked on the fear of another terrorist attack, this time with WMD's - the result: a country in ruins, and no WMD's in sight anywhere - In Serbia they cried: genocide! ethnic cleansing! because they knew that would garner support - the result: a country in ruins, and no genocide anywhere Truly, you shouldn't take reasons for something put forward on TV at face value. You're aware you can't inspire people to war by saying: we want their oil or, we want a piece of their land to build a huge military base on it? While the supposed genocide was happening in Serbia, the worst actual genocide since WWII was happening in Rwanda, yet the US took no notice - why is that? While the supposed building of WMD's was happening in Iraq, Iran was strolling along happily with its nuclear program. Why didn't the US take action there? I quite clearly stated the coalition is not going around shooting civilians (most of the time). They are dying because of the power vacuum that the invasion caused. To bring down a complex machinery such as the state, but to have nothing ready to replace it inevitably leads to disaster. Let me put it simply: no invasion = no collapse of Iraqi state = no infighting = no casualties invasion = chaos = every adventurer/warlord/terrorist/neighbouring country wants a piece of the action and to affect post war Iraq = coalition cant control outcome = people die in the thousands The cause of the disaster cannot be the terrorists, because the terrorists arose only after the invasion. Its comforting to thing you're doing a lesser evil for the greater good, but the facts do not support that theory. They didn't is Iraq, or Serbia, or Afghanistan or anywhere else. Why do you need to believe so much that what your state is doing is actually grounded in morality instead of pure self interest (which, is I gotta tell you - what everyone else in the world sees it as)?

Fall? LOL Every subsequent Bio game since BG has been (more or less) an improvement over its predecessor. If you're not Volo, how do you figure that? I wouldn't let myself get drawn into it if I were you.

Try to understand that there is a wold beyond unflinching adoration on one side and foaming on the mouth hate on the other. Bioware's recent games are of passable quality, (except for NWN OC which is hopeless). I like story driven RPG's. In fact, its now the only genre I consistently play. I take what I can get, which isn't much these days. If I considered a game an absolute and total waste of time I wouldn't play it, or I would ditch it after a few hours (Eg: Fallot 3, Gothic III, Oblivion). Everyone's gripe with Bioware is not that their games are rubbish, its that they are not what they could be. They're fun, just not very memorable. I treat them like a quick fix until something better comes along.

Exactly, because they're just upgrades which are as popular as long as the technology that drives them is tolerable. There is no incentive to play once the sequel arrives, because they have nothing that sets them apart. Bioshock has enough value to be played retrospectively for those who've missed it the first time around, and enough uniqueness to warrant another playthrough in due time IMO. Something the others dont have. Half Life 2 was dull. Apart from that its story got no closer to anything that resembles reason. I liked it well enough but I doubt I'll play it ever again. EP 2 was very, very good, but it was simply too short. The entire episode thing Valve has going was a mistake from the onset. Of course all of these are opinions, and I don't really value shooters highly by default so I might be more inclined to something that attempts artsy/intelligent even if it bites the dust gameplay wise.

In your opinion, do you see anyone playing those games in a few years?

The don't buy their games card doesn't really work since the number of story driven RPGs that are released each year is countable on the fingers of one had... if you cut off a few fingers. If you ignore Bioware, you're left with Obsidian and CDProjekt Red for story driven RPG's. The first one has only a few games of varying quality to their name, the second - one. Gothic, Divinity, Drakensang etc may be good games, but they're not the same type of experience.

Actually, give me a better PC shooter in the last few years.

BioShock did too many things right do deserve to be branded a rip-off, especially considering that most other shooters on the market are by and large unimaginative, uninspired garbage. Compared to them BS is the second coming. I personally enjoyed it more than Far Cry/Crysis, Doom 3 and Half Life 2 combined.

Of course, this is just one path through the game. I did play through it like 3 times

They're also one of the richest countries in the world while Haiti is piss poor.

I don't need to play it anymore since I printed out the fan made novelization which rips all the dialogue out - and I've re read it so many times I know most of it by heart Its a 300 hundred page, A4 sized book btw. (almost all of it dialogue)

I wouldn't know. Transferring the development of a Fallout game to Obsidian is a blessing though. Or will be, if its any good.

A pity, it has a nice storyline that's worth sticking through to the end. For a FPS of course.

Its more indifference than dislike, the sort of sandbox gameplay their games revolve around is uninteresting to me. I also find the Elder Scrolls setting hopelessly dull and generic. I'm disappointed in regards to their stupidity when tackling Fallout, as well as that their games have a huge fan base which I think is unwarranted. There was a community poll in a local forum, probably the largest one of its kind in these parts, and the Elder Scrolls games scored just as highly as the best of Bioware's and Black Isle's games. So they seem to be popular, but for the life of me I dunno why.

Frankly I played it disregarding the Vita Chambers for some reason. I suppose it was an automatic thing, to try to avoid dying. Thus I had a good time with the game and found it very tense.

No. Well it is. It keeps on selling the same thing and people keep on buying it for over a decade. And this is not toilet paper mind you. PS Though they share certain qualities

Good one I agree.

Win!

I did it, multiple times. Pumped up on wrench strength, studied the big daddy through photos, and also if I recall correctly put something to shock him, and whack away. Of course it works much better for gun wielding Daddys.

Yes, though its got a strangely positive rating on IMDB.