Shadeling

That has more to do with the fact that NV was a steam exclusive title and F3 was not. Although judging by mods made and activity on the nexus forums, it does look like NV is more popular today. Well, I guess some of the current numbers could be explained away as Fallout: NV being a steam exclusive title but I do find it hard to believe that after all of these years, with Fallout 3 being available on Steam that the discrepency on Steamcharts is simply due to the exclusivity New Vegas once had when it first launched.

If Obsidian were developing Fallout 4, I'd be so fracking excited right now, but since it's Bethesda, my initial reaction was: Cool, I guess?' Since I so often suck at trying to convey my opinions with words, I can only reference, once again TUN's Shandification of Fallout @ the 9:26 mark, as to why Fallout: NV was so much more awesome than Fallout 3. So after learning about Fallout 4, I started to get pulled into the hype and get kinda excited....until I recently read that Bethesda decided that all companions will automatically be set invincible. So right there, my enthusiasm plummeted because once again, I'm given insight into how Bethesda still, to this ****ing day since the advent of Todd Howard, has no clue about playing their game from a roleplayer's perspective even though its franchise is a fracking roleplaying game. They think that since a dog dying means an automatic reload for most players, that all companions will be made invincible. Right after reading that, in an instant, I'm transported back to a time when I first discovered the travesty called "LIttle Lamplight" where every annoying little kid was unkillable just because, ya know, it's cute! And even though a settlement of little kids wouldn't have made it past the first fracking day of their existence in a nuclear wasteland, we'll just keep 'em because we're Bethesda, and we don't know jack about building realistic communities within the worlds we build, cus unkillable kids are cute! Duh! I've been keeping track of Fallout 3 and Fallout: NV on steamcharts every so often and you know the one that always wins, the one with the most consecutive players playing at any given moment? Fallout: NV! Even with Steam sales, Fallout 3 can't even come close to the numbers of current players playing Fallout:NV. If only Bethesda would notice this and act accordingly.

I definitely see what you're saying, but must put in my two cents of the fact that they have become two totally separate games. Even though they may be in the same genre, they're really not similar due to somewhat of what you've talked about. GTA, especially v, has pushed the boundaries of a liveable, breathable world in which you can create you're own story and have fun with people on the online portion. The world is huge and filled with stuff to do. With SR, while I find it fun, to me is fun in short bursts due to the comedic sense of it all. They both have their own places, but I would say they have different entertainment factors. Hey, thanks for your input, this gives me more insight into something I've wondered about. I've always been intrigued by GTA but the lack of being able to play a female has always been the deciding factor for me so when I heard that you can actually play a female character in GTA:V Online, my interest was piqued but then I read that female character creation was hopelessly fugly, which makes sense given the fact that GTA has never been developed to include a female protagonist in the first place. So I've never felt confident enough to take the plunge. I guess I'll keep watching from the sidelines for the time being.

So I've read that you can finally make a female character in GTAV: Online, is that true? And do they really look like a horse's butt? Even if I could play a female character, which is key for me, I still fear that I have been tainted by Saints Row too much to be able to enjoy this game. It's just seems sooo serious but with awesome graphics, and I fear I would find it lacking in the entertainment factor because I have so much fun with Saints Row games, particularly 3 & 4. Hmm, I'm tempted but hate the thought that I might buy it and then wish it were like something else while playing.

I was mainly referencing the advent of quest markers and the like, something that I really hated at first because of how much enjoyment I got out of exploration element of Morrowind where you weren't lead around by your nose and there was an actual sense of discovery which I found very satisfying but that was forever lost thanks in part to the introduction of quest markers ala Bethesda.

I think we can lay blame for that at Bethesda's feet, for the quest markers and general dumbing down. Having been a fan of the Elderscrolls since Arena, I can still remember the awful sickening feeling in my stomach when I first played Oblivion and I was hit with the realization that the Elderscrolls I loved were no more (thanks Todd Howard!) because consoles and its audience were what mattered most, and thus the dumbing down commenced and just thinking about that godawful persuasion mini-game alone makes me what to break something to this day. I guess it was very similar to seeing Jar Jar binks for the first time and immediately realizing something that had been great was forever dead. Just like DA: I, I didn't play Skyrim for months after it released but when I finally got around to it, I think I grieved enough for what the franchise used to be so that I could accept the Elderscrolls for what it had become which is an action adventure with rpg elements set in an open world that was fun to explore and I got lots of enjoyment out of it. I think the same holds true for DA: I for me, my standards for Bioware are forever lowered now, so I don't expect as much out of their games as I used to. Edit: Oh, and I have to add that I had an awesome moment of reckoning as far as the dumbing down of rpgs go on the Steam Divinity: Original Sin forum where there were actual threads created by players who were whining about there not being enough hand holding in the game (have they no shame!?! Honestly. Even if you feel that way, why the hell would you admit to it???) But this is the reason I love crowdfunding so much because without it, I wouldn't have been able to tell them to suck it up, it's our turn now, because back when I played Oblivion for the first time, I was certain I was witnessing the death of the traditional deep computer rpg because corporate publishers were the gatekeepers of what could be created. Being able to tell them to suck it up felt really, really good.

Since I can't delete this double post (why is that exactly? That's typically the norm on other forums I've encountered, even Bioware allows you to hide posts like this...) Anyway, since I can't delete it I'll just use it to comment on the fact that I just realized my previous post didn't mention combat at all. That's mainly because that's something I'm least interested in as far as roleplaying games go. Unlike my husband and rl male friends who we used to tabletop with, they're complete combat monkeys who get into the very minute details that extend one combat scene into a day, or night, long activity where it's just that damn fight alone complete with bullet time and all the flourishes that would make Yuen Woo Ping proud. And all the while I'm bored to tears because all I'm interested is the story and you know, roleplay... So anyway, the combat of DA: I is combat that does the job as far as I'm concerned.

I´m curious, what did surprise you about DA:I, what did you like? As i said i might buy it, but i´m just not sure...even with low expectations it looks very blant. As for EA, yeah...they are the devil I think the very first thing about DA: I that pleasantly surprised me is how huge it is. It's not exactly open world but each area you have to explore are vast to the point where it really feels like it's open world, in contrast to the areas of DA: Origins that were really small and if I were to call them anything, I'd say they were the equivalent of a 'room', nothing to explore but just served their purpose for whatever scene needed to take place at the time. So this exceeded my expectation of EA in that for the base game itself, there's lots to do and it wasn't partitioned off to sell to us in bits and pieces as I'm certain EA still yearns to do, if only the majority of us would be agreeable to it. Thankfully the majority of us are more discerning than that. The crafting system I found to be kind of fun, at least I got a lot of value out of it vs the opinion of Yahztee@Zero Punctuation who didn't give it another thought, according to his review but he did say that he enjoyed DA:I the most out of the other two installments but my impression of him (as much as I love his reviews) is that he's not really a roleplayer, he's more of an action aficionado that wants to get to the end of a game expediently and so all the extra fluff isn't necessary, like mounts which I absolutely loved in DA: I, I was amazed at all the variety and the riding animations put Skyrim to shame. From a roleplayer's perspective, I'd say it's decent, much more involved than a typical Bethesda elderscrolls of late but still, don't expect to be able to play an evil character, you get some leeway to that end but not much. That's not so much a problem for me because I do tend to enjoy playing the goodly type of character but it would definitely be a minus if I was more interested in the darker side of things. Edit: While I do think EA is very deserving of being called the devil, I think it's even more appropriate to affix that nickname to shareholders and why ultimately, corporate publishers have no invested interest in listening to their fanbases, because what matters most is producing games fast for their quarterly statements. It's the primary reason I'm a huge fan of crowdfunding because whenever shareholders are in the picture, the expectations and desires of a fanbase take a back seat. Logic, where art thou?

Interesting. Different strokes and all that. This vid pretty much encapsulates why after New Vegas was released, I never gave FO3 another thought. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvwlt4FqmS0 It's an interesting vid but for the pertinent bits, skip to 9:20 where he discusses FO3 vs New Vegas and why roleplayers, like myself, find New Vegas vastly superior to FO3. Edit: Also have to note that if he considers 163 hours playing a game embarrassing, then I guess that means I am full of shame because that's on the low end for me as far as my favorite games go.

Well, I've been reading that DA: I is Bioware's best selling title to date so I think it's safe to assume it sold well over DA2. The thing is, EA has been the poster child for cutting development time to produce subpar games of well known franchises to fit their quarterly statement schedule for their shareholders and yet at the same time, they are more than willing to spend millions of dollars on marketing so that an under-developed game might seem much more awesome than it really is in order to get as many sales as possible. I'm just hoping that EA is finally realizing that listening to their fanbase is actually a good thing monetarily (something one would think is common sense) because all of those millions invested into the marketing to scam their fanbases could actually be put to better use making a solid game that would sell itself. Source? Outselling DA2 shouldn´t be that hard, it was not well received anyway. (rightfully in my opinion) but i would be surprised if it outsells ME3. Personaly i´m curious if it outsold DA:O. Everything i have seen so far from the game, including some let´s play´s makes me not want to buy it. I know i would hate the combat way to much to really enjoy it. Completely agree in regards to DA2, I still haven't been able to bring myself play that game yet. From the moment Bioware first announced it, I knew it would suck because it had all the typical earmarks of EA's involvement which ultimately results in mediocrity, which is exactly what DA2 turned out to be, completely mediocre. What I should have said is that DA:I is Bioware's bestselling title at launch to date, including Mass Effect. (source: http://www.pcgamer.com/dragon-age-inquisition-had-most-successful-launch-in-bioware-history/). Edit: Oh, and I just want to add that I got a good chuckle out of Bioware's use of the word 'iconic' when introducing the Hawke character for the first time when given the option of using the awesomely iconic default that the whole world knows (or not) or custom Hawke. Iconic...really? Nice try, EAware but there's absolutely nothing iconic about Dragon Age 2. Just because you use a word does not make it so. I see. Considering the marketing and expectations i can see that it was the most successful launch. Still a bit surprised though considering ME3 was very anticipated. *shrug* Well, i played DA2 like..two times. At that point i still gave Bioware the benefit of a doubt, even though i was really pissed because of DA: A and a little "conversation" i had with with Gaider on the forum. I don´t think DA2 sucks. It´s not a bad game. The personal stories of the characters really shine mostly and there are some good moments, and some horrible ones (Anders...). The whole overall plot, the time jumps without any real consequence and the action style combad without lack of strategy broke the game for me. I would say it´s a mediocre game but not bad. I think i enjoyed it a bit more when i decided to look at it as a different game that just happens to be placed in the Dragon Age world. As a sequel to Origins it sucks. They should have called it DA: The Hawke chronicles and made clear it has nothing to do with the first game. Since DA:I pleasantly surprised me, I'm more inclined to maybe finally play DA2, especially since you can get it pretty cheap now, and then purchasing through Amazon to cut even more into EAs profits is extra win. After voting with my wallet, I just find it sort of entertaining to try to minimize EAs profits as much as possible whenever I buy one of their games. It's kind of silly but I find it satisfying all the same. When they first announced DA2, that's when my faith in Bioware completely deteriorated because I'd seen the same happen a few times before, if an innovative development house wasn't dissolved outright, whatever was released after being acquired by EA was mediocre crap. Origin, Westwood, Bullfrog, etc so many RIPs it just seemed like the same was inevitable for Bioware and DA2 only helped solidify that for me. Then EA catastrophically botched the release of SimCity 2013 (because their artistic 'vision' of shoehorning everything into an online mico-transaction wonderland was so much more important than what their actual fanbase wanted), and after that epic (yet entertaining) fail it was clear that they scrambled to turn their always online Sims 4 into the offline, single player experience their fanbase always preferred and yet even those sales have just been trickling in. Go figure. Could it be that perhaps finally a corporate publisher like EA might be re-evaluating that their long held belief that gamers are, for the most part, stupid and will buy anything as long as the marketing is dazzling enough? It's such a weird bias too when you think about it because lots of gamers are nerds like me, we're anything but stupid and yet corporate publishers have a rich historical tradition of treating us like we are idiots. So this leads me back to my being pleasantly surprised about DA: I. I'd love to think that EA is finally seeing the light but I think it just boils down to the fact that EA is in survival mode and after a successful game or two like DA:I, they'll be back to their unrelenting obsession with creating a micro-transaction western version of S. Korea's gaming market.

Well, I've been reading that DA: I is Bioware's best selling title to date so I think it's safe to assume it sold well over DA2. The thing is, EA has been the poster child for cutting development time to produce subpar games of well known franchises to fit their quarterly statement schedule for their shareholders and yet at the same time, they are more than willing to spend millions of dollars on marketing so that an under-developed game might seem much more awesome than it really is in order to get as many sales as possible. I'm just hoping that EA is finally realizing that listening to their fanbase is actually a good thing monetarily (something one would think is common sense) because all of those millions invested into the marketing to scam their fanbases could actually be put to better use making a solid game that would sell itself. Source? Outselling DA2 shouldn´t be that hard, it was not well received anyway. (rightfully in my opinion) but i would be surprised if it outsells ME3. Personaly i´m curious if it outsold DA:O. Everything i have seen so far from the game, including some let´s play´s makes me not want to buy it. I know i would hate the combat way to much to really enjoy it. Completely agree in regards to DA2, I still haven't been able to bring myself play that game yet. From the moment Bioware first announced it, I knew it would suck because it had all the typical earmarks of EA's involvement which ultimately results in mediocrity, which is exactly what DA2 turned out to be, completely mediocre. What I should have said is that DA:I is Bioware's bestselling title at launch to date, including Mass Effect. (source: http://www.pcgamer.com/dragon-age-inquisition-had-most-successful-launch-in-bioware-history/). Edit: Oh, and I just want to add that I got a good chuckle out of Bioware's use of the word 'iconic' when introducing the Hawke character for the first time when given the option of using the awesomely iconic default that the whole world knows (or not) or custom Hawke. Iconic...really? Nice try, EAware but there's absolutely nothing iconic about Dragon Age 2. Just because you use a word does not make it so.

Well, I've been reading that DA: I is Bioware's best selling title to date so I think it's safe to assume it sold well over DA2. The thing is, EA has been the poster child for cutting development time to produce subpar games of well known franchises to fit their quarterly statement schedule for their shareholders and yet at the same time, they are more than willing to spend millions of dollars on marketing so that an under-developed game might seem much more awesome than it really is in order to get as many sales as possible. I'm just hoping that EA is finally realizing that listening to their fanbase is actually a good thing monetarily (something one would think is common sense) because all of those millions invested into the marketing to scam their fanbases could actually be put to better use making a solid game that would sell itself.

.... I'm having some difficulty writing this post because to be honest, after experiencing disappointment after disappointment as far as anything connected to EA was concerned for the past ten years or so, with all of the innovative development houses that were snatched up and never heard from again, etc I truly never even fathomed that I'd one day end up eating crow and admitting that DA: Inquisition pleasantly surprised me. If I hadn't received it for an Xmas gift, I would never have known because I pledged long ago to vote with my wallet where ever EA was concerned, and without fail (until now), I never regretted that decision because, EA: It's where Innovation Goes to Die and it's a slogan that EA well deserves. So yeah, it's weird to be able to actually write that a recent game developed under EA pleasantly surprised me. It's even inspired me to revisit Origins again, and thereby reacquaint myself with a deeper roleplaying experience, but even so, it's something that I thought I'd never be interested in doing again because of DA2, EA's attempt at shoehorning an 'epic' rpg installment of a well-known franchise into one town, etc and still expect to reap in the $$$ for their omnipresent shareholders, the very bane of game development. So while I am pleasantly surprised, I'm not so naive to think that EA is now totally awesome. I just hope they're finally (after all these years) getting clued into the notion that when they make something their fans want, it sells itself! No smoke 'n mirrors marketing necessary. Go frickin figure.

I would love that! Usually the friend invites I get are immediately recognizable because it's a name I recognize from a forum discussion, but once in a while I get a weird anon invite that makes no sense and I would really like to know why they decided to add me. It would be a lot easier for me to discern who the legit people are because if they say nothing, then they're most likely trolling for something I wouldn't be interested in anyway.

in other words, things that I care less about than anything else in a game such as this oh, well, what can you do as for missing out on great games, the only truly great game that starts off really slow I can think of off the top of my head is Fallout 2. I hated the first few areas with a passion, that's why I stopped replaying it, I just can't bring myself to make the trek to Vault City all over again just to get to the interesting parts. most other games I tried and disliked in the first 30-60 minutes would eventually prove bad anyway (BG, I'm looking at you) Well, I have to say that even though as a nerdy roleplayer girl, I want to really shake my head at you but then I have to check myself and remember that I have my own quirks too as a gamer in that I just can't get into games that have a male fixed protagonist. I've tried many a time in the past, enough so that I've finally come to the realization that I just have a preference and that's all there is to it. I don't connect with a male character enough so that I will stick with a game from start to finish. But you wouldn't believe the amount of vitriol I get on various forums on the 'net when I state that. It's like I'm dissing males everywhere and I must be a feminazi, etc. So yeah, we all have our quirks and yet we can all enjoy a good rpg in our own ways. Amirite!? Well, that's your prerogative but I gotta say that you're cutting yourself from the majority of games out there. It would be as a guy who missed out on Portal just because the MC was a girl, they don't get to experience a good game just because of a silly reason. Plus, what kind of role player can't role play outside of their gender? Dude, you're not saying anything new here and you've completely missed my kumbahya moment. You can't miss something you wouldn't enjoy in the first place. Get me? I've tried many times in the past. I've played Gothic, Deus Ex, etc lots of games and never finished any of them. The ones I do finish are the rpgs where I can create my own character. See? I just don't have the necessary connection to play a dude. There have been a couple of exceptions though, one being Blade Runner, which was an awesomely fantastic rendering onto the computer by Westwood Studios (RIP, thanks EA) but there's nothing much more awesome than Blade Runner especially when you get to actually do things like a Blade Runner would, ESPER was so cool! But that was not the norm for me. I connect with girls, not with boys. Funnily enough, when I see guys pipe up about not getting into playing chicks, they don't seem to get nearly as much flack as I do. What's up with that?!