Dear Bethesda, I would like my life back please. Sincerely, f*ck you. (Fallout 4 and Orsinium)

I did far more than 10% in Skyrim. I covered the entire above the surface map. I completed a couple of the guild story lines, completed the main story, maxed out most of the crafting and got through a couple of the magic class trees. I didn't do everything in the game, but I did certainly do a lot of it in my time. Who knows how many dragons I killed or side quests I completed. I played the game how everyone plays it, by getting distracted by every little thing that pops up on your map and exploring the world. Exploring the world was the part that enjoyed in the game, but once you've seen all of the world you've lost the ability to explore new lands.

Never said it was a bad game. Just not for me. It is a good game for the people that like it. However, not everyone is going to love the game. I'm happy that you love the series so much. That's a good thing.

What you describe is basically impossible to do in 40 hours.


But you're up to about 30%.

I am a huge CIV fan. CIV 3 being my favourite in the series, despite the fact spearman can sometimes beat infantry and tanks depending on if they have the high ground (just like lyfeamirite?)

But still, I think that the quality of game truly lies within its gameplay and people will always have their preferences.
Just because I dont like fallout, it doesn't make it a bad game in the same way that just because you won the space race against a full map of cpu players , does not make you skilled at CIV.

I will destroy you before you discover the alphabet, newb.



And I'll bet my sorry white ass you can't win the space ace on hardest difficulty against max CPUS in Civ 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OutlawTorn

I will destroy you before tou discover the alphabet, newb.

---

What leader do you start as normally? Im a fan of the expansionist myself. USA is sick, get early settler, temples for culture expansion and scout for dat technology farm from huts.

Jargon doesn't mean you're skilled at the game.


I can start with anyone. I like militaristic, but they all have their benefits. I'm the guy who never forms alliances. Never. lol My objective is simple; kill everything. Nuke whenever possible.


Sometimes I like to let you rebuild; peotect your progress, then destroy you with my full force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OutlawTorn

Jargon doesn't mean you're skilled at the game.


I can start with anyone. I like militaristic, but they all have their benefits. I'm the guy who never forms alliances. Never. lol My objective is simple; kill everything. Nuke whenever possible.

---

In my experience forming alliances and trading tech/luxuries allows you to advance considerably faster than those you do not trade with.

If you dont form allilances, you will be destroyed by nukes before you even get to the middle ages.
(unless you give me what i want when i ask for it)

Hahaha!! You really think you'd be the first to try?



We're derailing this Bethesda thread right now. Even Sid Meier is feeling a little unfresh right now.

Break out some Civ 2 Gold Edition multiplayer and you can settle things. ^^

Civ 2 is still my favorite in the series and the only game I've put more hours into than any other, ignoring MMOs. Civilization was my childhood and I played Civ 2 off and on for like a good decade or more pretty consistently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqPC08cPGJw

I can play Skyrim and still find something new and I have at least 500 hours played

Since I am a Civ geek, I'll lend you a nugget of wisdom.


Why would I provide you with resources, knowledge or protection you clearly need, when I know I'm going to erase you from history at some point?

I can will get everything yku have to offer on my own, without supplying my enemy with technology he or she may use to put me at odds in the future?

I've never had an issue going it alone. There's far more to CIV than tech and trade. Military force trumls everything, my friend. When you have no cities left, your alliances and tech are for shit.

Will everyone just stop having their own opinions, please? Agree with me or I'll stomp my feet and hold my breath until my face turns purple! This isn't a competition, guys, we're all here to chat. No need for pistols at dawn because somebody doesn't like what you like (although, wow would that be cool...). This isn't feudal f*cking Japan, your honour means jack here. We can disagree whilst still being pleasant. Let’s all be nice to each-other, eh? Good. Nip that sucker in the bud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocky

What is your favourite/ most hated edition to the Bethesda gaming arsenal to date?
I actually liked New Vegas the most. They took a lot of the good things i liked about FO3, and made the formula even better. To be honest i think the expansion stuff was better in 3 than in NV but overall I really liked the plot of New Vegas and how you could play it all out.

---

ROCKY, WHAT THE F*CK IS THIS SH*T!? YOU ARE DEAD WRONG! GET OUT OF HERE! *cough* Nawww, I liked New Vegas but I never felt the same sense of freedom that I did with Fallout 3. From the very beginning I felt like I was being herded by the worlds best, award winning shepherd (no, not that Shepard). I also had a huge problem with the followers. I like that they all had separate mini-questlines but I hated that these could be missed. One of the things that really ruins a game for me is finding out I can't do something because you only get one chance to activate it and it gives you no indication of that. It just really gets to me. If you give me 3 options and those all impact the story in different ways I'm cool with that; take away a possibility because I didn't bring the overly talkative doctor I met 3 minutes ago with me and i get angry. That being said I hugely loved other parts such as the fact that Luck had a real-world benefit. I was obsessed with gambling and wished it was infinite. I also loved the back-alley doctor that can give you implants. That's my kinda stuff right there. Little bits that make the world that much more... Fun and immersive. I also had a game i called Deathclaw Chicken but maybe that's for another time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andromeda

I've only played Skyrim so that I could try out an Elder Scrolls game to see how they were. Played it for 40 hours and got bored with it. So I quickly finished up the story and haven't touched since. There was a number of odd design choices in the UI that I wasn't a big fan of that made it harder than it should have been to play naturally. So I can't really say I have a favorite. Skyrim was a thing and I've satisfied my curiosity. Leaving me with no real interest in trying out any of their other games. Can't say it was a bad game, just mostly indifferent. People enjoy it, it just not really for me.

---

Personally I think 40 hours is a pretty long time to spend on a game. You must have liked it at least enough to give it a go. If it wasn't your cup of tea after that amount of time then spending another 100 hours on it would be completely pointless. Playing other games makes far more sense. Did you never fancy giving a Fallout game a glance? I've heard people who hated FO3 and NV say they like FO4. Just curious.

Yeah, were you playing Skyrim on PC? I've heard quite a few people complain about the UI on PC. It was designed more for console so I think it's a little bit of a fiddle and a bit clunky for your platform. Perfectly designed for a controller which suits me. I tend to do open world RPG's on console like the old days. My PC gaming is reserved for RTS and MMO games which I find are far better suited to the keyboard and mouse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete

I know I keep comparing these games to Final Fantasy, which has been the gold standard for as long as rpgs have existed, but I'm finding myself enjoying that Bioware and Bethesda are doing so much more. Give me speech options and the chance to let me make my own choices. If I want to tell a guy to **** off, give me that option and let me deal with the repercussions, not just hitting a button to keep dialogue continuing.

---

I couldn't agree more. I feel like where as the western RPG giants moved with the times Final Fantasy actually went backwards with their approach to RPG's. Choices are the standard now. If you can't impact you game, or at least believe you are, then it's just not as in depth these days. Square Enix seem to rely on the name of their best known series to sell the product. In actual fact the new FF's are about as much like the old ones as Mario is to Gran Turismo. I feel more like i'm playing a game of Tekken where i can walk around a bit with the new Final Fantasy games. It's pretty sad. Where is the exploration? Where is the wonder? Where is the living, breathing world you used to give us, Square?


People are talking a lot about Civilisation so I thought I’d pipe up about that, too! I used to absolutely love Civ II when I was younger. I remember giving Call to Power a go and it just wasn’t the same. Then I gave that diabolical Civ Revolution a go on the 360. I don’t even want to think about that. If you can recommend one i’ll give it a go. I do like Sid.

EDIT: I just got finished with this post and people are talking about Civ 2 already. That game was great. I haven't played in such a long time but I remember a lot so vividly. Like the fist marks of power look like wooden spoons and I remember building my throne room and having my brother yelling at me to build railroad everywhere (I never wanted to because it didn't look pretty... Which is ridiculous but that was me.

Hyz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OutlawTorn

Since I am a Civ geek, I'll lend you a nugget of wisdom.


Why would I provide you with resources, knowledge or protection you clearly need, when I know I'm going to erase you from history at some point?

I can will get everything yku have to offer on my own, without supplying my enemy with technology he or she may use to put me at odds in the future?

I've never had an issue going it alone. There's far more to CIV than tech and trade. Military force trumls everything, my friend. When you have no cities left, your alliances and tech are for shit.

---

So what do you do when you have 4 nations attacking you at once? And what makes you think your solo military could even compare to my military, let alone the combined military of that of my allies? You making no sense boi. While you are polishing your spears, me and abe lincoln just figured out how to shoot salt out of a steel pipe.

I think you stand alone in "emotionally compromised" section right now, Hyz. Lol

We're having a heated discussion, at best. But it feels unfresh now. Just wierd.

I'll step out at this juncture.


EDIT: You should know what you do when you're being attacked 4 od if you're in fact so good, Rowan.

I'm never out numbered or out gunned. It's a militaristic style of play. Try it some time, "boi".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OutlawTorn

You should know what you do when you're being attacked 4 od if you're in fact so good, Rowan.

I'm never out numbered or out gunned. It's a militaristic style of play. Try it some time, "boi".

---

Pfft , whatever. You'd get wrecked 4v1 and anyone who plays CIV knows it.

This is now a CIV thread.

Yeah but the problem with heated discussion is the one person thinks it's a heated discussion whilst another will be genuinely getting angry. Always best to keep the peace. Darling I am never emotionally compromised, I'm a pillar of sarcasm and I honestly have no problem telling you how horrible I am at games. I play because I love to play. To get me angry you'd have to steal my last cookie, but I ate that. :D With text-based discussion it's always difficult to tell how a person is feeling and I don't want my thread shut down because one person is messing around and another takes it too far. You feel me?

I'll take part-

You're all going to slaughter me at Civ 2. I go for the great library first because I like the thought of having it in my city. I never buy armies because i tend to go for tech and I'm useless a defence. If you played me I'd just cower behind somebody else... Probably Andromeda... Then my trust would be shattered because Civ is like Monopoly- Pure evil.

Bethesda (to keep us on topic).

EDIT: Sid Meier? Now we're a bloody Civ thread? I didn't even feel that revolution... So gentle. :P

Hyz.

The easy question out of the way, play Civ 5, if you want to step back into a Civ game. It is a good modern update to a classic that just get better with each expansion. It does have its quirks, but I'd say it is a good place to get back into the series. Or Civ 4, if you want to hear Spock talk to you for hours and hours. Which I can totally do...

As for the Skyrim question, yeah I played on PC. I had a recently upgraded PC at the time so it made sense to play Skyrim on Ultra and have some fun on the PC.

On the subject of time invested, I didn't hate the game by any means. I did enjoy the exploration. But after 40 hours of it all that started to wear pretty thin for me since none of the rest of the game really grabbed me. Combat was more of a chore for me. It got boring after all that time, so all I had left was crafting and doing side quests. And since the design for companions was broken that killed the ability to enjoy that aspect as well. So it just sort of left me in a dead end where I stopped finding something that entertained me in the game.

But it kept me for 40 hours so it was not a wasted time or effort. I tried it because people spoke highly of the series and the studio. So like what I did with Dragon Age and Bioware, I gave their games a try to see if they were for me. Haven't really felt a desire after Skyrim to play another one of their games. Fallout being post-apocalyptic doesn't really help it's case though. I'm a fantasy setting lover by nature, which is why I was more interested in the Elder Scrolls series than Fallout. So I'm not really feeling the urge to try it out. They're good games, just not ones for me.

As for Bioware and choice. That's a completely different topic which I could go on for a really long time. The short of it is that Dragon Age showed me the sort of games they make and I disagree with their design philosophy.

I'ma give you my buddy Dave's cell # and he can testify that I fought off 6 hostile nations (including his own) and came back to win via Global Domination in 1999 playing Civ 2.

I was ****in' around and.stating some facts at first, but you're acually being kind of ignorant with yourself, Ro.

And you clearly suck at Civ.



Yea but I don't care who gets angry. When did that become my problem? I have a mortgage.. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OutlawTorn

I'ma give you my buddy Dave's cell # and he can testify that I fought off 6 hostile nations (including his own) and came back to win via Global Domination in 1999 playing Civ 2.

I was ****in' around and.stating some facts at first, but you're acually being kind of ignorant with yourself, Ro.

And you clearly suck at Civ.

---

You suck at trolling.
You're clearly also not from Canada.

Canadians are all chill and stuff, ayyy.

And all Aussies are airheads, right, mate?

Righto, I'll try Civ 5 then! I assume you mean Leonard and not Zachary?

Yeah, I know what you mean with the fantasy thing. It's the same for me but with books. I read most things to give them a chance but my preferred genre is epic fantasy.

Not a fan of Bioware, Andromeda? Do tell... I think videogame choices were summed up perfectly by Bioshock: Infinity though. Also a great game series.

Yeah Civ 4 had Leonard Nimoy narrating the entire game and it was glorious. It also has the only game soundtrack to actually when a grammy, which is impressive and a beautiful song to hear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiHDmyhE1A

Civ 5 doesn't have Spock narrating, but it is a better game than Civ 4 I feel from a gameplay stand point. Civ 2 is still my preferred Civ, but Civ 5 is probably the closest to the sheer fun and enjoyment.

I'll say this first, I like the idea of player choice in video games. However, my idea of player choice and Bioware's idea of player choice is where I disagree. Bioware loves telling stories, nothing wrong with that. I love telling stories and reading them. And that's the problem where things lie with Bioware. They want to a tell their story, but still put in player choice. The fundamental problem here is that those are two opposing forces. One is the designers saying this is the way the game is going and the other is the player saying I want to do this instead of what you presented. Bioware is very rigid because they have one story to tell. So you can't break away from what they designed. So all of the choices you make throughout the whole game end up having no meaningful impact on the story. The final boss in every single game is still the same boss everyone else gets. Everyone still has to travel through the same plot beats.

Bioware's player choice is one of a 3 paths that start and end at together and regularly intersect. My idea of player choice is one where there are 3 paths that never meet after you start making significant story altering decisions. If you do something dramatic different from the plot, you should go down a different path. I shouldn't have to fight the same boss, end up in the same scenario everyone else playing the game does. That's not real player choice, that's the illusion of player choice.

Bioware can tell interesting stories, but I think they should stick to non-player choice design since it is clear from the way they make their games that they want to tell one story. Which isn't a problem. They just need to focus on their strength.

I know that song... But I don't know why I know it. It is a beautiful song, yes. I think maybe it's in the background of Civ Revolution?

Yeah, that's kinda how I felt about the Telltale games series'. I like them but it's a game based entirely on player choice but those choices all lead you to the same place, which is more than a little disappointing. It's like having somebody say to you 'would you like to go through to the kitchen, or the living room for drinks?' only to find they have an open plan house. 2K mocked this in Bioshock infinite with 2 characters who seemingly show the player that no matter what choice they make the result will be the same, it's inevitable that the game will end the same way. It is very much an illusion of choice.

What I will say is that New Vegas did have game-changing choices. I killed the main villain by accident when he caught me picking his pocket, so I stuck a grenade in there. Not exactly game-maker implemented choice but a possibility non-the-less. Dragon Age did give the option to make Alistair the main villain, but that was the exact same scenario just swap villain a for villain b... Game ends. So yeah, I completely agree there. i do like the fact that characters can stop helping you because of you actions in some Bioware games, though. Particularly the more recent ones.

Hyz.

It's possible that it was in Civ Revolution. I only played Revolution once? I was pretty disappointed with both the length and the simplicity of all of the gameplay. So I never really played it very much.

Yeah, something that from what I understand of the Fallout games, they're more willing to just layout the situation and leave it up you to sort things out yourself. Which allows for a lot more freedom of execution of actions and the path you take. That is a much more favorable player choice.

At least as early as Dragon Age 1, you could make actions that would make enemies or just cause your allies to leave you. Though like you said, the story still remains on the same course you just have one less ally on your team.

I just wanted to mwntion that there is a game by Sid Meier called XCOM: Enemy Unknown. And one of the secrets is getting Sid Meier as a playable character. He's a BOSS too. And by that I mean he can clear a stage by himself if you know what you're doing.

I played it a few times over in order to get all the achievements but, like you, I didn't care for it much. It's feel wasn't the same as I remembered and the way it looked and played felt much more 'childish'. Kinda like it was made as a beginners guid to, or entry level Civ game. Plus I hated the length. I don't want to be told the game is over before all the players have decided so. I think maybe the song was in it, though.

Yeah, Fallout has always been more of a sort of "*shove* off you go" type of game. It just puts you in the world and tells you to get on with it. You can kill a quest giver and such. Much more choice.

Uhuh, but the characters leaving never does anything. In the later Mass Effects you sometimes felt the burn a little (those won't be up your street though, eh? :)) I think maybe if they implemented it so lost followers could rise against you that might be a nice addition. Like when they leave you for doing evil things they come back to stop you, you know? I've always wanted to play a game like the old RPG books where each move has a profound impact on your progress. That would be such a refreshing change in videogaming.

EDIT: Uhhh, OutlawTorn... What? I love XCOM. I played it on Ironman the other week and now I have to wear adult nappys (diapers) because I was schooled so hard. I had no idea you could get Sid in that. Are you super cereal about this? How?

Hyz.

There were a few times that did happen in Dragon Age sort of. If you made a choice in a couple points in the game with certain party members in your party they would trigger a fight and you'd have to kill them. And with Zeveran, whatever his name is, if you didn't have enough approval points when you reached a point in the game he would turn on you when attacked by the assassins and you'd have to kill him along with the assassin. Otherwise he'd help you kill the assassins.

There's a lot of Sid Meier games. ^^ Like Pirates!, one of my favorites and a great open world game. Railroad Tycoon, that started up the Tycoon genre pretty much. Alpha Centauri and so many other games. He's a prolific man in the game's industry.

You'll want to take any 4 recruits (make them rookies because in doing this, you lose everything this person was. They become the secret character). Now edit their first and last name to the following:


Sid Meier - Medic
Otto Zander - Assault
Joe Kelly - Heavy
Ken Levine - Sniper


:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andromeda

There were a few times that did happen in Dragon Age sort of. If you made a choice in a couple points in the game with certain party members in your party they would trigger a fight and you'd have to kill them. And with Zeveran, whatever his name is, if you didn't have enough approval points when you reached a point in the game he would turn on you when attacked by the assassins and you'd have to kill him along with the assassin. Otherwise he'd help you kill the assassins.

There's a lot of Sid Meier games. ^^ Like Pirates!, one of my favorites and a great open world game. Railroad Tycoon, that started up the Tycoon genre pretty much. Alpha Centauri and so many other games. He's a prolific man in the game's industry.

---

Oh yeah! I forgot about that. In the camp, right? Wow, Dragon Age was longer ago than I thought. Still, I mean more than just a one off fight. Still cool, though.

I love Pirates! I didn't play it when it originally came out and I'm not sure when that was but I have the remastered version on my Xbox 360. That game has so much to do it's not even funny. The first few times I played I couldn't even finish the game because I got too old. It really is brilliant. One of those games where I pick a direction and just go with it. The treasure you have to find took me ages (Incan?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OutlawTorn

You'll want to take any 4 recruits (make them rookies because in doing this, you lose everything this person was. They become the secret character). Now edit their first and last name to the following:


Sid Meier - Medic
Otto Zander - Assault
Joe Kelly - Heavy
Ken Levine - Sniper


:)

---

Ken Levine!? I love him! Bioshock is seriously one of my all time gaming highs! "Would you kindly...?" No way, I have to get him in XCOM. How did I not know this? Flabbergasted. Thanks for the info.

Hyz.

Yeah, Pirates was one of those games that you had to be really focused if you wanted to try to do everything. It was really easy to just go off and do whatever you wanted and lose track of time. The crazy thing is that the game is super old and the remasters and updates are pretty close to the original with just improved visuals and a few new things here or there. One of the first truly open world games.