» Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:46 am
Played MW for about 5-6 years, and still play semi-regularly. It's modded heavliy now, because after all those thousands of hours, it's mostly "been there, done that", and technology has improved a lot since. Despite the awkward animations, the "too-blatant" die-roll mechanics, and overall technological gap between it and newer stuff, it's still got that "magical" feeling of being somewhere else, and struggling to survive, explore, and eventually thrive in a strange land.
Played OB for about 2-3 months, HEAVILY modded after about the first week, or I'd have been too bored with it to finish the MQ. There were improvements, mostly in technology, but overall gameplay outside of combat went about 2 steps backwards (even combat was a "lateral" move, because what it gained as a more exciting FPS system for the player, it lost as a poorer RPG system that rendered the character all but meaningless), and it was boring to have everything "spoon fed" to you at the same depressingly same level of challenge and reward.
Played FO3 for about 2-3 months; a bit improved over OB (felt more like "band-aid" fixes than "improvements") , but not really my "style", and the main FPS vs RPG focus is more toward FPS. I actually LIKED a lot of things about the original FO, but it's extremely "outdated" now, both graphically and interface-wise, and I don't think that most "modern gamers" would stand for the sudden and regular "dead, reload" incidents. I got tired of spending as much time and effort fighting the clunky interface as dealing with the in-game events, and put it aside after a month or two.
Skyrim, depending on whether it's a return to the "feel" of MW or a continuation down the road into a simplfied and gratuitous FPS hack&slash game, will either be my next "5-10 years of my life" game, or else I won't even bother to buy it. I was "burned" once with OB, and a second time to a lesser degree by trying FO3.
For comparison, I've got the old Close Combat series games (CC2 "A bridge Too Far" and CC3 "Russian Front" were my favorites), and I still occasionally play them after 10+ years. I more recently got Hearts of Iron 3, which has more bugs than you can shake a medium-size forest at, but which is gradually working its way into a highly detailed masterpiece strategic simulation of WWII, which I've been playing for over a year now. An understanding of mid-20th Century military concepts, units, tactics, and equipment is highly recommended, and the learning curve (brick wall?) is daunting at first.
The Witcher was off my drive and gone within three weeks, because outside of the interesting and often well done conversations, the rest of the game is a set of semi-linear scenarios and cheezy "twitch" combo combat garbage. You have a sequence of tiny "almost-open worlds", each a small patch of territory just bigger than the town or castle, except for annoying things like the low picket fences that you can't cross. It pretends to have a flexible RPG advancement system, but just has 120+ different ways of boosting the same 9 silly "skills" (you have 3 attacks each for magic, your iron sword, and your silver sword, and you have to learn the same moves seperately for each of the two types of sword). Oh yes, it also has an Alchemy skill; it's either 1 (you know it) or 0 (you don't), and you have to take it on one of the first missions to progress to the next scenario. There are Axes in the game, and you can actually wield one (poorly), but you can't "learn" how to use them and improve. There are also bows, but you can't use them at all. There are a few pieces of armor and other weapons to be found, but you're automatically handed the new "best" one when you hit various stages of the storyline, so ithey're pretty much irrelevant other than as loot to sell. I suppose the RPG claim has something to do with the juvenile "collectable cards" you get for "bedroom conquests". Waste of a perfectly good three weeks, not to mention the cash.