How can fo3 take so much relentless criticism yet da2 and me3 wich are relatively poor attempts at there predecessor and one with a horrible ending be fine?

I'm quite aware of this nugget of knowledge; however, it does not mean Bethesda did not give Zenimax their blessing in the ability to create the background for the game.

Otherwise,

What did you think I meant by this?


Haha, yeah that basically sums it up. Before I fired up NV a second time, I was saying that. I somehow felt comfortable limiting myself in my choices and letting the RP work "behind the scenes" in my brain. Don't get me wrong, Skyrim is a great action-adventure/dungeon-dive type of game.

It was just marketed as Baldur's Gate and I got Diablo.

Like I said, Dragon Age 2 feels more like a spin-off.
Thing is, they didn't mess up any lore as far as I could tell.
The writing of the game had changed a little, the narrative, but that doesn't mean it was worse, just different.
They reduced micromanagement, a streamline which I think new RPG players would welcome, but they still force the PC to do it, which forces them to learn. It's a nice compromise instead of a full removal (dumbing down).

I don't see why I should complain as much about it.
Fallout 3 dumbed down SPECIAL to ridiculous degrees.
It reduced the number of skills and made them crap.
It removed tons of weapons and items from the gameplay.
It bent the lore heavily.
It changed the gameplay drastically from isometric turnbased to first person shooting.

So why exactly should I complain about Dragon Age 2 the same way?
Cause I don't like the looks of the map?
Cause I think the companions are a little less interesting this time around?
Cause companions are bisixual?

The only big criticism I have towards it is the lack of ending sliders and that there is a severe lack of humor in the game.

While with Fallout 3 I have to complain about the setting, the lore, the weapons, the armors, the vaults, the enclave, the endings, the settlements, the lack of industry/production/agriculture et cetera.

And Mass Effect, it's been pretty same-y for me. It has received it's tweaks too, changed from space-opera to action sci-fi.
But I don't think it changed to such drastic degrees as Fallout did with #3.

Then again, I'm not as much of a fan with DA and ME as I am of FO. (DAMEFO!!! New dragon shout.)

Point being..? there making a world for another game what they going against? And I imagine zenimax have beth by the testicles being there parent company.

The difference is I suppose your nota die hard da or me fan so your not gonna notice everything .
And skills are crap wtf theres less granted but in fo2 there was excessive amounts like gambling. And they are very useful in fo3 I cqn't see what makes skills crap.
Y'know what don't reply I can't be bothered with you shoveling your opinion down my throat like it is fact.

In Fallout 1 and Fallotu 2 crippled was healed by Doctor, you don't have doctor, you have to use a NPC, and they charge, lots.
First Aid is really useful if you don't want to waste money on stimpaks.
Gambling is really useful for getting absurd amounts of money.
Traps is really useful for disarming things, take that bomb in NCR for example, without Traps, can't disarm it, and I think in Sierra Army Depot there are tons of traps.

Medicine in Fallout 3? It's useless, you can spam stimpaks and get so many of them for such a low price that it's crap.
Barter? You get so many weapons and can repair them to top quality to easily that money ain't ever a problem.
Big Guns? The weapons svcked, in Fallout 1/2 they were deadly, in Fallotu 3 I barely ever used them because of how clunky, slow and low-damaged they were.
Energy Weapons? They just svck, they still do in New Vegas.
Speech? There weren't enough times to use it, and when you did it didn't have too much of an impact, the way it used a % system was also bad.

In the former games the skills had their usage, some were limited, sure, but without them you'd be at severe disadvantages. In Fallout 3, not so much.

So yes, some skills are crap in Fallout 3.


Also, in the former games the weapon skills, apart from Unarmed which gave new moves as well, were about how likely you were to land a hit.
With FPP you just need to figure out how to work the reticule.
A Sniper Rifle in Fallout 1/2 wouldn't be able to hit anything with 23 in Small Guns.
A Sniper Rifle in Fallout 3 and New Vegas can hit as long as you can aim with it, making the impact of the skill less meaningful.
All they do now is add damage to the weapon, oh and perks of course, but those were in both era's.

Lore for one, I am reluctant to point out further flaws, as it was just announced last week.

Realize, I don't inherently disagree with you, I'm not even sure you had a point other than pointing out Bioware's flaws. That's actually just as silly as me blaming BGS if TES:O svcks, but again, not enough information to even make a point.

They do.
A laser pistol in FO3/NV is crap, it has horrible damage and needs several hits to kill things, even gecko's require multiple shots.
Plasma weapons in general are slow and needs timed shots.
Tesla Cannon got nerfed from AOE to being singular hit.
Gauss Rifle is loud as hell, effective, but loud as hell.
Laser Rifle is pathetic with it's damage and requires a high crit build to be even remotely effective.

(Then again, I play on Hard or Very Hard with hardcoe Mode)


In Fallout 1/2 the weapons were less common, more expensive, but did one hell of a damage.



[edit]


And yes it does tie into the skill with how the weapons themselves act.
It's about skill point investment, why waste points in a skill that is less effective than it's counter-part?

Only plus with EW is base -DT, which they added after a patch in New Vegas, and universal ammo types for rifles, pistols and special tiers.
But with how much money one can get, the amount of ammo to loot and the absurd amounts certain NPC's sell it's hardly an issue with Guns or Explosives to aquire.

I guess I meant they're absolutely a step-up from FO:3, which is the most recent I've played since NV.

The last time I played any of the turn-based overhead FO's was ~9 years ago. I should fire them up again, eh?

1. Oh in that sense, definitely.

2. Yes, yes you should. Currently playing Tactics myself, only lost one squad member as of yet. (The moments where I die from absolutely stupid reasons I reload, like when I was disarming a mine and some other NPC which I told to walk walked right over it, asploding both members.)