RokHere

Never mind, I found it! It is called Displode Changes, even though the ESP file is called "Fatality Tweaks.esp": http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/35025/?

Ohhh man, you're totally right!! As you explained the situation, it all dawned on me...and I suddenly felt very guilty for thinking so cynically about a fellow modder or ex-modder. :confused: Indeed it is a very old mod. Crap. Well, let my apology be published to whoever produced the Fatality Tweaks mod back in the day, just as I published an unfair accusation. And yes, when I found out about what the old mod was doing to my game and how it was severely unbalancing it, especially during the first few levels, I indeed got really angry. Few things in this world upset me more than wasted time, because playing games can sometimes be a bit of a waste of time, but at least it is fun and considered like a little "R&R" for one's soul, by some of us at least, so when the experience is stripped of its fun, replaced by frustration, it becomes waste of time / life and frustration... = super angry. :nuke: Hehehe. One important bit, though: the mod must be still available on the web, and it must also be showing up on the first page of Google results, because I did install it only a week ago or so; but it is obviously listed with a different name, and even the description will not even include either keywords "fatality tweaks". I think it might be important to alert users on whichever site is hosting it, and perhaps to update the mod (which maybe I can do). But I don't know how to find the mod's page now; I tried and failed. I'd like to alert people on the site, and at the same time upload an updated version of the mod so that others don't have to go through the same problems. Any ideas how I can find its page? Or help? All I know right now is that it is called "Fatality Tweaks.esp". And it was listed with the explanation that it adds more realism to death or fatalities of enemies in the game, so that they do not explode ridiculously or suffer dismemberment all over the place when all that the player did was shoot them with a pistol. Any help finding the current page of that mod would be really appreciated, and I plan to use the info to help potential users and the community by updating it.

Or maybe that's not needed anymore, as the mod suddenly disappeared from the web—it seems! But for older users, I have just discovered that a mod called "Fatality Tweaks", which was actually listed among the best 25 Fallout New Vegas mods, apparently on PC Gamer itself, has misleading information about what it does. As I said, I cannot find a page for the mod anymore for some reason, and the strange thing is that Google cache does not show me a cached page for it, which is very strange; but from what I remember, Fatality Tweaks was published with the claim that it only tweaks the death animations of NPCs, so that they do not fly all over the place or explode violently when killed, because bullets do not do that, which all sounds great. The problem is that I found out that that's a minor part of what it does; Fatality Tweaks actually lowers the damage of several guns & weapons in the game, sometimes ridiculously lowering the damage (like lowering "That Gun's" damage from 30 per shot to 18 per shot!), and it also increases the spread of many guns (and not shotguns)! In other words, makes those guns less accurate! I could not believe myself when I discovered that. And I found out by coincidence, after embarrassing myself on Wikia by changing the damage per shot and DPS of That Gun on the page, thinking what I see in-game is the real damage. I felt so upset with this, especially because I played for hours in the beginning of the modded Fallout NV, feeling that my guns are frustratingly ineffective against the Legion assassins that keep being sent to me during my travels. It was a really frustrating experience, and no matter how much I raised my Guns skill, and no matter what best rifle I could find I use against them, I kept feeling like I'm using a BB gun against any heavily armored NPC. And right now I strongly believe that that deceitful mod was a major reason for this. In summary, whoever published the Fatality Tweaks mod was a dishonest person who failed to highlight to people what the mod truly does, or what the mod majorly does. Taking away "dismemberment" animations and the like was a very tiny change compared to all the numbers changed, which were mainly about making a lot of weapons...a lot less effective, or with a lot less damage.

I figured out what the problem was: the Janet on the left in the image is modified by the excellent mod, NVCE - New Vegas Character Expansions by Machienzo, but when I modified her further, I was using the vanilla FalloutNV.esm file, instead of using NVCE's file (the correct ESP file). So the override ESP file that I created was overriding Janet in the game with vanilla data, rather than NVCE data! Well, vanilla data including my hair-color change. And the vanilla data—believe it or not—is as horrible as it looks at the right...ghastly white complexion, no eyebrows, eyes too far apart, etc. By using Janet from NVCE's ESP file instead, I was able to change (correct) her hair color and preserve the beautiful look on the left. Thank you anyway. I hope my findings help someone else having a similar problem.

And taking another look at her, it seems that a lot more than just skin tone changed! Is it just me, or does it seem like her nose, eyes, and eyebrows changed, too?!

Hi. I'm trying to make very simple tweaks. As an example, changing only the hair color of an NPC in Fallout NV, and I'm doing it via a simple override ESP file. The strange thing is that this worked fine before when I implemented several changes to another NPC, and using the same method. But trying to only change hair color for another NPC strangely resulted in changing the skin tone of the face and body of that NPC to sickly, pale white. What gives? Is there anything I can do to not make such changes rely on luck or chance? Please find a demonstrative image attached. Thanks to anyone taking the time to share advice and tips.

I figured out what it is. It was because of the "Wadsworth and Godfrey- Choose your Robot" addon, which allows you to replace Wadsworth in your house in Megaton with an Eyebot, for example, which I did. But the damned Eyebot came with the Enclave radio! And all along I was thinking that the Enclave radio plays from that huge machine that did have sound waves animating on it and such.

Hey. Thank you for clarifying this. I've taken a couple of screenshots and attaching them; is this the default radio for the player's house in Megaton? I have lots of addons installed, but can't think of any that would interfere specifically with the radio in my house in Megaton, because all other activation instances and radios work just fine in the game. This obviously doesn't look like the small radios in other places in the game, but I cannot find any other "radio" in the house. Any ideas what's going on here?

Hi. Must admit, getting really tired of the Enclave's propaganda radio channel that's always running in My House in Megaton, even though the voice acting by the Enclave president is superb compared to a lot of horrific and nauseatingly nasal other voice acting in the game. And unless I missed something, it seems that I cannot turn off that radio channel or change it in the house? So I am hoping that someone who has the knowledge and skills to make this happen would develop a mod to at least permanently turn off the radio in My House at Megaton, if not give the ability to change it or turn it off and on. And if you know of a way to do this by changing the INI file or the console, please let me know. Thank you.

Figured out what the problem was: the address should not be a secure URL, it should not start with https:// but just http:// and I was copying and pasting the URL from the address bar as it was.

Hi. Can anyone tell me why the video on my uploaded mod is not showing, please? I had another version of the video uploaded and shared just fine last night, but this one is not showing on the video tab on my end. Is it a problem with the Nexus site currently, or a problem on my end?

Hi. I'd love to see an addon that allows me to do this, too, without "cheating" in the sense of getting extra perks that I have not earned or been given the chance to select by the game. In other words, as long as I was given the chance to select that number of perks or skills, or I earned them, I'd like to be able to change them later on for whatever reason. Of course this means that a player can keep doing this over and over again, and thus it becomes kind of cheating, but that's up to the player; ultimately, if the player uses it once just to correct a mistake or so, then the addon should be perfectly legitimate and a great convenience. Anyway, until an addon like this comes out, you can do this with console commands. For PERKS: player.removeperk <variable> player.addperk <variable> For example: player.removeperk littleleaguer (Remember to remove a perk before you add one, unless you do want to "cheat") For SKILLS: player.modav <variable> <amount> (<amount> can be negative to remove a number of skill points) For example: player.modav energyweapons -41 player.modav smallguns 41 player.modav perception -2 player.modav agility 2

Hello. Is this even possible? To develop a mod that lets you add map notes? In other words, create little icons in certain locations on the map, and add a note for each icon, which you can type. You know, something like: "100 Lockpicking box here," to remind oneself to return when one has the appropriate skill level or item for the location. I have a feeling this has been asked or requested before, but I did not find an answer for it in the two pinned topics.

Not really, no. If you want to micromanage, you're free to go back to Sins of the Solar Empire or even one of the Civilizations. People don't play RPGs to choose their freaking ammo or arrow types; they play RPGs to enjoy a story while gaming for a change and to experience fictional worlds from different perspectives, like a stealth perspective, or a mage one, or a meele one, etc. And changing arrow or ammo types is NOT like changing swords; even in real life ffs, people change the gun they'd like to use and simply buy the ammo for that specific gun; they don't go around and get out of their way to buy custom-made bullets. And if that's the whole point of an RPG for you, then you've missed the whole point and...again...you're living in your own delusional world. Seriously, wake up and smell the coffee; the world does not work like you think it does. Proof: DA2; we didn't get it that way from DA1 because BioWare wanted to produce something bad, but because they wanted to produce something commercially successful, and that's exactly what they did. Just because you find other people like you on the forums, this doesn't mean that most fans of the game want what you want; the reality is that I'm one of the very few players of my type who actually care enough to write in forums. Most players who don't want to be bothered with details, like me, don't bother with forums either, which is why you don't get to read about their interests very often. However, there is gameplay feedback that is sent to BioWare with your permission, and that's how they make decisions about what gets played or used the most in games; you're a member of a minority group, face it. Not really, no. The options on the left are just for people who want to engage in conversation and enjoy the story (regardless to whether they're enjoying it for the first time or the 5th time). You'll get all the items and all the quests just fine if you always cut to the chase and choose something from the right options. My game isn't crashing, so I highly doubt it's a bug on my end. I have encountered before a situation like this; someone on the forums insisted that something did not exist in ME2, and when I proved it with a screenshot, they never replied in the thread again. So let me ask you this as a test: Does Mass Effect 2 have jaggies? Like, non-antialiased graphics? I know that Borderlands used a modified Unreal engine; please learn to stop inflating your knowledge, because you obviously know less than me about many things, and I repeatedly shoot down your arguments with proof, and it has been made obvious a few times on this thread. And when all you can do to counter-argue is to twist words and start to use subjective adjectives around the names, you look even more pathetic. Face it, without shoving subjective, relative, opinionated adjectives like "heavily", and "modified", and "normal", you have no argument at all, and you're intellectually broke. It is damn obvious. And let me prove it in front of any other readers: without using adjectives, tell me which engine was used to produce Borderlands, and which engine was used to produce Gears of War? We're not interested in what YOU personally think is "heavy" or "light", excessive or negligible, we're not interested in a vague description like "modified", as if all other games use their engines exactly as they got it from the developer without changing even a line of code in it...we just want to get to the bottom of the issue: which engines were used for those games? No beating around the bush or twisting words or using opinionated adjectives. If you have the guts to do this, you'll suddenly realize how utterly pathetic you sound when desperately trying to convince yourself that you're right about the so many things you were wrong about. "This is bad game design", is that a scientific fact? Or another subjective, opinionated remark? Seriously, if you cannot use specific examples or logical reasons for your declarations, then save your opinions to yourself, because they hurt your credibility and make you sound like a fanatic even more. Given the huge success of Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 1 (which did switch cameras to show slow-motion kills of dragons and such), apparently "bad game design" sells pretty damn well. What can we say?! Everyone's taste is bad, except you. Really? How do I put whatever I want though? Valve never gave me a chance to record my own comments and answers and then "put" them in the game. They never even allowed me to type my answers and have them showing on the screen. So how exactly do I "put whatever I want" to prove that Gordon is not mute? And what would your cousin say when they hear you claiming that Gordon is not mute, but see Gordon staring blankly at an NPC after another after another, while all those NPCs are asking him questions, and Gordon just stands there silently, then moves away to do something? When your cousin asks, "Why isn't your character saying anything??", what will you tell them? "Because I can put whatever I want"? I imagine their second question will be, "Put whatever you want? Put it where? I can't hear or read anything!" I don't know how you'll handle this...put it in your head? If I were them, I'd be like, "Oookay?..." Then walk away. Gordon is mute. The problem is not that we cannot hear him; the problem is that he does not say anything at all. Thus, he is mute. And there's no way on earth you can prove otherwise. Playing with words doesn't make you look smart; it makes you look opinionated, stupid, and fanatic. Another "poor game design" verse in your gaming holy scripture, great. Apparently almost every single successful game today was produced with very poor game design, because every single one of them had cut-scenes. Well done. Please keep it up to entertain readers of the thread, dude. Yeah, again how? How do I put whatever I want "there"? Without sounding like a lunatic, that is. Too bad Valve already contradicted their own claims after brainwashing you with them, buddy. We all know what Gordon's face actually looks like, because Valve showed it to the whole world so prominently in the marketing material for Half-Life and on the very box of the game. Basically, they've already established Gordon's face outside the game, but made him faceless in-game...and voiceless. All brainwashed delusional fanatics like you "put their own face", and forget that Gordon actually does have a face, but Valve just doesn't show it in the game for some reason, and they managed to convince the brainwashed fans that it's so they can put their faces there instead or imagine their own faces. As if that makes sense, not just with the existence already of a fictional face for Gordon, but with the very simple fact that the character also has a full name: Gordon Freeman. So for some reason, it makes sense to people like you (and Valve shockingly was confident that it will make perfect sense to people like you! Wow! Well, they were right anyway), it makes sense to people like you to "put their own faces there" or imagine their own faces, while at the same time, they're being called "Gordon", not called by their own names. Again, as if that makes sense even from the perspective of immersion. Uh huh. But in Valve's game, you will be called a name, Gordon, that does apply to you and who you really are; in Valve's game, Gordon will do things that you will surely want to do, every single time; in Valve's game, you will make a comment (in your head and imagination) that makes perfect sense with the response you will hear next from the NPC. In Valve's game...you are the character, because your name is Gordon Freeman in real life. I get it. Thanks, dude; I'm suddenly enlightened about the striking difference between Valve's game, and how you're not controlling Gordon but you ARE Gordon in their game, and BioWare games, and how you just control Shepard in their games. May we all have bits of your wisdom.

As a Khajit Thief with a bow, I sneak and hide behind a tree, stalking a chicken in Riverwood. I aim at the chicken, take a deep breath, and shoot my arrow, hitting the chicken and sending it sliding on the ground for a couple of yards. Immediately, I hear some disturbance in town, and there's a bounty on my head. I take a peak outside my hiding spot, and see the blacksmith and his wife coming at me with weapons drawn. Just as the wife gets ready to stab me with her dagger, she goes like, "You'll make a fine rug, cat!"

Yes, that was a typo; I meant to say that maybe ME2 does not have as many quests as Skyrim, so it's a quantity issue, not linear vs. radial. I personally enjoyed DA2 more than DA1. It was very difficult for me to beat or finish DA1, but easy and smooth to beat DA2, and I enjoyed the combat of DA2 more. And this can't be just because of an assumption that I'm an "action game" type of guy rather than a hardcore RPG kind of gamer, because I still consider Fallout I and II, which were not even real-time but turn-based, all-time favorites of mine and classics. I loved them and enjoyed them a lot. So there must be another secret as to why I get sucked into BioWare's games more than Bethesda's, and why I enjoyed DA2 more than DA1. Perhaps it is a "big picture vs. details" kind of thing, or a "micromanagement vs. don't bother me with details" kind of thing. From the arguments on forums back in the day, I noticed that lots of people actually loved the complexity of DA1 and ME1, and hated the simplicity of DA2 and ME2, while I felt completely the opposite way; lots of people actually wanted to micromanage their protagonists and their companions' gear upgrades in ME2 and DA2 just as they used to do in DA1 and ME2; heck, some even wanted to micromanage or "have control" over the freaking ammo types and bullet types!! I was like, "What the hell?!!!!!!" This is a nightmare for me, and I don't want to be bothered with such minute details; I'm not interested in micromanagement. I'm quite happy with automated upgrading of most things, and just a little bit of control over the type of weapons I use and general category of armor (light or heavy), and that's about it...let me jump into the fray and start to actually use those weapons in the fight. I have little time to spend in micromanaging in a game really; there's enough of that in real life. That's just how I think about it, and that's partially why I appreciated many of the changes in DA2 and ME2. But maybe others actually enjoy the same exact things that I dread. The solution, in my opinion, is to allow the players that level of micromanagement, but to also give players like me the option to simply just have those things automated. And don't get me wrong; I never ever allow ME2 or DA2 to automatically level up my character, I hate that. I definitely want to have control over what kinds of powers I give to my character, but also choose ammo type? Hell no, thanks. Strange, I never felt that way in ME2. I never felt that any of the conversation were that long. In fact, you can totally just skip the whole conversation by going for the options on the right side? The options on the left side are what keep the conversation going. The game that actually did make me feel that way you describe was The Witcher 2! Oh my God, that game started with such long, long conversations, and right off the bat, before I could even start killing one single enemy! And some of the accents used in those long conversations weren't even the most pleasant to listen to, so I was like, "Oh man, when is this ever gonna end?? Why do you have to take so long right in the beginning of the story, and telling me something that I have absolutely no idea about...I don't even know what this dude with a weird accent is talking about!" Please pay close attention to as many walking NPCs as possible, especially right at the moment when the foot behind touches the ground, you'll see the foot or shoe touching the ground, stopping, then literally sliding backwards (moonwalking style). Also pay attention to your own feet in third-person view on irregular surfaces in dungeons, for example, and you may be able to find a good distance between your shoes and the ground, as if your character is floating. I can try and screenshot the latter if I am bothered, or Fraps the moonwalking if I'm crazy enough just to prove my point. If anyone can second what I'm describing, I'd be grateful...at least so I can be sure whether I have a bug or not! Not true, and the proof is: the same engine (Unreal) that produced Borderlands was the one that produced Gears of War! Enough said. Yeah, you didn't say so directly, but you did mention Source immediately followed by using Borderlands as an example when referring to style > graphics. And I didn't say you were wrong; just pointed out that Borderlands used Unreal, not Source, in an "anyway" fashion. That's if you understand "cinematic" in a comprehensive or thorough fashion; cinematic is almost always used in the gaming industry to refer specifically to the quality of graphics, not the gameplay. Make a game cinematic has nothing to do with gameplay, but it means make it wow us with its graphics and visuals. Yeah, heard it all before, nice and all, but alas...Gordon is mute. The poor retard. :( I mean, that girl smiles at him like an angel, asks questions, makes comments, and he just stands there like a statue. If you "pretend" that you replied by saying something in your mind, then really, why don't you also pretend that whatever is happening in the cut-scene is really happening to you. See, "taking control away" from the player was an expression invented by Valve to glamorize their game (a game that didn't really need any extra glamor or glorifying because it was a good game anyway for that matter?) with some sort of concept of "control" that is, in reality and essence, empty, misleading, and useless? I mean, there is a cut-scene sort of event in the game, ok...and I can actually move around while it's happening...errmm...ok? I can move around, look around....so?? ......? See, so nothing. So what if I can move around while a cut-scene type of event is happening? "I'm in control"? Really? And what am I effectively doing with that control? Moving around? Looking at the cute event from a slightly different angle? Come on, let's get serious. And let me use a specific example to demonstrate my point. In Mass Effect 2's last scene of escape, when Shepard runs then leaps heroically to try to grasp the edge of the Normandy in the last second, all in slow motion; yes, it would've been nice if there was a "jump" button or mechanic in the game to begin with so that we'd make that jump ourselves, but even then, if we do jump and fly to the Normandy that way, would you rather be looking at a very redundant scene of yourself dashing forward with the camera still behind your shoulders, or would you rather the camera did switch to the side to show that jump in slow motion like we'd see in the movies? 90% of the people will definitely choose to watch "themselves" through the eye of a side camera, making that epic jump in slow motion. And in order to that, you will have to switch the camera angle or switch to a different camera momentarily. Valve would like to have you believe that they "took control away from you", but the reality is that you still have control, you can simply just skip the scene if you really want to (and I'm aware that BioWare forbids skipping many scenes, but I'm just saying that's how it works in several others games, you press Esc or another button and skip the scene). And the reality is that they're not taking control away from you, but showing you the fruit of your heroic deeds. Moreover, how the hell can you see the facial expressions of anger or threatening or confidence on your protagonist's face without switching to a different camera? And even though Gordon is mute, he is not faceless; Valve does portray Gordon's face very prominently, yet surprise surprise, they conveniently never show you the face in-game, all under the pretense that they "don't want to take control away from you"...really? So I'm not just mute in-game, but I also can't even see my own facial expressions? Effectively making me a voiceless AND faceless entity? And then they pretend it's for my immersion and that it's because I'm Gordon? Really??! Well, if I am Gordon, then WTF is my face not on the game box?!!!!!! I can just go on and on about how Valve contradicts itself and markets their attempts with such misleading labels like "take away control" or "keep control", and it's all hogwash. Let's just agree that Half-Life was an awesome game, a classic in its own right, Half-Life II was a worthy sequel, and leave it at that, because there was absolutely nothing good about making my protagonist voiceless and faceless in-game, claiming it's because it's me, then actually giving the protagonist a face outside the game...a face that is not mine, I hasten to add. If you can pretend that Gordon is you while Gordon is mute in Half-Life, and you can also pretend that Gordon does reply to people and make funny comments when he is actually and clearly mute in-game, then I don't see why I can't pretend that Shepard is me, and that that smile of his in-game is actually me smiling , and that that angry tone is me being badass and putting the bad guy in his place. I think the latter makes much more sense to me and is perfectly immersive, while the former makes me feel that something is wrong and something is missing.

This may sound logical at first impression, but with reference to a certain feel about how things work in Skyrim from actually playing the game, you get the impression that the Stormcloaks most definitely must soon enough find out that it's you. Why? Two reasons: 1. spies who are naturally everywhere in Skyrim, and 2. You being a central character in the world, it seems that everyone hears almost everything about you eventually, if you join the Companions, guards at the other end of the world find out next day, if you become their leader, ditto. So you really think that you can eradicate all Stormcloaks' forts and jeopardize their whole existence without them catching up to your identity soon enough even if you're thorough with your cleansing of those forts or bases? Fat chance. As long as you tell the Legion or anyone that you've accomplished the missions, word must eventually travel in a world like Skyrim. This is that impression that we get while playing the game and listening to random comments from city guards and other NPCs. As I mentioned before, I was literally shocked when I found out that joining the Legion won't have consequences in Stormcloaks' cities, because I was under the impression all along that I would, and was delaying the decision because of that!

I must agree with others on the point that BioWare's games are not that linear, or as linear as some people make it sound like. And let me demonstrate why: maybe DA1 isn't a great example, but imagine Mass Effect 2 with the ability to actually travel from planet to planet by actually driving the Normandy in space, and encountering other ships occasionally or smaller planets that can be explored, and that are rich with creatures, bases to raid, etc. It would then be very comparable to Skyrim, and no one would say it is that linear. Because just like you can ignore the main quest and just explore smaller cities and do quests in them in Skyrim, Mass Effect 2 also allows you to ignore the main quest line for a while and do side quests, retrieving objects from planets and helping teammates, and so on. Yes, there are as many quests in ME2 as there are in Skyrim, but then the issue here isn't a linear vs. radial quest system, but a quantity issue. In ME2 you do have the freedom to do this quest first, or that quest first. To explore this planet first, or that one first. And just like some planets don't feel that big because you only get to visit on single base and it's small, some towns in Skyrim are also very small with only a 2 houses or so, 1 inn, and 1 shop. So there is a valid argument that BioWare's games aren't necessarily or exactly linear, but they simply rely on depth and quality of individual elements, rather than inundating the player with almost countless options and a rich world. Both are valid directions and have their fan bases. For me personally, I confess that Bethesda has never convinced me to "beat" or finish any of its games...ever! I did play some of its games for dozens of hours, not just 20-40, like Morrowind and Oblivion, but for some reason, it got so tedious, and I always just stopped my first playthrough mid-way, and went back to start a new game with a new class and race, and then I couldn't finish that second playthrough either, and I always hated that. On the other hand, I've finished ME1 and ME2 several times both, and finished DA1 once, and finished DA2 perhaps 3 times. For some reason, BioWare's style keeps me interested and motivates me to keep going and to know how things will end. And when I have already finished it, I go again for a different experience with a different class; I'm not sure why I go again; maybe their combat feels more fun to me than Bethesda's combat, and maybe I keep loving the excellent voice acting and great storytelling so I'm willing to see the same story unfold in front of me again, and maybe it's a mix of both. With that said, Skyrim is leagues ahead of Morrowind and Oblivion and so far it is engaging me a lot more than the older games, but I also found myself breaking my first playthrough to try a different class. I think that I will finish Skyrim at least once, and that would be the first time ever for a Bethesda game; with that said, I still have healthy apprecation and respect for the company, and feel passionate about what they do well, I just would like to see them do other elements well too so gamers of my type can be sucked into their games just like we get sucked into BioWare's games. I also want Bethesda to keep using better voice actors, and to improve some of their animations...particularly the part of their animations where the limbs of any creatures or NPC touch the ground for walking, it bothers me soooooooo much and really puts me off to see the feet of characters "moonwalking" or "sliding" on the ground, with no feeling of friction at all of the sole against the ground, as if they're literally skating on ice or something...this really puts me off and just compromises my immersion in the wonderful looking world over and over again. I want to feel that the inhabitants of Bethesda's worlds are actually stepping on something, and their feet are touching the ground. =) Commenting on your second point, of course style will trump technical excellence of graphics most of the time. However, that's not an engine issue, dude; that's an art direction, style, and palette issue! I mean, a company can license Crytek's CryEngine 3.0, for example, and decide to produce a game with the same artistic style of Borderlands, and imagine what they can do with it...imagine seeing your Borderlands 3 protagonist walking through a tundra area, and the tall, thick blades of grass are richly sliding past your screen as a creature is slowly emerging from a cloud of dust ahead of you. CryEngine 3.0 can be used to produce an exact copy of Borderlands, but with far more richness and possibilities, especially in terms of foliage or areas like jungles and tundras; but they do cities just as awesomely, of course, and this was shown in Crysis 2's NYC. So yeah, whether it's Borderlands (and by the way, Borderlands used Unreal anyway, not Source) or Left 4 Dead (which used Source), the way those games look is independent of those engines, and it is only a matter of art direction. Battlefield 3 has its appeal in terms of realism. I wouldn't say that Borderlands or Borderlands 2 is / was better than Battlefield 3, or that BF3 is better; they both have their times and places. BF3 is a much more realistic type of game, so if it lacks the visual "wow" or pretty factor, that's not an engine issue and it wouldn't be an art direction issue either, but simply because real-life war isn't exactly cute or pretty anyway, and it doesn't happen in very "interesting" looking places. But yeah, use Frostbite 2.0 or preferably CryEngine 3.0 in Borderlands, with proper art direction and attention to detail, and we can probably be mind-blown with a cinematic gameplay experience through and through, as if we're watching a Pixar movie, but not really watching it, we're actually playing it.

Hahaha...that was hilarious to read about! xD Thanks for sharing. I think even though there is the "quickload" button, I do love to just not rely on it too much, and it does't help me feel great if I have already invested even 10 minutes in any activity, especially if I was taking my time and feeling immersed and all...it does upset me if something goes wrong and I find myself tempted to hit the quickload button. So yeah, I can relate to that feeling "Hoooly ****! No, no, no, no, please, please..."

Regarding the "it's this way because of that" or "it's either this or that" argument, I believe those are rumors propagated by lazy developers who want to justify their laziness, or justify what they're doing by those rumors and excuses when the real reason was simply budget. I see absolutely nothing to stand in the way of creating a world like Skyrim with BioWare's characters, conversations, and voice acting. In fact, while Dragon Age 1 may not be a perfect example of the possibility, it's still a pretty good one. Yes, it was not an open world that you're free to roam however you like, but it was pretty damn close to that, and its storytelling was epic....characters and conversations were awesome. I'm sure we can have the best of both worlds. Bethesda doesn't have to compromise its strengths when copying the strengths of other companies, and BioWare wouldn't have to compromise its strengths when copying the strengths of other companies. Now regarding your game-engine comment, I don't know what to say. Are you trying to actually suggest that SOURCE....Valve's 7-years-old engine is better than CryEngine 3.0 or Forstbite 2.0?!!!!!!! Holy crap...hehehe...I don't know what to say. Have you even watched Battlefield 3's trailer that was produced purely from in-game footage? It looked like a freaking cinematic trailer, but it was fully gameplay. And Crysis 1, produced 4 years ago, can still look awesome today. CryEngine was the best graphics engine years ago without any other engine even coming near enough to be a real rival...it put everyone else to shame years ago; it revolutionized graphics in the gaming world and raised the standards so high, everyone else had to spread rumors and desperately find fault in it and the only thing they could say was..."It's difficult to develop for." And today, I don't see any competition for CryEngine 3.0 other than Frostbite 2.0. Bringing Valve's Source into this bunch sounds downright laughable; I really did laugh...it's absurd, I won't even get into an argument of comparison, because it would mean I'm taking the comparison seriously, and I never would! And frankly, with so much foliage in Bethesda's open worlds, there is absolutely no rival for CryEngine 3.0 for them; it's the best engine on earth for big worlds, rich with foliage, which would still run on humble PCs, and all other engines are years behind in this specific aspect. Frostbite 2.0 is competing with some nice perks like lighting, destructability, but it's nowhere near CryEngine when it comes to foliage, like jungles, tundras, etc., especially in big, open worlds.

Are you saying this while playing on the hardest difficulty, though? Then again, regardless to exact level of difficulty, there is a strange imbalance of difficulty...in the same dungeon, some groups are all wimpy and die so fast, while some groups with one particular non-boss mob seem way too difficult compared. This was a major problem in The Witcher 2, for example, and I see it happening in Skyrim too...not sure if it was / will be patched, though, or ever mentioned or addressed.

Commenting at faifh's point: exactly, sajuuk. I know it's easy to deny the accusation, but very honestly, not trying to get back at you or be mean or gang up on you, I swear, very honestly, I agree with that point from faifh because I was going to make the same exact comment. Argument: "This kind of games", sarcastic comment: "...all of gaming..". So yes, in a way, you've implied that by doing something to "this kind of games", it's going to bring "all of gaming" back 10 years. The person who made the comment had every right to say that they never said that they want to do this to "all games" or "all of gaming", but just this kind of games. In our context, it would be healthy to assume that "this kind of games" is simply open-world or sandbox types of games with almost countless encounters, relationships, etc. So really, man, I am serious when I suggest the book "Rulebook for Argument" by Weston. There's also another book that I read years ago and really loved, had to do with learning, and had gems of advice about choice of words and the way we teach things...trying to avoid or at least be extremely careful with expressions like "always, never, all, none, must, this is the truth, this is the way, etc.", and replacing them in our language with "sometimes, rarely, most, very few, can, this is what we know, one way to, etc." By doing that, you can avoid offending people or alienating anyone or sounding dogmatic and self-righteous to most people, and by recognizing that even if it's easy to slip away and pretend you "never said that", the implications you make with your counter-arguments will always be caught by intelligent readers and sometimes will be criticized and you won't be appreciated because of them, so it pays off to be accurate when counter-arguing, and it pays off to put an effort to be / sound friendly when dropping comments of sarcasm. Failing to put an effort in all this, would result in some people labeling you as a troll, and many others would be happy to follow and agree. With all that said, commenting on your own point, sajuuk, I understand your concern about how the industry has a lot of mimicking, and for good reason sometimes; frankly, I always wanted Bethesda to mimic BioWare when it came to storytelling, choice of voice actors, and relationships between protagonist and companions, because it would be totally awesome to have BioWare's writing, storytelling, and voice acting put into Bethesda's sandbox, rich, open worlds, and design all this using Crytek's CryEngine 3.0. I say to the industry, give me an MMO done that way, and I'll most probably happily quit "gaming" for a few years and stick to your MMO...haha. But really, if Bethesda mimics the genius in BioWare's storytelling, I'm sold; if they mimic DICE's or Frostbite graphics, I'm hooked. If BioWare mimics Bethesda's open worlds and richness and slightly better graphics, I'm double-sold; if they also mimic DICE's or Crytek's graphics, I'm a rabid fan. And so on. I don't mind companies mimicking each other if it is done well, creatively, and with those companies still retaining their own identity and retaining their full strengths. As a result of all this, I understand your concern...what if one company goes for this 80% text-based questing and its game becomes successful? Many other companies would copy it, and we're suddenly 10 years back in gaming playing mainly text-based games with no engaging voice acting and all! We can't have that. I share that concern, and maybe a couple of years ago, I would've totally agreed, but at the same time, we have to consider that if the very voice acting is impeding companies' abilities to tweak, patch, update, improve, or enrich their games, then by all means, maybe we should all be reasonable and let them know that as long as they don't do it out of sheer laziness....as long as they go for maybe 20-30% voice acting and 70-80% text, and make up for it by inundating us with rich, deep, and complicated fictional worlds, with almost perfectly harmonious relationships between elements, characters, and factions (a solid, believable social structure), then by all means, maybe they should go for exactly that. And I'm sure those games will be more fun than short 100%-voiced games that we finish in 20 hours, play one more time, then put on the shelf.

Hehehe...seconded! xD At least you could think of it as a "monotone person" anyway, rather than think of it as a "programming bug or mistake by Bethesda...great". =)

Seconded, on the part about being happy with mainly text-based questing if this is what it takes to produce a "classic" again. And I also believe that if done creatively and intelligently, and it does indeed lead to deep and rich worlds with countless relationships, contacts, encounters, etc., then the product will find its niche and market and there will be positive reviews from lots of intelligent reviewers out there who appreciate good effort and well-produced interactive entertainment. Seriously, man, if Fallout I or II had better graphics, more music, and a few modern tweaks here and there, I'd go back and play it today, with its text-based questing. And even if I don't play WoW anymore and lots of people quit, it is still a good example of a popular game today where the quests are mainly text-based. Borderlands is still another example. I firmly believe it can be done, and the commercial success of WoW and Borderlands speaks for itself; you don't have to have 100% voiced questing to produce a fun game that also becomes commercially successful. Heck, they can even make it so that very deep and rich romance options are also mainly text-based, and it doesn't have to feel boring or backwards. For example, it could be a 3D first-person or third-person game and all, just like Skyrim, but perhaps with the art-style of Borderlands, and when you start a conversation with the companion you choose in the current playthrough, she'd look at you and you hear a very simple by very well acted and emotional, warm, romantic, "Heey..." while the NPC smiles at you (remember Jack's "Hey.." line in Mass Effect 2? Simple, brief, but meaningful), then the 3D view is cut, and the game smoothly and quickly, with no delays or clunky feeling, switches to perhaps a comic-style or some sort of 2D art-style, showing portraits of that character, describing what's happening, giving you choices for the conversation, and once the scene is over, that screen fades back to the 3D world and you continue playing. Of course, this is a very crude, top-of-my-head idea; things can be done much better with proper professionals sitting down and brainstorming solutions. And the message here for developers is that they don't have to feel that voice acting will limit the richness, quantity, or quality of the stories, characters, relationships, and options of their games. If they feel that it's better to switch from 100% voiced questing to 20% voice + 80% text in order to produce something so rich, addictive, and replayable over and over again, and keeps surprising the players and showing them new things, then by all means, I think I'd love to experience these things again today, just like I experienced them back in Fallout and Baldur's Gate days. I really miss the richness of options and relationships in those days, and the feeling that you can spend hundreds of hours playing the game, finish 5 playthroughs, and on your 6th playthrough, you're STILL discovering new things for heaven's sake...even when you tried to be very thorough in your previous playthroughs. You just rarely, if ever, get this today, and it would be lovely to get back to it somehow. And while I agree with you on the above, I don't agree with you on the part of synthetic speech effectively replacing actors; can't be done. Just like there is something called "bad acting", and by the way, someone on this thread pointed out how bad the voice acting was in Oblivion (I know some people don't agree, but I fully agree...Skyrim is like a huuuuge improvement over Oblivion in terms of good voice acting and emotional involvement...I can even see that Bethesda used some of the voice actors that BioWare used! Have you noticed?!), so yeah, synthetic speech even at its best is always going to sound like "bad or monotone voice acting". You simply can't replace human emotion; no substitute for it. Just like you also need today actors for your motion capture to produce the most natural looking animations for your game characters, the need for actors is never going to die no matter how technology advances. We'll need humans to show perfect, realistic animation for game characters, and we'll need actors to have emotional, engaging storytelling. But yes, synthetic speech can very much be suitable in the future for non-important characters in the game. Important characters, on the other hand, simply must be voiced with professional actors, and that need will never die.

You can go on and on, however long you like, and even by in-game definitions, nothing in the game ever suggested that the label "dual casting" is exclusive to same-spell casting. The ONLY reference related to that is the PERK; the perk related to dual casting only applies when you use the same spell in both hands. Are you reading it properly now? The game never said that dual casting is when you cast the same spell; it only offers a perk that will apply only when you use the same spell when dual casting. Which means that you can use different spells when dual casting. And as I said, no matter how long you justify it, you'll only end up looking like a stubborn young child who is too cowardly to admit that they were wrong. And guess what? Nobody needed you to admit to being wrong; I simply would've used a much friendlier tone with you from the beginning if yo hadn't gone all "lol" at me, "lol that's not not dual casting". Had you said something friendly or neutral like, "But that wouldnt' be dual casting...dual casting is when you use the same spell in both hands", I would've replied with a friendly or neutral tone saying, "Why should that be? Dual casting is not a term specific to the game or to anything else for that matter; it's just a term that describes the action, like dual throttle, dual wielding, etc. Nobody ever said that wielding a dagger in one hand and a sword in the other is NOT dual-wielding, because dual-wielding is only when you wield two daggers, so why would we say that dual-casting is only when you cast the same spell? Not very logical." But of course, because you are a "lol" kinda person, I just put you to your place, that's all. Next time, try communicating properly so that people's answers don't humiliate you publicly so badly.