Kartoflator

I just switched to Alienware Area-51m, because my previous gaming laptop died 2 months ago... Well, it kinda still works under Linux Mint booted from pendrive, but trying to launch Windows sooner or later results in various bluescreens, and I can't hear cooling system, so it's most likely hardware problem (tried to do clean Windows reinstall three times and problem persist). I'm still going to have this laptop tested by qualified people, and have it repaired, provided the cost wouldn't be too high... Anyway, I've bought laptop version of Area 51, because I'm from Poland, but work in Germany for the most of the year, and in the flat we rent with my workmates there's just not enough space for desktop, monitor et c. Hell, not even enough power outlets... And my laptop needs two power bricks, and one of these is almost literally a "brick". That would be even worse with desktop, since I can't just occupy all available outlets around the flat :pinch: Also, travelling around with desktop and peripherals would be really expensive and problematic (I don't own a car) and our rented flat is way over 1000 kilometers from my hometown in Poland... As of now, my laptop performs quite well. Because of the whole COVID situation, the "euro to polish currency" ratio is very good and I used that to immediately upgrade RAM and buy additional hard drives. Currently I have 3 hard drives, two of which are SSD, 4,25 TB in total, and 64GB RAM. BTW, if you are seriously thinking about buying Alienware, say something like mine, you don't have to stick with Alienware/Dell recommendations. They say Area-51m supports drives up to 1TB, but that's not about hardware really. It's a matter of OS and BIOS. With Win10 and modern UEFI there's no problem running bigger capacities. One of my SSDs is 2TB, another 2.5" mechanical drive is also 2TB and they both work well, no problems initializing them through Windows after installing. Like others have said, running older games is more of a software problem, really. Look, I can't even get to work "Fallout 3" under Win10, and if I'm correct the game would even require "4 GB RAM" patch at some point for rigs with bigger amounts of memory. "The Witcher 3" starts on my laptop automatically on "uber" settings, but I get horrible lags every now and then. I've learned that the game doesn't go well with overclocking, but when I turn OC off, I still get lags, only not that often. Oh, my rig has RTX 2080 OC Ready and 144Hz, G-Sync monitor, btw. So, it must be something about the game itself, rather than hardware. Hairworks, maybe? :laugh: I admit, Alienware hardware is horribly expensive, I was saving money for mine for nearly 6 years, so if you like older games too, you can simply buy a little less "fancy" desktop/laptop in a reasonable price and then just install "GOG Galaxy", buy older games there. Games from GOG mostly come already with predefined settings for modern computers, even with DOSBox already set up if needed, you just install and play.

Sooo, we've got a premiere date from official site - 16.04.2020... Also, Johnny f***in' Mnemonic?! That is...AWESOME! :laugh:

Yeah, the guy commenting newspaper articles on TV mentioned E3, so I'm guessing CDPR prepared some new info for us. The last article about the game on polish internet I've read was dated 29.05. and it was saying that "Cyberpunk 2077", much like "The Witcher 3" won't support modding, at least initially, because right now they want to focus on polishing the final product.

This just in guys: since I'm on vacation, I finally have some time to play games (and mod the cr*p out of them). I was just checking out some mods for "Fallout: NV", when they started to talk about "Cyberpunk 2077" on our polish TV, "Polsat Nowy Dzien" (that's: "Polsat New Day" in english). I didn't catch the whole story, but they were presenting an article from one of polish newspapers and saying, that polish market analytics and investors firmly believe in game's success, which promises lots of future funds and support for CDProjekt. They've also said, that more information about game will be revealed on sunday (09.06.), though the game release date should be around May 2020. I don't really follow news on the internet, so I don't know, whether this is "old news", I just heard it like 10 minutes ago. :laugh:

I do that almost always - I'm patient, why would I pay for a product, that sometimes may be even unplayable due to some bugs or glitches, and then pay separately for DLCs or season passes? I just wait a bit, usually you can later buy "full package" with all add-ons for the same price, as the base game on release. Plus, usually you get the game with all the possible patches and fixes. This seems like a good practice, works for me at least. Also, I don't play any multiplayer games or MMOs, so I don't care if servers are "alive"; a good, singleplayer game can be "new" to me even if it's couple of years old. Right now, I'm trying "Divinity: Original Sin 2" - I just played it for an hour or so (I went on a modding rage with Battletech's .json files), but I'm really enjoying it. I feel like I'm playing good, old, very narrative title, like "Baldurs Gate" or "Planescape: Torment". On a side note, as to the "modern games being made around one template": how come so many fantasy games start with your main char being imprisoned? :laugh: I have to give "Prey" another chance. I really liked the original game, I stopped playing the "new" one after a couple of hours. It felt kinda...repetitive. Lots of backtracking, multiple times. I guess I didn't have that feeling of progress, when I had to basically run in circles every so often. But yeah, when I have time, I will play it again. I've noticed, that some games need to grow on you, just like some music albums.

So much this. Though I have the the feeling, that these are not developers, or even publishers (as in: guys, who dole out the money, expecting the project to turn profit without getting into technicalities), who decide about game's final shape. Videogame industry has been making annually more money than the whole Hollywood in the last decades. The "passion" has been largely out of equation in game developing process for some time now, at least in case of the big companies. Something tells me, that those, who call the shots about what we are getting in the end, are marketing department guys. I can almost imagine such guy, who never played any videogame for longer than 10 minutes, doing his "market research", then coming to a meeting with devs and saying something like: [Marketing dep]: "Current research shows, that there's a social demand for >inclusiveness<. Also, robots. Kids want robots." [Developers]: "Wait, what? But...but...We're making World War II shooter... Actually, we'd like it to be at least somewhat historically accurate" [Marketing dep]: "What, wouldn't you like to have a robot hand?! EVERYBODY want that!" Erm...Anybody played "Battlefield 5"? Obviously, I'm generalizing, it's not that simple. You can't blame just one guy for everything that's wrong in this business. Although after playing "Far Cry" from part 3 to 5 I'm starting to think, that those UBI devs have serious drug-related problems... :pinch: It actually starts to look like a drug promotion... "Let's have a trip! And another one! Yaay, that's such fun!" This is really becoming tedious. Is that the best they can come up with? It wouldn't be a problem, if it was optional - but it isn't. Especially fighting quite well developed villain in a - you guessed it - drug fuelled QTE sequence. A well-rounded game should appeal to most players from any culture. I can't truly relate to people from some fictional country, that are seemingly all drug addicts. Never tried any drugs, never will; I already smoke cigarettes and drink buckets of coffee, which is enough, thank you very much. "Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel" faced similar problem. It wasn't that bad game, it was just...too "aussie". Majority of jokes, pop-culture references et c. was "lost in translation" for anyone outside of Australia. I had no idea, that "Boganella" talking shotgun was voiced by actress, who starred in some famous australian sitcom. I didn't even know, what "bogan" means. As a result, game was just a series of boring fetch-quests for many people, with some incomprehensible slang in the middle. Yet the problem with the sad state of things seems to be deeper than just "it's all about greed and laziness". We, gamers, can be blamed for that as well. Namely, how we are currently settling for things, that would've been unacceptable just a couple of years ago. A lot of gamers have been cursing the industry for "streamlining the gameplays", making games more and more "casual", or simply "dumbing them down". Yeah, but what is the reason for that? We all crawl before we can learn to walk, walk before we run. First, we read superhero comics, listen to run-of-the-mill pop music, watch "easy" action movies. Then, one day, we discover valuable literature, jazz, progressive rock, classical music, Alfred Hitchcock, Ingmar Bergmann, Stanley Kubrick... But, what if "your world" is limited to smartphone and informations on the internet? What if all you can hear on the radio are simple "summer hits"? What if all you can see on TV are "Avengers", "Transformers" and pointless "telenovelas"? It is quite natural, that you would consider all this to be the apex of cultural development. Not because you are "dumb", but because you don't know any better. You lack the comparison. Play the record with the classical music to the kid. They will hate it. Play it again. They'll be bored. Play it every day. Finally, your kid will be able to recognize specific melodies and passages, will be intrigued and will start to look for similar experience for themselves, possibly sparking an interest in various musical genres. This is how we acquire taste for different things. But you can't really acquire a taste without wanting and demanding MORE. If we are silently settling for the pulp we're getting, it's the pulp we're going to get in the future, too. Burgers are tasty; let's just eat only burgers for the rest of our lives, right? How come Bethesda was thinking they're going to get away with "Fallout 76"? Because they've had reasons to think that, and they were right to some extent. There are gamers, who are satisfied with just any title containing "Fallout" slapped on the box. They're "fine" with just that, even if the game was a clusterf**k of bugs and glitches, with zero substance in between. I'm actually happy, that "Mafia III" failed so hard. It was nowhere near the previous installments, whether we consider graphics, gameplay, story or character development. An example of a game, that should be forgotten. Don't know, how to expand on an existing universe? Well, don't do it, then. As to CD Projekt Red and "Cyberpunk 2077" - the most promising thing for me is that they work with the creator of original "Cyberpunk". I'm hoping, that whenever they get any "funny" ideas (if they do that), he's like: "screw you, that totally wouldn't work in my world". And they are like "OK, you're the man". :laugh: But I mostly want to see Ciri there. Personally, I'd wish it to be some "unobtrusive" encounter, something that you can actually miss, if you are not paying attention. Like going about your business down the street in the middle of a busy day and randomly catching a glimpse of white-haired woman, standing still in the middle of crowd and just watching the city with wide opened eyes and her jaw dropped (kinda like in my avatar, only waayy prettier) :cool: Also, I hope that there WON'T be "The Witcher 4". The story was told. No "prequels", no "alternative stories", please. "Either you stop and remain a hero, or you continue and become a villain" - recognize that? It's too true with too many game and movie franchises, that wen't to crap, because somebody wanted to milk it one more time. And "Cyberpunk 2077" can still suck - anything is possible, I guess. Unlikely, but possible. After all, CDPR make their games with their hearts not wallets, true, but they still don't have THAT much experience as many western companies. Still, they don't try to fry your brain with constant hype, they don't spend money on countless trailers and don't force half-baked product onto the shelves, because some "deadline" - which is overall a good sign.

Well, personally I'd say that a good game is always more than just a sum of its basic elements, which is also true for any other form of art: literature, films, even music. Note, how silence is basically lack of any sound, yet moments of precisely timed silence play crucial role in music, and can make a difference between forgettable "summer song" and truly great composition. Silence as a single element is absence, it is "void", you can't even describe it. But when mixed in a proper way with sound, it can possibly result in something that people will listen to for the decades to come. A video game can be composed of rather mediocre elements and yet turn into a "cult thing" for many. There are also games with high-budget, new-gen graphics, professionally recorded music et c., which can bore you to death. I mean, look at "Mass Effect: Andromeda". It was made with new, yet very familiar and recognizable elements. Theoretically, it should be a success, at least moderate. But it bombed quite hard. Why was it? Because of horrible animations? That was (partially) fixed in official patch. Some shady SJW's agenda? That can be annoying and hilarious to some, when major part of expedition, meant to establish new human society turns to be gay or transgender. But that's not the theme of the game, I can get past this, or just pay no mind to it. I want to be an explorer, a Pathfinder, I'm here for the adventure. So maybe the problem was with visuals or bugs? That can be refined too, with fixes and mods. If you ask me, the problem was, that ALL of the "puzzle pieces" just wouldn't want to fall into proper places. The protagonist is a "man without properties". Gender aside, what can you REALLY tell about Ryder? Do they have any personal charisma? Are they strong, foolhardy, funny, neurotic? What does their body language in cutscenes tell about them (except for the permanent, absent, "autistic" smile)? I've already seen many comments comparing Ryder to "an empty shell, remote controlled by SAM". And I'm kinda inclined to agree with that. Often I feel like Ryder is not truly "mine" character, but a puppet with their strings resting NOT in my hand. I can't even be a "renegade" a**hole. In Poland we have this expression for a character, that lacks personality - "warm noodles". How about main antagonists? It isn't possible to completely avoid comparisons with the original trilogy - and the "bad guys" from "ME: A" don't stack up to Reapers. There's this big problem with game franchises (and movies, too) - escalation. Every time somebody makes a sequel to a popular title, they want it to be "bigger, faster, deadlier" et c. In case of "Mass Effect" Bioware kinda shot their own foot, when they've created Reapers - an enemy so ridiculously overpowered, huge, almost immortal and so on - that anything else in comparison looks just like a minor hoop on the way to glory. But even Geth are more intimidating than Kett, since they were great unknown for their own creators and everyone else for what - three centuries? Even Shepard wasn't sure what to expect from Legion and whether they should help the Geth, erase them or make peace between Geth and Quarians - which is why that moment on Rannoch was so powerful (regardless what outcome you have ultimately chosen). Kett? So...they're angry and warlike. What of it? They're just another random race of aliens. In the Codex section in previous games you could learn, that humans were originally at full-blown war with turians. And then they became BFFs... This is something, that you actually couldn't even see in the games, that was just an episode from a history of humans as spacefaring species. Conflict between human colonists and Kett seems to be comparable in scope to that, maybe even less "important". Anyway, how can that even stack up to the the threat posed by the Reapers, who can patiently wait in dark space for millenia, silently observe the evolution of biological entities only to suddenly reappear and wipe out all intelligent life from the whole galaxy? And the main villain? Sorry, but Archon is a cardboard cutout. He's evil, because...well, because. That's it. He's evil for the sake of being evil, so the protagonist may find their opposite. Remember "The Illusive Man"? He was the villain we "loved to hate". He wasn't one-sided, he was conflicted. He wasn't "evil", he believed himself to be a good guy and genuinely believed, that what he was doing was right. Moreover, Illusive Man's and Shepard's ultimate goal was largely the same - protecting the galaxy from Reapers. What made Illusive Man "evil" were his methods, sacrificing anything and anyone and his obsession with Reapers, that proved to be his undoing. Yet, even if he commited suicide at the end of trilogy, his last words prove that he's still a human being with some greater GOOD in mind, not a raging monster that just "wants to see the world burn". If you were doing the "full renegade run" in the trilogy, it was quite possible to be worse d*ck, than the "IM" himself... Archon..."warm noodles", again. All in all, I'd say that "Andromeda" failed to be a success comparable to original "ME" not because technical deficiencies or some social controversies, but mainly because of rather poor writing, that for the gamer translates as a lack of incentives to play. Seriously, I've got "ME: A" patched, so animations or bugs are not that big of an issue for me, yet I can just stop playing it for weeks on end. That never happened to me with the original games. The game just fails to "pull me" into its world. Nomad is just a Mako with a new coat of paint. I can't believe that I'm saying this, but I think I've actually enjoyed mining in "ME2" more. Mysteries are kinda underwhelming. It's really thrilling to discover some ancient ruins, made by civilization you know nothing about, until you realize that those ruins are largely empty, with only occasional sentinels here and there. At least in "ME 1" you could collect weird things, like asari manuscripts - and they would turn out to be useful two games later. I can't find even ONE character, that would be at least somewhat convincing. Friendly buddy, like Garrus, Wrex or Grunt. Or opera-loving scientist with ADHD, like Mordin. All that makes characters different in "ME:A" are weird hairdos. Combat is the element that gets defended the most in "ME: A" by gamers. For me even that feels unsatisfying. I have the impression, that it is the same combat, as in "ME1" again, except with jetpacks. And you can't even control your squadmates' powers in fight... So...is it a playable game? Yes, sure. It's not "Big Rigs" or "Ride To Hell: Retribution"; it is not "totally broken". But does it have anything on original trilogy? Oh, hell no. No amount of patches will ever fix that. That's the thing: "ME: A" feels like a bunch of loose cogs, that could've made a perfect clockwork, IF they worked TOGETHER. If somebody likes shooters, they may enjoy it for awhile, but the rest will put them off soon enough. Don't care much for shooting, want to roleplay? That won't work for long, either, since combat is integral part of gameplay here; and then you start to notice incosistencies and plain stupidities of writing. Just want to admire landscapes? Poor optimization will ruin your day. If only this game was worth more than this "sum of its elements"... Which is not to say, that you "can't" enjoy it. Ultimately, GAMER is the element, which determines the game value the most. There are people, who actually enjoy playing "Big Rigs", you know... :laugh: Yeah, the "decision thing" was one of the main selling points for the trilogy. I know it worked for me. Since I've played the games after all three of them were already out, I wasn't really "outraged" with the whole sh**storm around endings and all the things that were promised and not delivered. Sure it was annoying - why everybody wants to be so "original" with those convoluted endings and forcing the "Jesus Christ sacrifice act"? Videogames are not movies. In case of movies, we're passive observers, so we are willing to accept potagonist's decisions, even when we don't always agree with them. In games, we are creating our own reality, and we often want to have those "best outcomes". So while a simplistic "happy-ending" may seem cliched in a movie, it still works well in a videogame, I think. As an evidence, lots of "ME" veterans play the trilogy up to the Citadel party and pretend that everything that follows never happens. I believe there is even a mod in which Shepard defeats Reapers, survives, and everybody gets wasted at the party, which ends the game. I've never used it personally, though. I got over it. What REALLY bugged me, was that all my efforts, all my work, all decisions, all the people I've saved et c., was reduced to a spreadsheet with numbers in "ME3"... As to your "Every game that EA publishes" statement... Did anybody else notice, how incredibly similar "Dead Space" and "Mass Effect" franchises are? "Mass Effect": there's this race of space monsters, called [Reapers], that eviscerate living beings and transform them to [Husks] and also absorb their DNA to create more [Reapers], "Dead Space": there's this race of space monsters, called [brethren Moons], that eviscerate living beings and transform them to [Necromorphs] and also absorb their DNA to create more [brethren Moons]. "Mass Effect": you find this [Ancient Alien City] with the so-called [Conduit], which you must use to protect humanity from [Reapers], "Dead Space": you find this [Ancient Alien City] with the so-called [Conduit], which you must use to protect humanity from [brethren Moons]. "Mass Effect": in order to defeat [Reapers] you have to use this [Alien Machinery - Citadel] with the help of [Crucible], "Dead Space": in order to defeat [brethren Moons] you have to use this [Alien Machinery - just that...] with the help of [Codex]. "Mass Effect": twist! The [Crucible] can blow up in everybody's collective face, if used by the villainous [illusive Man], "Dead Space": twist! The [Codex] can blow up in everybody's collective face, if used by the villainous [Jacob Arthur Danik]. OK, I could go on, and probably I'm stretching it a bit, but...damn :laugh:

Hi, did you find the fix for it? I decided to post, because I had EXACTLY same bug, but in "Fallout: New Vegas", which uses pretty much same Creation Engine as "Skyrim". Fortunately, I'm not running that many mods, so I could just use "trial and error" method of disabling particular mods. Turned out it was...ENB, which was causing the crashes. Weird, I know, because ENB was working fine for me and normally I wouldn't think that it can be related to inventory/trade crash in any way. I've disabled and uninstalled ENB and since then the game runs fine with the rest of the mods (although it's not that pretty). I'm not that good with modding myself, but it's just a hint. Maybe try to disable and uninstall ENB and see what happens; you can always reinstall ENB after all.

In no particular order: - songs from "Omikron - The Nomad Soul" (because David Bowie), - "Transistor" OST by Darren Korb, - "Flashpoint" by Jack Grillo and Ricardo Hernandez, which is a main menu theme from the game "Legendary" - the famous "Max theme" from "Max Payne" games, by Kartsy Hatakka and Kimmo Kajasto (if I'm correct). Also "Late Goodbye" by Poets Of The Fall, - both Jack Wall's and Clint Mansell's scores for "Mass Effect" games, - music from "Painkiller", - Firaxis' X-COM (the first remake) - main menu theme and "Ready For Battle" theme, - opening cinematics and main menu music from HBS "Battletech", - the two versions of the same theme played in the game "The Fall: Last Days Of Gaia", with and without vocal. I think it's called "The Long Journey", - music from "The Witcher" games (I guess because I'm polish and there are typical slavic themes), - Lisa Miskovsky's "Still Alive" from "Mirror's Edge". I remember the song "Still Alive" from "Portal" being extremely popular at the time, but it is entirely different thing, - songs from all "Fallout" games (because nostalgia), but also original music from first two parts, - can't imagine "Saint's Row: The Third" without "Power" by Kanye West; not exactly to my taste, but that song fits the moment perfectly, - "Remember Me" OST by Olivier Deriviere, - "Deus Ex: Human Revolution" OST, mostly "Icarus" and "Sarif Industries" (which is also the main menu theme), - "Ain't No Rest For The Wicked" (by Cage The Elephant) and "Short Change Hero" (by The Heavy), because "Borderlands" games, - "Beat The Boys" by LAB, from the first "Flatout" game, - probably a lot more...

"Fallout 2" is number one for me. Actually, I would go with first part, but it had that time limit, which spoiled the overall experience a bit to me. There's generally a bunch of game mechanics, that I just can't stand: time limits and time trials (unless it's a sports game), QTEs and such... These are all EEVIIILL!! (cue scary music from a vintage horror movie) Otherwise, I would rate "Fallout 1" even higher than the sequel. "Jagged Alliance 2" was already mentioned, and that's my most favorite game of all time, but it is not an RPG... Sure, I loved playing a lot of fantasy RPGs, though it would be hard to name those "all time favorite", because I've never been that fond of fantasy to begin with. Science-fiction, cyberpunk, post-apocalyptic worlds - that's my thing. Which is why I really enjoyed playing "The Fall: Last Days Of Gaia", developed by Silver Style. I think I've got to it through previous game from that developer - "Soldiers Of Anarchy". Both games are buggy, somewhat badly optimized and ugly-looking (at least nowadays), but I'd still recommend trying them out; especially "The Fall". Oh, and I guess it won't be a surprise when I say, that I've enjoyed "Wasteland 2" immensely, too. I don't think I've ever had the pleasure to play the original, though.

Like Malachi, I install games on a separate drive. Actually, I install ALL third-party applications on a separate physical drive, or at least separate partition. Unless you only have one disk with one partition on it, you really should leave C: just for system, its updates, system libraries and drivers. That way you keep your data, documents, installers et c relatively safe in case your system drive suddenly decides to go belly up, or simply your system itself goes sideways, forcing you to do a fresh windows installation. Personally, I made a "Games" folder on my second internal drive (D:), where I install all games, while I keep program installers, music, films and documents on a removable drive. Also, you haven't mentioned how you mod your games. Simple manual drag&drop of single files with overwriting originals should work regardless of a game install location. But since you are a Nexus user, one would assume that you are currently using Vortex to install the mods for you. Vortex uses deployment method, that is not as simple and permanent as copying and overwriting files and it explicitly requires the mod packages to be stored in a DIFFERENT location, than the game itself (a.k.a. the "Mod Staging Folder"). If you are Vortex user, you may have also moved your Staging Folder without applying that change to the Vortex settings themselves. Perhaps that is a problem?

All of above are good suggestions. I would add "Borderlands" for good measure. All of them. Actually, you could play a game like "Borderlands 2" for the rest of your life. Mind you though - that's not because of the amount of content, but because of the grind... Not just farming, but real grind, with those "hilarious" loot drop rates and overpowered, bullet-spongy raid bosses. :pinch: Still, completing all main and side quests in just "BL 2" with all DLCs can take a lot of time, even if you are skilled and lucky, so you don't have to farm that much. "Head Hunt" packs are a different thing, they are very short, so you can easily forget about them, unless you really want that full experience. Also, "Borderlands 3" is coming soon... "Ghost Recon: Wildlands" is a game that took quite a lot of my time to complete; after all you have whole Bolivia to see there. It took me way more time to complete this, than "Far Cry 5", which I personally consider to be inferior game for variety of reasons. In "GR: Wildlands" you can actually enjoy planning your actions slowly and methodically and then executing them to the point. Or you can "rambo" a particular place, but that's often discouraged by the game. There's also "hidden" ending that becomes available after you complete the campaign once. I would also agree with "Mass Effect" trilogy. It has great replayability potential. You can play as male or female, straight or gay, be goody-two-shoes or a total d*ck, and all of that actually has an effect on game world and NPCs, so after completing all three games you can start over and have totally different experience. Not to mention discovering those small details, that you've missed before. For the very same reason I would recommend playing original "Fallout" games, especially "Fallout 2" (first part has a time limit, that gets enabled after you get far enough into the story). Unlike Bethesda's version, in the original games you can't become a "Jack Of All Trades". Perks are rare, typically one every three levels, each skill is capped at 300%, instead of 100%, so it is actually hard to become a true master of even ONE of those. Each character build is somewhat unique, and you have to choose. You can be an illiterate retard, whose muscles have their own muscles. All of your dialogue options will be limited to "Grablahblaaargh!" and you will HAVE to solve every problem with your fists. Or you can play as nerdy, skinny chick with high intelligence, who is good at fixing things and breaking into terminals, but in combat needs to rely on ranged weapons, just not too heavy; preferably sniper rifles. Or you can be a wandering doctor... Or tanky caravan guard, good with heavy weapons and not much else... Long story short, it is NOT possible to complete every single quest with just one char, within one playthrough. Finishing this game just makes you want to immediately start over with a different character build, unlike - say - "Skyrim", where you play bow master turned blacksmith, turned Archmage, turned Master of a Thief Guild, turned Vampire Hunter, turned...well, you get the point. Nothing against "Skyrim" or Bethesda's "Fallouts", these are enjoyable games in their own rights, they just want you to do everything and be everyone in one go, which severely limits their replayability value. Not to mention the "crisis of identity" effect. At least for me it's hard to roleplay a character, which is supposed to change its profession and skillset every half an hour. But that's me, and that's my personal opinion. I still recommend playing these old "Fallouts", if you can get past the ancient visuals and game mechanics shortcomings. People have mentioned games like "Civilization" or "Homeworld". On that note, I would add one of the "X" games. "X2: The Threat" was my favorite, but generally the whole series offers great freedom for the player - you can be a fighter pilot for a local police force or a pirate, you can ferry people between star systems or haul resources to and from orbital factories. At some point, you can even become an industrial magnate, building your own factory chains, with facilities supplying each other with basic resources, so you can manufacture some complicated and highly demanded commodities at the very end of such chain. When you become filthy rich, you can buy your own heavy cruiser and set off to explore the universe. Oh, and you can follow the game story, too :laugh: There's also "Sins of a Solar Empire". Quite similar to "Homeworld", it even shares some spaceship models with that classic game. It doesn't have any campaign, though, it's just a series of bigger or smaller maps. Lots and lots of maps. There's some building and micromanaging, but unlike "Homeworld" it is oriented purely on those massive, epic space battles between whole armadas. Mostly it is a PvP game, but playing with AI opponents can be satysfying too, as you can customize them to your liking. There are expansions available, that add quite a lot to the base game, like rebel factions, space stations or diplomacy ships (and diplomacy mechanics). There are some great mods for this game too, allowing you to own armadas of ships from "Star Trek", "Star Wars" or "Battlestar Galactica".

I could also recommend "Shadowrun" by Harebrained Schemes, same studio, which recently created "Battletech", namely: - "Shadowrun Returns" - "Shadowrun: Dragonfall" - "Shadowrun: Hong Kong" "Shadowrun Returns" has a very annoying save system, but it was refined in following titles. "S: Dragonfall - Director's Cut" and "S: Hong Kong" are standalones, they don't need "Shadowrun Returns" as a base game, even though they are kind of add-ons. These are Kickstarter games, so no super-flashy visuals, but they are very immersive. Graphics is isometric, role-playing aspects and dialogues are crucial, combat is turn-based. Game universe in "Shadowrun" is a mixture between science-fiction (cyberpunk) and fantasy. You've got elves, orcs, shamans, but also virtual reality and lots of futuristic stuff. In movie terms, think of it as "Johnny Mnemonic" or "The Matrix" meets "Bright" (Netflix movie with Will Smith).

Hi, personally I think that the main reason behind original "Mass Effect" trilogy popularity was the basic premise: it was supposed to be original, mature-themed, western RPG with science-fiction setting. The key words here being: "western", "science-fiction" and "RPG". First off, how many role-playing games with strictly science-fiction setting is out there? Not many. Not when you compare it to the amount of fantasy based RPGs. Do you want an adventure full of dragons, wizards and ancient gods? No problem, there's so many of such games, that you probably die of old age before trying them all out. But what choice do you have, if you are a science-fiction fan and you want to roleplay a character from a game universe that is set in future, is full of fantastic technologies or - on the other hand - shows you a vision of alternative history, where Earth is just a scorched rock after some major disaster, like a nuclear war? Here, let me help you: "Mass Effect" (the original trilogy) "Fallout" (first two) "Deus Ex" (not all of the games) "Shadowrun" (by HBS) That's basically IT. Here's hoping, that "Cyberpunk 2077" will be actually good. I think part of the hype around this game comes from the fact that gamers crave for that science-fiction experience. Some of them may be simply fed up with dungeons and scrolls, some - like me - are more attracted to S-F genre, rather than fantasy. I've also omitted some game titles on purpose. "KotOR" may be absolutely great game, I won't argue with that, but it's not strictly science-fiction. "Star Wars" have always been more fairy-tales than S-F, classic stories about fight between Good and Evil, without much grey in the middle, and the "science" aspect never played major part there. If anything, it's a "science-fantasy" (which is not to say it is a bad thing). Also, "KotOR" is not truly "original", in the sense that it's a part and addition to already existing, massive lore of "Star Wars". Hell, even "Shadowrun" is not strictly S-F, as it is a mixture between cyberpunk and fantasy. On one hand, you've got zaibatsus running the show and deckers fighting them, on the other there are elder races like orcs and elves, and there is magic too - demons, familiars et c. As to games I've mentioned - I've made some exceptions for obvious reasons. For example, some games that belong to "Deus Ex" universe plainly suck, or they don't represent much in the way of role playing. Similarily, I don't consider Bethesda's "Fallouts" to be fully-fleshed RPGs. That's debatable, I know, but somehow I don't think that many people with defend, say, "Fallout 4" as a "true RPG". Not with its "YES-YES-(sarcastically) YES-No (just kidding, YES)" dialogue system. Beth's "Fallouts" gravitated towards action and gunplay right from the start. As a side note, similar thing happened to "Mass Effect 3", which is probably why almost nobody would consider that part to be the best in trilogy, at least when it comes to role-playing aspect. One more thing here: sure there is a lot more games with science-fiction setting, but they still don't qualify for various reasons. Have you heard about "The Fall - Last Days Of Gaia"? Great game, great RPG in a post-apocalyptic setting. Some consider it to be the spiritual successor of original "Fallout". But nowadays it's probably unobtainable, besides even if you somehow managed to get your hands on it, there's a good chance it won't work on a modern system. Then there are games like "Borderlands" or "S.T.A.L.K.E.R.". Yeah, these are fantastic games with really "meaty" game worlds, but not RPGs. A skill tree or rarity system is NOT what defines a role-playing game. OK, so we've got that "RPG" and "science-fiction" parts covered. On to the next, very important key word: "WESTERN". By this time, some gamers would be probably screaming: "Final Fantasy! Final Fantasy!" Right. There's a lot of jRPGs. Except as far as I know, Bioware never wanted to simply copy elements from popular japanese games. They wanted to make western-themed game for westerners. It is kind of important to understand difference in culture, tradition and mindset in Japan and the "western" world. In japanese culture, modern technologies and spirituality never seem to go apart, not too far at least. This is why anime or video game where energy weapons and futuristic exoskeletons co-exist with demons and spirits are kinda normal for Japanese. In western superhero movies good guys with superpowers fight other guys with superpowers, just evil ones, but usually not demons or mythical creatures. Have you seen movie "GANTZ: O"? I've seen the one from 2016, made with CGI, there's also live-action version and original anime. It's a good example of japanese mindset. A bunch of heroes in matrix-like reality fight against invasion of strange creatures. Except those creatures are not some random aliens. They have asian facial traits (when they have faces, of course), but also big eyes or huge, fat noses - that's a typical representation of japanese evil "onida" from legends. If you pay attention, you will also notice, that these creatures often stand in a big puddles or pools of water. Water in japanese culture is traditionally tied to the world of spirits and demons - hence "demon kids" in japanese horror movies often crawl from bathtubs et c. But as you can see, fully enjoying such movie or game requires from a "westerner" some minimum of knowledge about a culture, that may be completely "exotic" to them. This is why jRPGs sometimes feel too...grotesque, I guess. And that can totally ruin game immersion. Problem is, role playing is ALL about immersion, so these games are not equally enjoyable for everyone. Bioware wanted to make a game, which would feel kinda like "tabula rasa", a game that can be approached by anyone, regardless of ethnical or cultural roots, where YOU write your own story. And, for the most part, they succeeded. Even including characters, that were gay or lesbian was at the time fine, because it wasn't forcefully shoved in our faces. If it wasn't your thing, you just didn't have to romance anyone, gay or straight, and focus solely on main plot and how the game world was put together. And it was put really well, although there were some hiccups. Namely, there was this character from "ME 3", called Kai Leng, or as I like to call him - Kai "Lame" Leng. This actually felt like Bioware's attempt to import an element straight from anime or jRPG. Exactly - straight, or direct, meaning without any explanation, backstory (in the games, at least) or context whatsoever. Without any rhythm or rhyme. Because "everybody" love ninjas, right? As it turned out, they were wrong. "ME" was supposed to be not only western, but also mature RPG. Kai Leng was just a "space ninja" from "nowhere, U.S.A.". On paper, his character was supposed to be some kind of intimidating boss, in reality he was a meme generator. He was grotesque, pretentious and completely out of the place. Not to mention his ridiculous plot armor, when it was convenient. He wasn't really any "boss" or challenge, more like annoying fly and killing him didn't feel like an achievement, but like scratching an itch. Still, they could have built his character properly, so he would fit this "western" fantasy a little more. But they haven't. He's a character from a freaking "Sailormoon". Waving a japanese-like sword doesn't make you a ninja, especially with a plot-armored gunship behind your back. Also, what's up with this whole katana-thing?! Not every japanese sword is katana. Leng's weapon doesn't even look like wakizashi. More like glorified kitchen knife for peeling potatoes, but I'm digressing... Anyway, "Mass Effect" was, for the most part, truly "western", dark-themed RPG with lots of morally grey choices. Granted, these choices were often kinda "forced" by somewhat crude paragon-renegade morality system, but at least they WERE there. In "Fallout 4" you can't even roleplay a truly evil character. That major choice was arbitrarily taken from you. As for the originality - well, it's nearly impossible to create something that's 100% original these days. And I admit, that similarity between "ME" main theme - conflict between naturally evolved intelligence and its artificially created equivalent - and "Battlestar Galactica" is striking. Often, exactly same questions are raised, but it is far from being a plagiarism. Yet, I think that "ME" trilogy was heavily influenced by "BG" ,at least at some point. After all, even some characters from "ME" are voiced by actors playing in "BG" series (the remake, of course). EDI, who is AI in robot body in "Mass Effect" is voiced by Tricia Helfer, who played "Number Six" in "BG" - also AI, but in advanced, human-like body. Michael Hogan plays similar roles of a "supporting character" officer in both TV series and "ME" games, so... But there's a lot more to "Mass Effect" success, than just theme and setting. After all, these games weren't THAT good, when it comes to just execution. Visuals were never that great, UI in first game was horrible, combat was wonky. As an example, gunplay in first game divided the gamers. That's because cover system was already there, but it was utterly broken. You could use it, but enemies would simply rush you, no matter what. Not just melee attackers, even those with sniper rifles... So while gamers, who wanted to use this cover system were disappointed, those who played it like oldschool shooter were rather satisfied. On the other hand, there were fantastic soundtracks, some of the best in gaming history. Voiceovers played a major part too - Jennifer Hale is THE commander Shepard. Actually, whenever she voices any character in any game, that game's "score" raises automatically - she's a real professional. Mark Meer's delivery was for the most part flat and wooden, which is why "Femshep" was probably the most often played character. To be fair, Meer's got actually quite skilled and tolerable in "ME 3", but as they say - it was sadly "too little, too late." He still beats any voice actor from "ME: Andromeda". Characters were truly memorable, and you cared for them. Best evidence is, gamers long after finishing "ME 3" were speculating, whether Bailey and Aria T'Loak survived - even though they weren't "key" characters. Kaidan was whiny muppet and Ashley was xenophobic b**ch, yet choosing which one to save was still tough. Losing Mordin was painful, Wrex felt like a best drinking buddy and Garrus could have been anybody's real-life friend. All of that is what makes a difference between average and forgettable production (even if it has a huge budget) and a truly legendary experience. A legendary game MAKES YOU REMEMBER. You remember the landscapes, music in the background, you can quote characters' one-liners by heart. You remember specific moments, those funny as well as horrible, decisions you've made, both good and evil, and how even minor success felt better than any artificial "Steam" achievement. And this is where "Mass Effect" trilogy delivered, even though at the finish it felt wrong on so many levels. "But it was hell of a ride. Probably our last..." So...that's my take on this. We'll bang, OK?

First off, sorry for the late reply - I had to get back to my work abroad and I got accomodated in a flat with extremely lousy Wi-Fi hotspot (but they work on it). Thank you for all the input - I was wondering, whether the music and sound design in video games can be an issue for other gamers too. Right, I guess we can agree, that the music and sound background in video games are sometimes being neglected due to one main reason - money. I think it is to be expected these days, that large gaming companies try to push their "AAA" titles on the market as soon as they can - and they are cutting corners wherever they can in the process. Yet, there is a number of titles that are polished almost to perfection, whether we talk about visuals, music or game balance - "The Witcher 3" being one of the best examples (having said that, it's not a perfect game; there is no perfect game). So, it would seem that the "no risk - no gain, high investment - high payoff" approach can be actually beneficial both for gamers and for videogame companies. And probably more beneficial in the long run, than rushing half finished game into the stores (you hear that, EA?) Additionally, small budgets don't have to translate to low quality. "Transistor" is a great game with fantastic soundtrack composed by Darren Korb, and the developer, Supergiant Games, is nowhere near major players in the gaming industry when it comes to resources. I guess from the viewpoint of developing companies it's down to "I want my money now" versus "I can have my money later, with some benefits (like a fanbase of gamers)". But back on topic - Oblivionaddicted said important thing about sound design: it's not just about music, the other elements of "soundscape" can make vast difference in game experience too. Now, let me digress for a moment. Have you seen movie "Heat" with Al Pacino and Robert De Niro? Yeah, you probably have. Personally I think that sound effects in this movie are extremely well done; more specifically - gunshots. There are scenes of a firefight in the streets, after the bank robbery. If you listen to the sounds all the firearms are making, you will notice that they are really loud, almost deafening, just like in real life. Also you can hear realistic sounds of bullets ricocheting from different surfaces (metal, stone). Moreover, you can actually hear gunshot echoes "bouncing" from the concrete walls of surrounding buildings - this is a level of detail you can rarely hear in a movie. However, we have to consider that movies mostly adhere to a specific convention. For example the infamous "hollywood silencers" is something that can't, don't, and will not work like that in real life. Anyone who knows anything about how firearms work can tell, that a real suppressor will never muffle a gunshot to a silent "spit" sound we all recognize. But this is a part of a convention, a "coconut effect" - the audience may as well know how suppressors work, but they EXPECT to hear something else, because of the force of habit. Apart of that, a movie about - say - some great battle of WWII is supposed to present said battle, while keeping the audience out of the harms way - you can't make them deaf just for the sake of "realism" with all the explosions and shooting. Right, but it doesn't mean that some level of realism can't be achieved - "Heat" is a great example. Still, this is how it works in movies, but video games are governed by a different set of rules. In general, gamers require the highest level of realism possible, given the current technology, and the sound design often seems to stay behind. It is one thing, when you play a colorful and somewhat cartoonish game, like "Borderlands" or "Agents Of Mayhem" with their wacky weapons; weird sound effects are not much of a problem there. It is different thing though, when you play a modern "military shooter", that tries to be "as realistic as it gets". Too many times I was put off by flat sound effects in such games, where - as an example - a full auto, high rate of fire SMG sounds as if a guy in a recording studio was quickly hitting together two wooden sticks... Really? I mean how hard and expensive can be recording and mixing a PROPER sound clip? And it obviously IS an issue for many gamers. Just look at mod pages for different games here, on Nexus. Say, "Fallout 4". There are many players, who refuse to use power armors in their playthroughs, but for those who use them, the "P.A.M.S." is a must-have mod. Who would want to run around in a - supposedly - high tech armor, that sounds as if you were wearing two tin buckets and an old oil drum. Power armor is POWERED, it has gears, mechanized joints, hydraulics et c. - "P.A.M.S." does great job with that. You will see lots of sound replacement mods for "FO4" weapons too - and that is just one game. But the problem at hand is not limited to just weapons, armor or say - engine sounds (as in racing games). There are other elements of "sound layer" in games, that can make the difference between entertainment and frustration. There's this notion I've noticed in many modern games, where NPCs contact your character using some means of communication resembling short wave radio - more or less. For reasons unknown to me, these NPCs have nasty habit of contacting you in the least appropriate moment... I remember playing games like "Bioshock" or "Borderlands", where my character gets "radio" message from someone, who wants me to go "there" and do "this". All right, so I go there, but I lose my way. Uh, a little help from my new friend? Nope. So I explore the game world on my own. Could use some directions! Silence. Right, I am finally there, but what do I do? Hello, friend? Crickets chirp. That's OK, I don't really need hand holding, but... The boss fight begins. The guy looks like brick sh**house and has dozens of minions. Guess what happens next? Oh, yeah, my "friend" suddenly woke up and decided to tell me the story of his life! While I'm in the middle of the fight for my life. Even if I was focusing on what the guy is talking about, I'd still miss half of what he's saying because of all the explosions, monsters roaring at me, you name it. I call it "babbling". I mean, what's up with that? I think I've missed approximately 80% of background stories on my first "Borderlands" playthroughs (especially in "BL2") because of "babbling". Same with "Bioshock" and some other games. Although I despise EA and (current) Bioware just like the next guy, I still have to applaud them for what they've done in "Mass Effect" franchise - on many occasions Shepard gets comm from someone (mostly Liara) in the middle of a battle, but cuts it short by simply shouting "NOT NOW!" Loved that. Shame I have to do the same in front of the screen in case of many other games - and they don't listen. OK, I have to get back to work for now, but let's get this discussion going further. How would YOU improve the sound design and the gaming experience that comes with that? And I'm not talking about some more expensive home sound system... Remove "babbling" in games as an obsolete idea for storytelling, kind of like QTEs in terms of gameplay mechanics? How about saturate game worlds (especially in sandboxes) with more realistic sounds? You know - weather effects are already regular thing in games. Hearing wind blowing around you is quite normal. It just gets weird, when there are some trees growing nearby, and you CAN'T hear their leaves "whisper" on the wind... So, what are your ideas?