yeh Bioware story telling, characters and romanceable party members\companions + Bethesda RPG and open world = win!
Yeah I think we're in the minority here. I also like Bethesda's stories (note the plural, people, THE PLURAL!)Sizzle Montyjing said:No... probably because we all know that EA would jump over to cock-slap both of them.
And besides, I like the story lines of Bethesda games, and although the character models could do with a bit of work, i do not want every women and their dog having breats the size of an extra large melon.
Just looks weird on the old people and the 'nimble' rouges.
Haha, that made me laugh pretty hard. Nicely done.poppabaggins said:This seems appropriate:
![]()
but you have to admit, that would make fable 2 one interesting game, to say to least...Sizzle Montyjing said:i do not want every women and their dog having breats the size of an extra large melon.
I agree with this exactly.poiumty said:Bethesda sucks at making Fallout. Sure, they made a pretty nifty post-apocalyptic Oblivion. But that thing wasn't Fallout.
For me, the problems I have with their games are not things the other could fix. So no, not the greatest game ever. Just a hell of a huge game with tons of backstory (which may or may not be actually interesting) and tons upon tons of useless pointless dungeons to get lost in because it's immersive and shit.
It'd probably be a game I'd like, but not a game I'd love.
Dude, go play KotOR and DragonAge: Origins right NAO! They are too good to miss out out, and KotOR has aged quite well in my opinion.zehydra said:I haven't played a single Bioware RPG, so I don't know. I have played most of Bethesda's stuff though (Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 [New Vegas doesn't count, guys])
I feel like a union between the two could either result in an awesome game, or a really terrible game. Bethesda are usually perfectionists when it comes to world design, so I don't know if having to work with another company would interfere with that.
It's not the RPG aspect, but the open world aspect in which you can decide the fate of the entire area from a list of dozens of possibilities. It isn't simply "I decide the NCR wins", or "Should I just give into the Reapers and let them wipe out the galaxy". You'd have an open world, with awesome characters that grow and develop throughout the story, and be able to not only decide WHO wins, but HOW they win . . whether they take over the area through hegemony, or bring together the factions through peace, or if they only temporarily ally themselves against the external threat . . . it would bring new meaning to the word "sandbox", you can mold the entire area so much it actually LOOKS different by the end of the story.88chaz88 said:No. Just no. Neither Bethesda nor Bioware are the best developers in the world and even if they were there's no guarantee that a game spawned by their cooperation would even be good.
Also who's to say what the "best game" is? I assume you're thinking of an RPG but why the hell is that supposed to be better than any of the other genres out there?
Or a Fallout\Elder Scrolls game with dynamic companions that you can get attached to . . and eyes that don't make them look like zombies.Kurai Angelo said:Sooo we're looking at an Elder Scrolls game with a conversation wheel?
Noooo thank you.
DragonAge: Origins was a critically acclaimed game in nearly every respect, having a 91 on metacritic for PC. I understand DA2 wasn't quite as good, but it still wasn't bad.grimgor42 said:I don't like Bioware. They make crap just as often as they make anything good. Yes Mass Effect is great, I get that. But compared to the level of quality produced by other developers, it seems like Bioware doesn't deserve the hype it gets on this forum. How many Dragon Ages and KOTOR onlines will it take to wake people up?