I kinda agree the Mass Effect, 2 was good but they pretty much turned it into a third person shooter, with barely any real RPG elements. And the story was boring, I get Bioware stories are all about the companions, but they didn't have to make the ENTIRE story into a recruitment drive.

Highly suggest Red Alert 2, while I played the earlier CnC games prior to that game, RA2 was the game that really got me interested in the Genre. Its as simple of an RTS as it gets, but with awesome unit variety, great sense of humor, and a very entertaining campaign. So many cool/different units to play around with in that game, that it'll keep you playing for dozens of hours.

Hard to argue with Big Rigs, but here are a few:

If you're playing on PC:

Assetto Corsa has some of the best wheel force feedback I've ever experienced. The physics are really great as well, the cars behave exactly as you expect them to, which is how I judge racing game physics. But aside from that, the game is still missing a lot of elements that would make it a great racing game, right now it is just a great hotlap simulator. The Career mode is really meh, no rewards from doing it, and the car track selection is liimited.

Project Cars is the opposite, the FFB needs A LOT of tweaking for each car you drive to make it feel good, and even then it still is a bit off. Same thing with the physics, very close to being good, but still a bit off. But it does have a really good career mode with full race weekends which not a lot of other big racing games do, plus it has a decent selection of cars and tracks.

If you're looking for something more arcadey try Forza Horizon 3.

Every single Bioware plot is the same, Kotor 1, Jade Empire, Mass effect, DA. You play as some sort of 'chosen one' and overcome a generically evil enemy. That's like most RPG's tho, but I feel like Bioware goes overboard with it. I don't like starting off as the 'chosen one', it kind of cheapens the experience. Usually Bioware throws in a few very well done story elements, the world/lore was very well done in Kotor, ME's Reapers were very interesting and ominous antagonists (One of the few good Bioware baddies), DA:O had a few very good characters and very well fleshed out world, and people label Bioware as master story tellers, but tbh their stories are tired and cliched.

I'm not going to freak out if ME:A sucks, but if it does then I really hope they don't get tapped to make the next Star Wars RPG. Give that to Obsidian, who I think craft much better stories.

Well I think these games are still role-playing games. You're still playing out a role in the world through your decisions in attributes, perks, dialogue, etc. The game doesn't force to make as many decisions as before since you can't allocate skills, but you still get to choose how you're character is going to play. And, also, I don't know how Bethesda would stop marketing their games as RPGs as I don't think they ever used the word 'RPG' in their marketing. I think the fanbase is more responsible for labeling what the game is, and, to be honest, what the game is labelled shouldn't detract from the experience.

@jun_aka_pekto said:

I decided to give Far Cry 2 a try.

You probably are not going to like the game at first, but I HIGHLY recommend you stick with it. I thought it was really boring at first since all the missions are repetitive and getting to the mission areas was a hassle with all the patrols and checkpoints. But just remember that the missions are repetitative because they are meant to be open so that you can approach them any way you want. Switch up your play style every mission. Be a sniper, be Rambo with a LMG, go stealth, use a flamethrower, etc. you can even use a mortar. Trust me, the funnest part of the game is experimenting with different set ups and trying out new things. Also, take the game slow, getting to the mission area is half the battle. No need to blow by every checkpoint and patrol.

Man I just remembered why I don't go on these forums anymore, everybody whines and complains like crazy. I thought it was great, OP you should go back and play fallout 3 and see how much has changed. The improved shooting mechanics alone give the series a fresh feel let alone the new world, awesome crafting system, and settlement builder.

And I love how everyone always say that Bethesda's engine is crappy and wants their games to be like the Witcher 3 and GTA 5. The only thing is those games aren't nearly as dense with interacteable items and areas. And those engines aren't specially built to be modded easily. I think it would be easy for a studio like Bethesda to make an open world as nice as those games if they didn't have to worry about mods or a populated, interacteable world, but then it would just be another generic open world a la Ubisoft games and not what made the series great. Just goes to show no matter what devs do, the PC community will always complain, and then they turn around and cry about games not being made for them anymore.

People here acting like they've already played the game. If you're looking for hardcore, stat-based gameplay from a Bethesda game, you're an idiot. Bethesda hasn't been about that for awhile (tbh even Morrowind, after the beginning parts of the game, didn't really feel like a "hard-core" stats-based RPG either). If you want deep RPG mechanics there are plenty of other games, and, in my experience, heavily stat-based open world games don't really work to well as after the first parts of the game, the game usually gets easier as you become more powerful, and meticulously improving your stats loses meaning after awhile.

Although, I am concerned, as a couple people have pointed out, that Bethesda focuses too much on combat, and gives us little other ways to play the game. Playing a charismatic, non violent, character should be just as viable as playing a gun-slinger. I hope, Bethesda gives us more ways to play the game, other than shooting things.

@jhonMalcovich: Looked awesome at E3. But there so much that you can't do in the game that you could in previous games. Usually, I'm not into complaining about games until they're released, but there does seem to be a real lack of content here. No space battles, no class systems, no driveable AT-AT, only 4 planets. Honestly, I wouldn't have minded at all if they just made this a BF clone in third person, since the previous battlefronts were pretty much just BF clones themselves. Honestly, all they had to give us a shit-ton of weapons and vehicles, big destructible maps, and a variety of locations from the lore. All this could have been very easily ported from the BF series. Then spend the time saved by essentially re-skinning BF, by implementing satisfying space combat, a good story, good lightsaber dueling, and a deep galactic conquest mode. I'm sure most people have been happy with that.

Still, there is hope for the game. It seems like a lot of decisions they made about the game where meant to keep the multiplayer and co-op fun. Strong multiplayer and co-op gameplay, for me, will redeem the game.

@Wasdie: You can't really compare games like GTA 5, DA:I, and the Witcher 3 to Fallout/Skyrim. Yes, they're both Open-World RPGs, but honestly, those worlds feel a bit shallow compared to Bethesda games. Everything looks nice, but you can't interact with things like you can in Bethesda games. In those games, you can only go into a very few fraction of the buildings, you can't talk to random NPC's, there aren't objects littered around the world for you to pick up, etc. That is what the Creation Engine is good for. Yes, the animations and the graphics seem a bit dated, but when it comes to populating the world with interacteable objects, I haven't seen any other games on other engines do it as well as Bethesda games running on the Creation Engine.