would rahter play a single player game with lots of roleplaying elements. and decent combat. ive played fallout 3, NV and oblivion but i want to get out of the bethesda shit for a while
It's a mess of a sequel, the Community Patch makes it playable but still not on par with 1 & 2. Try Gothic 1 and 2 but be prepared for some clunky gameplay.
Also, try Witcher 1 [also clunky, but for different reasons, and totally worth your time] and 2.
i wouldn't call gothic 1 & 2 clunky but i'd say the games do a terrible job of telling you how they control
especially when the games don't tell you action + strafe left/right moves 10 of an object at a time, and action + left/right + shift moves 100 of an object at a time
It's really no different then any single player game you are at.
The advantage is it has world events so you can just go on a quest with other players no menus, just go dungeoning with random people. Plus the story is pretty fucking good, great voice acting. And pretty damn good looking world.
Turn Based is actually better for the most part, since it allows for more complex role-playing elements. Real-time with pause is the only decent in-between, but Pillars of Eternity had really weak combat anyway compared to the rest of what it offered.
And I'm a shooter guy, RPGs are not on my alley and I still hate the way Fallout and Tes ended up via Bethesda's casualisation/bastardisation.
Dragon Age Origins
Gothic 1&2, eventually later 3
True, I listed base games though.
It should run, it was released in I think 2007 after all.
>tfw PB made cities/villages feel way more alive than anything Bethesda shat out
Anything is better than GW2. Gothic 1 is pretty shit but Gothic2 is awesome. Not the best to start, it's difficult and lacks some basic stuff like shields. Getting into wrpgs is easier with Dragon Age Origins or Oblivion.