Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I enjoyed my time playing the first and the second, but it's also undeniable that you don't have the freedoms of modern RPGs.
One of my main drives for playing both was to uncover the story in each game.
Including Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel (PS2)? They weren't great back then and I guess that hasn't changed over the past couple of years. Both 3 and 4 are as shallow as it gets and are only popular due to on-going mod support.
I personally prefer Interplay's initial take on the franchise before Bethesda acquired the IP, though. Everything that followed after that is basically Morrowind/Skyrim with guns - and depending on who you ask - either good or bad.
There's also the infamous 76...
Any1 that wished for a purely focused on combat and test different skills and combos and builds.
And like it or not 3 and 4 are popular because they are easier for casuals to get into, specially 4 with modern graphics.
BoS is ♥♥♥♥♥♥.
People need to stop propagating that tactics is a bad game without even touching it or realizing it had bad reception just because it wasnt a rpg.