Actually, not really, I used the examples of the NPCs in Goodsprings because everyone will immediately recognize them, as they will Ysolda.
On "deep choice", again, that's where "getting it" comes in. You SAY FO:NV has deep choices, but all *I* see are menu options that I know are either bit fields or qualified numbers (int or float) in a database somewhere. By very virtue of the fact that they're there makes them non-immersive, transparent, "hey you, if you want to throw the rock, turn to page 6, otherwise turn to page 12" moments. For me. Minimalist story telling, again, for me, is BETTER story telling from an RP perspective. I don't want the badge/reward of recognition for my actions. For me, the story is in what happens, not who recognizes it. And, furthermore, the unsaid is often a heckuva lot more interesting than miles of text and dialog options. Just look, one example, at the whole Saadia/Kematu debate.
Sorry, any way, just to clarify, I've maybe 40 hours in FO:NV on one character. And, oh, as a HUGE Wasteland fan, I desperately want to love every iteration of FO, and invariably wind up not being able to play any of them through. Closest I got was with FO3. For me, there's just way too much svckage between sparse cool moments.
So a three-page choose your own adventure is better than a fifty page one, basically? Because everything in Skyrim can be boiled down to simple ASM as well. Actually, by your logic, videogames are not for you.
And, honestly, if you mean ALL the NPC's and not just the Goodsprings residents... I don't see it. The only flat or uninteresting characters in FO:NV I've come across are in Goodsprings. If you mean you're literally make-believing that characters are having interactions with your own that they are not in Skyrim... I'd say that isn't RP so much as something you could do without ever buying the game, i.e., really poor fanfic.
Subjectively, you mean. Opinions != Facts.
Heh. Hehe. It's funny because whereas I haven't played enough FO3 to know, Skyrim IS objectively bad.
Spoiler Before you argue, examine what you assumed about that statement. You probably think I'm talking about any number of things- What I've already been talking about, which is horrible lack of depth, or about the catering to casuals, or about any number of small gripes people have- Don't get me wrong, subjectively I really like Skyrim, but I'm running into the point where every ounce of enjoyment I can get from it, which is mostly in collecting colourful objects and making pretty(ish) faces since there's not much else to do, is bled out and it becomes, in my eyes, a worthless game; Something that, interestingly, never happened for me with Oblivion, which stayed fresh and supplied new stories, content and character builds for the first two thousand hours, then when I felt I'd tried most of the game I already had it on PC and could mod it.
No, subjectively I think it's a pretty good game. Not GOTY material, but pretty good. Objectively, it's a stripped-down near-featureless version of Oblivion, which, incidentally, is a game infamous for being shipped with loads of glitches that were never patched, yet Skyrim has what seems like ten times the glitched content- It seems I can't play for five minutes without running into some stupid glitch, many of them gamebreaking or incredibly frustrating. This is both objective fact and really bad.