Oblivion - is it THAT bad?

[7th Circle]

Does anyone really think that anyone is going to convince anyone else here? The only way anyone's opinion is going to change about whether Oblivion is/isn't a good game and/or a good RPG is when they or someone they respect plays the game.

If, however, this is just an excuse to have an argument then carry on...

 

[OverrideB1]

OK, Vault Dweller, I'll get some facts:
Combat is improved. You can manually block, and make multiple types of attacks. Enemies are smarter, according to PC Gamer, they use complex tactics, such as invisibility and surrounding the player in combat.
Magic was improved. It's back to the Daggerfall system, where skills affect mana cost and not casting chance. Also, you can cast spells while holding a weapon, and you have Script Effect. We also have sigil stones, and cast on use items look much more natural. Sadly, the only cast on use items left are staves, and all other uses of them were removed.
Stealth was improved. Light and Sound affect it, which is a huge improvement over Morrowind, and gives another use to Sound and Silence. Also, Radiant AI makes thieving and assassination quests much more interesting. You can also poison food, and apply poisons to weapons.
The persuasion system was improved, as you can see in the videos. Now, you have 4 options, which allow more roleplaying than Daggerfall's Etiquette/Streetwise. Also, you can choose how dangerous a persuasion attempt will be, being more dangerous giving you more points.
There. I'll be happy after you put those in your preview, or give me a reason why they aren't facts.

I hate to have to point this out to you Lumpy - but most of those facts are not actually facts: they are suppositions based on what the developers have told us.

Combat is allegedly improved - you've not seen it, I've not seen it, only the previewers and devs have seen it. Therefore, we have only biased opinion to work on. The fact they use smarter tactics is a good thing - but, again, we have no idea if what the previewers saw was finished product or a review copy.

Magic is allegedly improved - same comments as above apply really. Whether it is possible to play a "pure" magic-user remains to be seen.

Stealth is again an alleged improvement. The devs say light and darkness have an effect but, again, whether it is possible to play such a combat-orientated game without actually engaging in combat remains to be seen.

The persuasion mini-game does, as you say, give greater control over your speechcraft but totally robs that skill of any real point since you're looking at a graphic representation of the NPC you're talking to and make your selections based on what facial expression they have. Player interaction over character skill. Whether you view this as an improvement pretty much depends on whether you think player-input should supercede character skills.

Until the game goes gold, none of your "facts" are actually facts - they're just opinions and marketing promises. And we all know just how trustworthy marketing promises are, don't we?

 

[Lumpy]

OK, Vault Dweller, I'll get some facts:
Combat is improved. You can manually block, and make multiple types of attacks. Enemies are smarter, according to PC Gamer, they use complex tactics, such as invisibility and surrounding the player in combat.
Magic was improved. It's back to the Daggerfall system, where skills affect mana cost and not casting chance. Also, you can cast spells while holding a weapon, and you have Script Effect. We also have sigil stones, and cast on use items look much more natural. Sadly, the only cast on use items left are staves, and all other uses of them were removed.
Stealth was improved. Light and Sound affect it, which is a huge improvement over Morrowind, and gives another use to Sound and Silence. Also, Radiant AI makes thieving and assassination quests much more interesting. You can also poison food, and apply poisons to weapons.
The persuasion system was improved, as you can see in the videos. Now, you have 4 options, which allow more roleplaying than Daggerfall's Etiquette/Streetwise. Also, you can choose how dangerous a persuasion attempt will be, being more dangerous giving you more points.
There. I'll be happy after you put those in your preview, or give me a reason why they aren't facts.

I hate to have to point this out to you Lumpy - but most of those facts are not actually facts: they are suppositions based on what the developers have told us.

Combat is allegedly improved - you've not seen it, I've not seen it, only the previewers and devs have seen it. Therefore, we have only biased opinion to work on. The fact they use smarter tactics is a good thing - but, again, we have no idea if what the previewers saw was finished product or a review copy.

Magic is allegedly improved - same comments as above apply really. Whether it is possible to play a "pure" magic-user remains to be seen.

Stealth is again an alleged improvement. The devs say light and darkness have an effect but, again, whether it is possible to play such a combat-orientated game without actually engaging in combat remains to be seen.

The persuasion mini-game does, as you say, give greater control over your speechcraft but totally robs that skill of any real point since you're looking at a graphic representation of the NPC you're talking to and make your selections based on what facial expression they have. Player interaction over character skill. Whether you view this as an improvement pretty much depends on whether you think player-input should supercede character skills.

Until the game goes gold, none of your "facts" are actually facts - they're just opinions and marketing promises. And we all know just how trustworthy marketing promises are, don't we?

So you're not going to believe ANYTHING positive about the game?

 

[Imbecile]

So you're not going to believe ANYTHING positive about the game?

No, its quite clear.

If something has been removed from the game, that is a bad thing.
If something has been added to the game, it might be bad it might be good - we just dont know yet. We have the devs and previews accounts, both of which are biased and so can be discounted. (Unless they are negative, in which case they are likely to be true).

The graphics are great, and this indicates that the gameplay has been skimped on. However a russian site showed pictures of Oblivion that looked pretty rubbish. These disappeared pretty quickly so it is clear that in reality both the graphics AND the gameplay will be poor.

So on balance we have several certain negatives and several uncertain positives - as well as indications that the gameplay will be lousy, and the graphics are not much cop (not that that matters!), which statistically proves that Oblivion is likely to be the worst TES game yet.

 

[Human Shield]

So you're not going to believe ANYTHING positive about the game?

Here is what we have

Things that make it negative: Known facts.
Things that make it positive: Unknown.

Things claimed on previous game that were positive: Fake, disappointments.

Things that make it positive: Combat, magic in combat, stealth, dialog/quests.

50% of positive points open to interpretation, no to-hit rolls, magic staffs, less weapons can be seen as down points on top of what they can do.

All positive points based on what the same team did the worse on in their last game, requires biggest jump in design.

NPC schedules don't do anything by themselves.

So we are left with the following:

Stealth: Probably better. Uses would be stealing, stealth kills, and completing things differently or stealth required quests.

Problems:
1. Character had overinflated wealth in previous game, dungeon loot more valuable then stealing, stealth usually isn't needed for stealing.
2. Unknown if stealth kills would be any more useful then brawling it out. Enemy didn't hear across dungeons in previous game and with higher graphics more enemies at a time is less likely.
3. Using stealth for alternative solutions and quests is possible, claimed to be better. Ties into if quests are better.

Quests: Probably better. Claims of more alternate solutions and better dialog.

Problems:
1. No track record.
2. Still only one outcome to quests and the world doesn't react or force choices.

Better graphics, lawl.

So for someone that likes RPGs you weight the following:

Known negatives about all removals including bad view on more FPS style combat and dumb-downed magic. Versus unknown positives about the weak element of stealth and quests that will not lead to real consequences, and graphics.

Even if the unknown positive elements are all that they claim; it is already less then the known negatives. Probably be a fun fantasy FPS but fails as an RPG.

 

[Lumpy]

Here is what we have

Things that make it negative: Known facts.
Things that make it positive: Unknown.

That's because you don't fucking believe any positive facts, not because they don't exist.

Things that make it positive: Combat, magic in combat, stealth, dialog/quests.

50% of positive points open to interpretation, no to-hit rolls, magic staffs, less weapons can be seen as down points on top of what they can do.

Less weapons was a negative fact. It's nullified by the better combat with the remaining weapons.

All positive points based on what the same team did the worse on in their last game, requires biggest jump in design.

Yes, because in Morrowind, they decided to have more quantity and less quality.

NPC schedules don't do anything by themselves.

They don't? How about: immersion, making thefts and assassinations much more interesting, making fights more challenging...

So we are left with the following:

Stealth: Probably better. Uses would be stealing, stealth kills, and completing things differently or stealth required quests.

Problems:
1. Character had overinflated wealth in previous game, dungeon loot more valuable then stealing, stealth usually isn't needed for stealing.
2. Unknown if stealth kills would be any more useful then brawling it out. Enemy didn't hear across dungeons in previous game and with higher graphics more enemies at a time is less likely.
3. Using stealth for alternative solutions and quests is possible, claimed to be better. Ties into if quests are better.

Maybe wealth was fixed. Stealth attacks do 4x the damage.

Quests: Probably better. Claims of more alternate solutions and better dialog.

Problems:
1. No track record.
2. Still only one outcome to quests and the world doesn't react or force choices.

How do you know that there won't be different outcomes? There's only one for the main quest, but we don't know anything about side-quests yet.

Better graphics, lawl.

Did I ever say anything about graphics?

So for someone that likes RPGs you weight the following:

Known negatives about all removals including bad view on more FPS style combat and dumb-downed magic. Versus unknown positives about the weak element of stealth and quests that will not lead to real consequences, and graphics.

Even if the unknown positive elements are all that they claim; it is already less then the known negatives. Probably be a fun fantasy FPS but fails as an RPG.

Known negatives vs. known positives
Less weapons - A better combat system for the remaining weapons, intelligent enemies.
Some removed spells - Some new spells added, Script Effect, Daggerfall-ish magic system.
Nothing negative about stealth - Improved stealth system, Radiant AI.
Less quests - Better quests (d'uh, all the designers didn't spend the time it took them in MW to write 400 quests on 150 quests of the same quality)
Less NPCs - same reason as above.

 

[OverrideB1]

So you're not going to believe ANYTHING positive about the game?

What's positive to believe?

We are told that combat has been improved, that stealth has been improved, that magic has been improved - exactly as we were told they were improved in Morrowind. Whether or not these things have been improved by removing the character-skill element and adding in player-skill elements (mini-games and twitchier combat) remains to be seen. I have my doubts and, as you can probably tell, am not adverse to voicing them.

Bethesda have added a glorified scheduling system and called it "RAI" - implying that it is something super special and somehow cool to have an "A.I." running the pitiful number of NPCs. Fanboys have lept on the RAI bandwaggon and are making the most absurd claims for what it will do. It's a scripted scheduling system using algorhythms to define goals - not something that's going to have NPCs with Einstein-level intelligence.

We are told the quests are more involved - exactly as we were told that the quests in Morrowind were more involved. Whether or not they are remains to be seen.

Meanwhile Bethesda are also telling us that there is a great long list of things they're cutting from the game. Even the list of factions has undergone a dramatic revision from when they first told us about it and, despite their (admittedly vague) promises at the time of the Toddmeister's "visionionary statement", even more choice has been cut from the game in the form of reductions of skills and fewer weapons.

Add to this the Howard Hughs level of paranoia that Bethesda evidence about releasing even the smallest confirmed detail, the wasted resources on gameplay elements that are not important to an RPG but which are being touted as ultra-cool, their obvious QA problems in the form of a long history of bug-ridden games, and the release date slippage and it doesn't exactly inspire great confidence does it?

 

[Lumpy]

So you're not going to believe ANYTHING positive about the game?

What's positive to believe?

We are told that combat has been improved, that stealth has been improved, that magic has been improved - exactly as we were told they were improved in Morrowind. Whether or not these things have been improved by removing the character-skill element and adding in player-skill elements (mini-games and twitchier combat) remains to be seen. I have my doubts and, as you can probably tell, am not adverse to voicing them.

We were shown they were improved. FACTS.

 

[Atrokkus]

As I said, there's no problem in combat/char development/setting departments, at least no indication that it could be like in Morrowind -- it surely will be better.

BUT there was NO indication of a better dialog system, character design, interactivity and consequences. THAT's the MYSTARy here.

And that's why I'm wondering why AG.ru still haven't posted the second part of the preview, which allegedly deals with those aspects under question. Moreover, there are no proper dialog screenshot, which is also quite werid, dont you think?

 

[Lumpy]

As I said, there's no problem in combat/char development/setting departments, at least no indication that it could be like in Morrowind -- it surely will be better.

However, people keep bitching about the lack of crossbows and throwing weapons. Yes, it's bad that they were removed, but the combat system was greatly improved, so it makes up for it.

 

[Micmu]

However, people keep bitching about the lack of crossbows and throwing weapons. Yes, it's bad that they were removed, but the combat system was greatly improved, so it makes up for it.

Got any proof? Seen that IGN video with combat?

 

[OverrideB1]

Known negatives vs. known positives
Less weapons - A better combat system for the remaining weapons, intelligent enemies.
Some removed spells - Some new spells added, Script Effect, Daggerfall-ish magic system.
Nothing negative about stealth - Improved stealth system, Radiant AI.
Less quests - Better quests (d'uh, all the designers didn't spend the time it took them in MW to write 400 quests on 150 quests of the same quality)
Less NPCs - same reason as above.

1. Less weapons - A better combat system for the remaining weapons, intelligent enemies
NO - you cannot say that the combat system is better until you have actually played it. Conjecture and supposition based on what the devs have said - and you couldn't find a more biased source if you bloody tried.

2.Some removed spells - Some new spells added, Script Effect, Daggerfall-ish magic system
Again, we have no idea what the new spells are (if, indeed there are any new spells beyond the script-effect spells) or how they work. Yes, yes, I know all about TK being added. And I've seen the limitations the devs have said that they've imposed on it in the form of things you cannot move. As for the magic being "Daggerfall-ish", that also remains to be seen.

3. Nothing negative about stealth - Improved stealth system, Radiant AI.
An allegedly improved stealth system. And again with the RAI - it's a set of algorhythms the define an NPCs reaction and behaviour. There's no actual intelligence involved in the process at all. If the devs do not anticipate every single outcome, RAI will break like a china plate dropped from a very tall building.

4. Less quests - Better quests (d'uh, all the designers didn't spend the time it took them in MW to write 400 quests on 150 quests of the same quality)
Supposition based on the fact that the devs have said that the quests are "better" and "more involved". If the famous examples (The Dinner Party and The Trapped Painter) are anything to go by, the quests are neither very taxing or overly original.

5. Less NPCs - same reason as above
Now you're contradicting yourself. If RAI is the dog's dangly bits then there should be no limit to the number of NPCs instead of a staggering 1500 or 1200 or whatever the figure is this week. It would appear that the stunningly low number of people occupying Cyrodiil is caused by limitations in the RAI - whether due to the fact that it simply cannot handle more than X number of people at a time or by the fact that the overheads are so great that adding more NPCs would cause a Cray to choke up and crash.
I would rather have a whole bunch of generic NPCs with simple, Daggerfall style schedules and limited dialogue and a smaller number of RAI controlled important NPCs than the desolate wasteland that is being offerd to us at the moment

 

[Lumpy]

However, people keep bitching about the lack of crossbows and throwing weapons. Yes, it's bad that they were removed, but the combat system was greatly improved, so it makes up for it.

Got any proof? Seen that IGN video with combat?

I think I did. What was wrong with it?

 

[Lumpy]

1. Less weapons - A better combat system for the remaining weapons, intelligent enemies
NO - you cannot say that the combat system is better until you have actually played it. Conjecture and supposition based on what the devs have said - and you couldn't find a more biased source if you bloody tried.

No, you cannot say that it is better. That's what I've been trying to explain, if anyone would listen to me... You do agree that Morrowind had too little quality, right? So quality over quantity is a good decision, right?
Well, you can't know exactly whether there is more quality or not until you play the game. But to assume that just because we can't know exactly it's not true is wrong. It turns any "more quality less quantity" attempt look like a "same quality less quantity" attempt before the game is released.

2.Some removed spells - Some new spells added, Script Effect, Daggerfall-ish magic system
Again, we have no idea what the new spells are (if, indeed there are any new spells beyond the script-effect spells) or how they work. Yes, yes, I know all about TK being added. And I've seen the limitations the devs have said that they've imposed on it in the form of things you cannot move. As for the magic being "Daggerfall-ish", that also remains to be seen.

Script Effect or not, we do have new spells, that's what's important. The magic system seems to be like in Daggerfall - skill affects spell cost, casting chance was removed. As for telekinesis, it is much better now, this and the traps being the only advantages of using Havok.

3. Nothing negative about stealth - Improved stealth system, Radiant AI.
An allegedly improved stealth system. And again with the RAI - it's a set of algorhythms the define an NPCs reaction and behaviour. There's no actual intelligence involved in the process at all. If the devs do not anticipate every single outcome, RAI will break like a china plate dropped from a very tall building.

I know Radiant AI is not that great. But is does two things - it turns assassination quests into more than they were in Morrowind, where you would simply go to the target and bash at them with your hammer - you will have to watch their schedules, attack them when they are alone, when they are less likely to see you etc.

4. Less quests - Better quests (d'uh, all the designers didn't spend the time it took them in MW to write 400 quests on 150 quests of the same quality)
Supposition based on the fact that the devs have said that the quests are "better" and "more involved". If the famous examples (The Dinner Party and The Trapped Painter) are anything to go by, the quests are neither very taxing or overly original.

I gave a simple reason. They made 400 quests in MW, and 150 quests in Oblivion. Either the designers were spent more time looking at pr0n, or they made deeper quests.

5. Less NPCs - same reason as above
Now you're contradicting yourself. If RAI is the dog's dangly bits then there should be no limit to the number of NPCs instead of a staggering 1500 or 1200 or whatever the figure is this week. It would appear that the stunningly low number of people occupying Cyrodiil is caused by limitations in the RAI - whether due to the fact that it simply cannot handle more than X number of people at a time or by the fact that the overheads are so great that adding more NPCs would cause a Cray to choke up and crash.
I would rather have a whole bunch of generic NPCs with simple, Daggerfall style schedules and limited dialogue and a smaller number of RAI controlled important NPCs than the desolate wasteland that is being offerd to us at the moment

Same reason as above meaning "there are less NPCs, so obviously the designers spent more time working on each one".

 

[Section8]

To be fair, Lumpy does have some facts that are positive, but the degree is unknowable.

Combat is improved. You can manually block, and make multiple types of attacks. Enemies are smarter, according to PC Gamer, they use complex tactics, such as invisibility and surrounding the player in combat.

There are some unknowns in there, but it would be impossible to make Morrowind's combat worse. I could say with 99% certainty that Oblivion's combat will be better than Morrowinds, but we still don't know if it's any good/fun.

Magic was improved. It's back to the Daggerfall system, where skills affect mana cost and not casting chance. Also, you can cast spells while holding a weapon, and you have Script Effect. We also have sigil stones, and cast on use items look much more natural. Sadly, the only cast on use items left are staves, and all other uses of them were removed.

Script Effect does sound like a diamond in the rough, and even if it's more of a modder's delight, Bethesda surely couldn't outright fail to have at least a few interesting spells as a result. Also, the off-hand casting is a marked improvement from Morrowind. Once again, if they culminate to be fun is yet to be seen.

Stealth was improved. Light and Sound affect it, which is a huge improvement over Morrowind, and gives another use to Sound and Silence. Also, Radiant AI makes thieving and assassination quests much more interesting. You can also poison food, and apply poisons to weapons.

This is probably the one I have the most faith in. From the demos we've seen, it's clear that stealth is a great deal more than Morrowind's rogue skills, which were universally shoddy.

The persuasion system was improved, as you can see in the videos. Now, you have 4 options, which allow more roleplaying than Daggerfall's Etiquette/Streetwise. Also, you can choose how dangerous a persuasion attempt will be, being more dangerous giving you more points.

I'm unconvinced on this front. It seems to me as though there's not much more to persuasion, it's just wrapped up in it's own little interface instead of just have a list of "persuasive" acts.

--

There's also the exploration side of things. I highly doubt Bethesda will fail to deliver a sizable game world that is fun to wander about and explore. After all, of all the things Morrowind did, that was the one feature they really nailed.

So I think Lumpy has a point. There is enough fact out there to support a range of improvements, but it remains to be seen whether they've improved far enough. Morrowind had a long way to go...

Also...

Something a lot of people seem to have missed is this very peritinent paragraph

And keep in mind, folks, that while we may sound like whiny assholes, the simple fact is that if you want to read a few dozen pages of developer adulation, you can go read pretty much any other site's end of year feature. We may go overboard, but we figure it's necessary to balance out the torrents of bullshit everyone else spews.

The second paragraph of the article says outright that it's all negative, in face of the suspiciously overwhelming positive vibe anywhere else in the gaming press. I'm really surprised that nobody seemed to pick up on that here, and completely unsurprised that the reactionaries over on the Elder Scrolls forums missed it.

 

[Lumpy]

Also...

Something a lot of people seem to have missed is this very peritinent paragraph

And keep in mind, folks, that while we may sound like whiny assholes, the simple fact is that if you want to read a few dozen pages of developer adulation, you can go read pretty much any other site's end of year feature. We may go overboard, but we figure it's necessary to balance out the torrents of bullshit everyone else spews.

The second paragraph of the article says outright that it's all negative, in face of the suspiciously overwhelming positive vibe anywhere else in the gaming press. I'm really surprised that nobody seemed to pick up on that here, and completely unsurprised that the reactionaries over on the Elder Scrolls forums missed it.

While I do agree that I have yet to see a fully objective preview of Oblivion, combating all the biased previews out there should be done by making an objective preview, and not by making a preview that's biased the other way around.

 

[yipsl]

Yeah, I'm biased, and I don't expect anyone to take my word for it -- but I think Oblivion is one of the most amazing games I've ever played. I think that even the doubters are going to be surprised, though they may not admit it out of stubbornness ;-)

Okay, here's my unbiased opinion MSFD. Oblivion will be a good game, it will be amazing in some ways, but it will disappoint in others. Whether it disappoints because "Pete's Pizza Party Polls" choosing what to cut from the series leads to RPG Lite is something I can't quess at.

I'll miss certain things, but not out of nostalgia. For nostalgia, I play Daggerfall. I'll miss features because of series consistency, which matters to me, even if it does not matter to you, kathode and Todd.

In many respects Oblivion will be for the next few games in the series what Arena was for the first three. The whole TES world seems to be reimagined, but some of that reimagination seems aimed at the sort of gamers who are wowed by "lip synching lizard women" and not being able to join "the Mage union" because they're wanted criminals.

Those who don't like to read in RPGs rejoice! Those who want to play an RPG like an FPS rejoice! Bethsoft is almost going the Ubisoft route, and if the new fans get ever more confused, despite game hints on loading screens, and hand holding non toggable compasses, then the next step is to either take out those pesky tomes that add to the lore, or to have titles on covers so that twinky gamers will know which ones have stat boosts and which ones don't.

Lumpy, Oblivion will be good, but it will also be another step towards the demise of the classic CRPG, if the trends continue. Though new things are added like reanimate, that applies to one style of gameplay and not to the style of gameplay that levitate catered to. I see nothing bad in the new combat system but I do not see that as an excuse to cut factions and to make this entirely into a Fighter/Thief/Mage archetype game.

 

[Lumpy]

There is no excuse, no matter how hard I would try to find one, for the lack of the Nine Divines. However, that's one faction. One less character class. I'll live without it.

 

[yipsl]

There is no excuse, no matter how hard I would try to find one, for the lack of the Nine Divines. However, that's one faction. One less character class. I'll live without it.

I won't, which is why I want to see it modded and might not play the game until it is. As far as it goes, I'll get redwoodtreesprite her copy for the CS, but I'll hold off on buying my copy until later.

Also, holidays should have been in the game as it goes gold. Sounds like they're wracking their brains to find subject matter to meet the Xboxer expectations this time around. They promise around 2 downloads a month.

Ai: sure DF Ai might have been great for that time, now however it's really outdated and such. and a game featuring such AI would be doomed. Morrowind AI might have been not bad when the game came out, now however again it would doom a game. So how does that say anything against RAI? isn't it just another improvement. sure they're trying something new, but what's the alternative? work with Morrowind's system and be accused of simply enhancing the same old things? or make something new, if I'd been them I might well have done the same

I consider RAI to be a continuation of Daggerfall's AI. What I find troubling are Bethesda fanboys who diss Daggerfall as if it were a game of Morrowind's generation competing against their first time with a TES game.

I have no problem with RAI. I just think it's been overhyped and the glitches they've described could end up as bugs in the final game. We have been promised new bugs by at least one dev who had a sense of humour.

Agreed there, an on or off switch might have been a nice touch.

The only thing that bothers me about the compass is that it's not toggable. I'm more bothered by the Microsoft style help and hints you see in the loading screens. Like reminding you how to access the quest log or why you might want to do it. Rolegaming for the FPS crowd on one level and rolegaming for the Microsoft Freecell crowd the next.

and horses, I kinda like the idea of travelling on horseback, even without mounted combat but that could be just me :shrug:

I don't mind no mounted combat, but I do think they led people on with their posed Game Misinformer cover. They have a history of stressing mounted combat on preview covers that goes back ten years. They didn't get it right then, it was horsie on a stick in Daggerfall, and they wouldn't have gotten it right this time. Bethsoft is cursed as far as mounted combat goes.

What is inexcusable is the fact that there are no carts or that horses don't have saddlepacks or can't be packhorses. They're doing a horse armor download even though there's no mounted combat? Silliness if you ask me.

With NPCs not going into the player's house to steal (not even the Thieves Guild members will rob your house), the only chance to experiment with this sort of RAI behavior is to leave something lying out in public. They could have NPCs stealing from carts and packhorses, but they'd probably have that off limits too, if they modded those features; no reason to upset the casual mainstream noob who wants to be the high mucky muck of murderous vampire assassins but who would quake with anger at Bethsoft if he got stolen from in a game.

Nope, patrick isn't essential to the game, but again is that a reason to leave him out? Just a small detail that might help the game or might not add anything. who knows.

I don't mind the spoken dialogue, but I see celebrity voices as unnecessary. As an anime fan, I'm used to hearing quite good voice acting by people who do as well or better than Patrick Stewart or Sean Bean but who at least are less expensive. There is a budget you know.

At least Patrick Stewart has a history of doing game voices:

Although to be honest, I only had the diskette version of Lands of Lore. The CD version had a rep for not running on Pentiums. So I missed his voice acting there.

It still makes a nice trivia question: which two Richards did Patrick Stewart play?

King Richard of Gladstone (Lands of Lore) and King Richard the Lionheart (Men in Tights).

 

[Sycandre]

You can't talk about good or bad game in the absolute. All gamers are different, have different tastes, and will find games fun or boring, differently than other gamers.

Technically, Oblivion is probably a well crafted product. I'm sure it will be a damn great game for many players. My questions are: will it be a great game for TES fans? and will it be great for serious RPG fans?

For the first, though it is most probable that the game stay true to the lore, I think it is much closer to MW than DF. CLoser for matters of gameplay and world structure: a small handcrafted world, made to be fully explored by a single character.

I think the most stunning element of DF was its vastness. Vastness of the map, of the number of settlements, of the cities, of the number of NPC, of factions, and possible quests. This feature has been left behind since MW... or since the first spin-off of the serie, battlespire and Redguard, whose developers seem to be the core of MW and Oblivion team.

DF also introduced a more developed and complexe character creation... MW simplified it but still showed a lot of exploits, and Oblivion seems to follow the same path: simple creation and easilly exploitable rule set.

So as a long date TES fan, I think Oblivion has lost what made me loved DF, which stay the most innovative episode of the serie IMHO.

As a RPG game, we don't know the core: the complexity of intrigues and dialog trees. Therefore it is quite hard to judge it. But it seems that there is a bit less diversity, and some more focused and detailed gameplay. Experiencing those, as the new stealth or new combat system, may be fun, but will they allow some really different role play? There may be better individual warrior/mage/thief strategies, but won't all the warriors risk to be exactly the same? won't all the mages follow the same path?

I'd like a revamping of DF concepts: better balanced creation, but still a complexe one. A detailed skill list with really efficient skills. Bunches of possible questlines, complexe dialog trees, and the feeling that each individual game, even with a sightly similar character, may bring you to a whole new path, a whole different adventure/story.

 

[Atrokkus]

As a RPG game, we don't know the core: the complexity of intrigues and dialog trees.

Bingo.
That's the only thing that matters to me, in context of this game, the only decisive factor. That is, if it turns out to be a very solid mixture of great dialogs/consequence/choice/char design, then I'll love Oblivion, *EVEN* if combat is fucked up, skills are unbalanced, or some guilds are-OMG!-abscent.

 

[Section8]

While I do agree that I have yet to see a fully objective preview of Oblivion, combating all the biased previews out there should be done by making an objective preview, and not by making a preview that's biased the other way around.

On that count, you are 100% correct, and I'm hoping to see something along those lines when the Codex decides to review Oblivion sometime next year. My comment was more with regard to the fact that the article stated outright at its beginning that is was going to be overly negative, and after spending an hour or two ploughing through some Elder Scrolls forum threads, the dominant message was "How can they not see the good points?" is varying degrees of coherence.

As it stands, the editorial basically did what it was supposed to do, stir up some discussion and some critical thinking of the year past.

I think one of the great things about the Codex is that there is never really an intention to provide a traditional preview of games, but rather to stir up some thought and conversation here on the boards.

 

[Sycandre]

As a RPG game, we don't know the core: the complexity of intrigues and dialog trees.

Bingo.
That's the only thing that matters to me, in context of this game, the only decisive factor. That is, if it turns out to be a very solid mixture of great dialogs/consequence/choice/char design, then I'll love Oblivion, *EVEN* if combat is fucked up, skills are unbalanced, or some guilds are-OMG!-abscent.

But that is what is worrying: they have communicated on their new visceral combat, their gravity traps, their booksellers that set fire to their dogs... But what example of dialog tree have they gave us? Did we had any illustration of the multiple pathed quests? they don't feel too woried about some spoiling: we all know exactly the game intro, that the city of Kvatch is destroyed, that there will be a dark brotherhhod quest about murdering people at a dinner party... Just looking at marginal features, we can say there are less factions (social groups you can belong to), less weapon choice, some non combat spells have been removed, character building exploits are here again, the map is small enought to be fully explored, NPC will be TAGed with the quest compass...

So there is a risk of "combat is fucked up, skills are unbalanced, or some guilds are-OMG!-abscent"... and that we may not even have solid dialog trees and questlines...

 

[Sabregirl]

But it seems like they are marketing the game largely to the kiddies who couldn't find Caius Cosades, thought spears were dumb and think leaving out levitation is a GOOD thing. Those kids don't want to know a thing about dialogue trees. Those screenshots won't make them drool, so why bother putting them out? The question is, is it simply due to marketing or is it an actual reflection of the game? That's the big question and we can't know that until the game is released or someone lets us in on the "secret". But in the past when Bethesda has been silent on something, it rarely turns out that it was something good.

I think the russian screens/previews were quashed largely because of visual issues, presumably due to an older build. Bethesda does NOT want their game to look ugly in any way - since that is apparently the main selling point of the game.

If nothing else I think Oblivion's gameworld would be a very pretty place to explore but without levitation, even that attraction seems to be severely damaged.

-S

 

[Sycandre]

I think there is also the problem of players skills:

a RPG, as any game, tests some players skills. A game is always a challenge you try to defeat with your skills. But what are the skills a Role player want to be tested? From my PnP experience, and mainly my tastes, I would say: imagination, deductiveness, tactics, social interactions.

Now, what do we know about what is going to be tested in Oblivion? reflexes, with a twichier combat system, and a more complexe stealth system that will require a better interface handling mastery. Those may be improvements for action gamers that seek such challenges, and often reduce their gaming skills to reflexe and interface handling.

But what do we know about the RPish skills testing in Oblivion? Will there be really challenging investigations? Will we see our own persuasion skill tested? We don't know yet. All we know is that we'll be tested against skills we often do not care for, and may get bored by them as console players are bored with "nasty texts that plagues mot RPGs".

Beth, while pushing serious arguments to attract action gamers: long descriptions of the combat system, promises for a challenging stealth game, pretty graphics and gravity traps, are just trying to reassure role player by comments such as: "believe us, it's a great game!"

All I know is that Oblivion will be a fun action/adventure game, but for RPG, we only got empty promises until now. Until I got solid illustration of the RPG challenge in Oblivion, I will continue to express my doubts about the way the serie is going since thr first TES spin-offs.