Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Editor of Australias biggest PC gaming rag talks AoD

Gragt

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
1,864,860
Location
Dans Ton Cul
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin
I found it hilarious myself.
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
@Gnidrologist : How many reviewers compare George Michael to Mahler in their reviews? You should complain, they obviously aren't "real critics" if they don't.
 

Section8

Cipher
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
4,321
Location
Wardenclyffe
Am I? Do I need to quote the entirety of S8's post back to you guys? Or Edward_R_Murrow? Seriously, a lot of these posts seem to be built around the inherent assumption that IF someone rated Oblivion highly it can ONLY be because they lack intelligence/are ignorant of past games/catering to the console market.

That's not the whole story. I've been very clear about the separation between the enjoyment of the immediate gameplay and the enjoyment of the overarching short and long term goals. And I stand by the "inherent assumption" that a reviewer who is unable to separate these concepts and see the weak gameplay design is ignorant - too ignorant to offer an informed opinion on a game such as Oblivion.

And I also assert that a high score is unbecoming of a game that relies on a "compelling" high-level concept to smooth over weak gameplay. In addition, I think the "compelling" nature of the high-level concept needs to be addressed - the storyline is weak; the exploration elements rely too much on quantity and are sorely lacking in depth and variety; the powergamist elements are counter-intuitive, and rely on repetitive behaviours; the item list is too short for the collector elements to shine; etc.

So in a roundabout way, I am saying a high score can only come from an ignorant reviewer, but my argument is not that simple, and I'm certainly not trying to insult anyone or take their enjoyment from them.

Can we agree that a measure of enjoyment of the game as a whole is worthless unless the reader is well-aware of the writer's tastes? Can we also agree that a net positive effect of enjoying a game doesn't warrant praise of all the component parts?

From that basic false assumption you all seem to be launching attacks and general haughty finger wavings at ElPresidente.

That's not the case from my perspective. I like and respect the guy, and know he's a well-informed critic who puts a lot of thought into his critical analysis. I'm nowhere near as harsh on Deus Ex as I used to be, and part of that change of opinion was ElPresidente showing me the light.

However, I am at odds with his compatriot worker who saw fit to award Oblivion a 98% rating. I'll gladly admit to not having read the actual guts of the review, having let my PCPP subscription lapse after their treatment of Neverwinter Nights, so my commentary is more of a completely generalised picture of the countless ~98% reviews of Oblivion that I have read.

That rating can be nothing but ignorant (or manipulative). No matter how much one person subjectively enjoys Oblivion - it's clear it's not everyone's cup of tea, and that valid criticism of some key aspects of the game is very much warranted.

I understand where a lot of it comes from, I too am frustrated by many trends I see in gaming journalism, but just assuming anyone who gave Oblivion 2 thumbs up is automatically an idiot/incompetent/lacking in depth of RPG knowledge is false, see RampantCoyote. My argument is not based on groundless paranoia.

The thing is, I don't think it's fair to lump RampantCoyote in with the yahoos giving out gold stars and game of the year stickers. Whenever I've read Coyote's blog, he's pretty clear in his praise of Oblivion, which elements of it make it very enjoyable to him, and also conscious of its "place" in the gaming annals. He gives comparison to Daggerfall and Morrowind, and is blunt about the shortcomings. Some choice picks:

For the same reason I like to call Falcon 4.0 a Roleplaying Game - the Elder Scrolls games are about dropping you into a fantastic world and making it come alive for you.

Initial impressions:
To top it off, the games are also very replayable with vastly different classes.

Many hours later:
But after I finished it, I almost immediately tried to replay it with a new character, and just couldn't. I'd pretty much sucked all the marrow from it the first time around, even though I think I explored less than 30% of the world.

The thing is - some of those with the longer (and sometimes shorter) time frames consisted of a LOT of "make-work." Oblivion was over 120 hours of play, and probably 20 of it was really awesome.

Do you really think for all the perspective and reasoned criticism Coyote offers on a game he really enjoys, that he belongs in the "98%, best game ever" mob? He's concise about the appeal of the games, clear about the gaming niche that the Elder Scrolls games fill, and demonstrates pretty effectively that while he enjoys the game, it's probably not for everyone.

And sorry, you're mistaking academic critiquing with commercial reviewing. An academic essay evaluating the themes, context, history and structure of Hamlet isn't the same as a magazine review of the quality of a local theater's production of Hamlet. Nor is an academic essay on the Noir genre the same as a review of a specific noir novel. It does NOT require a detailed analysis of Noir as a genre being attached to the review.

While I agree that I'm wanting commercial reviews to be too much like academic critiques - this isn't the same as a local theatre company performing a play. Hamlet can exist and be critiqued in an intermediate form - as a script - while it would be another story altogether to review a design doc.

But let me take your analogy in another direction. Someone who loves the story behind Hamlet, and enthusiastically goes to watch an amateur production of it shouldn't be evaluating the performance on their love of Hamlet, but rather the merit of the amateur execution. At the very least they should qualify their love of Hamlet and how that is likely to sway their opinion.

No one is interested in sitting and reading a 5 page essay deconstructing every elder scrolls game from Arena onwards and their evolution in a magazine review. Or even better, as you guys seem to want, deconstructing every bloody CRPG every time you review a new one. Maybe in a special editorial article, sure. But not a magazine review.

Nobody is talking about lengthy treatises, or deconstruction of previous games. "Exploration of Oblivion's world paled in comparison to its predecessor. Morrowind's world was filled with more exploration opportunities. The alien landscape had far more unique content, and not everything was scaled to your level, meaning you could find some valuable rarities."

I think it's pretty safe to say that the majority of Elder Scrolls fans see Morrowind as a better game, yet most reviews barely touched on Morrowind, let alone mentioned areas in which Oblivion was inferior.

When I read a review of Iron Man I don't want an essay on every super hero movie ever made, the history and elements of each.

Again, nobody is asking for that. They can still make comparisons - "Iron Man is much closer to the spirit of Batman Begins than The Fantastic Four or Superman Returns"; "Don't expect the Robert Downey Jr that fell from grace to appear in Ally McBeal. This is a much more seasoned performance."; etc.

And your average consumer doesn't want that. At best you might get a sentence or two introducing the series. And no, this is not the role that reviewers should fill, it's the role academics fill.

Okay, I can accept that commercial criticism doesn't need to be taken to the same degree as academic analysis, but can you accept that commercial criticism ought to be so much more than glorified user reviews?

Commercial reviewers are there to help consumers make purchasing decisions. In the case of purchasing "fun", they are there to help me decide if I am going to have "fun" with my purchase of X. This is what I am paying for.

Yes, but it's completely subjective to say "I enjoyed this" or "this is fun", and that's utterly pointless in the context of professional review. It's fine for message boards of like minded people, or discussion between friends, but commercial reviews need to be so much more.

Something that's come to mind in reading reviews over the last little while is that marketing agenda aside, the gaming media lacks the capacity to be critical of anything that is enjoyable overall. And it's not just glossing over flaws, it comes down to the crux of my argument - that we're see too much ignorant critical analysis.

A layman, who is enjoying a game will be tempted to comment on all aspects of the game as though they're positive and enjoyable, simply because they're either ignorant of, or not looking for, the underlying systems and interplay between elements. This is especially true of games that avoid frustrating the player. If the dodgy AI routines had broken quests or killed important characters, then it would have received criticism. However, since Bethesda heavily enforced idiotproofing of their own AI, the criticism just isn't there. The AI is still deserving of criticism, but since its potential to break the game has been eliminated, it escapes.

Now, if a reviewer can't separate and assess the component pieces of a game, then how can they possibly comment on my enjoyment of the game, unless my tastes are nearly identical?

[/ramble]
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
That post seemed much more reasonable, and I can certainly agree with many of your points. Especially that last paragraph or 3, forgive me if I don't quote it all. ;)

There generally isn't enough evaluation of underlying components and their effect on the whole gameplay system in reviews, yes.

While I don't think we need to compare every RPG with other RPGs unless there is a specific and useful comparison to make, certainly mentioning that, for example, there was significantly less variety in Oblivion's landscape than Morrowind's and hence exploration loses its joy very quickly, is worthwhile and useful.

Because, as you said, even if an individual rates the whole experience highly, analyzing the separate components allows other individuals to interpret how they are likely to receive those components and how it will affect the entire experience for themselves. (Btw, putting it like that certainly sounded a whole hell of a lot less condescending than how I was previously reading it.)

So, while I still believe specific reviewers can have given Oblivion a 98% legitimately, from their viewpoint, as you say, there needs to be more clarification as to the strengths and weaknesses of any offering so that the consumer can make up their own mind. I'll certainly agree with you on that.
 

Castanova

Prophet
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
2,949
Location
The White Visitation
Good, you're almost there. Now do a basic comparison in your mind, as you've agreed any professional reviewer should be doing, of each component and mechanic of Oblivion to past games such as Morrowind, Daggerfall, Ultima, Diablo, etal. How does each individual component of Oblivion hold up?

Exploration? Maybe it's better than Diablo but Diablo was randomized. So at best it was the second worst game on the list, possibly the worst. Monotonous landscapes and level scaling made exploration worthless. And that's not even talking about the compass and the "insta-teleport" feature.

Character builds? I haven't spent much time with Ultima but it seems to have only minor emphasis on character builds. But Diablo and even Morrowind/Daggerfall make Oblivion look silly.

Powers/spells? One word: levitation. More words: every Oblivion spell is just a different colored, misty projectile. Maybe one or two spells stand out. Again, look at the other games on the list.

Role-playing? Unless you define role-playing as imagining stuff in your head, Oblivion has virtually none. Your character is a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-all. Quests do not affect the world besides closing the occasional gate -- which posed no actual threat in the first place. Character development is pointless thanks to level scaling. The story is weak. In the list, only Diablo is worse in the role-playing department.

Combat? OK, Ultima has bad combat. The other games are better, though, by virtue of better developed character systems. Diablo combat is ten times more fun.

It goes on and on.

What exactly does Oblivion do well? Is the game a jack-of-all-trades but a master of none? How exactly can a game which masters nothing be considered the greatest role-playing game of all time or be given a near-perfect score?

Even if you liked Oblivion, you're analytically hard-pressed to give it a score beyond a B+. Unless, of course, you haven't played other role-playing games before...
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
Sigh. Here we go again.

I've gotten off this merry-go-round guy, I'm not going round and round with you anymore. We've been over this, if you really want a response just go to the beginning of the thread and read through my posts again.
 

Castanova

Prophet
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
2,949
Location
The White Visitation
It's not a merry-go-round because you've only now started agreeing that reviewers should, to some degree, compare the game with past games. How can you agree with that but then back away when such a comparison is actually made? Are you actually claiming that you could sit someone down (a blank slate who is blissfully unaware of the hype surrounding Oblivion), have them play all those games I mentioned, and then they could honestly rate Oblivion highest based on any individual component of the game? Or are you unwilling to even think about this because that would pull the carpet out from under your "the game is fun for me at this very moment and therefore it deserves a great score" argument.
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,606
Castanova said:
It's not a merry-go-round because you've only now started agreeing that reviewers should, to some degree, compare the game with past games. How can you agree with that but then back away when such a comparison is actually made? Are you actually claiming that you could sit someone down (a blank slate who is blissfully unaware of the hype surrounding Oblivion), have them play all those games I mentioned, and then they could honestly rate Oblivion highest based on any individual component of the game? Or are you unwilling to even think about this because that would pull the carpet out from under your "the game is fun for me at this very moment and therefore it deserves a great score" argument.

Naked Ninja is not going to keep bumping a thread where he has admitted he was wrong. Take what you can get.
 

Gnidrologist

CONDUCTOR
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
20,856
Location
is cold
Naked Ninja said:
@Gnidrologist : How many reviewers compare George Michael to Mahler in their reviews? You should complain, they obviously aren't "real critics" if they don't.
You misunderstood something here. My point was exactluy opposite. Reviewers who write about Mahler should be well versed in calssical music and one who make topics about GM should probably know their r&b/soul/pop well. Not vice versa. You seem to think that this would be perfectly acceptable, because ya know, it's only a matter of opinion. No knowledge about the genre or comparison with the past achievements are obligatory, as it all boils down to how much ''fun'' i'm getting from this.
 

ElPresidente

Novice
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
47
And now the spanner in the works...

What if Oblivion had never been marketed as an RPG? What if Oblivion was marketed more like a GTA title (which I strongly argue is a more accurate representation of the title).

Would people be so upset with the high scores then?

My resentment of Oblivion was because it wasn't an RPG, I wonder how many others are the same?

And if so what role does genre have in a review?

Fallout is by far the worst driving simulator ever. Sure... that is a wild exageration of my point but at what point do we stop looking at the existing art as a basis for comparison and talk about the title under scrutiny?

The above isn't an argument but a genuine question that I've asked myself many times during reviews. Any critic has got to be careful that they review any title for what it is not what it isn't.
 

Brother None

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
5,673
ElPresidente said:
What if Oblivion had never been marketed as an RPG? What if Oblivion was marketed more like a GTA title (which I strongly argue is a more accurate representation of the title).

You chose an odd place to ask that question. There are flew places as stringent(est) about genre definitions as RPGCodex, so for here the answer would be: yeah, it matters.

Because it comes down to this...

ElPresidente said:
And if so what role does genre have in a review?

I think it's important to realise who you're reviewing for and what their template is, it's something I actively do but is easier for me because I work for an RPG-speciality site, so I know my readers' tastes better.

But regardless of tastes, a "genre" is really little more than a template. If I say "this is going to be a shooter", people expect shooting. If I say "this is going to be a driving game", people expect driving.

The funny thing is - VDweller has discussed this before - that RPG has the least narrow definition of all these. If you tell me "there's a new company and they're doing an RPG", I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. An MMORPG? A hack'n'slash like Diablo? An open-world wandering game like Oblivion? A narratively strong game like BioWare does? A pen and paper emulation of the BIS/Troika stamp? Unlike FPSs, RPGs have more differences than they have similarities.

So what do you do, as a reviewer? Oh man, that's difficult, because it all comes down to taste. If you have a shooter and the shooter action is bad, it's a bad shooter, no one would disagree, but what single element in RPGs would make the RPG "a bad RPG"? Bad dialogue? Bad narrative? Bad character system? Shoddy combat? Bad setting?

So I think it has to work in a set-up-and-pitch kind of way. If you're talking about Oblivion, you might mention "as this game is an RPG, I would expect a sense of progression in narrative and character that this game doesn't offer". In one fell swoop you define what you think is important and note the game doesn't have it. Still too simplistic, but can't be helped.

And that's also the limit of it; since RPG is such an odd template, it comes down to what you expect or what you think your readers expect from an RPG. You are obliged to cover those points because the game is marketed as that. If I review an action movie, I will have to cover the action, before moving on to acting, romance, dialogue, etc. etc. Because its their choice to market it as such, the expectancies that you think are most important for that genre have to be dealt with most prominently, either in it failing, fulfilling or exceeding expectations.

Something like graphics is a general game-thing, and should come after RPG-specific thing.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
ElPresidente said:
What if Oblivion had never been marketed as an RPG? What if Oblivion was marketed more like a GTA title (which I strongly argue is a more accurate representation of the title).

Would people be so upset with the high scores then?
I certainly hope so as it was a crappy "GTA" title. Now if it was marketed as a completely new type game - "poorly designed, boring game for people with ADD", then high scores would have been perfectly justified.

The above isn't an argument but a genuine question that I've asked myself many times during reviews. Any critic has got to be careful that they review any title for what it is not what it isn't.
Review features and don't worry about what genre games belong to.

Edit: To clarify:

Some people say that GTA4 is either an RPG or pretty close to one. Let's say that I'm an avid RPG fan (whatever that may mean) and I'd like to learn more about this GTA game. I don't want to read that it's a shitty RPG or awesome RPG. I want to read a detailed explanation and analysis of features and gameplay mechanics. THEN I'll form my own opinion.
 

Gragt

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
1,864,860
Location
Dans Ton Cul
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin
Very fair point.

I guess a lot of things would be different because if the game is not marketted as a rpg, it wouldn't be compared to other better exemples of the genre, it wouldn't be discussed as much here as the bad sheep. No more "Oblivion is the best rpg EVAR".

The interesting aspect of this hypothesis (assuming the game is the exact same, only the rpg definition is removed) is that if it was actively defined as NOT being an rpg and and received the same success, it would show that people just believe anything they read, catch and repeat words they do not even understand the meaning of. Oblivion being marketted or not as an rpg would not change anything about its quality as a game.

Even with it not being an rpg, Oblivion still has problems (weak story, very simple combat system, exploration based on quantity and repetition of content rather than on variety and depth, flawed skill and leveling up system, etc.) that get in the way and so heralding it as "the best game that isn't a rpg EVAR" would feel equally stupid.

I still consider Oblivion as an rpg but just a very bad one with wasted potential. If I remove the rpg tag, then it's an adventure game with a lot of wasted potential.
 

ElPresidente

Novice
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
47
Brother None said:
So what do you do, as a reviewer? Oh man, that's difficult, because it all comes down to taste. If you have a shooter and the shooter action is bad, it's a bad shooter, no one would disagree, but what single element in RPGs would make the RPG "a bad RPG"? Bad dialogue? Bad narrative? Bad character system? Shoddy combat? Bad setting?

There is an inherent problem when you start looking at a games in a modular fashion. Take Deus Ex... a game I love: adventure elements = mediocre, shooter elements = mediocre, RPG elements = mediocre. Taken as a whole it is a fine game but the bits that make it up. Fairly ordinary all around.

Furthermore I can't agree that the approach should be "Well it is in this genre so what elements should it have." Genre doesn't define a game, a game defines what genre it falls in.

I review games not genres even though I happily admit my own personal reaction was based on me treating it as an RPG.

Vault Dweller said:
I want to read a detailed explanation and analysis of features and gameplay mechanics. THEN I'll form my own opinion.

But that obviously isn't what people want according to this thread - otherwise the Oblivion review in question would stand. Instead people want reviews to conform to their opinions... that is really what I'm reading here. Everyone is saying that is what they want but at the end of the day everyone is ignoring such content being present in the review and the reviewer pointing out the reasons the game was important to them. It all comes back to "I can't believe they said it was a good game."

This is why scores should be given the arse incidentaly... people wouldn't be arguing on forum boards "OMG they gave it 90% I wouldn't give it 70%" about game reviews instead the examination would be of the content of the review.

Furthermore don't forget this is largely a subjective environment. We're not doing detailed analysis here, this isn't like an essay on Hamlet. You objectively analyse the design, the script, the graphics, etc... but the final result is ALWAYS going to be subjective. Which is why the text is so much more important than the score.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
ElPresidente said:
Vault Dweller said:
I want to read a detailed explanation and analysis of features and gameplay mechanics. THEN I'll form my own opinion.

But that obviously isn't what people want according to this thread - otherwise the Oblivion review in question would stand.
Uh, no. Oblivion is simply not a 10/10 game no matter what your point of view is. If you disagree, then I'd like to see some arguments.

Instead people want reviews to conform to their opinions... that is really what I'm reading here.
You are misreading then. I'd love to read an intelligently written, positive Oblivion review, but such a beast does not exist. I'd know. I was a newsposter when Oblivion was released and had to read all that "OMG! The game has amazing graphics! 10/10 and an editor's choice award!" crap.
 

Brother None

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
5,673
ElPresidente said:
Furthermore I can't agree that the approach should be "Well it is in this genre so what elements should it have." Genre doesn't define a game, a game defines what genre it falls in.

True.

But not fully relevant.

You're not zapping your views into someone else's head, your using words. That means you have to use the conventions that exist in your readers' minds to clearly transfer your review. You can't explain everything about a game in a review, it'd take too many words even for a website review. So you use genre as a crutch to compare to what the game actually is. No game ever fits a genre perfectly, but there's a range of genre expectancies you can use.

And while you should always strive to simply factually transmit as much about the game as you can to enable people to form their opinion, you simply do not have a choice about how subjectively people will read it when it comes to factors as genre expectancies. So rather than ignore it, anyone is better of using it.
 

Gragt

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
1,864,860
Location
Dans Ton Cul
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin
ElPresidente > you're definitely a change from the other reviewer mentionned previously. And you share my view of Deus Ex, that in the end it is more than simply the sum of its parts.

On the genre subject, defying the established conventions and messing with what people expect from "a game of that kind" can also lead to some good surprises.
 

Shannow

Waster of Time
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
6,386
Location
Finnegan's Wake
ElPresidente said:
What if Oblivion had never been marketed as an RPG? What if Oblivion was marketed more like a GTA title (which I strongly argue is a more accurate representation of the title).

Would people be so upset with the high scores then?

...

And if so what role does genre have in a review?
Oblivion the action adventure. I wouldn't have minded.
70% of the games I play are RPGs (25% strategy, 5% other). Now every RPG is compared to Oblivion, a game that I don't even consider an RPG. Reading that the Witcher is an ok action game but that you should look elsewhere for a true RPG like Oblivion does grate on my nerves. I neither care about Oblivion's mass appeal nor its high scores. What bugs me is that now Oblivion is seen as the genre defining game for RPGs. Mostly by people who were and probably still are a lot less focussed on RPGs than I am, IMHO. I also don't mind 10/10 scores in general, because I don't see it as a perfect game but as an "A". I've had oral exams where I didn't know every single detail of every single question but my overall performance merited "A"s. I see scores that way.
But when talking about Oblivion and reviews especially when "ignoring the scores and reading the words" most were simply atrocious. I read at least 12 reviews. Most were simply harping on graffix and awesomeness without mentioning gameplay mechanics or changes from Morrowind (which I was looking for). The one review on the Codex had more information than the other 11 put together. And VD wasn't even a "professional" journalist. So it wasn't just the scores that one might have problems with.
That is obviously my own view and I'd doubt that many on the Codex would agree [/disclaimer]

Genre is very important in giving the reader an idea of the direction of the game.
The genre should tell the reader whether he is interested in reading the review or not. While BN is right in saying that the RPG genre is one of the - if not the - least accurately defined genres, a reader who generally likes RPGs can start reading and stop if he finds out that the game doesn't have some quality he is looking for.
I won't read reviews of racing games since they don't interest me.
I think reviewers should only review games of genres which they like and of which they are knowledgeable. If I were to review Need for Speed 50000 I'd have no point of reference and the score would be very low. That wouldn't tell a racing gamer anything about whether it is a good racing game or not.

ps: I am surprised that NN actually agreed with S8 to some extent. I always thought he was just trolling. Obviously explaining things very slowly with some easy to comprehend examples does the trick.
pps: I wouldn't pick on NN but for someone showing so much confidence in his superior intelligence he seems quite dense.
 

Section8

Cipher
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
4,321
Location
Wardenclyffe
What if Oblivion had never been marketed as an RPG? What if Oblivion was marketed more like a GTA title (which I strongly argue is a more accurate representation of the title).

Then it would be rated at least as poorly, if not more so, because GTA sets the bar very high, and Oblivion falls short on all accounts.

GTA basically has a few layers. There's a go anywhere, do anything, have fun layer. That's where you're beating up pedestrians for cash, stirring up the cops and seeing how long you can last, grabbing a vehicle with associated missions (taxis, firetrucks, etc), doing stunts or simply just driving.

<blockquote>And for what it is, that layer is a whole lot of fun. The driving is solid and the physics are tight enough to feel within the realms of realism, without being as tetchy as a race sim. However, the presence of traffic, pedestrians and police keeps the driving dynamic, and the player on their toes. On foot, the shooting/melee elements are above average, if unspectacular, but bolstered by the behaviours of civilians who elicit a varied response to violence to gangsters and police who engage the player in challenging combat. Without doign anything else in GTA, the bread and butter gameplay is challenging, enjoyable, at times surprising, and dynamic enough to maintain longevity.

Oblivion on the other hand, features no vehicles, barring an exceedingly poor horseback implementation, dull ranged combat, awkwardly controlled melee combat, one-dimensional AI responses, and few meaningful dynamics, which basically amounts to "if you've seen one fight, you've seen them all". The combat is always blunt, in your face and requires precious little tactical play. Within civilised society, there are few satisfying gameplay outlets. Picking fights won't spark lengthy, escalating conflicts with the law, just hostile guards who fight like anyone else.</blockquote>

The second major layer in GTA style games is the mission layer. This is where the generic actions the player can take are extended to goal-based play, and tied into a series of interconnecting narratives. This is the meat of the game, and bears the most rewards for the player, as well as tailored challenges across a variety of gameplay facets.

<blockquote>In GTA, this layer really shines. It starts simple, but constantly introduces new dynamics and challenges to the player, so no two missions ever really feel the same. Many elements are introduced to the challenge, from time limits, to measures of suspicion, visibility, car damage, speed, etc. are all applied to ensure that the player has to work for their rewards. All missions are geared to be failed and retried.

Oblivion not only rarely extends the basic gameplay with new dynamics, it rarely makes use of anything beyond the basic combat play. There's little differentiation between tasks, which predominantly involve taking a single path to somewhere, killing something and/or getting an item. More significantly, failure is impossible. The game safeguards all quest elements, and babysits the player through every step of already simplistic missions.</blockquote>

Then there's the narrative layer. The major story, the incidental characters, the little bits on the side, even some of the peripheral elements, such as the radio stations, etc.

<blockquote>GTA does fairly well in this respect. It adopts a stance of self-aware cliche gangster stereotyping and never takes itself seriously. The humour can be a bit hit or miss, but succeeds for the most part, through well-directed character acting, and some great moments of blunt satire. The radio stations alone are worth the price of admission. But aside from this, the narrative is often tied directly into the gameworld itself, and the player's progression. When something drastic happens in the context of the narrative, its then forever changed in the gameworld itself.

Oblivion's narrative does itself no favours. Aside from taking its own cliches and those of high-fantasy in general way too seriously, it also relies on a sense of urgency that is never reflected in the gameworld itself. In the moments where it does try to delve into humour or satire, it falls flat. The end result is a poor narrative that feels disconnected from the gameworld, and no sense of coherence. It also lacks any of the peripheral and implied narrative that GTA does so well through radio stations, billboards, and so forth.</blockquote>

Then there's the exploration/collection layer. This is basically any of the activities that reward the player for poking around in obscure locations, from finding spawns for rare vehicles, weapons, powerups, to the collection rewards, like secret packages, photo opportunities, tags, oysters, unique jumps, or even easter eggs.

<blockquote>GTA does this on many levels. There are basic rewards which do little more than provide the palyer with the satisfaction of achievement, monetary rewards, unlockable items and content, to little minigames and missions and ongoing collection tasks, such as stealing rare vehicles, etc.

Oblivion hobbles itself horribly in comparison. Everything in the gameworld is transparently balanced to the player's level. So there's no point in visiting some far off dungeon in the corner of the world - it contains the same stuff as the one a stone's throw away. The stores in one town have precious few unique items you couldn't buy elsewhere, and collection tasks are few and far between. There's very little to achieve in Oblivion through exploration. At best, there's mushroom picking, which rewards the player with different varieties of plant depending on where they are in the world, but that doesn't reward all characters. At the end of the day, exploration just serves as a reminder of how generic and cookie cut the world is.</blockquote>

Last of all, there's the progression layer. The little rewards for persisting with the game that culiminate in a more developed gameplay experience and wider variety of gameplay outlets by the end game.

<blockquote>In GTA, this is mostly tied into the storyline, though San Andreas does have character stat growth. However, most of the progress asks the player to challenge themselves for reasonable reward. From the extra weapons/powerups for collection tasks to unique vehicles to player owned property and businesses, to entirely different vehicles like helicopters, aircraft and so forth, and mostly cosmetic options like hairstyles and clothes - there's a lot to be gained as you progress through GTA.

In Oblivion, it all becomes pretty cosmetic. Your character increases statistically, you find better gear, new spells, new abilities, houses, etc. - but it all amounts to very little, because everything else in the gameworld is (theoretically) advancing as fast as you. You never feel like you're getting better in combat, because you're constantly fighting stronger enemies while the weaker ones vanish from the world altogether. There are very few additional missions associated with major purchases like houses, and very little to extend the gameplay beyond your starting options.</blockquote>

And finally, there's the coherent whole, the interaction of all of those layers. And again, GTA shines so much brighter than the turd that is Oblivion. GTA is full of pleasant surprises. The game keeps pulling out new gameplay options and little surprises to keep the player going, and most of all, it rarely repeats itself, making for a thoroughly entertaining experience.

Oblivion on the other hand purports more options and more content, but very little of it is satisfying. The few surprises the game has in store are generally negative, like the AI having a brain explosion, or a replica sword in the place of something you'd thought worth stealing. The gameplay doesn't progress or evolve along with the player, and the only saving grace is that it's all fairly inoffensive and rarely frustrates you. So as long as you're happy to chase quests that don't amount to much, meaningless rewards and a third-rate high-fantasy storyline, then Oblivion offers little resistance.

Would people be so upset with the high scores then?

Yep. See above. I'd rate Oblivion about a 6, if I had to stick a number on it. It does a lot, and never actually breaks in horrible ways or leaves the player feeling like the game is cheating them, but it's so thoroughly mediocre. I'd go so far as to say it's flawless mediocrity.

And if so what role does genre have in a review?

The review ought to address an audience. If it's a review of an "RPG" for "RPG fans", then it should be focused accordingly, but really I'd prefer to hear a well-rounded, well-informed perspective that can address both the concerns of genre fans and broader gaming tastes.

Fallout is by far the worst driving simulator ever. Sure... that is a wild exageration of my point but at what point do we stop looking at the existing art as a basis for comparison and talk about the title under scrutiny?

The above isn't an argument but a genuine question that I've asked myself many times during reviews. Any critic has got to be careful that they review any title for what it is not what it isn't.

But there's another aspect here - what it purports to be. It's fine reviewing Oblivion as either RPG or Non-RPG, since it really does try to be both, while obviously focusing more on the non-RPG elements. It's also being sold as both.

Same goes with Fallout 3. It's being marketed toward both fans and non-fans of Fallout, and when reviewed it should be given consideration on both fronts. Is it a good Fallout game? No. Is it a good game? No.

Hah, now I feel like writing a Fallout 3 review without having seen the game, let alone played it, put it out there and see how <s>accurate it is</s> predictable Bethesda are come release. Anyone double dare me?
 

elander_

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,015
Just a little remark, DeusEx never tried to be an adventure game, an fps game or have non-linear rpg elements and great dialog choices. So judging a game by something it was never their intention it's embarrassing.

DeusEx is a version of System Shock, with similar game mechanics, bigger hub areas and some basic dialog typical of linear games. In the goals DeusEx was trying to achieve it executed very well in every aspect, not only the sum of it's parts but the quality of it's elements.

I have nothing against rpgs like Diablo and DeusEx. Nobody ever tried to bullshit me when i brought these games. Oblivion on the other hand could have been a great game if only:

* They didn't tried to bullshit everyone saying there was great dialog choices in the game, which was a falsely backed up by every Oblivion review.
* Reactions were completely moronic no matter how you look at it. Just compare Ultima VII or Fallout reactions (games made 10 years ago) to the amazing Oblivon radiant ai.
* Skills can be bypassed easily if you have enough money to buy magic scrolls, picks or potions. Skills are worthless.
* Lore has been ignored and changed completely without any explanation. You can't really expect a reviewer to read in-game books and complain about that. However having in-game books to explain the past and history of the world is a conscientious decision since Daggerfall.
* Guilds becoming obsolete and simplified for no reason at all. I would like to see a reason why something that was so much apreciated by both Daggerfall and Morrowind players had to be dumbed down.
* Badly executed procedural content. I love games with procedural content but in Oblivion it was horribly executed.

Reactions, skills, lore, the unique guild system and procedural content are only the basic bricks of an Elderscrolls game and they failed miserably in everyone of them. Dialog choices was never a core feature for the Elderscrolls.

So what was well executed in Oblivion?

* Graphics. There are a few problems but that's nitpicking.
* Sandbox. Ok Oblivion does give the player the freedom to go everywhere following their beloved Ultima VII sandbox model.
* Quests. Some were well executed, however linear. I think the Shivering Isles expansion was very good and it was made by a veteran, the same guy who wrote the Thieves Guild path in Oblivion. Emil did a sort of decent job with the Assassins Guild and the rest is passable for me.
* Combat was at least an improvement over the previous games but it's still boring and limited in comparision to games like Arx Fatalis which isn't really that good. The old Heretic and Hexen still beats everything to date in action/rpg combat.

In other words they are going a great job turning the Elderscrolls into some sort of a bad joke and disfunctional medieval GTA and throwing successful features which are the identity of the series.

You can't just see a game only in terms of your own enjoyment and discard their background and the promises made by Bethesda about it. If you do that then you are only another tool they have to promote their game.
 

roshan

Arcane
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
2,426
Hah, now I feel like writing a Fallout 3 review without having seen the game, let alone played it, put it out there and see how accurate it is predictable Bethesda are come release. Anyone double dare me?

Id like to read that review, so consider yourself dared.
 

MountainWest

Scholar
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
630
Location
Over there
Section8 said:
Anyone double dare me?

Yea, go for it. Though I got this feeling they won't be as predictable as we all think. Instead there'll be embarrassing instances where it's clear they've tried to implement features they don't have the talant to be messing around with, you know, some kind of "Let's show those fuckers we can have C&C and good dialogue." It'll be incoherent with the rest of the game and highly laughable; like someone trying to use intelligent language without grasping the meaning of the words.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom