Unofficial Oblivion preview!!! Must see to believe!

So what, it's ok for everyone but me to state what makes an RPG and why Oblivion does/does not meet that criteria?

Why don't <b>you</b> Shut. The Fuck. Up.

 

No, it isn't, which is why my post wasn't labelled "Sarvis."

 

A 1 for difficulty, but a 10 for accuracy.

You abstract out the detailed expertise required for combat into some numbers, modifiers, and algorithms - then you roll dice and make up nice descriptions.

Ah grasshopper, you've discovered the great RP secret. The correct answer is you abstract out the detailed expertise required for persuasion into some numbers, modifieres, and algorithms then you roll dice and make up nice descriptions. But if you suggest this, you'll be kicked out and called a "Munchkin" or told to learn how to roleplay.

See when smart people wish they were tough or could fight, they make up rules to represent it and then play games within those rules. When strong people wish they were smart enough to talk through a problem, they go beat up a nerd and feel better.

So a true RP system would allow a retard to play a diplomat character as well as a real life diplomat, just like a 300 lb fatbeard can play a ninja just as effectively as a real ninja. But most RP gamers want to control the dialogue, devise their own tactics and such, so the system isn't symmetric.

That answer is almost as simple as it is wrong. See the correct answer above.

 

asdfghjkl;zxcvbnm,./

Oh, I get it. You're dragging the thread down into oblivion. How frightfully clever.

 

Ok then. Oblivion is not an RPG. Is that what all this is about?

Now that the RPG vs. non-RPG conflict is resolved, it seems this thread is in the wrong forum. There is no need to continue the debate of why Oblivion is not an RPG.

BTW, if TESIV sales are poor, that will mean a lesser budget for the upcoming Fallout, no? Just something for all you Beth-bashers to think about...

 

It's about some developers quotes, nothing else. If your impression after reading them is that Oblivion is not an RPG, than that's your opinion, not mine.

Hmm...where did I hear that line before? Support FOBOS - that's your only chance to play Fallout 3 evAr! Any more pearls of wisdom for us today?

Anyway, what makes you think that we have high expectations about Bethesda's Fallout 3? Just something for you to think about...

 

Bah.

I urge you to consider differentiating between PURE RPG and other RPG.

Maybe it's a wee bit sort of rascist point of view, but that's the way I see it.


and Sarvis, hey bro we already argued enough about it in that thread. WHat gives? We just differ in that aspect, and no way that we are going to change, right?

 

There was an implication in there somewhere of "how can you do that in Oblivion." The next statement was to try and bring it more along Codex thought lines, as being in a game where no such rules were set and you had to do the action based on your own personal skills.

I'm in complete agreement that rules and numbers are the abstractions used for those things, but I'm pointing out that games like Oblivion (what it sounds like anyway) remove those and in so doing remove the "RPG-ness" of the game.

Not wrong at all for a game where you have to control all the timing and slashing yourself.

 

How can it be a PURE RPG if the character's abilities do not matter in combat? Or even in other aspects of the game?

The thing is, if you guys had any evidence for your claims whatsoever you would be able to change my mind.

 

You are perfectly aware of the falseness of such a statement.

Again, a conflict of personal definitions of the genre.
I value story, dialogs, characters, options/nonlinearity and world much higher than combat.
Plus, Oblivion's combat system, as well as Gothic's, will be strongly affected by your character's stats. Even if your reflexes are not good enough, you'll be able to succeed through better char. planning and tactics.

 

Ah, I completely missed that constraint. In that case, the answers are "You Can't" over and over and then "Oblivion is a action-RPG". I'm guess you already know that and the questions were rhetorical.

 

I have decided that I would like to be known for saluting MSFD. I salute you Mr Smiley Face Dude! I am in awe of a guy who shows up to post to The Angry Cunts of the Codex (tm) (and hell yes this should be a title here) in a thread pretty much designated as Fuck Oblivion and Everyone Making It.

Hey wouldn't The Angry Cunts of the Codex make a neat guild in Oblivion? With Havoc-style physics and some wicked rendering that would be something to see.

 

But they do matter, to some degree at least. If a character sucks at archery, it will take a long time to kill the opponent (as the arrows will not penetrate/minimum damage). But if they had some skill, that would no longer be the case.

Taking a moment to think about the effects of eliminating the to-hit rolls has mixed results for me. I do want dice rolls to play some role in combat (or other skill) but yet I do not want the same experience that I had in Morrowind.

What do you suggest be done to better implement this balance in combat? (I'm being serious)

 

From another thread:

I just don't see anything fucking wrong with to-hit rolls. If your skill is high enough, you hit most of the time - that's some very basic RPG stuff. The only complaint was that when you miss, it still *looks* like you hit. An obvious solution would have been to make it look like you missed. Is it really some fucking rocket science to you?

What about dodging/blocking/parrying animations attached to failed rolls though?

 

It's better to do it the KOTOR way then - with floating camera and all that.

See, it just doesn't make sense when it's first-person viewport and it's totally stat-based. It look UGLY and moronic.
Either make it half-action, or change the viewport.

 

Well, exactly.
It seems like they are using the wrong approach to fix a known problem.
I would much prefer a hit-roll based approach like that in MW, but with some simple animations to show why you missed rather than the ridiculous "sword passes through person inneffectively".
With all the high tech going into shit like Radiant AI and the Almighty Bloom, it seems strange that they cannot do this easily.

It doesn't have to.

 

Sarvis, you are taking one part of a game into to much consideration. I prefer to say that parts of the game is roleplaying and others are not. There is up until this day not one single computer RPG where all features where constructed as it should in a RPG. Combat is one part of RPG, to many the most important, to me it is not as important...

 

Wizardry anyone? Btw, Wiz handled missing to-hit rolls very nicely.

 

For me it's much more important that the story/rp is fun than the combat is fun. - see Geneforge & Planescape vs. ToEE. However, people dislike games for things they find unimportant as well as things they find important. For example, i find jumping rather unimportant, but I never got past the first level of most nintendo games because of it.

While burning through dull combat isn't that bad, burning through tedious or frustrating combat will kill a game, no matter how good the story. If my party or character is too weak to get past a foe, I can go level up or what have you and try again. I'f my micro isn't good enough to get past a foe, the game goes in the trash can, because I'm not going to spend hours running around monsters hitting block and waiting for the right animation to score a hit.

If the other things in the game are very good, and someone makes a nice mod to de-arcade the combat, I'll probably pick it up.

 

Yeah, because I've never admitted when I was wrong around here.

No. If it is a <b>PURE</b> RPG it should be role-playing in ALL aspects. If even one aspect, be it dialog trees, plot affecting ability, or combat, is not dependent on the character's abilities then it cannot be a PURE RPG.

(Disclaimer: Much of that argument is not stuff I believe in, but stuff put in to clarify things for people who think picking options out of a list is roleplaying.)

What you VALUE has nothing to do with genre classification. I value good, strategic turn based combat. I still consider BG and Planescape to be RPGs despite their lack of good, strategic turn based combat. I still consider Fallout to be an RPG despite my dislike of it's combat system. What I value, in other words, has no effect on how I classify a game.

What I value only affects what games I choose to play.

<b>obediah</b>

It's ok, it wasn't actually said anywhere in the post... this is why I'm not an author.

<b>Zufuriin</b>

You could say the same thing about Fable's combat system, but there is a guide out there for going through the game without actually leveling up your skills.

Essentially when skill increases do little more than improve damage, or add new combos they become little more than power ups. Waht is the difference between... say increasing your archery skill to get higher range, and finding the Long Beam in the original Metroid?

This is not having the character determine the success of actions, it is simply putting a modifier on the player skill.

RPGs should be about decision making and planning, not twitch reflexes.

<b>Vault Dweller</b>

I always figured if I end up actually making a game I'd do this:

Define several (3-5) "contact points" on the player, humanoid characters and various monster types. Then have 5 attack animations where the attack passes through those points. Then make 5 dodges/parries for each creature type that block to or avoid being at each of those points. Finally, have the attack identify itself so the appropriate blocking animation can be played.

For larger creatures or well armored (dragons) ones I would just have a "bounces off" animation to indicate failure to penetate natural armor. Incorporeal beings could just pass through.

Always seemed like a good idea to me anyway, then you could even have the battlefield animated with all characters constantly attacking/parrying while player decides what the next move should be. Would be cool...

Now if only I followed through on my ideas... heh.

<b>kris</b>

The beautiful part here is that the chances of Oblivion actually living up to Codex roleplaying ideals are roughly 0.0000001%

 

you mean, there is a chance?

 

I'll download the scene release of the game off a 0-day dump and try it out first, then if it's a good game I'll buy it.
People do this because there tired of supporting shit games!
Sometimes Smiley you have to draw the line and ask yourself if selling out to the almighty dollar was worth it.

Anyway here's hoping the game is a good RPG.

 

Oh c'mon! So all RPGs should have turn based/DnD combat? Where's the innovation? So much for moving foward with technology. Maybe somewhere down the road there will be a game that has both "twitch" combat and incredible RPG elements, and you happen to try it, and just maybe enjoy it.

 

It's cute how you think the only two options are God of War style action games and Turn Based games.

 

What's with assumptions?

Twitch combat - teh innovashun? Since when?

Or maybe down the road you will play an actual RPG and you might enjoy using your character's stats and abilities. Who knows?