An Unfavourable Review of Oblivion

[obediah]

Surely the bottom line has to be - do stats affect the outcome of combat? Does a guy with a high blunt skill have a better chance of defeating a guy with a low blunt skill.

It doesn't reduce that simply. How stats and player skill interact as well as what player skills are taxed are important. Morrowind combat didn't tax player skill at all. Unfortunately for me, Oblivion addresses this by taxing my FPS aim and block twitch skills, rather than challenging my brain.

This brings up a counter-example to your point above, if I suck at FPS combat how much do my stats affect combat? All of my offensive and blocking skills are immediately useless. A X600 damage multiplier doesn't mean jack shit when a circle-strafing orc is pwning my ass.

By your definition I can take quake 4, add speed, offense, and defense stats and give each player 20 points that spend on them and call it a stat driven rpg. Hell, as is the guns have different stats, so Quake 4 already is a stat driven rpg.

In Oblibions case, the answer is yes. Part of the problem I had with Morrowinds combat was that you could perform equally well by standing and clicking, and it soon became pretty dull. By gearing it slightly towards player skill, but still having the stats play a significant part - the theory is that combat becomes enjoyable, while still retaining its stat roots.

Congrats, you enjoy more action in your action-rpg than I do. That's fine, make the world go around and all that. There are more than a few people here that think the combat in Oblivion isn't action oriented enough, or that the compromise could be much better.

In a perfect world combat will be fun to engage in, AND reflect your characters attributes. Whats wrong with that? *covers head with tarpaulin*

Well, Imbecile, "fun to engage in" is a very subjective measure. NOTHING is universaly "fun". Bethesda has tried to make oblivion combat "fun" to a larger market who's definition of "fun" is often at odds with many of the people that enjoyed previous TES games. Their dismay at hearing this is excacerbated by the fact that no one else is making this type of game. It would suck for unreal fans if the next unreal game was a flower-picking simulator, but they could take much solace in the FPS flood that is PC gaming.

 

[Imbecile]

Youre right. There are degrees of compromise between stats and playter skill, and the way in which that is done is important too. But I've yet to be convinced that real time combat can tax your brain in any meaningful way. The only way to ectually engage the player is to incorporate some (small) element of player skill, positioning and timing.

In theory it can be juggled so that an average player would inflict the same amount of damage as if a to hit roll was utilised, while there still being some incentive to actually dodge and weave in combat.

In theory this could be fun for everyone. Those who like there to be at least some element of skill in combat are pleased. Those who feel that stats should dictate victory dont lose out, as the end result (when played by an average player) is identical to combat with a to hit roll. Admittedly those who want to use their brains in combat, will get less out of it, but generally speaking I find that this is what turn based games do best.

 

[AlanC9]

In theory, it could work. In practice, you might just as easily end up making a game that sucks for everybody.

 

[Solik]

Oblivion addresses this by taxing my FPS aim and block twitch skills, rather than challenging my brain

Name a single true RPG battle system that actually taxes the brain.

I can name strategy game battle systems that tax the brain.

I can name fighting games that tax the brain.

There's even a few FPS games that tax the brain.

All the RPGs I can think of with battle systems that tax the brain are JRPGs. All the rest? Your fate is either predetermined by stat comparisons, or up to the random roll of the dice, or some combination of the two (excluding stuff like abusing the AI in the Baldur's Gate games).

This trend is especially true in single-character RPGs.

Comparing fast thinking (action battle systems) to simple reflex games (press the button when the light changes color) is childish.

 

[Levski 1912]

TOEE had very nice turn-based combat. So did Silent Storm. Maybe you haven't been looking hard enough, but then again, you are a self-professed "action-RPG" gamer.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Youre right. There are degrees of compromise between stats and playter skill, and the way in which that is done is important too. But I've yet to be convinced that real time combat can tax your brain in any meaningful way. The only way to ectually engage the player is to incorporate some (small) element of player skill, positioning and timing.

In theory it can be juggled so that an average player would inflict the same amount of damage as if a to hit roll was utilised, while there still being some incentive to actually dodge and weave in combat.

In theory this could be fun for everyone. Those who like there to be at least some element of skill in combat are pleased. Those who feel that stats should dictate victory dont lose out, as the end result (when played by an average player) is identical to combat with a to hit roll. Admittedly those who want to use their brains in combat, will get less out of it, but generally speaking I find that this is what turn based games do best.

But you realize that using brain in combat is really only a subgenre within the CRPG genre. In fact most P&P combat had very little brains involved, but a lot of dice, (in comparison to actual wargames, e.g.). There is many other options for RPG's to involve brains, so there is no pressing reason why combat HAS to be strategical/tactical. In fact I think the idea of the "intelligent RPG" is kind of overhyped on these forums. Most RPG's just try to tell an interesting adventure story, and even the highlights of the genre aren't exactly taxing brain cells. You never have to think in Fallout.
Classic adventures, puzzle games, or strategy games are far more intellectually challenging than any RPG that has come out.

 

[Levski 1912]

I agree about adventure and some puzzles, but beyond turn-based and wargames, you can't really claim RTS games are taxing your grey matter.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I agree about adventure and some puzzles, but beyond turn-based and wargames, you can't really claim RTS games are taxing your grey matter.

Strategy, not real-time strategy.

 

[Levski 1912]

I agree about adventure and some puzzles, but beyond turn-based and wargames, you can't really claim RTS games are taxing your grey matter.

Strategy, not real-time strategy.

Oh I see. Well then, I must agree with you, though I did find Planescape to be quite intellectually stimulating.

 

[Chefe]

That magazine will most likely never receive any demos of a Bethesda game ever again.

 

[AlanC9]

TOEE had very nice turn-based combat. So did Silent Storm. Maybe you haven't been looking hard enough, but then again, you are a self-professed "action-RPG" gamer.

ToEE, while kind of fun, doesn't exactly tax your brain. Once you understand the D&D system, there really isn't all that much to think about.

Actually, I think that's common to a lot of TB games. It's not so much that you have to think, as that you get to demonstrate your mastery of the rules. Typically at the expense of some hapless AI.

 

[Section8]

Couldn't "demonstrating mastery of the rules" be considered a form of thinking? After all, most primary/secondary level academic assessment relies purely on memory, and a great deal of undergraduate education involves even less "thinking," since it's basically about either memorisation and/or collation of facts.

A game doesn't have to be stretching your grey matter to its limit, as long as there is some degree of thought involved.

TOEE requires players to understand, and work within the limitations of a ruleset; it requires preparation, interplay between varied "toolsets," and weighing of options based on probability. It's not like you just wade in and hope for the best based on character rolls, the player must be aware of relative probabilities and make appropriate decisions.

But having said that, RPGs are primarily about interactive narrative and character development, which aren't inherently difficult or challenging, but in order for a story to be interesting, it requires conflict and adversity, so there must be some degree of problem solving.

And that to me is where Morrowind failed, badly. It didn't tie character adversity into the actual game systems. There were scripted moments in the plot, like contracting Corprus, but even then, they were hardly adverse. You were only treated as a leper in hollow monologues, and the physical effects were miniscule.

Even TOEE, a dedicated dungeon crawler did a better job. All of a sudden, your fighter fails a save, and is paralysed. He has enough hit points to last a couple of rounds of undefended attacks, so something must be done. That's as much a plot hook as a game challenge.

Now in addition to failing to present any decent character challenges, Morrowind also completely fucked up the player challenges. At least one of those shortcomings has been addressed, but I honestly can't see Oblivion bettering even Mount & Blade's infantry combat alone. Which is a shame because I was hoping that the combat might at least be one of the few worthwhile gameplay improvements amidst a sea of unaccomplished graphical ambition.

 

[Stella Brando]

Ooops wrong thread

 

[galsiah]

After all... a great deal of undergraduate education involves even less "thinking," since it's basically about either memorisation and/or collation of facts.

I agree that RPGs are primarily about character and story, not deep thought, but I have to take issue with your initial point.

The above quote only helps your argument if you are assuming that undergraduate education is a good model to follow. However, I'd say that what you've said is exactly what makes it a stupid model to follow. Most undergraduate education is:
Concerned with memory rather than intelligent thought.
Focused on test results rather than real understanding of a subject.

This means that undergraduate education sucks. It is not something that should be held up as an example to follow. A game that followed such a model would be one with a steep learning curve, without originality, that encouraged powergaming over involvement in the game world: i.e. a bad game.

I've had enough of uninspired, memory based test passing (or failing :D). I don't want it from games.

 

[kingcomrade]

Demonstrating master of the rules is one thing that I love to do with games. If the AI is terrible it isn't as much fun, but that's why it's better to present challenges to the player as puzzles, not as "omg ur playing against a rell persun only sits a computator."

That's why puzzle-style combat games like Doom or a lot of turn-based strategy games and such are so much more fun than your average shooter like Call of Duty 2 where enemy AI decides how things go. Usually, the AI isn't up to the task.

 

[galsiah]

Demonstrating master of the rules is one thing that I love to do with games.

I can agree with that, but on the condition that the "rules" or environment keep changing enough to keep things fresh. Well designed puzzles are often better than "realistic" AI, but solving the same puzzle over and over is not interesting. If puzzles are designed as such (e.g. adventure game puzzles) the designers usually do a reasonable job of keeping things fresh. If the puzzle is a standard gameplay situation (e.g. a turn based RPG combat), things can get boring - unless there is a lot of variety, in which case it is about intelligence anyway.

 

[kingcomrade]

Randomization goes a long way towards that in a lot of games. Diablo would've been worthless without the randomization. Also, allowing the puzzle to be approached from multiple directions is another way of doing it. Also, making the puzzle interesting and just fun to play around with is another plus.

Like, take Final Fantasy Tactics. That game is replayable because there are so many (meaningful) different ways of building your party, even though you are going through the same levels every time you play. And also, the random battles were random enough to be meaningful. There was a variety of interesting settings and enemies, as well.

I think it's important to put many tools into a player's hands and design the puzzles so that they aren't just another version of Splinter Cell's "figure out which button to push to pick the lock."

 

[Claw]

In fact I think the idea of the "intelligent RPG" is kind of overhyped on these forums. Most RPG's just try to tell an interesting adventure story, and even the highlights of the genre aren't exactly taxing brain cells.

I disagree. Does "intelligent RPG" really have to mean "taxing brain cells"? Being intelligent isn't the same as being a puzzle. An intelligent book doesn't have to mystify me, either. I don't think "intelligent RPG" means taxing the brain, but intelligent design.
Oh, I don't want to argue about what that means. You can expect me to consider Fallout an example of intelligent design, and not Oblivion.
I'll just say that interdependant quests are an example of intelligent design, whereas a linear story isn't.

 

[kris]

[You never have to think in Fallout.
Classic adventures, puzzle games, or strategy games are far more intellectually challenging than any RPG that has come out.

I had to think in Fallout, especially in early battles just to survive or avoid them. I would say "think" in this concept is when you have to consider for a moment "what should I do here" and/or "what is the best solution here?", especially if the wrong decision can prove to be fatal. Sure sometimes those decisions could be abusing the system...

Unfortunately most strategy games are moving away from thinking unless number crunching is "thinking" in this concept. Anyway, did you have any strategy games in mind?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

In fact I think the idea of the "intelligent RPG" is kind of overhyped on these forums. Most RPG's just try to tell an interesting adventure story, and even the highlights of the genre aren't exactly taxing brain cells.

I disagree. Does "intelligent RPG" really have to mean "taxing brain cells"?

Being intelligent isn't the same as being a puzzle. An intelligent book doesn't have to mystify me, either. I don't think "intelligent RPG" means taxing the brain, but intelligent design.
Oh, I don't want to argue about what that means. You can expect me to consider Fallout an example of intelligent design, and not Oblivion.
I'll just say that interdependant quests are an example of intelligent design, whereas a linear story isn't.

I agree to your first sentence, but the two are often confused, especially since many here never tire of pointing out that "concole kiddies" are "too dumb" to understand a complex RPG. That is actually bullshit because as you have just admitted it's not really about a challenge to the intellect - puzzle games have that much more than any RPG. The thing is it's not really about intelligence, but as you say, about intelligent design. As you say, a good non-linear RPG story may involve you mentally, allow you to make moral choices etc. But even a linear story can be designed intelligently, for the same reason a book can be. There are many different forms of "intelligent" entertainment, and since RPG is such a diffuse genre, many of them can apply to RPG design, which is why I say one shouldnt automatically scoff at a linear design. It may not please you personally because you have this expectation of non-linearity for RPG, but I would say even an entirely linear gaming experience can be highly intelligent, there are good examples mostly among adventure games, but even among more linear RPG's. A linear story can lead you through levels of understanding of the world and the motivations of characters. In fact it may be able to do so better than a nonlinear game, because ther is more control. The question of choice and nonlinearity is separate from intelligent design. As to Oblivion it's too early to say, but again there are other ways to have stimulating intelligent design than the Fallout way. My point on Fallout is that while it is an intelligent design, you don't need to be intelligent to enjoy it.

 

[Solik]

The point here isn't that RPGs necessarily should be mentally taxing, heavy thinking games. Note the original criticism of the combat system in question.

 

[ixg]

http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=241906

bethesduh is really catering to people not like me.

 

[Sisay]

There is a small degree of problem solving skills required to find Caius Cosades without a compass.

 

[Claw]

Yeah, but in Oblivion, he'd be leaving his house, making it practically impossible to find him.

 

[LlamaGod]

There is a small degree of problem solving skills required to find Caius Cosades without a compass.

you follow road signs to Balmora and if you cant follow the directions with the maps, you can ask at a tavern there, I believe.