Preview Choices in Oblivion

[Vault Dweller]

VeeDee only knows how to argue by calling people retards. He is civilized in a manner of speaking -- like the kid who scores a passing grade in his exams in a class full of slow learners in high school. Yay Veedee is so SMART

IP address for this post
148.244.150.58 [ 1 Post ]
Users posting from this IP address
ExitiumFan [ 83 Posts ]
syKo [ 13 Posts ]
Radiant Immershun [ 1 Post ]

 

[Vault Dweller]

What I don't get is why you can't have an argument here without suspecting that something has been done to satisfy some retarded folks that are not willing to make a decision. Vault dweller talked about "dumb console kids", you talk about indecisive people. Buying a console doesnt make you dumb, and you don't have to be dumb to buy one. This "we are better" attitude is really, excuse me, childish.

Better than "it's been done for some mysterious reasons, but let's hope it will work out somehow". It's been done to get more sales, more sales that would come from the casual crowd. Granted, not all of them are stupid, but the point is, most of them don't want deep gameplay, hard choices, etc. They want to be entertained by the game, and these are the people whom Bethesda targets.

And about the concern of Daggerfall fans: I am one of them, a big one, I consider this to be a great game despite all those glitches. I do not share your concerns, really.

I'm a Daggerfall fan too, and I have many concerns about Oblivion, so what's your point?

Let me put it this way: You fear that Oblivion will not be reacting to what you do in the way you expect it. I think that, when I count together all what I have heard about this game, it will be the most responsive and reactive game world I have been in.

Care to share what you know with us then? Not with me, 'cause I'm on your ignore list, but those who've been misled by me deserve to know the truth, no?

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Sort of, why not. An example from the history of my country: Back in 38, communists, catholics, nationalists and even the few royalists all united to fight the nazi regime. They didn't love each other, but worked together.

That's a good point, except I doubt the royalists allowed the communists to join their ranks and rise to leadership within their faction.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

@Rendelius:

Can you at least respond to this example:
----
Two factions: Fighters and Assassins. 2 quests involving one NPCs. The Fighters are hired to protect him, the Assassins are hired to kill him. If you are a member of both guilds, you are asked to assist both in protection and assassination. Clearly you can't do both. One faction is happy, one faction is pissed. You go up in one faction, you go on a shit list in another. Simple as that. Now tell me it's difficult to implement and it would take a lot of precious resources.
---
Now. We know you can join and rise to the top of all guilds, at all times. So we know that there will never be a quest like the above. Can you not acknowledge that this does not bode well for the gameplay? Isn't it reasonable to expect that some fighter's guild's duties will be to protect someone from assassins? How could you possibly do that when you are one of the assassins, or even their chief?

And extend this to the many, many other types of situations we know can not be in the game (ie conflicts between guilds with actual consequences). Now do you understand the concern from Daggerfall fans that this kind of gameplay is being lost, just to cater to the Sol Invictus/Rulions of the world who get "annoyed cuz I had to make a decision"?

An example of guild conflict "gameplay with consequences" in DF please?

The gamesradar preview nailed it I think:

Still, it's hard to gauge whether the upgrades and slipstreaming of this latest Elder Scrolls will change the fact that an experience so subject to the player's will needs the player's will to drive it.

And I don't think that's a bad thing.

 

[Vault Dweller]

An example of guild conflict "gameplay with consequences" in DF please?

There was no need to. Becoming a top guy in all 30+ guilds was next to impossible. Each task could have been your last. It was nothing as lame as "go outisde and pick me some mushrooms". Random quests could keep you busy in a few guilds for months. The situation is different now, isn't it?

And I don't think that's a bad thing.

And I don't think it's a good thing, so let's leave it at that, somewhere in the middle.

 

[bryce777]

I don't know why people think that a mage was hard in daggerfall.

Once a mage makes his own spells and crafts some items, he can just buy some mana potions and kill anything in the game with one spell. Any character can win most fights just by backing up, anyhow.

I usually just did melee because it was less of a pain to figure out all my spells, but for the more difficult monsters or fights I just cast the proper COMPLETE OBLIDERATION spell and they were done.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

An example of guild conflict "gameplay with consequences" in DF please?

There was no need to. Becoming a top guy in all 30+ guilds was next to impossible.

30 guilds? That's the literal truth, but its very misleading if you compare it to the later games. Its more honest to say there was Mages, Thieves, Fighters, Dark Brotherhood, Knights (all the same), and Temples (all the same).

Each task could have been your last. It was nothing as lame as "go outisde and pick me some mushrooms".

But an awful and invariable lot of go to X and kill/bring Y. Even the mushroom collecting was brilliant in comparison. You are a humble beginner after all when you normally do that quest.

Random quests could keep you busy in a few guilds for months. The situation is different now, isn't it?

I would welcome random quests (very much in fact), but only in addition, not as a replacement of hand designed quests. Remember that it was also said that each guild will be its own story arc, and interact with the main quest.
Furthermore, who says there can be no interaction? Maybe you will at some point have to decide if you can live with the shizophreny of killing your own guild members if you are both in the mages guild and the Brotherhood? And if that seems like I am stretching (I know it will ) then consider that the general goals and purposes of the guilds may well be at odds - why is it bad that i can be a two tongued bastard and side with both, or can decide to go with one or the other? Why do conseqeunces have to be gameplay barriers? That the game doesn't establich rigid rules, does not mean that there are no decisions to be made. After all the thieves and the brotherhood operate in secret - so the mages or fighters guild has no knowledge of your status in those Organizations - so what would be the logic that would preclude you from rising in both?

 

[Vault Dweller]

30 guilds? That's the literal truth, but its very misleading if you compare it to the later games. Its more honest to say there was Mages, Thieves, Fighters, Dark Brotherhood, Knights (all the same), and Temples (all the same).

Well, it's not like anyone would expect 30 completely unique gameplay-wise guilds.

But an awful and invariable lot of go to X and kill/bring Y. Even the mushroom collecting was brilliant in comparison. You are a humble beginner after all when you normally do that quest.

It's not the Fetch thing that I'm talking about, it's the presentation. Going into some scary-ass dungeon to find some mummy wrappings is way more dangerous, serious, and a much better reason for a promotion than collecting junk outside of town.

I would welcome random quests (very much in fact), but only in addition, not as a replacement of hand designed quests. Remember that it was also said that each guild will be its own story arc, and interact with the main quest.

Sure, that depends on the arc and the interaction though. Random quests can't compete with hand crafted quests, but those we've seen in MW were much worse than the random DF stuff.

Why do conseqeunces have to be gameplay barriers?

That's what adds meaning to gameplay. What good is it to be a king if your country doesn't care and doesn't acknowledge your presence other than in the most generic way: "hi, [king], glad to see you again!"?

That the game doesn't establich rigid rules, does not mean that there are no decisions to be made.

Decisions without consequences are pointless. That's true in games and in real life. Anything that's even remotely qualified to be called "decision" is basically a process of comparing and evaluating consequences.

After all the thieves and the brotherhood operate in secret - so the mages or fighters guild has no knowledge of your status in those Organizations - so what would be the logic that would preclude you from rising in both?

It's not the logic. Again, it's what missing from gameplay. What are the odds that 4 large organizations operating in the same areas won't cross each other paths? It's the fact that all 4 seemingly operate in a vacuum that bothers me.

 

[elander_]

30 guilds? That's the literal truth, but its very misleading if you compare it to the later games. Its more honest to say there was Mages, Thieves, Fighters, Dark Brotherhood, Knights (all the same), and Temples (all the same).

All right. Numbers don't mean anything. In that case why is Oblivion PR allways babling about how much stuff there is in the game. Npcs, books, swords, unique this, unique that. We all know how unique Morrowind npcs become don't we ?

But an awful and invariable lot of go to X and kill/bring Y.

Let's look closer at these awful quests.

1. You can refuse and ask for another quest with a small reputation penality. The new quest will be randomly selected. Some quest are only available when you get to an higher position in the guild. In Morrowind you can only acept or refuse quests. You won't progress until you do that get me shome moshrooms quest. Even if you are level 100 and that quest will be obviously very boring.

2. When you receive a go to X and kill Y quest and talk to the npcs in the same town you will receive random bits of information and reactions about X and the monster you have to kill. In Morrowind everyone except the quest guiver are oblivious about what you are doing.

3. When you succed or fail the quest and talk to npcs they will comment on the way you have done the quest or on the destiny of the monster and the consequences of your actions in their lifes. In Morrowind there is no reaction from npcs.

4. You can wait for the quest timeline to finish and abandon the quest. You are only punished with a small reputation penality. You can obtain another quest any time you want if you have enough reputation.

5. Daggerfall quests will have unexpected twists and outcomes. This depends on many variables like factions, disease conditions, skill levels. For example if you are a vampire and that monster you are going to kill is another vampire you may receive a letter from your blood-father.

Even the mushroom collecting was brilliant in comparison.

Considering what i said above. All Daggerfall go to X and kill Y quests are briliant compared to Morrowind quests.

You are a humble beginner after all when you normally do that quest.

Unless you take that quest later in the game. You may be level 100 already and you don't have to go to Balmora first. This is very amateur stuff you know.

Todd Howard made the Fargoth golden stash quest. It's sad but that is the best quest in Morrowind and Fragoth the character with better personality or any at all.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Well, it's not like anyone would expect 30 completely unique gameplay-wise guilds.

Yet you seemed to make that your argument... So the original request for an example is denied on being non-existant, I understand?

It's not the Fetch thing that I'm talking about, it's the presentation. Going into some scary-ass dungeon to find some mummy wrappings is way more dangerous, serious, and a much better reason for a promotion than collecting junk outside of town.

More exiting - yes. More "in character" for a recently hired adept - no. It's not like all you ever did was plucking mushrooms...

Sure, that depends on the arc and the interaction though. Random quests can't compete with hand crafted quests, but those we've seen in MW were much worse than the random DF stuff.

true, for the most part. I hope the promises of much better designed quests is not a hollow one. If it is, I will gladly acknowledge that you were right all along and that (that aspect of) Oblivion sucks.

That's what adds meaning to gameplay. What good is it to be a king if your country doesn't care and doesn't acknowledge your presence other than in the most generic way: "hi, [king], glad to see you again!"?

Wait, I was asking "why gameplay barriers", but you are answering with a dialogue example. Thats exactly my point, consequences could take many forms, dialogue, priviledges, quests... without ever excluding you from being head of all guilds. I am not saying anything like that will exist, just that you can't conclude from the fact that you can rise to guildamster in all guilds that there are no consequences from your actions in one that affect the other, or consequences from your quest. In fact, just forbidding that would be the least elegant of consequences, while spinning an elaborate tale of how you have to safeguard your secret double identity would be much more fun... which, just for the record, I DON'T expect Oblivion to do.

Decisions without consequences are pointless. That's true in games and in real life. Anything that's even remotely qualified to be called "decision" is basically a process of comparing and evaluating consequences.

Yet consequences can also exist in the effect on your mind, conscience, self-image. If you were to kill someone and noone ever finds out, do you really think that deed would have no consequences for your life? It would change your outlook, your self definition nevertheless, I would think. Of course in a game that only works so far, and I agree there should be consequences in teh game world for many things. But as I said, those can take many forms.

It's not the logic. Again, it's what missing from gameplay. What are the odds that 4 large organizations operating in the same areas won't cross each other paths? It's the fact that all 4 seemingly operate in a vacuum that bothers me.

Since they interact with the main quest, the can not operate in a vacuum. The evidence (rising to become guild leader in all factions) does not support the hypothesis (they are in a vacuum, there are no consequences).

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

{...}
Considering what i said above. All Daggerfall go to X and kill Y quests are briliant compared to Morrowind quests.

While some of your statements and assumptions on the workings of quests in DF and MW are wrong (E.g. there are many that have random info in the local populace in MW as well, likewise can unexpected event happen - in MW maybe more because there is no fast travel, and the vampire example is already scripted into the quest template - thus it's not an "unexpected turn") I am not defending MW's quests. They were mostly Bad. DF's were bad too. Nevertheless I enjoyed both games.

{...}
Unless you take that quest later in the game. You may be level 100 already and you don't have to go to Balmora first. This is very amateur stuff you know.

Oh yeah? How many variables would you like to take into account for each and every quest, dialogue, whatever? How many contigencys could you and YOR design team handle? Sure its bad, but its just the price you pay for getting a freeform game that lets you progress at your whim. You can always roleplay it and turn your back on the balmora mages guild, or fry them with your Fierball- o - death. What does your level 100 superhero want from the mages guild anyaway!

 

[Rendelius]

Oh yeah? How many variables would you like to take into account for each and every quest, dialogue, whatever? How many contigencys could you and YOR design team handle? Sure its bad, but its just the price you pay for getting a freeform game that lets you progress at your whim. You can always roleplay it and turn your back on the balmora mages guild, or fry them with your Fierball- o - death. What does your level 100 superhero want from the mages guild anyaway!

That's exactly why so many developers stick to these tunneled RPGs where you have to progress on a narrow path with some branches that will lead you back to the path again: They are so much easier to do from the logic within. We have a few dev teams going for that freeform adventuring, and given the tremendous task that lies before them (to give us as much freedom as possible and to stay consistent nevertheless), I wonder that they still risk doing this .

The Morrowind approach with the leveled monsters was one way to cope with the problem, as well as the relatively short and dull unrelated quests. They have overdone the leveled monster thingie, you hardly met something that was a real challenge. And Daggerfall mosty threw random monsters at you, if I remember correctly, in random dungeons that you visited for random quests. It was fun, sure, but a little bit too much randomness.

We'll have to wait and see how Oblivion handles things. I think the way they handle NPCs now is promising, and that's the part I am looking forward to most, despite all my concerns. Generally I think that they have learned their lessons from Morrowind as they learned them from Daggerfall, but we will have to wait and see.

 

[Rendelius]

Oh, by the way: to add more confusion to the discussion about the four guilds you can join at the same time if you want to:

You can only join one of the five lords that are striving for power in Cyrodiil :wink:

 

[Anoik]

Oh, by the way: to add more confusion to the discussion about the four guilds you can join at the same time if you want to:

You can only join one of the five lords that are striving for power in Cyrodiil :wink:

I have read something about that in the official forums, but it is the first time i read something like that. It's speculation of the fans? or we have some official info about that?.

 

[bryce777]

GBH

'30 guilds? That's the literal truth, but its very misleading if you compare it to the later games. Its more honest to say there was Mages, Thieves, Fighters, Dark Brotherhood, Knights (all the same), and Temples (all the same). '

no no no. There are also vampires, the coven, werewolves, and the guy behind the dark brotherhood is almost a guild unto his own.

Also I think that there are a couple of daedra cults.

I suppose not everyone knows this is the case, though. These are the more or less hidden guilds/

 

[franc kaos]

Oh, by the way: to add more confusion to the discussion about the four guilds you can join at the same time if you want to:

You can only join one of the five lords that are striving for power in Cyrodiil :wink:

Here's how it should be done:

If you join the Mages guild, then the fighters or thief guild are open to you.
Thief guild gets on okay with mages, but no way the fighters, as they're honourable people protecting the weak.
If you join the fighters then you can also join the mages guild.

Depending on how you play, bloodthirsty or diplomacy you get invited to do work for the assasins or the nine divines.

But... the assasins would def. prefer you to come from the thieves guild and would have very little time for the fighters guild... (bunch of dogooder paladin wannabe's), reverse would hold true for the nine divines.

The mages, by their nature are neutral (necromancy and restoration?), and you might be encouraged to join them by both groups, trying to find out info about the other camp. Therefore it would be an actual hotbed of intrigue and political infighting (as was mentioned in MW, but never actually witnessed).

Would that be reactive and consequential enough for everybody?

 

[Drakron]

No, because the reason someone joins the guilds are access to the guild services.

Only place you can sell stolen items is the thief guild, mage guild allows access to enchanting and teleportation as the fighter guild allows acess to repairs.

The issue is that after certain levels the pleyer sould became involved in guild politics, Morrowind had that since the Thief and Warrior Guilds path crossed and that is what matters, the guilds sould at one point start to demand dedication.

Besides what matters if you are guildmaster of everything if the game never reacts to that? its not likely you can combine the guilds into one to serve your goals ... in the end it does not matter if you are guildmaster of the fighters and the mages becauses the fighters never react to you being their guildmaster and the mage guildmaster, only being their guildmaster.

 

[Shagnak]

Oh yeah? How many variables would you like to take into account for each and every quest, dialogue, whatever? How many contigencys could you and YOR design team handle? Sure its bad, but its just the price you pay for getting a freeform game that lets you progress at your whim. You can always roleplay it and turn your back on the balmora mages guild, or fry them with your Fierball- o - death. What does your level 100 superhero want from the mages guild anyaway!

That's exactly why so many developers stick to these tunneled RPGs where you have to progress on a narrow path with some branches that will lead you back to the path again: They are so much easier to do from the logic within. We have a few dev teams going for that freeform adventuring, and given the tremendous task that lies before them (to give us as much freedom as possible and to stay consistent nevertheless), I wonder that they still risk doing this .

I'm sorry, but all this malarky about "handling every contingency" is just rubbish. Most of the concerns re: multiple guilds can be fixed by relatively simple solutions.

At the most simplest level:

Take the several factions, one stat for each to represent your standing with them (v. simple scheme used by the likes of Thief 3). Every time you do something that would have an effect on your standing (e.g. attack guild members, accomplish a quest, get promoted at an ideologically opposed guild) those standings are adjusted accordingly.

When it comes to doing quests that are not main-plot oriented, what you have access to (if using a job sheet metaphor), or what is offered to you is affected by your current standing with the offerer, your level, and your standing in other guilds.

For example, with the tedious mushroom picking one, if your standing and/or level was high enough, it would not get offered when you first joined the guild. A quest more matching your competence would. So if you were already Lord Wotshisname, High Goombah of the Fighters Guild, (and this would be well known after all this is no "sekret guuild"), then obviously you would not get the mushroom picking quest.
Perhaps if you were only Lord Sneaky Dude, Leader of the Assassins Guild, perhaps that would not come into it as your identity is secret or something.

For those that truly desire to be a completist and do such a quest, the offerer may have a dialogue option such as "Would you like to try something easier?", so you can choose some of the lesser quests, but reward should perhaps be scaled accordingly.

No-ones asking for every contingency to catered for. A simple change to the way quests are offered is all that it takes, and a couple more stats to check or adjust.
Of course, what with RAI I would expect something more elaborate than the above. If it is as good as promised. :wink:
(For example, a time factor for how long it takes for your reputation to filter around the world. Saves those "but how did they know I killed those guild members?" moments. Easily done in an advanced scheduling system that the supposedly have)

The Morrowind approach with the leveled monsters was one way to cope with the problem, as well as the relatively short and dull unrelated quests. They have overdone the leveled monster thingie, you hardly met something that was a real challenge.

I didn't really notice this much. I got my ass handed to me quite often. :D
Also, when I returned to earlier areas when I was more powerful I kicked ass. So, do you have any examples?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, it's not like anyone would expect 30 completely unique gameplay-wise guilds.

Yet you seemed to make that your argument...

So? I wasn't talking about uniqueness, although thanks to bryce for reminding me about witch covens and such, and I never criticized Bethesda for going with the standard guild setup: fighter, mage, thief, monk, etc. My point was that there were many guilds that offered different things and sent you on different quests.

So the original request for an example is denied on being non-existant, I understand?

Yes, I said so, there was no need for such a feature due to the number of guilds. Now that we are down to 4, there is. Similarly, people would expect amazing implementation of weapons, now that we are down to 4, same logic.

More exiting - yes. More "in character" for a recently hired adept - no. It's not like all you ever did was plucking mushrooms...

You could refuse a quest and pick another. Simple as that. You could pick quests that fit your profile - very role-playing-ish.

true, for the most part. I hope the promises of much better designed quests is not a hollow one. If it is, I will gladly acknowledge that you were right all along and that (that aspect of) Oblivion sucks.

It's a date. If the quests are good, I'll gladly acknowledge that too.

That's what adds meaning to gameplay. What good is it to be a king if your country doesn't care and doesn't acknowledge your presence other than in the most generic way: "hi, [king], glad to see you again!"?

Wait, I was asking "why gameplay barriers", but you are answering with a dialogue example.

Not really. I used dialogue as an example of the only way MW acknowledged your progress, but I expected gameplay elements, not a few lines.

I am not saying anything like that will exist, just that you can't conclude from the fact that you can rise to guildamster in all guilds that there are no consequences from your actions in one that affect the other, or consequences from your quest.

There is no other way. If there were some consequences, real ones, not "ok, now instead of a steel sword, I'll give you this bronze crappy dagger", then progressing would have been very hard, and becoming a leader impossible. That's simple logic.

If you were to kill someone and noone ever finds out, do you really think that deed would have no consequences for your life? It would change your outlook, your self definition nevertheless, I would think. Of course in a game that only works so far

It won't work at all in a game, because moral sufferings of your character can't be measured, won't affect gameplay, and could be easily ignored by player who's happy to get the loot of the victim. Especially considering how many people you usually have to kill in TES games.

Since they interact with the main quest, the can not operate in a vacuum.

So, all 4 interact with the main quest, but they don't interact with each other? Does that make sense to you?

 

[Rendelius]

Also, when I returned to earlier areas when I was more powerful I kicked ass. So, do you have any examples?

Oh, certainly. Easiest example is around Seyda Neen. When you reached level 5 or six, mudcrabs were replaced by Netches. Also, loot leveled with your character. You found so many lockspit spells (100% chance) from level 15 onwards, the whole island could have been without doors

 

[Rendelius]

That's what adds meaning to gameplay. What good is it to be a king if your country doesn't care and doesn't acknowledge your presence other than in the most generic way: "hi, [king], glad to see you again!"?

Wait, I was asking "why gameplay barriers", but you are answering with a dialogue example.

Not really. I used dialogue as an example of the only way MW acknowledged your progress, but I expected gameplay elements, not a few lines.

Err, what about the strongholds they built for you when you raised in rank with one of the houses? A pretty unique acknowledgement, don't you think?

 

[Shagnak]

Also, when I returned to earlier areas when I was more powerful I kicked ass. So, do you have any examples?

Oh, certainly. Easiest example is around Seyda Neen. When you reached level 5 or six, mudcrabs were replaced by Netches.

Aaahh.
Hah, if that's the case I never noticed!

I played MW over a long period of time, partly due to my computer lacking the required "grunt" when I first got the game . So I stopped playing and waited until I had upgraded - if somewhere in there they changed to netches I probably couldn't remember they were mudcrabs to begin with.

 

[Vault Dweller]

@ Rendelius

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore? Anyway, the stronghold was a gimmick, it has no reason to be there other than to give you something to decorate. No more different than giving you a unique armor to wear.

Now, BG2 handled strongholds much better. They were attached to quests, had their own quests, and rewarded you in their own ways. Money from one, magic stuff from another, etc. The MW stronghold was no different than that clubhouse in Balmora most players used, and the Balmora house was located more conviniently.

If for example, they gave a land in some troubled area and built a stronghold there to protect the land and some key point, plus to extend the House's influence, that would be something, otherwise...

 

[Anoik]

Err, what about the strongholds they built for you when you raised in rank with one of the houses? A pretty unique acknowledgement, don't you think?

Yes, but what use have that for you?.You can't collet taxes. People there don't recognize you as the owner of the strongold. And, i believe to remenber (i am not sure about this right now), that if you take something there, they will attack you because you are committing a robbery.

And, if i have a strongold, or if you are the guildmaster of one of the guilds, i want to assing quests and give orders.

 

[Anoik]

If for example, they gave a land in some troubled area and built a stronghold there to protect the land and some key point, plus to extend the House's influence, that would be something, otherwise...

Nice idea for a mod VD.

@Shagnak
Nice post about guilds and quests.