Game News Combat In Oblivion: A Rebuttal to Penny Arcade

[Fresh]

Unfortunately there's no mounted combat. Believe me, I wish we'd had the time for it.

It's always a question of time! That said, Id rather have kickass unmounted combat than halfassed unmounted and mounted combat.

EDIT: Will yo ube able to actually ride TEH horsies around in the forests and towns etc? And if so - will you be invulnerable whilst mounted?

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

You can ride horses in most places -- obviously not inside, and I think that they're not allowed in some towns. But you're not invulnerable while you ride, and neither are NPCs.

 

[Deacdo]

They don't have time to implement all these features because it's being spent making the Xbox360 version

 

[Baley]

What happens if you drive your horse into an NPC?

 

[Volourn]

"They don't have time to implement all these features because it's being spent making the Xbox360 version "

They don't have time to implement all these features because it's being spent making the PC version.

 

[Fresh]

You can ride horses in most places -- obviously not inside, and I think that they're not allowed in some towns. But you're not invulnerable while you ride, and neither are NPCs.

Aight so you are in fact extra vulnerable since you can be hurt but can not deal out damage. Sounds alright with me, just have to unmount quickly.

Hmm I wonder if you could use your horse as a shield somehow.. Think Destriders.



Anyhow horses seems to be a great addiditon to gameplay with or without mounted combat.

 

[Deacdo]

They don't have time to implement all these features because it's being spent making the PC version.

*shrugs* What cares? Whatever way you want to shake it (though the PC is obviously the main sku). If they picked one platform or the other we'd get a better game with more features. That's all that counts, AFAIC.

 

[Mendoza]

They don't have time to implement all these features because it's being spent making the PC version.

*shrugs* What cares? Whatever way you want to shake it (though the PC is obviously the main sku). If they picked one platform or the other we'd get a better game with more features. That's all that counts, AFAIC.

Yeah, which I'm sure would sell twice as many copies to make up for the money they would have made on the XBox version? Or did you not consider that making the game for only one platform might not be financially viable?

 

[Volourn]

"If they picked one platform or the other we'd get a better game with more features. That's all that counts, AFAIC."

Proof please.

 

[Fresh]

"If they picked one platform or the other we'd get a better game with more features. That's all that counts, AFAIC."

Proof please.

Bah who needs any proof, he's obviously wrong. Wrong and whiny.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

For some reaon, mounted combat is not something I find appealing in firstperson 3D. It would be like mounting my girlfriend but then having to punch or kick her kid brothers away at the same time because they were drawned to the scene. Not very intuitive, and a bit awkward.

Also, there's no guarante that the end result for picking a single development platform would have more features than picking two... Though it would be fair to assume that working on a single platform would likely provide more time and resources that would enable the end result to take more advantage of said platform.

That *could* mean more features though, just not necessarily.

 

[Fresh]

For some reaon, mounted combat is not something I find appealing in firstperson 3D. It would be like mounting my girlfriend but then having to punch or kick her kid brothers away at the same time because they were drawned to the scene. Not very intuitive, and a bit awkward.

Actually you can switch between first-person and 3rd person. Much like having a mirror in the ceiling over the bed.

 

[bryce777]

Maybe it's just me but I am not terribly thrilled by making the game have tons more attack options and making it even more videogamelike.

Ooh if I only had a nintendo gamepad and 37 combination attacks!

Yes let's just dumb down the combat system because having a good combat system in an RPG for once would be a terribly bad thing.

I would think that if combat somehow required you to think it might be good, but I don't relly get a hard on from the idea of simply memorizing combos that work with monters and etc.

 

[NeutralMilkHotel]

For some reaon, mounted combat is not something I find appealing in firstperson 3D. It would be like mounting my girlfriend but then having to punch or kick her kid brothers away at the same time because they were drawned to the scene. Not very intuitive, and a bit awkward.

I agree. Mounted combat seemed to work well (or decent) in mount & blade because it's big battle/army centric. For single/a couple enemies like in ES, it doesn't seem very attractive to me. And it's definately not a 'feature' I give half a shit about.

Maybe it's just me but I am not terribly thrilled by making the game have tons more attack options and making it even more videogamelike.

Ooh if I only had a nintendo gamepad and 37 combination attacks!

Yes let's just dumb down the combat system because having a good combat system in an RPG for once would be a terribly bad thing.

I would think that if combat somehow required you to think it might be good, but I don't relly get a hard on from the idea of simply memorizing combos that work with monters and etc.

Go read the news post again. Unless you just suck shite at coordination or something, I don't see what the problem is.

There's no memorization required. Press an arrow key and attack in each direction (and one without pressing an arrow key) for a unique attack (maybe just in animation), press an arrow key and hold attack and you have a power attack in each directional key (and one for no arrow key). There's no, up up, down, block, attack for the super combo bullshit.

 

[Sol Invictus]

You can ride horses in most places -- obviously not inside, and I think that they're not allowed in some towns. But you're not invulnerable while you ride, and neither are NPCs.

Aight so you are in fact extra vulnerable since you can be hurt but can not deal out damage. Sounds alright with me, just have to unmount quickly.

Hmm I wonder if you could use your horse as a shield somehow.. Think Destriders.



Anyhow horses seems to be a great addiditon to gameplay with or without mounted combat.

You mean destriers, right? It'd be nice if there were different types of horses in the game. Destriers are the warhorses, obviously. Coursers for speed, and palfreys that reduce the 'fatigue' stat, or something.

 

[Fresh]

You mean destriers, right? It'd be nice if there were different types of horses in the game. Destriers are the warhorses, obviously. Coursers for speed, and palfreys that reduce the 'fatigue' stat, or something.

Ah yes destriers, thank you. I like my horsies big and mean.

 

[Deacdo]

Yeah, which I'm sure would sell twice as many copies to make up for the money they would have made on the XBox version? Or did you not consider that making the game for only one platform might not be financially viable?

I seriously doubt that is an issue. The game would do rather well on the PC alone, and would do even better on the PC if there was no Xbox360 version...and would do even better still since the *game* would be better. Not as well as if it was simultaneously released on the Xbox360/PC, of course.

That aside, what's wrong with porting a game? Make the game the best you can then port it to whatever platform you want. Hell, you can even sign a small company up to do it for you.

Simultaneous development is something poor games need to hide the fact that they suck until as many people as possible have paid for it. A high quality game, particularly if it becomes *better*, can do very well w/o using a tactic that means a lower quality game.

 

[Deacdo]

"If they picked one platform or the other we'd get a better game with more features. That's all that counts, AFAIC."

Proof please.

What kind of proof? And you actually need proof for something so blatently obvious?

Let me give you a hint: The purpose of simultaneous game development ISN'T to make better games.

I think, that in the entire game industry, there are *maybe* a handful of studios that could pull it off (but not without other sacrifices).

 

[Stark]

The game would do rather well on the PC alone, and would do even better on the PC if there was no Xbox360 version...and would do even better still since the *game* would be better. Not as well as if it was simultaneously released on the Xbox360/PC, of course.

yeah riiiiighttt.... so having mounted combat makes it a better game and would mean pc version sell another 3 additional copies to cover for loss of console sales. cool. i like your logic.

you might want to have a look at the Morrowind sale figures of pc and xbox before making claims like that.

besides, it's pretty silly of you to immediately assume the simultaneous development of pc and xbox is the root cause why mounted combat is not implemented.

 

[fnordcircle]

What kind of proof? And you actually need proof for something so blatently obvious?

Having a snappy comeback and winning the war of words is all that matters. If you had proof of some sort and posted it you'd get a shitty response punctuated with some stupid chatroom term used as brilliant satire. This is the codex, roofiles.

Let me give you a hint: The purpose of simultaneous game development ISN'T to make better games.

No, you're right. Until the Xbox is just a PC in a box there will always be concessions made when doing simultaneous cross-platform development. Those conceessions come in the form of development time or scaled-back, if not dropped entirely, features. But you've got to accept that the console market is huge, for whatever reason, even if that's because game developers determined it would be huge and started developing for it making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The fact of the matter is that while the PC has the most units sold for certain select titles, there are more console games sold than PC games last I saw. So if dual development is what it takes to keep a franchise that I love going, so be it. I can deal without being able to do double back flips onto my horse and charging a demon-infested city, even if it would have been cool.

 

[Deacdo]

yeah riiiiighttt.... so having mounted combat makes it a better game and would mean pc version sell another 3 additional copies to cover for loss of console sales. cool. i like your logic.

See below...and actually read what I said. Just because it isn't being developed simultaneously doesn't mean can't happen

you might want to have a look at the Morrowind sale figures of pc and xbox before making claims like that.

Make claims like what? And yes, I've seen the sales figures...so I don't get your point. Of course it doesn't look like you really read everything I said, so that's no surprise.

besides, it's pretty silly of you to immediately assume the simultaneous development of pc and xbox is the root cause why mounted combat is not implemented.

It is pretty silly of you to assume that is what I think, when I never said that. I said "features", not "mounted combat". EDIT: I can see why you thought that is what I meant. I wasn't really reading the thread that carefully. While it certainly could be the case, it depends on a lot of other factors, too. I really just meant "features" in general, not any specific one.

 

[Deacdo]

Having a snappy comeback and winning the war of words is all that matters. If you had proof of some sort and posted it you'd get a shitty response punctuated with some stupid chatroom term used as brilliant satire. This is the codex, roofiles.

*chuckles* I'm well aware of that. I know a lot of these people from way back.

I'd wouldn't have minded typing a detailed response, but logic or business sense tends not to work, and I've only kept a few links of any real interest. Developers and publishers, for some strange reason , tend not to say things like "We're simultaneously developing [insert game] for Xbox/PS2/PC in order to make more money, though we have to make a lower quality game to do it!" Unfortunately, that's what some people need to hear.

I've still yet to hear any really good reasons why simultaneous multiplatforming is as good/better than making it innitially exclusive. Not on this forum or any other.

No, you're right. Until the Xbox is just a PC in a box there will always be concessions made when doing simultaneous cross-platform development. Those conceessions come in the form of development time or scaled-back, if not dropped entirely, features. But you've got to accept that the console market is huge, for whatever reason, even if that's because game developers determined it would be huge and started developing for it making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I know it is huge, I own two consoles myself, but I still don't like simultaneous multiplatforming for a lot of reasons, and being a multiplatform owner I see more and more every year.

Duel development has two edges. It can make you loose money as quickly as it can make your money. Anyway, that's beside the point. I doubt there is a game, or ever will be one, that HAD to be simultaneously multiplatformed (there is always porting). It isn't a necessity, it's just something publishers like to make their developers do (rarely the developers' idea) in order to get more money on release.

 

[space captain]

I've still yet to hear any really good reasons why simultaneous multiplatforming is as good/better than making it innitially exclusive. Not on this forum or any other.

one n homie

yeh im bored

 

[LlamaGod]

will be the saddlebags or anything like that?

if not, horses sound pretty worthless.

You can do the GREAT GAMEPLAY of the Elder Scrolls games of running into a corner while you sleep and become the fastest thing in the game.

 

[Fresh]

You can do the GREAT GAMEPLAY of the Elder Scrolls games of running into a corner while you sleep and become the fastest thing in the game.

Just dont do it. All games can be exploited, this is a non-issue.