Preview GameInformer's Oblivion info

[merry andrew]

What part of "it's a mini-game instead of a skill check" you failed to understand? I'm aware that the skill will determine the difficulty, I said that several times, but in the end, it's a fucking mini-game.

I fail to understand how you can say that it's a mini-game instead of a skill check when it's actually a mini-game that is in part determined by a skill check.

My comprehension skillz r nub.

You know Rex, one of the quintessential features of an RPG is that it's stat/skill based. What they're affectively proposing is something that is reflex based. I'v read through you responses, and for the most part (in this topic) they don't make sense. By their logic (and yours it would appear) anything can be classified as an RPG.

Yeh like that Deus Ex game. What were they thinking? Having both character stats and player ability affect the character totally didn't work at all. It was a first-person shooter, and only was labeled as a genre hybrid because there were dialogue options and inventory management. I couldn't even play the game, I just got to the docks and my character exploded because RPGs that can be affected by the player's reflexes cannot exist. Oh my gosh my head fell off.

 

[Seven]

Yeh like that Deus Ex game. What were they thinking? Having both character stats and player ability affect the character totally didn't work at all. It was a first-person shooter, and only was labeled as a genre hybrid because there were dialogue options and inventory management. I couldn't even play the game, I just got to the docks and my character exploded because RPGs that can be affected by the player's reflexes cannot exist. Oh my gosh my head fell off.

Oh... a smart ass. Let me ask you this then, what is your definition of an RPG and what are it's most basic features?

 

[Surlent]

Well to me it sounds Bethesda is trying to make the basic events more involving, which were previously decided just by dice roll. I'd guess lockpicking will resemble Thief or Anacronox style some way. Spells might get some of the same seen in Arx Fatalis. It doesn't sound that bad and could make the typical stuff more appealing if Bethesda succeeds making those minigames work, balanced and more importantly fun.

We had months ago similar conversation on Obsidian boards whether RPG character should be controlled by the stats or the player. Roleplayer made there some good points how the character should be controlled the stats that define the character.

In Deus Ex, if you are good in FPS games you can take enemies down with even low skills, but I think it's more about the game balance. For example in Farcry you really need to take aim or crouch behind cover.

Melee in FPS has been more or less the same since Hexen (developed by Raven software after Heretic).

However roleplaying in cRPGs comes from dialogue options that present the character and its choices; the character with its items, looks and stats; the way you do things varies with different charcters in combat and quests with spells, skills and stats.
There probably are more points that didn't come to my mind, but as you can see making stats less important is taking off some of the CRPG experience but not nearly all of that.

In FPS RPG I think you need to strike balance between the character stats and the player skills. Ultimately good players can have maximum effect of their player skills, so to make the character represnt more itself in the game, the effects of stats should have direct effect to gameplay. Like if you are low on shooting skills, your aim would totally suck making it more harder to the player to shoot.

Finally to end this rant....
Morrowind was more FPS RPG when it came out, so it's really no surprise the next ES title will go that way. Deus Ex is a great series but not really hardcore cRPG and what becomes of Oblivion 'shouldn't reflect' to Fallout 3 as from design perspective. Unfortunately for some FO fans, it seems they might use the same tech, so what comes to ESIV might indeed have effect on FO3.
And saying Fantasy is knight on mount killing stuff is lame, I agree. Unless it has something to do with Monty Python's Holy Grail. There mounts rocked.

And to Exitium's foul mood, I'll make a guess and say he has had enough of FO drama and tries to say "cut some slack guys".

 

[Stark]

Also, I'm unsure about their definition of fantasy. Is that the best they can come up with? My definition of fantasy would be like .. well I don't know what it'd be like, but it wouldn't be "running around and killing things". COME ON.

for me, fantasy involves tongs, whips and bedposts....

I'm worried Oblivion is going to be Elder Scrolls: Fable.

actually, it's sounding more like Elder Scrolls:Gothic.

not a bad thing really. Gothic is a good game.

 

[fnordcircle]

I understand people who prefer what are essentially dice rolls over button mashing, but I don't think the two need be exclusive of each other. One of the nice things about Deus Ex was that early on with the sniper rifle it took some real work to get off a shot because it was shaky as shit, but as you improved your aim got increasingly steadier.

I also don't see why facial expressions accompanying dialogue is a bad thing.

Honestly, as Mr. Big Morrowind #1 All Star fan, I'm working to not let myself get psyched up over this game. I don't expect you lot will like it, and I'm not going to bother convincing you since TES and specifically Morrowind is a topic that really polarizes gamers.

 

[merry andrew]

Oh... a smart ass. Let me ask you this then, what is your definition of an RPG and what are it's most basic features?

I've never really thought much about that. I play RPGs because I enjoy them as simulations. But yeah, don't see much value in coming up with a definition and basic features of what exactly an RPG should be, other than a game that is supposed to let you roleplay.

My game production professor has defined an RPG as something with 'stat-based character advancement', 'inventory management', and 'puzzle solving'. I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, RPGs do include those elements, so I guess those are basic features. For the new ES mini-games, all of those elements are probably included: level of stat(s) necessary, inventory item(s) necessary, and puzzle solving (player participation required to complete the task).

I'm starting to feel like this debate is something like instruction-roleplaying vs. interactive-roleplaying ("I tell you to do this" vs "We do this together").

In Fallout (which I'm assuming is considered to be rigidly stat-based), your character could have the skills and abilities necessary to win a battle, but because of your decisions, you are slaughtered. Now, do you assume that you lost the battle because your character is weak, or because you are weak (or because they were too strong, haha)? I mean, it's called role-playing for a reason, you are controlling the character, whether you decide to see yourself as the character or not. Now Bethesda wants to give you more opportunities to control your character (while still being affected by stats), and that's wrong somehow? I dun't get it, but I'm trying!

 

[Rosh]

My game production professor has defined an RPG as something with 'stat-based character advancement', 'inventory management', and 'puzzle solving'. I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, RPGs do include those elements, so I guess those are basic features.

Don't take this the wrong way, but your "game production professor" is full of it. I certainly hope you didn't pay much for "gaming college", as those are only good for some companies and have less worth than a real foundation in CS, much less the option to go into other programming fields (even if they did get un-outsourced). That aside, back to the topic.

Those aspects are found in many other game genres and have been for decades, especially Strategy and Action. The distinction between CRPGs and the rest of the Adventure genre is that CRPGs were coined due to P&P RPG play being ported onto the computer. RPGs do rely on player decision, but not on player reflexes; that is the mark of an Action game, and contrary to popular belief the Action RPG is a myth. There's very good FPS games, many great Strategy games, but few of them resemble P&P RPG play, which is again why the genre was coined in the first place. Publishers keep pushing for the RPG label to be included in somewhere, but they don't want to do the work the genre label once stood for.

The true mark of a CRPG is if the player can determine, at a fairly decent scope, to have an affect upon the outcome of the game and have an affect in the story, through options given to the player versus just affecting stats. This runs contrary to story-driven games, which are more suited to the Adventure genre by nature.

 

[Elwro]

The decision to permit the PC to become the leader of all available factions is imo very stupid. The only reason I replayed MW was that I played a fighter type and joined House Redoran the first time. Then I came back to the game after a few months, made a thief character, joined the thieves' guild and House Hlaalu. I really had fun with a new, different character. Now I'd have to force myself not to become an ubermunchkin.

 

[merry andrew]

Don't take this the wrong way, but your "game production professor" is full of it. I certainly hope you didn't pay much for "gaming college", as those are only good for some companies and have less worth than a real foundation in CS, much less the option to go into other programming fields (even if they did get un-outsourced).

Well yeah, I was just reaching for something. Like I said, I don't find much value in strictly defining the genre. That's just something that I was presented with recently, so I went with it. I'm actually going way into debt for "gaming college", and I'll just leave it at that since I'm not too into prestige/credential wars. They tell us that we'll actually learn so much about programming that we may be considered as overqualified to program non-games. I guess they're liars and we're screwed

The distinction between CRPGs and the rest of the Adventure genre is that CRPGs were coined due to P&P RPG play being ported onto the computer.

They were coined due to P&P RPGs, yes. To me, this signifies their origins, not their limits.

RPGs do rely on player decision, but not on player reflexes; that is the mark of an Action game, and contrary to popular belief the Action RPG is a myth.

You seem old and set in your ways. I know that's probably not the most appropriate thing to state, but I mean, some people like to move on.

The true mark of a CRPG is if the player can determine, at a fairly decent scope, to have an affect upon the outcome of the game and have an affect in the story, through options given to the player versus just affecting stats.

I don't get it, that sounds like it requires mixing genres (the new ES mini-games). But maybe that's all you were saying. I dunno.

This runs contrary to story-driven games, which are more suited to the Adventure genre by nature

So CRPGs shouldn't be so story-driven? I had a really hard time getting into TOEE's story (from a P&P RPG if I'm not mistaken), which eventually caused me to stop playing it altogether. And that brings me back to the genre thing: I don't mind if it doesn't adhere to the limits that it aquired from its beginnings. In other words, I'm not fit for any sort of RPG definition debate

 

[Neverwhere]

RPGs do rely on player decision, but not on player reflexes; that is the mark of an Action game, and contrary to popular belief the Action RPG is a myth. ... The true mark of a CRPG is if the player can determine, at a fairly decent scope, to have an affect upon the outcome of the game and have an affect in the story, through options given to the player versus just affecting stats. This runs contrary to story-driven games, which are more suited to the Adventure genre by nature.

Okay, let's have a look at this.

I. Analogy: wargames
Let's have a look at the common denominator of wargames. Which factors may influence the outcome of a battle? There's a whole range, among them the dice, the number of units involved, the types of units involved, the tactical choices of the player (e.g. Empires in Arms), etc etc. Basically, anything between Risk and Diplomacy could be called a wargame.
I do not quite see why any more restrictive position would be needed for the definition of RPGs.

II. RPG v adventure
Clearly, with the demise of the pure adventure genre, many of its features have been incorporated into other games. However, defining anything story-driven as an adventure erodes the RPG genre. After all, while PS:T clearly is a stats-based game (most obviously in its handling of dialogues), it also is story-driven.The influence you, the player, have on the outcome of the game is rather limited. Now, is this enough to call it an adventure? And what about all the classic CRPGs - take the Gold Box series: a rather basic storyline with absolutely NO control over how the story unfolds. Pool of Radiance was about an EVIL DRAGON in a MAZE threatening poor Phlan. Your options: kill the dragon. Adventure?

III. Definition?
I don't think that a clear demarcation line between RPGs and action or adventure games is necessary.
However, if there is anything that makes a "real" RPG, it must be party control. Party control automatically leads to the player having to make certain strategic (development of the various characters) and tactical choices (although the latter may be limited by AI and their intensity will vary according to whether the game is TB or space-bar RT).

 

[DarkUnderlord]

... and our "Most Stupid Sentence of the Month" award goes to...

However, if there is anything that makes a "real" RPG, it must be party control.

I can see Oblivion becoming "Mini-Games - What not to do". You enter a tavern, you see a wench. You'd like to order a drink but FIRST you must play the Barter with the Wench mini-game where you see how many looks at her bust you can peek before she catches you! What does that have to do with ordering a drink? Who knows!

Fantasy, for us, is a knight on horseback running around and killing things

Ahh... yes. I always wondered what Fantasy was.

Oh God, the head of every faction...

 

[Whipporowill]

This Oblivion faction thing is really a fuckup - why would they remove replayability from the game, as that was one of the big reasons for it in Morrowind? Either it's to lengthen the actual game time for those who doesn't replay games - or people don't like to choose. Either way, sounds like a bad suggestion.

As for combat - it can only get better. MW combat was seriously uninvolved, and the only memorable bouts were the ones that had me running away and coming back, due to my enemy being insanely more powerful than me. Gothic combat would work though.

Minigames really bothered me the first time I read about them, but then recently having played Anachronox I can't say I'll be to bothered by it. Only thing that worries me though is that the amount of locks that have to be picked will drastically decline, as they can't have you going through the same mindnumbing mini-game 10 times in 10 minutes without going bored/insane.

As has been mentioned - a lot of the changes (npc schedule, lockpicking mini game, actiony combat) can be found in the Gothic games - which I like, so I'm quietly hopeful for Oblivion, although Todd Howard's mouthing scares the bejeezus out of me.

 

[Neverwhere]

... and our "Most Stupid Sentence of the Month" award goes to...

However, if there is anything that makes a "real" RPG, it must be party control.

Well thanks... I'm not going to look for arguments in support of that award, since debating on that level is a futile endeavour. Tip *free of charge*: look at how pen and paper RPGs came into being. Think about it. THEN I'll be happy to accept any kind of award.

 

[Mendoza]

The decision to permit the PC to become the leader of all available factions is imo very stupid. The only reason I replayed MW was that I played a fighter type and joined House Redoran the first time. Then I came back to the game after a few months, made a thief character, joined the thieves' guild and House Hlaalu. I really had fun with a new, different character. Now I'd have to force myself not to become an ubermunchkin.

Really? Because Bethesda are responsible for your will power? Restricting someone from not leading all factions (without a reasonable reason, like some factions being at war with each other), is just taking away player choice. If you don't want to play an ubermunchin, then don't. It's not like it's a multiplayer game.

The only quote which concerns me is the 'knights on horses killing monsters' one. And since Morrowind was hardly a generic knights on horseback setting, I'm not too concerned.

 

[Whipporowill]

Oh noes, it's the "TYRANNY OF CHOICES" all over again! Rpg's are about making choices you feel are in character - wheter if it's what kind of weapon you use, what things you say to npc's or what factions you wish to join and then taking the consequences for it. Being able to join every faction (yes, every - there's nothing even hinting at opposing factions in that sentence) sort of diminishes the importance of these choices.

I'm Pro-Choice damnit!

 

[Vault Dweller]

I fail to understand ....

Somehow I'm not surprised

...how you can say that it's a mini-game instead of a skill check when it's actually a mini-game that is in part determined by a skill check.

Because it's either a skill check that depends ONLY on your character's stats or it's a mini game that depends on a player. In the end after all modifiers it's still a mini game instead of a skill check. That's a fact. We can argue whether or not mini games are that bad, and talk about successful implementations, but it is a mini game instead of a skill check. Unlike a skill check, you have to play the game to proceed.

Yeh like that Deus Ex game. What were they thinking? Having both character stats and player ability affect the character totally didn't work at all. It was a first-person shooter, and only was labeled as a genre hybrid because there were dialogue options and inventory management. I couldn't even play the game, I just got to the docks and my character exploded because RPGs that can be affected by the player's reflexes cannot exist. Oh my gosh my head fell off.

Who said such games can not exist? Crappy linear RPGs with meaningless dialogues, lack of choices and abysmal character development are everywhere. I enjoyed Deus Ex as a shooter with a story, because that's what it was. In case you didn't notice, this is a hardcore RPG site with higher standards (although sometimes I wonder what the fuck Exit is doing here). We or at least I expect more. I expect choices that matter, I expect non-linearity, I expect multiple quests solutions, and I expect to play using my character stats and skills, not my own.

 

[Mendoza]

Oh noes, it's the "TYRANNY OF CHOICES" all over again! Rpg's are about making choices you feel are in character - wheter if it's what kind of weapon you use, what things you say to npc's or what factions you wish to join and then taking the consequences for it. Being able to join every faction (yes, every - there's nothing even hinting at opposing factions in that sentence) sort of diminishes the importance of these choices.

I'm Pro-Choice damnit!

I realise you can (according to the article) join every faction, my point was that there should be better reasons for not being able to join every faction than some arbitrary "you've already joined x factions, you can't join this one" reason. If some factions mistrust or are openly hostile towards each other, I'm happy for the restrictions to be there (Morrowind could have put in a few more and remained internally consistent), but if that hostility or mistrust doesn't exist, why shouldn't you be able to join (and uiltimately lead) all the factions.

I just feel those choices should be down to the player, not to the game. After all, it's up to you to roleplay consistently.

 

[Whipporowill]

Agreed. There should be factions that are feuding, rivals or even openly trying to destroy each other, which should prevent you from joining rather than a set number. Although I feel that guilds shouldn't really accept you as head of several factions - as that'd seriously question your loyalty (the guild first!). Join several guilds, sure. Head - one.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Like I said, I don't find much value in strictly defining the genre. That's just something that I was presented with recently, so I went with it. I'm actually going way into debt for "gaming college", and I'll just leave it at that since I'm not too into prestige/credential wars.

RPGs do rely on player decision, but not on player reflexes; that is the mark of an Action game, and contrary to popular belief the Action RPG is a myth.

You seem old and set in your ways. I know that's probably not the most appropriate thing to state, but I mean, some people like to move on.

And this guy is going to be a future game developer. A scary thought.

 

[Seven]

I've never really thought much about that. I play RPGs because I enjoy them as simulations. But yeah, don't see much value in coming up with a definition and basic features of what exactly an RPG should be, other than a game that is supposed to let you roleplay.

My game production professor has defined an RPG as something with 'stat-based character advancement', 'inventory management', and 'puzzle solving'. I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, RPGs do include those elements, so I guess those are basic features. For the new ES mini-games, all of those elements are probably included: level of stat(s) necessary, inventory item(s) necessary, and puzzle solving (player participation required to complete the task).

I'm starting to feel like this debate is something like instruction-roleplaying vs. interactive-roleplaying ("I tell you to do this" vs "We do this together").

In Fallout (which I'm assuming is considered to be rigidly stat-based), your character could have the skills and abilities necessary to win a battle, but because of your decisions, you are slaughtered. Now, do you assume that you lost the battle because your character is weak, or because you are weak (or because they were too strong, haha)? I mean, it's called role-playing for a reason, you are controlling the character, whether you decide to see yourself as the character or not. Now Bethesda wants to give you more opportunities to control your character (while still being affected by stats), and that's wrong somehow? I dun't get it, but I'm trying!

My problem with your point of view and the direction that Beth is taking (vis-a-vis combat) is that it creates no difference between a RPG and a FPS with a great story. Arguably from your point of view an FPS would be more of an RPG than an RPG because it puts you in total control, right?

 

[Vault Dweller]

No, because it's teh evolushun of the genre! Time to move on and all that shite.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I think it's rather amusing how some of you are jumping on Bethesda for wanting to implement interactive combat (which was one of the main complaints about Morrowind not having) and minigames which may prove to be enjoyable and you're going ahead and calling Oblivion a 'non RPG', all the while Troika works on Vampire, which is far more of an FPS than an RPG than Oblivion will probably ever be and you claim that to be an evolution of the role-playing game genre.

Look, Oblivion is its own game. I don't know why it has to adhere to some bullshit 'regulations' about what you think an RPG is supposed to be because as far as history is concerned, most of the early RPGs (see: Goldbox series, the early Ultimas, Might & Magic, Wizardry) had nothing to do with making choices, nor did they have good combat. They were roll-playing games and the player was made to feel like he was being driven on a rail. If that's role-playing, I don't know what Fallout is.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Supah-roleplaying?

 

[Volourn]

It doesn't matter. Oblivion is made by bethesda so no matter what we *know* it will suck like the rest of their shitty games.

 

[Seven]

I think it's rather amusing how some of you are jumping on Bethesda for wanting to implement interactive combat (which was one of the main complaints about Morrowind not having) and minigames which may prove to be enjoyable and you're going ahead and calling Oblivion a 'non RPG', all the while Troika works on Vampire, which is far more of an FPS than an RPG than Oblivion will probably ever be and you claim that to be an evolution of the role-playing game genre.

I guess you like looking stupid right? Well first off I'm not a Troika apologist (Though apparently you're a Beth apologist) so I don't see why you'd even bring that up. I wonder where I or VD ever claimed Vampire to be an evolution of the genre? Hmmm.. resorting to making stuff up, are we?
As for the increase in interactivity of Morrowind, what will it amount to? Space to hit and control to block, or maybe they might have combos where you can jump hit and block? Yeah, that's great interactivity, or perhaps it'll be interactive like GTA, just point, shoot and run?

Look, Oblivion is its own game. I don't know why it has to adhere to some bullshit 'regulations' about what you think an RPG is supposed to be because as far as history is concerned, most of the early RPGs (see: Goldbox series, the early Ultimas, Might & Magic, Wizardry) had nothing to do with making choices, nor did they have good combat. They were roll-playing games and the player was made to feel like he was being driven on a rail. If that's role-playing, I don't know what Fallout is.

No shit, they can do what they want with a license that they own, wow what a revelation.