Preview GameInformer's Oblivion info

[Sol Invictus]

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.

That sounds rather sarcastic. You're being sarcastic, aren't you?

 

[Volourn]

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The only time I'd even dream of being sarcastic about Bethesda and their shitty games would be if I were to say they were goo d otherwise I'm as a serious as a baby seal having sex with a walrus on Christmas Day and broadcasting it to the whole world.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Oh, all I have to do is give one company the benefit of the doubt and suddenly I'm a super fanboy / apologist / sympathizer. I'd just like to know what the hell you're on so I know to stay the hell away from it.

As for "making stuff up" you might want to consider looking back at some of the posts the both of you have made about Troika and how we should all give them the benefit of the doubt because they created good RPGs in the past. But honestly, this should only really apply to DarkUnderlord who seems to think that Arcanum is the best thing in the universe, which it certainly isn't considering all the horrible little things that made their way into the game.

As for the increase of interactivity, I see no reason as to why it has to amount to Grand Theft Auto or Quake. Is your ability to think failing you? Perhaps you've heard of a game called Gothic II? I would suppose that your memory is failing you, also for it seems both the ravens Hugin and Munin have deserted your side.

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

The point, my dear simpleton, is that you're attacking Bethesda for trying to make a game that they want to make rather than something you'd like them to make so you're branding Oblivion as a 'non-RPG' and flinging feces at them because it doesn't fit into your narrow definition of what RPGs are supposed to be (dice-rolling). Don't you have a 20-sided die to roll somewhere?

 

[Volourn]

"Oblivion as a 'non-RPG' "

He may be; but I'm not. I'm simply stating it is gonna be silly whether it's a RPG or not is irrerelvant.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Some syntax would have really helped with that post, Volourn.

 

[Elwro]

Mendoza:

In MW we learn about a conflict between the fighters' guild and thieves' guild. Being able to become a leader of both those factions would be DUMB (I know, it's possible in MW to do it).
Similarly, we learn about animosities between House Redoran and House Hlaalu. Being able to become a head of both of those houses at the same time would be even DUMBER.
That's not "taking away [the precious] player choice". It isn't Bethesda restricting my willpower. It's common sense.

So, in Oblivion we will be able to lead all the factions. This can mean three things:

1) there are no conflicts between the factions whatsoever --> DUMB
2) there are conflicts that NPCs speak about, but the designers do not care to otherwise implement them (it might seem similar to the way MW feels after installing the "Join all Houses" mod) --> DUMBER

OR

3) there are conflicts, but as you rise in your position among the ranks of the factions you work to overcome them. E.g. you discover that two factions are threatened by a third one which is secretly trying to incite a fight between them. This could be great or dumbest of all, depending on what the factions really are and how it would be done.

I fear that it will be 2) but, as I've liked DF and MW very much, I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Seven]

The point, my dear simpleton, is that you're attacking Bethesda for trying to make a game that they want to make rather than something you'd like them to make so you're branding Oblivion as a 'non-RPG' and flinging feces at them because it doesn't fit into your narrow definition of what RPGs are supposed to be (dice-rolling). Don't you have a 20-sided die to roll somewhere?

Simpleton?!?!? First off, who's attacking Bethesda? It was a reasoned response to some one (not Beth) who posted something that defied reason. Did you not understand that. Why is it that everytime some one posts something that is remotely related/critical of Beth you feel the need to run in and flap you jaws?

You know I'm past the point where I feel the need to flame Beth and all of their BS, what I cannot stand is fanboys like you tugging on the end of my cock even when I'm not trying to be offensive or inflamatory (BTW, right now I am trying to offensive because you deserve it). I could care less what they do with their franchaise; however, if some one wants to call a FPS a RPG well then I'll take issue with that, which is what I did in response to a poster, and not in response to Beth. Is everything clear?

EDIT:Your exact words were that one or both of us said that it would be an evolution in the genre, so yeah please do go ahead and prove your case. You have a penchant for exhageration and hyperbole: One day something's better than sliced bread and the next day it sucks, or one day something sucks, but then the next day you see flashy screenshots and it becomes the best thing ever. Another thing that's ironic is that you were one Bloodlines biggest supporters on this board now for some reason you've flipped flopped.

 

[Barbader]

It just does. Dice rolling is the epitome of role-playing, ever since George Shit IV, bless his name, invented Dungeons & Bullshit in the year 1842. He deemed, with his godly words (flashes occured as they were spoken so it was obviously divine), that role-playing and dice-rolling are one and the same. In fact, role-playing was once referred to as dice-roll-playing, but it was shortened to roll-playing, and mispelled by an errant scribe.

Haha.

But seriously, I think that Vault Dweller is simply trying to state that role-playing games should all be roll-playing games. His stance is idiotic and thus I disagree with him.

Yep, in base that you said, the name of this site hasn´t nonsense. Why?,
ALL FUCKING EXISTING VIDEOGAMES ARE ROLEPLAYING GAMES!!!!!!
you say this?
The word roleplaying game in a videogame loss his sense little by little... yeah. But I be here why the i like(also) the CRPGS (games based in tabletop roleplaying games) . I think that the CRPG must be a simulation of a fiction FAITHFUL to his reality. In order to achieve this, MUST BE !!!DICE AND NUMERIC VALUES!!!!, and MUST BE DICE THROWS why otherwise the game will become an ACTION GAME based in your reflexes and responses with the hardware, DON´T IN YOUR VIRTUAL ROLE!!!!!

THUMBS UP WIIIIIZZZAAARRDDRRRYYYY 8!!!!!!
DAMN!! i was made again...


sorry for the bad engilish....

 

[Spazmo]

Ortchel, the banlist got wiped a while ago. You're free to come back and be an idiot again. For the record, I didn't ban you, it was Dark`Machine, who also noted what a tool you are.

 

[Seven]

I don't know whether this chap is for us or against us. Hmmmm... why don't we just give him the benefit of doubt.

 

[Barbader]

As for the increase of interactivity, I see no reason as to why it has to amount to Grand Theft Auto or Quake. Is your ability to think failing you? Perhaps you've heard of a game called Gothic II? I would suppose that your memory is failing you, also for it seems both the ravens Hugin and Munin have deserted your side.

he point, my dear simpleton, is that you're attacking Bethesda for trying to make a game that they want to make rather than something you'd like them to make so you're branding Oblivion as a 'non-RPG' and flinging feces at them because it doesn't fit into your narrow definition of what RPGs are supposed to be (dice-rolling). Don't you have a 20-sided die to roll somewhere?

The interactivity is ESSENTIAL in a RPG, but, come on... compare the FAQ of Oblivion and GTA San Andreas.... Bethesda want make a San ANdreas in a Fantasy world, only an short amount of stats seems separate them (fewer more and more...). And i don´t be contrary to Bethesda, furthermore, I like his games, and furthermore; I thinked when in Morrowind shoot a arrow to an enemy; - DANM! , if the arrow goes to the fucking body of the guy!, Why don´t hit him!!!????
I ONly Want that in the box of Oblivion, bethesda puts in a balloon like the chips;
-An Action game, that left you with a taste of RPG! :twisted:

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

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.

What's rather amusing is that you've missed the exact same complaints being leveled at Bloodlines. Implimenting interactive combat by removing probability odds isn't exactly the best way of doing things. It would be much better if they removed the part where you had to do an exact polygon collision for aiming much like Shadowflare did, only in first person.

Even then, you're forced to deal with the situation of melee being dull as dirt in the first person perspective. It wasn't really interesting in Daggerfall where you had to twitch around the keyboard while doing the first person thing just to pull off moves either, which is why Morrowind had that "Best move" deal. Either way it goes, you're either repeating the best move over and over again or you're just clicking. Both of those were extremely boring - only one just had more steps.

 

[merry andrew]

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.

So if I melt some cheese over some bread, it either has to be only cheese or it has to be only bread? Can there be no cheesebread? Cuz unlike bread, you have to eat the cheese too cuz it's melted ontop, so it's no longer bread, it's just cheese?

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.

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

Awww, don't worry. Like Rosh mentioned, my professors are laughable and I won't be able to get a job anyway.

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?

I know, I just figured that out. This is a 'hardcore' RPG site and people come here to either accept or reject games based on whether or not they live up to their rigid definition of an RPG. Blending genres doesn't bother me, obviously. I guess I was arguing for understanding more than anything else, but now I get it that some people just plain don't want to see genres mixed.

So no, I don't think an FPS is more of an RPG than a game with a different viewpoint. I also don't think a 3rd person-isometric viewpoint is "more RPG" than a first person one; yes, I know that most RPGs have been made with that kind of viewpoint. And about total control for an RPG... I'm not sure how that would work exactly, considering that you're playing a character who lives in a world separate from yourself, and thus has different abilities and restrictions than yourself.

I can see how when the total reliance on a skill check is removed, there can be a sense of loss in regards to the "reality" of the gameworld. But jeez, I didn't know that so many people wanted things to be so cut and dry when it comes to gameplay.

 

[Vault Dweller]

So if I melt some cheese over some bread, it either has to be only cheese or it has to be only bread? Can there be no cheesebread? Cuz unlike bread, you have to eat the cheese too cuz it's melted ontop, so it's no longer bread, it's just cheese?

It's called a sandwich. You listed the ingredients, not the final product.

An RPG is a game where you play a role of a character. In order to do that properly, you need to be able to make choices the outcome of which depends on your skills and stats, hence the need for a character system. These are the basics of the RPG genre: skills and and choices. This is the core, the whole point of the genre. Without them the game becomes something else: an adventure game, a shooter, an arcade, etc. You need definitions not to limit yourself as a designer but to understand the genre.

 

[Sol Invictus]

You know, this is all besides the subject, but I should say that I don't understand a word Barbader wrote.

 

[Seven]

So if I melt some cheese over some bread, it either has to be only cheese or it has to be only bread? Can there be no cheesebread? Cuz unlike bread, you have to eat the cheese too cuz it's melted ontop, so it's no longer bread, it's just cheese?

Great analogy. Why didn't I think of comparing bread with melted cheese to different game genres. WOW, ever hear of something called context?

So no, I don't think an FPS is more of an RPG than a game with a different viewpoint. I also don't think a 3rd person-isometric viewpoint is "more RPG" than a first person one; yes, I know that most RPGs have been made with that kind of viewpoint. And about total control for an RPG... I'm not sure how that would work exactly, considering that you're playing a character who lives in a world separate from yourself, and thus has different abilities and restrictions than yourself.

What the hell are you bringing up view point for?!?!?! We were discussing reflex based reactions vs skill/attribute checks in combat. Did it slip your mind, or perhaps you'd like to shift the discussion to the view point that Beth is using? There are easier ways to shift topic discussion than taking a point and then inverting it into something else.

 

[merry andrew]

Great analogy. Why didn't I think of comparing bread with melted cheese to different game genres. WOW, ever hear of something called context?

No I must've missed out on that one. Is that text for convicts? Why isn't it called convitext?

What the hell are you bringing up view point for?!?!?!

Cuz I'm a total moron! Haven't you learned anything from reading my posts?

I didn't come here to viciously argue or make personal attacks. My love for games must not be as great as yours. I apologize for wasting your time.

 

[merry andrew]

Vault Dweller:

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.

Does the player in-part decide when the skill check will occur?

If the mini-games are not reflex-based, are they still un-RPG?

 

[Seven]

Great analogy. Why didn't I think of comparing bread with melted cheese to different game genres. WOW, ever hear of something called context?

No I must've missed out on that one. Is that text for convicts? Why isn't it called convitext?

What the hell are you bringing up view point for?!?!?!

Cuz I'm a total moron! Haven't you learned anything from reading my posts?

I didn't come here to viciously argue or make personal attacks. My love for games must not be as great as yours. I apologize for wasting your time.

I'd bring up taking something out of context again, but you being you, you'd probably just come up with something triumphantly whitty again. On a side note, I really would like to know how we went to discussing skill/stat based combat to discussing view point of the camera; furthermore, I'd love to know why you quoted a statement of mine related to stat/skill based combat to discuss camera angle. I suppuse I'm just not as smart as you otherwise I could come up with something outlandishly stupid to hide my faults.

 

[merry andrew]

I'd bring up taking something out of context again, but you being you, you'd probably just come up with something triumphantly whitty again. On a side note, I really would like to know how we went to discussing skill/stat based combat to discussing view point of the camera; furthermore, I'd love to know why you quoted a statement of mine related to stat/skill based combat to discuss camera angle. I suppuse I'm just not as smart as you otherwise I could come up with something outlandishly stupid to hide my faults.

Fine.

Let's examine (bear with me here, I'm pretty sneaky):

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?

Here's how I responded:

I know, I just figured that out. This is a 'hardcore' RPG site and people come here to either accept or reject games based on whether or not they live up to their rigid definition of an RPG. Blending genres doesn't bother me, obviously. I guess I was arguing for understanding more than anything else, but now I get it that some people just plain don't want to see genres mixed.

So no, I don't think an FPS is more of an RPG than a game with a different viewpoint. I also don't think a 3rd person-isometric viewpoint is "more RPG" than a first person one; yes, I know that most RPGs have been made with that kind of viewpoint. And about total control for an RPG... I'm not sure how that would work exactly, considering that you're playing a character who lives in a world separate from yourself, and thus has different abilities and restrictions than yourself.

The above text includes seven or so (apparently incoherent?) statements. About one and one fourth of them are either off or slightly off comments (I have highlighted them in boldface). The other statements are direct responses to your question, which I provided soley for clarification, in the hopes that you would understand me. I realize that I mentioned viewpoint, but I don't see how it destroys my entire response and totally strips it of value.

Remember the intital Fallout 3 discussions of how viewpoint matters in an RPG, and how having a first-person perspective can pose problems when trying to implement a skill check-only gameplay system (especially when it comes to interactivity)? Well being the retard that I am, I just say: So modify the system to include both reflexes and skill checks. I'm an idiot that's truly sorry for ruining everything.

Anyway, here's how you replied:

What the hell are you bringing up view point for?!?!?! We were discussing reflex based reactions vs skill/attribute checks in combat. Did it slip your mind, or perhaps you'd like to shift the discussion to the view point that Beth is using? There are easier ways to shift topic discussion than taking a point and then inverting it into something else.

So clearly I derailed the entire discussion by misleading you. You were so blindsided that you couldn't even respond to anything else that I wrote. I sincerely apologize. Next time I will do my best to not make any off comments in an effort to not corrupt the conversation.

If you're curious at all, my perspective comment was intended to be an analogy (which I'm obviously horrible at). Just as RPGs may not have been envisioned to include reflex-based gameplay, they also may not have been envisioned to be played from a first-person perspective. In other words, as I've stated more than once in this thread: mixing genres does not bother me. I call a FPS (with story & character advancement & dialogue options & inventory management) an RPG. I wouldn't mind calling it a Simulation either, but I don't really feel like getting some wrath from the hardcore sim gamers too.

 

[Neverwhere]

I can only imagine how some people here would have gone nuts had they been here when dialogue options were first included in CRPGs. After all, the outcome of the dialogue depends on the player, not on stats and skills...

Just as RPGs may not have been envisioned to include reflex-based gameplay, they also may not have been envisioned to be played from a first-person perspective.

Actually, according to traditional definition, an RPG would amount to a stats- (and probably skills-) based tactical combat game. Such a game has certain archetypical characters, which are meant to work together to solve certain problems (traditionally, solving problems amounts to overcoming enemies). This division of labour is a constituent factor of "traditional" RPGs; therefore, any game that doesn't give you control over a group of characters does not come within the definition. Since group control games only works well in an isometric perspective, any other perspectives also are excluded.
Oh yes, and anything that has a story is an adventure. But there still has to be choice, make no mistake...

Wow. I have created the narrowest possible definition of what an RPG is supposed to be. Now, can we discard it as well as all the other half-assed non-hardcore definitions made in this discussion, and talk about the advantages and disadvantages of all these features in their own right?

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

So if I melt some cheese over some bread, it either has to be only cheese or it has to be only bread? Can there be no cheesebread? Cuz unlike bread, you have to eat the cheese too cuz it's melted ontop, so it's no longer bread, it's just cheese?

If you're buying bread because you're anticipating french toast, yet you get cheese bread sold to you in a normal bread wrapper, I think you might have a reason to be annoyed, sure.

 

[Vault Dweller]

After all, the outcome of the dialogue depends on the player, not on stats and skills...

The outcome of dialogues should depend on stats and skills as well, unless it's a Bio game. In Fallout Intelligence, Speech, Science, Doctor, even gender affected the dialogues.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I can only imagine how some people here would have gone nuts had they been here when dialogue options were first included in CRPGs. After all, the outcome of the dialogue depends on the player, not on stats and skills...

No. The player chooses between the dialogue options presented to him, but the character's stats or skills are what determine (or should determine) what the player can choose from. Examples would be Fallout and Torment.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Does the player in-part decide when the skill check will occur?

The player certainly has some influence because he's the one who's playing a role. However, any action suggested by the player will be tested by character's stats and skills. It's when the success of actions is determined by the player as well, the game starts being less of an RPG and more of something else.

If the mini-games are not reflex-based, are they still un-RPG?

If the mini-games are not solved by the character using his/her skills and stats, they are un-RPG.