Preview GameInformer's Oblivion info

[Vault Dweller]

All rpg realy ment at the time was if you see the term used for games you own and like hey we got something you MIGHT like too.

Later when games became a bigger industry it evolved a bit into where in the store the game was stuffed and as such all its designed to do is catch those shoppers who dont look on every isle and at every game and give a good chance they will grab the box read the box art and buy the game.

It NOW has far more to do with search results and where the game will wind up if someone say searches amazon for games they wana buy.

You are looking at it from the retail point of view, while we are talking about what rpg really is. If something exists, it could be defined. Simple as that. Saying that the genre is just a label is very ignorant and shows lack of understanding. Sure, there are many different kinds and directions, but they all have very distinctive gameplay that separates them from arcade games, adventure games, shooters, strategy games, etc.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's good to see him posting here. Don't scare him off, guys. Civility rules the day.

Rex, man. Telling codexers to behave is like asking kids to "play nice" - it has the freaking opposite effect. While I'm not one to go on random flame rampages or anything, I know some of our members have a bit of an anarchic side.

Those will be dealt with. We are glad to have MrSmiley here, and so far there's been absolutely no reason for any attacks whatsoever. Flaming for the sake of flaming is idiotic.

 

[Whipporowill]

Agreed. I just don't see the need to tell people to behave - if they already are.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Yeah, well, some people (no, I'm not talking about VD as he isn't guilty of this) have a tendency to flame for no reason whatsoever when no reason is called for. Volourn and Patrick, for example.

 

[wintermane]

All rpg realy ment at the time was if you see the term used for games you own and like hey we got something you MIGHT like too.

Later when games became a bigger industry it evolved a bit into where in the store the game was stuffed and as such all its designed to do is catch those shoppers who dont look on every isle and at every game and give a good chance they will grab the box read the box art and buy the game.

It NOW has far more to do with search results and where the game will wind up if someone say searches amazon for games they wana buy.

You are looking at it from the retail point of view, while we are talking about what rpg really is. If something exists, it could be defined. Simple as that. Saying that the genre is just a label is very ignorant and shows lack of understanding. Sure, there are many different kinds and directions, but they all have very distinctive gameplay that separates them from arcade games, adventure games, shooters, strategy games, etc.

Ah but they arnt distinctive now are they? If they were staying distinctive we wouldnt have been having this same arguement for the last 20 years. Every year the stream changes its banks and every year people argue over their patch of it meanwhile everyone else is is just enjoying the water.

It cant be defined because its not done yet.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

We are glad to have MrSmiley here, and so far there's been absolutely no reason for any attacks whatsoever.

Who?

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

We are glad to have MrSmiley here, and so far there's been absolutely no reason for any attacks whatsoever.

Who?

*waves*

 

[Volourn]

"Yeah, well, some people (no, I'm not talking about VD as he isn't guilty of this) have a tendency to flame for no reason whatsoever when no reason is called for. Volourn and Patrick, for example."

Wrong. I don't flame posters for the sake of it. I'm flamed, or trolled first at leats more foten than not. You should look at your own posts. Afterall, you flamed VD for exmaple and even edited his news post because YOU didn't like what he wrote. exaple: in your very first post in this thread you called VD stupid more than once even though he never flamed or trolled you at all.

If you mean the fact I mention my dislike of Bethesda prodcuts often; i say tough. that isn't flaming anyone. It';s a company. i don't think I'll make Mr. Bethesda cry.

I have never flamed a Beth dev.... I have only said I dislike Bethesda's games. Stop crying. And, more importantly, as one of the big wigs of the 'Codex you should show a good example and stop trolling.

MR. SMILEY, hello.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

We are glad to have MrSmiley here, and so far there's been absolutely no reason for any attacks whatsoever.

Who?

*waves*

*waves pirate flag*

 

[Vault Dweller]

Ah but they arnt distinctive now are they?

Well, if you can distinquish an RPG from FPS or RTS or an adventure game without being told by a publisher what genre it is, then I'd say RPGs are distinctive despite different styles. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[wintermane]

Ah but they arnt distinctive now are they?

Well, if you can distinquish an RPG from FPS or RTS or an adventure game without being told by a publisher what genre it is, then I'd say RPGs are distinctive despite different styles. Wouldn't you agree?

I dont bother to make the distinction anymore. I play grand theft auto and bethesda games and blizzard games and so on and so forth because they all apeal to me for the same sorts of reasons even tho they are classified as different game types.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I dont bother to make the distinction anymore.

But can you still make the distinction? Yes or no?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Are you saying that there is no gameplay difference between Baldur's Gate and Quake, Arcanum and King's Quest, Morrowind and WarCraft?

 

[wintermane]

I dont bother to make the distinction anymore.

But can you still make the distinction? Yes or no?

No. More often these days I see in new non rpg games the very forms of gameplay I loved in rpgs of the 80s. And people potificate that they arnt rpgs and I dont care.

 

[wintermane]

Are you saying that there is no gameplay difference between Baldur's Gate and Quake, Arcanum and King's Quest, Morrowind and WarCraft?

While playing quake a good while back I thought back to some of my old old rpgs and damn if it wasnt alot like them. Sure the eye candy is alot better and its 3d but its core gameplay was alot like them.

Same thing happened with warcraft 3 its gameplay is very much like old rpgs. Expanded greatly of course and with lots of bells and whistles added in but its core is the same as those games.

As for kings quest I never played any of that series so have no clue.

 

[merry andrew]

While playing quake a good while back I thought back to some of my old old rpgs and damn if it wasnt alot like them. Sure the eye candy is alot better and its 3d but its core gameplay was alot like them.

Do you mind elaborating on what you mean by "core gameplay"?

 

[Seven]

The only die roll that's been removed is "to hit". If you're close enough to and facing your opponent, you'll hit it with your melee weapon. How much -- if any -- actual damage you do is wholly dependent upon your character's stats (strength, luck, relevant weapon skill), the weapon's quality and condition, and the opponent's stats, skills, and armor. In Morrowind, the "to hit" roll meant that you'd see your four-foot-long claymore fly right through an opponent two feet away and you'd still "miss".

Wouldn't it have been easier to have fixed this problem by only having the four feet claymore fly through an opponent on a successful roll rather than having it always hit? Wouldn't this have also have kept combat more immersive and engaging while preserving that stat based nature of combat?

I don't want to bring you down, and it's great that you recognize some of the flaws of Morrowind, but at the same time I have to question some decisions especially when there are are solutions that keep combat (more or less) intact in the conventional RPG sense.

 

[merry andrew]

Wouldn't it have been easier to have fixed this problem by only having the four feet claymore fly through an opponent on a successful roll rather than having it always hit? Wouldn't this have also have kept combat more immersive and engaging while preserving that stat based nature of combat?

We must have different ideas of what's "immersive and engaging". It's not immersive and engaging to me to have my character swing a weapon directly at an opponent (meaning, the weapon has invaded the space that the opponent's form occupies) and miss because the to-hit roll failed. A to-hit roll makes sense in a game that doesn't input the player's reflexes nor does it allow the player to control the character from a first-person perspective. A to-hit roll doesn't make sense when the player controls the character as is done in a FPS.

I'm liking what has been said about the new ES combat.

 

[Elwro]

[It's not immersive and engaging to me to have my character swing a weapon directly at an opponent (meaning, the weapon has invaded the space that the opponent's form occupies) and miss because the to-hit roll failed. .

Yeah, but it seems that currently a character with 0 Dexterity can always hit if he's controlled by a skilled player. That's immersive and engaging?

 

[merry andrew]

Yeah, but it seems that currently a character with 0 Dexterity can always hit if he's controlled by a skilled player. That's immersive and engaging?

Why does it matter if the character can hit if it can't do any damage? A character with 0 Dexterity probably wouldn't be able to move... but yeah, if Dexterity is still included as a combat stat, it'll probably be a speed and/or damage modifier. It's still possible for the character to hit the opponent for 0 points of damage (basically a miss). I'm more immersed and engaged by hitting something for 0 than by visually (and logically) hitting something and still missing because of a failed to-hit roll.

I don't really want to be told:
"I know you swung your blade through that guard, but you actually didn't make contact with it because your dexterity isn't high enough."

 

[Elwro]

Dexterity didn't have influence on damage in melee combat in BethSoft's games. It was Strength's job. Tha same with movement - it was Speed's job (not counting jumping). Right now it seems that if you're not into critical hits, Dexterity is worthless in melee.
But as we don't know much about the game yet, I'm more than willing to wait for some clarifications.

 

[Mendoza]

Well, I'd assume that MrSmiley was using that as an example for weapons that used strength as a stat, as there are some (spears, short blades, bows) that had other primary stats in Morrowind. That said, I'd be happy to see a more sophisticated system where strength affected damage, agility affected critical chance etc, although maybe tailored differently for each group of weapons.

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.

True. My point was more that since we don't know anything the relationships between factions yet, it's a bit early to say that you shouldn't be able to join and potentially lead all of them. If there are conflicts between them (which is something I'd actually like) then joining all of them (or at least progressing to a high rank) shouldn't be possible, and is something I'd like to see. I'd have been happy with not being able to join the Fighters and Thieves Guilds, or Mages Guild and Telvanni in Morrowind.

If for some reason all the factions are on good terms however, I don't see a reason why you can't join them all.

 

[Elwro]

Well, I'd assume that MrSmiley was using that as an example for weapons that used strength as a stat, as there are some (spears, short blades, bows) that had other primary stats in Morrowind.

All right. From the paragraph in which he said that

The only die roll that's been removed is "to hit". If you're close enough to and facing your opponent, you'll hit it with your melee weapon. How much -- if any -- actual damage you do is wholly dependent upon your character's stats (strength, luck, relevant weapon skill), the weapon's quality and condition, and the opponent's stats, skills, and armor.

I drew the conclusion that Dexterity didn't play any role in melee combat (then Exit mentioned critical hits), and I still think that's a proper conclusion. MrSmileyFaceDude, please elaborate on the subject.

To be picky, neither spears nor short blades depended on Dexterity in Morrowind. And that's what I'm on - the role of this stat during melee combat.

 

[Stark]

dunno if MrSmiley still hangs around but if you are, care to elaborate a little further on the combat?

specifically, will it still be the same "click-till-the-dude-drop"? or combat must be played from 3rd person view (to allow more tactical considerations difficult to execute in first person view, such as evade, faint, block, etc)

I've no problem with the removal of dice roll to determine hit. It's really a matter of degree of adherence to combat rpg and if its removal paves way for a better combat hey by all means.

 

[Mendoza]

dunno if MrSmiley still hangs around but if you are, care to elaborate a little further on the combat?

specifically, will it still be the same "click-till-the-dude-drop"? or combat must be played from 3rd person view (to allow more tactical considerations difficult to execute in first person view, such as evade, faint, block, etc)

I've no problem with the removal of dice roll to determine hit. It's really a matter of degree of adherence to combat rpg and if its removal paves way for a better combat hey by all means.

It does sound based on his comments that it'd be the same clickfest as in Morrowind, just with the hit chance and damage formulas adjusted. That contradicts the GameInformer article though, so I'd imagine MrSmiley was just talking about those specific calculations, and not about the tactical aspects.