Preview GameInformer's Oblivion info

[Sol Invictus]

You two sound married.

p.s. PAGE 9!

 

[Seven]

I'm not sure if I missed the point. If, in a FPS style game, the to-hit roll fails, it is possible to swing your weapon through an opponent,

My whole point is that this should not be happening. To be perfectly clear, when a role fails then the weapon should miss both in terms of it's representation on screen and in terms of a failure to do damage. So your weapon should not swing through an opponent.

To eliminate this discrepency, the new ES game will not have to-hit rolls.

This "discrepency" is what I would call a bug; so why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why get rid of rolls; instead make the screen representations reflect the rolls. Look at KOTOR, when you struck an opponent damage was done, and when you didn't it was reprsented as a block or miss, and all the while they managed to keep combat stat driven.

 

[merry andrew]

Look at KOTOR, when you struck an opponent damage was done, and when you didn't it was reprsented as a block or miss, and all the while they managed to keep combat stat driven.

And here's where my off-comment about perspective comes in. KOTOR is not a FPS-style game, so it models combat differently than an FPS-style game does. The new ES game, I assume, is an FPS-style game. KOTOR has phase-based (turn-based, whatever) combat, while the new ES game has real-time combat. It makes a difference.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHA

EX TER MIN ATE!
EX TER MIN ATE!

so why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Because it's fun, in a sick kind of way?

Why get rid of rolls; instead make the screen representations reflect the rolls. Look at KOTOR, when you struck an opponent damage was done, and when you didn't it was reprsented as a block or miss, and all the while they managed to keep combat stat driven.

I think this is a very important aspect for those clamoring for IMMERSHUN or realistic combat. There's nothing more irrealistic in games like NWN or Morrowind watching combat animations with characters slashing trough each others while no hit was made. Realism in combat goes beyond having everything moving in real time.

 

[Vault Dweller]

KOTOR has phase-based (turn-based, whatever) combat, while the new ES game has real-time combat. It makes a difference.

Sorry to disappoint you, but KOTOR was RT too. The pause doesn't make it phase-based.

 

[Volourn]

Ha. When someone starts stealing my lame 'catchphrases" it's utter proof theya re losing. Stop being a little troll Plin. You've got lots to learn before become a big troll. Next attempt, please?


"Sorry to disappoint you, but KOTOR was RT too. The pause doesn't make it phase-based."

No. But the 6 second rounds like in pnp D20/D&D; it really doesn't allow it to be actual RT neither. You both lose.

 

[Vault Dweller]

"Sorry to disappoint you, but KOTOR was RT too. The pause doesn't make it phase-based."

No. But the 6 second rounds like in pnp D20/D&D; it really doesn't allow it to be actual RT neither. You both lose.

A round in a Bio game is just a time unit, just like a second is a time unit in Diablo. It doesn't have any other functionality (sequences, ability to act while your opponents wait, etc). Since there is no other difference, you lose.

 

[Astromarine]

diablo is frame-based real time, kotor is timer-based real time. Can we stop arguing about this already?

 

[Volourn]

"A round in a Bio game is just a time unit, just like a second is a time unit in Diablo. It doesn't have any other functionality (sequences, ability to act while your opponents wait, etc). Since there is no other difference, you lose."

Buzz... Try to swing your weapon a second time during a round in any BIO game when your character statistically can't. Sorry, bub, but the basis of a full fledge RT game is for the characetr tos wing as many times as you can rpess the button and the animation is capable of. It simply don't work the way. Not to mention, that RT games don't have the cocnept of intiative, turns, and the like either. You lose.

 

[Limorkil]

<ul><li>The game is shorter. Why? First, because "the enhanced graphics will require more time" while the development time and budget remained the same. Second, because "statistically gamers prefer shorter games and often do not finish more involved titles". Now, that's what I call listening to customers. Two thumbs up for Bethesda!

Well I think that's pretty bad. Statistically gamers prefer shorter games, but are they talking about gamers who play Elder Scrolls games, or rpgs in general, or just any game? The dumb asses on the Kotor boards brag about how fast they can complete that game. Are those the people Bethesda are aiming Oblivion at?

The main quest in Morrowind wasn't that long anyway, it was all the other stuff you could do. Hell, the main quest sucked ass. Most people who like Morrowind hardly ever talk about the main quest. What Bethesda do best is large worlds, freedom, random stuff and great character flexibility. They suck at dialogue and writing, which is why I am somewhat worried about the direction Oblivion is going in.

<li>One of the goals is "to produce the definitive role-playing game of the generation". How? "By making sure that every basic activity is entertaining. Success in activities like picking locks, mixing potions, and forging armor will no longer be determined by dice-roll, each of these activities will be a separate mini-game which will be completed through skill and luck...these games will be harder when your skill is low, and become easier as you increase your proficiencies" Wow, minigames! Teh role-playing!

That sounds awful. Minigames suck. If I wanted to play a minigame I'd go out and buy an Atari compilation and play defender or asteroids or something. There wasn't anything wrong with the way picking locks, mixing potions and making items worked in Morrowind, except that they made those activities too easy and risk free. You could disarm every trap in Morrowind with a 5% skill, which made disarming traps no fun. And then the traps were so weak that you could ignore them anyway. "Oooh I received 30 damage. Luckily I have 300 health." Kotor was the same. When will these developers realize that its not a minigame we need, its consequences for actions. Disarming traps should be risky. We should be scared of traps. Same with mixing potions, forging armor and other stuff - all you need to make them fun is an element of risk.

<li>"The combat will be every bit as exciting as it is in a first-person shooter. Contrary to the RPG convention, the outcome of combat will not be decided by virtual dice rolls. Your opponent will block and dodge, so taking down an enemy is entirely on the player's shoulders" Dice rolls suck! Go twitch combat!

I am actually in favor of this. I always wondered why no-one could combine the action or a FPS with roleplaying elements. After all, roleplaying has absolutely nothing to do with dice, as all pen and paper rulebooks take pains to point out. And the combat in Morrowind was totally lame, so any form of interaction will be a bonus. Of course, Bethesda are shit at game balance, so I expect this feature will potentially ruin the game.

<li>Attenshun! Direct Quote ahead: ""Fantasy, for us, is a knight on horseback running around and killing things", says Howard excitedly". Hmm, I wonder what Todd thinks PA is?

Fuckingmonkeybollocks

<li>"Interaction between the player and the virtual characters is yet another area in which Oblivion is pointing toward the future of gaming. Characters will converse in free-flowing, non-scripped discussions. ... A character that dislikes you will scowl, while someone who likes you will greet you with a smile". Sounds kinda retarded when you think about it, but I'm sure that many Bethesda's non-reading customers have requested that feature to help them figure out what's happening.

Sounds like either the god awful emote system in Fable or the god awful dialogue database in Morrowind, or both. I know shitty dialogue is a hallmark of ES games, but given that they are changing other traditions why not this one? A bunch of facial expressions aren't going to improve shitty dialogue.

<li>The article mentions that Todd is crazy about choices and sees them "as a huge part of the next generation of gaming". Since you can now "become the head of every faction all during the course of one game", most choices would revolve around your appearance and itamz.</ul>

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! The thing I hated most of all about Morrowind was that you could become the head of every faction even though it made absolutely NO sense whatsoever. Why not make it so that there are only a few factions and you can only become head of one, and the one you pick has a huge impact on how the game plays. For fuck's sake - it's not that hard. Next Bioware will announce that Kotor 2 will allow your character to be both light side AND dark side.

Well, overall I am totally not encouraged by this interview. I thought Morrowind was great, even though it had many faults and many people hated it. I assumed than Bethesda would make Oblivion all Kotor-like, seeing as that seemed to go over very well with the general game populace. Instead, it sounds like they are replacing stuff that group A loved and group B hated with stuff that group A will hate and group B will probably hate too. I could handle more Kotor-like stuff in ES, but not this hybrid "worst of both worlds" shit.

Anyway, no point worrying about it when the game will probably turn out totally different. Like Fable.

 

[Volourn]

"Next Bioware will announce that Kotor 2 will allow your character to be both light side AND dark side."

Bioware could announce that KOTOR2 will be a shooter for all the good it do. Afterall, they aren't devloping it nor are they publishing. You need power to announce anything and make it stick. As regards to KOTOR2; BIO has very little.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Not to mention, that RT games don't have the cocnept of intiative, turns, and the like either. You lose.

Uh, Bioware's games don't have the concept of turns either, that I recall. They use rounds and personal initiative something.

 

[Volourn]

"Uh, Bioware's games don't have the concept of turns either, that I recall. They use rounds and personal initiative something."

Close enough to differeniate from actual RT games. Afterall, rounds and personal intitiave is still a heck of a lot different than RT.

 

[Seven]

And here's where my off-comment about perspective comes in. KOTOR is not a FPS-style game, so it models combat differently than an FPS-style game does. The new ES game, I assume, is an FPS-style game. KOTOR has phase-based (turn-based, whatever) combat, while the new ES game has real-time combat. It makes a difference.

I'm not going to argue about KOTOR being RT or phase-based because this could go on for weeks. Lets just use it as an analogy to say, yes we have an example of where combat representations aren't randomized, and do reflect the rolls. As for it being 3rd person view, well many FPS games also support that too, so here you have two views that could theoretically be supported by the same system. The thing I don't get is why is it impossible or even diffucult to have successful or unsuccessful rolls being represented as what they are?

 

[Volourn]

"this could go on for weeks."

Must be a typo. You meant years, I beleive.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Try to swing your weapon a second time during a round in any BIO game when your character statistically can't.

What's that got to do with anything? Of course, you can't because it's a time unit. It doesn't have any functionality, like I said, other then defining and restricting the number of hits per round.

Sorry, bub, but the basis of a full fledge RT game is for the characetr tos wing as many times as you can rpess the button and the animation is capable of. It simply don't work the way.

Take Diablo for example. You don't click constantly on a button, you hold it, and the character hits as many times as he's allowed in a time unit. Some character/weapon combo are slow, some fast. So, in any give time, 6 seconds for example, they can make different but defined number of attacks. How is that different from Bio's round?

Not to mention, that RT games don't have the cocnept of intiative, turns, and the like either. You lose.

I didn't say they have. That's why I said that KOTOR was RT. Are you paying attention here or just arguing 'cause you are bored

 

[plin]

Ha. When someone starts stealing my lame 'catchphrases" it's utter proof theya re losing.

It's called satire.

 

[merry andrew]

Lets just use it as an analogy to say, yes we have an example of where combat representations aren't randomized, and do reflect the rolls. As for it being 3rd person view, well many FPS games also support that too, so here you have two views that could theoretically be supported by the same system. The thing I don't get is why is it impossible or even diffucult to have successful or unsuccessful rolls being represented as what they are?

Doom-style FPS with to-hit rolls? Sorry that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Sorry to disappoint you, but KOTOR was RT too. The pause doesn't make it phase-based.

In KOTOR, does your character attack an opponent each time you click on it? Do you see no difference between the combat in Morrowind and the combat in KOTOR? That's all I was getting at. They're different systems, and they use input and output differently.

Oh and I'm soooo sorry that I even mentioned turn-based or phase-based or even real-time.

 

[Spazmo]

FPS combat in an RPG doesn't make much sense to me, either.

 

[Seven]

Doom-style FPS with to-hit rolls? Sorry that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I don't think you're getting it (perhaps because it's so obvious that it's easy to miss). In Morrowind you could hit an opponent but fail a rol l, right? Yes. This amounts to a bug/"discrepency", right? Yes. They propose to fix it by getting rid of rolls, right? Yes. So far I haven't said anything that you haven't already recognized or conceded, right?

Now here's the point that I've been trying desperately make, but for some reason it's not been getting across: ONLY SUCCESSFUL ROLLS SHOULD AMOUNT TO AN ONSCREEN HIT, anything else should amount to an onscreen block or miss. I don't know how I can make it any clearer or simpler. This is easily conceptualized with swords, shields and arrows. If you want a gun based version then look to Bloodlines where it's being done.

 

[merry andrew]

Now here's the point that I've been trying desperately make, but for some reason it's not been getting across: ONLY SUCCESSFUL ROLLS SHOULD AMOUNT TO AN ONSCREEN HIT, anything else should amount to an onscreen block or miss. I don't know how I can make it any clearer or simpler. This is easily conceptualized with swords, shields and arrows. If you want a gun based version then look to Bloodlines where it's being done.

That must be where I'm missing it. I didn't know that a failed to-hit roll was equivalent to a block or dodge. To have a failed to-hit roll result in an on-screen miss, either the player has to physically move its character off-course, or the opponent has to dodge the attack.

Could you link me to some information about Bloodlines' FPS to-hit rolls? I'm sorta busy and sorta lazy too

 

[Elwro]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! The thing I hated most of all about Morrowind was that you could become the head of every faction even though it made absolutely NO sense whatsoever.

Please explain how could you become the head of House Hlaalu and House Redoran. Dude, you can't join those two simultanously.
Another examples, though I haven't checked them : Mages Guild/House Telvanni; Camonna Tong/ Thieves' Guild.

 

[plin]

And honestly, if it's that much of a problem, why not just role-play a bit and only join one? It's not like it's forcing you to join all of them.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

And honestly, if it's that much of a problem, why not just role-play a bit and only join one? It's not like it's forcing you to join all of them.

It's not a questioning of forcing. I can roleplay all I want, it still won't take the problem away. Thats like saying there's this neighborhood where violence is in extreme proportions, but instead of pointing to the city's mayor to come up with a plan to solve it, your best suggestion is telling people not to go there. Sure, those are safe, but it won't make the 'hood any less violent.

 

[plin]

And honestly, if it's that much of a problem, why not just role-play a bit and only join one? It's not like it's forcing you to join all of them.

It's not a questioning of forcing. I can roleplay all I want, it still won't take the problem away. Thats like saying there's this neighborhood where violence is in extreme proportions, but instead of pointing to the city's mayor to come up with a plan to solve it, your best suggestion is telling people not to go there. Sure, those are safe, but it won't make the 'hood any less violent.

Well, they probably did it to please some fans who wanted it, I don't understand how it's hurting you guys even if you were to play it. You simply don't have to join them all. Your analogy is stupid because it shouldn't be hurting your gameplay at all (if it is, it's your own stubborness), it's there for kids who want to join them all. Really, this isn't real life. This isn't some horrible neighborhood that will kill you or steal from you. It's a design decision to give most likely the majority what they want, and something the hardcore realists (or whatever you want to be) can ignore so easily.

If you want to be able to join only one, restrict yourself. Role-play in a role-playing game if you must. Go the path you want to and let some kids have fun being in all of them. Big deal.