I was wrong

[kris]

The most common outcome of a strike or thrust with a sword in a swordfight would have been a parried attack by the opponent. Something lacking in many RPGs.

 

[Section8]

That's an interesting point, Kris, and one I've considered, especially whenever "realism" discussions come up. I think it would be something interesting to see a decent implementation of since it means you can shift away from a traditional system of wearing away hitpoints.

There's definitely room for plenty of interactivity with swordplay, but I think the biggest hurdle is the fact that in a hitpoint battle, there is a progression through combat toward an outcome, whereas a parrying battle lends itself easily to waiting for a lucky roll. NWN was a serious offender in this respect. On the other hand, if you don't rely on rolls and instead work around the idea of the character striking at opportunities, you tend toward player skill and timing.

But that's not to see that those tendencies can't be overcome with a bit of innovation. To keep it simple though, I think a parry based combat system could easily evolve around fatigue rather than hitpoints, and although it's essentially a very similar implementation, it would place a far greater significance on the strategic and tactical elements of combat if characters are now extremely vulnerable to unparryable attacks. Probably not one for the purists if player control is the dominant factor in combat outcome, but there's no reason why the character's own tactical skills can't affect the player by limiting the information available to them.

Anyway, just some interesting musings.

 

[Zufuriin]

I agree that a parry-based combat would be much better.

However, maybe the standard hp-hacking combat would exist for the non-npc creatures in the game, as parrying is not to be expected from slaughterfish and scribs. The parry-based comabt that you mentioned would be perfect for fighting NPCs and more advanced (boss-like) creatures, whereas the standard type would be for everything else. That way there is a difference in combat styles instead of just brainless swinging of a sword when running through dungeons.

Maybe TESV.

 

[Claw]

Oh why does that sound like Gothic so much?

 

[kris]

The amount of parrying is of course dependent on what kind of fight you fight. The more skilled fighters involved the longer the fight will likely last. Of course depending on their relative skilllevel. Some fighters are more or less cautious than others too, which could be reflected in their fighting style. Then lastly we have both fighters armament that heavily effect how the fight would turn out. one classic is how someone armed with a sword have real problems fighting someone with a staff...

In the rolemaster system you used a percentage of your skill bonus with your sword to parry. While it is true that it could be said to be "waiting for a lucky roll" that is true for all RPG fighting, getting the right rolls is important. But having it like this (as in rolemaster) makes the combat more realistic as you only deal out bruises until someone hits a fatal wound. Not like "attacking the health bar". :D Of course it could be more realistic to have a system where you have parry separate from your attack and rolls wether you stop an attack...

Ironically enough, any realistic combat system is not suitable for a combatheavy game as many fights would make longer fights a drag and realistic injuries would make some people irritated. Of course I don't want combatheavy RPGs.

 

[franc kaos]

Don't presume that an emphasis in MARKETING on graphics (because it's visible and obvious) and AI (because it's one of the most significant new features of the game) reflects an emphasis solely on those two facets in DEVELOPMENT of the game. Again -- just because we haven't spoken about other things doesn't mean they're not in the game.

Hi, I'm fairly new to these forums (makes a refreshing change from the arselicking and censored official forums - can't even say gay!), but a couple of old Todd Howard quotes from an Xbox mag (no I haven't got a console - it was a google search):
'Swordplay will be as exciting as any first person shooter.'
'Oblivion will be a smaller game than MW.' (the 2 reasons he cites are enhanced graphics will eat up the development time and statistically gamers prefer short games).
'Fantasy for us, is a knight on horseback, running around and killing things.'
Confusingly he then goes on to pronounce that:
'Oblivion will function as a fantasy world simulator as vibrant as Peter Jacksons take on Tolkien.' (he obviously missed the part where Gandalf used his staff as a melee weapon since that is out of the game).

Franc Kaos ~ Worried about the skills shortage in Oblivion.

PS. only halfway thru the thread, so apologies if this has been said further in, but the impression I'm getting about this killing MQ NPCs is that once you've decided to kill one you know the main quest is botched but you want the freedom to carry on playing in the broken game - one last quote from Tod:
'TES games are about freedom, and Oblivion takes that freedom to a whole new level.'

 

[Tetragrammaton]

Don't presume that an emphasis in MARKETING on graphics (because it's visible and obvious) and AI (because it's one of the most significant new features of the game) reflects an emphasis solely on those two facets in DEVELOPMENT of the game. Again -- just because we haven't spoken about other things doesn't mean they're not in the game.

Hi, I'm fairly new to these forums (makes a refreshing change from the arselicking and censored official forums - can't even say gay!), but a couple of old Todd Howard quotes from an Xbox mag (no I haven't got a console - it was a google search):
'Swordplay will be as exciting as any first person shooter.'
'Oblivion will be a smaller game than MW.' (the 2 reasons he cites are enhanced graphics will eat up the development time and statistically gamers prefer short games).
'Fantasy for us, is a knight on horseback, running around and killing things.'
Confusingly he then goes on to pronounce that:
'Oblivion will function as a fantasy world simulator as vibrant as Peter Jacksons take on Tolkien.' (he obviously missed the part where Gandalf used his staff as a melee weapon since that is out of the game).

I've heards consistantly that the game will be larger than Morrowind. Perhaps the quote you cite was an anomaly. Plus, I don't understand why exciting combat is bad, so long as skills and stats play a major role (which MSFD has said they will).

 

[Chefe]

hello world

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

Peter Jackson's take on Tolkien sucked.

It did? News to me. Guess I'll have to return those DVDs now, and phone up the ASCAP, the Academy Awards, the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films, the Amanda awards in Norway, the American Cinema Editors, the American Society of Cinematographers, the Art Directors Guild, the Australian Film Institute, the Awards of the Japanese Academy, BAFTA, the Bodil Awards, Boston Society of Film Critics, Broadcast Film Critics Association, Chicago Film Critics Association, Cinema Audio Society, Costume Designers Guild, the DVD Exclusive Awards, Dallas-Forth Worth Film Critics Association, Directors Guild of America, Directors Guild of Great Britain, the Empire Awards, UK, Film Critics Circle of Australia, Florida Film Critics Circle, the Golden Globes, the Golden Satellite Awards, the Golden Trailer Awards, the Grammy Awards, Hollywood Makeup Artist and Hair Stylist Guild, the Hugo Awards, IFTA, Kansas City Film Critics Circle, Las Vegas Film Critics Society, Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the MTV Movie Awards, the Motion Picture Sound Editors, the National Board of Review, New York Film Critics Circle, Online Film Critics Society, the PGA Golden Laurel Awards, Phoenix Film Critics Society, the Robert Festival, San Diego Film Critics Society, San Francisco Film Critics, Screen Actors Guild, Seattle Film Critics, Southeastern Film Critics Association, the Teen Choice Awards, Toronto Film Critics Association, USC Scripter Award, Vancouver Film Critics Circle, Visual Effects Society, the World Soundtrack Awards, Writers Guild of America, and the Young Artist Awards, (and that's JUST for Return of the King,) plus the 166 out of 179 reviewers who rated Fellowship of the Ring as positive, the 196 out of 201 reviewers who rated The Two Towers as positive, and the 206 out of 217 reviewers who rated Return of the King as positive on Rotten Tomatoes... and tell them all they were wrong. Oh yeah, and I'm sure that the people who, worldwide, paid $2,916,544,743 to go see the three movies in theaters all should have hated them, too.

 

[Chefe]

hello world

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Well, it's kinda hard to transfer Tolkien's written history and grandeur of it all into a three-hour flick. Does the audience really need to know (Or do they care?) about the history of Weathertop? Or the Mouth of Sauron? Or what have you?

And Tolkien's story wasn't really that "deep" with characters, if you think about it. It relied more on the backstory and the history leading up to the actions described in the Trilogy. Someone once said "[Tolkien's] mountains had more personality than his characters."

Much of the content was boring and dry descriptions of hobbit life and such, I found the book to be pretty slow-pace myself. But hey, if you think that the LOTR movies sucked (If you want my opinion, I think they're magnificent) I really can't change your opinion, can I?

 

[MINIGUNWIELDER]

... how long did it take you to type all of that up?


Peter Jackson's Tolkien wasn't Tolkien. It was dumbed-down Tolkien. It's been a while since I've read the books, but I remember them being more rich in content and storyline. The film was just lots of action, more action, pretty pictures, and more action. There was no real storyline or progression of characters in the films. It wasn't deep at all. Nothing really developed much.

I didn't say you should hate the film, just that it wasn't really that special aside from fancy cgi effects and some cool battle scenes. It wasn't interesting. But that's what's important now isn't it? Special effects and violence?

:wink:

the books kicked ass..i liked "dragonlance the war of souls:dragons of the lost stars" because of the TALKING.. i want a story as deep as that for fallout 3

 

[Chefe]

hello world

 

[vrok]

Of course it's dumbed down compared to the books, otherwise it wouldn't appeal to the masses who happen to like dumbass movies. Just like Oblivion is dumbed down to appeal to the masses who happen to like dumbass Xbox games. Yes, yes, both LOTR and Oblivion are only "translated" to fit the most popular dumbass media format of the moment for maximum exposure. Easy money, even if they maybe didn't belong on that format in the first place.

Guaranteed hit every swing while doing almost no damage to compensate for low skill. Dumbed fucking down.

Only reason to even read anything about this overhyped piece of shit game is to find out if there are any real dialogues with CHOICES(tm) in the game. The day word comes of the in/exclusion of this amazing feature is the day Oblivion will be judged for the final time. No amount of hype and discussion can circumvent this. This is the ultimate Oblivion make or break. Atleast for me.

Until then I'll enjoy reading Vault Dweller's hilarious comments about the game and the pitiful fanboy responses they generate.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

Well, if it was as in-depth as the books, the movie trilogy would have been dozens of hours long

As it stands, I think Jackson did an amazing job translating the books to film. They're wonderful films in all aspects.

vrok = joke character?

 

[Twinfalls]

... how long did it take you to type all of that up?

Peter Jackson's Tolkien wasn't Tolkien. It was dumbed-down Tolkien. It's been a while since I've read the books, but I remember them being more rich in content and storyline. The film was just lots of action, more action, pretty pictures, and more action. There was no real storyline or progression of characters in the films. It wasn't deep at all. Nothing really developed much.

I didn't say you should hate the film, just that it wasn't really that special aside from fancy cgi effects and some cool battle scenes. It wasn't interesting. But that's what's important now isn't it? Special effects and violence?

:wink:

Thankyou, Angler.

Not to mention the silly romance factor that was never in the books, the hobbits who don't look like Hobbits but just short humans, Elijah Wood who looks permanently on the verge of blubbering, the constant idiotic florid swirling music, the lack of original artistic vison, the dull, predictable, cliched Hollywoodness of the whole thing...

MSFD, you've used that 'but look it sold billions, it must be good' line before, in defending Fable. Allow me to point something out to you:

'Baywatch' is the most viewed television program on the planet.

'Baywatch' is also, complete crap.

And yes, in the case of LOTR you've mentioned a lot of critical acclaim (jeez, you really do have a boner for the films ). I've read plenty of reviews that are strongly critical of the films. Yet looking at the list you've presented, I can only suspect that in the face of the power of the Blockbuster, 'Emperors New Clothes' has become an even more pervasive phenomenon amongst institutional film circles than anywhere else....

Roger Ebert's take on the first one:

Perhaps it will look exactly as you think it should. But some may regret that the Hobbits have been pushed out of the foreground and reduced to supporting characters. And the movie depends on action scenes much more than Tolkien did. In a statement last week, Tolkien's son Christopher, who is the "literary protector" of his father's works, said, "My own position is that 'The Lord of the Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form." That is probably true, and Jackson, instead of transforming it, has transmuted it, into a sword-and-sorcery epic in the modern style, containing many of the same characters and incidents.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Personally I don't see what's so great about Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. It's no Dune. It's no Song of Ice and Fire.

The character interaction is shallow at best. The story is a tad clichéd and there is absolutely no drama or politics. There's a mad king who wants to burn his dying son, but that's all. Everyone, from the dwarves to the elves to the humans seem to get along. There's very little interplay between the races. The Forgotten Realms has more substance than that. LOTR's plot is like Dragonlance - it has no depth, and no substance. The characters suck. I said that already.

I really don't care about the farming methods of the Hobbits.

 

[Twinfalls]

overhyped piece of shit game

How can you call Oblivion that when it has yet to be released or played by anyone? You'll notice VD does not say stuff like that about it. He has serious reservations about it, but still says 'we shall see'.....

Vrok you are an idiot.

 

[Spazmo]

Saying LOTR's plot is cliched is like saying the Bible abuses that old "one guy dies to save everyone else" storyline. LOTR is cliched because it established the damn cliches.

 

[Twinfalls]

But you can say the film is cliched, because the *presentation* of events in the film is cliched.

No way can anyone argue that 'you cannot accuse the film of cliche because any such accusation is automatically transferred to the book'.

The most puzzling thing about the LOTR films is how closed minded people are to criticism of them. It's all so sacrosanct.

 

[corvax]

Saying LOTR's plot is cliched is like saying the Bible abuses that old "one guy dies to save everyone else" storyline. LOTR is cliched because it established the damn cliches.

That still doesn't take away from the fact that in general LOTR lacks depth. Mostly it deserves props for being the first one of its kind.
Regardless, A Song of Ice and Fire > LOTR any day.

 

[Twinfalls]

If you want to see a better fantasy film than LOTR, go out and get the DVD of 'Dragonslayer'. Not only is it big budget with all those trappings, but it has depth and complexity. No 'Good King/Bad King' simplicity, but realistic observations of human nature and motivations.

And check out 'Titus Groan' for a truly original quasi-fantasy novel written in the forties.

 

[merry andrew]

MSFD, you've used that 'but look it sold billions, it must be good' line before, in defending Fable. Allow me to point something out to you:

'Baywatch' is the most viewed television program on the planet.

'Baywatch' is also, complete crap.

Um... I thought MSFD's post listed critics? Is Baywatch critically acclaimed?

 

[Twinfalls]

Read what I wrote (and what MSFD wrote) more closely.

 

[merry andrew]

The last sentence of his post refers to how many 'viewers' it had (in theaters alone). Your comments specifically addressed the issue of "viewers" and completely ignored the vast majority of his post, which was about critics.

Am I wrong in this? Maybe I've been up too long.