-ehm-
Listen people. I've been here since may 2006, I think? I don't share the hivemind's opinion on Oblivion, and suddénly am I a troll
:shock: :!:
I registered here, because I too were alarmed over the way big corporations were 'dumbing down' games to earn a big and quick buck. It seems to me, however, that the codex, now mostly laments and complaints over the fact that games are not like the games of yesteryear e.g. Ultima IV, Daggerfall, Arena, Wizardry and the games of the past.
And I've stated again and again that I've played Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate 1, Baldur's Gate 2, Icewind Dale 1+Expansions, (both) I've played Gookka
ystery of the Janatris - and Fallout 1. I, unfortunately, came late into crpg gaming so I sadly haven't played any of the great games of the 1980's and the early 1990's
So, sue me; also I have played Might and Magic 6 and 7'
(the rpg games). I loved Eschalon: Book 1 and the new Drakensang game, as they heralded back to a time when profit were not the name of the game for both developers and publishers.
I lamented (like you did, I believe) the demise of Black Isle and Interplay. I have tried playing Vampire: The Masquerade and Bloodlines; they are way too bloody for me, I find.
Let me expand on what I mean with complex. Oblivion's and Morrowind's leveling and character creation system is unlogical, and confusing; you need to know how to pick the correct main skills in order to level up the way you want.
Character creation in Fallout 1 is much more logical than it is in the both Morrowind and Oblivion. I still stand by my words about the combat in Arena and Daggerfall, moving the mouse around to hit monsters etc. requires that you, the player, use part of your own dexterity to be able to hit the enemy, whether it be a monster on an enemy mage e.g.
I've always preferred game mechanics to be simple, easy and logical to understand for the player. Obliviion's gameplay mechanic us anything but this, I find. Fallout's and BG's game series' were both logical, simple and somewhat easy to understand.
Some of the old games have a very un-logical and counter-intuitive userinterface. It seems to me that most of the people here (I might be wrong
: ) want their games to have such an interface, so that they can brag about them finding out how to play the game, when ordinary people can't.
And for the record, I don't think Mass Effect is an RPG, neither is STALKER an RPG. And I don't like the much praised (twitch) combat in The Witcher; the story is great, though.
I still don't get the hate for Todd Howard on this part of the internet, though. Yes, he maybe promised some things that were cut in Oblivion; reasons were there for this. You were given some of these reasons, I think? - not at least on the Bethesda Oblivion forums. Very logical reasion, I find. Every game has content cut, or you find out that it isn't working the way you intended it to do, so you change it. It is the same creative process when writing a book, a movie script or even a paper due at school or at university.
Jeff Vogel at Spiderweb Software might be able to pull off making a game that only selll maybe 5,000 or 10,0000 games (skus). A company like Bioware or Bethesda need to sell (or ship) millions of games to get their invenstment money back. Their games have to be accesible from the start and the complexity has to be build up during the game. I agree that in Oblivion (and Morrowind?) this does not happen a lot; it happens more in Bioware games, I find.
Bethesda is not known for their story-telling ability, Bioware is, Bethesda is known for their ability to make open ended sandbox games, Bioware is not.
I still think Oblivion is a decent, good game, not a great or excellent game. I, too, ranted against the sites that just gave Oblivion an 10/10 rating. VD's rating of 8/10 seemed fair, I think.
And every goddam fucking time there is an poll as to see what rpg is the best I always vote for PS: Torment. Not because I agree with you all; because I deeply mean it. PS: Torment had the guts to turn every D&D fantasy trope and cliché topsy-turvey (look it up, if you don't know what it mean), the dialogue were great, the companions well-written, with deep complex backgrounds. And you could talk your way out of most everything, I think? [It's been a while since I played it, so forgive me, please, if I can't remember it all correctly]. I liked the fact that death didn't mean game over; you just end up where you start; getting new info on your background, depending on the tattoos, you have. And Morte is a very, shall we say, iconic and ironic sidekick....
To conclude:
I like games that offer a deep, complex story with great character interaction, dialogue - and with an easy, accessible user interface. I also like games where I just run around kilingl things, enemies and monsters, for a reason, though. I also like these games to have accessible, easy, user interfaces.
I can see and understand the reason why Bethesda and Bioware have decided to make it so that say Mass Effect's and Fallout 3's combat (to use recent examples) be more like the combar found in shooters while maintaining the rpg sructure underneath it. People who want to shoot things can do this, people who want to hear the story can do this. Often will these people come from different genres; however, I'm optimistic enough to think that someday the fps playher might what to know more about a specifik race in the Mass Effect universe or he or she might want to find out more about the history that lies behind, or rather before the event played out in Fallout 3.
Giving the players more choices (and consequences) is, to me, at least, always a good thing
edit:
Please cut off the racist remarks....
