Preview Oblivion - a game for Casual Joe

[GhanBuriGhan]

I think there are plenty examples.
Thief?

Total War series?
Civilization?
Both are immediately appealing, but also contain a lot of gameplay depth but you can leave a lot to automated "advisors" if you want a simpler experience.
Even Morrowind fits the bill (for me) - the lore alone goes far beyond the casual joe appeal, as do several other aspects (custom classes, spellmaking, alchemy). Yet you can happily play it just running around with a big sword, too.

Those are not RPG's.

Morrowind is, but Morrowind 1) didn't have features as friendly to the casual gamer as the features in Oblivion appear to be, and 2) doesn't exactly have satisfying RPG elements to make a really great *RPG.*

Not that I didn't enjoy it for what it was: an opened ended RPG in which it was fun to explore and screw with the NPCs. But it had boring dialog, characters, storyline, combat system, and it lacked all kinds of interesting things that could confuse X-box 360 owners.

The statement I replied to was not limited to RPG's. As to the LOTR comment: if they actually weaved that story into the game, than it would. TES' lore is in teh game, LOTR game's is not.
As to MW: Of course it did. It had a simple little intro that took you through character creation, prefab classes, a nice shiny 3D world, with familar FPS movement.
AS to RPG - while it was missing some, most importantly "roleplayable" dialogue, it had many others, quests, guilds, different viable charcter types. Detailed character system with skill progression. The fact that you don't like it does not mean its not an RPG.


VD: No, but maybe you would need to aquire a more flexible view of how a RPG should play out. I for one found more depth in it than in most others i played. but what is "depth"anyway? You probably find it in dialogue and whatever fits your hazy definition of "gameplay" features. I found it in the detail of the presented world, the accomodation of my "exploration" cravings, the magic and alchemy system, the huge number of items to use or collect, and a system that is fexible enough to support my character choice.
And plenty of surprising situations. An example:
I once searched a tomb near seyda neen. I fought and killed a bonewalker, but he had drained almost all my strength, so the only way to continue was to strip naked and leave all my equipment behind. I walked to Seyda Neen and was greated by the ironic comments of the inhabitants "oooh, put that away!". They had no healing potions, so I had to walk all the way to balmora to find a shop that did. Had no money for clothes left, tried to steal some and got arrested. Discharged, still naked, I made my way back to the tomb and got my equipment back. Snatched it right before another bonewalker came around the corner, and just ran out as fast as I could! I had such a laugh!

 

[Drakron]

I think there are plenty examples.
Thief?

Thief required a mastery of stealth gameplay, the player would soon realize if he screwed up he could not just fight his way to his objective.

Total War series?

RTS are all about units and tactics in the field, I never plat TW games but I suspect that after the first missions that are easy the game dificult starts to raise fast.

Civilization?

Civ easy?

Are you nuts? it requires knowing how to build a civilization ... I played the original Civ that was the easiest and simpler of the bunch and only got the colonization ending because I lucked out and manged to siege the Zulu capital early on.

The problem with games that appeal to the casual gamer is that the casual gamer is NEVER seen as a typical gamer of the game gender but a generic gamer.

So they listen to the FPS players that dont understand why they missed in Morrowind ... people that cannot understand the gender BASIC concepts of gameplay.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Maybe, maybe not, but this is the Codex, so stataments like "it has sufficient depth" simply won't do. If you can support your position with facts, examples, and arguments, please do so, otherwise...

Why don't you tell my why it lacked depth?

lol. Great argument. Anyways....

MW lacked depth (imo, of course) because every little gameplay element was simplified, especially comparing to DF. Char system lacked depth (all character would end up having similar skills, no advantages/disadvantages, no unique character builds creating alternatives, for example; could train and have access to all skills and abilities, etc). Exploring dungeons lacked depth vs DF, quests lacked depth - too simple, no consequences, no alternatives, etc; gaining ranks, etc. I can't think of a single feature that had depth. That doesn't mean that the game was bad, no, it was a fun exploration game, but a poor, simplified RPG, no more complex than Diablo 1 (D2 skill trees actually had depth)

Suppose Morrowind featured a far less linear MQ, perhaps something akin to Daggerfall. Suppose faction quest lines featured real inter-faction mechanics. Suppose a few more skills were present - say climbing, swimming, backstab. Suppose decision-making was more enforced, like, for example, Daggerfall and Oblivion's enchanting-as-guild-perk-only feature?

Suppose combat featured more depth in the form of blocking and dodging animations, but still stayed true to its TES roots, ie real-time action-style?

Would you then concede that it had 'depth'?

Without arguing about some minor things, yes, it would have had depth then. What's your point?

If Morrowind had been released in that state, with everything else the same do you suppose it would have failed to sell in the numbers that it did, on the Xbox? What reasons would you give for that?

ONE of the reasons ToEE didn't sell well was very strong criticism that the combat and character system were too complicated, definitely NOT for casual players who would never ever figure that complexity out. Almost every review stated that - if you are not a DnD expert, you won't be able to play this game.

If some people couldn't find that Casius or whatever guy, imagine how many people would have been stuck if their decisions affected anything, if quests were complex, etc.

Besides, those things take time. It was either complex gameplay or complex graphics. Guess which one sells more. Pay attention to changes from MW to OB: even less skills, less weapons, chance to use more weapons with one skills, less builds, magic compass, cast&fight, less guilds, etc. The focus is one the visuals, not on the gameplay. There is a reason for that.

 

[Twinfalls]

Suppose Morrowind featured a far less linear MQ, perhaps something akin to Daggerfall. Suppose faction quest lines featured real inter-faction mechanics. Suppose a few more skills were present - say climbing, swimming, backstab. Suppose decision-making was more enforced, like, for example, Daggerfall and Oblivion's enchanting-as-guild-perk-only feature?

Suppose combat featured more depth in the form of blocking and dodging animations, but still stayed true to its TES roots, ie real-time action-style?

Would you then concede that it had 'depth'?

Without arguing about some minor things, yes, it would have had depth then. What's your point?

My point is exactly that which you earlier disputed. What you have just conceded is that Morrowind demonstrates that a game with depth can still be accessible to 'casual gamers'. Morrowind sold on the Xbox in larger numbers than on the PC. The hypothetical game above, which you have agreed would have depth, is Morrowind, albeit with some changes which would not have impeded its sales on the Xbox.

 

[Twinfalls]

Don't get me wrong. I agree with every criticism you raise of Morrowind. When I said 'it has depth' in this thread, I meant it has depth in relation to everything else on a console. I say this because it is relevant - we are talking about making games with depth 'accessible', and sales on a console is surely the best measure of the possibility of that.

 

[Vault Dweller]

VD: No, but maybe you would need to aquire a more flexible view of how a RPG should play out.

Maybe you should try to see the difference between role-playing and exploring a nicely detailed world

I for one found more depth in it than in most others i played.

That is not an argument

You probably find it in dialogue and whatever fits your hazy definition of "gameplay" features.

I find it in being able to role-play my character: decent character system supporting different gameworld-fitting builds, being able to play in a manner fitting my character (multiple solutions to quests and situations), choices and consequences.

I found it in the detail of the presented world, the accomodation of my "exploration" cravings

You do realize that those got nothing to do with role-playing. It looks like you like adventure games, not RPGs, or more specifically you like the adventure elements in RPGs.

I once searched a tomb near seyda neen. I fought and killed a bonewalker, but he had drained almost all my strength, so the only way to continue was to strip naked and leave all my equipment behind. I walked to Seyda Neen and was greated by the ironic comments of the inhabitants "oooh, put that away!". They had no healing potions, so I had to walk all the way to balmora to find a shop that did. Had no money for clothes left, tried to steal some and got arrested. Discharged, still naked, I made my way back to the tomb and got my equipment back. Snatched it right before another bonewalker came around the corner, and just ran out as fast as I could! I had such a laugh!

This situation is more on the adventuring side, again. Here is my story from DF, similar in some ways, yet very different.

I was exploring some big-ass place that had water channels. Got attacked by some tough creatures, don't recall who they were now. In the middle of the fight, I fell into the water. Now, that's where the role-playing kicks in. I had a weak swimming skill, and was wearing a heavy armor. I went down like a rock. I had to strip all my precious belongings to be able to swim out. So, I got out of the water with nothing but a sword, had to fight the monsters in such a disadvantaged state, and then dive and recover my stuff a few pieces at a time. It was a very memorable experience.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The hypothetical game above, which you have agreed would have depth, is Morrowind, albeit with some changes which would not have impeded its sales on the Xbox.

Not that simple. I have agreed that such a game would have depth, but whether or not it could be produced today and/or sell successfully is the real question.

 

[Twinfalls]

You really don't think that MW would have sold as well had it received those design changes?

I guess that is a hard one.

Damn, Bethesda could at least have put back the "sink if you're too heavy in water and your relevant skill isn't high enough" aspect of Daggerfall, into Oblivion.

This really is the sort of thing which makes you wonder about how much their fundamental design is driven by chasing dollars.

 

[crpgnut]

Sorry VD but it is impossible for you to unlock Morrowind's depth. It requires a certain way of thinking that you're incapable of reaching. It's not necessarily a higher way of thought, just a different way. Morrowind becomes very deep once you decide that you're making the story and Bethesda just supplied the world. They went too far in this aspect, which is why the game fails somewhat. I found Morrowind to be enjoyable after I decided to set some parameters to live by regardless of what the game world allows. In one game my goal was to be a great alchemist, in another a dwemer explorer, etc. I roleplay in the world and don't necessarily follow what's going on in the scripted storyline. The two biggest flaws in Morrowind, to me, were that it was very simple to power game and the quest writing was atrocious.
I ignored all power gaming choices and avoided the main quest and had a blast with the game. Some of the minor quests were much better written. I enjoyed the Imperial Cult quests and the temple quests immensely.

 

[Excalibur]

There's a solution - stop making fun of children with Down's Syndrome. That kid is probably more interesting to talk to than any of the fucking stupid twits who've just been giggling at her photo.

I giggled and I'm damn interesting, you bitch!

hahaha fucking great, go saint lol

 

[Twinfalls]

I enjoyed the Imperial Cult quests and the temple quests immensely.

Yeah well you're getting NO religious quest lines in Oblivion.

 

[Twinfalls]

New videos.

Great. They've Fable-ised it even more with anachronistic, l33t modern hairstyles (see the first one).

http://media.xboxmatch.com/videos/x05/Oblivion_1.avi

http://media.xboxmatch.com/videos/x05/Oblivion_2.avi

http://media.xboxmatch.com/videos/x05/Oblivion_3.avi

Edit: That Keanu Reeves lookalike in the first video is of a High Elf!! Ha ha, it's LOTR human-looking Elves for the TES world now!!

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I think there are plenty examples.
Thief?

Thief required a mastery of stealth gameplay, the player would soon realize if he screwed up he could not just fight his way to his objective.

Total War series?

RTS are all about units and tactics in the field, I never plat TW games but I suspect that after the first missions that are easy the game dificult starts to raise fast.

Civilization?

Civ easy?

Are you nuts? it requires knowing how to build a civilization ... I played the original Civ that was the easiest and simpler of the bunch and only got the colonization ending because I lucked out and manged to siege the Zulu capital early on.

The problem with games that appeal to the casual gamer is that the casual gamer is NEVER seen as a typical gamer of the game gender but a generic gamer.

So they listen to the FPS players that dont understand why they missed in Morrowind ... people that cannot understand the gender BASIC concepts of gameplay.

Civ? My mom in law plays Civ! She never played another computer game in her life, except maybe minesweeper! If she isn't casual, then who is?
Your comment about thief is not to the point either - fact is it was very accessible, becasue it eased you into the gameplay bit by bit - even though that gameplay was fairly intricately crafted.

VD: I like adventure, true, all RPG quests are ultimately "adventure". With adventure gameplay however, I connect a linear sereies of riddle solving combined to make a story - the combination of solving quests and exploring is pretty unique to RPG's so what's your point?

As to your counter example - there is not really a deep difference except that you focus on mentioning the skill. In my example it still depended on the skill btw, e.g. that I had enough speed to escape some monsters n the wild which might otherwise have killed me, or the fact that I needed my mercantile skill to barter the potion down to a price I could afford. If I had had more strength I might have been able to handle the fight, or keep enough to carry my loot back to town. If I had better alchemy skills I might have wipped up a potion to heal myself. If I had been a mage I might have cast levitation and been flying back. Thats plenty of options, don't you think? Certainly not like an Adventure, where there would have been exactly ONE solution to this story.

I am quite ready to admit that MW lacked in the consequences department, and certainly in the dialogue choice department. It still allowed you a lot of freedom in the acting and developing your character department, however. I myself played an orc shaman, an "Aragorn"-like character and a Mage/Monk type character and found I could play them all the way i wanted, e.g. focusing my quest/problem solving on the skills they excelled in.

 

[Tintin]

The same could be said about you bitching about his bitching..

No it can't, that's just a stupid retort used all over the internet to try and reverse an argument while making very little difference or effect.

 

[bryce777]

The same could be said about you bitching about his bitching..

No it can't, that's just a stupid retort used all over the internet to try and reverse an argument while making very little difference or effect.

Yes it can. You are merely being ridiculous

 

[HardCode]

The problem with the "casual gamer" is that yes, they may buy the game, but since they are "casual gamers" and have no attention span, and are easily bored and distracted, there is a 50-50 chance that they won't bother buying the next game in the series. Why should they, if they are "casual", and probably randomly buy games without any advanced knowledge of what the game is all about.

As of now, Oblivion has the advantage of being in the launch window, so there are not going to be many games to choose from for XBox 360 users. But what about the next release? BethSoft is going to disappoint and alienate the hand that feeds: steady RPG gamers. The "casual gamer" might never even know TES5 is released, unless it is released on a new hype-train (i.e. the XBox 360 successor). If it is released on the same platform, TES5 will get lost in the crowd of games to the "casual gamer". This is what greed begets.

If BethSoft would make each generation of TES more and more in the direction of RPG gaming, they would have the steady consumer base of RPG players. No game is perfect, but improvements and ADDITIONS from title to title in the series would keep RPGers buying.

Its a gamble BethSoft is making on the "casual gamers" that could easily backfire on the next game in the series.

 

[tanjo]

I wonder how they're going to sell Fallout 3 to casual gamers. They're using the traditional LOTR atmosphere with Oblivion because casual gamers know that. I bet Fallout 3 has bullet time.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You really don't think that MW would have sold as well had it received those design changes?

I didn't say that, but I'm not sure it would have, based on the criticism certain games have received. Like I said, there is a reason why Bethesda's making games the way they are, and it's not because the developers are more stupid than you or me. Do you think Tim Cain is the only one who can a Fallout-like game, or MCA is the only one who can design a PST-like game. No. The market doesn't want them, simple as that.

This really is the sort of thing which makes you wonder about how much their fundamental design is driven by chasing dollars.

Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. The question is "can we blame them?"

Morrowind becomes very deep once you decide that you're making the story and Bethesda just supplied the world.

What story would that be? Humor me.

In one game my goal was to be a great alchemist, in another a dwemer explorer, etc.

And how did the game react to those fine choices? It's like playing a different class in IWD and claiming that that's where the depth is. Try crypt robber next time, the depth will blow your mind.

VD: I like adventure, true, all RPG quests are ultimately "adventure". With adventure gameplay however, I connect a linear sereies of riddle solving combined to make a story - the combination of solving quests and exploring is pretty unique to RPG's so what's your point?

There is a difference between an adventure game and a role-playing game. Do you know what it is?

In my example it still depended on the skill btw, e.g. that I had enough speed to escape some monsters n the wild which might otherwise have killed me, or the fact that I needed my mercantile skill to barter the potion down to a price I could afford.

The difference is your character would still be ok without those skills. It's not hard for a player to avoid monsters, there is plenty of stuff around that even a character without skills can steal and sell. The difference between the examples is the game design.

If I had had more strength I might have been able to handle the fight, or keep enough to carry my loot back to town. If I had better alchemy skills I might have wipped up a potion to heal myself. If I had been a mage I might have cast levitation and been flying back. Thats plenty of options, don't you think?

The point that you are missing is that you were ok even without those skills. That's the key difference between MW and a decent RPG where skills are critical. If your skills fail you, there is nothing you can do.

I myself played an orc shaman, an "Aragorn"-like character and a Mage/Monk type character and found I could play them all the way i wanted, e.g. focusing my quest/problem solving on the skills they excelled in.

How convinient that all quests and problems were so one-dimensional that you could either kill something or steal something, which is what all MW characters were about.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

What "modern hairstyles" are you talking about, Twinfalls? Mohawks predate the punk movement, you know. Or has the tonsure made a comeback among the kids nowadays?

 

[Excalibur]

What "modern hairstyles" are you talking about, Twinfalls? Mohawks predate the punk movement, you know. Or has the tonsure made a comeback among the kids nowadays?

I want pink tails, so i have something to hold onto when receiving a blowjob!

 

[bryce777]

I wonder how they're going to sell Fallout 3 to casual gamers. They're using the traditional LOTR atmosphere with Oblivion because casual gamers know that. I bet Fallout 3 has bullet time.

The stupid thing about fallout especially is that if you are marketing it to casual gamers, then the fallout name is totally WORTHLESS. What they are doing already so far is like taking civilization, and making it into a RTS game. It's so fucking stupid that it makes my head hurt.

Obviously the fallout name is worth something in their eyes, or they would not have paid millions to get it. Well, what is its value, then? To draw all the people who have already played it and loved the first two games. So, OBVIOUSLY people who played and loved that game and who will be ANXIOUSLY awaiting it (which is EVERYONE I know who has played it and not just the nutjobs here who are supposedly 'elitist') liked it the way it was. So, instead of pleasing this OBVIOUSLY valuable market segment (that you just paid millions of fucking dollars to court!), instead they are going to make it oblivion with guns, plain and simple. First person perspective, blah blah blah. Nothing like the originals. They think the name is some kind of fucking magic talisman, and they can put in a totally different game and make 4 more fallout games, and then when no one gets fooled into buying fallout 4 they will say "Oh, well there's just no market for real rpgs, we will make our games even stupider from now on!".

Now, whatever they do it would be hard to emulate the style of the originals as far as the artwork goes especially, but ffs they could try to make the game remotely like it.

This imaginary casual gamer business really makes me laugh. PC gamers are not the same as console gamers, period, and when you feed them console bullshit they lose interest fast...if they wanted that they could go for all console titles which have a much larger budget and are probably much better when it comes to action instead of some cheesy ass hybrid.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

VD: I like adventure, true, all RPG quests are ultimately "adventure". With adventure gameplay however, I connect a linear sereies of riddle solving combined to make a story - the combination of solving quests and exploring is pretty unique to RPG's so what's your point?

There is a difference between an adventure game and a role-playing game. Do you know what it is?

In my example it still depended on the skill btw, e.g. that I had enough speed to escape some monsters n the wild which might otherwise have killed me, or the fact that I needed my mercantile skill to barter the potion down to a price I could afford.

The difference is your character would still be ok without those skills. It's not hard for a player to avoid monsters, there is plenty of stuff around that even a character without skills can steal and sell. The difference between the examples is the game design.

If I had had more strength I might have been able to handle the fight, or keep enough to carry my loot back to town. If I had better alchemy skills I might have wipped up a potion to heal myself. If I had been a mage I might have cast levitation and been flying back. Thats plenty of options, don't you think?

The point that you are missing is that you were ok even without those skills. That's the key difference between MW and a decent RPG where skills are critical. If your skills fail you, there is nothing you can do.

I myself played an orc shaman, an "Aragorn"-like character and a Mage/Monk type character and found I could play them all the way i wanted, e.g. focusing my quest/problem solving on the skills they excelled in.

How convinient that all quests and problems were so one-dimensional that you could either kill something or steal something, which is what all MW characters were about.

The first jibe was unecessary, I gave you one category that is an important destinction right in the sentence you quoted, and there are more in the rest of my post, so don't play the dumb kid routine at me.
As to skills, they did matter as my example shows. I don't really have to make other examples, I am sure you will be able to think of a few yourself? And as I have argued many times before I think it's wrong to reduce the RPG experience to "governed by skills" that is too simple and for me at least does not catch the spirit of role playing gaming at all.
As to the last remark - No, MW's quest weren't stellar, and I am not defending that. they just give you a reason to go places. There are a few better ones but they are indeed far between. Yet DF's were even worse, yet it didn't bother you enough to hate the game, and the same is true with regard to MW for me. I enjoyed the gameplay despite them, for reasons as stated. What I meant was that e.g. there are enough such quests/guilds that I could choose ones to fit my character, I could use appropriate skills on the way to the quest objective, and I had enough options to flesh the character out that had nothing to do with quests at all, e.g. by setting my own goals like CRPGnut described. You are right saying that the world did not react to a lot to such goals and achievements (except if they involved, crime, murder, or wearing rich clothes, which is more than many games do already). But can you only have fun in a game when the NPC's or the game reacts to EVERYTHING you do? How about using the much-tooted imagination?

 

[Tintin]

The same could be said about you bitching about his bitching..

No it can't, that's just a stupid retort used all over the internet to try and reverse an argument while making very little difference or effect.

Yes it can. You are merely being ridiculous

"The same could be said about you bitching about his bitching.."

"The same could be said about you bitchign about me bitching about his bitching"

"The same could be said about you bitching about me bitching about you bitching about him bitching"

When are people going to get off that idiotic reply?

 

[bryce777]

The same could be said about you bitching about his bitching..

No it can't, that's just a stupid retort used all over the internet to try and reverse an argument while making very little difference or effect.

Yes it can. You are merely being ridiculous

"The same could be said about you bitching about his bitching.."

"The same could be said about you bitchign about me bitching about his bitching"

"The same could be said about you bitching about me bitching about you bitching about him bitching"

When are people going to get off that idiotic reply?

When will it stop being true? Yep, never.

What you don't seem to realize is a lot of the flack oblivion gets is due to its rather cloying/annoying marketing blitz. It is a reaction to that as much as the game that you witness and feel the irrational need to defend.

 

[Tintin]

What you don't seem to realize is a lot of the flack oblivion gets is due to its rather cloying/annoying marketing blitz. It is a reaction to that as much as the game that you witness and feel the irrational need to defend.

Yes, and as I clearly state, there are people who have a balance and will admit when something's good, but also criticize it, and probably ultimately buy it and get their opinions, and there are many of those here. truekaiser, though, never says anything neutral or positive unless it's forced out of him, lashes at every single comment released to the point of being pathetic. This guy is clearly never going to like the game, why is he bitching so much and wasting precious hours of his life on something he clearly will never enjoy?

And then, you, of course, felt the need to insert your own clever remarks.