Preview Oblivion - a game for Casual Joe

[Vault Dweller]

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.

It wasn't a jibe. There are many people who play games without analyzing them. An RPG has many elements from different genres that may attract different crowds. TES games always had strong adventure and FPS elements. What you listed was mostly from the adventure side of MW, that's why I asked. No offense was meant.

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.

Again, that's why I asked if you see the difference.

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?

I'll bite. Crpgnut mentioned his "a great alchemist" character. How long can you play a great alchemist mixing potions until you get bored because the game doesn't acknowledge that hobby at all? There is no guild for alchemists, there are no quests that require that skill (in DF, btw, there were quests that required high skills, i.e. someone was looking for a mage good enough to be able to cast certain spells with high requirements, now that was cool), there were no people who'd come to you seeking rare potions, you couldn't make bomb-like potions to blow your enemies and doors up thus creating alternatives to combat and security. So, all you could do was hunt for ingridients exploring forests and crypts. Considering that that's what the game was all about, that's not much. That's not role-playing, that's an excuse.

I'm an alchemist, so I'll explore forests and crypts to find ingridients
I'm an adventurer, so I'll explore forests and crypts to find something cool
I'm an explorer, so I'll explore forests and crypts to see everything
I'm a fighter, so I'll explore forests and crypts to fight monstars
I'm a thief, so I'll explore forests and crypts to steal stuff
Etc

For fuck's sake, there is nothing to do in the game BUT to explore forests and crypts, so there is no need to come up with characters who would love exploring forests and crypts and call that role-playing.

 

[Tintin]

Okay, VD, you know that there are much more things thieves could do, or that warriors could do, or that adventurers could do.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Character customization, quests, and exploration is from teh adventure side? Thats not the adventure games I played. Aren't you confusing adventures (monkey island) and action adventures (Tomb raider) here? And even those don't fit what I described very well...

So the alchemist - Well first and foremost there was"mastering" the alchemy system itself. After all it required you to ahve high skill until you actually saw all the effects of each ingredient, furthermore your skill and intelligence of course determined the effectiveness of your potions and your success rate - so there is a decent feedback mechanism, as well as lots of incentive to just mix and match trying to find working combinations.
Secondly while you did not have to (and I agree, those were kind of cool quests in DF, but like similar ones in MW, I believed they reguired you to use a specific sold spell - there were one or two quests like that in MW, also with potions), you certainly could play the game basically with alchemy - not bombs admittedly (thats kind of cheesy anywa) but with buffs - if anything the game erred on the wrong side here as potion stacking is THE exploit in MW - see the 8 min solution to MW.
thirdly you could aquire a house or stronghold and set up a nice little alchemy lab - too SIMs for you I am sure, but it was rather fun for me.
So hunting down ingredients was boring for you - well I guess, but I see it no less entertaining than any rogue-like, and with more scenery on the way. Sure in the main part its exploring dungeons and forests. But on the way there are books in the dungeons, stories in the ashlands, a few sidequests on the way... Of course it could have been more fleshed out and would have been a lot greater that way. Thats why I played with a lot of mods. But I found it plenty entertaining as it was.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Character customization, quests, and exploration is from teh adventure side? Thats not the adventure games I played. Aren't you confusing adventures (monkey island) and action adventures (Tomb raider) here? And even those don't fit what I described very well...

I said most, not all. Your quote: "... 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."

So the alchemist - Well first and foremost there was"mastering" the alchemy system itself. After all it required you to ahve high skill until you actually saw all the effects of each ingredient, furthermore your skill and intelligence of course determined the effectiveness of your potions and your success rate - so there is a decent feedback mechanism, as well as lots of incentive to just mix and match trying to find working combinations.

Translation: levelling up through use and training

... you certainly could play the game basically with alchemy - not bombs admittedly (thats kind of cheesy anywa) but with buffs

So, the alchemy thing was secondary, a support skill to go with melee or magic. So, one in fact was NOT playing an alchemist but a fighter/mage with a hobby.

thirdly you could aquire a house or stronghold and set up a nice little alchemy lab - too SIMs for you I am sure, but it was rather fun for me.

By "a little lab" you mean a desk to put your set on? 'Cause there was nothing else to it. You couldn't purchase some large "industrial size" equipment to do rare potions. All you could do was place your set on the table, fill chests with ingridients, and decorate the place with potions. Then what?

Of course it could have been more fleshed out and would have been a lot greater that way.

That's the point.

 

[bryce777]

I see the way alchemy was done as perfectly valid and good in fact, but I don't see it as something in and of itself to make a game worthwhile.

I still like the alchemy in darklands the best, personally, and it was not crazily powerful. Of course, you COULD blow up doors, melt locks, or even throw acid in people's face.

You also had to hunt down reagents, try to upgrade your philosopher stone, find universities which could teach you alchemy. Not to mention hunting down formulae...often being more or less powerful versions of the same thing.

I don't think alchemy could be done better, to be honest. Still, I would not play darklands just to do that, but it was a very nice addition to the game and ensured there was always something useful you could be doing....

 

[One Wolf]

i eventually wound up using alchemy to make fortify whatever-attribute-is-responsible-for-enchanting to make insane constant effect items. then i stopped playing.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I still like the alchemy in darklands the best, personally, and it was not crazily powerful.

Of course, you COULD blow up doors, melt locks, or even throw acid in people's face. You also had to hunt down reagents, try to upgrade your philosopher stone, find universities which could teach you alchemy. Not to mention hunting down formulae...often being more or less powerful versions of the same thing.

I don't think alchemy could be done better, to be honest. Still, I would not play darklands just to do that, but it was a very nice addition to the game and ensured there was always something useful you could be doing....

That's pretty much what I'm talking about.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Is there a difference between a game that is more approachable to a casual gamer, yet still maintains depth and complexity that a more "hardcore" (for lack of a better term) expects and appreciates -- and a game that is, from beginning to end, tailor-made for a casual gamer with no depth or complexity, nothing more than meets the eye?

I think it's time for you to come back to the real world now Dorothy. Click your heels 3 times and say "There's no place like home", "There's no place like home", "There's no place like home"...

Right, now that the insult is out of the way, are you *really* asking if there's a difference between "a game with some depth" and "a game with no depth"?

And for people to deny that Morrowind had a *lot* of depth in comparison with everything else on consoles, is just foolishly dogmatic.

Tetris has a lot of depth when compared to "everything else on consoles". It's a moot point. Besides, it's like asking for a red car and getting given a black car with a red steering wheel. When you complain that that's not what you asked for, some idiot pops up to say "but it's got red!". Sure, Morrowind has "a wee bit of depth", especially when compared to "every single game that has absolutely no depth what-so-ever". I think the point is though, that people (read: People here who are participants of the Codex hive mind) want a game with "a bucket load of depth". IE: More depth please.

Presuming MSFD isn't really an idiot, I *presume* this is what he's really asking. To answer the question - as far as I'm personally concerned - yes, there is a difference but it's a very minor one and unfortunately, I still want my completely red car. Not just a red steering wheel, not just red wheels but a whole, completely red car.

The point is that it can be done. I maintain Morrowind is a game with depth. But - even if it is not by your criteria, then it would STILL have sold even if the changes you seem to mandate as showing 'depth' were put in place.

Actually, if Morrowind had more involved combat, more "depth" to dialogue (multiple choices) and non-linearity, then it'd lose it's "simple" appeal and you'd have munchkins complaining about all the tough choices you have to make and that the game is so hard because you have to "think". It then loses its "play for 5 hours and then leave it for a week before playing for another 2 hours" appeal that "casual gamers" are really all about. When they pick it up to play again, they've likely forgotten what they were doing, can't rememer the story and need many reminders to get them back into the swing. Most "casual gamers" won't remember if they were playing a bard or a pirate, so they lose any sense of role-playing. A game without depth - meaning a game a "casual gamer" can pick up and play without having to think about it - is much more appealing to them.

As to whether Morrowind would've sold if it were a True RPGâ„¢, I wouldn't know.

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?

The problem is, sales don't really come into this. MSFD's quote (which is what started this all) is all about depth - or lack thereof - and whether or not there's a difference between games with varying levels of depth. More to the point, whether those hard-core gamers that are here appreciate a bit of depth over no depth and how much depth we really want.

Well, either that, or I'm very confused.

 

[Twinfalls]

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?

Ah, well perhaps it was the mohawk on top of such an overtly human-but-with-pointy-ears High Elf that looked anachronistic. Seriously MSFD, you may be right about the mohawks, but how can you possibly justify a High Elf who is able to look like Keanu Reeves? How has that formerly unique, fantastical Elven bone structure undergone such a dramatic change since Morrowind?

We've seen the Dark Elf in the old video, too. Can you at least admit you have now made Elves human looking, and that they now resemble LOTR elves - ie human, with different coloured skin and pointy ears?

ie from this (Morrowind):

to THIS (oblibon):

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

You DO know that you can make the faces look pretty much like anyone you want, right? In the video, they were pressing the "random" button and showed about 6 different combinations. They have slanted eyes, higher cheekbones, longer foreheads, and pointy ears, and they tend to a yellowish skin though that can vary by individual. Dark elves' foreheads tend to be shorter, and have skin ranging from gray to blueish. And wood elves are much shorter, tend to have rounder faces and more caucasian coloration. There's a tremendous amount of variety within each race, though. But the elven races do have slanted eyes.

I'm honestly not sure what there is to complain about. There's nearly an infinite variety of faces available.

 

[Excalibur]

You DO know that you can make the faces look pretty much like anyone you want, right? In the video, they were pressing the "random" button and showed about 6 different combinations. They have slanted eyes, higher cheekbones, longer foreheads, and pointy ears, and they tend to a yellowish skin though that can vary by individual. Dark elves' foreheads tend to be shorter, and have skin ranging from gray to blueish. And wood elves are much shorter, tend to have rounder faces and more caucasian coloration. There's a tremendous amount of variety within each race, though. But the elven races do have slanted eyes.

I'm honestly not sure what there is to complain about. There's nearly an infinite variety of faces available.

they are complaning becasue their bitches, and they havnt been showed much to prove them wrong

 

[Twinfalls]

Eh, storm in a TEScup maybe.

I hope we get bullet time at least.

 

[bryce777]

Also, how can something be anachronistic when this is not the same world at all?

Should everyone have a topknot like tasslehoff burrfoot?

 

[Twinfalls]

No, everyone should look like David Hasselhof. Can't be anachronistic, can it? Alternative world!!!

Anyway, that tonsure should come in handy for my Monk character.

Oh..... I forgot. No monks in this game.

 

[Twinfalls]

DarkUnderlord:

MSFD is asking whether a game with depth can appeal to a casual gamer (or he should be, as this is a more interesting question).

I think it CAN. And I think Morrowind demonstrates this. The fact that Morrowind sold very well on the Xbox tells us that it was a hit with casual gamers.

Now, you and others say that's because it lacked depth. Well, I say to you that had the game been given more depth, it STILL would have sold just as well.

Why? Well, one example. You say its simplicity meant casual gamers could go away and pick it up again with ease, because of a lack of depth. BUT: consider Morrowind's interface. Look at its journal system. It was monster bullshit hard to remember what the fuck you were doing, since there were no 'active quest' entries, just one big wiki.

Look at its inventory. Everything chucked in, no sorting whatsoever. A nightmare to use once you had a lot of stuff.

You could give the game a non-linear MQ, more real decision making, and more skills, but also improve the interface and the journal, and the improvements in ease-of-use would more than offset the greater game complexity. It would still have sold.

Whether the stupid motherfuckers instead choose to give Oblivion less depth and dumb the fucker down even more, is IRRELEVANT. I say Morrowind's sales show that games with depth can sell on a console, and therefore to casual gamers. Morrowind had enough of a surface appearance of depth, that if a deep-looking game is what puts people off, it would not have sold. But it did.

And the most important point

Games with depth CAN sell to 'casual gamers' because there are enough 'casual gamers' who like depth. Who will pay for depth.

I think it's a very great assumption that casual gamers (as measured by a console audience) DO NOT WANT DEPTH.

At the very least, we ought to be able to challenge this assumption.

 

[Section8]

To paraphrase some idiot saying or another, "Inside every casual gamer there's a hardcore gamer trying to get out."

Casual gamers may look for the "wrong" things when it comes to games, but in a good many cases it's little more than naivety. I have quite a few friends these days who would be considered "casual gamers," but if they get their hands on something outside the scope of their conscious tastes, they'll get right into it once they start, provided that game isn't completely overwhelming in it's initial stages.

The biggest difference I see between "casual" and "hardcore" gamers is the willingness to try new things. It's a narrow point of view to judge something on it's graphics, but it doesn't make the person an idiot who is incapable of dealing with depth and complexity. All it takes is exposure.

 

[Tintin]

I don't understand "casual gamers are xbox gamers". It is just me, or wouldn't casual gamers be the ones who play games on their already-existing pc's, instead of paying money for a whole new system dedicated to them?

 

[Data4]

I don't understand "casual gamers are xbox gamers". It is just me, or wouldn't casual gamers be the ones who play games on their already-existing pc's, instead of paying money for a whole new system dedicated to them?

No, I think a casual gamer is more like someone who can't be bothered to tweak their computer to squeeze out that extra two or three FPS. He's more practical in that all he has to do is put the round, shiney, flat thing in that other thing that's about yay big, press a button, and after a few seconds of a whirring sound.... WHEEE! grafix0rz!

-D4

 

[tanjo]

And I don't see too many commercials advertising x850 PE's and dual channel ram. But I can't watch a sporting event without seeing a 3D reply done on an X-box or something. X-Box is easier and more exposed.

And "instead of paying money for a whole new system dedicated to them" is pretty funny considering the amount an average PC gamer will spend yearly on a video card or a monitor or on his computer in general is the same a console user spends on his system in 3 or 4 years or something.

 

[Claw]

You have no idea how much I spend on a video card or monitor within the last twelve months (nothing).

I know, I don't really have a point. But it's less a money issue than a "caring" issue. A console is just more convenient than a PC in many ways.

 

[Drakron]

Casual gamer:

http://www.casual-gamers.com/

Anyway ...

The problem with the Xbox is most inicial Xbox users were PS2 haters. "Its more powerful so its better" idiots or a combination of the previous.

When I got a Xbox I made the mistake of reading the official Xbox magazime ne and the degree of fanboyism and immaturity was too much for me to take, I read OPM from time to time and it never goes near the degree I found on the OXM.

Its clear that what Microsoft aims is for the radical fanboyism ... I seen a idiot saying that the Xbox 360 is more powerful that the PS3 and (when that rumor show up) the PS3 non standart HD would make the Xbox 360 a better (that was before the Xbox anounced that the HD was not standart as well).

Its fanatism pure and simple.

 

[tanjo]

You have no idea how much I spend on a video card or monitor within the last twelve months (nothing).

I know, I don't really have a point. But it's less a money issue than a "caring" issue. A console is just more convenient than a PC in many ways.

I wasn't talking about you. I don't know anything about you. I said average PC gamer.

I guess I meant average gamers who plan on playing games, like Oblivion, released in 2005.

 

[bryce777]

Casual gamer:

http://www.casual-gamers.com/

Anyway ...

The problem with the Xbox is most inicial Xbox users were PS2 haters. "Its more powerful so its better" idiots or a combination of the previous.

When I got a Xbox I made the mistake of reading the official Xbox magazime ne and the degree of fanboyism and immaturity was too much for me to take, I read OPM from time to time and it never goes near the degree I found on the OXM.

Its clear that what Microsoft aims is for the radical fanboyism ... I seen a idiot saying that the Xbox 360 is more powerful that the PS3 and (when that rumor show up) the PS3 non standart HD would make the Xbox 360 a better (that was before the Xbox anounced that the HD was not standart as well).

Its fanatism pure and simple.

Well, having hardcore fans is the way to succeed. Unfortunately, microsoft seems to know what they are doing in the marketing department if nowhere else...or rather none of the things they are doing are geared towards serving us so much as screwing us.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'm an alchemist, so I'll explore forests and crypts to find ingridients
I'm an adventurer, so I'll explore forests and crypts to find something cool
I'm an explorer, so I'll explore forests and crypts to see everything
I'm a fighter, so I'll explore forests and crypts to fight monstars
I'm a thief, so I'll explore forests and crypts to steal stuff
Etc

I'm a smoker.
I'm a joker.
I'm a midnight toker.
I get my lovin' on the run.

 

[Twinfalls]

Some people call you MAU-REECE (Reeeee-REEEEU)