Editorial Oblivion and the rebirth of the Western civilization

[FrancoTAU]

Vice City and SA had Katanas.

Each addition in the series added new weapons, vehicles, and abilities. SA added *GASP* swimming.

How dare they! Don't they know they should be taking away stuff with each sequel so as to have more mainstream appeal? They'll never sell as many games as Bethseda with that attitude.

 

[kingcomrade]

Yeah I'd rather have one car done in a super duper awesome way. Besides, who drives the school buses? Cut them.

 

[Ratty]

This 1up feature is so chock-full of ignorance and idiocy that it emits its own anti-intelligence field. It's like the author decided to take every known and universally agreed-upon fact about CRPGs and challenge it with such half-witted shit that it would make even the average Down syndrome patient blush with embarrassment.

The single-player PC RPG is a dying genre.

This observation, though correct, arrives some two years too late and contains the superfluous "single-player" distinction, almost as if the author in his blissful cluelessness believes multiplayer roleplaying exists outside MUDs and UO roleplaying shards. Then again, it *is* probably the most coherent and sensical thought in the entire article.

Its last great chapter was a port of an Xbox game. And before that? The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind.

Sure enough, if you completely disregard European developers and the indie scene. It baffles me how anyone can presume to talk about CRPGs without even a passing familiarity with independent developers like Spiderweb Software. Just as I begin to think gaming media can't possibly get any more clueless and unprofessional, they manage to surprise me.

Just a few years ago, the format seemed healthy and vital -- Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate II, Diablo II, and the early, but innovative, Daggerfall were all first-rate games that didn't need multiplayer to make them a good time.

Egads, what an assembly of disparate titles from different time periods. Also, kudos on managing to miss the fact that Diablo II can't be considered a CRPG by any stretch of imagination, and that games in the vein of Diablo abound. For the love of Todd, the guy first claims there is a shortage of single-player RPGs and then proceeds to incorrectly apply the denomination "RPG" to such a broad array of games that it renders his entire initial assertion untrue. If he is going to be a moron all the way, the least he can do is be consistent about it.

Clearly, the rise of the Internet has savaged the single-player PC RPG, which makes the newest chapter in the Elder Scrolls series, Oblivion, a curious throwback to when the franchise was young.

For a moment I would like to ignore the idiotic assumption from the first part of the sentence and focus on the second part - namely, the bit about Oblivion being a "throwback". If anything is consistent about the Elder Scrolls franchise, it is its ever-increasing deviation from the formula of the first two instalments. While TES games never have been pure CRPGs, Oblivion strays so far outside the domain of computer roleplaying that it bears more resemblance to Hexen than to Arena or Daggerfall. So unless the author actually means to imply that designers of Oblivion are genetic throwbacks (which I'm increasingly inclined to agree with), the term "throwback" has no place whatsoever in the context of Oblivion.

Morrowind led a lot of players to MMOs, where they could experience the richness of a huge, open game world without having to play alone or wander lost.

This actually rings true, because Morrowind was dull enough to convince many perplexed roleplayers, especially newbies, that single player roleplaying experience is boring compared to what MMOs can offer. In fact, the sheer boredom must have dulled their mental apparatus so much they managed to completely miss the fact that a) MMOs generally don't offer roleplaying experience of any sort, let alone a boring one, and b) that Morrowind *sucked*!

On the other hand, the Japanese RPG market has been always console focused, and has primarily aimed to keep players on a single path. By the time Final Fantasy VII for PlayStation came around, Japanese console RPGs were approaching the sheer complexity of their PC contemporaries, like The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall. But much of that complexity was based on exploring a world where events moved around the characters. Japanese RPGs rarely try to re-create the feeling for players of being one of the gang at a D&D game; they try to create the feeling of being the game master, guiding powerful characters and enjoying trying to figure out how the world they exist in will react to them.

No kidding, Sherlock, probably because they aren't CRPGs, but adventure games. "Japanese RPG" is a label as meaningless and insipid as "action RPG" when the latter is used to describe raw hack 'n slash action games like Diablo and Dungeon Siege, which is also why any attempt to draw parallels between Japanese adventure games and "Western" CRPGs invariably devolves into uneducated drivel like the above example.

Oblivion is the fourth title in the Elder Scrolls series, and it makes numerous nods to the changes in the market since the release of The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind

And by "makes numerous nodes", the author naturally means "bends over spastically so the market may better rape it into its shiny HDR ass".

but it's still a gloriously open-ended single-player RPG that could well offer the most robust experience available on the PC (especially when you factor in its construction tools and mods)

"Gloriously open-ended", my ass. With its linear plot and the manner in which the player is dragged through it by hand like a half-witted moron, Oblivion is about as open-ended as the average memory violation error screen.

And what the fuck do the construction tools have to do with a game's roleplaying qualities? I bet the author is one of those moronic BioWare apologists who gave NWN insane ratings on sole account of the Aurora toolset, completely neglecting the fact that the toolset sucked as well.

The main problem with MMOs is that inability of the player to have a significant impact on the environment

It's tragic when a TES fanboy has a keener awareness of what a CRPG is than a supposed professional game critic.

Elizabeth Stevens preordered an Xbox 360 to play Oblivion and has been waiting since November 22 for the game to hit stores.

Though this quote has no real relevance to the topic, it nicely illustrates the staggering idiocy of BethSoft's target audience. It really takes a special kind of moron to preorder a shitty and overpriced console so you can play a game which would immediately be available on PC and bound to be crawling with bugs, especially considering Beth's earlier record.

For the RPG fan who simply dislikes company, it's a slam dunk -- the clear winner in a field free of competitors. Oblivion is innovative in a lot of ways that an MMO can't be, thrusting the player into the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime epic, showing them the way through it without any concern about ensuring enough play hours to justify a monthly fee, and then letting the player be the star of the show. This is definitely one of the most user-friendly Western RPGs in a long time. It immediately inserts the player into the main story, and the easy-to-follow guidance system leads them to the next plot point, but without such a constraining structure to be mistakable as anything but a free-form game.
...
Its feasible to spend hundreds of hours exploring the nooks and niches of Oblivion, without ever having to run into a griefer in PVP, wait for a GM to fix an issue, or repeat the same dungeon over and over again. The game world is a vastly larger amount of space then Morrowind's maps: 16 square miles of things to find and do. Yet despite the enormity of the game world, it's virtually impossible to face the same overwhelming sense of having too little to do and too much space in which to do it that sent so many people away from Morrowind; small, wonderfully designed touches like the pointer on your compass leading you to your quest goal mean that the player can roam freely but shift their focus back the core game whenever they want. There is an audience for smart, huge, and very free-form single-player RPGs, but what Oblivion's success or failure will largely decide is if that audience can expect more games in the next generation, or if Oblivion will be the genre's last gasp.

I take back everything I ever said about the author's talent. It truly takes exquisite skill and focus to waffle such retarded shit while at the same time gobbling on Bethesda's cock.

And now for something completely different:

What about GTA, indeed! San Andreas is the best example of the gradual inclusion of the joy of open-ended gameplay and character development into a non-RPG, but the GTA series has not yet produced an RPG.

The exact line is hard to define, but the GTA series has its focus on action, both on foot and behind the wheel. Your character can be customized, and there is a coherent story that the player can choose to dive into, but wearing a tuxedo to a fistfight doesn't make it a formal event.

The exact line is indeed hard to define, especially when the person attempting to do so is an addle-brained buffoon like Patrick here. GTA indeed isn't a CRPG, because character development is practically non-existent and the character's choices have about as profound impact upon the world as the average voter in Belarus has on the outcome of presidential elections.

Before I wrap up the analysis of Patrick's little imbecille marathon, I want to debunk the ubiquitous inane assertion that CRPGs are dying as a mainstream genre because they are being replaced by MMOs. Newsflash: CRPG and MMO are two completely disjunct genres! Other than some superficial similarities, MMOs have their own mechanics and contrast CRPGs in almost every respect. The very concept of mass multiplay online gaming excludes the critical defining trait of CRPG, namely that the player can confront any situation in a multitude of ways and that his decision will have deep and enduring effects on the current state of the game world. It is impossible to have this kind of roleplaying depth in an MMO, simply because the game world needs to be simple and static enough to accomodate thousands of players. That is precisely why an MMO is much better defined as a mass multiplay version of the classic dungeon crawler.

Obviously, since MMOs have about as much to do with CRPGs as American foreign policies have with common sense, MMOs can in no way be considered the reason for the apparent downfall of the CRPG genre. The issue of what killed the CRPG star reaches beyond the scope of this topic, so without delving into it I would like to point out that difficulties mainstream CRPGs are currently experiencing have more to do with idiots like Patrick Joynt who are incapable of getting their heads out of game publishers' asses long enough to develop actual clue about game design and gaming industry and tackle real issues rather than blather inanely about irrelevant subjects. What irks me even more is that I used to consider 1up.com a good, credible gaming site, but this latest idiotic feature, coupled with their half-assed blowjob-review of Oblivion, officially launches them into the upper echelon of low-quality gaming media, where they can fester in the happy circle-jerk with every other spineless whore that writes reviews with their brains off and their lips happily wrapped around the collective dick of whatever company churned out the overhyped piece of shit that currently has everybody's attention.

You know there is something wrong with gaming media when you go to fucking *GameSpy* for intelligence and objectivity.

Vitriolically yours,
Ratty

 

[LlamaGod]

Actually, that kinda reminds me of why GTA:SA is a better game than Oblibion: it's fun.

I liked getting the Bullets, adding nitro boost and entering in the 'Fast Gameplay' and 'Extra Fast Cars' cheats when I got bored.

You go like a billion miles per hour, your little map just flies along. The game barely can keep up rendering with you.

 

[7th Circle]

Anyone want to try and tear my argument apart by saying "OIMGF! BUT OBLIVIN HAS TIHS AND GTAY DOSNT!1!!!"? I honestly can't think of anything Oblivion does that GTA:SA doesn't, and I certainly can't think of anything Oblivion does better than GTA:SA.

I don't agree with the reason given by the author but there are reasons what makes Oblivion makes it as an rpg while GTA:SA doesn't.

Keep in mind that you mind want to see my definition of an rpg in this thread and I freely concede that Oblivion is a "shallow" rpg (as also defined in my post in that thread). Also, this is not an attack on GTA:SA, which is a great game.

Finally, there are some SPOILERS in this post.

1) Oblivion has the ability to create different starting characters (the "tutorial dungeon" doesn't count). In GTA:SA, you start with the exact same Carl Johnson. As Oblivion's differences in this regard include stat differences, these are non-trivial.
2) IIRC, there isn't a single quest in GTA:SA that has multiple outcomes. Sometimes you can employ differing strategies to finish them but the end result is the same. This is not true for all of Obliivion's quests (though, regrettably, it is true for most).
3) Choosing to take (or not to take) quests can alter the game world in a way that does not happen in GTA:SA. For instance, whether or not you work through the Mages' Guild quests results in the destruction of the Bruma Guild.
4) In a minor way, it is possible to make decisions that permanently alter the world (outside the scope of finishing quests). For instance, I seem to recall some ESF idiot whinging about the fact that he could no longer join the Thieves' Guild because, despite being told not to, he eliminated his "competitor" (in the quest that decides who joins the guild or not).

There are probably others but this is a good start.

 

[Section8]

Vitriolically yours,
Ratty

Top post. That article hardly needed to be disassembled and systematically elimatinated, but you did it with enough panache that reading your "counter arguments" was more entertaining than Oblivion ever was.

don't agree with the reason given by the author but there are reasons what makes Oblivion makes it as an rpg while GTA:SA doesn't.

Well, you're already ahead of that article's author and his "just because" reasoning.

1) Oblivion has the ability to create different starting characters (the "tutorial dungeon" doesn't count). In GTA:SA, you start with the exact same Carl Johnson. As Oblivion's differences in this regard include stat differences, these are non-trivial.

I'll give this one half a mark, because I agree that it's pretty much essential to have choice in character creation. The reason for only awarding a half is because aside from a few stats here and there, character creation in Oblivion is pretty much purely cosmetic.

The only significant difference in character creation is the way you choose to kill stuff, but you're still going to be doing and saying pretty much exactly the same things.

Although even the methods of killing aren't differentiated a whole lot. Melee combat is pretty much uniform across the board, ranged combat/magery are only noticeably different to melee when fighting other ranged opponents, and stealth isn't sufficiently featured enough to be any more than a way of making the other dull modes of combat end faster.

2) IIRC, there isn't a single quest in GTA:SA that has multiple outcomes. Sometimes you can employ differing strategies to finish them but the end result is the same. This is not true for all of Obliivion's quests (though, regrettably, it is true for most).

This, I'm not entirely convinced on. It's certainly a huge plus to have multiple outcomes, but it's also a huge plus to have more freedom in the "journey" as opposed to just the destination. All in all, given the exceedingly low percentage of quests with multiple outcomes in Oblivion, compared against the higher percentage of SA "quests" where multiple approaches lead to an admittedly single outcome, I can't really give Oblivion much credit in this respect.

3) Choosing to take (or not to take) quests can alter the game world in a way that does not happen in GTA:SA. For instance, whether or not you work through the Mages' Guild quests results in the destruction of the Bruma Guild.

Not true. In fact, a whole lot of SA involves altering the game based on optional "quests". For instance, girlfriends, properties, import/export, "profession" missions, collectibles, etc. All of which have some pretty broad gameplay effects.

And from second hand info (I haven't completed any guild lines in Oblivion, and may never do so) it sounds as though these effects are more dramatic the Oblivions, while conversely, the associated narratives are much more understated in SA.

For instance, taking care of various nastiness for a businessman and being rewarded with a cut of the takings + other perks, like vehicles is quite reasonable. Becoming the Imperial Arch Mage on the other hand, is a pretty fucking important event/position, and yet the game offers little reward or recognition for this.

4) In a minor way, it is possible to make decisions that permanently alter the world (outside the scope of finishing quests). For instance, I seem to recall some ESF idiot whinging about the fact that he could no longer join the Thieves' Guild because, despite being told not to, he eliminated his "competitor" (in the quest that decides who joins the guild or not).

True enough, but again, I think SA fares better from the design considerations it's taken in this area. For instance, the whole "Oh noes, <critical NPC is dead, mission failed. Try again," mechanic seems ridiculous on paper, but in game terms, it's a consistent world behaviour, and arguably more importantly, it means the only loading and saving I ever have to do is when I power my PS2 on or off.

Oblivion on the other hand has a bunch of arbitrarily invincible NPCs, a whole host of arbitrarily conditional rules, and even worse, dynamically changes these rules at will. For instance, Brother Martin is invincible all of the time, except for the one time he's scripted to get into a fight. So the player's quest becomes "protect the guy who has selectively become mortal for no justifiable reason."

So, let me throw a few points of my own into the mix.

1. GTA:SA does a much better job of creating a plausible (and "immersive", guh) game world, through using a consistent and fairly rigid set of game rules. It also does a much better job of hiding it's shortcomings in this respect. For instance, rather than allowing the player to initiate a pointless, cookie cut conversation, it keeps passing strangers as exactly that.

Also, the fact that the world isn't built with the provision of instant travel, the sense of being in a large scale persistent world is preserved.

2. GTA:SA has far more consequences associated with character choice, since physical stats decrease over time, some counteract each other, and most of all, stats/skills are restrictive.

For instance, eating raises health, but increases fat. This makes eating something that must be considered and balanced against exercise and hunger, rather than Oblivion's limitless potion use.

Or, if you want to win a triathlon, you have to be fit, strong, and a skilled athlete. Some girls have particular tastes in men that you need to meet. Trainers won't teach you without certain strength requirements.

All of these things give your character a reason to be the way he is, and also, give him a reason to be more than he is. Oblivion, on the other hand, imposes no restriction, and rewards a player for intentionally stunting their growth.

3. GTA:SA makes an effort when it comes to differentiating it's many "quest" facsimilles. When I've chosen to do some street racing, I actually feel a though I'm being a street racer, whereas Oblivion basically has a single quest type with themed variations according to whether you were asked to do it by the Mages, the Fighters, the Brotherhood, or just some random yahoo. In that sense, GTA actually allows me to feel that I'm actually playing the role I've chosen, even if that choice is fairly short term by comparison.

--

All in all GTA:SA is clearly a far superior game, in some respects a stronger RPG, and it really irks me that somehow Oblivion is beyond reproach in the eyes of the gaming media because it's sold as an RPG. But I appreciate someone taking me up on the invitation to discuss it, because to me, it's a very interesting contrast.

I'm not quite sure why the superb action game with a few solid RPG elements is somehow regarded with far more critical eyes, while the mediocre RPG that consists mainly of mediocre action elements, somehow gets a free ride because of the "RPG" label. It's even more baffling when you consider that Oblivion has far more in common with GTA than it does with the bulk of the "RPG genre."

 

[Hazelnut]

For the love of Todd,

bwahahahaha - lovely!

 

[7th Circle]

The only significant difference in character creation is the way you choose to kill stuff, but you're still going to be doing and saying pretty much exactly the same things.

Although even the methods of killing aren't differentiated a whole lot. Melee combat is pretty much uniform across the board, ranged combat/magery are only noticeably different to melee when fighting other ranged opponents, and stealth isn't sufficiently featured enough to be any more than a way of making the other dull modes of combat end faster.

For the main quest, that's reasonably true but there is more opportunity for stealth in some of the guilds. There are also times when having high levels in alteration or security can save you from fighting because you can open doors.

This, I'm not entirely convinced on. It's certainly a huge plus to have multiple outcomes, but it's also a huge plus to have more freedom in the "journey" as opposed to just the destination. All in all, given the exceedingly low percentage of quests with multiple outcomes in Oblivion, compared against the higher percentage of SA "quests" where multiple approaches lead to an admittedly single outcome, I can't really give Oblivion much credit in this respect.

There are multiple ways of doing some of the quests in Oblivion too. For instance, I pacificistically did one of the main quest oblivion gates (without invisibility or chameleon). Another time, I was meant to get rid of a guard captain. I later learned that you can work with someone to kill him or someone else to get him fired. My assassin, however, just viewed this as another challenge and simply whacked him without getting involved with anyone else.

Likewise, I would argue that melee versus conjuration strategies (as an example) constitute "different approaches" in the same way that say gang wars could be solved by different approaches in GTA:SA.

Not true. In fact, a whole lot of SA involves altering the game based on optional "quests". For instance, girlfriends, properties, import/export, "profession" missions, collectibles, etc. All of which have some pretty broad gameplay effects.

I'll concede that I had forgot about these effects but I'm not sure they all are pretty broad. Respawning money, items and cars are certainly factors but are they really that different in concept from levelled loot (other than being more accessible)? As for additional save points, I'm not really sure that their impact on the game world is that broad (although they clearly do have an impact).

And from second hand info (I haven't completed any guild lines in Oblivion, and may never do so) it sounds as though these effects are more dramatic the Oblivions, while conversely, the associated narratives are much more understated in SA.

For instance, taking care of various nastiness for a businessman and being rewarded with a cut of the takings + other perks, like vehicles is quite reasonable. Becoming the Imperial Arch Mage on the other hand, is a pretty fucking important event/position, and yet the game offers little reward or recognition for this.

Certainly, the reward for being Arch Mage doesn't seem exciting (I haven't completed that guild yet). The reward for completing the Thieves Guild is an item that has some interesting gameplay consequences when used. Not all consequences are rewards though.

True enough, but again, I think SA fares better from the design considerations it's taken in this area. For instance, the whole "Oh noes, <critical NPC is dead, mission failed. Try again," mechanic seems ridiculous on paper, but in game terms, it's a consistent world behaviour, and arguably more importantly, it means the only loading and saving I ever have to do is when I power my PS2 on or off.

It's a fine mechanic but I don't think it is approriate for a rpg.

Oblivion on the other hand has a bunch of arbitrarily invincible NPCs, a whole host of arbitrarily conditional rules, and even worse, dynamically changes these rules at will. For instance, Brother Martin is invincible all of the time, except for the one time he's scripted to get into a fight. So the player's quest becomes "protect the guy who has selectively become mortal for no justifiable reason."

No argument here. Bethesda made a real hash of it. The automatic reload would have been even worse (as an aside, completing Kvatch with a level 22 thief told me why they abandoned that approach....).

1. GTA:SA does a much better job of creating a plausible (and "immersive", guh) game world, through using a consistent and fairly rigid set of game rules. It also does a much better job of hiding it's shortcomings in this respect. For instance, rather than allowing the player to initiate a pointless, cookie cut conversation, it keeps passing strangers as exactly that.

This actually touches upon a very interesting issue namely the relationship between plausibility, realism and immersion. You describe it as a plausible game world because of the nature of its ruleset. I would tend to agree with that assessment pending the condition that the game world need not have a great similarity to the real world. Consequently, I would argue that something like Doom creates a plausible game world for exactly the same reason.

The question is whether or not this is sufficient for an rpg. Can you play a role in a world where the usual rules of this world don't apply? The obvious answer is that of course you can because rpgs have things like magic, mutants etc. etc. However, could you roleplay a chess piece in the chess world? Would the game world be too alien (when compared to the real world) to role play the "pc"?

I guess what I'm asking is "Is there a plausible game world where the game world is too dissimilar to the real world for an rpg to take place in the world?"

Also, the fact that the world isn't built with the provision of instant travel, the sense of being in a large scale persistent world is preserved.

To be honest, I've never found this an issue.

2. GTA:SA has far more consequences associated with character choice, since physical stats decrease over time, some counteract each other, and most of all, stats/skills are restrictive.

I disagree because none of the physical changes are irreversable. My fat and muscle went up and down according to what I wanted at a given moment in time. I don't know how that is practically different to carrying different gear for different purposes.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "restrictive".

For instance, eating raises health, but increases fat. This makes eating something that must be considered and balanced against exercise and hunger, rather than Oblivion's limitless potion use.

Potion use isn't limitless like in was in Morrowind. There are limits to how many potions you can have working at a time. Yes, there is no hunger or fat "side-effects" but, and I can only speak for myself here, I don't know if they add anything to the role-playing experience.

Or, if you want to win a triathlon, you have to be fit, strong, and a skilled athlete. Some girls have particular tastes in men that you need to meet. Trainers won't teach you without certain strength requirements.

All of these things give your character a reason to be the way he is, and also, give him a reason to be more than he is. Oblivion, on the other hand, imposes no restriction, and rewards a player for intentionally stunting their growth.

I can't defend the level scaling implementation in Obliivion and the consequent power-gaming that can result. However, things like fat and muscle in GTA:SA can be powergamed in the same way. For instance, I would lower muscle and fat to do "beat the cock" (triathlon) but raise a little to date the Badlands girlfriend then pump muscle to date the San Fierro one (etc. etc.) You may have a had different experience but, because it was so relatively easy to alter fat and muscle, I didn't really feel like it was a consequence of character development as much as sometime to tweak every time I wanted to do something different.

Also, things like skill perks and guild perks do reward a player in Oblivion. It's nice to keep repairing your "normal" weapons and armour for a while and then be able to repair magical gear. Likewise, I've found a quest that you couldn't start until you reached a certain level.

3. GTA:SA makes an effort when it comes to differentiating it's many "quest" facsimilles. When I've chosen to do some street racing, I actually feel a though I'm being a street racer, whereas Oblivion basically has a single quest type with themed variations according to whether you were asked to do it by the Mages, the Fighters, the Brotherhood, or just some random yahoo. In that sense, GTA actually allows me to feel that I'm actually playing the role I've chosen, even if that choice is fairly short term by comparison.

I would respond that the vast majority of GTA:SA missions are some combination of driving and killing (e.g., with flying as a variation on driving). Many of the Oblivion quests are killing but there are exceptions such as the Thieves Guild quests.

I also believe an rpg is based around long term roles rather than short term ones.

All in all GTA:SA is clearly a far superior game, in some respects a stronger RPG, and it really irks me that somehow Oblivion is beyond reproach in the eyes of the gaming media because it's sold as an RPG. But I appreciate someone taking me up on the invitation to discuss it, because to me, it's a very interesting contrast.

I'm not quite sure why the superb action game with a few solid RPG elements is somehow regarded with far more critical eyes, while the mediocre RPG that consists mainly of mediocre action elements, somehow gets a free ride because of the "RPG" label. It's even more baffling when you consider that Oblivion has far more in common with GTA than it does with the bulk of the "RPG genre."

I'm going to say something that has been expressed by a couple of people on this forum; Oblivion has a real "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" thing about it. Basically, VD put it quite well when it said it was a game made for the casual gamer; personally, I'd describe it as a "popcorn game". I can list a whole lot of flaws about it and they can make it sound like a real PoS but the good things are less tangible. I appreciate that this sounds like fluff , and I'll try to give some examples in a second, but there's a reason that VD's review wasn't as harsh as lot of people thought it would be.

For instance, you've probably read about the seen/not seen stealth detection and said sounds like a pretty crappy mechanism so stealth must suck. Well, yes the detection mechanism is a bit off but the overall experience feels right. Oblivion certainly isn't Thief but I've had some great moments hiding in shadows while enemies walked past (that were reminiscent of the latter game). Whether or not you get detected also seems to generally make sense once things like stats and invisibility are considered. Another example is the combat system. Yes, it's too fast and repetitive at times. Yes, battles sometimes are too epic. Etc. Etc. However, there are times when it seems really absorbing, when the frenetic nature of the combat grabs you and reminds you of the chaotic nature of combat.

That being said, I don't deny that the gaming press has been too soft on Oblivion. Oblivion has lots of flaws and very few reviews bothered to point out any of them.

Also, to be honest, I think the comparison with GTA:SA is not far off the mark. I view GTA:SA as a great popcorn game. I also view it as an action game aspiring to be an rpg whereas Oblivion, like Diablo, is an rpg where dungeon hacking has almost led it to lose its rpg status. Much to the dismay of many people (myself included), I think that this will become even more noticable when Fallout 3 is released because there won't be a fantasy setting to hide things.

Sorry for the length of the post but it is an interesting topic.

 

[Section8]

For the main quest, that's reasonably true but there is more opportunity for stealth in some of the guilds.

I've been meaning to try out the Thieves' Guild quests, but I've been playing some other stuff in preference to Oblivion. But, I've found from my experience with other guilds, that the game basically expects you to be a swiss army knife. I've only really done the "Recommendation" quests for the Mages, and there seemed to be an inordinate amount where you have to be stealthy.

Also, I think that a few "broken" elements of Oblivion make certain promising aspects redundant. For instance, the lockpicking minigame, the persuasion minigame and the economy basically render unlocking or charm spells pointless. For other aspects, there's generally a barely differentiated alternative, regardless of what character you've chosen to be. Even for armour skills, Heavy and Light armour become pretty much identical, in a functional sense. Heavy Armour perks reduce speed penalties and encumbrance. Light Armour perks increase the protection offered.

So, as I said, I do give Oblivion some credit for character creation, but those choices just don't really have a profound effect, even if I may have understated it a tad in my first post.

There are also times when having high levels in alteration or security can save you from fighting because you can open doors.

Only if you're challenged by the lockpicking minigame. There are an awful lot of players who can just circumvent any lock with player skill.

There are multiple ways of doing some of the quests in Oblivion too. For instance, I pacificistically did one of the main quest oblivion gates (without invisibility or chameleon).

Heh, since I've started doing this myself, I wouldn't really regard it as an interesting choice. Basically, the Oblivion bits are so god awfully boring, I just do speed runs through them now. I don't even need to bother with speed buffs or anything, it's just a mad dash, and like many things in Oblivion it feels more like I'm cheating the system than making a legitimate choice.

Another time, I was meant to get rid of a guard captain. I later learned that you can work with someone to kill him or someone else to get him fired. My assassin, however, just viewed this as another challenge and simply whacked him without getting involved with anyone else.

Oh, I'm happy to concede that Oblivion does have a few quests with multiple outcomes, but I believe San Andreas fares much better in this regard. The one I liked best in Oblivion was the "sacrifice a daedric artifact" quest. For one, it involved a significant choice, but also, it was one of the few quests that were largely self-directed, and played to the game's strengths. I actually enjoyed trying to find out about the various shrines, obtaining a specific offering by whatever means possible, and then pursuing as many off-side shrine quests as I liked.

That to me, is how open-ended RPGing should be. Give the player a goal, a thread to tug on, and provide a multitude of choice that simply piggybacks the game's core features.

However, in contrast to that very positive example, I can also think of innumerable quests where obvious alternatives weren't accounted for. For instance, the stolen painting quest, where I can't finger the one person who lied about the night being clear and starlit.

SA from memory, had quite a lot of the "open-ended" style choices built on core game functionality, and shied away from the easily broken "multiple explicitly scripted options" choices, and that's why I think it fares much better.

Likewise, I would argue that melee versus conjuration strategies (as an example) constitute "different approaches" in the same way that say gang wars could be solved by different approaches in GTA:SA.

True enough, and I think the games are very comparable in that respect. I'd equate the choice of what vehicle you use to get from A to B as basically equivalent to the choice of how you kill something in Oblivion.

I'll concede that I had forgot about these effects but I'm not sure they all are pretty broad. Respawning money, items and cars are certainly factors but are they really that different in concept from levelled loot (other than being more accessible)?

Whoah there. They're very different in concept, because they're explicit rewards for the player's choice to take on a set of associated missions/challenges. If the player has made the extra effort to do something above and beyond what is required of them, they're rewarded. And also, you have various ways in which the player can develop and improve (both their character and their available assets) to get a leg up on the game's difficulty curve. Also, given that SA's economy stays fairly well balanced until toward the final stages of the game, free weapons and regular income are pretty damn significant in the scheme of things.

On the other hand, (Oblivion's) levelled loot is just a factor in an entirely goofy game mechanic. It's not a reward at all, because everyone else in the world is equivalently balanced, making it a necessity.

As for additional save points, I'm not really sure that their impact on the game world is that broad (although they clearly do have an impact).

Yeah, I was thinking properties more in terms of the commercials. Residential stuff doesn't really have any real point, other than being a money sink.

It's a fine mechanic but I don't think it is approriate for a rpg.

It's certainly not ideal, but it is consistent, and that does a lot for me in terms of plausibility and suspension of disbelief, which are important for RPGs. Also, it's better than the Oblivion alternative, which is the crux of the discussion.

--

However, could you roleplay a chess piece in the chess world? Would the game world be too alien (when compared to the real world) to role play the "pc"?

I would say it's too barren in terms of interactivity, and more importantly there's basically no freedom at all. A single chess piece exists only to take orders as part of a bigger picture.

New Quest: Move to D4. Wait there for further orders.

I guess what I'm asking is "Is there a plausible game world where the game world is too dissimilar to the real world for an rpg to take place in the world?"

Hmm, I don't think dissimilar is quite the right term. I think as long as the player can reasonably be made aware of the world's rules, you could have an RPG set anywhere.

However, I think what you're getting at, is the idea of a world that is similar to something the player is familiar with, and yet behaves in a contrary manner. For instance, using GTA:SA as an example, instead of eating to regain health, which is a reasonable abstraction, you have to throw yourself under moving vehicles to regain health, which is ultimately a complete contradiction to what the player would expect.

And in that case, the designers would be facing a huge uphill battle in trying to inform the player of what to expect. It wouldn't be impossible, and oddly enough, the example I gave above could work since it is basically the exact opposite of the expected behaviour. If the whole world was some kind of opposite land, then the player could quite easily grow accustomed to it since it still has strong ties to what they're familiar with. It wouldn't take them long to figure out that you kill things by healing them, make things bigger by shrinking them, and whatever other silliness.

Also, the fact that the world isn't built with the provision of instant travel, the sense of being in a large scale persistent world is preserved.

To be honest, I've never found this an issue.

Perhaps it's because I've started overusing fast travel. When I started out, I didn't use it at all, but it got to the point where I came to the realisation that stumbling across a hidden cave/fort/whatever on my way from point A to point B just wasn't very compelling, since it was invariably the same as any other cave/fort/whatever I'd found elsewhere.

And so now I basically jump back and forth, and so it lacks a certain vastness in the same way that autopilot transitions in space combat sims don't really give any sense of scale to space. Of course, it's perfectly reasonable to want to skip thousands of kilometres of emptiness, but there's something seriously amiss when skipping across land that is ludicrously dense in terms of points of "interest".

I disagree because none of the physical changes are irreversable. My fat and muscle went up and down according to what I wanted at a given moment in time. I don't know how that is practically different to carrying different gear for different purposes.

Ah, but you still had to work toward getting what you wanted, and you had to work to maintain it. Hence, there are consequences attached to the choice you want to make. Toggling different gear doesn't really have any real consequence to it, aside from maybe encumbrance.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "restrictive".

Basically, that depending on your character choices certain things are made available, and certain things are off limits. Unlike Oblivion, where anyone can sign up for any guild or any quest and complete it without too much trouble. In that way, SA responds to the character choices you have made, even if the character choices are only short-term.

Potion use isn't limitless like in was in Morrowind. There are limits to how many potions you can have working at a time.

5 at once, I believe. But if you have 5 instant use healing potions, you can quaff them, double tap your tab key, and then quaff another 5.

Yes, there is no hunger or fat "side-effects" but, and I can only speak for myself here, I don't know if they add anything to the role-playing experience.

It does so, because you actually have a choice to make if there are negative consequences tied to certain actions. Without that, it's a no-brainer. I need healing, so I heal myself. Whereas in SA, if I need healing, I need to consider my physique, and also whether I have time to spare to go out of my way and do so. It also places more emphasis on adequate preparation.

Also, things like skill perks and guild perks do reward a player in Oblivion. It's nice to keep repairing your "normal" weapons and armour for a while and then be able to repair magical gear.

Ah, but these are no different to the skill perks that SA provides for the most part. For instance, the dual handguns perk, etc. And curiously, some of Oblivion's perks actually serve to provide less differentiation between character builds. Most notably, the Heavy vs Light armour debacle.

I would respond that the vast majority of GTA:SA missions are some combination of driving and killing (e.g., with flying as a variation on driving). Many of the Oblivion quests are killing but there are exceptions such as the Thieves Guild quests.

Generally so, but I'd still argue that the differences in SA were more extreme. For instance, the quarry missions involved driving, but they involved driving gigantic mining equipment that was drastically different to say, driving a racecar around a circuit. Or a mountain bike down a mountain. Driving a truck and trailer was vastly different again. And that's just driving. Doing things on foot was a completely different experience. So was flying. And then there are the minigames... Basically, I found that in SA, everything I chose to do, was reasonably different, and also felt like a fairly natural abstraction of what it was supposed to represent. I never felt like a mage doing the Mages Guild quests. Probably because I never had to cast any fucking spells.

I also believe an rpg is based around long term roles rather than short term ones.

Oh, I definitely agree, but in my eyes, Oblivion doesn't do a very good job of differentiating long term roles. In fact, it doesn't even seem to try, given that none of my characters even need to make short term changes to adapt to what should be a remarkably different role.

I'm going to say something that has been expressed by a couple of people on this forum; Oblivion has a real "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" thing about it.

I never got that feeling. Basically, my experiences with Oblivion have been trying out everything the game has to offer, and I'll admit, just doing so involved more "play" time than 99% of games around today. But I've never really found a side to the game I could enjoy as a whole. And I'm not talking about nitpicking individual features, I basically couldn't find myself getting much enjoyment from a stealthy thief/assassin, because even the cumulative effect of (stealth + combat + thievery + life of crime + "story" elements + arena champ + archery + mercantilism) didn't do much for me. Nor did I find enough to interest me as a pure mage, a "paladin", or even a brawling cook.

At the moment, I've exhausted all of the core gameplay options, and all that's left is the pursuit of specific quest lines.

Basically, VD put it quite well when it said it was a game made for the casual gamer; personally, I'd describe it as a "popcorn game".

I can really see this. I'd probably enjoy Oblivion as much as I enjoyed Daggerfall if I'd come at it with the same relative "gaming experience", and I really can understand how someone who has never experienced anything quite like it would really get into it. But I've played too many other games that both exceed the quality of individual features, and also the game as a whole to enjoy Oblivion.

On the other hand, GTA:SA is a clear advancement from its peers, and is markedly more complex than Vice City, while preserving the core gameplay.

For instance, you've probably read about the seen/not seen stealth detection and said sounds like a pretty crappy mechanism so stealth must suck. Well, yes the detection mechanism is a bit off but the overall experience feels right.

No! It didn't feel right to me at all. Stealth gameplay without a light gem is like FPS gaming without a health or ammo counter. It can be passable, but just doesn't quite measure up. But most of all, what is sorely lacking from the stealth gameplay is any kind of inter AI alerts. Stealth in Oblivion could be so much better if it became "situational". As in, for each situation, I have to carefully consider my actions with regard to simple interdependencies of AI. As it stands, Oblivion's stealth system is basically "hide and kill" each individual as though they're isolated from one another. That's just terrible.

Another example is the combat system. Yes, it's too fast and repetitive at times. Yes, battles sometimes are too epic. Etc. Etc. However, there are times when it seems really absorbing, when the frenetic nature of the combat grabs you and reminds you of the chaotic nature of combat.

No, again! I can't agree with that either. I couldn't really find anything interesting about combat. Against a single opponent - Block. Swing. Swing. Repeat. Against multiple opponents - Swing. Repeat. In any combat, if it was overwhelming, the neverending supply of instant healing potions basically nullified any chance of ever being overwhelmed. I didn't even find that Oblivion's foot combat could better Mount & Blade's.

I think that this will become even more noticable when Fallout 3 is released because there won't be a fantasy setting to hide things.

<shudders> I can imagine horrible things for the future of Fallout 3, but the actuality will probably be much worse.

 

[HoodRich]

Just to throw this out there... san andreas seems to be getting way too much credit. You want something that jerks you away from immersion?

Okay, while playing san andreas you do some crazy crazy shit. I mean stealing airplanes, going on killing sprees, shooting down helicopters, etc. I've had some heavy ass arsenal and laid waste to san fierro a number of times. And when i say laid waste, i mean civilians, cops, and even those crazy swat guys. So yea, i was a one-man army psychopathic killing machine.

So, given the above, then why the fuck couldn't i just cap tenpenny?? I mean, cj would just let that bastard push him around. When i met him in one of las ventura's back suburbs and he punched cj in the stomach... i was like "you idiot! pull out that fucking rocket launcher and send him to kingdom come!" Is cj supposed to be a wuss or something? My cop kill count is in the hundreds, why can't i just take these two guys out?

Needless to say it was a very awkward and quite frustrating experience.

 

[Section8]

So, given the above, then why the fuck couldn't i just cap tenpenny?? I mean, cj would just let that bastard push him around. When i met him in one of las ventura's back suburbs and he punched cj in the stomach... i was like "you idiot! pull out that fucking rocket launcher and send him to kingdom come!" Is cj supposed to be a wuss or something? My cop kill count is in the hundreds, why can't i just take these two guys out?

Needless to say it was a very awkward and quite frustrating experience.

Yeah, I agree that it's pretty silly, but at least it didn't put an invincible Tenpenny in the world, thus pretending to offer you the freedom to kill him. It's like the girl who wont even go home with you, vs the girl who gets naked and then decides not to fuck you. Both are frustrating, but one is clearly a better option.

 

[bryce777]

The problem is they need to have some sort of excuse for his actions. They can't just have "Kill the motherfucking police" as the aim of the goal or else they would have way more flack than they do now, so they have to come up with some retarded motivations that doesn't make the character all bad.

 

[Nutcracker]

The other reason that GTA: San Andreas sucks is because you can only play as a nigger.

 

[Nutcracker]

It's like the girl who wont even go home with you, vs the girl who gets naked and then decides not to fuck you. Both are frustrating, but one is clearly a better option.

Indeed, because at least after she leaves you will have some good mental images to masturbate to. And when you do finally ejaculate, your internal fluid pressure will be so high that your semen will fly all over the room.

 

[7th Circle]

Also, I think that a few "broken" elements of Oblivion make certain promising aspects redundant. For instance, the lockpicking minigame, the persuasion minigame and the economy basically render unlocking or charm spells pointless.

For whatever reason, I can't do the lockpicking game easily (though I have managed to open very hard locks with reasonable security levels) so unlocking spells are useful to me. In what is hardly a good thing, I actually use charm spells to avoid the idiotic pesuasion minigame...

For other aspects, there's generally a barely differentiated alternative, regardless of what character you've chosen to be. Even for armour skills, Heavy and Light armour become pretty much identical, in a functional sense. Heavy Armour perks reduce speed penalties and encumbrance. Light Armour perks increase the protection offered.

Can't dispute that.

Heh, since I've started doing this myself, I wouldn't really regard it as an interesting choice. Basically, the Oblivion bits are so god awfully boring, I just do speed runs through them now. I don't even need to bother with speed buffs or anything, it's just a mad dash, and like many things in Oblivion it feels more like I'm cheating the system than making a legitimate choice.

It actually reminds me of an easier version of Doom speedrunning.

That to me, is how open-ended RPGing should be. Give the player a goal, a thread to tug on, and provide a multitude of choice that simply piggybacks the game's core features.

Sounds good to me.

SA from memory, had quite a lot of the "open-ended" style choices built on core game functionality, and shied away from the easily broken "multiple explicitly scripted options" choices, and that's why I think it fares much better.

Yes but that's a lot easier given that GTA:SA has essentially no dialogue incorporated into its quests. Oblivion hardly has great dialogue but it is there and these inevitably lead to multiply explicitly scripted options. Dialogue puts you in the situation of multiply explicitly scripted options; games with great dialogue trees provide an illusion (to some extent) that this isn't the case.

Whoah there. They're very different in concept, because they're explicit rewards for the player's choice to take on a set of associated missions/challenges. If the player has made the extra effort to do something above and beyond what is required of them, they're rewarded.

If I decide to go into a dungeon that I don't need to go into, kill some marauders and gather the associated loot, then I've pretty much satsified everything you've just listed. You can argue that the reward and the task aren't as "explicit" as in GTA:SA (given their variability) but I would consider that nit-picking.

It's certainly not ideal, but it is consistent, and that does a lot for me in terms of plausibility and suspension of disbelief, which are important for RPGs. Also, it's better than the Oblivion alternative, which is the crux of the discussion.

The crux of the discussion, as I understand it, is whether GTA:SA is a better rpg than Oblivion not a better game (which I freely concede it is). Consequently, the fact that this isn't an appropriate rpg mechanism seems very pertinent to me.

Hmm, I don't think dissimilar is quite the right term. I think as long as the player can reasonably be made aware of the world's rules, you could have an RPG set anywhere.

However, I think what you're getting at, is the idea of a world that is similar to something the player is familiar with, and yet behaves in a contrary manner. For instance, using GTA:SA as an example, instead of eating to regain health, which is a reasonable abstraction, you have to throw yourself under moving vehicles to regain health, which is ultimately a complete contradiction to what the player would expect.

Perhaps "obtuse" is a better word than "dissimilar".

And in that case, the designers would be facing a huge uphill battle in trying to inform the player of what to expect. It wouldn't be impossible, and oddly enough, the example I gave above could work since it is basically the exact opposite of the expected behaviour. If the whole world was some kind of opposite land, then the player could quite easily grow accustomed to it since it still has strong ties to what they're familiar with. It wouldn't take them long to figure out that you kill things by healing them, make things bigger by shrinking them, and whatever other silliness.

A related problem is that the games industry seems to remember original, creative games that were flops more than cookie-cutter games which were flops. Look at what happened to adventure games after the (commercial) failure of Grim Fandango.

5 at once, I believe. But if you have 5 instant use healing potions, you can quaff them, double tap your tab key, and then quaff another 5.

I generally am a real miser when it comes to things like potion and (in other games) ammo use so I don't tend to notice things like this. That being said, if this is the mechanism then it certainly can be improved.

At the moment, I've exhausted all of the core gameplay options, and all that's left is the pursuit of specific quest lines.

Which in a nutshell is why Oblivion isn't a good RPG.

I can really see this. I'd probably enjoy Oblivion as much as I enjoyed Daggerfall if I'd come at it with the same relative "gaming experience", and I really can understand how someone who has never experienced anything quite like it would really get into it. But I've played too many other games that both exceed the quality of individual features, and also the game as a whole to enjoy Oblivion.

That's the big problem with a lot of people at the ESF (I'm referring here to most of the "newer" members) - they lack experience with a lot of games. Consequently, they make comments like "what else does this" and when someone replies with a game that does it better, which they haven't played, they tell people to "go play that game".

On the other hand, GTA:SA is a clear advancement from its peers, and is markedly more complex than Vice City, while preserving the core gameplay.

Absolutely. I really was impressed with what they did with it when it could have been just a simply VC clone.

No! It didn't feel right to me at all. Stealth gameplay without a light gem is like FPS gaming without a health or ammo counter. It can be passable, but just doesn't quite measure up.

I would have agreed with you until recently but I think that the advancement of lighting engines is making it easier to make one's own judgements on this. Of course, it may just be that my (informal) sense of visibility is similar to the programmers in this particular case.

But most of all, what is sorely lacking from the stealth gameplay is any kind of inter AI alerts. Stealth in Oblivion could be so much better if it became "situational". As in, for each situation, I have to carefully consider my actions with regard to simple interdependencies of AI. As it stands, Oblivion's stealth system is basically "hide and kill" each individual as though they're isolated from one another. That's just terrible.

This could certainly be improved. I also consider this problem rather ironic given the guards often know too much...

No, again! I can't agree with that either. I couldn't really find anything interesting about combat. Against a single opponent - Block. Swing. Swing. Repeat. Against multiple opponents - Swing. Repeat. In any combat, if it was overwhelming, the neverending supply of instant healing potions basically nullified any chance of ever being overwhelmed. I didn't even find that Oblivion's foot combat could better Mount & Blade's.

I think it depends on your style of combat. Unlike a lot of people, I have a "swashbuckler" approach to combat that involves a lot of moving. Consequently, when there is little room to maneuvour, I do feel a bit like you said. If I had more of "stand and deliver" approach (I talking relatives here not absolutes), I would probably dislike the system as much as you do.

 

[Section8]

For whatever reason, I can't do the lockpicking game easily (though I have managed to open very hard locks with reasonable security levels) so unlocking spells are useful to me. In what is hardly a good thing, I actually use charm spells to avoid the idiotic pesuasion minigame...

The trick is to (oh, er don't read this if you want to preserve lockpicking as a worthwhile part of the game) tap the tumblers until you get a "slow rise" which can be picked up on visually, but I find it's best to listen for the "ka-clink" sound, as opposed to the single "clink" of a fast rise.

Yes but that's a lot easier given that GTA:SA has essentially no dialogue incorporated into its quests. Oblivion hardly has great dialogue but it is there and these inevitably lead to multiply explicitly scripted options. Dialogue puts you in the situation of multiply explicitly scripted options; games with great dialogue trees provide an illusion (to some extent) that this isn't the case.

That's a fair observation, especially with reference to interview/investigation style quests.

If I decide to go into a dungeon that I don't need to go into, kill some marauders and gather the associated loot, then I've pretty much satsified everything you've just listed. You can argue that the reward and the task aren't as "explicit" as in GTA:SA (given their variability) but I would consider that nit-picking.

The major difference is that in your Oblivion example, you're acquiring a finite resource, whereas in GTA:SA, you're acquiring a supply. Which is pretty darn important considering how easy it lose/spend those resources. But my original point was to draw comparisons between the choice of optional Oblivion quests having a dynamic effect on the world, and I think the SA example is analogious.

The crux of the discussion, as I understand it, is whether GTA:SA is a better rpg than Oblivion not a better game (which I freely concede it is). Consequently, the fact that this isn't an appropriate rpg mechanism seems very pertinent to me.

Well, despite being far from ideal in RPG terms, I don't think it's exclusively inappropriate. The fact that it encourages me to view my play sessions as a single continuous timeline alone is a great boon in both terms of immersing myself in the world, but also in accepting negative consequences. It bears more semblence to a P&P session, where all occurences are final, as opposed to the typical CRPG where anything bad can be undone with a keystroke.

A related problem is [...] the games industry [...]

Fixed :D

I generally am a real miser when it comes to things like potion and (in other games) ammo use so I don't tend to notice things like this. That being said, if this is the mechanism then it certainly can be improved.

Oh, I'm usually the same. But the complete imbalance of the bandit/marauder/necro/conjurer difficulty curve (which I was always well above) vs the daedric critters difficulty curve (which I was constantly falling behind until I became a Master Armourer) was such that I'd accumulate so many potions from killing humans*, and then get beaten on so hard by the Daedra, that I'd just chug them en masse.

I think it depends on your style of combat. Unlike a lot of people, I have a "swashbuckler" approach to combat that involves a lot of moving. Consequently, when there is little room to maneuvour, I do feel a bit like you said. If I had more of "stand and deliver" approach (I talking relatives here not absolutes), I would probably dislike the system as much as you do.

Well, the character I've done the most with is a "paladin" specialising in shield and heavy armour, so I do what makes sense. However, I also invested quite a bit of time into a speedy unarmed brawler. Ignoring the obvious sword deficiency, I never really felt like a swashbuckler, since I found the most effective method was forward, attack, attack, back I found that just staying out of reach was far more effective than trying to sidestep any melee attacks.

The feeling I got was that enemies weren't locked onto a vector when they initiated an attack, and then granted freedom of rotation once the attack has completed. If they had done so, there would be a great swashbuckling dynamic, comparable to say, a melee fight with Halo's hunters, or even the charging bulls in Serious Sam.

I guess the long and short of it is, that there was always a safe and predictable approach to most combat. It didn't even do as Thief/System Shock did, and throw in some sneaky underhand attacks. Those occasional little unpredictable moments meant you could never 100% rely on pattern recognition combat "strategy."


* I once cleaned out a cave of necromancers, and they averaged about 30 Strong Healing and 30 Strong Mana potions each!

 

[7th Circle]

The trick is to (oh, er don't read this if you want to preserve lockpicking as a worthwhile part of the game) tap the tumblers until you get a "slow rise" which can be picked up on visually, but I find it's best to listen for the "ka-clink" sound, as opposed to the single "clink" of a fast rise.

Oh, I figured that out myself.

It's just that either fine motor control, mouse lag or some other problem prevents me from executing the timing properly with consistency.

The major difference is that in your Oblivion example, you're acquiring a finite resource, whereas in GTA:SA, you're acquiring a supply. Which is pretty darn important considering how easy it lose/spend those resources. But my original point was to draw comparisons between the choice of optional Oblivion quests having a dynamic effect on the world, and I think the SA example is analogious.

Fair enough as to your general point but I wouldn't say that the resource is finite given dungeons npcs respawn (with at least some loot) after a period of time. You may have to tap the resource each time to use it but is this really more than a difference of implementation?

It bears more semblence to a P&P session, where all occurences are final, as opposed to the typical CRPG where anything bad can be undone with a keystroke.

It's not final because you can always retry the mission...

 

[Section8]

Oh, I figured that out myself.

It's just that either fine motor control, mouse lag or some other problem prevents me from executing the timing properly with consistency.

Fair enough, and I won't hold it against you. :D

Fair enough as to your general point but I wouldn't say that the resource is finite given dungeons npcs respawn (with at least some loot) after a period of time. You may have to tap the resource each time to use it but is this really more than a difference of implementation?

I still think it's a significant enough difference. In SA, I can resort to to short term gains to achieve the same ends (I can kill people for their weapons/money) just like I can find a cave/dungeon and kill its occupants in Oblivion. Likewise, I can invest time and effort into securing long term gains, by doing optional missions/tasks in exchange for supply rewards in SA. In Oblivion, I can pay $2 of real money, and buy a tower that does the same.

If you try and genericise reward systems too much, then you fail to account for mechanics that are different enough to be interesting. For instance [edit] the follow examples all provide the same basic "reward", but a greatly different dynamic in achieving it (see Kingcomrade's supporting counter argument to my poorly phrased original point.)

* Piracy vs Industrialism in X
* Production vs Tax in Civ
* Mines vs Metal Makers in Total Annihilation
* Bank robbery vs protection rackets in The Godfather
* Using a Dungeon Siege party slot for a packmule instead of a combat character

But we really are digressing a bit.

 

[kingcomrade]

* Mines vs Metal Makers in Total Annihilation

What do you mean? Metal Makers were actually a great contribution to the game. It allows you to expand your production even after you've taken up all of the metal spaces you can find. The trade-off is that they require energy, which is an infinite resource you can build anywhere, and they require a lot of it to make a small amount of metal. In mid-to-late games I tell my commander to build like 20 sets of 4 solar panels/windmills with a metal maker attatched.

 

[bryce777]

* Mines vs Metal Makers in Total Annihilation

What do you mean? Metal Makers were actually a great contribution to the game. It allows you to expand your production even after you've taken up all of the metal spaces you can find. The trade-off is that they require energy, which is an infinite resource you can build anywhere, and they require a lot of it to make a small amount of metal. In mid-to-late games I tell my commander to build like 20 sets of 4 solar panels/windmills with a metal maker attatched.

I think the point was doing the same thing but with a dramatically different mechanic....

 

[Section8]

* Mines vs Metal Makers in Total Annihilation

What do you mean? Metal Makers were actually a great contribution to the game. It allows you to expand your production even after you've taken up all of the metal spaces you can find. The trade-off is that they require energy, which is an infinite resource you can build anywhere, and they require a lot of it to make a small amount of metal. In mid-to-late games I tell my commander to build like 20 sets of 4 solar panels/windmills with a metal maker attatched.

I think the point was doing the same thing but with a dramatically different mechanic....

My bad, I phrased that really poorly, and so I've done a quick edit. I think it's a great mechanic. Mines require strategic resources and defense thereof. Metal makers require you to put a whole lot of effort into power infrastructure. The difference seems minor, but it changes your whole strategy, from base layout to defensive structures and units.

And dammit, now I have to reinstall TA.

 

[kingcomrade]

At some point in time you uninstalled TA? You craven bastard.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

I unistalled TA after about a week or so. Oh ho oh ho.

 

[kingcomrade]

Yeah but we already know you don't have any taste in games.