Oblivion codex update

[Fresh]

No, actually, SB, you are a sorry pervert who attempts humor by posting or linking to misanthropic crap.

Altarboy, what did I tell you about judging others?

 

[Stella Brando]

said:

No, actually, SB, you are a sorry pervert who attempts humor by posting or linking to misanthropic crap.

I resent being called "sorry." I think it should be replaced by "carefree" "adventurous" "happy" or "proud." The rest is true.

 

[Twinfalls]

@stalin-brando: What Shagnak said.

@ExMonk: Sermon time's up, get off the pulpit.

Monk, it's not that I like posting pornography (you'll note the links I put up are very mild and barely qualify as such), its just the sheer humbug of your pious posturing.

Let me make this clear: I find pornography deeply objectionable and a frightening symptom of the social and economic structures in which we live. Pornography - especially the modern, depraved variety - is dehumanising. It is addictive, it causes sexual dysfunction, it widens the gap between people, it creates objectification, it fosters a culture of sexual violence, children who are repeatedly exposed to it (almost all children now) can be psychologically damaged for life.

So stop pretending you've got some kind of claim over the high moral ground on pornography. You don't.

As for your reasons for objecting to porn:

Pornography revels in sex in an extremely narcisistic way. Sex for sex's sake. From the Judeo-Christian perspective, sex is one of the most beautiful and intimate expressions of love. Sex is all showing love to one's spouse, and bringing the other pleasure. Porn sex is all about getting off--bringing myself pleasure. Porn sex is sex turned inward.

- Get real.

Sex is about self-pleasure, OK? That's how it's hard-wired in us, that's how it serves its evolutionary purpose.

Or are you saying you have never masturbated?

Hmm, ExMonk? Never Beat the Bishop?

It's exactly that Christian Church dogma - that sex should not be enjoyed, that self-pleasure is WICKED - that is as deeply objectionable as pornography itself. You have simply swallowed and are now regurgitating a clever bit of mind-control propaganda. That's the Catholic Church's way - fear, guilt, shame.

 

[ExMonk]

- Get real. blah.

Twins: First off, thanks for the articulate comments about porn.

But then what the right hand gives, the left hand takes away. You have this tendency to ruin otherwise excellent posts with over the top comments. Like this one:

It's exactly that Christian Church dogma - that sex should not be enjoyed, that self-pleasure is WICKED - that is as deeply objectionable as pornography itself.

This is unequivocally inaccurate. It is not Christian church dogma that sex should not be enjoyed--or that is wicked. It is nowhere taught in sacred Scripture. It is nowhere taught in any church I'm aware of (I will grant that there have been periods in Roman Catholic history where this was true, however). Nor did my post say that.

My point was that the entire emphasis of porn sex is on getting off, i.e., self-pleasure. But the emphasis of sex as God designed it is on love, bringing pleasure to the other, within marriage. Emphasis. Focus. In no way does this mean, nor did I mean, that sex is not intended to bring self-pleasure. Of course it does.

It is true that sex outside of marriage is sinful. Is that what you were referring to?

Then there is this quote:

You have simply swallowed and are now regurgitating a clever bit of mind-control propaganda. That's the Catholic Church's way - fear, guilt, shame

Right. FTR, I am not Catholic. What is with the ridiculous generalizations? Do you really think that every Christian is a mindless drone that simply accepts everything taught without mentally processing it? If you do, you are sadly mistaken.

And enough with the stupid comment about the Church just being a mind-control machine. I think it is closer to the truth to say that you, and many people today, have a serious problem with authority. I think you would have a problem with any authority telling you that something you want to do is wrong. All of it would be mind control progaganda. I find that humerous.

The Church, when it is faithful, simply proclaims what God has said. Because he is Creator, he has an insight into what will ultimately hurt and harm us. He calls that sin. And he tries to keep us from such harm by commandments--in the same way that guard rails attempt to prevent people from driving off the road to their doom. He sees what much of our vaunted freedom will bring us in the end. And he wants to prevent it. Because he loves us. Not because he is a cosmic kill joy.

 

[Twinfalls]

Twins: First off, thanks for the articulate comments about porn.

Well thank you!

But then what the right hand gives, the left hand takes away.

Kind of appropriate for a masturbation/porn discussion.

It is not Christian church dogma that sex should not be enjoyed--or that is wicked. It is nowhere taught in sacred Scripture. It is nowhere taught in any church I'm aware of (I will grant that there have been periods in Roman Catholic history where this was true, however). Nor did my post say that.

Okay, retracted. Unfair and admittedly ignorant assumption.

My point was that the entire emphasis of porn sex is on getting off, i.e., self-pleasure. But the emphasis of sex as God designed it is on love, bringing pleasure to the other, within marriage. Emphasis. Focus. In no way does this mean, nor did I mean, that sex is not intended to bring self-pleasure. Of course it does.

Now here's your original comment:

From the Judeo-Christian perspective, sex is one of the most beautiful and intimate expressions of love. Sex is all showing love to one's spouse, and bringing the other pleasure. Porn sex is all about getting off--bringing myself pleasure. Porn sex is sex turned inward.

My emphasis added. See how one would conclude you were suggesting self-pleasure is proscribed? But I accept your clarification and believe you don't see it that way.

You have simply swallowed and are now regurgitating a clever bit of mind-control propaganda. That's the Catholic Church's way - fear, guilt, shame

Right. FTR, I am not Catholic. What is with the ridiculous generalizations? Do you really think that every Christian is a mindless drone that simply accepts everything taught without mentally processing it? If you do, you are sadly mistaken.

Okay, once again, fair call. Over-the-top generalisation.

I think it is closer to the truth to say that you, and many people today, have a serious problem with authority. I think you would have a problem with any authority telling you that something you want to do is wrong.

Now who's generalising? I most certainly do not 'have a problem with authority'. In fact, I think there is a very serious malaise in society whereby the rule of law has been eroded. Judges, politicians and the law generally have been under such concerted attack in the media that if anything I would say the problem we have with 'authority' is that we do not appreciate how important it is to our society.

What I do have a problem with is undemocratic authority. This is a very important distinction. The onus is upon religious institutions to demonstrate why they do not fall into this camp, especially when they invoke irrefutable doctrine as their source of power.

The Church, when it is faithful, simply proclaims what God has said. Because he is Creator, he has an insight into what will ultimately hurt and harm us. He calls that sin. And he tries to keep us from such harm by commandments--in the same way that guard rails attempt to prevent people from driving off the road to their doom. He sees what much of our vaunted freedom will bring us in the end. And he wants to prevent it. Because he loves us. Not because he is a cosmic kill joy.

No argument with your beliefs, ExMonk. It's more the piousness at our immaturity. Your yin to our yang-spanking, if you will.... :wink:

 

[crpgnut]

Going off on a tangent, I don't think Solomon's Song or any of Paul's letters belong in the Bible. They could be in the apocrypha, but I don't think they're quite up to the Good Book snuff.

Many people dislike Paul's letters. They are extremely challenging to one who professes Christ. Peter wrote about Paul saying, " 2 Peter 3:14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

Peter ratifies the letters of Paul as Scripture though, so like it or not if you don't believe Paul's letters are God inspired, you might as well throw away all the Scriptures. You could be like good old King Jehoiakim then

Just for the record, I'm kinda like the rich young ruler. I believe the word of God, but I walk away saddened because I just can't live like that. I'm not naive enough to believe that calling myself a Christian makes me one. If that was the case, Christ wouldn't have said many will come but few will enter.

 

[hiciacit]

Do you really think that every Christian is a mindless drone that simply accepts everything taught without mentally processing it?

I do actually. Of course, the same goes for Muslims, Hindoes, and what have you not.

 

[Lumpy]

No it's not "almost similar", it seems smaller and mediocre. As seen from screenshots & videos, they even changed the spell names to something more... *ehm* accessible. Heal Moderate Wounds!?
Oh, IMO, Daggerfall's spell system was better than Morrowind's.

Smaller? How so?
Some spells have been removed, some other have been added. Otherwise, it seems great.
The fact that the enchant skill was removed sucks though.

Besides, Morrowind's magic system was one of the best I've seen. Sure, spells are more generic than other RPGs, but that's because we've got the excellent Spellmaking system.

 

[HardCode]

How come, there is absolutely no info in there that wasn't known beforehand?

As you and Lumpy asked, I know that nothing is new per se in the codex. It's just seeing all of the missing parts as a ... missing whole? ... as an in-your-face thing. Hearing the sadness of what Beth did to the game in dribs and drabs is one thing. Seeing them summed up together just creates a greater impact. Thus, it shifts my decision.

:shrug: sure, it's your money. Remember that there will be mods, though, so it may still be an excellent bargain bin purchase for you.

That's the plan actually. I want to first see how the game is "out of the box". Then, I want to see what mods fixed what. Then, I'll decide.

It's not the money. I'm not rich, but $50 - $60 ever few weeks for games is no burden. Nowadays for me, it's a matter of principle.

 

[crpgnut]

I'm going to get word of mouth before buying the game too. What has been released about Oblivion hasn't really got me very excited about the game. All I really know is that it looks nice and uses Havoc. Not enough to plop down $60 until I learn more. Every update on the codex is just more of the same. I keep waiting for examples of how the game has evolved instead of decayed.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I'll be happy to let you know what I think of it, but I may be too uncritical for your tastes - but hey, VD and the others are sure to offset that

 

[franc kaos]

I'll be happy to let you know what I think of it, but I may be too uncritical for your tastes - but hey, VD and the others are sure to offset that

Actually, I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts about the game (as well as Chefe's). I think, being on this forum has taught me quite a bit about what should be expected from a role playing game (... and religion, gaping arses and lego photo shoots). But I'm fully expecting you to see beyond the glossy surface.

Luckily I'm off to India early 2006, so I'll have a chance to read what people think about the game before (if) I buy it, and what the modding community has managed to do with it. I'm still (kind'a) hopeful...


~To see the world in a grain of sand...

 

[OverrideB1]

Even with *ahem* unbiased reports on the game, I'm unlikely to get it until it hits the 3 for £20 bracket, assuming I even bother. That little that has been added that is of any actual worth fails to offset the mind-numbing balancing that has been done in the name of making the game accessible and kewl.

 

[franc kaos]

Even with *ahem* unbiased reports on the game, I'm unlikely to get it until it hits the 3 for £20 bracket, assuming I even bother. That little that has been added that is of any actual worth fails to offset the mind-numbing balancing that has been done in the name of making the game accessible and kewl.

The first couple of weeks after it's release it'll be more fun reading on this and TES boards about people's perception of the finished game, will it run like shit on a PC that doesn't cost £2000 (sterling), are the quests as intricate as promised, who's gonna be the first person to mod panniers for the horses, did Beth leave the staff 'n spear animation hidden ingame? I'm actually looking forward to a review from VD more than the game itself.

 

[Jason]

A lot of Codexers are looking forward to VD more than the game itself, and I'm not talking about Vault Dweller. But seriously folks...

 

[Micmu]

This ought to be very fun. Can't wait. (...to see whether this game will live up to it's hype).

 

[Twinfalls]

I too am greatly looking forward to VD's review.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I will review Oblivion when it's released. Although I don't expect much, if the game is good or has some good/strong elements that would be a pleasant surprise and will be reflected in my review.

 

[Twinfalls]

I'm hoping you're totally blown away with shock at how good it actually turns out, I really am. I want this game to be good.

 

[Lumpy]

Although my expectations have severely dropped since I first heard of Oblivion, I still hope that it will be a good game. We don't know enough about the storylines and the miscellaneous quests, so they might actually turn out to be good.

 

[Blacklung]

Same here. I liked morrowind (yeah so sue me), so even if it's not to different I'll probably enjoy it.

BTW simply because you like morrowind doesn't mean you have bad taste in RPG's, it just means you like a different type of game. I'm a curious cat, I like to explore lot's of things. I'm a packrat, collecting tons of things is fun to me for some damn reason. Sometimes I get a powertrip, I like to rule everything and be able to destroy or comand it all. Vanity sometimes get's the best of me, I like being able to alter the appearances of my character a lot. There are other guilty pleasures for everyone else I'm sure, and quite a few were covered in this game.

For those that say morrowind was a bad RPG in the sense of immersion with characters, dead on. For those that say the NPC's were static and boring, bingo. For those who said the quests were too run of the mill, damn straight. For those who call out the combat system simplicity, magic system faults, trap stupidity, again you are on the mark. However, I believe it was more the catering to such guilty pleasures which made the game popular, not the rpg elements (unless you count pretending to be someone else).

Call Morrowind a bad RPG, sure, okay, I'll agree. Call it a bad game, nope, too many liked it. If you hated it, well of course, nothing can satisfy everyone.

Thus if Oblivion succeeds in making a morrowind while fixing (adding) RPG elements, well then damn...I'll be one very happy camper.