Preview Oblivion preview at Gaming Target

[aboyd]

Then what exactly does "non-linear" mean, in your own words?

You know what? I don't think I care about how Saint defines it anymore. Although I hope you get your answer.

The bottom line for me is that Dungeon Siege felt linear, and BG2 & Arcanum & PS:T did not. I don't care about the semantic discussion of how someone categorizes Arcanum as "not linear" -- in the end, whatever word someone uses to describe that gameplay, it was good enough for me. I bought the game, I played it multiple times and saw vastly different things each time. If it's "fake" nonlinearity or "just many ways to solve a quest" -- well, that's enough. More games like that, and I'll buy 'em.

If developers want to spend more time to create 20 different endings, I'll take it. But if they want to say their game is non-linear and what I get is just a BG2-caliber game, I won't complain at all.

-Tony

 

[Surlent]

Arcanum just didn't have the cutscenes for chapters like BG2, PS:T, etc. did. You do have the freedom to roam around, however you do have a set plotline with Hoop A, Hoop B, Hoop C, and so on that you do have to jump through in a set order to complete the game.

So in your words, non linear game only has mandatory start and ending ? That's a good sandbox definition. But few necessary quests to access new areas of the game don't really break feel of nonlinearity at least for me if you are allowed to wander around in open world with multiple locations to go, progress in plot when you want to and have loads of side quests to do.

 

[EEVIAC]

Its only linear if hoops A,B, and C need to be completed in a set order, as they are in Arcanum. Hoops aren't the problem, hoops are pretty essential come to think of it. Why not have hoops A through G, then through the course of play have the player decide which of those hoops looks interesting enough to hoop through.

Hoopy.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

It's just the name that sucks. I can logically see combining axes, maces, and clubs into one weapon skill... but calling them "blunt" collectively is just stupid. It's like Bethesda doesn't know what the word blunt means.

Got a better term that encompasses axes, clubs, and maces?

 

[Micmu]

Got a better term that encompasses axes, clubs, and maces?

Actually, all those weapons were called hafted weapons in medieval times.

 

[triCritical]

It's just the name that sucks. I can logically see combining axes, maces, and clubs into one weapon skill... but calling them "blunt" collectively is just stupid. It's like Bethesda doesn't know what the word blunt means.

Got a better term that encompasses axes, clubs, and maces?

Yeah for one things drop the dependence of combat skills being dependent on weapons and instead fighting. A figting style would then in turn lend itself to a particular kind of weapons. ie. you will not be fencing with a mace, club or axe. Likewise, heavy weapon infantry, or man at arms skilled warriors circa agencourt would not be using rapiers, katana's and daggers.

Hell even combining weapons to their relative weight, or size would be a better step. But considering the game will be coming out in a couple months, I guess this will have to wait until ES5 :wink: .

 

[triCritical]

Got a better term that encompasses axes, clubs, and maces?

Actually, all those weapons were called hafted weapons in medieval times.

wouldn't all weapons with a handle or hilt be called a hafted weapon?

 

[triCritical]

Then what exactly does "non-linear" mean, in your own words?

My own definition, is essentially more then one way to get from point a to point b. The more paths that there are the more non-linear the game is. The larger variety of things that result from different paths the better the non-linearity is implemented.

Of course this definition, mathematically is probably more akin to theorems found in the calculus of variations, rather then linearity of a function or operator.

 

[Zli]

Got a better term that encompasses axes, clubs, and maces?

Actually, all those weapons were called hafted weapons in medieval times.

wouldn't all weapons with a handle or hilt be called a hafted weapon?

Well, the definiton I found is

- A Hafted weapon is an axe, hammer, mace, or any other weapon that commonly utilizes a wooden shaft with large or substantial striking surface attached to it. It is not as precisely balanced as a bladed weapon, but its larger mass and weight distribution can inflict substantial damage.

The only problem is - clubs aren't hafted weapons - they're just clubs. But it'd make more sense calling them hafted than calling axes blunt.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's just the name that sucks. I can logically see combining axes, maces, and clubs into one weapon skill... but calling them "blunt" collectively is just stupid. It's like Bethesda doesn't know what the word blunt means.

Got a better term that encompasses axes, clubs, and maces?

No, but you throw swords in, you can call them all WEAPONZ!!! Very easy to balance.

 

[triCritical]

The only problem is - clubs aren't hafted weapons - they're just clubs. But it'd make more sense calling them hafted than calling axes blunt.

Where is the definition coming from? I just googled "hafted weapon" and included all sort of things such as whips and spiked chains, mainly definitions for different RPG systems. I guess I was going from the definition of a haft, which is a handle or hilt, which just about every weapon or tool has.

BTW, I think whips and morning stars would be r0x0rs in Oblivion, seriously!

 

[Chefe]

Got a better term that encompasses axes, clubs, and maces?

Actually, all those weapons were called hafted weapons in medieval times.

I could go with Hafted, like the name too.

And with clubs not being hafted... maybe they are just considered hafted in Tamriel collectively along with axes, maces, and hammers. Alot better than calling an axe a blunt weapon, unless they're going to make all the axes in the world unsharpened.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Allowing multiple means of doing things doesn't make it non-linear, it just makes it balanced. If you have a character system with gobs of options, you have to have multiple means of doing things so players can explore those options.

Doom and Zork were so unbalanced.

 

[Micmu]

BTW, I think whips and morning stars would be r0x0rs in Oblivion, seriously!

Blasphemy!
Aftey they took out a half of weapon types (xbows, darts, shurikens, spears, halberds) it's kinda odd that they'll actually add a weapon type. But surely morning stars would work great with Havok - if designed so. As for other weapons, more work for modders; I just wonder where to put new weapon types (which skill).

 

[triCritical]

BTW, I think whips and morning stars would be r0x0rs in Oblivion, seriously!

Blasphemy!
Aftey they took out a half of weapon types (xbows, darts, shurikens, spears, halberds) it's kinda odd that they'll actually add a weapon type. But surely morning stars would work great with Havok - if designed so. As for other weapons, more work for modders; I just wonder where to put new weapon types (which skill).

Is this from Morrowind or Daggerfall. Why would they take out the polearms? That is insanity? I take it you can't play an argonian? I better check out the Oblivion FAQ...

 

[Section8]

ASCII time! I think that Linear and Non-Linear can get a bit blurred in definition, so...

Fig. 1:

A------------------->B


Fig. 2:
        _______B________
       /                                \
A--------------C---------------------->E
       \________________/
                      D

Fig. 3:
         D                   E F          
         |                    |/            
A--------------->B------------------------>C
                |             |
               G             H

Fig. 4:

                 C                     E
A                              D                      B
                          G
                 F                       H

I don't think there would be any argument in labelling Figure 1 as Linear.

But then we get to Figure 2, is it linear? Does having three parallel pathways (that are in themselves linear) count as non-linearity? There's obviously a degree of choice and quite possibly a marked differentiation in the experience each path provides for a player.

Figure 3 represents the notion of optional "side-quests" as opposed to distinct parallel paths, but would it be termed non-linear? It can certainly be linear if the player chooses to ignore all of the branches, but is it also able to be non-linear given the player can take a path from B to E, F or H in any order?

Obviously, these are tiny parts of a much larger and complex flowchart that would illustrate the average CRPG, but it shows the difficulty in defining exactly what linearity is.

It's certainly true that Arcanum's main plot requires the player to take specific steps in a fixed order, but it also provides varying methods to accomplish some steps (as in Figure 2) and also provides an abundance of unrelated diversions (as in Figure 3). When factoring in the optional elements, it's highly unlikely two characters would take exactly the same path through the game.

Personally, I think whether or not it fits the definition of linear or non-linear is a bit pointless. A better question would be "Why is my character forced through a purely combat area in order to advance the central narrative?"

---

Anyway, back on topic. I think "hafted weapons" is a reasonable term. when you think about common features shared by swords, the blade comes to mind instantly. When you think about the common features of axes, maces, hammers, etc. it's the (usually) wooden handle or haft that springs to mind. At least it isn't an outright misnomer like "Blunt".

But really, triCritical nailed it with his comment that skills would be better differentiated by the action involved. A Thrust skill is much more intuitive than the speed and weight of a weapon. I mean, it stands to reason that the actual skill determines a player's effectiveness with a weapon rather than peripheral skills. While I have nothing against adding some interesting "grey" choices to Oblivion, I thought the whole point of TES was complete freedom, not "a strong slow character should choose claymores, and an agile character should use daggers."

If you have a short blade skill, that is dependent on agility, and a light armour skill that is likewise determined by agility, it guides the player into a "sensible" character archetype, just like a two-handed weapon skill that is dependent on strength guides "strong, slow" characters to make a sensible choice.

A unified "Blades" skill implies that my character is equally effective across the gamut of bladed weapons. It also reduces swordplay down to a single primary statistic, so a big, hulking fighter is likely to be forced into become big, hulking and surprisingly agile just to keep their blade skill going upward.

But hey, balancing a character system is subjective thing so my own musings on a minor part of it don't really mean a whole lot.

 

[Section8]

<double post snip>

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Got a better term that encompasses axes, clubs, and maces?

Nasty things on a stick skill.

However, I'd love to hear your explanation on how "blunted weapon" encompasses "axe".

So in your words, non linear game only has mandatory start and ending ? That's a good sandbox definition. But few necessary quests to access new areas of the game don't really break feel of nonlinearity at least for me if you are allowed to wander around in open world with multiple locations to go, progress in plot when you want to and have loads of side quests to do.

Mandatory start and ending doesn't make the game linear. Having a bunch of middle plot points which have to be done in a set order so you can move along the next knot in the plot line does make it linear.

Are there multiple ways to get the prism goggles on the Isle of Despair? You betcha.. Can you complete the game without getting those goggles? Nope. Do you have to get to the Isle of Despair in order to get the goggles? Most definitely. Can you get to the Isle before doing the Mr. Bates stuff? Not at all.

I hate to break this to you guys, but just because you liked a game doesn't make it non-linear. There are lots of good linear CRPGs, and in terms of the world design, Arcanum is one of them. It's just the character system and combat that sucked nuts.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Saint's right. Arcanum is linear. In its defence, however, it's nowhere near as linear as say, Morrowind. For example, Morrowind had you running through to be named Hortator and all that other shit. Each main plot quest was defined and laid out before you. If you stuffed up, GAME OVER.

Arcanum isn't anywhere near as linear as that but is still linear. Copying Section8, I'd draw it something like this:

Morrowind has each step and ONLY that step. There is a set way and ONLY that way to complete and reach the next step. It all ends with the same outcome.

Arcanum on the other hand, has a handful of key steps but there are multiple ways to reach those steps. There are in fact many ways to reach the next step but you must still reach the next step (though in some cases, there is only one or two ways to reach the next step).

So while Morrowind forces your hand, Arcanum is a bit freer. In Morrowind, you not only HAVE to be named Hortator but you MUST do it the pre-defined way through the same series of quests. In Arcanum, you HAVE to find out about Gilbert's ring but there are several ways in which you can reach that step. You can talk to people, find the map at Razlo's, wander about until you bump into him etc... Some steps simply have more options than others but you must reach the next step.

Compare that with Fallout:

You MUST get the Water Chip. How you do it is up to you but you must reach that step (NOTE: I am aware you can kill the Muties before you get the Chip and therefore finish the game but I consider that a bug). What you do beyond that is up to you. Now, while you are "lead" to each step you are not FORCED into doing things. EG: You are told about Vault 15 but you don't have to go there. You can in fact simply wander around until you stumble across Necropolis. How you find and deal with the Muties is also left up to you. Hell, you can even join them if you want.

Given the examples above, I define a linear game as a game where you are lead to each successive step and often, you are FORCED into doing only one thing in order to reach that step (Think Doom: You must find the blue key and open the blue door, then the yellow key and so on, in a set order). The number of steps also factors in. A game with a lot of steps (ala Arcanum) is more linear than a game with fewer steps (ala Fallout). A game with many steps (ala Morrowind) is more linear.

If Morrowind was more along the lines of something like this:

... it would be non-linear. How you find out about the bad guy is up to you. How you hunt him down is up to you. How you defeat him (or if you want to join him) is up to you (Having multiple ways to finish him off is always a good thing. IE: Seal him in his mountain forever, get the weapons and destroy the heart or face him in a duel of some sort). In this scenario, you don't have to be named Hortator and fulfil the prophecy. You would certainly be free too if you chose to do so but there would be nothing stopping you from wandering up to Mount Doom, finding the little lever, opening it and walking in to do the best you can even if you haven't done the stupid prophecy.

As you can see, less is more.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Saint's right. Arcanum is linear. In its defence, however, it's nowhere near as linear as say, Morrowind. For example, Morrowind had you running through to be named Hortator and all that other shit. Each main plot quest was defined and laid out before you. If you stuffed up, GAME OVER.

Arcanum isn't anywhere near as linear as that but is still linear. Copying Section8, I'd draw it something like this:

Morrowind has each step and ONLY that step. There is a set way and ONLY that way to complete and reach the next step. It all ends with the same outcome.

Arcanum on the other hand, has a handful of key steps but there are multiple ways to reach those steps. There are in fact many ways to reach the next step but you must still reach the next step (though in some cases, there is only one or two ways to reach the next step).

So while Morrowind forces your hand, Arcanum is a bit freer. In Morrowind, you not only HAVE to be named Hortator but you MUST do it the pre-defined way through the same series of quests. In Arcanum, you HAVE to find out about Gilbert's ring but there are several ways in which you can reach that step. You can talk to people, find the map at Razlo's, wander about until you bump into him etc... Some steps simply have more options than others but you must reach the next step.

Compare that with Fallout:

You MUST get the Water Chip. How you do it is up to you but you must reach that step (NOTE: I am aware you can kill the Muties before you get the Chip and therefore finish the game but I consider that a bug). What you do beyond that is up to you. Now, while you are "lead" to each step you are not FORCED into doing things. EG: You are told about Vault 15 but you don't have to go there. You can in fact simply wander around until you stumble across Necropolis. How you find and deal with the Muties is also left up to you. Hell, you can even join them if you want.

Given the examples above, I define a linear game as a game where you are lead to each successive step and often, you are FORCED into doing only one thing in order to reach that step (Think Doom: You must find the blue key and open the blue door, then the yellow key and so on, in a set order). The number of steps also factors in. A game with a lot of steps (ala Arcanum) is more linear than a game with fewer steps (ala Fallout). A game with many steps (ala Morrowind) is more linear.

If Morrowind was more along the lines of something like this:

... it would be non-linear. How you find out about the bad guy is up to you. How you hunt him down is up to you. How you defeat him (or if you want to join him) is up to you (Having multiple ways to finish him off is always a good thing. IE: Seal him in his mountain forever, get the weapons and destroy the heart or face him in a duel of some sort). In this scenario, you don't have to be named Hortator and fulfil the prophecy. You would certainly be free too if you chose to do so but there would be nothing stopping you from wandering up to Mount Doom, finding the little lever, opening it and walking in to do the best you can even if you haven't done the stupid prophecy.

As you can see, less is more.

I can't believe you just called Fallout linear. Are you some kind of moron?

 

[Tintin]

I don't think he called Fallout linear.

Now, while you are "lead" to each step you are not FORCED into doing things

 

[Chefe]

There is actually an alternate questline to Morrowind, but it really, really sucks.

Why does it suck? Well, the idea is interesting but it is poorly executed. Pretty much, you can kill Vivec and no one thinks you did it, the Dwarf doesn't care, fucking Dagoth Ur doesn't care. He just talks to you like you completed the quests anyways. Even the fucking goddess at the end that appears to you says you're Hortator and Nerevarine and all that shit... EVEN IF YOU NEVER WENT TO GO SEE CASIUS! Everyone seems to know what you did and calls you Nerevarine anyways, despite the fact you didn't talk to anyone except the Dwarf and Dagoth Ur.

 

[Chefe]

I can't believe you just called Fallout linear. Are you some kind of moron?

I can't believe you don't know how to read a post and can only look at the pretty pictures.

 

[Sol Invictus]

That diagram sure as hell looks linear to me, but that's not what I'm getting at.

DU seems to be implying that Fallout is linear at points because there are some plot critical stuff that you have to do, like finding the waterchip. He calls killing the muties early a 'bug'. How is it a bug when the developers clearly anticipated some players doing it with the dialogue for it?

Clearly the game isn't linear just because he thinks that the option is a bug. That's what I'm getting at, angler.

Of course, I don't disagree with the rest of the stuff he said, and should have said so in my reply. Getting the waterchip: it's the background for how you roleplay your character.

It merely sets the stage for the setting of the campaign, much like a D&D campaign would set you up by saying "Go rescue the magical staff". How you do it, what you do with it if and when you find it, and so forth are done in a completely non-linear fashion, hence Fallout isn't a game with linear, sequential progression. Finding the waterchip is merely an end goal, it isn't a linear sequence.

However, DU's argument that Fallout forces you to find the waterchip too, is false - hence my earlier response. Fallout does not force you to find the waterchip, so there is no 'linearity at points'.

 

[Chefe]

To tell you the truth, I didn't even take much notice to that so-called "bug" he mentioned. I was more referring to the fact that his diagram was a shorthand version of him saying in his post that you must get the waterchip and either kill or join the muties, but however you do it is up to you.