Review Oblivion Review

[AnalogKid]

This is consistently overblown. Guards regularly die to daedra that I can defeat.

Until you can defeat the daedra. Then the guards will have an easier time than you. That's not overblown, that's the way it is.

As for your second reply, you again point out many poorly implemented ways of providing character growth, and then proceed to condemn the entire concept. I agree that power-growth of what, 100x ? or more is common in previous games because they want to exaggerate the feeling of rewards for improvement. Hell, the only real reason Oblivion has "levels" at all is to give the player more food pellets. The skills are all that's really needed, and I'm all for more subtle and realistic character growth. But whatever growth exists should be (once again...) MEANINGFUL, not just keep you treading water against more difficult bad guys.

This is going the way of defining role playing games, and I'll offer no such definition. What I will offer, though, is that one component of role-playing games is being able to mold and change the character (i.e. character growth). Much like in movies or novels, if nothing about the protaganist changes, it's empty and flat. In video games, if there are changes, but compared to the gameworld they don't really matter, it's empty and flat (the curse of MMOs). Worse, if the growth causes the gameworld to be a fucking joke (as is the case with Oblivion), it's a detriment to the game. Growth doesn't have to be in terms of fighting power, but in CRPGs, fighting is by far the most prevalent game mechanic.

You (and even I) can enjoy many games that don't have character growth. The reason I mentioned SF2 specifically is because I loved that game. But they aren't role-playing games, they weren't hyped as such, and we're not discussing them at a website devoted to "putting the role back in RPGs"!

 

[Crichton]

You (and even I) can enjoy many games that don't have character growth. The reason I mentioned SF2 specifically is because I loved that game. But they aren't role-playing games,

So are Arcanum and Toee only 50% RPGs because you can hit the level cap half way through? For that matter, on top of DS, Diablo, MMOs Sacred and whatnot, even Warcraft 3 and Spellforce give you a character to level-grind, does this make them RPGs?

 

[Solik]

Until you can defeat the daedra. Then the guards will have an easier time than you. That's not overblown, that's the way it is.

Please read.

This is consistently overblown. Guards regularly die to daedra that I can defeat.

 

[Human Shield]

What point is there in forcing the player to grind to access the additional content? It doesn't give the game any more conent, it just alters the order, now instead of fighting the monsters whenever you like, you have to kill 20,000 xp worth of them to advance to the next quest (TIMESINK). As for enjoying using your UBARSWARDMAN to pwn a goblin, where's the fun? If your so much stronger than the enemies that you can't lose, why have the fight at all?

It is called a consistent world, not one that revolves around the hero character. If a race of tough monsters are in an area they shouldn't drop in power because they mite hurt the precious player's feelings.

Pwning goblins and moving up is better then pwning the entire world at the start. Most games have the player moving up the food chain and that it IS enjoyable to now kill guys that gave you trouble earilier, Doom gave you bigger guns, Half-Life 2 ended with pwning mass grunts.

Goblin challenge should go up with numbers. You start by being careful not to fight too many and later can take on more. But I hear multiple enemies suck in Obv.

The fights should stay challenging (and hence fun) throughout the game. Practically all games do this, G2 stops throwing young wolves at you and moves up to wolves, then wargs, then frost wolves. Baldur's gate 2 goes from goblins to orcs to ogres to super orcs. If your character is going to get better, the enemies have to get better too.

And it is done with different areas, not changing ecosystems around the player. You can go see monsters that will kill you and slowly get easier at beating them.

Now the game can give you a choice of oppoents to fight, some of which are impossible at your current level (like finding wargs early on in G2), but it doesn't help "immersion" since you'll realise later that your character is 8x as strong as he used to be (that happens a lot in real life) and it doesn't provide interesting fights since you'll have leveled right past whatever you used to fight.

Why the hell should safer areas be the same challenge to stronger characters? The spiders in your house don't grow into monsters while you grow up, nor do lions start appearing in your bathroom.

 

[Crichton]

It is called a consistent world, not one that revolves around the hero character.

Why is it important to keep the world consistant if the player is going grow like he's chugging energy X?

Pwning goblins and moving up is better then pwning the entire world at the start.

The fact that the game is too easy is a valid complaint, but it shouldn't get easier as time goes on, it should start challenging and stay that way.

Most games have the player moving up the food chain and that it IS enjoyable to now kill guys that gave you trouble earilier, Doom gave you bigger guns, Half-Life 2 ended with pwning mass grunts.

Well I'm glad you feel big pwning those Goblins, LOOK MOMMY IMA BIG BOY NOW!!1!

And it is done with different areas, not changing ecosystems around the player.

Actually in Gothic II, new, tougher monsters appear in the same areas. Early on you'll find field raiders at Lobart's Farm, later you'll find Seekers and you'll eventually have to fight a orc commander and his elite bodyguard. The same is true for Daggerfall and for Arcanum, it increases the wilderness enounter difficulty to try to keep up with the player (doesn't work)

Why the hell should safer areas be the same challenge to stronger characters? The spiders in your house don't grow into monsters while you grow up, nor do lions start appearing in your bathroom.

Now I think this the real lession to learn about treadmill-grinding kiddies. The whole thing has its genesis in some pubescent fantasy about "growing up". So every RPG character has to 'get big' even though they're already adults so a bunch of spotty 14 year olds can imagine that one day, they'll have hair on their balls too. Have fun playing KOTOR with a nude mod installed.

 

[Jung]

Crichton, why are you arguing against levelling in cRPGs? Are you trolling?

 

[Zomg]

Crichton likes to bang that drum. It's a good drum - I'd like to see a levelless RPG, and I find games that structure power-ups as an overt reward, MMO-style, mortally annoying, but I think the "gettin' stronger!" format has some upsides even if it isn't and shouldn't be the backbone of the genre. I've written them out before so I won't belabor it unless asked.

 

[Crichton]

Crichton, why are you arguing against levelling in cRPGs? Are you trolling?

No, this is the real me. About the only time I stop lurking is to bitch about character progression.

There are a myriad of things wrong with oblivion, ranging from balance problems (animals are tougher than humanoids, combat-focus makes non-combat skills worthless) to game-world problems (not many quests, brain-dead NPCs, no dialog) to presentation issues (storyline isn't bad, but doesn't really drive the game forward the way it should) to bugs (Agression AI, cliping, crashing to the desktop, graphical glitches).

But if there's one thing in Oblivion that isn't broken, it's that at any level you like, you can venture into one of the many mini-dungeons, be confronted with random enemies scaled to your level and not know what you're dealing with. Games without random content will never have this after the first play through and it wouldn't be possible if the enemies weren't scaled to your level. It doesn't remove the stupidity that is character progression, but it gives your character consistantly good fights without restricting exploration. To get any better it would have to eliminate the vast majority of character progression's effects (like Mount and Blade).

 

[Human Shield]

Why is it important to keep the world consistant if the player is going grow like he's chugging energy X?

That is a problem of bad design, level lists just mean the rest of the world is chugging too.

The fact that the game is too easy is a valid complaint, but it shouldn't get easier as time goes on, it should start challenging and stay that way.

Which is done by moving to more dangerous situations and areas, not changing your backyard garden into a dragon lair.

Well I'm glad you feel big pwning those Goblins, LOOK MOMMY IMA BIG BOY NOW!!1!

You realize challenge can come from number of opponents besides just monster type right? Or maybe you think a busy street is 3 people.

Actually in Gothic II, new, tougher monsters appear in the same areas. Early on you'll find field raiders at Lobart's Farm, later you'll find Seekers and you'll eventually have to fight a orc commander and his elite bodyguard. The same is true for Daggerfall and for Arcanum, it increases the wilderness enounter difficulty to try to keep up with the player (doesn't work).

That is their problems. If they explain it, or keep it out of your face it is going to matter less.

Encounters should be based on location and time (and events), the player's level shouldn't effect ecosystems.

Now I think this the real lession to learn about treadmill-grinding kiddies. The whole thing has its genesis in some pubescent fantasy about "growing up". So every RPG character has to 'get big' even though they're already adults so a bunch of spotty 14 year olds can imagine that one day, they'll have hair on their balls too. Have fun playing KOTOR with a nude mod installed.

What is your problem? Most good systems base levels as providing more options and proficiency. Games are better when progression is done realistically and early enemies are still trouble in groups.

 

[AnalogKid]

So are Arcanum and Toee only 50% RPGs because you can hit the level cap half way through? For that matter, on top of DS, Diablo, MMOs Sacred and whatnot, even Warcraft 3 and Spellforce give you a character to level-grind, does this make them RPGs?

No, it makes them poorly implemented RPGs, at least with respect to pacing.

You're consistently missing almost my entire point. I think you're just so blindly prejudiced that you're not thinking about what I wrote. So I'll try to be as clear as possible:

Diablo, MMOs, etc. don't have character growth. They have meaningless number increases that are matched by the opposition. That's called level treadmilling and the only reward is that some numbers get bigger. Most people that aren't kiddies get sick of it almost immediately, although it is very rewarding for young people who make up most of the market. If that's all there is to it, you might as well be playing an action game, which is what I contend Diablo and it's clones are.

Growth allows the character to accomplish MEANINGFUL things that he could not previously accomplish. It's one large reason to play an RPG. RPGs are a fantasy representation of becoming big and powerful and saving the princess so you can have blowjobs-on-demand the rest of your life.

Compare the following scenarios:

1) You fight the same power things all the time, your power never changes, but there's some random variation in the specific opponents. The whole game is completely pointless, but the action is consistent so if you like the action, you like the game. (SF2)

2) You continually get more powerful, but the bad guys, gear, and world tracks you exactly, so the only real effect is variation in the specific opponents. The whole game is completley pointless, but the action is consistent so if you like the action, you like the game. (Diablo, MMOs, Oblivion without mods)

3) You continually get more powerful, whereas the world is a realistic environment against which you measure your power. Finally you can save the world and get your blowjobs. As you grow in power you take on more responsibility for saving the world, and thereby you have consistently challenging action and variation in specific opponents. The whole game is pointless, but you get to play the role of someone improving throughout their life and saving the world. If you enjoy the action, the game is better, but the action is not the point of the game. The point of the game is to play the role of world-saver-and-blowjob-getter. The more the world is presented realistically (within it's own fiction), and the more it reacts in meaningful ways to what you choose to do and how you choose to develop, the better the game. "Action" is irrelevant, which is why many folks here prefer turn-based games. Challenge, interesting interactions, and interesting conflict resolution (no matter how actiony or how cerebral) are what's important.

I'll say it one more time for the cheap seats, and then I'm probably done unless you've got a great point and not just the same misunderstandings repeated over and over and over...

If you don't like MEANINGFUL character progression, you just don't like role-playing games. That's no sin, just be a little self-aware.

 

[Jung]

Gothic 2 had stronger mosters appear, but it was tied to the story chapters and made sense. ie, you would expect more orcs to appear in an orc invasion.

 

[Crichton]

Growth allows the character to accomplish MEANINGFUL things that he could not previously accomplish. It's one large reason to play an RPG. RPGs are a fantasy representation of becoming big and powerful and saving the princess so you can have blowjobs-on-demand the rest of your life.

So you're saying that a game like Arcanum (the finest RPG ever made, bar none) where the "growth" is irrelevant due to ease of combat, isn't an RPG?

But Return to Castle Wolfenstein where you gain UBARWEAPONS to kill monsters you couldn't kill any other way is an RPG because you can't kill Dark Knights without rocket launchers? See, your character has grown stronger and can do things he couldn't before!

The reason Arcanum is an RPG and RTCW is not is that different characters can do different things in Arcanum wheras in RTCW there are no different characters. A low-CHA dwarf techno-melee-er plays a compeltly different game from a high-CHA halfling diplomat / throwing expert. A human magic user / archer plays a different game yet. Your character choices have consequences. The fact that you distribute your ~65 character points over the course of the first half of the game rather than spending them all at the character creation screen means nothing from a role-playing standpoint.

If all you want to play is a game where you play the "role" of the TEH CHOOSEN ONE1, may I suggest neverwinter nights, the game's the same for every character but they grows as powerful as anyone, even you, could possibly want.

 

[kingcomrade]

But Return to Castle Wolfenstein where you gain UBARWEAPONS to kill monsters you couldn't kill any other way is an RPG because you can't kill Dark Knights without rocket launchers?

Hey, maybe YOU couldn't do it

Arcanum would be the finest RPG out there if it didn't have such glaring, stupid problems like the combat and item systems.

 

[LlamaGod]

Arcanum would be the finest RPG out there if it didn't have such glaring, stupid problems like the combat and item systems.

suck it up, pussy. and it's combat and character ability imbalances. the items are fine.

 

[Atrokkus]

VD:

WE HAVE TEH WINNARS!!

Responding to the my translation of your review were two fellers who were actually spilling some vitriol! Let's see now, the quotes:

For the most part, Oblivion lacks any major flaws. Not completely free of them, but still quite a decent product for our time. What the public wants public gets.

I, for one, think that the author of the review you translated was originally predisposed against the game. The only hint of objectivity is where it says "RPG geeks". So, I would rather... refrain from taking this article seriously. I want to say this to the person who wrote it: "hey dude, chill out, go drink some beer, relax and try again later, when you're feeling better."

Here's the nice one:

It's funny how many interesting features of Oblivion, that really make you play the game, are getting unnoticed by the mega-critics. Instead, they focused on picking on the unfulfilled promises, which is basically being hypocritic, as almsot all other mega-bestselling games are no different than Oblivion in that respect.

Perhaps, in a week or two, I'll make my own review, in contrast to this bullshit.

Later, that chap was asked to give some examples of Oblivion's lighter sides. Here we go:

- lots of interesting side-quests
- world exploration
- beatiful weapon and armor models
- visuals
- great setting (Elder Scrolls, duh!)

Hysterical, huh? He forgot Patrick Steward.


I already answered them. Pretty much sure that it mirrors your own opinion quite nicely.

 

[AnalogKid]

So you're saying that a game like Arcanum (the finest RPG ever made, bar none) where the "growth" is irrelevant due to ease of combat, isn't an RPG?

No.

Growth doesn't have to be in terms of fighting power, but in CRPGs, fighting is by far the most prevalent game mechanic.

If you enjoy the action, the game is better, but the action is not the point of the game. The point of the game is to play the role of world-saver-and-blowjob-getter. The more the world is presented realistically (within it's own fiction), and the more it reacts in meaningful ways to what you choose to do and how you choose to develop, the better the game. "Action" is irrelevant, which is why many folks here prefer turn-based games. Challenge, interesting interactions, and interesting conflict resolution (no matter how actiony or how cerebral) are what's important.

I said that stuff.

You said the following stupid shit:

But if there's one thing in Oblivion that isn't broken, it's that at any level you like, you can venture into one of the many mini-dungeons, be confronted with random enemies scaled to your level and not know what you're dealing with.

That sounds like wonderful roleplaying! Never mind that you know EXACTLY what you're getting: a dungeon full of bad guys that'll be just as difficult as every other fight you've ever had (easy or hard, based on the slider setting I guess). Maybe it'll be the blue badguys, maybe it'll be the red badguys, but it'll definitely not be any different in relative challenge than the last 50 times you went to the same exact dungeon. Oh, and you'll find a bunch of loot that you already have, as well. Whoopie!

It's obvious you like the action in Oblivion, even your own description rips the shit out of it in any way related to roleplaying, and then tries to compliment it as an action game.

Let's try this:
Levelled bad guys in Oblivion == MMO level grind == Diablo stream of bad guys. All the effort (if you don't like the action), or fun (if you do) with no in-game rewards that matter. It's all the SAME! And yet because petey said so, Oblivion must be the bestest RPG EVAR!!! Thanks man, you really convinced me.

 

[Excrément]

I agree with Solik, the auto-levelling system is not a big issue and completely overblown.

I am playing my character "naturally" so I don't try any exploit, and I eventually find the auto-levelling system well done.

it keeps some chalenge without breaking my game (franklly, I do have the feeling my character is getting more powerful and sorry except a few creature, creatures don't level-up with you, you just met more high level creatures when you level-up and that's fine for me)

compared to the shitty uchallenging MW system, that's an improvement.

that's for the creatures.

for the auto-levelling items system, I admit it is broken because due to the system thievery is sometimes useless.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I don't mind the leveling per se so much, but I stil think in its implemenation in Oblivion its badly done. One illustration of this is how many people on the TES boards thnink that MW didn't have it, which is untrue, it was just much less obvious. Somehow the Oblivion solution just goes a bit too far. The level ranges are too narrow for leveld creatures, there are too few fixed creatures (so the ecosystem seems to almost completely change around you), and the bandit equipment leveling eventually becomes immersion breaking. I also miss that certian areas (Daedric ruins in MW) are just too hard to take on at early levels, for all the reasons already mentioned here.
The mods that are already out show that you can maintain enough leveling to maintain the challenge, but greatly increase realism and sense of achievement at the same time. Which means that at least for my personal tastes, Bethesda did not implement a very good solution in the game as shipped. Of course others may feel different or prefer a different solution - that's the beauty of modding.

 

[Crichton]

That sounds like wonderful roleplaying! Never mind that you know EXACTLY what you're getting: a dungeon full of bad guys that'll be just as difficult as every other fight you've ever had (easy or hard, based on the slider setting I guess). Maybe it'll be the blue badguys, maybe it'll be the red badguys, but it'll definitely not be any different in relative challenge than the last 50 times you went to the same exact dungeon. Oh, and you'll find a bunch of loot that you already have, as well. Whoopie!

When I get to the first big dungeon in Arcanum, I know I'll face a couple of rats, the one lkangaroo rat, moving on I'll face some Kites and eventually a rock golem before moving downstairs and facing the dark elf assasins. If I go there at level 16, it's probably fairly tough, if I wait until level 25, it's piss easy, but there's never any qualitative difference, just a quantitative one (level of difficulty).

When I go to a big dungeon in Oblivion, everything is scaled to my level, but I have no idea whether the enemes this time are archers, 1-hand + shield people, bashers with two-handed weapons, spellcasters with restoration and destruction, spellcasters with conjuration and alteration, fistfighters, "paladin" type fighting characters with armor, two-handed weapons and restoration magic or bards with light armor, knives/maces and illusion magic. The difficulty of the fight depends on the strength of my character in dealing with whatever matchups are presented (my heavily armored fistfighter has an easy time with archers and two-handers but struggles against one-handers and some mages), but its always qualitatively different.

How on earth would changing Oblivion's system to Arcanum's make it a better RPG?

Arcanum is a better RPG than Oblivion because it does a better job of differentiating between character types, enforces character-choices more rigerously, allows for more consequences from quests and has better dialog and a better presented story. PHAT LEWT distribution has shit to do with role-playing.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

But if there's one thing in Oblivion that isn't broken, it's that at any level you like, you can venture into one of the many mini-dungeons, be confronted with random enemies scaled to your level and not know what you're dealing with. Games without random content will never have this after the first play through and it wouldn't be possible if the enemies weren't scaled to your level. It doesn't remove the stupidity that is character progression, but it gives your character consistantly good fights without restricting exploration. To get any better it would have to eliminate the vast majority of character progression's effects (like Mount and Blade).

Yes, it's pretty broken. It's broken because players should be better than some dungeons and not ready for others. You know, kind of the same way the world works.

It's kind of odd that you're bitching about broken progression in CRPGs, while at the same time bitching that everything else needs to be levelled to your power. If you're against level grinding, you should probably also be against the world doing the same thing around you for consistancy sake.

 

[obediah]

From my way too many hours spent with Oblivion, it's clear that the whole damn place should be overrun by goblins. From lvl 1 to lvl 34, I 've died 3-5 times, and it was always goblins. Nothing else really even makes my health bar move, but 2+ goblins and I have to kite my ass off to stay alive.

I do have to give some kudos to the stealth system - it's the only metric of advancement the game gives. With 70% chameleon and maxed stealth, I can push things off a cliff in the dark and they don't notice me. More importantly, I can just run to the end of every dungeon, push the putton or plink the foozle with an arrow and get the fuck out of there (I'm sick of the game, but figured I should finish the main quest).

 

[Crichton]

Yes, it's pretty broken. It's broken because players should be better than some dungeons and not ready for others. You know, kind of the same way the world works.

It's kind of odd that you're bitching about broken progression in CRPGs, while at the same time bitching that everything else needs to be levelled to your power. If you're against level grinding, you should probably also be against the world doing the same thing around you for consistancy sake.

How would it improve either gameplay or realism to have dungeons with a static power level that the player had to grind up to? In the real world, one's combat power level is pretty much fixed once one's had a very small amount of experience. My father was a better shot when he got out of basic than when he went in it. But the next 15 years of target practice did nothing to improve his aim. So a real life person wouldn't be able to grind up to the higher-difficulty level dungeons. No ammount of training or experience would turn my father into a SUPA-SNIPA, but by the same token a real marksman can learn everything he needs to about shooting in four months. The only power level change adequately represented by level grinding is puberty.

I'm against level-grinding for two reasons, it's silly and it ruins game balance. With level scaling, it's still silly, but the game balance is better. It's not a perfect solution, but it's one step closer to a game without any grinding at all.

 

[Zomg]

You're conflating several different issues. You're against unrealistic growth, against Skinner Box game design, and you have a precious interpretation of the concepts of balance and power progression. Start working the knots out of that until you can discuss each of those points individually if you ever want to get out of this anti-progression whirling dervish rut you're in.

 

[kingcomrade]

In the real world, one's combat power level is pretty much fixed once one's had a very small amount of experience. My father was a better shot when he got out of basic than when he went in it. But the next 15 years of target practice did nothing to improve his aim.

Ah, this is exactly what I was saying in the "leveled monsters and loot" thread and the "Fallout Brainstorm" thread. You don't worry so much about the little quibbling "degrees" of a skill, your PC can either do it or he can't, and he can get progressively better but it has to be in noticeable chunks. For example, the Fallout attribute system. Perception 7 vs Perception 8 does make a fair difference, and Perception 6 vs. Perception 8 is a noticeable difference. I was suggesting the same thing for skills.

 

[Crichton]

You're conflating several different issues. You're against unrealistic growth, against Skinner Box game design, and you have a precious interpretation of the concepts of balance and power progression. Start working the knots out of that until you can discuss each of those points individually if you ever want to get out of this anti-progression whirling dervish rut you're in.

I don't oppose character progression on the grounds of realism (how much realism can we ever have in fairy tales?), I oppose it because of the disfigured gameplay it creates. However, I'm frequently confronted with the notion that a static-power-level character shouldn't be implemented because either a) characters have to grow in power for role-playing purposes or b) characters have to grow in power because real people can grow in power. So those issues cannot generally be separated.

I agree that things would be more reasonable if people would limit themselves to either a) what's best for gameplay (combat), b) what's best for role-playing or c) what would be most realistic regarding a given issue (in this case power progression of one or more parties).