-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Review Oblivion reviewed by the Codex
- Thread starter DarkUnderlord
- Start date
http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/inde ... pic=398739
http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/inde ... pic=399133
Goddamn I hope these people never ever manage to get work in making RPGs.
I just don't know what to say anymore.
http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/inde ... pic=399133
Goddamn I hope these people never ever manage to get work in making RPGs.
I just don't know what to say anymore.
Oarfish
Prophet
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Messages
- 2,511
Is pretty grim reading too. Who would want to play a game where you can actualy loose? That would be against the whole Bethesda definition of freedom - you can smear shit all over the walls of your room and Uncle Pete will still bring you your chocolate milk.
Vault Dweller
Commissar, Red Star Studio
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 28,044
kohla
Educated
@LlamaGod.
Hahahahahah...just what I needed first thing Monday morning.
Thank you.
@VD.
Good review. And spot on. Interesting technique in debunking the developers to say the least.
Perhaps you should put this line in your review ? :wink:
"For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar".
-Hamlet, Shakespeare.
Hahahahahah...just what I needed first thing Monday morning.
Thank you.
@VD.
Good review. And spot on. Interesting technique in debunking the developers to say the least.
Perhaps you should put this line in your review ? :wink:
"For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar".
-Hamlet, Shakespeare.
Using developer quotes as the basis for a review is certainly an interesting approach, but makes the review feel a bit loaded, because you know the response is going to be negative. It feels as if the dungeon hack part was the mandatory upside in order to balance the review. Still, the reviewer's critique is valid.
The bottom line is, this review is more truthful than any other review I've read.
The bottom line is, this review is more truthful than any other review I've read.
Vault Dweller
Commissar, Red Star Studio
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 28,044
Blame the developers who openly lie without any fuckinh shame, not me for pointing that out. Besides, even after Todd's comment about 100 pages dedicated to magic, I said that all improvements are positive, especially the fight-n-cast feature that I citicized before the release.VasikkA said:
I don't do "mandatory", otherwise I would have trashed the game completely for amusement and controversy (as you can see, many people have expected a much harsher review).
As did I. I meant that the 'loadedness' couldn't be avoided, given the design of the review. I see the point in bashing developers for their empty promises(or lies, if you prefer), but this perspective cannot but to affect the overall atmosphere of the review. It felt like a comparison between the promised Oblivion and the real Oblivion. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but an atypical basis for a review, nonetheless. As for the actual content, I do not find any notable complaints.Vault Dweller said:
Licaon_Kter
Augur
but VD you should of finished the review with the best quote ever (that you get to see only AFTER you've purchased the Collectors Edition, so the joke is trully on you 
):
):Todd Howard in 'Making Of' documentary said:
Jed
Cipher
Right... Let's have a duel then kiddo; you get the sword, I'll take the spear. Then we'll see who's smarter...
Why?CorrodedCoder said:
@ Jed
Well, come to think of it, some twohanders were specifically designed to battle spears (hack thru pikes, for instance).
However, spear, expecially cut&thrust variety like sovnua&naginata are very effective in combat... and, if there is enough room - swordfighter will not stand a chance against more or less proficient wielder of them. He'll just get his legs hacked at, then finished off.
Well, come to think of it, some twohanders were specifically designed to battle spears (hack thru pikes, for instance).
However, spear, expecially cut&thrust variety like sovnua&naginata are very effective in combat... and, if there is enough room - swordfighter will not stand a chance against more or less proficient wielder of them. He'll just get his legs hacked at, then finished off.
Spazmo
Erudite
Weren't spears most effective against enemies on horseback? If that's the case, it makes perfect sense for Oblivion not to have any because the knights of the realm of Tamriel have devised a canny tactic of getting off their horses before they fight.
Jed
Cipher
Granted, as long as you're in an open space and it's one-on-one... you may hack the spear in half, but it will be sticking out of your chest while the spear-wielder is safely out of range.
Naginata are greal *polearms*, but not spears. The favorite trick of the naginata-wielder is to take the feet off of an approaching swordsman.
Naginata are greal *polearms*, but not spears. The favorite trick of the naginata-wielder is to take the feet off of an approaching swordsman.
Excrément said:
Lol. Those weren't even spears. If you want to see some spear combat and are a media-addicted DVD kiddy check out the combat in Troy (Brad Pitt) - especially the Achilles vs Hector scenes (I think - the one where Hector dies).
Jason
chasing a bee
"especially the Achilles vs Hector scenes (I think - the one where Hector dies)."
OMG SPOILERS!
OMG SPOILERS!
kingcomrade
Kingcomrade
Spears were useful against pretty much any melee opponent. Nobody fights one-on-one with a long spear, that's not really what they are designed for (short spears like that African thingy the Zulus used are a different matter). The whole thing with spears is that they are easy to use en masse (and cheap) and on the charge they are devastating because if this massive wall of sharp points is rushing at you, what can you do at all? Armor isn't going to protect you because the spears give their users a mechanical advantage.
That's the concept of shock warfare, which was pretty important in the Greek style of fighting (and later other Western armies up to and including the US Army or the Nazis and their blitzkrieg stuff, or the various shock and awe plans of WW1. As a matter of fact, it's when the West can't or doesn't play to its strengths in shock warfare that they typically get bogged down, the most famous example probably being Cannae), while say the Persians and most Asian groups of the time put a lot more emphasis on skirmishing and horsemanship and personal prowess.
That's the concept of shock warfare, which was pretty important in the Greek style of fighting (and later other Western armies up to and including the US Army or the Nazis and their blitzkrieg stuff, or the various shock and awe plans of WW1. As a matter of fact, it's when the West can't or doesn't play to its strengths in shock warfare that they typically get bogged down, the most famous example probably being Cannae), while say the Persians and most Asian groups of the time put a lot more emphasis on skirmishing and horsemanship and personal prowess.
LlamaGod said:
That is the stupidest thing I've read in a long, long time. I suppose this kid's never heard of a pike.
sheek said:
The Chinese disagree.
Or Excalibur. How is it Mordrid was able to beat Arthur again?
Kidding aside, there are countless examples in history where spears/polearms have been used to wipe out sword users. The pike basically ended the era of the knight because they were easy as hell to make versus armor and swords, didn't require a horse, and even peasants could use them to kill a knight on a horse. I can't remember the dynasty, but there was an era where Chinese officers didn't use swords for the most part. Swords were for the common soldier. The officers and such used spears, polearms and poleaxes when they were engaged because they were more effective than swords.
Anyway, the whole idea that people stopped using spears because they had swords is idiotic. Swords have been around since the bronze age, and people still found spears/polearms useful up until the invention of gunpowder. Hell, a bayonet on a musket is basically a short spear.
Some Chucklenut on Evil Avatar said:
Or.. Name a CRPG that does AI worse? Take most any CRPG and attack someone in town, the guards will generally attack the player. They most certainly will never trip over the AI and end up starting a battle free for all that wipes out most of the guards in the area.
Look at Fallout 2, when you're fighting near those casinos and a stray bullet hits a hooker or pimp. The hookers and pimps will turn around a jump in and start fighting the casino guards the entire time. The AI will never break, and we're talking about circa mid-1990s "AI" here. Yet, it will always remember which side each NPC is on no matter how chaotic the battle gets.
The whole idea that AI is hard to code doesn't hold much merit when you fuck it up. Given how much hype the AI got before the game was released, the whole "AI is hard to code right" comes off as an excuse rather than a fact.
kingcomrade
Kingcomrade
Could you elaborate? I'm curious.
Anyways, you are right. For almost everyone besides the Romans, the sword was a backup weapon. For instance, a knight's primary weapon was his lance, not his sword.
Now, there WERE some people who used swords primary, of course the Romans, and the Swiss with their two-handers, but they handled their two-handers like short spears. They were used to chop through pikes, so the guy was right (though probably by accident) about that.
Greatatlantic
Erudite
Spears (in some form or another) remained a very important part of warfare up until the invention of the bayonet. Where they especially shined was in group formations. Swords didn't really become effective until steel, while the Roman Gladius was plenty deadly it was also brittle and short.
In contrast spears were cheaper to make and had a much longer reach. Furthermore, they could force a non-spear wielding enemy to fight his way past 3 or 4 ranks of spear tips to strike at the enemy. And the Calavary think is based on some truth. Horses are wider then men, its almost impossible for a horse to charge a spear formation and not impale itself.
As for a weapon of single combat, it doesn't have nearly the same history.
In contrast spears were cheaper to make and had a much longer reach. Furthermore, they could force a non-spear wielding enemy to fight his way past 3 or 4 ranks of spear tips to strike at the enemy. And the Calavary think is based on some truth. Horses are wider then men, its almost impossible for a horse to charge a spear formation and not impale itself.
As for a weapon of single combat, it doesn't have nearly the same history.
kingcomrade
Kingcomrade
Ooh, no. Bronze swords were actually quite effective (it was the iron ones that sucked), and the gladius was not brittle, and it was short for a reason. It was a stabbing weapon meant to be used en masse with soldiers using their massive shields to get up close. When you are fighting in close ranks like the Romans did you don't want a big long sword, which would be pretty awkward to use in close ranks and with those massive shields.
Also, the Roman's primary weapon was not actually their swords but their javelins. The javelins were what allowed them to stop their enemy's charge and get in close where they could start stabbing their way through.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.