Review Oblivion reviewed by the Codex

[Oarfish]

Actually it is likely that spears are being coded right now as Downloadable Content

Quite a few new animations involved in that, its not like they can just reuse the 2h attacks. That was probably the reason for the cut in the first place, wouldn't want to put pressure on their shitty animators.

 

[TotS]

Iron is brittle but it is still very durable. Bronze is durable, but he is thinking of the difference between bronze and tin or something, I think.

Iron deforms more easily than bronze, is what I meant, so it's harder to keep a sharp edge on your stuff. Steel, on the other hand, is better than both. In the Roman army, the rank and file used iron swords while the important people got bronze ones, and it wasn't ceremonial they actually were better weapons. Iron has always been available, it's just not as good as bronze.

No, actually the Romans imported large amounts of celtic swords (as far as I remember the original Roman word for sword was ensis, that later was replaced by the term gladius, which is a loanword from celtic language) from a tribe they called Norici.
Those Norici were able to produce steel, ferrum noricum, of a quality that rivals the quality of today's high performance steel.

 

[Balor]

Those Norici were able to produce steel, ferrum noricum, of a quality that rivals the quality of today's high performance steel.

I highly doubt that. I mean, a prehistoric (well, relatively speaking) tribe making better steel then we have now, using all kinds of alloys and stuff?!

 

[TotS]

Those Norici were able to produce steel, ferrum noricum, of a quality that rivals the quality of today's high performance steel.

I highly doubt that. I mean, a prehistoric (well, relatively speaking) tribe making better steel then we have now, using all kinds of alloys and stuff?!

Well, it is not clear, how they managed to do so, but one explanation for this might be an asteroid, that might have hit the region (Chiemgau) the Norici lived in, in 465 B.C.

 

[Balor]

Hmm? Shouldn't meteors be made of IRON, not steel?
It's like finding a CUT diamond in a natural deposit.

 

[TotS]

Hmm? Shouldn't meteors be made of IRON, not steel?
It's like finding a CUT diamond in a natural deposit.

You're fogetting the impact there.
It's not a matter of finding a cut diamond, but finding the right materials for processing.
Due to an iimpact (a suspected one in this case, because of landscape and findings of rare materials and shattered and molten rocks in more than 100 suspected impact sites in a an elliptic field of 58km length and 27km width - the comet/meteor/asteroid, whatever the correct term for this object might be, must've exploded in the athmosphere), the Norici can very well have found the right additions for their "iron".
And producing and using alloys isn't a new technique, either.

 

[Claw]

Actually, I think it's because meteorite iron comes as iron-nickel alloy naturally.
So the real difference between steel and a cut diamond is that one is an artifact, and another can indeed occur naturally.

 

[Balor]

Hmm, indeed. Well, since I'm not advanced geologist/metallurgist, I assume that this version indeed holds water... provided that the quantity of such 'superb' weapons found is not high.
Otherwise, that must be one hell of a meteorite!

 

[Vault Dweller]

http://www.rpgdot.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2278077

I enjoyed the idea of using developer qotes; it was creative and original.

I disagree.
Those quotes have been totally ripped out of the context where they were originally posted. In fairness to Bethesda, each quote at least should have been accompanied by a link to the original post/article.
However, even then it would still seem extremely questionable whether it is fair or intelligent to use developer quotes in a review.
Bethesda themselves (like any developer who is giving pre-release interviews) frequently pointed out that things are "in development", "subject to change", "not nailed down", whatever.
It's pretty cheap (and not creative or original) IMHO to base the entire "review" around dev quotes that were made who-knows-when and in who-knows-what-context.

RPG Codex should have named this biased rant 'Why Oblivi0n is teh suck and we told u so!!111' and posted it under their op ed category where it belongs.
Well, or to their forums where they have been holding the unofficial 'Let's see who can get the most LOLs from others for bashing Oblivion' contest since the game's release.
Going by the comments over there and here, it looks like the "reviewer" won. Congrats .

The quotes are out of context? That's a new one.

 

[kingcomrade]

Yeah VD what's wrong with you. It is totally inappropriate to compare developer promises with the actual results.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

How is it NOT fair to use quotes from developers in a review? Anyone remember when Fable came out on the XBox? The majority of the reviews of Fable for the XBox were entirely about what was said during production versus what was shipped. So, is it not fair to use what developers promise in reviews when we're talking about Bethesda? Or is it only fair when we're talking about a console game made by Europeans?

In fact, I'd say that considering Bethesda decided to completely forego making a demo, going by what they said you'll get if you chip out the $60 is more fair than in most cases. If there's a demo, people can go by the demo. When there's not a demo, you only have the developers' words to go by.

 

[HoodRich]

It's only out of context if you don't agree with the context that has been taken, or something like that.

Either way that's not the case here. The comment "fantasy for us is riding around on horseback killing stuff" doesn't really open itself up to a whole lot of different interpretations. Everything these guys said was pretty nailed down and can stand on its own.

 

[kingcomrade]

Oh I missed that post.

3/ and as I said originally, a sword on its own might suck against a spear but a sword & shield combo completely changes the situation. In group combats spears still win but one-on-one I think the spearman loses.

That's actually the only point worth making, from your list. Spears are cheap and effective. Swords are better for close combat, but in major battles you want to keep away from close combat as much as possible (there are exceptions, of course, such as the Romans, but in medieval times the pike ruled the day). Like I said, swords were secondary weapons.

You have to remember, nobody fought battles alone (which spears are definitely not designed to do). In more ritualized societies like Japan or the Aztecs there was a bit of that dueling-warfare type stuff but Western warfare has always been about fighting in rank.

Also, you have to remember, I'm talking about formalized armies (in this case, conscript levies of peasants). There was a lot of polygot forces running about in the middle ages filled with men-at-arms with swords and shields and stuff, but pikes ruled the day.

 

[Drakron]

Spears were cheap and easy to use, that is why they were common used because the bulk of medevil armies were of irregulars that had little to no training.

That is also why the crossbow was mde a illegal weapon by the pope, it was very easy to use and could easy kill a armored enemy (a peasent could kill a noble).

Also the romans used the pilum that was pretty much a throwing spear, they thrown the pilum and then switched to the gladious but they still used spears (the turtle formation) and cavalery, the strenght of the roman empire was the legions were composed by professional soldiers.

 

[Relien]

I certainly didn't see any other review using comparison with developer quotes. It may look a bit harsh sometimes, but I can't say I think it's a bad idea. The main purpose of reviews is to help you form your opinion on the game before you play it, to decide if you want it at all. Developer, genre, screenshots and developer promises also affect this opinion. In the end, what you think of the game is the result of all these inputs, weighed variously.

Now - what the developers have said was sometimes very misleading. When you combine these misleading facts with some review, your final feeling about the game will be better than how the reviewer wanted it to be, unless the subject intersection of those two sources will be large. In the worst case (zero intersection), the reviewer will just talk about something different and the dev quotes will simply add to that, forming a very positive (but false) opinion in your mind.

By using the quotes this review clearly says: "Yes, I know about this feature, we were told it will be such and such, but it's like this ... "

So I wouldn't say it's a hostile review, it just isn't one of the praising ones.

 

[suibhne]

I liked the overall layout - juxtaposing dev quotations with sordid reality - but I didn't think there was enough substance. The review read like a Codex commentary rather than a commercial review. I guess we can all be honest and acknowledge that Codex review readers will probably already be familiar with the game and with the other reviews out there, so maybe it was just an editorial decision, but the review seemed intended for people already "in the know" rather than people honestly trying to learn more about the game.

It was great for what it intended to do, I think. I guess I hoped it would be a little more mass-market but just as harsh. :wink:

 

[Jinxed]

I thought it was a plain attack on the hype.

Hype is what built this game and the review rips it apart.

 

[bryce777]

Iron is brittle but it is still very durable. Bronze is durable, but he is thinking of the difference between bronze and tin or something, I think.

Iron deforms more easily than bronze, is what I meant, so it's harder to keep a sharp edge on your stuff. Steel, on the other hand, is better than both. In the Roman army, the rank and file used iron swords while the important people got bronze ones, and it wasn't ceremonial they actually were better weapons. Iron has always been available, it's just not as good as bronze.

It depends on how the iron is forged. You can make i rock hard, but then it is brittle. Steel is best because it can bend and is srong, of course.

 

[bryce777]

Well, yeah, I know all about programming in general though I am not an AI master (which is meaningless anyhow, because in cases like this it's all semantics that matters)and could do much better than that and would expect much better from any student in a class I've taught. The sims has similar stye but much better done AI.

SO there. Take it from an expert, or as close as someone can be for programming.

Bethesda's RAI is closer to dynamic scripting/scheduling if you ask me.
.

That's all any current AI is.

 

[bryce777]

Those Norici were able to produce steel, ferrum noricum, of a quality that rivals the quality of today's high performance steel.

I highly doubt that. I mean, a prehistoric (well, relatively speaking) tribe making better steel then we have now, using all kinds of alloys and stuff?!

The han dynasty had chrome plated steel 2000 years before christ, but celtic metalworkers are considered by a wide margin as the most skilled craftsmen of all time.

 

[Crichton]

It depends on how the iron is forged. You can make i rock hard, but then it is brittle. Steel is best because it can bend and is srong, of course.

Iron, no matter how you temper it, is always soft and malleable.

High-carbon steel is hard (and hence brittle).

To get something that can bend well while retaining an edge you have to mix low-carbon steel (a lot like iron) with high carbon steel. They used to call it the damascus method.

 

[bryce777]

Hmm? Shouldn't meteors be made of IRON, not steel?
It's like finding a CUT diamond in a natural deposit.

Steel is just iron + carbon. it just takes a lot of heat to make it, but anthracite coal would do the trick easily.

 

[Nutcracker]

Saying "swords are better than spears therefore why include spears" is the most retarded logic ever. By that same token we may as well remove daggers since they are useless when used against a man in plate armour wielding a broadsword. These idiots dont know the meaning of the word roleplaying.

 

[kingcomrade]

Yeah, totally, cutting out spears enhances the roleplaying.

 

[dongle]

The han dynasty had chrome plated steel 2000 years before christ, but celtic metalworkers are considered by a wide margin as the most skilled craftsmen of all time.

I've never seen anything that old in person. I -have- seen many swords in museums from the early middle-ages, say 1100 to 1300. Can't specifically think of any older than that. Every European sword from that era looks like a corroded fire poker. Black, irregular, heavy. You can't imagine actually cutting anything with one, just bashing someone over the head with it. A bit like Oblivion's blunt axes, really. :D

I can remember three Samurai swords I've seen in person that were dated around 1200 to 1300; One in Windsor Castle, one in London's Wallace Collection, and a matched pair here in San Francisco's Asian Museum. Without fail they look absolutely flawless. Mirror finish, light, looking all like you could shave with 'em. Honestly, the best quality kitchen knives or hunting knives manufactured today don't look as well-made.