Interview Oblivion tit for tat at GameCloud

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

Funnily enough, the biggest factor in killing that style of combat in Morrowind was that one fucking checkbox "Always use best attack", which was a pretty goofy option in my opinion.

Is it dumber to have that button or the fact there's always one attack with a weapon that works better than any other? I think it's the latter. What's the point of having three or four attack types when there's one attack that's better than the rest?

That's exactly why we changed it for Oblivion.

And no parrying, but you can block with a weapon if you don't have a shield equipped.

 

[triCritical]

Actually, I hated that you'd "miss" even though your sword went right through, too. And I'm not a huge FPS fan.

Well your less of an RPG fan. People that have grown up with RPG's typically played DnD 2nd addition at least my generation. Having to roll to hit, even though a lame person could probably hit, and then damage.

So people wanting to play an RPG, were more likely to totally be in with the whole suspension of disbelief sort of like theater, in which people realize that the animations are only an abstract representation of whats actually going on. IMO it is not until the XBOX hybrid RPG that so called console RPG'ers have expected the animations to be weighted more heavily then a characters skills.

Hell takes infinity engine games, Fallout, and the FP games party based RPG's. Combat is completely abstracted with no contact between character and enemy. The same is true in strategy and real time RPG's.

The bastardization that Bioware came up with is a complete lack of control of the characters as in KotOR, which I only feed them a very vague command and they go on with there l33t animations. So instead of playing I am watching. Very boring.

 

[Sarvis]

And no parrying, but you can block with a weapon if you don't have a shield equipped.

Umm... that's pretty much what parrying is.


So... dual wield?

 

[Section8]

Is it dumber to have that button or the fact there's always one attack with a weapon that works better than any other? I think it's the latter. What's the point of having three or four attack types when there's one attack that's better than the rest?

Well, not necessarily. If it involves small degree of player skill in swinging the weapon in its most appropriate fashion, then combat is more interesting, even if only slightly. It's even better if there's more to the combat system than purely damage. If each attack has ...

* a varied chance to hit/penetrate
* a different rate of attack/stamina usage
* extended effects, such as knockdown/bleeding/disarming/etc

... then it's hard to determine which attack is "better than the rest". Of course, in the context of your argument (ie Morrowind) it's a perfectly reasonable point. Glad to hear steps are being taken to rectify it in Oblivion.

 

[Balor]

And no parrying, but you can block with a weapon if you don't have a shield equipped.

Umm... that's pretty much what parrying is.


So... dual wield?

No, it's NOT. (Well-earned title, I see).
Parry involves motion!
You sweep away the blow, not just get a blade in the path of the enemy's one.
And, not sure about Gothic 2 (I've not played it), but I've yet to play an RPG that properly incorporated it.
Btw, that will indeed add a lot of 'twitch', because you'll have to time your parries really well, unlike blocks with shields or weapons.
However, I wonder if you can 'block' thrusts with weapons.
Well, you can in M&B, but it's one of the weakest points of it - and it was brought up already, so I hope it will be fixed eventually.
Also, you may want to read M&B forum about dualwielding, and see that it's not so cool&nifty as it sounds.
Sword+Shield style gives you 'more bang for your buck'.
Well, if you are some sort of ambidextrous superman, perhaps it can be viable. However, mostly it's issue of shields being too heavy and bulky to carry around, then an other one-handed weapon, for instance. (And, of course, it's not really a valid point in RPGs).
And you can attack with shieds pretty good - some have spikes, and simply crushing rim of a bucker round shield into some's ribs is really nasty, as well as simply bashing it’s into the enemy to stun him.
So, dual-wielding is 'pop'. Pretty much as Legalize shooting mumak with his flimsy bow :D.
Yea, Japanese culture really often had uses for such style.
However, remember, that they did not use shieds!
If equally-skilled sword+shield western warrior and a katana + wakizashi samurai will meet on a field of combat, I know on whom I'll be my money .

 

[Sarvis]

No, it's NOT. (Well-earned title, I see).
Parry involves motion!
You sweep away the blow, not just get a blade in the path of the enemy's one.

Yeah no shit, that's why I said <b>pretty much</b> the same. The end result is that you stop the opponents attack with your weapon, instead of dodging or shieldblocking it (or getting hit obviously.) Also, good luck getting a blade in the path of the enemy's one without motion!

Also, you may want to read M&B forum about dualwielding, and see that it's not so cool&nifty as it sounds.
Sword+Shield style gives you 'more bang for your buck'.
Well, if you are some sort of ambidextrous superman, perhaps it can be viable. However, mostly it's issue of shields being too heavy and bulky to carry around,

Which is actually one of the reasons I think dual wielding is a good style for rangers. Carrying around a big, bulky slab of wood or metal just doesn't seem to go with the idea of running around in a forest.

So, dual-wielding is 'pop'. Pretty much as Legalize shooting mumak with his flimsy bow :D.
Yea, Japanese culture really often had uses for such style.
However, remember, that they did not use shieds!
If equally-skilled sword+shield western warrior and a katana + wakizashi samurai will meet on a field of combat, I know on whom I'll be my money .

Mine would be on the western warrior, because he'd probably be wearing plate or chainmail while the Samurai would have leather padding and wooden armor. The katana would never cut through the knights armor...

 

[DarkSign]

Yeah no shit, that's why I said pretty much the same. The end result is that you stop the opponents attack with your weapon, instead of dodging or shieldblocking it (or getting hit obviously.) Also, good luck getting a blade in the path of the enemy's one without motion!

Gather 'round kids. Watch more dumbass-ness in action!

So after he's proven you wrong you backtrack and say you were really agreeing - "Yeah no shit, that's why I said pretty much the same."

But at the end you want to have your cake and eat it too by saying "Also, good luck getting a blade in the path of the enemy's one without motion!" which is basically saying it really is parrying and that he was wrong.

Its sad when you do this. Quit the Codex.

 

[Balor]

Yeah no shit, that's why I said pretty much the same. The end result is that you stop the opponents attack with your weapon, instead of dodging or shieldblocking it (or getting hit obviously.) Also, good luck getting a blade in the path of the enemy's one without motion!

*grumble-grumble-grumble*
Try sparring with real weapons for a year, then return with apology .
You do not STOP attack when you parry - just lead it away in a way that it does not hit you. Sometimes, blocking can be all but impossible - try blocking a twohander!
I've tried, and got disarmed more often then not. Hurts too... and, like I said, thrusts cannot be blocked – only parried.
Leading it away require much less effort, does much less damage to the blade, and is capable of throwing the opponent off-balance by utilizing his own intertia. Yet, it require perfect timing and much more skill.
On the other hand, when you speak of it, blocking with a weapon is not really viable when you just hold it in the path of the blow. You have to have 'monster's writs' for this, like the head of our club said .
Blocking is more like moving the weapon in the direction of attack, so it's momentum will cancel out the momentum of the opponnent's blow... but you still have to time it right (if it’s much easier then parrying), not to mention block against low attacks will let high attacks thru and so on (M&B manages this perfectly, and it's only game I've played that does this).
However, if that would be incorporated, people like VD will go completely apeshit about it being too twitchy for their liking .

Mine would be on the western warrior, because he'd probably be wearing plate or chainmail while the Samurai would have leather padding and wooden armor. The katana would never cut through the knights armor...

Well, some later armor in Japan were rather good, but still nothing to be compared to the suit of full plate, I agree.
Yet, if he'll wear about the same armor as the samurai, shield does offer tremendous advantage.

Which is actually one of the reasons I think dual wielding is a good style for rangers. Carrying around a big, bulky slab of wood or metal just doesn't seem to go with the idea of running around in a forest.

Hmm, and what about carrying a heap of cutlery, a few twohanders, and a hundred liters of potions as loot? :D
Well, I’d be glad for the system to be made more realistic, but some *dumbing down rulez* people will join VD in his apeshit crusade . And, as it seems, alienating them is something Bethesda does NOT want.
So, unless you want to roleplay this to such an extent, it’s not really important.
And besides, in MW it was possible to have blocking daggers and such. Sure, it was just models of weapons instead of shield, but it was looking rather nice. I bet that would be possible in Oblivion too.
You could not attack with them however, of course.
Not that you do that a lot in real combat, though.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

So...if you press hit, and your to-hit calculatets no hit - then your sword goes swinging off to the side wildly for some weird reason? (though even inexperienced fighters know how to swing a sword in front of them). Because even if it goes off only slightly, it woudl still hit the opponent standing in front of you.

The weird reason is that your character isn't that good. It might seem exaggerated, but it makes more sense than letting everyone hit regardless of how good with the weapon they are.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Mine would be on the western warrior, because he'd probably be wearing plate or chainmail while the Samurai would have leather padding and wooden armor. The katana would never cut through the knights armor...

I concur and would also add that samurais were largely restricted to fighting other samurais. The reason Europe had the dark ages (and why knights became dominant) was because it was constantly attacked by Vikings, Huns, Magyars and Moors, and then once it had gotten stable enough to reach out they fought Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Slavs and anyone else in the vicinity. The samurai were so hooked on what they thought was the ideal and only proper way to fight that they decided guns could just be ignored. That kind of thinking is a recipe for defeat.

 

[Tintin]

So...if you press hit, and your to-hit calculatets no hit - then your sword goes swinging off to the side wildly for some weird reason? (though even inexperienced fighters know how to swing a sword in front of them). Because even if it goes off only slightly, it woudl still hit the opponent standing in front of you.

The weird reason is that your character isn't that good. It might seem exaggerated, but it makes more sense than letting everyone hit regardless of how good with the weapon they are.

You're telling me if you picked up a sword right now and you tried to hit an enemy directly in front of you, you would be more surprised if you hit the person standing right before you than if it goes swinging wildly to the right?

(and you do know that even if you hit it, it may not do any damage)

 

[Drakron]

God ...

Japan had shitty armor because their iron was low quality, there was simply not enough to make full suits of armor like in european armies in the dark ages (not later since with the advent of firearms armor lost its point).

And it never got "better", it remained the same until the Meiji Restoration were they finaly modernized and started to outfit soldiers the same way as wersten nations.

Also they did NOT dual wield, at least its not a common style despite the fact Samurai carried 2 weapons but Samurai were not by any means the bunk of Japanese feudal armies, archers and spearman were (just like european armies).

The Wakizashi just served as a "side arm" to when the Katana was unavaible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakizashi

In fact dual wield became more common in europe with dualists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_d ... nd_weapons

 

[Sarvis]

God ...

Japan had shitty armor because their iron was low quality, there was simply not enough to make full suits of armor like in european armies in the dark ages (not later since with the advent of firearms armor lost its point).

And it never got "better", it remained the same until the Meiji Restoration were they finaly modernized and started to outfit soldiers the same way as wersten nations.

Also they did NOT dual wield, at least its not a common style despite the fact Samurai carried 2 weapons but Samurai were not by any means the bunk of Japanese feudal armies, archers and spearman were (just like european armies).

The Wakizashi just served as a "side arm" to when the Katana was unavaible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakizashi

In fact dual wield became more common in europe with dualists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_d ... nd_weapons

I never said all, or even most, Samurai dual wielded. Some did though, most notably Miyamoto Musashi.

Though, to be fair, he recommends using the katana two handed in a one on one fight... I guess with his style dual wielding was more effective against multiple opponents.

 

[Drakron]

To be even more fair:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi

Were the legend and truth begins is hard to know now.

And no, dual wield is a defensive style were you use a weapon to block/lock the enemy weapon as you trust with your off hand weapon, its not useful against multi enemies (a shield is far preferable since it have "turtle" abilities or a weapon with reach ... well its best just use a ranged weapon and kill then before they can engage).

 

[Pr()ZaC]

In Samurai Spirits (yes, Samurai Showdown from SNK) there were fighters (the ninja?) that used dual weapons for defence :p

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Give me a break, DarkUnderlord. How you can possibly assume that our team doesn't have the technical knowlege to handle even fundamental animation just boggles my mind. There are HUNDREDS of animations in Oblivion. There's a complex blending system, that allows animations to transition in and out. A priority system that enables multiple animations encompassing various body parts to play at once. Yes, we could add in a dodging animation that can interrupt whatever's happening and dodge out of the way of a blow just as the attack is launched. But if the actor is already in the middle of another animation, the dodge would have to be blended in within the extremely short span of time between attack start and strike, and if the dodge animation is too different from the current animation it simply won't blend out in time. And if you just interrupted the current animation and jumped to the dodge state, it'd look very jarring and wrong (like the aforementioned Han Solo dodging Greedo's shot.)

So you're saying that it's too hard to make a "polished and as realistic and gritty as possible" man vs man combat system then? I'm confused.

From Evil Avatar:

Jashin: Tell us why mounts are only a speed boost and not an extension of standard gameplay.
kathode: It's primarily an issue of balance and focus. We poured a ton of effort into this combat system, and we want the primary focus to stay with player vs. player (or creature) combat. Person on person, with the guy right up in your face. We want to make this as polished and as realistic and gritty as possible. Once you've got guys whizzing by on horseback, that focus goes right out the window. It practically becomes an entirely different game.
bapenguin: That makes sense. An entirely different set of rules to test.
kathode: It definitely is an entirely different set of rules. We think of horses as a method of transportation. It just feels right to ride out into the wilderness on the back of your horse. Ride off into the sunset, you know. That sort of thing.
Jashin: Hmmm, what about a more practical solution to this, instead of removing it outright?
kathode: The balance of our combat system is a MAJOR focus for us. Once you toss in horses, the goal of the game becomes to get a horse, so you can get higher than everyone and start golf-clubbing them around. I'm not saying adding in all the extra features that mounted combat would require would necessarily be a bad thing, I'm saying that given how fully-featured our current combat is, we feel we need to keep our focus on polishing that and making it as good as possible.
Emil: Yeah… Other fantasy/medieval games have obviously offered horse-based combat. The Joan of Arc game, some MMOs, but none of them have offered the kind of intense, mano-a-mano 1st person combat like we're doing. On the ground, it feels fantastic; on a horse, different story, different rules.
Jashin: You said earlier hitting relies on hit contact, so wouldn’t a decrease in the chance to hit encourage the player to stop and wail on hostiles side by side?
kathode: Not sure what you're asking with that question. Do you mean the best strategy is just to stand still and click fast?
bapenguin: I think he's saying that if you are on horseback there should be a rule governing your hit probability vs. ground combatants.
Jashin: Well, I bet a lot of people take mounted combat as being charging a standing enemy on horseback.
kathode: Yeah, when I think of mounted combat, I don't think of just standing still and knocking on guys. I think of charging and making that feel really good. There are probably rules you can add to solve most of the problems I can think of, but again, you're taking away the focus of what we really want combat to be and feel like.
Emil: Jashin, I think at that point you're just better off getting off of the horse anyway, because really, being mounted is adding nothing to the experience. Not like that, anyway.

Keep polishing.

 

[truekaiser]

raise your hand if all the information they have let out has given you the impression that the typical fps technique of circling and firing(or in this case swinging your sword... i mean blade) is all you need to do to win in combat.

*raises hand.*

 

[Twinfalls]

I'm tired of hearing your incessant nagging. .

As moving as it is to see that you now consider me your wife, I think you're spending perhaps a little too much time here if you're 'hearing incessant nagging'....

 

[Balor]

Well, hmm.
In RL, swordfighting when you combatants stay in place and just fire, I mean, slash/thrust at each other is a travesty.
You do have to dodge in all directions, twist your torso, duck and lean, etc, etc.
So, it's more realistic this way.

 

[Chefe]

As moving as it is to see that you now consider me your wife, I think you're spending perhaps a little too much time here if you're 'hearing incessant nagging'....

in·ces·sant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-ssnt)
adj.
Continuing without interruption.

nag1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ng)
v. nagged, nag·ging, nags
v. tr.
To annoy by constant scolding, complaining, or urging.


Funny, I don't see "wife" mentioned anywhere in there. No, I do believe "incessant nagging" correctly describes what you're doing. Next time, try and think up a witty retort. :D

 

[Sarvis]

To be even more fair:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi

Were the legend and truth begins is hard to know now.

And no, dual wield is a defensive style were you use a weapon to block/lock the enemy weapon as you trust with your off hand weapon, its not useful against multi enemies (a shield is far preferable since it have "turtle" abilities or a weapon with reach ... well its best just use a ranged weapon and kill then before they can engage).

I'll check the article out later, but I think I trust what Musashi says in his own book written to help others learn his style of fighting over a wiki article.

 

[Drakron]

Well then you trust a man that one point considered wood superior to steel (of course that just shows the incredible low quality of japanese steel ore).

 

[Sarvis]

Well then you trust a man that one point considered wood superior to steel (of course that just shows the incredible low quality of japanese steel ore).

I never heard that, reference?

The way I heard it, at one point he considered his skills so superior he thought it was unfair to use a metal sword so he used wood.

That's probably an exagguration, but he did use a boken to dual at least one person according to that wiki article and a boat oar to kill another man according to another legend I heard.

Point being: If he did consider wood superior, he won while using it so maybe he was right.

 

[Drakron]

Its on the wiki.

I am not suprised, bambu swords for example are very strong and as I say it again the quality of iron in japan was very low, the katana was a slashing weapon and the blade itself could only take so much abuse, most katana were likely of such low quality steal one hit was enough to destroy the cutting edge.

Besides most duels in that time were not to death, there is not much diference if one used a wooden weapon or a steel weapon since the aim was not to kill, just to make the other surrender.

Of course that a lot of his legend is BS ... now much was added to nationalists before WW II and now much was added by Samurai fayboys?

Even him is caught in a lie since he claimed to have killed someone as records show that person not only lived but claims to have beaten him ... that is why I said were the legend ends and the man begins.

And last, dual wielding styles became popular after firearms, the portuguese intruduced rifles in japan before he was born and the japanese copy the design, manufactured the design and used then in war so my point continues to be that dual wield is nothing but a dualist style that had little place in the battleground.